THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WRITINGS - VOLUME 59
Augustine: Tractates 55 to 124 and the Harmony of the Gospels
c. AD 400 – 420

SermonIndex · sermonindex.net/books/

Texts are public domain except where marked in Sources and Credits.

============================================================

INTRODUCTION TO THIS VOLUME
===========================

HOW THIS BOOK IS ARRANGED

This is the fifty-ninth volume of a series that gathers the writings of the early Church
in order of date, from the generation after the apostles down to the eighth century. This
volume holds Augustine, Tractates 55 to 124 and the Harmony of the Gospels, from the
period about AD 400 – 420.

Within each work the text is divided into chapters and numbered sections, so that any
passage can be found again and cited. The small bold figures in the text are the section
numbers.

THE TRANSLATIONS

The text is in English only. Wherever a modern English version has been prepared for
SermonIndex it is used here; otherwise the book prints an older public-domain translation.
In both cases the wording is the translator’s own: older translations have not been
altered beyond dividing them into sections. The sources for every work are listed at the
back of the book, together with the licence under which each text is released. All the
works in this volume are printed in older public-domain translations.

IN THIS VOLUME

Augustine was born at Thagaste in North Africa in AD 354. He taught rhetoric at Carthage,
Rome and Milan, and after years as a Manichaean he was baptised at Milan by Ambrose in AD
387. He returned to Africa, was ordained a presbyter at Hippo about AD 391, and was bishop
of Hippo from about AD 395 until his death in AD 430, while the Vandals were besieging the
city. He wrote the Confessions, The City of God and On the Trinity, and a great body of
sermons, letters and treatises against the Manichaeans, the Donatists and the Pelagians.

The Harmony of the Gospels, written about AD 400, is the first great work on the
differences between the four Gospels. Augustine answers critics who said that the
evangelists contradict one another, and he goes through the story of Christ passage by
passage.

DATES AND AUTHORSHIP

Dates are approximate and are debated by scholars. Each work begins with a short
introduction that states what is known about its author and its date, and what is
uncertain.


TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124
======================================

TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124 Augustine of Hippo

AD 354–430

Augustine preached these one hundred and twenty-four tractates on the Gospel of John at
Hippo in the years after AD 406. They were taken down as he spoke, and they were
afterwards revised and collected. This volume holds Tractates 55 to 124.

TRACTATE 55

John 13:1-5. 1. The Lord's Supper, as set forth in John, must, with His assistance, be
unfolded in a becoming number of Lectures, and explained with all the ability He is
pleased to grant us. "Now, before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that His hour
was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own who
were in the world, He loved them unto the end. Pascha (passover) is not, as some think, a
Greek noun, but a Hebrew: and yet there occurs in this noun a very suitable kind of
accordance in the two languages. For inasmuch as the Greek word pasxhein means to suffer,
therefore pascha has been supposed to mean suffering, as if the noun derived its name from
His passion: but in its own language, that is, in Hebrew, pascha means passover; because
the pascha was then celebrated for the first time by God's people, when, in their flight
from Egypt, they passed over the Red Sea. And now that prophetic emblem is fulfilled in
truth, when Christ is led as a sheep to the slaughter, that by His blood sprinkled on our
doorposts, that is, by the sign of His cross marked on our foreheads, we may be delivered
from the perdition awaiting this world, as Israel from the bondage and destruction of the
Egyptians; and a most salutary transit we make when we pass over from the devil to Christ,
and from this unstable world to His well-established kingdom.

And therefore surely do we pass over to the ever-abiding God, that we may not pass away
with this passing world. The apostle, in extolling God for such grace bestowed upon us,
says: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the
kingdom of the Son of His love. This name, then, of pascha, which, as I have said, is in
Latin called transitus (pass over), is interpreted, as it were, for us by the blessed
evangelist, when he says, "Before the feast of pascha, when Jesus knew that His hour was
come that He should pass out of this world to the Father. Here you see we have both pascha
and pass-over. Whence, and whither does He pass? Namely, "out of this world to the Father.
The hope was thus given to the members in their Head, that they doubtless would yet follow
Him who was "passing" before. And what, then, of unbelievers, who stand altogether apart
from this Head and His members? Do not they also pass away, seeing that they abide not
here always? They also do plainly pass away: but it is one thing to pass from the world,
and another to pass away with it; one thing to pass to the Father, another to pass to the
enemy. For the Egyptians also passed over [the sea]; but they did not pass through the sea
to the kingdom, but in the sea to destruction.

2. "When Jesus knew," then, "that His hour was come that He should pass out of this world
unto the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them unto the end.
In order, doubtless, that they also, through that love of His, might pass from this world
where they now were, to their Head who had passed hence before them. For what mean these
words, "to the end," but just to Christ? "For Christ is the end of the law," says the
apostle, "for righteousness to every one that believeth. The end that consummates, not
that consumes; he end whereto we attain, not wherein we perish. Exactly thus are we to
understand the passage, "Christ our passover is sacrificed. He is our end; into Him do we
pass. For I see that these gospel words may also be taken in a kind of human sense, that
Christ loved His own even unto death, so. that this may be the meaning of "He loved them
unto the end. This meaning is human, not divine: for it was not merely up to this point
that we were loved by Him, who loveth us always and endlessly. God forbid that He, whose
death could not end, should have ended His love at death. Even after death that proud and
ungodly rich man loved his five brethren; and is Christ to be thought of as loving us only
till death? God forbid, beloved.

He would have come in vain with a love for us that lasted till death, if that love had
ended there. But perhaps the words, "He loved them unto the end," may have to be
understood in this way, That He so loved them as to die for them. For this He testified
when He said, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
friends. We have certainly no objection that "He loved them unto the end" should be so
understood, that is, it was His very love that carried Him on to death. 3. "And the
supper," he says, "having taken place, and the devil having now put into the heart of
Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray Him, [Jesus] knowing that the Father had given all
things into His hands, and that He has come from God, and is going to God; He riseth from
supper, and layeth aside His garments; and took a towel, and girded Himself. After that He
poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with
the towel wherewith He was girded." We are not to understand by the supper having taken
place, as if it were already finished and over; for it was still going on when the Lord
rose and washed His disciples' feet. For He afterwards sat down again, and gave the morsel
[sop] to His betrayer, implying certainly that the supper was not yet over, or, in other
words, that there was still bread on the table. Therefore, by supper having taken place,
is meant that it was now ready, and laid out on the table for the use of the guests.

4. But when he says, "The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's
son, to betray Him;" if one inquires, what was put into Judas' heart, it was doubtless
this, "to betray Him." Such a putting [into the heart] is a spiritual suggestion: and
entereth not by the ear, but through the thoughts; and thereby not in a way that is
corporal, but spiritual. For what we call spiritual is not always to be understood in a
commendatory way. The apostle knew of certain spiritual things [powers], of wickedness in
heavenly places, against which he testifies that we have to maintain a struggle; and there
would not be spiritual wickednesses, were there not also wicked spirits. For it is from a
spiritual being that spiritual things get their name. But how such things are done, as
that devilish suggestions should be introduced, and so mingle with human thoughts that a
man accounts them his own, how can he know? Nor can we doubt that good suggestions are
likewise made by a good spirit in the same unobservable and spiritual way; but it is
matter of concern to which of these the human mind yields assent, either as deservedly
left without, or graciously aided by, the divine assistance. The determination, therefore,
had now been come to in Judas' heart by the instigation of the devil, that the disciple
should betray the Master, whom he had not learned to know as his God. In such a state had
he now come to their social meal, a spy on the Shepherd, a plotter against the Redeemer, a
seller of the Saviour; as such was he now come, was he now seen and endured, and thought
himself undiscovered: for he was deceived about Him whom he wished to deceive. But He, who
had already scanned the inward state of that very heart, was knowingly making use of one
who knew it not.

5. "[Jesus] knowing that the Father has given all things into His hands." And therefore
also the traitor himself: for if He had him not in His hands, He certainly could not use
him as He wished. Accordingly, the traitor had been already betrayed to Him whom he sought
to betray; and he carried out his evil purpose in betraying Him in such a way, that good
he knew not of was the issue in regard to Him who was betrayed. For the Lord knew what He
was doing for His friends, and patiently made use of His enemies: and thus had the Father
given all things into His hands, both the evil for present use, and the good for the final
issue. "Knowing also that He has come from God, and is going to God:" neither quitting God
when He came from Him, nor us when He returned. 6. Knowing, then, these things, "He riseth
from supper, and layeth aside His garments; and took a towel, and girded Himself. After
that He poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe
them with the towel wherewith He was girded." We ought, dearly beloved, carefully to mark
the meaning of the evangelist; because that, when about to speak of the pre-eminent
humility of the Lord, it was his desire first tocommend His majesty. It is in reference to
this that he says, "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and
that He has come from God, and is going to God." It is He, therefore, into whose hands the
Father had given all things, who now washes, not the disciples' hands, but their feet: and
it was just while knowing that He had come from God, and was proceeding to God, that He
discharged the office of a servant, not of God the Lord, but of man. And this also is
referred to by the prefatory notice he has been pleased to make of His betrayer, who was
now come as such, and was not unknown to Him; that the greatness of His humility should be
still further enhanced by the fact that He did not esteem it beneath His dignity to wash
also the feet of one whose hands He already foresaw to be steeped in wickedness.

7. But why should we wonder that He rose from supper, and laid aside His garments, who,
being in the form of God, made Himself of no reputation? And why should we wonder, if He
girded Himself with a towel, who took upon Him the form of a servant, and was found in the
likeness of a man? Why wonder, if He poured water into a basin wherewith to wash His
disciples' feet, whopoured His blood upon the earth to wash l away the filth of their
sins? Why wonder, ifwith the towel wherewith He was girded He wiped the feet He had
washed, who with thevery flesh that clothed Him laid a firm path way for the footsteps of
His evangelists? In order, indeed, to gird Himself with the towel,He laid aside the
garments He wore; butwhen He emptied Himself [of His divine glory] in order to assume the
form of a servant, He laid not down what He had, but assumed that which He had not before.
When about to be crucified, He was indeed stripped of His garments, and when dead was
wrapped in linen clothes: and all that suffering of His is our purification. When,
therefore, about to suffer the last extremities [of humiliation,] He here illustrated
beforehand its friendly compliances; not only to those for whom He was about to endure
death, but to him also who had resolved onbetraying Him to death. Because so great is the
beneficence of human humility, that even the Divine Majesty was pleased to commend it by
His own example; for proud man would have perished eternally, had he not been found by the
lowly God. For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost. And as he was
lost by imitating the pride of the deceiver, let him now, when found, imitate the
Redeemer's humility.

TRACTATE 56

John XIII. 6-10. 1. When the Lord was washing the disciples' feet, "He cometh to Simon
Peter; and Peter saith unto Him, Lord, dost Thou wash my feet?" For who would not be
filled with fear at having his feet washed by the Son of God? Although, therefore, it was
a piece of the greatest audacity for the servant to contradict his Lord, the creature his
God; yet Peter preferred doing this to the suffering of his feet to be washed by his Lord
and God. Nor ought we to think that Peter was one amongst others who so expressed their
fear and refusal, seeing that others before him had suffered it to be done to themselves
with cheerfulness and equanimity. For it is easier so to understand the words of the
Gospel, because that, after saying, "He began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe
them with the towel wherewith He was girded," it is then added, "Then cometh He to Simon
Peter," as if He had already washed the feet of some, and after them had now come to the
first of them all. For who can fail to know that the most blessed Peter was the first of
the apostles? But we are not soto understand it, that it was after some others that He
came to him; but that He began with him. When, therefore, He began to wash the disciples'
feet, He came to him with whom He began, namely, to Peter; and then Peter took fright at
what any one of them might have been frightened, and said, "Lord, dost Thou wash my feet?"
What is implied in this" Thou"? and what in "my"? These are subjects for thought rather
than for speech; lest perchance any adequate conception the soul may have formed of such
words may fail of explanation in the utterance.

2. But "Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt
know hereafter." And not even yet, terrified as he was by the sublimity of the Lord's
action, does he allow it to be done, while ignorant of its purpose; but is unwilling to
see, unable to endure, that Christ should thus humble Himself to his very feet. "Thou
shalt never," he says, "wash my feet." What is this "never" [in aeternum]? I will never
endure, never suffer, never permit it: that is, a thing is not done "in aeternum" which is
never done. Then the Saviour, to terrify His reluctant patient with the danger of his own
salvation, says, "If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me." He speaks in this
way, "If I wash thee not," when He was referring only to his feet; just as it is customary
to say, You are trampling on me, when it is only the foot that is trampled on. And now the
other, in a perturbation of love and fear, and more frightened at the thought that Christ
should be withheld from him, than even to see Him humbled at his feet, exclaims, "Lord,
not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." Since this, indeed, is Thy threat, that
my bodily members must be washed by Thee, not only do I no longer withhold the lowest, but
I lay the foremost also at Thy disposal. Deny me not having a part with Thee, and I deny
Thee not any part of my body to be washed.

3. "Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean
every whit." Some one perhaps may be aroused at this, and say: Nay, but if he is every
whit clean, what need has He even to wash his feet? But the Lord knew what He was saying,
even though our weakness reach not into His secret purposes. Nevertheless, so far as He is
pleased to instruct and teach us out of His law, up to the little measure of my
apprehension, I would also, with His help, make some answer bearing on the depths of this
question: and, first of all, I shall have no difficulty in showing that there is no self-
contradiction in the manner of expression. For who may not say, as here, with the greatest
propriety, He is all clean, except his feet?-although he would speak with greater elegance
were he to say, He is all clean, save his feet; which is equivalent in meaning. Thus,
then, doth the Lord say, "He needeth not save to wash his feet, but is all clean." All,
that is, except, or save his feet, which he still needs to wash.

4. But what is this? what does it mean? and what is there in it we need to examine? The
Lord says, The Truth declares that even he who has been washed has need still to wash his
feet. What, my brethren, what think you of it, save that in holy baptism a man has all of
him washed, not all save his feet, but every whit; and yet, while thereafter living in
this human state, he cannot fail to tread on the ground with his feet. And thus our human
feelings themselves, which are inseparable from our mortal life on earth, are like feet
wherewith we are brought into sensible contact with human affairs; and are so in such a
way, that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. And
every day, therefore, is He who intercedeth for us , washing our feet: and that we,too
have daily need to be washing our feet, that is ordering aright the path of our spiritual
foot. steps, we acknowledge even in the Lord': prayer, when we say, "Forgive us our debts
as we also forgive our debtors." For "if,' as it is written, "we confess our sins," then
verily is He, who washed His disciples' feet, "faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness," that is, even to our feet wherewith we walk
on the earth.

5. Accordingly the Church, which Christ cleanseth with the washing of water in the word,
is without spot and wrinkle, not only in the case of those who are taken away immediately
after the washing of regeneration from the contagious influence of this life, and tread
not the earth so as to make necessary the washing of their feet, but in those also who
have experienced such mercy from the Lord as to be enabled to quit this present life even
with feet that have been washed. But although the Church be also clean in respect of those
who tarry on earth, because they live righteously; yet have they need to be washing their
feet, because they assuredly are not without sin. For this cause is it said in the Song of
Songs, "I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them? For one so speaks when he is
constrained to come to Christ, and in coming has to bring his feet into contact with the
ground. But again, there is another question that arises. Is not Christ above? hath He not
ascended into heaven, and sitteth He not at the Father's right hand? Does not the apostle
expressly declare, "If ye, then, be risen with Christ, set your thoughts on those things
which are above, where Christ is sitting on the right hand of God. Seek the things which
are above, not things which are on earth?

How is it, then, that to get to Christ we are compelled to tread the earth, since rather
our hearts ought to be turned upwards toward the Lord, that we may be enabled to dwell in
His presence? You see, brethren, the shortness of the time to-day curtails our
consideration of this question. And if you perhaps fail in some measure to do so, yet I
for my part see how much clearing up it requires. And therefore I beg of you to suffer it
rather to be adjourned, than to be treated now in too negligent and restricted a manner;
and your expectations will not be defrauded, but only deferred. For the Lord who thus
makes us your debtors, will be present to enable us also to pay our debts.

TRACTATE 57

John XIII. 6-10 (continued), and Song of Sol. V. 2, 3. In what way the church should fear
to defile her feet, while proceeding on her way to Christ. 1. I Have not been unmindful of
my debt, and acknowledge that the time of payment has now come. May He give me wherewith
to pay, as He gave me cause to incur the debt. For He has given me the love, of which it
is said, "Owe no man anything, but to love one another. May He give also the word, which I
feel myself owing to those I love. I put off your expectations till now for this reason,
that I might explain as I could how it is we come to Christ along the ground, When we are
commanded rather to seek the things which are above, not the things which are upon the
earth. For Christ is sitting above, at the right hand of the Father: but He is assuredly
here also; and for that reason said also to Saul, as he was raging on the earth, "Why
persecutest thou me? But the topic on which we were speaking, and which led to our
entering on this inquiry, was our Lord's washing His disciples' feet, after the disciples
themselves had already been washed, and needed not, save to wash their feet. And we there
saw it to be understood that a man is indeed wholly washed in baptism; but while
thereafter he liveth in this present world, and with the feet of his human passions
treadeth on this earth, that is, in his life-intercourse with others, he contracts enough
to call forth the prayer, "Forgive us our debts.

And thus from these also is he cleansed by Him who washed His disciples' feet, and ceaseth
not to make intercession for us. And here occurred the words of the Church in the Song of
Songs, when she saith, "I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them? when she wished to
go and open to that Being, fairer in form than the sons of men, who had come to her and
knocked, and asked her to open to Him. This gave rise to a question, which we were
unwilling to compress into the narrow limits of the time, and therefore deferred till now,
in what sense the Church, when on her way to Christ, may be afraid of defiling her feet,
which she had washed in the baptism of Christ. 2. For thus she speaks: "I sleep, but my
heart waketh: it is the voice of my Beloved that knocketh at the gate. And then He also
says: "Open to me, my sister, my nearest, my dove, my perfect one; for my head is filled
with dew, and my hair with the drops of the night. And she replies: "I have put off my
dress; how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them? O wonderful
sacramental symbol! O lofty mystery! Does she, then, fear to defile her feet in coming to
Him who washed the feet of His disciples? Her fear is genuine; for it is along the earth
she has to come to Him, who is still on earth, because refusing to leave His own who are
stationed here. Is it not He that saith, "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of
the world"? Is it not He that saith, "Ye shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of
God ascending and descending upon the Son of man"? If they ascend to Him because He is
above, how do they descend to Him, but because He is also here? Therefore saith the
Church: "I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them? She says so even in the case of
those who, purified from all dross. can say: "I desire to depart, and to be with Christ;
nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

She says it in those who preach Christ, and open to Him the door, that He may dwell by
faith in the hearts of men. In such she says it, when they deliberate whether to undertake
such a ministry, for which they do not consider themselves qualified, so as to discharge
it blamelessly, and so as not, after preaching to others, themselves to become castaways.
For it is safer to hear than to preach the truth: for in the hearing, humility is
preserved; but when it is preached, it is scarcely possible for any man to hinder the
entrance of some small measure of boasting, whereby the feet at least are defiled. 3.
Therefore, as the Apostle James saith, "Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak." As
it is also said by another manof God, "Thou wilt make me to hear joy and gladness; and the
bones Thou hast humbled will rejoice." This is what I said: When the truth is heard,
humility is preserved. And another says: "But the friend of the bridegroom standeth and
heareth him, and rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice." Let us rejoice in
the hearing that comes from the noiseless speaking of the truth within us. For although,
when the sound is outwardly uttered, as by one that readeth; or proclaimeth, or preacheth,
or disputeth, or commandeth, or comforteth, or exhorteth, or even by one that sings or
accompanies hisvoice on an instrument, those who do so may fear to defile their feet, when
they aim at pleasing men with the secretly active desire of human applause. Yet the one
who hears such with a willing and pious mind, has no room for self-gratulation in the
labors of others; and with no self-inflation, but with the joy of humility, rejoices
because of the Master's words of truth. Accordingly, in those who hear with willingness
and humility, and spend a tranquil life in sweet and wholesome studies, the holy Church
will take delight, and may say, "I sleep, andmy heart waketh." And what is this, "I sleep,
and my heart waketh," but just I sit down quietly to listen? My leisure is not laid out in
nourishing slothfulness, but in acquiring wisdom. "I sleep, and my heart waketh." I am
still, and see that Thou art the Lord: for "the wisdom of the scribe cometh by opportunity
of leisure; and he that hath little business shall become wise." "I sleep, and my heart
waketh:" I rest from troublesome business, and my mind turns its attention to divine
concerns (or communications).

4. But while the Church finds delightful repose in those who thus sweetly and humbly sit
at her feet, here is one who knocks, and says: "What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye
in light; and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops." It is His
voice, then, that knocks at the gate, and says: "Open to me, my sister, my neighbor, my
dove, my perfect one; for my head is filled with dew, and my locks with the drops of the
night." As if He had said, Thou art at leisure, and the door is closed against me: thou
art caring for the leisure of the few, and through abounding iniquity the love of many is
waxing cold. The night He speaks of is iniquity: but His dew and drops are those who wax
cold and fall away, and make the head of Christ to wax cold, that is, the love of God to
fail. For the head of Christ is God. But they are borne on His locks, that is, their
presence is tolerated in the visible sacraments; while their senses never take hold of the
internal realities. He knocks, therefore, to shake off this quiet from His inactive
saints, and cries, "Open to me," thou who, through my blood, art become "my sister;"
through my drawing nigh, "my neighbor;" through my Spirit, "'my dove;" through my word
which thou hast fully learned in thy leisure, "my perfect one:" open to me, go and preach
me to others. For how shall I get in to those who have shut their door against me, without
some one to open? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

5. Hence it happens that those who love to devote their leisure to good studies, and
shrink from encountering the troubles of toilsome labors, as feeling themselves unsuited
to undertake and discharge such services with credit, would prefer, were it possible, to
have the holy apostles and ancient preachers of the truth again raised up against that
abounding of iniquity which hath so reduced the warmth of Christian love. But in regard to
those who have already left the body, and put off the garment of the flesh (for they are
not utterly parted), the Church replies, "I have put off my dress; how shall I put it on?"
That dress shall, indeed, yet be recovered; and in the persons of those who have meanwhile
laid it aside, shall the Church again put on the garment of flesh: only not now, when the
cold are needing to be warmed; but then, when the dead shall rise again. Realizing, then,
her present difficulty through the scarcity of preachers, and remembering those members of
her own who were so sound in word and holy in character, but are now disunited from their
bodies,the Church says in her sorrow, "I have put off my dress; how shall I put it on?"
How can those members of mine, who had such surpassing power, through their preaching, to
open the door to Christ, now return to the bodies which they have laid aside?

6. And then, turning again to those who preach, and gather in and govern the congregations
of His people, and so open as they can to Christ, but are afraid, amid the difficulties of
such work, of falling into sin, she says, "I have washed my feet; how shall I defile
them?" For whosoever offendeth not in word, the same is a perfect man. And who, then, is
perfect? Who is there that offendeth not amid such an abounding of iniquity, and such a
freezing of charity? "I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them?" At times I read and
hear: "My brethren, be not many masters, seeing that ye shall receive the greater
condemnation: for in many things we offend all." "I have washed my feet; how shall I
defile them?" But see, I rise and open. Christ, wash them. "Forgive us our debts," because
our love is not altogether extinguished: for "we also forgive our debtors." When we listen
to Thee, the hones which have been humbled rejoice with Thee in the heavenly places. But
when we preach Thee, we have to tread the ground in order to open to Thee: and then, if we
are blameworthy, we are troubled; if we are commended, we become inflated. Wash our feet,
that were formerly cleansed, but have again been defiled in our walking through the earth
to open unto Thee. Let this be enough today, beloved. But in whatever we have happened to
offend, by saying otherwise than we ought, or have been unduly elated by your
commendations, entreat that our feet may be washed, and may your prayers find acceptance
with God.

TRACTATE 58

John XIII. 10-15. 1. We have already, beloved, as the Lord was pleased to enable us,
expounded to you those words of the Gospel, where the Lord, in washing His disciples'
feet, says, "He that is once washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every
whit." Let us now look at what follows. "And ye," He says, "are clean, but not all." And
to remove the need of inquiry on our part, the evangelist has himself explained its
meaning, by adding: "For He knew who it was that should betray Him; therefore said He, Ye
are not all clean." Can anything be clearer? Let us therefore pass to what follows. 2.
"So, after He had washed their feet, and had taken His garments, and was set down again,
He said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?" Now it is that the blessed Peter gets
that promise fulfilled: for he had been put off when, in the midst of his trembling and
asserting, "Thou shalt never wash my feet," he received the answer, "What I do, thou
knowest not now, but thou shall know hereafter" (vers. 7, 8). Here, then, is that very
hereafter; it is now time to tell what was a little ago deferred. Accordingly, the Lord,
mindful of His foregoing promise to make him understand an act of His so unexpected, so
wonderful, so frightening, and, but for His own still more terrifying rejoinder,
impossible to be permitted, that the Master not only of themselves, but of angels, and the
Lord not only of them, but of all things, should wash the feet of His own disciples and
servants: having then promised to let him know the meaning of so important an act, when He
said, "Thou shalt know afterwards," begins now to show them what it was that He did.

3. "Ye call me," He says, "Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. "Ye say well,"
for ye only say the truth; I am indeed what ye say. There is a precept laid on man: "Let
not thine own mouth praise thee, but the mouth of thy neighbor. For self-pleasing is a
perilous thing for one who has to be on his guard against falling into pride. But He who
is over all things, however much He commend Himself, cannot exalt Himself above His actual
dignity: nor can God be rightly termed arrogant. For it is to our advantage to know Him,
not to His; nor can any one know Him, unless that self-knowing One make Himself known. If
He, then, by abstaining from self-commendation, wish, as it were, to avoid arrogance, He
will deny us the power of knowing Him. And no one surely would blame Him for calling
Himself Master, even though believing Him to be nothing more than a man; seeing He only
makes profession of what even men themselves in the various arts profess to such an
extent, without any charge of arrogance, that they are termed professors. But to call
Himself also the Lord of His disciples,-of men who, in an earthly sense, were themselves
also free-born,-who would tolerate it in a man? But it is God that speaks. Here no elation
is possible to loftiness so great, no lie to the truth: the profit is ours to be the
subjects of such loftiness, the servants of the truth.

That He calls Himself Lord is no imperfection on His side, but a benefit on ours. The
words of a certain profane author are commended, when he says, "All arrogance is hateful,
and specially disagreeable is that of talent and eloquence; and yet, when the same person
was speaking of his own eloquence, he said, "I would call it perfect, were I to pronounce
judgment; nor, in truth, would I greatly fear the charge of arrogance. If, then, that most
eloquent man had in truth no fear of being charged with arrogance, how can the truth
itself have such a fear? Let Him call Himself Lord who is the Lord, let Him say what is
true who is the Truth; so that I may not fail to learn that which is profitable, by His
being silent about that which is. The most blessed Paul-certainly not himself the only-
begotten Son of God, but the servant and apostle of that Son; not the Truth, but a
partaker of the truth-declares with freedom and consistency, "And though I would desire to
glory, I shall not be a fool; for I say the truth. For it would not be in himself, but in
the truth, which is superior to himself, that he was glorying both humbly and truly: for
it is he also who has given the charge, that he that glorieth should glory in the Lord.

Could thus the lover of wisdom have no fear of being chargeable with foolishness, though
he desired to glory, and would wisdom itself, in its glorying, have any fear of such a
charge? He had no fear of arrogance who said, "My soul shall make her boast in the Lord;
and could the power of the Lord have any such fear in commending itself, in which His
servant's soul is making her boast? "Ye call me," He says, "Master and Lord: and ye say
well; for so I am. Therefore ye say well, that I am so: for if I were not what ye say, ye
would be wrong to say so, even with the purpose of praising me. How, then,could the Truth
deny what the disciples of the Truth affirm? How could that which was said by the learners
be denied by the very Truth that gave them their learning? How can the fountain deny what
the drinker asserts? how can the light hide what the beholder declares?

4. "If I, then," He says, "your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to
wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done
to you." This, blessed Peter, is what thou didst not know when thou wert not allowing it
to be done. This is what He promised to let thee know afterwards, when thy Master and thy
Lord terrified thee into submission, and washed thy feet. We have learned, brethren,
humility from the Highest; let us, as humble, do to one another what He, the Highest, did
in His humility. Great is the commendation we have here of humility: and brethren do this
to one another in turn, even in the visible act itself, when they treat one another with
hospitality; for the practice of such humility is generally prevalent, and finds
expression in the very deed that makes it discernible. And hence the apostle, when he
would commend the well-deserving widow, says, "If she is hospitable, if she has washed the
saints' feet." And wherever Such is not the practice among the saints, what they do not
with the hand they do in heart, if they are of the number of those who are addressed in
the hymn of the three blessed men, "O ye holy and humble of heart, bless ye the Lord." But
it is far better, and beyond all dispute more accordant with the truth, that it should
also be done with the hands; nor should the Christian think it beneath him to do what was
done by Christ. For when the body is bent at a brother's feet, the feeling of such
humility is either awakened in the heart itself, or is strengthened if already present.

5. But apart from this moral understanding of the passage, we remember that the way in
which we commended to your attention the grandeur of this act of the Lord's, was that, in
washing the feet of disciples who were already washed and clean, the Lord instituted a
sign, to the end that, on account of the human feelings that occupy us on earth, however
far we may have advanced in our apprehension of righteousness, we might know that we are
not exempt from sin; which He thereafter washes away by interceding for us, when we pray
the Father, who is in heaven, to forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.
What connection, then, can such an understanding of the passage have with that which He
afterwards gave Himself, when He explained the reason of His act in the words, "If I then,
your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For
I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you"? Can we say that
even a brother may cleanse a brother from the contracted stain of wrongdoing? Yea, verily,
we know that of this also we were admonished in the profound significance of this work of
the Lord's, that we should confess our faults one to another, and pray for one another,
even as Christ also maketh intercession for us.

Let us listen to the Apostle James, who states this precept with the greatest clearness
when he says, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another. For of this
also the Lord gave us the example. For if He who neither has, nor had, nor will have any
sin, prays for our sins, how much more ought we to pray for one another's in turn! And if
He forgives us, whom we have nothing to forgive; how much more ought we, who are unable to
live here without sin, to forgive one another! For what else does the Lord apparently
intimate in the profound significance of this sacramental sign, when He says, "For I have
given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you; but what the apostle
declares in the plainest terms, "Forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against
any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye"? Let us therefore forgive one another his
faults, and pray for one another's faults, and thus in a manner be washing one another's
feet. It is our part, by His grace, to be supplying the service of love and humility: it
is His to hear us, and to cleanse us from all the pollution of our sins through Christ,
and in Christ; so that what we forgive even to others, that is, loose on earth, may be
loosed in heaven.

TRACTATE 59

John XIII. 16-20. 1. We have just heard in the holy Gospelthe Lord speaking, and saying,
"Verily, verily ,I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord, nor the apostle
[he that is sent] greater than he that sent him: if ye know these things, blessed shall ye
be if ye do them. He said this, therefore, because He had washed the disciples' feet, as
the Master of humility both by word and example. But we shall be able, with His help, to
handle what is in need of more elaborate handling, if we linger not at what is perfectly
clear. Accordingly, after uttering these words, the Lord added, "I speak not of you all: I
know whom I have chosen: but, that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread
with me, shall lift up his heel upon me. And what is this, but that he shall trample upon
me?We know of whom He speaks: it is Judas, that betrayer of His, who is referred to. He
had not therefore chosen the person whom, by these words, He setteth utterly apart from
His chosen ones. When I say then, He continues "Blessed shall ye be if ye do them, I speak
not of you all: there is one among you who will not be blessed, and who will not do these
things. "I know whom I have chosen. Whom, but those who shall be blessed in the doing of
what has been commanded and shown as needful to be done, by Him who alone can make them
blessed?

The traitor Judas, He says, is not one of those that have been chosen. What, then, is
meant by what He says in another place, "Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a
devil? Was it that he also was chosen for some purpose, for which he was really necessary;
although not for the blessedness of which He has just been saying, "Blessed shall ye be if
ye do these things"? He speaketh not so of them all; for He knows whom He has chosen to be
associated with Himself in blessedness. Of such he is not one, who ate His bread in order
that he might lift up his heel upon Him. The bread they ate was the Lord Himself; he ate
the Lord's bread in enmity to the Lord: they ate life, and he punishment. "For he that
eateth unworthily," says the apostle, "eateth judgment unto himself. "From this time,"
Christ adds, "I tell you before it come; that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that
I am He: that is, I am He of whom the Scripture that preceded has just said, "He that
eateth bread with me, shall lift up his heel upon me."

2. He then proceeds to say: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever
I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me. Did He mean us
to understand that there is as little distance between one sent by Him, and Himself, as
there is between Himself and God the Father? If we take it in this way, I know not what
measurements of distance (which may God forbid! we shall be adopting, in the Arian
fashion. For they, when they hear or read these words of the Gospel, have immediate
recourse to their dogmatic measurements, whereby they ascend not to life, but fall
headlong into death. For they straightway say: The Son's messenger stands at the same
relative distance from the Son, as expressed in the words, "He that receiveth whomsoever I
send, receiveth me," as that in which the Son Himself stands from the Father, when He
said, "He that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me. But if thou sayest so, thou
forgettest, heretic, thy measurements. For if, because of these words of the Lord, thou
puttest the Son at as great a distance from the Father as the messenger [apostle] from the
Son, where dost thou purpose to place the Holy Spirit? Has it escaped thee, that ye are
wont to place Him after the Son? He will therefore come in between the messenger and the
Son; and much greater, then, will be the distance between the Son and His messenger, than
between the Father and His Son.

Or perhaps, to preserve that distinction between the Son and His messenger, and between
the Father and His Son, at their equality of distance, will the Holy Spirit be equal to
the Son? But as little will ye allow this. And where, then, do ye think of placing Him, if
ye place the Son as far beneath the Father, as ye place the messenger beneath the Son?
Restrain, therefore, your foolhardy presumption; and do not be seeking to find in these
words the same distance between the Son and His messenger as between the Father and His
Son. But listen rather to the Son Himself, when He says, "I and my Father are one. For
there the Truth hath left you no shadow of distance between the Begetter and the Only-
begotten; there Christ Himself hath erased your measurements, and the rock hath broken
your staircase to pieces. 3. But now that the heretical slander has been disposed of, in
what sense are we to understand these words of the Lord: "He that receiveth whomsoever I
send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me"? For if we were
inclined to understand the words, "He that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me," as
expressing the oneness in nature of the Father and the Son; the sequence from the similar
arrangement of words in the other clause, "He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth
me," would be the unity in nature of the Son and His messenger. And there might, indeed,
be no impropriety in so understanding it, seeing that a twofold substance belongeth to the
strong man, who hath rejoiced to run the race; for the Word was made flesh, that is, God
became man. And accordingly He might be supposed to have said, "He that receiveth
whomsoever I send, receiveth me," with reference to His human nature; "and he that
receiveth me" as God, "receiveth Him that sent me." But in so speaking, He was not
commending the unity of nature, but the authority of the Sender in Him who is sent. Let
every one, therefore, so receive Him that is sent, that in His person lie may give heed to
Him who sent Him. If, then, thou lookest for Christ in Peter, thou wilt find the
disciple's instructor; and if thou lookest for the Father in the Son, thou wilt find the
Begetter of the Only-begotten: and so in Him who is sent, thou art not mistaken in
receiving the Sender. What follows in the Gospel cannot be compressed within the shortness
of the time remaining. And therefore, dearly beloved, let what has been said, if thought
sufficient, be received in a healthful way, as pasture for the holy sheep; and if it is
somewhat scanty, let it be ruminated over with ardent desire for more.

TRACTATE 60

John XIII. 21. 1. It is no light question, brethren, that meets us in the Gospel of the
blessed John, when he says: "When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit, and
testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Was
it for this reason that Jesus was troubled, not in flesh, but in spirit, that He was now
about to say, "One of you shall betray me"? Did this occur then for the first time to His
mind, or was it at that moment suddenly revealed to Him for the first time, and so
troubled Him by the startling novelty of so great a calamity? Was it not a little before
that He was using these words, "He that eateth bread with me will lift up his heel against
me"? And had He not also, previously to that, said, "And ye are clean, but not all"? where
the evangelist added, "For He knew who should betray Him: to whom also on a still earlier
occasion He had pointed in the words, "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a
devil? Why is it, then, that He "was now troubled in spirit," when "He testified, and
said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me"? Was it because now
He had so to mark him out, that he should no longer remain concealed among the rest, but
be separated from the others, that therefore "He was troubled in spirit"?

Or was it because now the traitor himself was on the eve of departing to bring those Jews
to whom he was to betray the Lord, that He was troubled by the imminency of His passion,
the closeness of the danger, and the swooping hand of the traitor, whose resolution was
foreknown? For some such cause it certainly was that Jesus "was troubled in spirit," as
when He said, "Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this
hour; but for this cause came I unto this hour. And accordingly, just as then His soul was
troubled as the hour of His passion approached; so now also, as Judas was on the point of
going and coming, and the atrocious villainy of the traitor neared its accomplishment, "He
was troubled in spirit." 2. He was troubled, then, who had power to lay down His life, and
had power to take it again. That mighty power is troubled, the firmness of the rock is
disturbed: or is it rather our infirmity that is troubled in Him? Assuredly so: let
servants believe nothing unworthy of their Lord, but recognize their own membership in
their Head. He who died for us, was also Himself troubled in our place. He, therefore, who
died in power, was troubled in the midst of His power: He who shall yet transform the body
of our humility into similarity of form with the body of His glory, hath also transferred
into Himself the feeling of our infirmity, and sympathizeth with us in the feelings of His
own soul. Accordingly, when it is the great, the brave, the sure, the invincible One that
is troubled, let us have no fear for Him, as if He were capable of failing: He is not
perishing, but in search of us [who are]. Us, I say; it is us exclusively whom He is thus
seeking, that in His trouble we may behold ourselves, and so, when trouble reaches us, may
not fall into despair and perish. By His trouble, who could not be troubled save with His
own consent, He comforts such as are troubled unwillingly.

3. Away with the reasons of philosophers, who assert that a wise man is not affected by
mental perturbations. God hath made foolish the wisdom of this world; and the Lord knoweth
the thoughts of men, that they are vain. It is plain that the mind of the Christian may be
troubled, not by misery, but by pity: he may fear lest men should be lost to Christ; he
may sorrow when one is being lost; he may have ardent desire to gain men to Christ; he may
be filled with joy when such is being done; he may have fear of falling away himself from
Christ; he may sorrow over his own estrangement from Christ; he may be earnestly desirous
of reigning with Christ, and he may be rejoicing in the hope that such fellowship with
Christ will yet be his lot. These are certainly four of what they call perturbations-fear
and sorrow, love and gladness. And Christian minds may have sufficient cause to feel them,
and evidence their dissent from the error of Stoic philosophers, and all resembling them:
who indeed, just as they esteem truth to be vanity, regard also insensibility as
soundness; not knowing that a man's mind, like the limbs of his body, is only the more
hopelessly diseased when it has lost even the feeling of pain.

4. But says some one: Ought the mind of the Christian to be troubled even at the prospect
of death? For what comes of those words of the apostle, that he had a desire to depart,
and to be with Christ, if the object of his desire can thus trouble him when it comes? Our
answer to this would be easy, indeed, in the case of those who also term gladness itself a
perturbation [of the mind]. For what if the trouble he thus feels arises entirely from his
rejoicing at the prospect of death? But such a feeling, they say, ought to be termed
gladness, and not rejoicing. And what is that, but just to alter the name, while the
feeling experienced is the same? But let us for our part confine our attention to the
Sacred Scriptures, and with the Lord's help seek rather such a solution of this question
as will be in harmony with them; and then, seeing it is written, "When He had thus said,
He was troubled in spirit," we will not say that it was joy that disturbed Him; lest His
own words should convince us of the contrary when He says, "My soul is sorrowful, even
unto death." It is some such feeling that is here also to be understood, when, as His
betrayer was now on the very point of departing alone, and straightway returning along
with his associates, "Jesus was troubled in spirit."

5. Strong-minded, indeed, are those Christians, if such there are, who experience no
trouble at all in the prospect of death; but for all that, are they stronger-minded than
Christ? Who would have the madness to say so? And what else, then, does His being troubled
signify, but that, by voluntarily assuming the likeness of their weakness, He comforted
the weak members in His own body, that is, in His Church; to the end that, if any of His
own are still troubled at the approach of death, they may fix their gaze upon Him, and so
be kept from thinking themselves castaways on this account, and being swallowed up in the
more grievous death of despair? And how great, then, must be that good which we ought to
expect and hope for in the participation of His divine nature, whose very perturbation
tranquillizes us, and whose infirmity confirms us? Whether, therefore, on this occasion it
was by His pity for Judas himself thus rushing into ruin, or by the near approach of His
own death, that He was troubled, yet there is no possibility of doubting that it was not
through any infirmity of mind, but in the fullness of power, that He was troubled, and so
no despair of salvation need arise in our minds, when we are troubled, not in the
possession of power, but in the midst of our weakness. He certainly bore the infirmity of
the flesh,-an infirmity which was swallowed up in His resurrection.

But He who was not only man, but God also, surpassed by an ineffable distance the whole
human race in fortitude of mind. He was not, then, troubled by any outward plessure of
man, but troubled Himself; which was very plainly declared of Him when He raised Lazarus
from the dead: for it is there written that He troubled Himself, that it may be so
understood even where the text does not so express it, and yet declares that He was
troubled. For having by His power assumed our full humanity, by that very power He awoke
in Himself our human feelings whenever He judged it becoming.

TRACTATE 61

John XIII. 21-26. 1. This short section of the Gospel, brethren, we have in this lesson
brought forward for exposition, as thinking that we ought also to say something of the
Lord's betrayer, as now plainly enough disclosed by the dipping and holding out to him of
the piece of bread. Of that indeed which precedes, (namely), that Jesus, when about to
point him out, was troubled in spirit, we have treated in our last discourse; but what I
perhaps omitted to mention there, the Lord, by His own perturbation of spirit, thought
proper to indicate this also, that it is necessary to bear with false brethren, and those
tares that are among the wheat in the Lord's field until harvest-time, because that when
we are compelled by urgent reasons to separate some of them even before the harvest, it
cannot be done without disturbance to the Church. Such disturbance to His saints in the
future, through schismatics and heretics, the Lord in a way foretold and prefigured in
Himself, when, at the moment of that wicked man Judas' departure, and of his thereby
bringing to an end, in a very open and decided way, his past intermingling with the wheat,
in which he had long been tolerated, He was troubled, not in body, but in spirit. For it
is not spitefulness, but charity, that troubles His spiritual members in scandals of this
kind; test perchance. in separating some of the tares, any of the wheat should also be
uprooted therewith.

2. "Jesus," therefore, "was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said: Verily, verily, I
say unto you, that one of you shall betray me." "One of you," in number, not in merit; in
appearance, not in reality; in bodily commingling, not by any spiritual tie; a companion
by fleshly juxtaposition, not in any unity of the heart; and therefore not one who is of
you, but one who is to go forth from you. For how else can this "one of you" be true, of
which the Lord so testified, and said, if that is true which the writer of this very
Gospel says in his Epistle, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they
had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us"? Judas, therefore was not of
them; for, had he been of them, he would have continued with them. What, then, do the
words "One of you shall betray me" mean, but that one is going out from you who shall
betray me? Just as he also, who said, "If they had been of us, they would no doubt have
continued with us," had said before, "They went out from us." And thus it is true in both
senses, "of us," and "not of us;" in one respect "of us," and in another "not of us;" "of
us" in respect to sacramental communion, but "not of us" in respect to the criminal
conduct that belongs exclusively to themselves.

3. "Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom He spake." For while they
were imbued with a reverential love to their Master, they were none the less affected by
human infirmity in their feelings towards each other. Each one's own conscience was known
to himself; but as he was ignorant of his neighbor's, each one's self-assurance was such
that each was uncertain of all the others, and all the others were uncertain of that one.
4. "Now there was leaning on Jesus'bosom, one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. What he
meant by saying "in His bosom," he tells us a little further on, where he says, "on the
breast of Jesus. It was that very John whose Gospel is before us, as he afterwards
expressly declares. For it was a custom with those who have supplied uswith the sacred
writings, that when any ofthem was relating the divine history, and came to something
affecting himself, he spoke as if it were about another; and gave himself a place in the
line of his narrative becoming one who was the recorder of public events, and not as one
who made himself the subject of his preaching. Saint Matthew acted also in this way, when,
in coming in the course of his narrative to himself, he says, "He saw a publican named
Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, and saith unto him, Follow me. He does not say,
He saw me, and said to me. So also acted the blessed Moses, writing all the history about
himself as if it concerned another, and saying, "The Lord said unto Moses. Less habitually
was this done by the Apostle Paul, not however in any history which undertakes to explain
the course of public events, but in his own epistles. At all events, he speaks thus of
himself: "I knew a man in Christ fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, or whether out
of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;

such an one caught up into the third heaven. And so, when the blessed evangelist also says
here, not, I was leaning on Jesus' bosom, but, "There was leaning one of the disciples,"
let us recognize a custom of our author's, rather than fall into any wonder on the
subject. For what loss is there to the truth, when the facts themselves are told us, and
all boastfulness of language is in a measure avoided? For thus at least did he relate that
which most signally pertained to his praise. 5. But what mean the words, "whom Jesus
loved"? As if He did not love the others, of whom this same John has said above, "He loved
them to the end" (ver. 1); and as the Lord Himself, "Greater love hath no man than this,
that a man lay down his life for his friends." And who could enumerate all the testimonies
of the sacred pages, in which the Lord Jesus is exhibited as the lover, not only of this
one, or of those who were then around Him, but of such also as were to be His members in
the distant future, and of His universal Church? But there is some truth, doubtless,
underlying these words, and having reference to the bosom on which the narrator was
leaning. For what else can be indicated by the bosom but some hidden truth? But there is
another more suitable passage, where the Lord may enable us to say something about this
secret that may prove sufficient.

6. "Simon Peter therefore beckons, and says to him." The expression is noteworthy, as
indicating that something was said not by any sound of words, but by merely beckoning with
the head. "He beckons, and says;" that is, his beckoning is his speech. For if one is said
to speak in his thoughts, as Scripture saith, "They said [reasoned] with themselves;" how
much more may he do so by beckoning, which expresses outwardly by some sort of signs what
had previously been conceived within! What, then, did his beckoning mean? What else but
that which follows? "Who is it of whom He speaks?" Such was the language of Peter's
beckoning; for it was by no vocal sounds, but by bodily gestures, that he spake. "He then,
havingleaned back on Jesus' breast,"-surely the very bosom of His breast this, the secret
place of wisdom!-"saith unto Him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is to whom I
shall give a piece of bread, when I have dipped it. And when He had dipped the bread, he
gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the bread, Satan entered into him."
The traitor was disclosed, the coverts of darkness were revealed. What he got was good,
but to his own hurt he received it, because, evil himself, in an evil spirit he received
what was good. But we have much to say about that dipped bread which was presented to the
false-hearted disciple, and about that which follows; and for these we shall require more
time than remains to us now at the close of this discourse.

TRACTATE 62

John XIII. 26-31. 1. I Know, dearly beloved, that some may be moved, as the godly to
inquire into the meaning of, and the ungodly to find fault with, the statement, that it
was after the Lord had given the bread, that had been dipped, to His betrayer that Satan
entered into him. For so it is written: "And when He had dipped the bread, He gave it to
Judas Iscariot, the Son of Simon. And after the bread, then entered Satan into him. For
they say, Was this the worth of Christ's bread, given from Christ's own table, that after
it Satan should enter into His disciple? And the answer we give them is, that thereby we
are taught rather how much we need to beware of receiving. what is good in a sinful
spirit. For the point of special importance is, not the thing that is received, but the
person that receives it; and not the character of the thing that is given, but of him to
whom it is given. For even good things are hurtful, and evil things are beneficial,
according to the character of the recipients. "Sin," says the apostle, "that it might
appear sin, wrought death to me by that which is good. Thus, you see, evil is brought
about by the good, so long as that which is good is wrongly received. It is he also that
says:

"Lest I should be exalted unduly through the greatness of my revelations, there was given
to me a thorn in my flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me. For which thing I besought
the Lord thrice, that He would take it away from me; and He said unto me, My grace is
sufficient for thee: for strength is made perfect in weakness. And here, you see, good was
brought about by that which was evil, when the evil was received in a good spirit. Why,
then, do we wonder if Christ's bread was given to Judas, that thereby he should be made
over to the devil; when we see, on the other hand, that Paul was visited by a messenger of
the devil, that by such an instrumentality he might be perfected in Christ? In this way,
both the good was injurious to the evil man, and the evil was beneficial to the good. Bear
in mind the meaning of the Scripture, "Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of
the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. And when the
apostle said this, he was dealing with those who were taking the body of the Lord, like
any other food, in an undiscerning and careless spirit.

If, then, he is thus taken to task who does not discern, that is, does not distinguish
from the other kinds of food, the body of the Lord, what condemnation must be his, who in
the guise of a friend comes as an enemy to His table! If negligence in the guest is thus
visited with blame, what must be the punishment that will fall on the man that sells the
very person who has invited him to his table! And why was the bread given to the traitor,
but as an evidence of the grace he had treated with ingratitude? 2. It was after this
bread, then, that Satan entered into the Lord's betrayer, that, as now given over to his
power, he might take full possession of one into whom before this he had only entered in
order to lead him into error. For we are not to suppose that he was not in him when he
went to the Jews and bargained about the price of betraying the Lord; for the evangelist
Luke very plainly attests this when he says: "Then entered Satan into Judas, who was
surnamed Iscariot, being one of the twelve; and he went his way, and communed with the
chief priests." Here, you see, it is shown that Satan had already entered into Judas. His
first entrance, therefore, was when he implanted in his heart the thought of betraying
Christ; for in such a spirit had he already come to the supper. But now, after the bread,
he entered into him, no longer to tempt one who belonged to another, but to take
possession of him as his own.

3. But it was not then, as some thoughtless readers suppose, that Judas received the body
of Christ. For we are to understand that the Lord had already dispensed to all of them the
sacrament of His body and blood, when Judas also was present, as very clearly related by
Saint Luke; and it was after this that we come to the moment when, in accordance with
John's account, the Lord made a full disclosure of His betrayer by dipping and holding out
to him the morsel of bread, and intimating perhaps by the dipping of the bread the false
pretensions of the other. For the dipping of a thing does not always imply its washing;
but some things are dipped in order to be dyed. But if a good meaning is to be here
attached to the dipping, his ingratitude for that good was deservedly followed by
damnation. 4. But still, possessed as Judas now was, not by the Lord, but by the devil,
and now that the bread had entered the belly, and an enemy the soul of this man of
ingratitude: still, I say, there was this enormous wickedness, already conceived in his
heart, waiting to be wrought out to its full issue, for which the damnable desire had
always preceded. Accordingly, when the Lord, the living Bread, had given this bread to the
dead, and in giving it had revealed the betrayer of the Bread, He said, "What thou doest,
do quickly. He did not command the crime, but foretold evil to Judas, and good to us. For
what could be worse for judas, or what could be better for us, than the delivering up of
Christ,-a deed done by him to his own destruction, but done, apart from him, in our
behalf? "What thou doest, do quickly. Oh that word of One whose wish was to be ready
rather than to be angry! That word! expressing not so much the punishment of the traitor
as the reward awaiting the Redeemer! For He said, "What thou doest, do quickly," not as
wrathfully looking to the destruction of the trust-betrayer, but in His own haste to
accomplish the salvation of the faithful; for He was delivered for our offences, and He
loved the Church, and gave Himself for it. And as the apostle also says of himself: "Who
loved me, and gave Himself for me.

Had not, then, Christ given Himself, no one could have givenHim up. What is there in
Judas' conduct but sin? For in delivering up Christ he had no thought of our salvation,for
which Christ was really delivered, but thought only of his money gain, and found the loss
of his soul. He got the wages he wished, but had also given him, against his wish, the
wages he merited. Judas delivered up Christ, Christ delivered Himself up: the former
transacted the business of his own selling of his Master, the latter the business of our
redemption. "What thou doest, do quickly," not because thou hast the power in thyself, but
because He wills it who has all the power. 5. "Now no one of those at the table knew for
what intent He spake this unto him. For some of them thought, because Judas had the money-
bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy those things which we have need of against the feast;
or, that he should give something to the poor." The Lord, therefore, had also a money-box,
where He kept the offerings of believers, and distributed to the necessities of His own,
and to others who were in need. It was then that the custom of having church-money was
first introduced, so that thereby we might understand that His precept about taking no
thought for the morrow was not a command that no money should be kept by His saints, but
that God should not he served for any such end, and that the doing of what is right should
not be held in abeyance through the fear of want. For the apostle also has this foresight
for the future, when he says: "If any believer hath widows, let him give them enough, that
the church may not be burdened, that it may have enough for them that are widows indeed."

6. "He then, having received the morsel of bread, went immediately out: and it was night."
And he that went out was himself the night. "Therefore when" the night "was gone out,
Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified." The day therefore uttered speech unto the
day, that is, Christ did so to His faithful disciples, that they might hear and love Him
as His followers; and the night showed knowledge unto the night, that is, Judas did so to
the unbelieving Jews, that they might come as His persecutors, and make Him their
prisoner. But now, in considering these words of the Lord, which were addressed to the
godly, before His arrest by the ungodly, special attention on the part of the · hearer is
required; and therefore it will be more becoming in the preacher, instead of hurriedly
considering them now, to defer themtill a future occasion.

TRACTATE 63

John XIII. 31, 32 1. Let us give our mind's best attention, and, with the Lord's help,
seek after God. The language of the divine hymn is: "Seek God and your soul shall live.
Let us search for that which needs to be discovered, and into that which has been
discovered. He whom we need to discover is concealed, in order to be sought after; and
when found, is infinite, in order still to be the object of our search. Hence it is
elsewhere said, "Seek His face evermore. For He satisfies the seeker to the utmost of his
capacity; and makes the finder still more capable, that he may seek to be filled anew,
according to the growth of his ability to receive. Therefore it was not said, "Seek His
face evermore," in the same sense as of certain others, who are "always learning, and
never coming to a knowledge of the truth; but rather as the preacher saith, "When a man
hath finished, then he beginneth; till we reach that life where we shall be so filled,
that our natures shall attain their utmost capacity, because we shall have arrived at
perfection, and no longer be aiming at more. For then all that can satisfy us will be
revealed to our eyes. But here let us always be seeking, and let our reward in finding put
no endto our searching. For we do not say that it will not be so always, because it is
only so here;

but that here we must always be seeking, lest at any time we should imagine that here we
can ever cease from seeking. For those of whom it is said that they are "always learning,
and never coming to a knowledge of the truth. are here indeed always learning; but when
they depart this life they will no longer be learning, but receiving the reward of their
error. For the words, "always learning, and never coming to a knowledge of the truth,"
mean, as it were, always walking, and never getting into the road. Let us, on the other
hand, be walking always in the way, till we reach the end to which it leads; let us
nowhere tarry in it till we reach the proper place of abode: and so we shall both
persevere in our seeking, and be making some attainments in our finding, and, thus seeking
and finding, be passing on to that which remains, till the very end of all seeking shall
be reached in that world where perfection shall admit of no further effort at advancement.
Let these prefatory remarks, dearly beloved, make your Charity attentive to this discourse
of our Lord's, which He addressed to the disciples before His passion: for it is profound
in itself; and where, in particular, the preacher purposes to expend much labor, the
hearer ought not to be remiss in attention.

2. What is it, then, that the Lord says, after that Judas went out, to do quickly what he
purposed doing, namely, betraying the Lord? What says the day when the night had gone out?
What says the Redeemer when the seller had departed? "Now," He says, "is the Son of man
glorified. Why "now"? It was not, was it, merely that His betrayer was gone out, and that
those were at hand who were to seize and slay Him? Is it thus that He "is now glorified,"
to wit, that His deeper humiliation is approaching; that over Him are impending both
bonds, and judgment, and condemnation, and mocking, and crucifixion, and death? Is this
glorification, or rather humiliation? Even when He was working miracles, does not this
very John say of Him, "The Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet
glorified"? Even then, therefore, when He was raising the dead, He was not yet glorified;
and is He glorified now, when drawing near in His own person unto death? He was not yet
glorified when acting as God, and is He glorified in going to suffer as man? It would be
strange if it were this that God, the great Master, signified and taught in such words.

We must ascend higher to unveil the words of the Highest, who reveals Himself somewhat
that we may find Him, and anon hides Himself that we may seek Him, and so press on step by
step, as it were, from discoveries already made to those that still await us. I get here a
sight of something that prefigures a great reality. Judas went out, and Jesus is
glorified; the son of perdition went out, and the Son of man is glorified. He it was that
had gone out, on whose account it had been said to them all, "And ye are clean, but not
all" (ver. 10). When, therefore, the unclean one departed, all that remained were clean,
and continued with their Cleanser. Something like this will it be when this world shall
have been conquered by Christ, and shall have passed away, and there shall be no one that
is unclean remaining among His people; when, the tares having been separated from the
wheat, the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. The
Lord, foreseeing such a future as this, and in testimony that such was signified now in
the separation of the tares, as it were, by the departure of Judas, and the remaining
behind of the wheat in the persons of the holy apostles, said, "Now is the Son of man
glorified:

as if He had said, See, so will it be in that day of my glorification yet to come, when
none of the wicked shall be present, and none of the good shall be wanting. His words,
however, are not expressed in this way: Now is prefigured the glorification of the Son of
man; but expressly, "Now is the Son of man glorified: just as it was not said, The Rock
signified Christ; but, "That Rock was Christ. Nor is it said, The good seed signified the
children of the kingdom, or, The tares signified the children of the wicked one; but what
is said is, "The good seed, these are the children of the kingdom; and the tares, the
children of the wicked one. According, then, to the usage of Scripture language, which
speaks of the signs as if they were the things signified, the Lord makes use of the words,
"Now is the Son of man glorified; indicating that in the completed separation of that arch
sinner from their company, and in the remaining around Him of His saints, we have the
foreshadowing of His glorification, when the wicked shall be finally separated, and He
shall dwell with His saints through eternity.

3. But after saying, "Now is the Son of man glorified," He added, "and God is glorified in
Him." For this is itself the glorifying of the Son of man, that God should be glorified in
Him. For if He is not glorified in Himself, but God in Him, then it is He whom God
glorifies in Himself. And just as if to give them this explanation, He furthers adds: "If
God is glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself." That is, "If God is
glorified in Him," because He came not to do His own will, but the will of Him that sent
Him; "and God shall glorify Him in Himself," in such wise that the human nature, in which
He is the Son of man, and which was so assumed by the eternal Word, should also be endowed
with an eternal immortality. "And," He says, "He shall straightway glorify Him;"
predicting, to wit, by such an asseveration, His own resurrection in the immediate future,
and not, as it were, ours in the end of the world. For it is this very glorification of
which the evangelist had previously said, as I mentioned a little ago, that on this
account the Spirit was not yet in their case given in that new way, in which He was yet to
be given after the resurrection to those who believed, because that Jesus was not yet
glorified: that is, mortality was not yet clothed with immortality, and temporal weakness
transformed into eternal strength. This glorification may also be indicated in the words,
"Now is the Son of man glorified;" so that the word "now" may be supposed to refer, not to
His impending passion, but to His closely succeeding resurrection, as if what was now so
near at hand had actually been accomplished. Let this suffice your affection to-day; we
shall take up, when the Lord permits us, the words that follow.

TRACTATE 64

John XIII. 33. 1. It becomes us, dearly beloved, to keep in view the orderly connection of
our Lord's words. For after having previously said, but subsequently to Judas' departure,
and his separation from even the outward communion of the saints, "Now is the Son of man
glorified, and God is glorified in Him;"-whether He said so as pointing to His future
kingdom, when the wicked shall be separated from the good, or that His resurrection was
then to take place, that is, was not to be delayed, like ours, till the end of the
world;-and having then added, "If God is glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in
Himself, and shall straightway glorify Him," whereby without any ambiguity He testified to
the immediate fulfillment of His own resurrection; He proceeded to say, "Little children,
yet a little while I am with you. To keep them, therefore, from thinking that God was to
glorify Him in such a way that He would never again be joined with them in earthly
intercourse, He said, "Yet a little while I am with you: as if He had said, Straightway
indeed I shall be glorified in my resurrection; and yet I am not straightway to ascend
into heaven, but "yet a little while I am with you. For, as we find it written in the Acts
of the Apostles, He spent forty days with them after His resurrection, going in and out,
and eating and drinking:

not indeed that He had any experience of hunger and thirst, but even by such evidences
confirmed the reality of His flesh, which no longer needed, but still possessed the power,
to eat and to drink. Was it, then, these forty days He had in view when He said, "Yet a
little while I am with you," or something else? For it may also be understood in this way:
"Yet a little while I am with you; still, like you, I also am in this state of fleshly
infirmity, that is, till He should die and rise again: for after He rose again He was with
them, as has been said, for forty days in the full manifestation of His bodily presence;
but He was no longer with them in the fellowship of human infirmity. 2. There is also
another form of His divine presence unknown to mortal senses, of which He likewise says,
"Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world." This, at least, is not the same
as "yet a little while I am with you;" for it is not a little while until the end of the
world. Or if even this is so (for time flies, and a thousand years are in God's sight as
one day, or as a watch in the night,) yet we cannot believe that He intended any such
meaning on this occasion, especially as He went on to say, "Ye shall seek me, and as I
said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come." That is to say, after this little while
that I am with you, "ye shall seek me, and whither I go, ye cannot come." Is it after the
end of the world that, whither He goes, they will not be able to come? And where, then, is
the place of which He is going to say a little after in this same discourse, "Father, I
will that they also be with me where I am "? It was not then of that presence of His with
His own which He is maintaining with them till the end of the world that He now spake,
when He said, "Yet a little while I am with you;" but either of that state of mortal
infirmity in which He dwelt with them till His passion, or of that bodily presence which
He was to maintain with them up till His ascension. Whichever of these any one prefers, he
can do so without being at variance with the faith.

3. That no one, however, may deem that sense inconsistent with the true one, in which we
say that the Lord may have meant the communion of mortal flesh which He held with the
disciples till His passion, when He said, "Yet a little while I am with you;" let those
words also of His after His resurrection, as found in another evangelist, be taken into
consideration, when He said, "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet
with you:" as if then He was no longer with them, even at the very time that they were
standing by, seeing, touching, and talking with Him. What does He mean, then, by saying,
"while I was yet with you," but, while I was yet in that state of mortal flesh wherein ye
still remain? For then, indeed, He had been raised again in the same flesh; but He was no
longer associated with them in the same mortality. And accordingly, as on that occasion,
when now clothed in fleshly immortality, He said with truth, "while I was yet with you,"
to which we can attach no other meaning than, while I was yet with you in fleshly
mortality; so here also, without any absurdity, we may understand His words, "Yet a little
while I am with you," as if He had said, Yet a little while I am mortal like yourselves.
Let us look, then, at the words that follow.

4. "Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so say I
to you now. That is, ye cannot come now. But when He said so to the Jews, He did not add
the "now. The former, therefore, were not able at that time to come where He was going,
but they were so afterwards; because He says so a little afterwards in the plainest terms
to the Apostle Peter. For, on the latter inquiring, "Lord, whither goest Thou? He replied
to him, "Whither I go thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards"
(ver. 36). But what it means is not to be carelessly passed over. For whither was it that
the disciples could not then follow the Lord, but were able afterwards? If we say, to
death, what time can be discovered when any one of the sons of men will find it impossible
to die; since such, in this perishable body, is the lot of man, that therein life is not a
whit easier than death? They were not, therefore, at that time less able to follow the
Lord to death, but they were less able to follow Him to the life which is deathless. For
thither it was the Lord was going, that, rising from the dead, He should die no more, and
death should no more have dominion over Him.

For as the Lord was about to die for righteousness' sake, how could they have followed Him
now, who were as yet unripe for the ordeal of martyrdom? Or, with the Lord about to enter
the fleshly immortality, how could they have followed Him now, when, even though ready to
die, they would have no resurrection till the end of the world? Or, on the point of going,
as the Lord was, to the bosom of the Father, and that without any forsaking of them, just
as He had never quitted that bosom in coming to them, how could they have followed Him
now, since no one can enter on that state of felicity but he that is made perfect in love?
And to show them, therefore, how it is that they may attain the fitness to proceed, where
He was going before them, He says, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one
another" (ver. 34). These are the steps whereby Christ must be followed; but any fuller
discourse thereon must be put off till another opportunity.


TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124
======================================

TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124 continued

TRACTATE 65

John XIII. 34, 35. 1. The Lord Jesus declares that He is giving His disciples a new
commandment, that they should love one another. "A new commandment," He says, "I give unto
you, that ye love one another. But was not this already commanded in the ancient law of
God, where it is written, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"? Why, then, is it
called a new one by the Lord, when it is proved to be so old? Is it on this account a new
commandment, because He hath divested us of the old, and clothed us with the new man? For
it is not indeed every kind of love that renews him that listens to it, or rather yields
it obedience, but that love regarding which the Lord, in order to distinguish it from all
carnal affection, added, "as I have loved you. For husbands and wives love one another,
and parents and children, and all other human relationships that bind men together: to say
nothing of the blame-worthy and damnable love which is mutually felt by adulterers and
adulteresses, by fornicators and prostitutes, and all others who are knit together by no
human relationship, but by the mischievous depravity of human life. Christ, therefore,
hath given us a new commandment, that we should love one another, as He also hath loved
us. This is the love that renews us, making us new men, heirs of the New Testament,
singers of the new song.

It was this love, brethren beloved, that renewed also those of olden time, who were then
the righteous, the patriarchs and prophets, as it did afterwards the blessed apostles: it
is it, too, that is now renewing the nations, and from among the universal race of man,
which overspreads the whole world, is making and gathering together a new people, the body
of the newly-married spouse of the only-begotten Son of God, of whom it is said in the
Song of Songs, "Who is she that ascendeth, made white? Made white indeed, because renewed;
and how, but by the new commandment? Because of this, the members thereof have a mutual
interest in one another; and if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; and one
member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. For this they hear and observe, "A new
commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another: not as those love one another who
are corrupters, nor as men love one another in a human way; but they love one another as
those who are God's, and all of them sons of the Highest, and brethren, therefore, of His
only Son, with that mutual love wherewith He loved them, when about to lead them on to the
goal were all sufficiency should be theirs, and where their every desire should be
satisfied with good things. For then there will be nothing wanting they can desire, when
God will be all in all. An end like that has no end.

No one dieth there, where no one arriveth save he that dieth to this world, not that
universal kind of death whereby the body is bereft of the soul; but the death of the
elect, through which, even while still remaining in this mortal flesh, the heart is set on
the things which are above. Of such a death it is that the apostle said, "For ye are dead,
and your life is hid with Christ in God. And perhaps to this, also, do the words
refer,"Love is strong as death. For by this love it is brought about, that, While still
held in the present corruptible body, we die to this world, and our life is hid with
Christ in God; yea, that love itself is our death to the world, and our life with God. For
if that is death when the soul quits the body, how can it be other than death when our
love quits the world? Such love, therefore, is strong as death. And what is stronger than
that which bindeth the world?

2. Think not then, my brethren, that when the Lord says, "A new commandment I give unto
you, that ye love one another," there is any overlooking of that greater commandment,
which requires us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and
with all our mind; for along with this seeming oversight, the words "that ye love one
another" appear also as if they had no reference to that second commandment, which says,
"Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. For "on these two commandments," He says, "hang
all the law and the prophets. But both commandments may be found in each of these by those
who have good understanding. For, on the one hand, he that loveth God cannot despise His
commandment to love his neighbor; and on theother, he who in a holy and spiritual way
loveth his neighbor, what doth he love in him but God? That is the love, distinguished
from all mundane love, which the Lord specially characterized, when He added, "as I have
loved you. For what was it but God that He loved in us? Not because we had Him, but in
order that we might have Him; and that He may lead us on, as I said a little ago, where
God is all in all. It is in this way, also, that the physician is properly said to love
the sick; and what is it he loves in them but their health, which at all events he desires
to recall;

not their sickness, which he comes to remove? Let us, then, also so love one another,
that, as far as possible, we may by the solicitude of our love be winning one another to
have God within us. And this love is bestowed on us by Him who said, "As I have loved you,
that ye also love one another. For this very end, therefore, did He love us, that we also
should love one another; bestowing this on us by His own love to us, that we should be
bound to one another in mutual love, and, united together as members by so pleasant a
bond, should be the body of so mighty a Head. 3. "By this," He adds, "Shall all men know
that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another:" as if He said, Other gifts of
mine are possessed in common with you by those who are not mine,-not only nature, life,
perception, reason, and that safety which is equally the privilege of men and beasts; but
also languages, sacraments, prophecy, knowledge, faith, the bestowing of their goods upon
the poor, and the giving of their body to the flames: but because destitute of charity,
they only tinkle like cymbals; they are nothing, and by nothing are they profited. It is
not, then, by such gifts of mine, however good, which may be alike possessed by those who
are not my disciples, but "by this it is that all men shall know that ye aremy disciples,
that ye have love one to another." O thou spouse of Christ, fair amongst women! O thou who
ascendest in whiteness, leaning upon thy Beloved! for by His light thou art made dazzling
to whiteness, by His assistance thou art preserved from falling. How well becoming thee
are the words in that Song of Songs, which is, as it were, thy bridal chant, "That there
is love in thy delights"! This it is that suffers not thy soul to perish with the ungodly;
it is this that judges thy cause, and is strong as death, and is present in thy delights.
How wonderful is the character of that death, which was all but swallowed up in penal
sufferings, had it not been over and above absorbed in delights! But here this discourse
must now be closed; for we must make a new commencement in dealing with the words that
follow.

TRACTATE 66

John XIII. 36-38. 1. While the Lord Jesus was commending to the disciples that holy love
wherewith they should love one another, "Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, whither goest
Thou? So, at all events, said the disciple to his Master, the servant to his Lord, as one
who was prepared to follow. Just as for the same reason the Lord, who read in his mind the
purpose of such a question, made him this reply: "Whither I go, thou canst not follow me
now; as if He said, In reference to the object of thy asking, thou canst not now. Hedoes
not say, Thou canst not; but "Thou canst not now. He intimated delay, with out depriving
of hope; and that same hope, which He took not away, but rather bestowed, in His next
words He confirmed, by proceeding to say, "Thou shall follow me afterwards. Why such
haste, Peter? The Rock (petra) has not yet solidified thee by His Spirit. Be not lifted up
with presumption, "Thou canst not now; be not cast now into despair, "Thou shalt follow
afterwards. But what does he say to this? "Why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down
my life for Thy sake. He saw what was the kind of desire in his mind; but what the measure
of his strength, he saw not. The weak man boasted of his willingness, but the Physician
had an eye on the state of his health; the one promised, the Other foreknew: the ignorant
was bold; He that foreknew all, condescended to teach.

How much had Peter taken upon himself, by looking only at what he wished, and having no
knowledge of what he was able! How much had he taken upon himself, that, when the Lord had
come to lay down His life for His friends, and so for him also, he should have the
assurance to offer to do the same for the Lord; and while as yet Christ's life was not
laid down for himself, he should promise to lay down his own life for Christ! "Jesus"
therefore "answered him, Wilt thoulay down thy life for my sake? Wilt thou do for me what
I have not yet done for thee? "Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Canst thou go
before, who art unable to follow? Why dost thou presume so far? what dost thou think of
thyself? what dost thou imagine thyself to be? Hear what thou art: "Verily, verily, I say
unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice. See, that is how thou
wilt speedily become manifest to thyself, who art now talking so loftily, and knowest not
that thou art but a child. Thou promisest me thy death, and thou wilt deny me thy life.
Thou, who now thinkest thyself able to die for me, learn to live first for thyself; for in
fearing the death of thy flesh, thou wilt occasion the death of thy soul. Just as much as
it is life to confess Christ, it is death to deny Him.

2. Or was it that the Apostle Peter, as some with a perverse kind of favor strive to
excuse him, did not deny Christ, because, when questioned by the maid, he replied that he
did not know the man, as the other evangelists more expressly affirm? As if, indeed, he
that denies the man Christ does not deny Christ; and so denies Him in respect of what He
became on our account, that the nature He had given us might not be lost. Whoever,
therefore, acknowledges Christ as God, and disowns Him as man, Christ died not for him;
for as man it was that Christ died. He who disowns Christ as man, finds no reconciliation
to God by the Mediator. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the
man Christ Jesus. He that denies Christ as man is not justified: for as by the
disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one man shall
many be made righteous. He that denies Christ as man, shall not rise again into the
resurrection of life; for by man is death, and by man is also the resurrection of the
dead: for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. And by what means
is He the Head of the Church, but by His manhood, because the Word was made flesh, that
is, God, the Only-begotten of God the Father, became man.

And how then canone be in the body of Christ who denies the man Christ? Or how can one be
a member who disowns the Head? But why linger over a multitude of reasons when the Lord
Himself undoes all the windings of human argumentation? For He says not, The cock shall
not crow till thou hast denied the man; or, as He was wont to speak in His more familiar
condescension with men, The cock shall not crow till thou hast thrice denied the Son of
man; but He says, "till thou hast denied me thrice. What is that "me," but just what He
was, and what was He but Christ? Whatever of Him, therefore, he denied, he denied Himself,
he denied the Christ, he denied the Lord his God. For Thomas also, his fellow-disciple,
when he exclaimed, "My Lord and my God," did not handle the Word, but only His flesh; and
laid not his inquisitive hands on the incorporeal nature of God, but on His human body.
And so he touched the man, and yet recognized his God. If, then, what the latter touched,
Peter denied; what the latter invoked, Peter offended. "The cock shall not crow till thou
hast denied me thrice. Although thou say, "I know not the man; although thou say, "Man, I
know not what thou sayest; although thou say, "I am not one of His disciples; thou wilt be
denying me. If, which it were sinful to doubt, Christ so spake, and foretold the truth,
then doubtless Peter denied Christ.

Let us not accuse Christ in defending Peter. Let infirmity acknowledge its sin; for there
is no falsehood in the Truth. When Peter's infirmity acknowledged its sin, his
acknowledgment was full; and the greatness of the evil he had committed in denying Christ,
he showed by his tears. He himself reproves his defenders, and for their conviction,
brings his tears forward as witnesses. Nor have we, on our part, in so speaking, any
delight in accusing the first of the apostles; but in looking on him, we ought to take
home the lesson to ourselves, that no man should place his confidence in human strength.
For what else had our Teacher and Saviour in view, but to show us, by making the first of
the apostles himself an example, that no one ought in any way to presume of himself? And
that, therefore, really took place in Peter's soul, for which he gave cause in his body.
And yet he did not go before in the Lord's behalf, as he rashly presumed, but did so
otherwise than he reckoned. For before the death and resurrection of the Lord, he both
died when he denied, and returned to life when he wept; but he died, because he himself
had been proud in his presumption, and he lived again, because that Other had looked on
him with kindness.

TRACTATE 67

John XIV. 1-3. 1.Our special attention, brethren, must be earnestly turned to God, in
order that we may be able to obtain some intelligent apprehension of the words of the holy
Gospel, which have just been ringing in our ears. For the Lord Jesus saith: "Let not your
heart be troubled. Believe in God, and believe [or, believe also] in me." That they might
not as men be afraid of death, and so be troubled, He comforts them by affirming Himself
also to be God. "Believe," He says, "in God, believe also in me." For it follows as a
consequence, that if ye believe in God, ye ought to believe also in me: which were no
consequence if Christ were not God. "Believe in God, and believe in" Him, who, by nature
and not by robbery, is equal with God; for He emptied Himself; not, however, by losing the
form of God, but by taking the form of a servant. You are afraid of death as regards this
servant form, "let not your heart be troubled," the form of God will raise it again.

2. But why have we this that follows, "In my Father's house are many mansions," but that
they were also in fear about themselves? And therein they might have heard the words, "Let
not your heart be troubled. For, was there any of them that could be free from fear, when
Peter, the most confident and forward of them all, was told, "The cock shall not crow till
thou hast denied me thrice"? Considering themselves, therefore, beginning with Peter, as
destined to perish, they had cause to be troubled: but when they now hear, "In my Father's
house are many mansions:if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a
place for you," they are revived from their trouble, made certain and confident that after
all the perils of temptations they shall dwell with Christ in the presence of God. For,
albeit one is stronger than another, one wiser than another, one more righteous than
another, "in the Father's house there are many mansions; none of them shall remain outside
that house, where every one, according to his deserts, is to receive a mansion. All alike
have that penny, which the householder orders to be given to all that have wrought in the
vineyard, making no distinction therein between those who have labored less and those who
have labored more: by which penny, of course, is signified eternal life, whereto no one
any longer lives to a different length than others, since in eternity life has no
diversity in its measure.

But the many mansions point to the different grades of merit in that one eternal life. For
there is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars:
for one star differeth from another star in glory; and so also the resurrection of the
dead. The saints, like the stars in the sky, obtain in the kingdom different mansions of
diverse degrees of brightness; but on account of that one penny no one is cut off from the
kingdom; and God will be all in all in such a way, that, as God is love, love will bring
it about that what is possessed by each will be common to all. For in this way every one
really possesses it, when he loves to see in another what he has not himself. There will
not, therefore, be any envying amid this diversity of brightness, since in all of them
will be reigning the unity of love.

3. Every Christian heart, therefore, must utterly reject the idea of those who imagine
that there are many mansions spoken of, because there will be some place outside the
kingdom of heaven, which shall be the abode of those blessed innocents who have departed
this life without baptism, because without it they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
Faith like this is not faith, inasmuch as it is not the true and catholic faith. Are you
not so foolish and blinded with carnal imaginations as to be worthy of reprobation, if you
should thus separate the mansion, I say not of Peter and Paul, or any of the apostles, but
even of any baptized infant from the kingdom of heaven; do you not think yourselves
deserving of reprobation in thus putting a separation between these and the house of God
the Father? For the Lord's words are not, In the whole world, or, In all creation, or, In
everlasting life and blessedness, there are many mansions; but He says, "In my Father's
house are many mansions. Is not that the house where we have a building of God, a house
not made with hands, eternal in the heavens? Is not that the house whereof we sing to the
Lord, "Blessed are they that dwell in Thy house; they shall praise Thee for ever and
ever"?

Will you then venture to separate from the kingdom of heaven the house, not of every
baptized brother, but of God the Father Himself, to whom all we who are brethren say, "Our
Father, who art in heaven," or divide it in such a way as to make some of its mansions
inside, and some outside, the kingdom of heaven? Far, far be it from those who desire to
dwell in the kingdom of heaven, to be willing to dwell in such folly with you: far be it,
I say, that since every house of sons that are reigning can be nowhere else but in the
kingdom, any part of the royal house itself should be outside the kingdom. 4."And if I
go," He says "and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself;
that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know." O
Lord Jesus, how goest Thou to prepare a place, if there are already many mansions in Thy
Father's house, where Thy people shall dwell with Thyself? Or if Thou receivest them unto
Thyself, how wilt Thou come again, who never withdrawest Thy presence? Such subjects as
these, beloved, were we to attempt to explain them with such brevity as seems within the
proper bounds of our discourse to-day, would certainly suffer in clearness from
compression, and the very brevity would become itself a second obscurity; we shall
therefore deferthis debt, which the bounty of our Family head will enable us to repay at a
more suitable opportunity.

TRACTATE 68

On the same passage. 1. We acknowledge, beloved brethren, that we are owing you, and ought
now to repay, what was left over for consideration, how we can understand that there is no
real mutual contrariety between these two statements, namely, that after saying, "In my
Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you, that I go to
prepare a place for you;"-where He makes it clear enough that He said so to them for the
very reason that there are many mansions there already, and there is no need of preparing
any; -the Lord again says: "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and
receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. How is it that He goes and
prepares a place, if there are many mansions already? If there were not such, He would
have said, "I go to prepare. Or if the place has still to be prepared, would He not then
also properly have said, "I go to prepare"? Are these mansions in existence already, and
yet needing still to be prepared? For if they were not in existence, He would have said,
"I go to prepare. And yet, because their present state of existence is such as still to
stand in need of preparation, He does not go to prepare them in the same sense as they
already exist;

but if He go and prepare them as they shall be hereafter, He will come again and receive
His own to Himself: that where He is, there they may be also. How then are there mansions
in the Father's house, and these not different ones but the same, which already exist in a
sense in which they can admit of no preparation, and yet do not exist, inasmuch as they
are still to be prepared? How are we to think of this, but in the same way as the prophet,
who also declares of God, that He has [already] made that which is yet to be. For he says
not, Who will make what is yet to be, but, "Who has made what is yet to be. Therefore He
has both made such things and is yet to make them. For they have not been made at all if
He has not made them; nor will they ever be if He make them not Himself. He has made them
therefore in the way of fore-ordaining them; He has yet to make them in the way of actual
elaboration. Just as the Gospel plainly intimates when He chose His disciples, that is to
say, at the time of His calling them; and yet the apostle says, "He chose us before the
foundation of the world," to wit, by predestination, not by actual calling. "And whom He
did predestinate, them He also called; He hath chosen by predestination before the
foundation of the world, He chooses by calling before its close.

And so also has He prepared those mansions, and is still preparing them and He who has
already made the things which are yet to be, is now preparing, not different ones, but the
very mansions He has already prepared: what He has prepared in predestination, He is
preparing by actual working. Already, therefore; they are, as respects predestination; if
it were not so, He would have said, I will go and prepare, that is, I will predestinate.
But because they are not yet in a state of practical preparedness He says, "And if I go
and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself." 2. But He is
in a certain sense preparing the dwellings by preparing for them the dwellers. As, for
instance, when He said, "In my Father's house are many dwellings," what else can we
suppose the house of God to mean but the temple of God? And what that is, ask the apostle,
and he will reply, "For the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are" This is also the
kingdom of God, which the Son is yet to deliver up to the Father; and hence the same
apostle says, "Christ, the beginning, and then they that are Christ's in His presence;
then [cometh] the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the
Father; that is, those whom He has redeemed by His blood, He shall then have delivered up
to stand before His Father's face. This is that kingdom of heaven whereof it is said, "The
kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man who sowed good seed in his field. But the good
seed are the children of the kingdom; and although now they are mingled with tares, at the
end the King Himself shall send forth His angels, "and they shall gather out of His
kingdom all things that offend. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the
kingdom of their Father. The kingdom will shine forth in the kingdom when [those that are]
the kingdom shall have reached the kingdom; just as we now pray when we say, "Thy kingdom
come.

Even now, therefore, already is the kingdom called, but only as yet being called together.
For if it were not now called, it could not be then said, "They shall gather out of His
kingdom everything that offends. But the realm is not yet reigning. Accordingly it is
already so far the kingdom, that when all offences shall have been gathered out of it, it
shall then attain to sovereignty, so as to possess not merely the name of a kingdom, but
also the power of government. For it is to this kingdom, standing then at the right hand,
that it shall be said in the end, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom;
that is, ye who were the kingdom, but without the power to rule, come and reign; that what
you formerly were only in hope, you may now have the power to be in reality. This house of
God, therefore, this temple of God, this kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven, is as yet
in the process of building, of construction, of preparation, of assembling. In it there
will be mansions, even as the Lord is now preparing them; in it there are such already,
even as the Lord has already ordained them.

3. But why is it that He went away to make such preparation, when, as it is certainly we
ourselves that are the subjects in need of preparation, His doing so will be hindered by
leaving us behind? I explain it, Lord, as I can: it was surely this Thou didst signify by
the preparation of those mansions, that the just ought to live by faith. For he who is
sojourning at a distance from the Lord has need to be living by faith, because by this we
are prepared for beholding His countenance. For "blessed are the pure in heart, for they
shall see God; and "He purifieth their hearts by faith. The former we find in the Gospel,
the latter in the Acts of the Apostles. But the faith by which those who are yet to see
God have their hearts purified, while sojourning at a distance here, believeth what it
cloth not see; for if there is sight, there is no longer faith. Merit is accumulating now
to the believer, and then the reward is paid into the hand of the beholder. Let the Lord
then go and prepare us a place; let Him go, that He may not be seen; and let Him remain
concealed, that faith may be exercised. For then is the place preparing, if it is by faith
we are living. Let the believing in that place be desired, that the place desired may
itself be possessed; the longing of love is the preparation of the mansion.

Prepare thus, Lord, what Thou art preparing; for Thou art preparing us for Thyself, and
Thyself for us, inasmuch as Thou art preparing a place both for Thyself in us, and for us
in Thee. For Thou hast said, "Abide in me, and I in you. As far as each one has been a
partaker of Thee, some less, some more, such will be the diversity of rewards in
proportion to the diversity of merits; such will be the multitude of mansions to suit the
inequalities among their inmates; but all of them, none the less, eternally living, and
endlessly blessed. Why is it that Thou goest away? Why is it Thou comest again? If I
understand Thee aright, Thou withdrawest not Thyself either from the place Thou goest
from, or from the place Thou comest from: Thou goest away by becoming invisible, Thou
comest by again becoming manifest to our eyes. But unless Thou remainest to direct us how
we may still be advancing in goodness of life, how will the place be prepared where we
shall be able to dwell in the fullness of joy? Let what we have said suffice on the words
which have been read from the Gospel as far as "I will come again, and receive you to
myself. But the meaning of what follows, "That where I am, there ye may be also;

and whither I go ye know, and the way ye know," we shall be in a better condition-after
the question put by the disciple, that follows, and which we also may be putting, as it
were, through him-for hearing, and more suitably situated for making the subject of our
discourse.

TRACTATE 69

John XIV. 4-6. 1. We have now the opportunity, dearly, beloved, as far as we can, of
understanding the earlier words of the Lord from the later, and His previous statements by
those that follow, in what you have heard was His answer to the question of the Apostle
Thomas. For when the Lord was speaking above of the mansions, of which He both said that
they already were in His Father's house, and that He was going to prepare them; where we
understood that those mansions already existed in predestination, and are also being
prepared through the purifying by faith of the hearts of those who are hereafter to
inhabit them, seeing that they themselves are the very house of God; and what else is it
to dwell in God's house than to be in the number of His people, since His people are at
the same time in God, and God in them? To make this preparation the Lord departed, that by
believing in Him, though no longer visible, the mansion, whose outward form is always hid
in the future, may now by faith be prepared: for this reason, therefore, He had said, "And
if I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come i again, and receive you to myself;
that whereI am, there ye may be also. And whither I goye know, and the way ye know. In
replyto this "Thomas saith unto Him Lord, we know not whither Thou goest: and how can we
know the way?

Both of these the Lord had said that they knew; both of them this other declares that he
does not know, to wit, the place to which, and the way whereby, He is going. But he does
not know that he is speaking falsely; they knew, therefore, and did not know that they
knew. He will convince them that they already know what they imagine themselves still to
be ignorant of. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. What,
brethren, does He mean? See, we have just heard the disciple asking, and the Master
instructing, and we do not yet, even after His voice has sounded in our ears, apprehend
the thought that lies hid in His words. But what is it we cannot apprehend? Could His
apostles, with whom He was talking, have said to Him, We do not know Thee? Accordingly, if
they knew Him, and He Himself is the way, they knew the way; if they knew Him who is
Himself the truth, they knew the truth; if they knew Him who is also the life, they knew
the life. Thus, you see, they were convinced that they knew what they knew not that they
knew.

2. What is it, then, that we also have not apprehended in this discourse? What else, think
you, brethren, but just that He said, "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know"? And
here we have discovered that they knew the way, because they knew Him who is the way: the
way is that by which we go; but is the way the place also to which we go? And yet each of
these He said that they knew, both whither He was going, and the way. There was need,
therefore, for His saying, "I am the way," in order to show those who knew Him that they
knew the way, which they thought themselves ignorant of; but what need was there for His
saying, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," when, after knowing the way by which
He went, they had still to learn whither He was going, but just because it was to the
truth and to the life He was going? By Himself, therefore, He was going to Himself. And
whither go we, but to Him, and by what way go we, but by Him? He, therefore, went to
Himself by Himself, and we by Him to Him; yea, likewise both He and we go thus to the
Father. For He says also in another place of Himself, "I go to the Father; and here on our
account He says, "No man cometh unto the Father but by me.

And in this way, He goeth by Himself both to Himself and to the Father, and we by Him both
to Him and to the Father. Who can apprehend such things save he who has spiritual
discernment? and how much is it that even he can apprehend, although thus spiritually
discerning? Brethren, how can you desire me to explain such things to you? Only reflect
how lofty they are. You see what I am, I see what you are; in all of us the body, which is
corrupted, burdens the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down the mind that museth
upon many things. Do we think we can say, "To Thee have I lifted up my soul, O Thou that
dwellest in the heavens"? But burdened as we are with so great a weight, under which we
groan, how shall I lift up my soul unless He lift it with me who laid His own down for me?
I shall speak then as I can, and let each of you who is able receive it. As He gives, I
speak; as He gives, the receiver receiveth; and as He giveth, there is faith for him who
cannot yet receive with understanding. For, saith the prophet, "If ye will not believe, ye
shall not understand."

3. Tell me, O my Lord, what to say to Thy servants, my fellow-servants. The Apostle Thomas
had Thee before him in order to ask Thee questions, and yet could not understand Thee
unless he had Thee within him; I ask Thee because I know that Thou art over me; and I ask,
seeking, as far as I can, to let my soul diffuse itself in that same region over me where
I may listen to Thee, who usest no external sound to convey Thy teaching. Tell me, I pray,
how it is that Thou goest to Thyself. Didst Thou formerly leave Thyself to come to us,
especially as Thou camest not of Thyself, but the Father sent Thee? I know, indeed, that
Thou didst empty Thyself; but in taking the form of a servant, it was neither that Thou
didst lay down the form of God as something to return to, or that Thou lost it as
something to be recovered; and yet Thou didst come, and didst place Thyself not only
before the carnal eyes, but even in the very hands of men. And how otherwise save in Thy
flesh? By means of this Thou didst come, yet abiding where Thou wast; by this means Thou
didst return, without leaving the place to which Thou hadst come. If, then, by such means
Thou didst come and return, by such means doubtless Thou art not only the way for us to
come unto Thee, but wast the way also for Thyself to come and to return.

For when Thou didst return to the life, which Thou art Thyself, then of a truth that same
flesh of Thine Thou didst bring from death unto life. The Word of God, indeed, is one
thing, and man another; but the Word was made flesh, or became man. And so the person of
the Word is not different from that of the man, seeing that Christ is both in one person;
and in this way, just as when His flesh died. Christ died, and when His flesh was buried,
Christ was buried (for thus with the heart we believe unto righteousness, and thus with
the mouth do we make confession unto salvation ); so when the flesh came from death unto
life, Christ came to life. And because Christ is the Word of God, He is also the life. And
thus in a wonderful and ineffable manner He, who never laid down or lost Himself, came to
Himself. But God, as was said, had come through the flesh to men, the truth to liars; for
God is true, and every man a liar. When, therefore, He withdrew His flesh from amongst
men, and carried it up there where no liar is found, He also Himself-for the Word was made
flesh-returned by Himself, that is, by His flesh, to the truth, which is none other but
Himself. And this truth, we cannot doubt, although found amongst liars, He preserved even
in death; for Christ was once dead, but never false.

4. Take an example, very different in character and wholly inadequate, yet in some little
measure helpful to the understanding of God, from things that are in peculiarly intimate
subjection to God. See here in my own case, while as far as pertains to my mind I am just
the same as yourselves, if I keep silence I am so to myself; but if I speak to you
something suited to your understanding, in a certain sense I go forth to you without
leaving myself, but at the same time approach you and yet quit not the place from which I
proceed. But when I cease speaking, I return in a kind of way to myself, and in a kind of
way I remain with you, if you retain what you have heard in the discourse I am delivering.
And if the mere image that God made is capable of this, what may not God, the very image
of God, not made by, but born of God; whose body, wherein He came forth to us and returned
from us, has not ceased to be, like the sound of my voice, but abides there, where it
shall die no more, and death shall have no more dominion over it? Much more, perhaps,
might and ought to have been said on these words of the Gospel; but your souls ought not
to be burdened with spiritual food, however pleasant, especially as the spirit is willing,
but the flesh is weak.

TRACTATE 70

John XIV. 7-10. 1. The words of the holy Gospel, brethren, are rightly understood only if
they are found to be in harmony with those that precede; for the premises ought to agree
with the conclusion, when it is the Truth that speaks. The Lord had said before, "And if I
go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself; that where
I am, there ye may be also: and then had added, "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye
know; and showed that all He said was that they knew himself. What, therefore, the meaning
was of His going to Himself by Himself,-for He also lets the disciples see that it is by
Him that they are to come to Him,-we have already told you, as we could, in our last
discourse. When He says, therefore, "That where I am, there ye may be also," where else
were they to be but in Himself? In this way is He also in Himself, and they, therefore,
are just where He is, that is, in Himself. Accordingly, He Himself is that eternal life
which is yet to be ours, when He has received us unto Himself; and as He is that life
eternal, so is it in Him, that where He is there shall we be also, that is to say, in
Himself.

"For as the Father hath life in Himself," and certainly that life which He has is in no
wise different from what He is Himself as its possessor, "so hath He given to the Son to
have life in Himself," inasmuch as He is the very life which He hath in Himself. But shall
we then actually be what He is, (namely), the life, when we shall have begun our existence
in that life, that is, in Himself? Certainly not, for He, by His very existence as the
life, hath life, and is Himself what He hath; and as the life, is in Him, so is He in
Himself: but we are not that life, but partakers of His life, and shall be there in such
wise as to be wholly incapable of being in ourselves what He is, but so as, while
ourselves not the life, to have Him as our life, who has Himself the life on this very
account that He Himself is the life. In short, He both exists unchangeably in Himself and
inseparably in the Father. But we, when wishing to exist in ourselves, were thrown into
inward trouble regarding ourselves, as is expressed in the words, "My soul is cast down
within me: and changing from bad to worse, cannot even remain as we were.

But when by Him we come unto the Father, according to His own words, "No man cometh unto
the Father but by me," and abide in Him, no one shall be able to separate us either from
the Father or from Him. 2. Connecting, therefore, His previous words with those that
follow, He proceeded to say, "If ye had known me, ye should certainly have known my Father
also. This conforms to His previous words, "No man cometh unto the Father but by me. And
then He adds: "And from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him. But Philip, one of the
apostles, not understanding what he had just heard, said, "Lord, show us the Father, and
it sufficeth us. And the Lord replied to him, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet
have ye not known me, Philip? he that seeth me, seeth also the Father. Here you see He
complains that He had been so long time with them, and yet He was not known. But had He
not Himself said, "And whither Igo ye know, and the way ye know; and on their saying that
they knew it not, had convinced them that they did know, by adding the words: "I am the
way, and the truth, and the life"? How, then, says He now, "Have I been so long time with
you, and have ye not known me? when, in fact, they knew both whither He went and the way,
on no other grounds save that they really knew Himself? But this difficulty is easily
solved by saying that some of them knew Him, and others did not, and that Philip was one
of those who did not know Him;

so that, when He said, "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know," He is understood
as having spoken to those that knew, and not to Philip, who has it said to him, "Have I
been so long time with you, and have ye not known me, Philip? To such, then, as already
knew the Son, was it now also said of the Father, "And from henceforth ye know Him, and
have seen Him: for such words were used because of the all-sided likeness subsisting
between the Father and the Son; so that, because they knew the Son, they might henceforth
be said to know the Father. Already, therefore, they knew the Son, if not all of them,
those at least to whom it is said, "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know; for He
is Himself the way. But they knew not the Father, and so have also to hear, "If ye have
known me, ye have known my Father also; that is, through me ye have known Him also. For I
am one, and He another. But that they might not think Him unlike, He adds, "And from
henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him. For they saw His perfectly resembling Son, but
needed to have the truth impressed on them, that exactly such as was the Son whom they
saw,was the Father also whom they did not see. And to this points what is afterwards said
to Philip, "He that seeth me, seeth also the Father.

Not that He Himself was Father and Son, which is a notion of the Sabellians, who are also
called Patripassians, condemned by the Catholic faith; but that Father and Son are so
alike, that hewho knoweth one knoweth both. For we are accustomed to speak in this way of
two who closely resemble each other, to those who are in the habit of seeing one of them,
and wish to know what like the other is, so that we say, In seeing the one, you have seen
the other. In this way, then, is it said "He that seeth me, seeth also the Father. Not,
certainly, that He who is the Son is also the Father, but that the Son in no respect
disagrees with the likeness of the Father. For had not the Father and Son been two
persons, it would not have been said, "If ye have known me, ye have known my
Fatheralso"Such is certainly the case for "no one," He says, "cometh unto the Father but
by me: if ye have known me, ye have known my Father also; because it is I, who am the only
way to the Father, that will lead you to Him, that He also may Himself become known to
you. But as I am in all respects His perfect image, "from henceforth ye know Him" in
knowing me; "and have seen Him," if you have seen me with the spiritual eyesight of the
soul.

3. Why, then, Philip, dost thou say," Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us? Have I been
so long time with you, and yet have ye not known me, Philip? He that seeth me, seeth the
Father also. If it interests thee much to see this, believe at least what thou seest not.
For "how," He says, "sayest thou, Show us the Father? If thou hast seen me, who am His
perfect likeness, thou hast seen Him to whom I am like. And if thou canst not directly see
this, "believest thou not," at least, "that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? But
Philip might say here, "I see Thee indeed, and believe Thy full likeness to the Father;
but is one to be reproved and rebuked because, when he sees one who bears a likeness to
another, he wishes to see that other to whom he is like? I know, indeed, the image, but as
yet I know only the one without the other; it is not enough for me, unless I know that
other whose likeness he bears. Show us, therefore, the Father, and it sufficeth us. But
the Master really reproved the disciple because He saw into the heart of his questioner.
For it was with the idea, as if the Father were somehow better than the Son, that Philip
had the desire to know the Father: and so he did not even know the Son, because believing
that He wasinferior to another.

It was to correct such a notion that it was said, "He that seeth me, seeth the Father
also. How sayest thou, Show us the Father? I see the meaning of thy words: it is not the
original likeness thou seekest to see, but it is that other thou thinkest the superior.
"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Why desirest thou to
discover some distance between those who are thus alike? why cravest thou the separate
knowledge of those who cannot be separated?What, after this, He says not only to Philip,
but to all of them together, must not now be thrust into a corner, in order that, by His
help, it may be the more carefully expounded.

TRACTATE 71

John XIV. 10-14. 1. Give close attention, and try to understand, beloved; for while it is
we who speak it is He Himself who never withdraweth His presence from us who is our
Teacher. The Lord saith, what you have just heard read "The words that I speak unto you, I
speak not of myself: but the Father, that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works." Even His
words, then, are works? Clearly so. For surely he that edifies a neighbor by what he says,
works a good work. But what mean the words, "I speak not of myself," but, I who speak am
not of myself? Hence He attributes what He does to Him, of whom He, that doeth them, is.
For the Father is not God [as born, etc.] of any one else, while the Son is God, as equal,
indeed, to the Father, but [as born] of God the Father. Therefore the former is God, but
not of God; and the Light, but not of light: whereas the latter is God of God, Light of
Light.

2. For in connection with these two clauses,-the one where it is said, "I speak not of
myself; and the other, which runs, "but the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the
works,"-we are opposed by two different classes of heretics, who, by each of them holding
only to one clause, run off, not in one, but opposite directions, and wander far from the
pathway of truth. For instance, the Arians say, See here, the Son is not equal to the
Father, He speaketh not of Himself. The Sabellians, or Patripassians, on the other hand,
say, See, He who is the Father is also the Son; for what else is this, "The Father that
dwelleth in me, He doeth the works," but I that do them dwell in myself? You make contrary
assertions, and that not only in the sense that any one thing is false, that is, contrary
to truth, but in this also, when two things that are both false contradict one another. In
your wanderings you have taken opposite directions; midway between the two is the path you
have left. You are a far longer distance apart from each other than from the very way you
have both forsaken. Come hither, you from the one side, and you from the other: pass not
across, the one to the other, but come from both sides to us, and make this the place of
your mutual meeting. Ye Sabellians, acknowledge the Being you overlook;

Arians, set Him whom you subordinate in His place of equality, and you will both be
walking with us in the pathway of truth. For you have grounds on both sides that make
mutual admonition a duty. Listen, Sabellian: so far is the Son from being the same as the
Father, and so truly is He another, that the Arian maintains His inferiority to the
Father. Listen, Arian: so truly is the Son equal to the Father, that the Sabellian
declares Him to be identical with the Father. Do thou restore the personality thou hast
abstracted, and thou, the full dignity thou hast lowered, and both of you stand together
on the same ground as ourselves: because the one of you [who has been an Arian], for the
conviction of the Sabellian, never lets out of sight the personality of Him who is
distinct from the Father, and the other [who has been a Sabellian] takes care, for the
conviction of the Arian, of not impairing the dignity of Him who is equal with the Father.
For to both of you He cries, "I and my Father are one. When He says "one," let the Arians
listen; when He says, "we are," let the Sabellians give heed, and no longer continue in
the folly of denying, the one, His equality [with the Father], the other, His distinct
personality.

If, then, in saying, "The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself," He is
thereby accounted of a power so inferior, that what He doeth is not what He Himself
willeth; listen to what He also said, "As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth
them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. And so likewise, if in saying, "The Father
that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works," He is on that account not to be regarded as
distinct in person from the Father, let us listen to His other words, "What things soever
the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise; and He will be understood as speaking
not of one person twice over, but of two who are one. But just because their mutual
equality is such as not to interfere with their distinct personality, therefore He
speaketh not of Himself, because He is not of Himself and the Father also, that dwelleth
in Him, Himself doeth the works, because He, by whom and with whom He doeth them, is not,
save of [the Father] Himself. And then He goes on to say, "Believe ye not that I am in the
Father, and the Father in me? Or else believe me for the very works' sake. Formerly it was
Philip only who was reproved, but now, it is shown that he was not the only one there that
needed reproof. "For the very works' sake," He says, "believe ye that I am in the Father,
and the Father in me:

for had we been separated, we should have been unable to do any kind of work inseparably.
3. But what is this that follows? "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on
me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do;
because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that
the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.
And so He promised that He Himself would also do those greater works. Let not the servant
exalt himself above his Lord, or the disciple above his Master. He says that they will do
greater works than He doeth Himself; but it is all by His doing such in or by them, and
not as if they did them of themselves. Hence the song that is addressed to Him, "I will
love Thee, O Lord, my strength. But what, then, are those greater works? Was it that their
very shadow, as they themselves passed by, healed the sick? For it is a mightier thing for
a shadow, than for the hem of a garment, to possess the power of healing. The one work was
done by Christ Himself, the other by them; and yet it was He that did both. Nevertheless,
when He so spake, He was commending the efficacious power of His own words: for it was in
this sense He had said, "The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself;

but the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works. What works was He then referring
to, but the words He was speaking? They were hearing and believing, and their faith was
the fruit of those very words: howbeit, when the disciples preached the gospel, it was not
small numbers like themselves, but nations also that believed; and such, doubtless, are
greater works. And yet He said not, Greater works than these shall ye do, to lead us to
suppose that it was only the apostles who would do so; for He added, "He that believeth on
me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do. Is the
case then so, that he that believeth on Christ doeth the same works as Christ, or even
greater than He did? Points like these are not to be treated in a cursory way, nor ought
they to be hurriedly disposed of; and, therefore, as our present discourse must be brought
to a close,we are obliged to defer their further consideration.

TRACTATE 72

On the same passage. 1. It is no easy matter to comprehend what is meant by, or in what
sense we are to receive, these words of the Lord, "He that believeth on me, the works that
I do shall he do also: and then, to this great difficulty in the way of our understanding,
He has added another still more difficult, "And greater things than these shall he do.
What are we to make of it? We have not found one who did such works as Christ did; and are
we likely to find one who will do even greater? But we remarked in our last discourse,
that it was a greater deed to heal the sick by the passing of their shadow, as was done by
the disciples, than as the Lord Himself did by the touch of the hem of His garment; and
that more believed on the apostles than on the Lord Himself, when preaching with His own
lips; so that we might suppose works like these to be understood as greater: not that the
disciple was to be greater than his Master, or the servant than his Lord, or the adopted
son than the Only-begotten, or man than God, but that by them He Himself would condescend
to do these greater works, while telling them in another passage, "Without me ye can do
nothing. While He Himself, on the other hand, to say nothing of His other works, which are
numberless, made them without any aid from themselves,and without them made this world;

and because He Himself thought meet to become man, without them He made also Himself. But
what have they [made or done] without Him, save sin? And last of all, He straightway also
withdrew from the subject all that could cause us agitation; for after saying, "He that
believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall
he do; He immediately went on to add, "Because I go unto the Father; and whatsoever ye
shall ask in my name, that will I do. He who had said, "He will do," afterwards said, "I
will do; as if He had said, Let not this appear to you impossible; for he that believeth
on me can never become greater than I am, but it is I who shall then be doing greater
things than now; greater things by him that believeth on me, than by myself apart from
him; yet it is I myself apart from him, and I myself by him [that will do the works]: and
as it is apart from him, it is not he that will do them; and as, on the other hand, it is
by him, although notby his own self, it is he also that will do them. And besides, to do
greater things by one than apart from one, is not a sign of deficiency, but of
condescension. For what can servants render unto the Lord for all His benefits towards
them?

And sometimes He hath condescended to number this also amongst His other benefits towards
them, namely, to do greater works by them than apart from them Did not that rich man go
away sad from His presence, when seeking counsel about eternal life? He heard, and cast it
away: and yet in after days the counsel that fell on his ears was followed, not by one,
but by many, when the good Master was speaking by the disciples; He was an object of
contempt to the rich man, when warned by Himself directly, and of love to those whom by
means of poor men He transformed from rich into poor. Here, then, you see, He did greater
works when preached by believers, than when speaking Himself to hearers. 2. But there is
still something to excite thought in His doing such greater works by the apostles; for He
said not, as if merely with reference to them, The works that I do shall ye do also; and
greater works than these shall ye do: but wishing to be understood as speaking of all that
belonged to His family, said, "He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do
also; and greater works than these shall he do. If, then, he that believeth shall do such
works, he that shall do them not is certainly no believer: just as "He that loveth me,
keepeth my commandments," implies, of course, that he who keepeth them not, loveth not. In
another place, also, He says, "He that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I
will liken him unto a wise man, who buildeth his house ripen a rock; and he, therefore,
who is unlike this wise man, without doubt either heareth these sayings and doeth them
not, or faileth even to hear them. "He that believeth in me," He says, "though he die, yet
shall he live; and he, therefore, that shall not live, is certainly no believer now. In a
similar way, also, it is said here, "He that believeth in me shall do [such works]: he is,
therefore, no believer who shall not do so. What have we here, then, brethren? Is it that
one is not to be reckoned among believers in Christ, who shall not do greater works than
Christ?

It were hard, unreasonable, intolerable, to suppose so; that is, unless it be rightly
understood. Let us listen, then, to the apostle, when he says, "To him that believeth on
Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. This is the work
in which we may be doing the works of Christ, for even our very believing in Christ is the
work of Christ. It is this He worketh in us, not certainly without us. Hear now, then, and
understand, "He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also: I do them
first, and he shall do them afterwards; for I do such works that he may do them also. And
what are the works, but the making of a righteous man out of an ungodly one? 3. "And
greater works than these shall he do. Than what, pray? Shall we say that one is doing
greater works than all that Christ did who is working out his own salvation with fear and
trembling? A work which Christ is certainly working in him, but not without him; and one
which I might, without hesitation, call greater than the heavens and the earth, and all in
both within the compass of our vision. For both heaven and earth shall pass away, but the
salvation and justification of those predestinated thereto, that is, of those whom He
foreknoweth, shall continue forever. In the former there is only the working of God, but
in the latter there is also His image. But there are also in the heavens, thrones,
governments, principalities, powers, archangels, and angels, which are all of them the
work of Christ; and is it, then, greater works also than these that he doeth, who, with
Christ working in him, is a co-worker in his own eternal salvation and justification? I
dare not call for any hurried decision on such a point: let him who can, understand, and
let him who can, judge whether it is a greater work to create righteous beings than to
make righteous the ungodly.

For at least, if there is equal power employed in both, there is greater mercy in the
latter, For "this is the great mystery of godliness which was manifested in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the
world, received up into glory. But when He said, "Greater works than these shall he do,"
there is no necessity requiring us to suppose that all of Christ's works are to be
understood. For He spake, perhaps, only of these He was now doing; and the work He was
doing at that time was uttering the words of faith, and of such works specially had He
spoken just before when He said, "The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself:
but the Father, that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works. His words, accordingly, were
Hisworks. And it is assuredly something less to preach the words of righteousness, which
He did apart from us, than to justify the ungodly, which He does in such a way in us that
we also are doing it ourselves. It remains for us to inquire how the words are to be
understood, "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, I will do it. Because of the many things
His believing ones ask, and receive not, there is no small question claiming our
attention; but as this discourse must now be concluded, we must allow at least a little
delay for its consideration and discussion.

TRACTATE 73

Again on the same passage. 1. The Lord, by His promise, gave those whose hopes were
resting on Himself a special ground of confidence, when He said, "For I go to the Father;
and whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, I will do it. His proceeding, therefore, to the
Father, was not with any view of abandoning the needy, but of hearing and answering their
petitions. But what is to be made of the words, "Whatsoever ye shall ask," when we behold
His faithful ones so often asking and not receiving? Is it, shall we say, for no other
reason but that they ask amiss? For the Apostle James made this a ground of reproach when
he said, "Ye ask and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your
lusts. What one, therefore, wishes to receive, in order to turn to an improper use, God in
His mercy rather refuses to bestow. Nay, more, if a man asks what would, if answered, only
tend to his injury, there is surely greater cause to fear, lest what God could not
withhold with kindness, He should give in His anger. Do we not see how the Israelites got
to their own hurt what their guilty lusting craved? For while it was raining manna on them
from heaven, they desired to have flesh to eat. They disdained what they had, and
shamelessly sought what they had not:

as if it were not better for them to have asked not to have their unbecoming desires
gratified with the food that was wanting, but to have their own dislike removed, and be
made themselves to receive aright the food that was provided. For when evil becomes our
delight, and what is good the reverse, we ought to be entreating God rather to win us back
to the love of the good, than to grant us the evil. Not that it is wrong to eat flesh, for
the apostle, speakingof this very thing, says, "Every creature of God is good, and nothing
to be refused which is received with thanksgiving; but because, as he also says, "It is
evil for thatman who eateth with offense; and if so,with offense to man, how much more so
if to God, to whom it was no light offense, on the part of the Israelites, to reject what
wisdom was supplying, and ask for that which lust was craving: although they would not
actually make the request, but murmured because itwas wanting. But to let us know that the
wrong lies not with any creature of God, but with obstinate disobedience and inordinate
desire, it was not in swine's flesh that the first man found death, but in an apple; and
it was not for a fowl, but for a dish of pottage, that Esau lost his birthright.

2. How, then, are we to understand"Whatsoever ye shall ask, I will do it," if there are
some things which the faithful ask, and which God, even purposely on their behalf, leaves
undone? Or ought we to suppose that the words were addressed only to the apostles? Surely
not. For what He has got the length of now saying is in the very line of what He had said
before: "He that believeth in me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works
than these shall he do;" which was the subject of our previous discourse. And that no one
might attribute such power to himself, but rather to make it manifest that even these
greater works were done by Himself, He proceeded to say, "For I go to the Father; and
whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, I will do it." Was it the apostles only that believed
on Him? When, therefore, He said, "He that believeth on me," He spake to those, among whom
we also by His grace are included, who by no means receive everything that we ask. And if
we turn our thoughts even to the most blessed apostles, we find that he who labored more
than they all, yet not he, but the grace of God that was with him, besought the Lord
thrice that the messenger of Satan might depart from him, and received not what he had
asked. What shall we say, beloved? Are we to suppose that the promise here made,
"Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, I will do it," was not fulfilled by Him even to the
apostles? And to whom, then, will ever His promise be fulfilled, if therein He has
deceived His own apostles?

3. Wake up, then, believer, and give careful heed to what is stated here, "in my name: for
in these words He does not say, "whatsoever ye shall ask" in any way; but, "in my name.
How, then, is He called, who promised so great a blessing? Christ Jesus, of course: Christ
means King, and Jesus means Saviour! for certainly it is not any one who is a king that
will save us, but only the Saviour-King; and therefore, whatsoever we ask that is adverse
to the interests of salvation, we do not ask in the name of the Saviour. And yet He is the
Saviour, not only when He does what we ask, but also when He refuses to do so; since by
not doing what He sees to be contrary to our salvation, He manifests Himself the more
fully as our Saviour. For the physician knows which of his patient's requests will be
favorable, and which will be adverse, to his safety; and therefore yields not to his
wishes when asking what is prejudicial, that he may effect his recovery. Accordingly, when
we wish Him to do whatsoever we ask, let it not be in any way, but in His name, that is,
in the name of the Saviour, that we present our petition. Let us not, then, ask aught that
is contrary to our own salvation; for if He do that, He does it not as the Saviour, which
is the name He bears to His faithful disciples.

For He who condescends to be the Saviour of the faithful, is also a Judge to condemn the
ungodly. Whatsoever, therefore, any one that believeth on Him shall ask in that name which
He bears to those who believe on Him, He will do it; for He will do it as the Saviour. But
if one that believeth on Him asketh something through ignorance that is injurious to his
salvation, he asketh it not in the name of the Saviour; for His Saviour He will no longer
be if He do aught to impede his salvation. And hence, in such a case, in not doing what He
is entreated to do, His way is kept the clearer for doing what His name imports. And on
that account, not only as the Saviour, but also as the good Master, He taught us, in the
very prayer He gave us, what we should ask, in order that, whatsoever we shall ask, He may
do it; and that we, too, might thereby understand that we cannot be asking in the Master's
name anything that is inconsistent with the rule of His own instructions.

4. There are some things, indeed, which, although really asked in His name, that is, in
harmony with His character as both Saviour and Master, He doeth not at the time we ask
them, and yet He faileth not to do them. For when we pray that the kingdom of God may
come, it does not imply that He is not doing what we ask, because we do not begin at once
to reign with Him in the everlasting kingdom: for what we ask is delayed, but not denied.
Nevertheless, let us not fail in praying, for in so doing we are as those that sow the
seed; and in due season we shall reap. And even when we are asking aright, let us ask Him
at the same time not to do what we ask amiss; for there is reference to this also in the
Lord's Prayer, when we say, "Lead us not into temptation." For surely the temptation is no
slight one if thine own request be hostile to thy cause. But we must not listen with
indifference to the statement that the Lord (to prevent any from thinking that what He
promised to do to those that asked, He would do without the Father, after saying,
"Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, I will do it") immediately added, "That the Father
may be glorified in the Son: if ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it." In no
respect, therefore, does the Son act without the Father, since He so acts for the very
purpose that in Him the Father may be glorified. The Father, therefore, acts in the Son,
that the Son may be glorified in the Father: and the Son acts in the Father, that the
Father may be glorified in the Son; for the Father and the Son are one.

TRACTATE 74

John XIV. 15-17. 1. We have heard, brethren, while the Gospel was read, the Lord saying:
"If ye love me, keep my commandments: and I will ask the Father, and He shall give you
another Comforter [Paraclete], that He may abide with you for ever; [even] the Spirit of
truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but
ye shall know Him; for He shall dwell with you, and shall be in you. There are many points
which might form the subject of inquiry in these few words of the Lord; but it were too
much for us either to search into all that is here for the searching, or to find out all
that we here search for. Nevertheless, as far as the Lord is pleased to grant us the
power, and in proportion to our capacity and yours, attend to what we ought to say and you
to hear, and receive, beloved, what we on our part are able to give, and apply to Him for
that wherein we fail. It is the Spirit, the Comforter, that Christ has promised to His
apostles; but let us notice the way inwhich He gave the promise. "If ye love me," He says,
"keep my commandments: and I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter,
that He may abide with you for ever: [even] the Spirit of truth. We have here, at all
events, the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, whom the catholic faith acknowledges to be
consubstantial and co-eternal with Father and Son:

He it is of whom the apostle says, "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the
Holy Spirit, who is given unto us. How, then, doth the Lord say, "If ye love me, keep my
commandments: and I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter; when He
saith so of the Holy Spirit, without [having] whom we can neither love God nor keep His
commandments? How can we love so as to receive Him, without whom we cannot love at all? or
how shall we keep the commandments so as to receive Him, without whom we have no power to
keep them? Or can it be that the love wherewith we love Christ has a prior place within
us, so that, by thus loving Christ and keeping His commandments, we become worthy of
receiving the Holy Spirit, in order that the love, not of Christ, which had already
preceded, but of God the Father, may be shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who
is given unto us? Such a thought is altogether wrong. For he who believes that he loveth
the Son, and loveth not the Father, certainly loveth not the Son, but some figment of his
own imagination. And besides, this is the apostolic declaration, "No one saith, Lord
Jesus, but in the Holy Spirit: and who is it that calleth Him Lord Jesus but he that
loveth Him, if he so call Him in the way the apostle intended to be understood?

For many call Him so with their lips, but deny Him in their hearts and works; just as He
saith of such, "For they profess that they know God, but works they deny Him. If it is by
works He is denied, it is doubtless also by works that His name is truly invoked. "No
one," therefore, "saith, Lord Jesus," in mind, in word, in deed, with the heart, the lips,
the labor of the bands,-no one saith, Lord Jesus, but in the Holy Spirit; and no one calls
Him so but he that loveth, And accordingly the apostles were already calling Him Lord
Jesus: and if they called Him so, in no way that implied a feigned utterance, with the
mouth confessing, in heart and works denying Him; if they called Him so in all.
truthfulness of soul, there can be no doubt they loved. And how, then, did they love, but
in the Holy Spirit? And yet they are i commanded to love Him and keep His commandments,
previous and in order to their receiving the Holy Spirit: and yet, without having that
Spirit, they certainly could not love Him and keep His commandments.

2. We are therefore to understand that he who loves has already the Holy Spirit, and by
what he has becomes worthy of a fuller possession, that by having the more he may love the
more. Already, therefore, had the disciples that Holy Spirit whom the Lord promised, for
without Him they could not call Him Lord; but they had Him not as yet in the way promised
by the Lord. Accordingly they both had, and had Him not, inasmuch as they had Him not as
yet to the same extent as He was afterwards to be possessed. They had Him, therefore, in a
more limited sense: He was yet to be given them in an ampler measure. They had Him in a
hidden way, they were yet to receive Him in a way that was manifest; for this present
possession had also a bearing on that fuller gift of the Holy Spirit, that they might come
to a conscious knowledge of what they had. It is in speaking of this gift that the apostle
says: "Now we have received, not the spirit of this world, but the spirit which is of God,
that we may know the things that are freely given to us of God. For that same manifest
bestowal of the Holy Spirit the Lord made, not once, but on two separate occasions. For
close on the back of His resurrection from the dead He breathed on them and said, "Receive
ye the Holy Spirit.

And because He then gave [the Spirit], did He on that account fail in afterwards sending
Him according to His promise? Or was it not the very same Spirit who was both then
breathed upon them by Himself, and afterwards sent by Him from heaven? And so, why that
same giving on His part which took place publicly, also took place twice, is another
question: for it may be that this twofold bestowal of His in a public way took place
because of the two Commandments of love, that is, to our neighbor and to God, in order
that love might be impressively intimated as pertaining to the Holy Spirit, And if any
other reason is to be sought for, we cannot at present allow our discourse to be
improperly prolonged by such an inquiry: provided, however, it be admitted that, without
the Holy Spirit, we can neither love Christ nor keep His commandments; while the less
experience we have of His presence, the less also can we do so; and the fuller our
experience, so much the greater our ability. Accordingly, the promise is no vain one,
either to him who has not [the Holy Spirit], or to him who has. For it is made to him who
has not, in order that he may have; and to him who has, that he may have moreabundantly.
For were it not that He was possessed by some in smaller measure than byothers, St. Elisha
would not have said to St.

Elijah, "Let the spirit that is in thee be in a twofold measure in me. 3. But when John
the Baptist said, "For God giveth not the Spirit by measure," he was speaking exclusively
of the Son of God, who received not the Spirit by measure; for in Him dwelleth all the
fullness of the Godhead. And no more is it independently of the grace of the Holy Spirit
that the Mediator between God and men is the man Christ Jesus: for with His own lips He
tells us that the prophetical utterance had been fulfilled in Himself: "The Spirit of the
Lord is upon me; because He hath anointed me, and hath sent me to preach the gospel to the
poor." For His being the Only-begotten, the equal of the Father, is not of grace, but of
nature; but the assumption of human nature into the personal unity of the Only-begotten is
not of nature, but of grace, as the Gospel acknowledges itself when it says, "And the
child grew, and waxed strong, being filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was in Him."
But to others He is given by measure,-a measure ever enlarging until each has received his
full complement up to the limits of his own perfection. As we are also reminded by the
apostle, "Not to think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think, but to think
soberly; according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." Nor is it the
Spirit Himself that is divided, but the gifts bestowed by the Spirit: for there are
diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

4. But when He says, "I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete," He
intimates that He Himself is also a paraclete. For paraclete is in Latin called advocatus
(advocate); and it is said of Christ, "We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ
the righteous." But He said that the world could not receive the Holy Spirit, in much the
same sense as it is also said, "The minding of the flesh is enmity against God: for it is
not subject to the law of God; neither indeed can be;" just as if we were to say,
Unrighteousness cannot be righteous. For in speaking in this passage of the world, He
refers to those who love the world; and such a love is not of the Father. And thus the
love of this world, which gives us enough to do to weaken and destroy its power within us,
is in direct opposition to the love of God, which is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy
Spirit who is given unto us. "The world," therefore, "cannot receive Him, cause it seeth
Him not, neither knoweth Him." For worldly love possesseth not those invisible eyes,
whereby, save in an invisible way, the Holy Spirit cannot be seen.

5. But ye," He adds, "shall know Him; for He shall dwell with you, and be in you." He will
be in them, that He may dwell with them; He will not dwell with them to the end that He
may be in them: for the being anywhere is prior to the dwelling there. But to prevent us
from imagining that His words, "He shall dwell with you," were spoken in the same sense as
that in which a guest usually dwells with a man in a visible way, He explained what "He
shall dwell with you" meant, when He added the words, "He shall be in you." He is seen,
therefore, in an invisible way: nor can we have any knowledge of Him unless He be in us.
For it is in a similar way that we come to see our conscience within us: for we see the
face of another, but we cannot see our own; but it is our own conscience we see, not
another's. And yet conscience is never anywhere but within us: but the Holy Spirit can be
also apart from us, since He is given that He may also be in us. But we cannot see and
know Him in the only way in which He may be seen and known, unless He be in us.


TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124
======================================

TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124 continued

TRACTATE 75

John XIV. 18-21. 1. After the promise of the Holy Spirit, lest any should suppose that the
Lord was to give Him, as it were, in place of Himself, in any such way as that He Himself
would not likewise be with them, He added the words: "I will not leave you orphans; I will
come to you." Orphani [Greek] are pupilli [parent-less children] in Latin. The one is the
Greek, the other the Latin name of the same thing: for in the psalm where we read, "Thou
art the helper of the fatherless" [in the Latin version, pupillo], the Greek has orphano.
Accordingly, although it was not the Son of God that adopted sons to His Father, or willed
that we should have by grace that same Father, who is His Father by nature, yet in a sense
it is paternal feelings toward us that He Himself displays, when He declares, "I will not
leave you orphans; I will come to you." In the same way He calls us alsohe children of the
bridegroom, when He says, "The time will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away
from them, and then shall the children of the bridegroom fast." And who is the bridegroom,
but Christ the Lord?

2. He then goes on to say, "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more." How so
the world saw Him then; for under the name of the world are to be understood those of whom
He spake above, when saying of the Holy Spirit, "Whom the world cannot receive, because it
seeth Him not, neitherknoweth Him." He was plainly visible to the carnal eyes of the
world, while manifest in the flesh; but it saw not the Word that lay hid in the flesh: it
saw the man, but it saw not God: it saw the covering, but not the Being within. But as,
after the resurrection, even His very flesh, which He exhibited both to the sight and to
the handling of His own, He refused to exhibit to others, we may in this way perhaps
understand the meaning of the words, "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more;
but ye shall see me: because I live, ye shall live also."

3. What is meant by the words, "Because I live, ye shall live also"? Why did He speak in
the present tense of His own living, and in the future of theirs, but just by way of
promise that the life also of the resurrection-body, as it preceded in His own case, would
certainly follow in theirs? And as His own resurrection was in the immediate future, He
put the word in the present tense to signify its speedy approach: but of theirs, as
delayed till the end of the world, He said not, ye live; but, "ye shall live." With
elegance and brevity, therefore, by means of two words, one of them in the present tense
and the other in the future, He gave the promise of two resurrections, to wit, His own in
the immediate future, and ours as yet to come in the end of the world. "Because I live,"
He says, "ye shall live also:" because He liveth, therefore shall we live also. For as by
man is death, by man also is the resurrection of the dead, For as in Adam all die, even so
in Christ shall all be made alive. As it is only through the former that every one is
liable to death, it is only through Christ that any one can attain unto life. Because we
did not live, we are dead; because He lived, we shall live also. We were dead to Him, when
we lived to ourselves; but, because He died in our behalf, He liveth both for Himself and
for us. For, because He liveth, we shall live also. For while we were able of ourselves to
attain unto death, it is not of ourselves also that life can come into our possession.

4. "In that day," He says, "ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in
you." In what day, but in that whereof He said, "Ye shall live also"? For then will it be
that we can see what we believe. For even now is He in us, and we in Him: this we believe
now, but then shall we also know it; although what we know even now by faith, we shall
know then by actual vision. For as long as we are in the body, as it now is, to wit,
corruptible, and encumbering to the soul, we live at a distance from the Lord; for we walk
by faith, not by sight. Then accordingly it will be by sight, for we shall see Him as He
is. For if Christ were not even now in us, the apostle would not say, "And if Christ be in
you, the body is dead indeed because of sin; but the spirit is life because of
righteousness." But that we are also in Him even then, He makes sufficiently clear, when
He says, "I am the vine, ye are the branches." Accordingly in that day, when we shall be
living the life, whereby death shall be swallowed up, we shall know that He is in the
Father, and we in Him, and He in us; for then shall be completed that very state which is
already in the present begun by Him, that He should be in us, and we in Him.

5. "He that hath my commmandments," He adds, "and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me."
He that hath [them] in his memory, and keepeth them in his life; who hath them orally, and
keepeth them morally; who hath them in the ear, and keepeth them in deed; or who hath them
in deed, and keepeth them by perseverance;-"he it is," He says, "that loveth me." By works
is love made manifest as no fruitless application of a name. "And he that loveth me," He
says, "shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."
But what is this, "I will love"? Is it as if He were then only to love, and loveth not at
present? Surely not. For how could the Father love us apart from the Son, or the Son apart
from the Father? Working as They do inseparably, how can They love apart? But He said, "I
will love him," in reference to that which follows, "and I will manifest myself to him."
"I will love, and will manifest;" that is, I will love to the very extent of manifesting.
For this has been the present aim of His love, that we may believe, and keep hold of the
commandment of faith; but then His love will have this for its object, that we may see,
and get that very sight as the reward of our faith: for we also love now, by believing in
that which we shall see hereafter; but then shall we love in the sight of that which now
we believe.

TRACTATE 76

John XIV. 22-24. 1. While the disciples thus question, and Jesus their Master replies to
them, we also, as it were, are learning along with them, when we either read or listen to
the holy Gospel. Accordingly, because the Lord had said, "Yet a little while, and the
world seeth me no more; but ye shall see me," Judas-not indeed His betrayer, who was
surnamed Iscariot, but he whose epistle is read among the canonical Scriptures-asked Him
of this very matter: "Lord, how is it that Thou wilt manifest Thyself unto us, and not
unto the world?" Let us, too, be as it were questioning disciples with them, and listen to
our common Master. For Judas the holy, not the impure, the follower, but not the
persecutor of the Lord, has inquired the reason why Jesus was to manifest Himself to His
own, and not to the world; why it was that yet a little while, and the world should not
see Him, but they should see Him.

2. "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my
Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that
loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings. Here we have set forth the reason why He is to
manifest Himself to His own, and not to that other class whom He distinguishes by the name
of the world; and such is the reason also why the one loveth Him, and the other loveth Him
not. It is the very reason, whereof it is declared in the sacred psalm, "Judge me, O God,
and plead my cause against an unholy nation. For such as love are chosen, because they
love: but those who have not love, though they speak with the tongues of men and angels,
are become a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal; and though they had the gift of
prophecy, and knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and had all faith so that they could
remove mountains, they are nothing; and though they distributed all their substance, and
gave their body to be burnt, it profiteth them nothing. The saints are distinguished from
the world by that love which maketh the one-minded to dwell [together] in a house In this
house Father and Son make their abode, and impart that very love to those whom They shall
also honor at last with this promised self manifestation;

of which the disciple questioned his Master, that not only those who then listened might
learn it from His own lips, but we also from his Gospel. For he had made inquiry about the
manifestation of Christ, and heard [in reply] about His loving and abiding. There is
therefore a kind of inward manifestation of God, which is entirely unknown to the ungodly,
who receive no manifestation of God the Father and the Holy Spirit: of the Son, indeed,
there might have been such, but only in the flesh; and that, too, neither of the same kind
as the other, nor able under any form to remain with them, save only for a little while;
and even that, for judgment, not for rejoicing; for punishment, not for reward. 3. We have
now, therefore, to understand, so far as He is pleased to unfold it, the meaning of the
words, "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye shall see me." It is
true, indeed, that after a little while He was to withdraw even His body, in which the
ungodly also were able to see Him, from their sight; for none of them saw Him after His
resurrection. But since it was declared on the testimony of angels, "He shall so come in
like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven;" and our faith stands to this, that He
will come in the same body to judge the living and the dead; there can be no doubt that He
will then be seen by the world, meaning by the name, those who are aliens from His
kingdom. And, on this account, it is far better to understand Him as having intended to
refer at once to that epoch, when He said, "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no
more," when in the end of the world He shall be taken away from the sight of the damned,
that for the future He may be seen only of those with whom, as those that love Him, the
Father and Himself are making their abode. But He said, "a little while," because that
which appears tedious to men is very brief in the sight of God: for of this same "little
while" our evangelist, John, himself says, "Little children, it is the last time."

4. But further, lest any should imagine that the Father and Son only, without the Holy
Spirit, make their abode with those that love Them, let him recall what was said above of
the Holy Spirit, "Whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth
Him: but ye shall know Him; for He shall dwell with you, and shall be in you" (ver. 17).
Here you see that, along with the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit also taketh up His
abode in the saints; that is to say, within them, as God in His temple. The triune God,
Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, come to us while we are coming to Them: They come with
help, we come with obedience; They come to enlighten, we to behold; They come to fill, we
to contain: that our vision of Them may not be external, but inward; and Their abiding in
us may not be transitory, but eternal. The Son cloth not manifest Himself in such a way as
this to the world: for the world is spoken of in the passage before us as those, of whom
He immediately adds, "He that loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings." These are such as
never see the Father and the Holy Spirit: and see the Son for a little while, not to their
attainment of bliss, but to their condemnation; and even Him, not in the form of God,
wherein He is equally invisible with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but in human form, in
which it was His will to be an object of contempt in suffering, but of terror in judging
the world.

5. But when He added, "And the saying which ye have heard is not mine, but the Father's
who sent me," let us not be filled with wonder or fear: He is not inferior to the Father,
and yet He is not, save of the Father: He is not unequal in Himself, but He is not of
Himself. For it was no false word He uttered when He said, "He that loveth me not, keepeth
not my sayings." He called them, you see, His own sayings; does He, then, contradict
Himself when He said again, "And the saying which ye have heard is not mine"? And,
perhaps, it was on account of some intended distinction that, when He said His own, He
used "sayings" in the plural; but when He said that "the saying," that is, the Word, was
not His own, but the Father's, He wished it to be understood of Himself. For in the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. For as the Word,
He is certainly not His own, but the Father's: just as He is not His own image, but the
Father's; and is not Himself His own Son, but the Father's. Rightly, therefore, does He
attribute whatever He does, as equal, to the Author of all, of whom He has this very
prerogative, that He is in all respects His equal.

TRACTATE 77

John XIV. 25-27. 1. In the preceding lesson of the holy Gospel, which is followed by the
one that has just been read, the Lord Jesus had said that He and the Father would come to
those who loved Them, and make Their abode with them. But He had also already said above
of the Holy Spirit, "But ye shall know Him; for He shall dwell with you, and shall be in
you" (ver. 17): by which we understood that the divine Trinity dwelleth together in the
saints as in His own temple. But now He saith, "These things have I spoken unto you while
[still] dwelling with you." That dwelling, therefore, which He promised in the future, is
of one kind; and this, which He declares to be present, is of another. The one is
spiritual, and is realized inwardly by the mind; the other is corporal, and is exhibited
outwardly to the eye and the ear. The one brings eternal blessedness to those who have
been delivered, the other pays its visits in time to those who await deliverance. As
regards the one, the Lord never withdraws from those who love Him; as regards the other,
He comes and goes. "These things, He says, "have I spoken unto you, while [still] dwelling
with you;" that is, in His bodily presence, wherein He was visibly conversing with them.

2. "But the Comfort," He adds, "[which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my
name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever
I have said unto you. Is it, then, that the Son speaks, and the Holy Spirit teaches, so
that we merely get hold of the words that are uttered by the Son, and then understand them
by the teaching of the Spirit as if the Son could speak without the Holy Spirit, or the
Holy Spirit teach without the Son: or is it not rather that the Son also teacheth and the
Spirit speaketh, and, when it is God that speaketh and teacheth anything, that the Trinity
itself is speaking and teaching? And just because it is a Trinity, its persons required to
be introduced individually, so that we might hear it in its distinct personality, and
understand its inseparable nature. Listen to the Father speaking in the passage where thou
readest, "The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son: listen to Him also teaching, in that
where thou readest, "Ever man that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto
me. The Son, on the other hand, thou hast just heard speaking; for He saith of Himself,
"Whatsoever I have said unto you: and if thou wouldst also know Him as a Teacher, bethink
thyself of the Master, when He saith, "One is your Master, even Christ.

Furthermore, of the Holy Spirit, whom thou hast just been told of as a Teacher in the
words, "He shall teach you all things," listen to Him also speaking, where thou readest in
the Acts of the Apostles, that the Holy Spirit said to the blessed Peter, "Go with them,
for I have sent them. The whole Trinity, therefore, both speaketh and teacheth: but were
it not also brought before us in its individual personality, it would certainly altogether
surpass the power of human weakness to comprehend it. For as it is altogether inseparable
in itself, it could never be known as the Trinity, were it always spoken of inseparably;
for when we speak of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we certainly do not
pronounce them simultaneously, and yet in themselves they cannot be else than
simultaneous. But when He added," He will bring to your remembrance," we ought also to
understand that we are commanded not to forget that these pre-eminently salutary
admonitions are part of that grace which the Holy Spirit brings to our remembrance.

3. "Peace," He said, "I leave with you, my peace I give unto you." It is here we read in
the prophet, "Peace upon peace:" peace He leaves with us when going away, His own peace He
will give us when He cometh in the end. Peace He leaveth with us in this world, His own
peace He will give us in the world to come. His own peace He leaveth with us, and abiding
therein we conquer the enemy. His own peace He will give us when, with no more enemies to
fight, we shall reign as kings. Peace He leaveth with us, that here also we may love one
another: His own peace will He give us, where we shall be beyond the possibility of
dissension. Peace He leaveth with us, that we may not judge one another of what is secret
to each, while here on earth: His own peace will He give us, when He "will make manifest
the counsels of the heart; and then shall every man have praise of God." And yet in Him
and from Him it is that we have peace, whether that which He leaveth with us when going to
the Father, or that which He will give us when we ourselves are brought by Him to the
Father. And what is it He leaveth with us, when ascending from us, save His own presence,
which He never withdraweth? For He Himself is our peace who hath made both one. It is He,
therefore, that becomes our peace, both when we believe that He is, and when we see Him as
He is. For if, so long as we are in this corruptible body that burdens the soul, and are
walking by faith, not by sight, He forsaketh not those who are sojourning at a distance
from Himself; how much more, when we have attained to that sight, shall He fill us with
Himself?

4. But why is it that, when He said, "Peace I leave with you," He did not add, "my; but
when He said, "I give unto you," He there made use of it? Is "my" to be understood even
where it is not expressed, on the ground that what is expressed once may have a reference
to both? Or may it not be that here also we have some underlying truth that has to be
asked and sought for, and opened up to those who knock thereat? For what, if by His own
peace He meant such to be understood as that which He possesses Himself? whereas the
peace, which He leaves us in this world, may more properly be termed our peace than His.
For He, who is altogether without sin, has no elements of discord in Himself; while the
peace we possess, meanwhile, is such that in the midst of it we have still to be saying,
"Forgive us our debts. A certain kind of peace, accordingly, we do possess, inasmuch as we
delight in the law of God after the inward man: but it is not a full peace, for we see
another law in our members warring against the law of our mind. In the same way we have
peace in our relations with one another, just because, in mutually loving, we have a
mutual confidence in one another: but no more is such a peace as that complete, for we see
not the thoughts of one another's hearts;

and we have severally better or worse opinions in certain respects of one another than is
warranted by the reality. And so that peace, although left us by Him, is our peace: for
were it not from Him, we should not be possessing it, such as it is; but such is not the
peace He has Himself. And if we keep what we received to the end, then such as He has
shall we have, when we shall have no elements of discord of our own, and we shall have no
secrets hid from one another in our hearts. But I am not ignorant that these words of the
Lord may be taken so as to seem only a repetition of the same idea, "Peace I leave with
you, my peace I give unto you: so that after saying "peace," He only repeated it in saying
"my peace; and what He had meant in saying "I leave with you," He simply repeated in
saying "I give unto you. Let each one understand it as he pleases; but it is my delight,
as I believe it is yours also, my beloved brethren, to keep such hold of that peace here,
where our hearts are making common cause against the adversary, that we may be ever
longing for the peace which there will be no adversary to disturb.

5. But when the Lord proceeded to say, "Not as the world giveth, give I unto you," what
else does He mean but, Not as those give who love the world, give I unto you? For their
aim in giving themselves peace is that, exempt from the annoyance of lawsuits and wars,
they may find enjoyment, not in God, but in the friendship of the world; andalthough they
give the righteous peace, in ceasing to persecute them, there can be no true peace where
there is no real harmony, because their hearts are at variance. For asone is called a
consort who unites his lot (sortem) with another, so may he be termed concordant whose
heart has entered into a similar union. Let us, therefore, beloved, with whom Christ
leaveth peace, and to whom He giveth His own peace, not after the world's way, but in a
way worthy of Him by whom the world was made, that we should be of one heart with Himself.
having our hearts run into one, that this one heart, set on that which is above, may
escape the corruption of the earth.

TRACTATE 78

John XIV. 27, 28. 1. Wehave just heard, brethren, these words of the Lord, which He
addressed to His disciples: "Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. Ye
have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come unto you: if ye loved me, ye would
surely rejoice, because I go unto the Father; for the Father is greater than I. Their
hearts might have become filled with trouble and fear, simply because of His going away
from them, even though intending to return; lest, possibly, in the very interval of the
shepherd's absence, the wolf should make an onset on the flock. But as God, He abandoned
not those from whom He departed as man: and Christ Himself is at once both man and God.
And so He both went away in respect of His visible humanity, and remained as regards His
Godhead: He went away as regards the nature which is subject to local limitations, and
remained in respect of that which is ubiquitous. Why, then, should their heart be troubled
and afraid, when His quitting their eyesight was of such a kind as to leave unaltered His
presence in their heart? Although even God, who has no local bounds to His presence, may
depart from the hearts of those who turn away from Him, not with their feet, but their
moral character; just as He comes to such as turn to Him, not with their faces, but in
faith, and approach Him in the spirit, and not in the flesh.

But that they might understand that it was only in respect of His human nature that He
said, "I go and come to you," He went on to say, "If ye loved me, ye would surely rejoice,
because I go unto the Father; for the Father is greater than I. And so, then, in that very
respect wherein the Son is not equal to the Father, in that was He to go to the Father,
just as from Him is He hereafter to come to judge the quick and the dead: while in so far
as the Only-begotten is equal to Him that begat, He never withdraws from the Father; but
with Him is everywhere perfectly equal in that Godhead which knows of no local
limitations. For "being as He was in the form of God," as the apostle says, "He thought it
not robbery to be equal with God. For how could that nature be robbery, which was His, not
by usurpation, but by birth? "But He emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of a
servant; and so, not losing the former, but assuming the latter, and emptying Himself in
that very respect wherein He stood forth before us here in a humbler state than that
wherein He still remained with the Father. For there was the accession of a servant-form,
with no recession of the divine: in the assumption of the one there was no consumption of
the other. In reference to the one He says, "The Father is greater than I;

but because of the other, "I and my Father are one." 2. Let the Arian attend to this, and
find healing in his attention; that wrangling may not lead to vanity, or, what is worse,
to insanity. For it is the servant-form which is that wherein the Son of God is less, not
only than the Father, but also than the Holy Spirit; and more than that, less also than
Himself,for He Himself, in the form of God, is greater than Himself. For the man Christ
does not cease to be called the Son ofGod, a name which was thought worthy of being
applied even to His flesh alone as it lay in the tomb. And what else than this do we
confess, when we declare that we believe in the only-begotten Son of God, who, under
Pontius Pilate, was crucified, and buried? And what of Him was buried, save the flesh
without the spirit? And so in believing in the Son of God, who was buried, we surely affix
the name, Son of God, even to His flesh, which alone was laid in the grave. Christ
Himself, therefore, the Son of God, equal with the Father because in the form of God,
inasmuch as He emptied Himself, without losing the form of God, but assuming that of a
servant, is greater even than Himself; because the unlost form of God is greater than the
assumed form of a servant.

And what, then, is there to wonder at, or what is there out of place, if, in reference to
this servant-form, the Son of God says, "The Father is greater than I; and in speaking of
the form of God, the self-same Son of God declares, "I and my Father are one"? For one
they are, inasmuch as "The Word was God; and greater is the Father, inasmuch as "the Word
was made flesh. Let me add what cannot be gainsaid by Arians and Eunomians: in respect of
this servant-form, Christ as a child was inferior also to His own parents, when, according
to Scripture, "He was subject" as an infant to His seniors. Why, then, heretic, seeing
that Christ is both God and man, when He speaketh as man, dost thou calumniate God? He in
His own person commends our human nature; dost thou dare in Him to asperse the divine?
Unbelieving and ungrateful as thou art, wilt thou degrade Him who made thee, just for the
very reason that He is declaring what He became because of thee? For equal as He is with
the Father, the Son, by whom man was made, became man, in order to be less than the
Father: and had He not done so, what would have become of man?

3. May our Lord and Master bring home clearly to our minds the words, "If ye loved me, ye
would surely rejoice, because I go unto the Father; for the Father is greater than I. Let
us, along with the disciples, listen to the Teacher's words, and not, with strangers, give
heed to the wiles of the deceiver. Let us acknowledge the twofold substance of Christ; to
wit, the divine, in which he is equal with the Father, and the human, in respect to which
the Father is greater. And yet at the same time both are not two, for Christ is one; and
God is not a quaternity, but a Trinity. For as the rational soul and the body form but one
man, so Christ, while both God and man, is one; and thus Christ is God, a rational soul,
and a body. In all of these we confess Him to be Christ, we confess Him in each. Who,
then, is He that made the world? Christ Jesus, but in the form of God. Who is it that was
crucified under Pontius Pilate? Christ Jesus, but in the form of a servant. And so of the
several parts whereof He consists as man. Who is He who was not left in hell? Christ
Jesus, but only in respect of His soul. Who was to rise on the third day, after being laid
in the tomb? Christ Jesus, but solely in reference to His flesh.

In reference, then, to each of these, He is likewise called Christ And yet all of them are
not two, or three, but one Christ. On this account, therefore, did He say, "If ye loved
me, ye would surely rejoice, because I go unto the Father; for human nature is worthy of
congratulation, in being so assumed by the only-begotten Word as to be constituted
immortal in heaven, and, earthy in its nature, to be so sublimated and exalted, that, as
incorruptible dust, it might take its seat at the right hand of the Father. In such a
sense it is that He said He would go to the Father. For in very truth He went unto Him,
who was always with Him. But His going unto Him and departing from us were neither more
nor less than His transforming and immortalizing that which He had taken upon Him from us
in its mortal condition, and exalting that to heaven, by means of which He lived on earth
in man's behalf. And who would not draw rejoicing from such a source, who has such love to
Christ that he can at once congratulate his own nature as already immortal in Christ, and
cherish the hope that he himself will yet become so through Christ?

TRACTATE 79

John XIV. 29-31. 1. Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, had said unto His disciples, "If
ye loved me, ye would surely rejoice, because I go unto the Father; for the Father is
greater than I. And that He so spake in His servant-form, and not in that of God, wherein
He is equal with the Father, is well known to faith as it resides in the minds of the
pious, not as it is reigned by the scornful and senseless. And then He added, "And now I
have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.
What can He mean by this, when the fact rather is, that a man ought, before it comes to
pass, to believe that which demands his belief? For it forms the very encomium of faith
when that which is believed is not seen. For what greatness is there in believing what is
seen, as in those words of the same Lord, when, in reproving a disciple, He said, "Because
thou hast seen, thou hast believed; blessed are they that see not, and yet believe. And I
hardly know whether any one can be said to believe what he sees; for this same faith is
thus defined in the epistle addressed to the Hebrews: "Now faith is the substance of those
that hope, the assurance of things not seen.

Accordingly, if faith is in things that are believed, and that, too, in things which are
not seen, what mean these words of the Lord, "And now I have told you before it come to
pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe"? Ought He not rather to have said,
And now I have told you before it come to pass, that ye may believe what, when it is come
to pass, ye shall see? For even he who was told, "Because thou hast seen, thou hast
believed," did not believe only what he saw; but he saw one thing, and believed another:
for he saw Him as man, and believed Him to be God. He perceived and touched the living
flesh, which he had seen in the act of dying, and he believed in the Deity infolded in
that flesh. And so he believed with the mind what he did not see, by the help of that
which was apparent to his bodily senses. But though we may be said to believe what we see,
just as every one says that he believes his own eyes, yet that is not to be mistaken for
the faith which is built up by God in our souls; but from things that are seen, we are
brought to believe in those which are invisible. Wherefore, beloved, in the passage before
us, when our Lord says,"And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is
come to pass, ye might believe;

by the words, "when it is come to pass," He certainly means, that they would yet see Him
after His death, alive, and ascending to His I Father; at the sight of which they should
then be compelled to believe that He was indeed the Christ, the Son of the living God,
seeing He could do such a thing, even after predicting it, and also could predict it
before He did it: and this they should then believe, not with a new, but with an augmented
faith; or at least [with a faith] that had been impaired by His death, and was now
repaired by His resurrection. For it was not that they had not previously also believed
Him to be the Son of God, but when His own predictions were actually fulfilled in Him,
that faith, which was still weak at the time of His here speaking to them, and at the time
of His death almost ceased to exist, sprang up again into new life and increased vigor.

2. But what says He next? "Hereafter I will not talk much with you; for the prince of this
world cometh; and who is that, but the devil? "And hath nothing in me; that is to say, no
sin at all. For by such words He points to the devil, as the prince, not of His creatures,
but of sinners, whom He here designates by the name of this world. And as often as the
name of the world is used in a bad sense, He is pointing only to the lovers of such a
world; of whom it is elsewhere recorded, "Whosoever will be a friend of this world,
becomes the enemy of God. Far be it from us, then, so to understand the devil as prince of
the world, as if he wielded the government of the whole world, that is, of heaven and
earth, and all that is in them; of which sort of world it was said, when we were lecturing
on Christ the Word, "And the world was made by Him. The whole world therefore, from the
highest heavens to the lowest earth, is subject to the Creator, not to the deserter; to
the Redeemer, not to the destroyer; to the Deliverer, not to the enslaver; to the Teacher,
not to the deceiver.

And in what sense the devil is to be understood as the prince of the world, is still more
clearly unfolded by the Apostle Paul, who, after saying, "We wrestle not against flesh and
blood," that is, against men, went on to say, "but against principalities and powers, and
the world-rulers of this darkness. For in the very next word he has explained what he
meant by "world," when he added, "of this darkness; so that no one, by the name of the
world, should understand the whole creation, of which in no sense are fallen angels the
rulers. "Of this darkness," he says, that is, of the lovers of this world: of whom,
nevertheless, there were some elected, not from any deserving of their own, but by the
grace of God, to whom he says, "Ye were sometimes darkness; but now are ye light in the
Lord. For all have been under the rulers of this darkness, that is, [under the rulers] of
wicked men, or darkness, as it were, in subjection to darkness: but "thanks be to God, who
hath delivered us," says the same apostle, "from the power of darkness, and hath
translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love. And in Him the prince of this
world, that is, of this darkness, had nothing; for neither did He come with sin as God,
nor had His flesh any hereditary taint of sin in its procreation by the Virgin.

And, as if it were said to Him, Why, then, dost Thou die, if Thou hast no sin to merit the
punishment of death? He immediately added, "But that the world may know that I love the
Father, and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do: arise, let us go hence. For
He was sitting at table with those who were similarly occupied. But "let us go," He said,
and whither, but to the place where He, who had nothing in Him deserving of death, was to
be delivered up to death? But He had the Father's commandment to die, as the very One of
whom it had been foretold, "Then I paid for that which I took not away; and so appointed
to pay death to the full, while owing it nothing, and to redeem us from the death that was
our due. For Adam had seized on sin as a prey, when, deceived, he presumptuously stretched
forth his hand to the tree, and attempted to invade the incommunicable name of that
Godhead I which was disallowed him, and with which the Son of God was endowed by nature,
and not by robbery.

TRACTATE 80

John XV. 1-3. 1. This passage of the Gospel, brethren, where the Lord calls Himself the
vine, and His disciples the branches, declares in so many words that the Mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus, is the head of the Church, and that we are His members.
For as the vine and its branches are of one nature, therefore, His own nature as God being
different from ours, He became man, that in Him human nature might be the vine, and we who
also are men might become branches thereof. What mean, then, the words, "I am the true
vine"? Was it to the literal vine, from which that metaphor was drawn, that He intended to
point them by the addition of "true"? For it is by similitude, and not by any personal
propriety, that He is thus called a vine; just as He is also termed a sheep, a lamb, a
lion, a rock, a corner-stone, and other names of a like kind, which are themselves rather
the true ones, from which these are drawn as similitudes, not as realities. But when He
says, "I am the true vine," it is to distinguish Himself, doubtless, from that [vine] to
which the words are addressed: "How art thou turned into sourness, as a strange vine?" For
how could that be a true vine which was expected to bring forth grapes and brought forth
thorns?

2. "I am," He says, "the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me
that beareth not fruit, He taketh away; and every one that beareth fruit, He purgeth it,
that it may bring forth more fruit. Are, then, the husbandman and the vine one? Christ is
the vine in the same sense as when He said, "The Father is greater than I; but in that
sense wherein He said, "I and myFather are one," He is also the husbandman. And yet not
such a one as those, whose whole service is confined to external labor; but such, that He
also supplies the increase from within. "For neither is he that planteth anything, neither
he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. But Christ is certainly God, for the
Word was God; and so He and the Father are one: and if the Word was made flesh,-that which
He was not before,-He nevertheless still remains what He was. And still more, after saying
of the Father, as of the husbandman, that He taketh away the fruitless branches, and
pruneth the fruitful, that they may bring forth more fruit, He straightway points to
Himself as also the purger of the branches, when He says, "Now ye are clean through the
word which I have spoken unto you. Here, you see, He is also the pruner of the branches-a
work which belongs to the husbandman, and not to the vine; and more than that, He maketh
the branches His workmen.

For although they give not the increase, they afford some help; but not of themselves:
"For without me," He says, "ye can do nothing."' And listen, also, to their own
confession: "What, then, is Apollos, and what is Paul but ministers by whom ye believed,
even as the Lord gave to every man. I have planted, Apollos watered. And this, too, "as
the Lord gave to every man; and so not of themselves. In that, however, which follows,
"but God gave the increase," He works not by them, but by Himself; for work like that
exceeds the lowly capacity of man, transcends the lofty powers of angels, and rests solely
and entirely in the hands of the Triune Husbandman. "Now ye are clean," that is, clean,
and yet still further to be cleansed. For, had they not been clean, they could not have
borne fruit; and yet every one that beareth fruit is purged by the husbandman, that he may
bring forth more fruit. He bears fruit because he is clean; and to bear more, he is
cleansed still further. For who in this life is so clean as not to be in need of still
further and further cleansing? seeing that, "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us; but if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just
to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness;

to cleanse in very deed the clean, that is, the fruitful, that they may be so much the
more fruitful, as they have been made the cleaner. 3. "Now ye are clean through the word
which I have spoken unto you. Why does He not say, Ye are clean through the baptism
wherewith ye have been washed, but "through the word which I have spoken unto you," save
only that in the water also it is the word that cleanseth? Take away the word, and the
water is neither more nor less than water. The word is added to the element, and there
results the Sacrament, as if itself also a kind of visible word. For He had said also to
the same effect, when washing the disciples' feet, "He that is washed needeth not, save to
wash his feet, but is clean every whit. And whence has water so great an efficacy, as in
touching the body to cleanse the soul, save by the operation of the word; and that not
because it is uttered, but because it is believed? For even in the word itself the passing
sound is one thing, the abiding efficacy another. "This is the word of faith which we
preach," says the apostle, "that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth that Jesus is the
Lord, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shall
be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth
confession is made unto salvation. Accordingly, we read in the Acts of the Apostles,
"Purifying their hearts by faith;

and, says the blessed Peter in his epistle, "Even as baptism doth also now save us, not
the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience. "This is
the word of faith which we preach," whereby baptism, doubtless, is also consecrated, in
order to its possession of the power to cleanse. For Christ, who is the vine with us, and
the husbandman with the Father, "loved the Church, and gave Himself for it. And then read
the apostle, and see what he adds: "That He might sanctify it, cleansing it with the
washing of water by the word. The cleansing, therefore, would on no account be attributed
to the fleeting and perishable element, were it not for that which is added, "by the word.
This word of faith possesses such virtue in the Church of God, that through the medium of
him who in faith presents, and blesses, and sprinkles it, He cleanseth even the tiny
infant, although itself unable as yet with the heart to believe unto righteousness, and to
make confession with the mouth unto salvation. All this is done by means of the word,
whereof the Lord saith, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you."

TRACTATE 81

John XV. 4-7. 1. Jesus called Himself the vine, and His disciples the branches, and His
Father the husbandman; whereon we have already discoursed as we were able. But in the
present passage, while still speaking of Himself as the vine, and of His branches, or, in
other words, of the disciples, He said, "Abide in me, and I in you." They are not in Him
in the same kind of way that He is in them. And yet both ways tend to their advantage, and
not to His. For the relation of the branches to the vine is such that they contribute
nothing to the vine, but from it derive their own means of life; while that of the vine to
the branches is such that it supplies their vital nourishment, and receives nothing from
them. And so their having Christ abiding in them, and abiding themselves in Christ, are in
both respects advantageous, not to Christ, but to the disciples. For when the branch is
cut off, another may spring up from the living root; but that which is cut off cannot live
apart from the root.

2. And then He proceeds to say: "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it
abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me." A great encomium on grace, my
brethren,-one that will instruct the souls of the humble, and stop the mouths of the
proud. Let those now answer it, if they dare, who, ignorant of God's righteousness, and
going about to establish their own, havenot submitted themselves unto the righteousness of
God. Let the self-complacent answer it, who think they have no need of God for the
performance of good works. Fight they not against such a truth, those men of corrupt mind,
reprobate concerning the faith, whose reply is only full of impious talk, when they say:
It is of God that we have our existence as men, but it is of ourselves that we are
righteous? What is it you say, you who deceive yourselves, and, instead of establishing
freewill, cast it headlong down from the heights of its self-elevation through the empty
regions of presumption into the depths of an ocean grave? Why, your assertion that man of
himself worketh righteousness, that is the height of your self-elation. But the Truth
contradicts you, and declares, "The branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in
the vine." Away with you now over your giddy precipices, and, without a spot whereon to
take your stand, vapor away at your windy talk. These are the empty regions of your
presumption. Butlook well at what is tracking your steps, and, if you have any sense
remaining, let your hair stand on end. For whoever imagines that he is bearing fruit of
himself is not in the vine, and he that is not in the vine is not in Christ, and he that
is not in Christ is not a Christian. Such are the ocean depths into which you have
plunged.

3. Ponder again and again what the Truth has still further to say: "I am the vine," He
adds, "ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth
much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing. For just to keep any from supposing that the
branch can bear at least some little fruit of itself, after saying, "the same bringeth
forth much fruit," His next words are not, Without me ye can do but little, but "ye can do
nothing. Whether then it be little or much, without Him it is impracticable; for without
Him nothing can be done. For although, when the branch beareth little fruit, the
husbandman purgeth it that it may bring forth more; yet if it abide not in the vine, and
draw its life from the root, it can bear no fruit whatever of itself. And although Christ
would not have been the vine had He notbeen man, yet He could not have supplied such grace
to the branches had He not also been God. And just because such grace is so essential to
life, that even death itself ceases to be at the disposal of free-will, He adds, "If any
one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and wither; and they shall gather
him, and cast him into the fire, and he is burned.

The wood of the vine, therefore, is in the same proportion the more contemptible if it
abide not in the vine, as it is glorious while so abiding; in fine, as the Lord likewise
says of them in the prophet Ezekiel, when cut off, they are of no use for any purpose of
the husbandman, and can be applied to no labor of the mechanic. The branch is suitable
only for one of two things, either the vine or the fire: if it is not in the vine, its
place will be in the fire; and that it may escape the latter, may it have its place in the
vine. 4. "If ye abide in me," He says, "and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye
will, and it shall be done unto you. For abiding thus in Christ, is there aught they can
wish but what will be agreeable to Christ? So abiding in the Saviour, can they wish
anything that is inconsistent with salvation? Some things, indeed, we wish because we are
in Christ, and other things we desire because still in this world. For at times, in
connection with this our present abode, we are inwardly prompted to ask what we know not
it would be inexpedient for us to receive. But God forbid that such should be given us if
we abide in Christ, who, when we ask, only does what will be for our advantage. Abiding,
therefore, ourselves in Him, when His words abide in us we shall ask what we will, and it
shall be done unto us. For if we ask, and the doing follows not, what we ask is not
connected with our abiding in Him, nor with His words which abide in us, but with that
craving and infirmity of the flesh which are not in Him, and have not His words abiding in
them. For to His words, at all events, belongs that prayer which He taught, and in which
we say, "Our Father, who art in heaven. Let us only not fall away from the words and
meaning of this prayer in our petitions, and whatever we ask, it shall be done unto us.

For then only may His words be said to abide in us, when we do what He has commanded us,
and love what He has promised. But when His words abide only in the memory, and have no
place in the life, the branch is not to be accounted as in the vine, because it draws not
its life from the root. It is to this distinction that the word of Scripture has respect,
"and to those that remember His commandments to do them. For many retain them in their
memory only to treat them with contempt, or even to mock at and assail them. It is not in
such as have only some kind of contact, but no connection, that the words of Christ abide;
and to them, therefore, they will not be a blessing, but a testimony against them; and
because they are present in them without abiding in them, they are held fast by them for
the very purpose of being judged according to them at last.

TRACTATE 82

John XV. 8-10. 1. The Saviour, in thus speaking to the disciples, commends still more and
more the grace whereby we are saved, when He says, "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye
bear very much fruit, and be made my disciples." Whether we say glorified, or made bright,
both are the rendering given us of one Greek verb, namely doxazein (docazein). For what is
doxa (doca) in Greek, is in Latin glory. I have thought it worth while to mention this,
because the apostle says, "If Abraham was justified by works, he hath glory. but not
before God." For this is the glory before God, whereby God, and not man, is glorified,
when he is justified, not by works, but by faith, so that even his doing well is imparted
to him by God; just as the branch, as I have stated above, cannot bear fruit of itself.
For if herein God the Father is glorified, that we bear much fruit, and be made the
disciples of Christ, let us not credit our own glory therewith, as if we had it of
ourselves. For of Him is such a grace, and accordingly therein the glory is not ours, but
His. Hence also, in another passage, after saying, "Let your light so shine before men
that they may see your good works;" to keep them from the thought that such good works
were of themselves, He immediately added, "and may glorify your Father who is in heaven."
For herein is the Father glorified, that we bear much fruit, and be made the disciples of
Christ. And by whom are we so made, but by Him whose mercy hath forestalled us? For we are
His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.

2. "As the Father hath loved me," He says, "so have I loved you: continue ye in my love."
Here, then, you see, is the source of our good works. For whence should we have them. were
it not that faith worketh by love? And how should we love, were it not that we were first
loved? With striking clearness is this declared by the same evangelist in his epistle: "We
love God because He first loved us." But when He says, "As the Father hath loved me, so
have I loved you," He indicates no such equality between our nature and His as there is
between Himself and the Father, but the grace whereby the Mediator between God and men is
the man Christ Jesus. For He is pointed out as Mediator when He says, "The Father-me, and
I-you." For the Father, indeed, also loveth us, but in Him; for herein is the Father
glorified, that we bear fruit in the vine, that is, in the Son, and so be made His
disciples.

3. "Continue ye," He says, "in my love. How shall we continue? Listen to what follows: "If
ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love. Love brings about the keeping of His
commandments; but does the keeping of His commandments bring about love? Who can doubt
that it is love which precedes? For he has no true ground for keeping the commandments who
is destitute of love. And so, in saying, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my
love," He shows not the source from which love springs, but the means whereby it is
manifested. As if He said, Think not that ye abide in my love if ye keep not my
commandments; for it is only if ye have kept them that ye shall abide. In other words, it
will thus be made apparent that ye shall abide in my love if ye keep my commandments. So
that no one need deceive himself by saying that he loveth Him, if he keepeth not His
commandments. For we love Him just in the same measure as we keep His commandments; and
the less we keep them, the less we love. And although, when He saith, "Continue ye in my
love," it is not apparent what love He spake of; whether the love we bear to Him, or that
which He bears to us: yet it is seen at once in the previous clause. For He had there
said, "So have I loved you; and to these words He immediately adds, "Continue ye in my
love:

accordingly, it is that love which He bears to us. What, then, do the words mean,
"Continue ye in my love," but just, continue ye in my grace? And what do these mean, "If
ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love," but, hereby shall ye know that ye
shall abide in the love which I bear to you, if ye keep my commandments? It is not, then,
for the purpose of awakening His love to us that we first keep His commandments; but this,
that unless He loves us, we cannot keep His commandments. This is a grace which lies all
disclosed to the humble, but is hid from the proud. 4. But what are we to make of that
which follows: "Even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in His love"? Here
also He certainly intended us to understand that fatherly love wherewith He was loved of
the Father. For this was what He has just said, "As the Father hath loved me, so have I
loved you; and then to these He added the words, "Continue ye in my love; in that,
doubtless, wherewith I have loved you. Accordingly, when He says also of the Father, "I
abide in His love," we are to understand it of that love which was borne Him by the
Father. But then, in this case also, is that love which the Father bears to the Son
referable to the same grace as that wherewith we are loved of the Son: seeing that we on
our part are sons, not by nature, but by grace; while the Only-begotten is so by nature
and not by grace? Or is this even in the Son Himself to be referred to His condition as
man? Certainly so. For in saying, "As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you," He
pointed to the grace that was His as Mediator. For Christ Jesus is the Mediator between
God and men, not in respect to His Godhead, but in respect to His manhood. And certainly
it is in reference to this His human nature that we read, "And Jesus increased in wisdom
and age, and in favor [grace] with God and men.

In harmony, therefore, with this, we may rightly say that while human nature belongs not
to the nature of God, yet such human nature does by grace belong to the person of the
only-begotten Son of God; and that by grace so great, that there is none greater, yea,
none that even approaches equality. For there were no merits that preceded that assumption
of humanity, but all His merits began with that very assumption. The Son, therefore,
abideth in the love wherewith the Father hath loved Him, and so hath kept His
commandments. For what are we to think of Him even as man, but that God is His lifter up?
for the Word was God, the Only-begotten, co-eternal with Him that begat; but that He might
be given to us as Mediator, by grace ineffable, the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us.

TRACTATE 83

John XV. 11, 12. 1. You have just heard, beloved, the Lord saying to His disciples, "These
things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might be in you, and that your joy might be
full. And what else is Christ's joy in us, save that He is pleased to rejoice over us? And
what is this joy of ours which He says is to be made full, but our having fellowship with
Him? On this account He had said to the blessed Peter, "If I wash thee not, thou shall
have no part with me. His joy, therefore, in us is the grace He hath bestowed upon us: and
that is also our joy. But over it He rejoiced even from eternity, when He chose us before
the foundation of the world. Nor can we rightly say that His joy was not full; for God's
joy was never at any time imperfect. But that joy of His was not in us: for we, in whom it
could be, had as yet no existence; and even when our existence commenced, it began not to
be in Him. But in Him it always was, who in the infallible truth of His own foreknowledge
rejoiced that we should yet be His own. Accordingly, He had a joy over us that was already
full, when He rejoiced in foreknowing and foreordaining us: and as little could there be
any fear intermingling in that joy of His, lest there should be any possible failure in
what He foreknew would be done by Himself.

Nor, when He began to do what He foreknew that He would do, was there any increase to His
joy as the expression of His blessedness; otherwise His making of us must have added to
His blessedness. Be such a supposition, brethren, far from our thoughts; for the
blessedness of God was neither less without us, nor became greater because of us. His joy,
therefore, over our salvation, which was always in Him, when He foreknew and foreordained
us, began to be in us when He called us; and this joy we properly call our own, as by it
we, too, shall yet be blessed: but this joy, as it is ours, increases and advances, and
presses onward perseveringly to its own completion. Accordingly, it has its beginning in
the faith of the regenerate, and its completion in the reward when they rise again. Such
is my opinion of the purport of the words, "These things have I spoken unto you, that my
joy might be in you, and that your joy might be made full: that mine "might be in you;
that yours "might be made full. For mine was always full, even before ye were called, when
ye were foreknown as those whom I was afterwards to call; but it finds its place in you
also, when ye are transformed into that which I have foreknown regarding you. And "that
yours may be full: for ye shall be blessed, what ye are not as yet; just as ye are now
created, who had no existence before.

2. "This," He says, "is my injunction, that ye love one another, as I have loved you."
Whether we call it injunction or commandment. both are the rendering of the same Greek
word, entole (entolh). But He had already made this same announcement on a former
occasion, when, as ye ought to remember, I repounded it to you to the best of my ability.
For this is what He says there, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." And so the repetition of
this commandment is its commendation: only that there He said, "A new commandment I give
unto you;" and here, "This is my commandment:" there, as if there had been no such
commandment before; and here, as if He had no other commandment to give them. But there it
is spoken of as "new," to keep us from persevering in our old courses; here, it is called
"mine," to keep us from treating it with contempt.

3. But when He said in this way here, "This is my commandment," as if there were none
else, what are we to think, my brethren? Is, then, the commandment about that love
wherewith we love one another, His only one? Is there not also another that is still
greater,-that we should love God? Or has God in very truth given us such a charge about
love alone, that we have no need of searching for others? There are three things at least
that the apostle commends when he says, "But now abide faith, hope, charity, these three;
but the greatest of these is charity. And although in charity, that is, in love, are
comprehended the two commandments; yet it is here declared to be the greatest only, and
not the sole one. Accordingly, what a host of commandments are given us about faith, what
a multitude about hope! who is there that could collect them together, or suffice to
number them? But let us ponder the words of the same apostle: "Love is the fullness of the
law. And so, where there is love, what can be wanting? and where it is not, what is there
that can possibly be profitable? The devil believes, but does not love: no one loveth who
doth not believe. One may, indeed, hope for pardon who does not love, but he hopes in
vain; but no one can despair who loves. Therefore, where there is love, there of necessity
will there be faith and hope;

and where there is the love of our neighbor, there also of necessity will be the love of
God. For he that loveth not God, how loveth he his neighbour as himself, seeing that he
loveth not even himself? Such an one is both impious and iniquitous; and he that loveth
iniquity, manifestly loveth not, but hateth his own soul. Let us, therefore, be holding
fast to this precept of the Lord, to love one another; and then all else that is commanded
we shall do, for all else we have contained in this. But this love is distinguished from
that which men bear to one another as such; for in order to mark the distinction, it is
added, "as I have loved you. And wherefore is it that Christ loveth us, but that we may be
fitted to reign with Christ? With this aim, therefore, let us also be loving one another,
that we may manifest the difference of our love from that of others, who have no such
motive in loving one another, because the love itself is wanting. But those whose mutual
love has the possession of God Himself for its object, will truly love one another; and,
therefore, even for the very purpose of loving one another, they love God. There is no
such love as this in all men; for few have this motive for their love one to another, that
God may be all in all.

TRACTATE 84

John XV. 13. 1. The Lord, beloved brethren, hath defined that fullness of love which we
ought to bear to one another, when He said: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a
man lay down his life for his friends. Inasmuch, then, as He had said before, "This is my
commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you; and appended to these words
what you have just been hearing, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends; there follows from this as a consequence, what this same
Evangelist John says in his epistle, "That as Christ laid down His life for us, even so we
also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren; loving one another in truth, as He hath
loved us, who laid down His life for us. Such also is doubtless the meaning of what we
read in the Proverbs of Solomon: "If thou sittest down to supper at the table of a ruler,
consider wisely what is set before thee; and so put to thy hand, knowing that thou art
bound to make similar preparations. For what is the table of the ruler, but that from
which we take the body and blood of Him who laid down His life for us? And what is it to
sit thereat, but to approach in humility? And what is it to consider intelligently what is
set before thee, but worthily to reflect on the magnitude of the favor?

And what is it, so to put to thy hand, as knowing that thou art bound to make similar
preparations, but as I have already said, that, as Christ laid down His life for us, so we
also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren? For as the Apostle Peter also says,
"Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow His steps. This is
to make similar preparations. This it was that the blessed martyrs did in their burning
love; and if we celebrate their memories in no mere empty form, and, in the banquet
whereat they themselves were filled to the full, approach the table of the Lord, we must,
as they did, be also ourselves making similar preparations. For on these very grounds we
do not commemorate them at that table in the same way, as we do others who now rest in
peace, as that we should also pray for them, but rather that they should do so for us,
that we may cleave to their footsteps; because they have actually attained that fullness
of love, than which, our Lord hath told us, there cannot be a greater. For such tokens of
love they exhibited for their brethren, as they themselves had equally received at the
table of the Lord.

2. But let us not be supposed to have so spoken as if on such grounds we might possibly
arrive at an equality with Christ the Lord, if for His sake we have undergone witness-
bearing even unto blood. He had power to lay down His life, and to take it again; but we
have no power to live as long as we wish; and die we must, however unwilling: He, by
dying, straightway slew death in Himself; we, by His death, are delivered from death: His
flesh saw no corruption; ours, after corruption, shall in the end of the world be clothed
by Him with incorruption: He had no need of us, in order to work out our salvation; we,
without Him, can do nothing: He gave Himself as the vine, to us the branches; we, apart
from Him, can have no life. Lastly, although brethren die for brethren, yet no martyr's
blood is ever shed for the remission of the sins of brethren, as was the case in what He
did for us; and in this respect He bestowed not on us aught for imitation, but something
for congratulation. In as far, then, as the martyrs have shed their blood for the
brethren, so far have they exhibited such tokens of love as they themselves perceived at
the table of the Lord. (One might imitate Him in dying, but no one could, in redeeming.

In all else, then, that I have said, although it is out of my power to mention everything,
the martyr of Christ is far inferior to Christ Himself. But if any one shall set himself
in comparison, I say, not with the power. but with the innocence of Christ, and (I would
not say) in thinking that he is healing the sins of others, but at least that he has no
sins of his own, even so far is his avidity overstepping the requirements of the method of
salvation; it is a matter of considerable moment for him, only he attains not his desire.
And well it is that he is admonished in that passage of the Proverbs, which immediately
goes on to say, "But if thy greed is too great, be not desirous of his dainties; for it is
better that thou take nothing thereof, than that thou shouldst take more than is
befitting. For such things," it is added, "have a life of deceit," that is, of hypocrisy.
For in asserting his own sinlessness,he cannot prove, but only pretend, that he is
righteous. And so it is said," For such have a deceiving life. There is only One who could
at once have human flesh and be free from sin. Appropriately are we commanded that which
follows; and such a word and proverb is well adapted to human weakness, when it is said,
"Lay not thyself out, seeing thou art poor, against him that is rich.

For the rich man is Christ, who was never obnoxious to punishment either through
hereditary or personal debt and is righteous Himself, and justifies others. Lay not
thyself out against Him, thou who art so poor, that thou art manifestly to the eyes of all
the daily beggar that thou art in thy prayer for the remission of sins. "But keep
thyself," he says, "from thine own counsel" ["cease from thine own wisdom"-E. V.]. From
what, but from this delusive presumption? For He, indeed, inasmuch as He is not only man
but also God, can never be chargeable with evil. "For if thou turn thine eye upon Him, He
will nowhere be visible. "Thine eye," that is, the human eye, wherewith thou
distinguishest that which is human; "if thou turn it upon Him, He will nowhere be
visible," because He cannot be seen with such organs of sight as are thine. "For He will
provide Himself wings like an eagle's, and will depart to the house of His overseer," from
which, at all events, He came to us, and found us not such as He Himself was who came. Let
us therefore love one another, even as Christ hath loved us, and given Himself for us.
"For greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. And
let us be imitating Him in such a spirit of reverential obedience, that we shall never
have the boldness to presume on a comparison between Him and ourselves.

TRACTATE 85

John XV. 14, 15. 1. When the Lord Jesus had commended the love which He manifested toward
us in dying for us, and had said, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends," He added, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command
you." What great condescension! when one cannot even be a good servant unless he do his
lord's commandments; the very means, which only prove men to be good servants, He wished
to be those whereby His friends should be known. But the condescension, as I have termed
it, is this, that the Lord condescends to call those His friends whom He knows to be His
servants. For, to let us know that it is the duty of servants to yield obedience to their
master's commands, He actually in another place reproaches those who are servants, by
saying, "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?" Accordingly,
when ye say Lord, prove what you say by doing my commandments. Is it not to the obedient
servant that He is yet one day to say, "Well done, thou good servant; because thou hast
been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into
the joy of thy Lord"? One, therefore, who is a good servant, can be both servant and
friend.

2. But let us mark what follows. "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant
knoweth not what his lord doeth." How, then are we to understand the good servant to be
both servant and friend, when He says, "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the
servant knoweth not what his lord doeth"? He introduces the name of friend in such a way
as to withdraw that of servant; not as if to include both in the one term, but in order
that the one should succeed to the place vacated by the other. What does it mean? Is it
this, that even in doing the Lord's commandments we shall not be servants? Or this, that
then we shall cease to be servants, when we have been good servants? And yet who can
contradict the Truth, when He says, "Henceforth I call you not servants?" and shows why He
said so: "For the servant," He adds, "knoweth not what his lord doeth." Is it that a good
and tried servant is not likewise entrusted by his master with his secrets? What does He
mean, then, by saying, "The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth"? Be it that "he
knoweth not what he doeth," is he ignorant also of what he commands? For if he were so,
how can he serve? Or how is he a servant who does no service? And yet the Lord speaks
thus: "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not
servants." Truly a marvellous statement! Seeing we cannot serve the Lord but by doing His
commandments, how is it that in doing so we shall cease to be servants? If I be not a
servant in doing His commandments, and yet cannot be in His service unless I so do, then,
in my very service, I am no longer a servant.

3. Let us, brethren, let us understand, and may the Lord enable us to understand, and
enable us also to do what we understand. And if we know this, we know of a truth what the
Lord doeth; for it is only the Lord that so enables us, and by such means only do we
attain to His friendship. For just as there are two kinds of fear, which produce two
classes of fearers; so there are two kinds of service, which produce two classes of
servants. There is a fear, which perfect love casteth out; and there is another fear,
which is clean, and endureth for ever. The fear that lies not in love, the apostle pointed
to when he said, "For ye have not received the spirit of service again to fear. But he
referred to the clean fear when he said, "Be not high-minded, but fear. In that fear which
love casteth out, there has also to be cast out the service along with it: for both were
joined together by the apostle, that is, the service and the fear, when he said, "For ye
have not received the spirit of service again to fear. And it was the servant connected
with this kind of service that the Lord also had in His eye when He said, "Henceforth I
call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth. Certainly not the
servant characterized by the clean fear, to whom it is said, "Well done, thou good
servant:

enter thou into the joy of thy lord; but the servant who is characterized by the fear
which love casteth out, of whom He elsewhere saith, "The servant abideth not in the house
for ever, but the Son abideth ever. Since, therefore, He hath given us power to become the
sons of God, let us not be servants, but sons: that, in some wonderful and indescribable
but real way, we may as servants have the power not to be servants; servants, indeed, with
that clean fear which distinguishes the servant that enters into the joy of his lord, but
not servants with the fear that i has to be cast out, and which marketh him that abideth
not in the house for ever. But let us bear in mind that it is the Lord that enableth us to
serve so as not to be servants. And this it is that is unknown to the servant, who knoweth
not what his Lord doeth; and who, when he doeth any good thing, is lifted up as if he did
it himself, and not his Lord; and so, glories not in the Lord, but in himself, thereby
deceiving himself, because glorying, as if he had not received. But let us, beloved, in
order that we may be the friends of the Lord, know what our Lord doeth. For it is He who
makes us not only men, but also righteous, and not we ourselves. And who but He is the
doer, in leading us to such a knowledge?

For "we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is of God, that
we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Whatever good there is, is
freely given by Him. And so because this also is good, by Him who graciously imparteth all
good is this gift of knowing likewise bestowed; that, in respect of all good things
whatever, he that glorieth may glory in the Lord. But the words that follow, "But I have
called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto
you," are so profound, that we must by no means compress them within the limits of the
present discourse, but leave them over till another.

TRACTATE 86

John XV. 15, 16. 1. It is a worthy subject of inquiry how these words of the Lord are to
be understood, "But I have called you friends: for all things that I have heard of my
Father I have made known unto you. For who is there that dare affirm or believe that any
man knoweth all things that the only-begotten Son hath heard of the Father; when there is
no one that can comprehend even how He heareth any word of the Father, being as He is
Himself the only Word of the Father? Nay more, is it not the case that a little
afterwards, in this same discourse, which He delivered to the disciples between the Supper
and His passion, He said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them
now"? How, then, are we to understand that He made known unto the disciples all that He
had heard of the Father, when there are many things that He saith not, just because He
knows that they cannot bear them now? Doubtless what He is yet to do He says that He has
done as the same Being who hath made those things which are yet to be. For as He says by
the prophet, "They pierced my hands and my feet," and not, They will yet pierce; but
speaking as it were of the past, and yet predicting what Was still in the future:

so also in the passage before us He declares that He has made known to the disciples all,
that He knows He will yet make known in that fullness of knowledge, whereof the apostle
says, "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done
away. For in the same place he adds: "Now I know in part, but then shall I know, even as
also I am known; and now through a glass in a riddle, but then face to face. For the same
apostle also says that we have been saved by the washing of regeneration, and yet declares
in another place, "We are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is no hope; for what a man
seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with
patience wait for it. To a similar purpose it is also said by his fellow-apostle Peter,
"In whom, though now seeing Him not, ye believe; and in whom, when ye see Him, ye shall
rejoice with a joy unspeakable and glorious: receiving the reward of faith, even the
salvation of your souls. If, then, it is now the season of faith, and faith's reward is
the salvation of our souls; who, in that faith which worketh by love, can doubt that the
day must come to an end, and at its close the reward be received;

not only the redemption of our body, whereof the Apostle Paul speaketh, but also the
salvation of our souls, as we are told by the Apostle Peter? For the felicity springing
from both is at this present time, and in the existing state of mortality, a matter rather
of hope than of actual possession. But this it concerns us to remember, that our outward
man, to wit the body, is still decaying; but the inward, that is, the soul, is being
renewed day by day. Accordingly, while we are waiting for the immortality of the flesh and
salvation of our souls in the future, yet with the pledge we have received, it may be said
that we are saved already; so that knowledge of all things which the Only-begotten hath
heard of the Father we are to regard as a matter of hope still lying in the future,
although declared by Christ as something He had already imparted.

2. "Ye have not chosen me," He says, "but I have chosen you. Grace such as that is
ineffable. For what were we so long as Christ had not yet chosen us, and we were therefore
still destitute of love? For he who hath chosen Him, how can he love Him? Were we, think
you, in that condition which is sung of in the psalm: "I had rather be an abject in the
house of the Lord, than dwell in the tents of wickedness"? Certainly not. What were we
then, but sinful and lost? We had not yet come to believe on Him, in order to lead to His
choosing us; for if it were those who already believed that He chose, then was He chosen
Himself, prior to His choosing. But how could He say, "Ye have not chosen me," save only
because His mercy anticipated us? Here surely is at fault the vain reasoning of those who
defend the foreknowledge of God in opposition to His grace, and with this view declare
that we were chosen before the foundation of the world, because God foreknew that we
should be good, but not that He Himself would make us good. So says not He, who declares,
"Ye have not chosen me. For had Hechosen us on the ground that He foreknew that we should
be good, then would He also have foreknown that we would not be the first to make choice
of Him. For in no other way could we possibly be good:

unless, forsooth, one could be called good who has never made good his choice. What was it
then that He chose in those who were not good? For they were not chosen because of their
goodness, inasmuch as they could not be good without being chosen. Otherwise grace is no
more grace, if we maintain the priority of merit. Such, certainly, is the election of
grace, whereof the apostle says: "Even so then at this present time also there is a
remnant saved according to the election of grace. To which he adds: "And if by grace, then
is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. Listen, thou ungrateful one,
listen: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. Not that thou mayest say, I am
chosen because I already believed. For if thou wert believing in Him, then hadst thou
already chosen Him. But listen: "Ye have not chosen me. Not that thou mayest say, Before I
believed I was already doing good works, and therefore was I chosen. For what good work
can be prior to faith, when the apostle says, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin"? What,
then, are we to say on hearing such words, "Ye have not chosen me," but that we were evil,
and were chosen in order that we might be good through the grace of Him who chose us? For
it is not by grace, if merit preceded: but it is of grace: and therefore that grace did
not find, but effected the merit.

3. See then, beloved, how it is that He chooseth not the good, but maketh those whom He
has chosen good. "I have chosen you," He saith, "and appointed you that ye should go and
bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain." And is not that the fruit,
whereof He had already said, "Without me ye can do nothing"? He hath chosen therefore, and
appointed that we should go and bring forth fruit; and no fruit, accordingly, had we to
induce His choice of us. "That ye should go," He said, "and bring forth fruit." We go to
bring forth, and He Himself is the way wherein we go, and wherein He hath appointed us to
go. And so His mercy hath anticipated us in all. "And that your fruit," He saith, "should
remain; that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, He may give it you."
Accordingly let love remain; for He Himself is our fruit. And this love lies at present in
longing desire, not yet in fullness of enjoyment; and whatsoever with that longing desire
we shall ask in the name of the only-begotten Son, the Father giveth us. But what is not
expedient for our salvation to receive, let us not imagine that we ask that in the
Saviour's name: but we ask in the name of the Saviour only that which really belongs to
the way of salvation.


TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124
======================================

TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124 continued

TRACTATE 87

John XV. 17-19. 1. In the Gospel lesson which precedes this one, the Lord had said: "Ye
have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and appointed you, that ye should go and bring
forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain; that whatsoever ye shall ask of the
Father in my name, He may give it you. On these word you remember that we have already
discoursed, as the Lord enabled us. But here, that is, in the succeeding lesson which you
have heard read, He says: "These things I command you, that ye love one another. And
thereby we are to understand that this is our fruit, of which He had said, "I have chosen
you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain. And
what He subjoined, "That whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, He may give it
you," He will certainly give us if we love one another; seeing that this very thing He has
also given us, in choosing us when we had no fruit, because we had chosen Him not; and
appointing us that we should bring forth fruit,-that is, that we should love one
another,-a fruit that we cannot have apart from Him, just as the branches can do nothing
apart from the vine. Our fruit, therefore, is charity, which the apostle explains to be,
"Out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned. So love we one another,
and so love we God.

For it would be with no true love that we loved one another, if we loved not God. For
every one loves his neighbor as himself if he loves God; and if he loves not God, he loves
not himself. For on these two commandments of love hang all the law and the prophets: this
is our fruit. And it is in reference, therefore, to such fruit that He gives us
commandment when He says, "These things I command you, that ye love one another. In the
same way also the Apostle Paul, when wishing to commend the fruit of the Spirit in
opposition to the deeds of the flesh, posited this as his principle, saying, "The fruit of
the Spirit is love; and then, as if springing from and bound up in this principle, he wove
the others together, which are "joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,
meekness, temperance. For who can truly rejoice who loves not good as the source of his
joy? Who can have true peace, if he have it not with one whom he truly loves? Who can be
long-enduring through persevering continuance in good, save through fervent love? Who can
be kind, if he love not the person he is aiding? Who can be good, if he is not made so by
loving? Who can be sound in the faith, without that faith which worketh by love? Whose
meekness can be beneficial in character, if not regulated by love?

And who will abstain from that which is debasing, if he love not that which dignifies?
Appropriately, therefore, does the good Master so frequently commend love, as the only
thing needing to be commended, without which all other good things can be of no avail, and
which cannot be possessed without bringing with it those other good things that make a man
truly good. 2. But alongside of this love we ought also patiently to endure the hatred of
the world. For it must of necessity hate those whom it perceives recoiling from that which
is loved by itself. But the Lord supplies us with special consolation from His own case,
when, after saying, "These things I command you, that ye love one another," He added, "If
the world hate you, know that it hated me before [it hated] you." Why then should the
member exalt itself above the head? Thou refusest to be in the body if thou art unwilling
to endure the hatred of the world along with the Head. "If ye were of the world," He says,
"the world would love its own." He says this, of course, of the whole Church, which, by
itself, He frequently also calls by the name of the world: as when it is said, "God was in
Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." And this also: "The Son of man came not to
condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." And John says in his
epistle: "We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the
propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also [for those] of the whole
world." The whole world then is the Church, and yet the whole world hateth the Church. The
world therefore hateth the world, the hostile that which is reconciled, the condemned that
which is saved, the polluted that which is cleansed.

3. But that world which God is in Christ reconciling unto Himself, which is saved by
Christ, and has all its sins freely pardoned by Christ, has been chosen out of the world
that is hostile, condemned, and defiled. For out of that mass, which has all perished in
Adam, are formed the vessels of mercy, whereof that world of reconciliation is composed,
that is hated by the world which belongeth to the vessels of wrath that are formed out of
the same mass and fitted to destruction. Finally, after saying, "If ye were of the world,
the world would love its own," He immediately added, "But because ye are not of the world,
but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." And so these men
were themselves also of that world, and, that they might no longer be of it, were chosen
out of it, through no merit of their own, for no good works of theirs had preceded; and
not by nature, which through free-will had become totally corrupted at its source: but
gratuitously, that is, of actual grace. For He who chose the world out of the world,
effected for Himself, instead of finding, what He should choose: for "there is a remnant
saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace," he adds, "then is it no more
of works: otherwise grace is no more grace."

4. But if we are asked about the love which is borne to itself by that world of perdition
which hateth the world of redemption; we reply, it loveth itself, of course, with a false
love, and not with a true. And hence, it loves itself falsely, and hates itself truly. For
he that loveth wickedness, hateth his own soul. And yet it is said to love itself,
inasmuch as it loves the wickedness that makes it wicked; and, on the other hand, it is
said to hate itself, inasmuch as it loves that which causes it injury. It hates,
therefore, the true nature that is in it, and loves the vice: it hates what it is, as made
by the goodness of God, and loves what has been wrought in it by free-will. And hence
also, if we rightly understand it, we are at once forbidden and commanded to love it:
thus, we are forbidden, when it is said to us, "Love not the world;" and we are commanded,
when it is said to us, "Love your enemies." These constitute the world that hateth us. And
therefore we are forbidden to love in it that which it loves in itself; and we are
enjoined to love in it what it hates in itself, namely, the workmanship of God, and the
various consolations of His goodness. For we are forbidden to love the vice that is in it,
and enjoined to love the nature, while it loves the vice in itself, and hates the nature:
so that we may both love and hate it in a right manner, whereas it loves and hates itself
perversely.

TRACTATE 88

John XV. 20, 21. 1. The Lord, in exhorting His servants to endure with patience the hatred
of the world, proposes to them no greater and better example than His own; seeing that, as
the Apostle Peter says, "Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should
follow His steps." And if we really do so, we do it by His assistance, who said, "Without
me ye can do nothing." But further, to those to whom He had already said, "If the world
hate you, know that it hated me before it hated] you," He now also says in the word you
have just been hearing, when the Gospel was read, "Remember my word that I said unto you,
The servant is not greater than his lord: if they have persecuted me, they will also
persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." Now in saying,
"The servant is not greater than his lord," does He not clearly indicate how He would have
us understand what He had said above, "Henceforth I call you not servants"? For, you see,
He calleth them servants. For what else can the words imply, "The servant is not greater
than his lord: if they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you"? It is clear,
therefore, that when it is said, "Henceforth I call you not servants," He is to be
understood as speaking of that servant who abideth not in the house for ever, but is
characterized by the fear which love casteth out; whereas, when it is here said, "The
servant is not greater than his lord: if they have persecuted me, they will also persecute
you," that servant is meant who is distinguished by the clean fear which endureth for
ever. For this is the servant who is yet to hear, "Well done, thou good servant: enter
thou into the joy of thy Lord."

2. "But all these things," He says, "will they do unto you for my name's sake, because
they know not Him that sent me." And what are "all these things" that "they will do," but
what He has just said, namely, that they will hate and persecute you, and despise your
word? For if they kept not their word, and yet neither hated nor persecuted them; or if
they even hated, but did not persecute them: it would not be all these things that they
did. But "all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake,"-what else is that
but to say, they will hate me in you, they will persecute me in you; and your word, just
because it is mine, they will not keep? For "all these things will they do unto you for my
name's sake:" not for yours, but mine. So much the more miserable, therefore, are those
who do such things on account of that name, as those are blessed who suffer such things in
its behalf: as He Himself elsewhere saith, "Blessed are they that suffer persecution for
righteousness' sake." For that is on my account, or "for my name's sake:" because, as we
are taught by the apostle, "He is made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and
santification, and redemption; that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him
glory in the Lord." For the wicked do such things to the wicked, but not for
righteousness' sake; and therefore both are alike miserable, those who do, and those who
suffer them. The good also do such things to the wicked: where, although the former do so
for righteousness' sake, yet the latter suffer them not on the same behalf.

3. But some one says, If, when the wicked persecute the good for the name of Christ, the
good suffer for righteousness' sake, then surely it is for righteousness' sake that the
wicked do so to them; and if such is the case, then also, when the good persecute the
wicked for righteousness' sake, it is for righteousness' sake likewise that the wicked
suffer. For if the wicked can assail the good with persecution for the name of Christ, why
cannot the wicked suffer persecution at the hands of the good on the same account; and
what is that, hut for righteousness' sake? For if the good act not so on the same account
as that on which the wicked suffer, because the good do so for righteousness' sake, while
the wicked suffer for unrighteousness, so then neither can the wicked act so on the same
account as that for which the good suffer, because the wicked do so by unrighteousness,
while the good suffer for righteousness' sake. And how then will that be true, "All these
things will they do unto you for my name's sake," when the former do it not for the name
of Christ, that is, for righteousness' sake, but because of their own iniquity? Such a
question is solved in this way, if only we understand the words,

All these things will they do unto you for my name's sake," as referring entirely to the
righteous, as if it had been said, All these things will ye suffer at their hands for my
name's sake, so that the words, "they will do unto you," are equivalent to these, Ye will
suffer at their hands. But if "for my name's sake" is to be taken as if He had said, For
my name's sake which they hate in you, so also may the other be taken for that
righteousness' sake which they hate in you; and in this way the good, when they institute
persecution against the wicked, may be rightly said to do so both for righteousness' sake,
in their love for which they persecute the wicked, and for that wickedness' sake which
they hate in the wicked themselves; and so also the wicked may be said to suffer both for
the iniquity that is punished in their persons, and for the righteousness which is
exercised in their punishment.

4. It may also be inquired, if the wicked also persecute the wicked, just as ungodly
princes and judges, while they were the persecutors of the godly, certainly also punished
murderers and adulterers, and all classes of evil-doers whom they ascertained to be acting
contrary to the public laws, how are we to understand the words of the Lord, "If ye were
of the world, the world would love its own"? (ver. 19.) For those whom it punisheth cannot
be loved by the world, which, we see, generally punisheth the classes of crimes mentioned
above, save only that the world is both in those who punish such crimes, and in those that
love them. Therefore that world, which is to be understood as existing in the wicked and
ungodly, both hateth its own in respect of that section of men in whose case it inflicts
injury on the criminal, and loveth its own in respect of that other section in whose case
it shows favor to its own partners in criminality. Hence, "All these things will they do
unto you for my name's sake," is said either reference to that for the sake of which ye
suffer, or to that on account of which they themselves so deal with you, because that
which is in you they both hate and persecute. And He added, "Because they know not Him
that sent me." This is to be understood as spoken of that knowledge of which it is also
elsewhere recorded, "But to know Thee is perfect intelligence." For those who with such a
knowledge know the Father, by whom Christ was sent, can in no wise persecute those whom
Christ is gathering; for they also themselves are being gathered by Christ along with the
others.

TRACTATE 89

John XV. 22, 23. 1. The Lord had said above to His disciples, "If they have persecuted me,
they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But
all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not Him that
sent me. And if we inquire of whom He so spake, we find that He was led on to these words
from what He had said before, "If the world hate you, know ye that it hated me before lit
hated] you; and now in adding, "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had
sin," He more expressly pointed to the Jews. Of them, therefore, He also uttered the words
that precede, for so does the context itself imply. For it is of the same parties that He
said, "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; of whom He also said,
"If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying,
they will keep yours also; but all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake,
because they know not Him that sent me; for it is to these words that He also subjoins the
following: "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin. The Jews,
therefore, persecuted Christ, as the Gospel very clearly indicates, and Christ spake to
the Jews, not to other nations;

and it is they, therefore, that He meant to be understood by the world, that hateth Christ
and His disciples; and, indeed, not those alone, but even these latter were shown by Him
to belong to the same world. What, then, does He mean by the words, "If I had not come and
spoken unto them, they had not had sin"? Was it that the Jews were without sin before
Christ came to them in the flesh? Who, though he were the greatest fool, would say so? But
it is some great sin, and not every sin, that He would have to be understood, as it were,
under the general designation. For this is the sin wherein all sins are included; and
whosoever is free from it, has all his sins forgiven him: and this it is, that they
believed not on Christ, who came for the very purpose of enlisting their faith. From this
sin, had He not come, they would certainly have been free. His advent has become as much
fraught with destruction to unbelievers, as it is with salvation to those that believe;
for He, the Head and Prince of the apostles, has Himself, as it were, become what they
declared of themselves, "to some, indeed, the savour of life unto life; and to some the
savor of death unto death."

2. But when He went on to say, "But now they have no excuse for their sin," some may be
moved to inquire whether those to whom Christ neither came nor spake, have an excuse for
their sin. For if they have not, why is it said here that these had none, on the very
ground that He did come and speak to them? And if they have, have they it to the extent of
thereby being barred from punishment, or of receiving it in a milder degree? To these
inquiries, with the Lord's help and to the best of my capacity, I reply, that such have an
excuse, not for every one of their sins, but for this sin of not believing on Christ,
inasmuch as He came not and spake not to them. But it is not in the number of such that
those are to be included, to whom He came in the persons of His disciples, and to whom He
spake by them, as He also does at present; for by His Church He has come, and by His
Church He speaks to the Gentiles. For to this are to be referred the words that He spake,
"He that receiveth you, receiveth me;" and, "He that despiseth you, despiseth me." "Or
would ye," says the Apostle Paul, "have a proof of Him that speaketh in me, namely
Christ."

3. It remains for us to inquire, whether those who, prior to the coming of Christ in His
Church to the Gentiles and to their hearing of His Gospel, have been, or are now being,
overtaken by the close of this life, can have such an excuse? Evidently they can, but not
on that account can they escape damnation. "For as many as have sinned without the law,
shall also perish without the law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged
by the law." And these words of the apostle, inasmuch as his saying, "they shall perish,"
has a more terrible sound than when he says, "they shall be judged," seem to show that
such an excuse can not only avail them nothing, but even becomes an additional
aggravation. For those that excuse themselves because they did not hear, "shall perish
without the law." 4. But it is also a worthy subject of inquiry, whether those who met the
words they heard with contempt, and even with opposition, and that not merely by
contradicting them, but also by persecuting in their hatred those from whom they heard
them, are to be reckoned among those in regard to whom the words, "they shall be judged by
the law," convey somewhat of a milder sound. But if it is one thing to perish without the
law, and another to be judged by the law; and the former is the heavier, the latter the
lighter punishment: such, without a doubt, are not to have their place assigned in that
lighter measure of punishment; for, so far from sinning in the law, they utterly refused
to accept the law of Christ, and, as far as in them lay, would have had it altogether
annihilated. But those that sin in the law, are such as are in the law, that is, who
accept it, and confess that it is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good; but
fail through infirmity in fulfilling what they cannot doubt is most righteously enjoined
therein. These are they in regard to whose fate there may perhaps be some distinction made
from the perdition of those who are without the law:

and yet if the apostle's words, "they shall be judged by the law," are to be understood as
meaning, they shall not perish, what a wonder if it were so For his discourse was not
about infidels and believers to lead him to say so, but about Gentiles and Jews, both of
whom, certainly, if they find not salvation in that Saviour who came to seek that which
was lost, shall doubtless become the prey of perdition; although it may be said that some
shall perish in a more terrible, others in a more mitigated sense; in other words, that
some shall suffer a heavier, and others a lighter penalty in their perdition. For he is
rightly said to perish as regards God, whoever is separated by punishment from that
blessedness which He bestows on His saints, and the diversity of punishments is as great
as the diversity of sins; but the mode thereof is accounted too deep by divine wisdom for
human guessing to scrutinize or express. At all events, those to whom Christ came, and to
whom He spake, have not, for their great sin of unbelief, any such excuse as may enable
them to say, We saw not, we heard not: whether it be that such an excuse would not be
sustained by Him whose judgments are unsearchable, or whether it would, and that, if not
for their entire deliverance from damnation, at least for its partial alleviation.

5. "He that hateth me," He says, "hateth my Father also." Here it may be said to us, Who
can hate one whom he knows not? And certainly before saying, "If I had not come and spoken
unto them, they had not had sin," He had said to His disciples, "These things will they do
unto you, because they know not Him that sent me." How, then, do they both know not, and
hate? For if the notion they have formed of Him is not that which He is in Himself, but
some unknown conjecture of their own, then certainly it is not Himself they are found to
hate, but that figment which they devise or rather suspect in their error. And yet, were
it not that men could hate that which they know not, the Truth would not have asserted
both, namely, that they both know not, and hate His Father. But such a possibility, if by
the Lord's help we are able to show it, cannot be demonstrated at present, as this
discourse must now be brought to a close.

TRACTATE 90

John XV. 23. 1. The Lord says, as you have just been hearing, "He that hateth me, hateth
my Father also: and yet He had said a little before, "These things will they do unto you,
because they know not Him that sent me. A question therefore arises that cannot be
overlooked, how they can hate one whom they know not? For if it is not God as He really
is, but something else, I know not what, that they suspect or believe Him to be, and hate
this; then assuredly it is not God Himself that they hate, but the thing they conceive in
their own erroneous suspicion or baseless credulity; and if they think of Him as He really
is, how can they be said to know Him not? It may be the case, indeed, with regard to men,
that we frequently love those whom we have never seen; and in this way it can, on the
other hand, be none the less impossible that we should hate those whom we have never seen.
The report, for instance, whether good or bad, about some preacher, leads us not
improperly to love or to hate the unknown. But if the report is truthful, how can one, of
whom we have got such true accounts, be spoken of as unknown? Is it because we have not
seen his face? And yet, though he himself does not see it, he can be known to no one
better than to himself.

The knowledge of any one, therefore, is not conveyed to us in his bodily countenance, but
only lies open to our apprehension when his life and character are revealed. Otherwise no
one would be able to know himself, because unable to see his own face. But surely he knows
himself more certainly than he is known to others, inasmuch as by inward inspection he can
the more certainly see what he is conscious of, what he desires, what he is living for;
and it is when these are likewise laid open to us, that he becomes truly known to
ourselves. And as these, accordingly, are commonly brought to us regarding the absent, or
even the dead, either by hearsay or correspondence, it thus comes about that people whom
we have never seen by face (and yet of whom we are not entirely ignorant), we frequently
either hate or love. 2. But in such cases our credulity is frequently at fault; for
sometimes even history, and still more ordinary report, turns out to be false. Yet, it
ought to be our concern, in order not to be misled by an injurious opinion, seeing we
cannot search into the consciences of men, to have a true and certain sentiment about
things themselves. I mean, that in regard to this or that man, if we know not whether he
is immodest or modest, we should at all events hate immodesty and love modesty: and if in
regard to some one or other we know not whether he is unjust or just, we should at any
rate love justice and abhor injustice; not such things as we erroneously fancy to
ourselves, but such as we believingly perceive according to God's truth, the one to be
desired, the other to be shunned; so that, when in regard to things themselves we do
desire what ought to be desired, and utterly avoid what ought to be avoided, we may find
pardon for the mistaken feelings which we at times, yea, at all times, entertain regarding
the actual state of others which is hidden from our eyes. For this, I think, has to do
with human temptation, without which we cannot pass through this life, so that the apostle
said, "No temptation should befall you but such as is common to man. For what is so common
to man as inability to inspect the heart of man;

and therefore, instead of scrutinizing its inmost recesses, to suspect for the most, part
something very different from what is going on therein? And although in these dark regions
of human realities, that is, of other people's inward thoughts, we cannot clear up our
suspicions, because we are only men, yet we ought to restrain our judgments, that is, all
definite and fixed opinions, and not judge anything before the time, until the Lord come,
and bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the
hearts; and then shall every man have praise of God. When, therefore, we are falling into
no error in regard to the thing itself, so that there is an accordance with right in our
reprobation of vice and approbation of virtue; surely, if a mistake is committed in
connection with individuals, a temptation so characteristic of man is within the scope of
forgiveness.

3. But amid all these darknesses of human hearts, it happens as a thing much to be
wondered at and mourned over, that one, whom we account unjust, and who nevertheless is
just, and in whom, without knowing it, we love justice, we sometimes avoid, and turn away
from, and hinder from approaching us, and refuse to have life and living in common with
him; and, if necessity compel the infliction of discipline, whether to save others from
harm or bring the person himself back to rectitude, we even pursue him with a salutary
harshness; and so afflict a good man as if he were wicked, and one whom unknowingly we
love. This takes place if one, for example's sake, who is modest is believed by us to be
the opposite. For, beyond doubt, if I love a modest person, he is himself the very object
that I love; and therefore I love the man himself, and know it not. And if I hate an
immodest person, it is on that account, not him that I hate: for he is not the thing that
I hate; and yet to that object of my love, with whom my heart makes continual abode in the
love of modesty, I am ignorantly doing an injury, erring as I do, not in the distinction I
make between virtue and vice, but in the thick darkness of the human heart.

Accordingly, as it may so happen that a good man may unknowingly hate a good man, or
rather loves him without knowing it (for the man himself he loves in loving that which is
good; for what the other is, is the very thing that he loves); and without knowing it,
hates not the man himself, but that which he supposes him to be: so may it also be the
case that an unjust man hates a just man, and, while he opines that he loves one who is
unjust like himself, unknowingly loves the just man; and yet so long as he believes him to
be unjust, he loves not the man himself, but that which he imagines him to be. And as it
is with another man, so is it also with God. For, to conclude, had the Jews been asked if
they loved God, what other answer would they have given but that they did love Him, and
that not with any intentional falsehood, but because erroneously fancying that they did
so? For how could they love the Father of the truth, who were filled with hatred to the
truth itself? For they do not wish their own conduct to be condemned, and it is the
truth's task to condemn such conduct; and thus they hated the truth as much as they hated
their own punishment, which the truth awards to such. But they know not that to be the
truth which lays its condemnation on such as they: therefore they hate that which they
know not;

and hating it, they certainly cannot but also hate Him of whom it is born. And in this
way, because they know not the truth, by whose judgment they are condemned, as that which
is born of God the Father; of a surety also they both know not, and hate [the Father]
Himself. Miserable men! who, because wishing to be wicked, deny that to be the truth
whereby the wicked are condemned. For they refuse to own that to be what it is, when they
ought themselves to refuse to be what they are; in order that, while it remains the same,
they may be changed, lest by its judgment they fall into condemnation.

TRACTATE 91

John XV. 24, 25. 1. The Lord had said, "He that hateth me, hateth my Father also." For of
a certainty he that hateth the truth must also hate Him of whom the truth is born; on
which subject we have already spoken, as we were granted ability. And then He added the
words on which we have now to discourse: "If I had not done among [in] them the works
which none other man did, they had not had sin." To wit, that great sin whereof He also
says before, "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin." Their sin was
that of not believing on Him who thus spake and wrought. For they were not without sin
before He so spake to them and did such works among them; but this sin of theirs, in not
believing on Him, is thus specially mentioned because really inclusive in itself of all
sins besides. For had they been clear of this one, and believed on Him, all else would
also have been forgiven.

2. But what is meant when, after saying, "If I had not done among them works," He
immediately added, "which none other man did"? Of a certainty, among all the works of
Christ, none seem to be greater than the raising of the dead; and yet we know that the
same was done by the prophets of olden time. For Elias did so; and Elisha also, both when
alive in the flesh, and when he lay buried in his sepulchre. For when certain men, who
were carrying a dead person, had fled thither for refuge from an onset of their enemies,
and had laid him down therein, he instantly came again. to life. And yet there were some
works that Christ did which none other man did: as, when He fed the five thousand men with
five loaves, and the four thousand with seven; when He walked on the waters, and gave
Peter power to do the same; when He changed the water into wine; when He opened the eyes
of a man that was born blind, and many besides, which it would take long to mention. But
we are answered, that others also have done works which even He did not, and which no
other man has done. For who else save Moses smote the Egyptians with so many and mighty
plagues, as when He led the people through the parted waters of the sea, when he obtained
manna for them from heaven in their hunger, and water from the rock in their thirst?

Who else save Joshua the son of Nun divided the stream of the Jordan for the people to
pass over, and by the utterance of a prayer to God bridled and stopped the revolving sun?
Who save Samson ever quenched his thirst with water flowing forth from the jawbone of a
dead ass? Who save Elias was carried aloft in a chariot of fire? Who save Elisha, as I
have just mentioned, after his own body was buried, restored the dead body of another to
life? Who else besides Daniel lived unhurt amid the jaws of famishing lions, that were
shut up with him? And who else save the three men Ananias, Azariah, and Mishael, ever
walked about unharmed in flames that blazed and did not burn? 3. I pass by other examples,
as these I consider to be sufficient to show that some of the saints have done wonderful
works, which none other man did. But we read of no one whatever of the ancients who cured
with such power so many bodily defects, and bad states of the health, and troubles of
mortals. For, to say nothing of those individual cases which He healed, as they occurred,
by the word of command, the Evangelist Mark says in a certain place: "And at even, when
the sun had set, they brought unto Him all that were diseased, and them that were
possessed with devils. And all the city was gathered together at the door. And He healed
many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils. And Matthew, in giving
us the same account, has also added the prophetic testimony, when he says: "That it might
be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities,
and bare our sickness. In another passage also it is said by Mark: "And whithersoever He
entered, into villages, or cities, or country, they laid the sick in the streets, and
besought Him that they might touch if it were but the border of His garment: and as many
as touched Him were made whole. None other man did such things in them. For so are we to
understand the words in them, not among them, or in their presence; but directly in them,
because He healed them.

For He wished them to understand the works as those which not only occasioned admiration,
but conferred also manifest healing, and were benefits which they ought surely to have
requited with love, and not with hatred. He transcends, indeed, the miracles of all
besides, in being born of a virgin, and in possessing alone the power, both in His
conception and birth, to preserve inviolate the integrity of His mother: but that was done
neither before their eyes nor in them. For the knowledge of the truth of such a miracle
was reached by the apostles, not through any onlooking that they had in common with
others, but in the course of their separate discipleship. Moreover, the fact that on the
third day He restored Himself to life from the very tomb, in the flesh wherein He had been
slain, and, never thereafter to die, with it ascended into heaven, even surpasses all else
that He did: but just as little was this done either in the Jews or before their eyes; nor
had it yet been done, when He said, "If I had not done among them the works which none
other man did."

4. The works, then, are doubtless those miracles of healing in connection with their
bodily complaints which He exhibited to such an extent as no one before had furnished
amongst them: for these they saw, and it is in reproaching them therewith that He proceeds
to say, "But now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father: but [this cometh to
pass] that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without
a cause [gratuitously]. He calls it, their law, not as invented by them, but given to
them: just as we say, "Our daily bread; which, nevertheless, we ask of God in conjoining
the words "Give us. But one hates gratuitously who neither seeks advantage from the hatred
nor avoids inconvenience: so do the wicked hate the Lord; and so also is He loved by the
righteous, that is to say, gratuitously [gratis, freely,] inasmuch as they expect no other
gifts beyond Himself, for He Himself will be all in all. But whoever would be disposed to
look for something more profound in the words of Christ, "If I had not done among them the
works which none other man did" (for although such were done by the Father, or the Holy
Spirit, yet no one else did them, for the whole Trinity is one and the same in substance),
he will find that it was He who did it even when some man of God did something similar.
For in Himself He can do everything by Himself;

but without Him no one can do anything. For Christ with the Father and the Holy Spirit are
not three Gods, but one God, of whom it is written, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
who only doeth wondrous things. No one else, therefore, really himself did the works which
He did amongst them; for any one else who did any such works, did them only through His
doing. But He Himself did them without any doing on their part.

TRACTATE 92

John XV. 26, 27. 1. The Lord Jesus, in the discourse which He addressed to His disciples
after the supper, when Himself in immediate proximity to His passion, and, as it were, on
the eve of departure, and of depriving them of His bodily presence while continuing His
spiritual presence to all His disciples till the very end of the world, exhorted them to
endure the persecutions of the wicked, whom He distinguished by the name of the world: and
from which He also told them that He had chosen, the disciples themselves, that they might
know it was by the grace of God they were what they were, and by their own vices they had
been what they had been. And then His own persecutors and theirs He clearly signified to
be the Jews, that it might be perfectly apparent that they also were included in the
appellation of that damnable world that persecuteth the saints. And when He had said of
them that they knew not Him that sent Him, and yet hated both the Son and the Father, that
is, both Him who was sent and Him who sent Him,-of all which we have already treated in
previous discourses,-He reached the place where it is said, "This cometh to pass, that the
word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. And
then He added, as if by way of consequence, the words whereon we have undertaken at
present to discourse:

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the
Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, He shall bear witness of me: and ye also
shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. But what connection
has this with what He had just said, "But now have they both seen and hated both me and my
Father: but that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me
without a cause"? Was it that the Comforter, when He came, even the Spirit of truth,
convicted those, who thus saw and hated, by a still clearer testimony? Yea, verily, some
even of those who saw, and still hated, He did convert, by this manifestation of Himself,
to the faith that worketh by love. To make this view of the passage intelligible, we
recall to your mind that so it actually befell. For when on the day of Pentecost the Holy
Spirit fell upon an assembly of one hundred and twenty men, among whom were all the
apostles; and when they, filled therewith were speaking in the language of every nation;

a goodly number of those who had hated, amazed at the magnitude of the miracle (especially
when they perceived in Peter's address so great and divine a testimony borne in behalf of
Christ, as that He, who was slain by them and accounted amongst the dead, was proved to
have risen again, and to be now alive), were pricked in their hearts and converted; and so
became aware of the beneficent character of that precious blood which had been so
impiously and cruelly shed, because themselves redeemed by the very blood which they had
shed. For the blood of Christ was shed so efficaciously for the remission of all sins,
that it could wipe out even the very sin of shedding it. With this therefore in His eye,
the Lord said, "They hated me without a cause: but when the Comforter is come, He shall
bear witness of me; saying, as it were, They hated me, and slew me when I stood visibly
before their eyes; but such shall be the testimony borne in my behalf by the Comforter,
that He will bring them to believe in me when I am no longer visible to their sight.

2. "And ye also," He says," shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the
beginning. The Holy Spirit shall bear witness, and so also shall ye. For, just because ye
have been with me from the beginning, they can preach what ye know; which ye cannot do at
present, because the fullness of that Spirit is not yet present within you. "He therefore
shall testify of me, and ye also shall bear witness: for the love of God shed abroad in
your hearts by the Holy Spirit, who shall be given unto you, will give you the confidence
needful for such witness-bearing. And that certainly was still wanting to Peter, when,
terrified by the question of a lady's maid, he could give no true testimony; but, contrary
to his own promise, was driven by the greatness of his fear thrice to deny Him. But there
is no such fear in love, for perfect love casteth out fear. In fine, before the Lord's
passion, his slavish fear was questioned by a bond-woman; but after the Lord's
resurrection, his free love by the very Lord of freedom: and so on the one occasion he was
troubled, on the other tranquillized; there he denied the One he had loved, here he loved
the One he had denied. But still even then that very love was weak and straitened, till
strengthened and expanded by the Holy Spirit.

And then that Spirit, pervading him thus with the fullness of richer grace, kindled his
hitherto frigid heart to such a witness-bearing for Christ, and unlocked those lips that
in their previous tremor had suppressed the truth, that, when all on whom the Holy Spirit
had descended were speaking in the tongues of all nations to the crowds of Jews collected
around, he alone broke forth before the others in the promptitude of his testimony in
behalf of the Christ, and con-rounded His murderers with the account of His resurrection.
And if any one would enjoy the pleasure of gazing on a sight so charming in its holiness,
let him read the Acts of the Apostles: and there let him be filled with amazement at the
preaching of the blessed Peter, over whose denial of his Master he had just been mourning;
there let him behold that tongue, itself translated from diffidence to confidence, from
bondage to liberty, converting to the confession of Christ the tongues of so many of His
enemies, riot one of which he could bear when lapsing himself into denial. And what shall
I say more?

In him there shone forth such an effulgence of grace, and such a fullness of the Holy
Spirit, and such a weight of most precious truth poured from the lips of the preacher,
that he transformed that vast multitude of Jews who were the adversaries and murderers of
Christ into men that were ready to die for His name, at whose hands he himself was
formerly afraid to die with his Master. All this did that Holy Spirit when sent, who had
previously only been promised. And it was these great and marvellous gifts of His own that
the Lord foresaw, when He said, "They have both seen and hated both me and my Father: that
the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit
of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of me: and ye also shall bear
witness. For He, in bearing witness Himself, and inspiring such witnesses with invincible
courage, divested Christ's friends of their fear, and transformed into love the hatred of
His enemies.

TRACTATE 93

John XVI. 1-4. 1. In the words preceding this chapter of the Gospel, the Lord strengthened
His disciples to endure the hatred of their enemies, and prepared them also by His own
example to become the more courageous in imitating Him: adding the promise, that the Holy
Spirit should. come to bear witness of Him, and also that they themselves could become His
witnesses, through the effectual working of His Spirit in their hearts. For such is His
meaning when He saith, "He shall bear witness of me, and ye also shall bear witness. That
is to say, because He shall bear witness, ye also shall bear witness: He in your hearts,
you in your voices; He by inspiration, you by utterance: that the words might be
fulfilled, "Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth. For it would have been to
little purpose to have exhorted them by His example, had He not also filled them with His
Spirit. Just as we see that the Apostle Peter, after having heard His words, when He said,
"The servant is not greater than his lord: if they have persecuted me, they will also
persecute you; and seen that already fulfilled in Him, wherein, had example been
sufficient, he ought to have imitated the patient endurance of his Lord, yet succumbed and
fell into denial, as utterly unable to bear what He saw his Master enduring. But when he
really received the gift of the Holy Spirit, he preached Him whom he had denied;

and whom he had been afraid to confess, he had no fear now in openly proclaiming. Already,
indeed, had he been sufficiently taught by example to know what was proper to be done; but
not yet was he inspired with the power to do what he knew: he had got instruction to
stand, but not the strength to keep him from falling. But after this was supplied by the
Holy Spirit, he preached Christ even to the death, whom, in his fear of death, he had
previously denied. And so the Lord in this succeeding chapter, on which we have now to
address you, saith, "These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
As it is sung in the psalm, "Great peace have they who love Thy law, and nothing shall
offend them. Properly enough, therefore, with the promise of the Holy Spirit, by whose
operation in their hearts they should be made His witnesses, He added, "These things have
I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. For when the love of God is shed abroad
in our hearts by the Holy Spirit given unto us, they have great peace who love God's law,
so that nothing may offend them.

2. And then He expressly declares what they were to suffer: "They shall put you out of the
synagogues. But what harm was it for the apostles to be expelled from the Jewish
synagogues, as if they were not to separate themselves therefrom, although no one expelled
them? Doubtless He meant to announce with reprobation, that the Jews would refuse to
receive Christ, from whom they as certainly would refuse to withdraw; and so it would come
to pass that the latter, who could not exist without Him, would also be cast out along
with Him by those who would not have Him as their place of abode. For certainly, as there
was no other people of God than that seed of Abraham, they would, had they only
acknowledged and received Christ, have remained as the natural branches in the olive tree;
nor would the churches of Christ have been different from the synagogues of the Jews, for
they would have been one and the same, had they also desired to abide in Him. But having
refused, what remained but that, continuing themselves out of Christ, they put out of the
synagogues those who would not abandon Christ? For having received the Holy Spirit, and so
become His witnesses, they would certainly not belong to the class of whom it is said:
"Many of the chief rulers of the Jews believed on Him; but for fear of the Jews they dared
not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. And so they believed on Him,
but not in the way He wished them to believe when He said: "How can ye believe, who expect
honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only? It is, therefore,
with those disciples who so believe in Him, that, filled with the Holy Spirit, or, in
other words, with the gift of divine grace, they no longer belong to those who, "ignorant
of the righteousness of God, and going about to establish their own, have not submitted
themselves to the righteousness of God; nor to those of whom it is said, "They loved the
praise of men more than the praise of God: that the prophecy harmonizes, which finds its
fulfillment in their own case: "They shall walk, O Lord, in the light of Thy countenance:
and in Thy name shall they rejoice all the day; and in Thy righteousness shall they be
exalted: for Thou art the glory of their strength. Rightly enough is it said to such,
"They shall cast you out of the synagogues; that is, they who "have a zeal for God, but
not according to knowledge; because, "ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to
establish their own," they expel those who are exalted, not in their own righteousness,
but in God's, and have no cause to be ashamed at being expelled by men, since He is the
glory of their strength.

3. Finally, to what He had thus told them, He added the words: "But the hour cometh, that
whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service: and these things will they do
unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. That is to say, they have not
known the Father, nor His Son, to whom they think they will be doing service in slaying
you. Words which the Lord added in the way of consolation to His own, who should be driven
out of the Jewish synagogues. For it is in thus announcing beforehand what evils they
would have to endure for their testimony in His behalf, that He said, "They will put you
out of the synagogues. Nor does He say, And the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you
will think that he doeth God service. What then? "But the hour cometh: just in the way He
would have spoken, were He foretelling them of something good that would follow such
evils. What, then, does He mean by the words, "They will put you out of the synagogues:
but the hour cometh"? As if He would have gone on to say this: They, indeed, will scatter
you, but I will gather you; or, They shall, indeed, scatter you, but the hour of your joy
cometh.

What, then, has the word which He uses, "but the hour cometh," to do here, as if He were
going on to promise them comfort after their tribulation, when apparently He ought rather
to have said, in the form of continuous narration, And the hour cometh? But He said not,
And it cometh, although predicting the approach of one tribulation after another, instead
of comfort after tribulation. Could it have been that such a separation from the
synagogues would so discompose them, that they would prefer to die, rather than remain in
this life apart from the Jewish assemblies? Far surely would those be from such
discomposure, who were seeking, not the praise of men, but of God. What, then, of the
words, "They will put you out of the synagogues: but the hour cometh; when apparently He
ought rather to have said, And the hour cometh, "that whosoever killeth you will think
that he doeth God service"? For it is not even said, But the hour cometh that they shall
kill you, as if implying that their comfort for such a separation would be found in the
death that would befall them; but "The hour cometh," He says, "that whosoever killeth you
will think that he doeth God service.

On the whole, I do not think He wished to convey any further meaning than that they might
understand and rejoice that they themselves would gain so many to Christ, by being driven
out of the Jewish congregations, that it would be found insufficient to expel them, and
they would not suffer them to live for fear of all being converted by their preaching to
the name of Christ, and so turned away from the observance of Judaism, as if it were the
very truth of God. For so ought we to understand the reference of His words to the Jews,
when He said of them, "They will put you out of the synagogues. For the witnesses, in
other words, the martyrs of Christ, were likewise slain by the Gentiles: they, however,
thought not that it was to the true God, but to their own false deities, that they were
doing service when they so acted. But every Jew that slew the preachers of Christ reckoned
that he was doing God service; believing as he did that all who were converted to Christ
were deserting the God of Israel. For it was also by the same reasoning that they were
incited to the murder of Christ Himself: because their own words on this subject have also
been put on record. "Ye perceive that the whole world is gone after him: "If we let him
live, the Romans will come, and take away both our place and nation. And those of
Caiaphas:

"It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole
nation should perish. And accordingly in this address He sought by His own example to
stimulate His disciples, to whom He had just been saying, "If they have persecuted me,
they will also persecute you; that as in slaying Him they thought they had done God a
service, so also would it be in reference to them. 4. Such, then, is the meaning of these
words: "They will put you out of the synagogues; but have no fear of solitude: inasmuch
as, when separated from their assembly, you will assemble so many in my name, that they,
in very fear lest the temple, that was with them, and all the sacraments of the old law,
should be deserted, will slay you: actually, in thus shedding your blood, full of the
notion that they are doing God service. An illustration surely of the apostle's words,
"They have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge; when they imagine that they are
doing God service in slaying His servants. Appalling mistake! Is it thus thou wouldst
please God by striking down the God-pleaser; and is the living temple of God by thy blows
laid level with the ground, that God's temple of stone may not be deserted? Accursed
blindness! But it is in part that it has happened to Israel, that the fullness of the
Gentiles might come in: in part, I say, and not totally, has it happened. For not all, but
only some of the branches have been broken off, that the wild olive might be ingrafted.

For just at the time when the disciples of Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit, were
speaking in the tongues of all nations, and performing many divine miracles, and
scattering divine utterances on every side, Christ, even though slain, was so beloved,
that His disciples, when expelled from the congregations of the Jews, gathered into a
congregation of their own a vast multitude of those very Jews, and had no fear of being
left to solitude. hereupon, accordingly, the others, reprobate and blind, being inflamed
with wrath, and having a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge, and believing that
they were doing God service, put them to death. But He, who was slain for them, gathered
those together; just as He had also, before He was slain, instructed them in what was to
happen, lest their minds, left ignorant and unprepared, should be cast into trouble by
evils, however transient, that were unexpected and unprovided for; but rather by knowing
of them beforehand, and sustaining them with patience, might be led onward to everlasting
blessing. For that such was the cause of His making these announcements to them
beforehand, is shown also by His words that followed: "But these things have I told you,
that, when their time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. Their hour was
an hour of darkness, a midnight hour. But the Lord commanded His loving-kindness in the
daytime, and made them sing of it in the night:

when the Jewish night threw no confusion of darkness into the day of the Christians,
separated as it was from themselves; and when that which could slay the flesh had no power
to darken their faith.

TRACTATE 94

John XVI 4-7 1. When the Lord Jesus had foretold His disciples the persecutions they would
have to suffer after His departure, He went on to say: "And these things I said not unto
you at the beginning, because I was with you; but now I go my way to Him that sent me. And
here the first thing we have to look at is, whether He had not previously foretold them of
the sufferings that were to come. And the three other evangelists make it sufficiently
clear that He had uttered such predictions prior to the approach of the supper: which was
over, according to John, when He spake, and added, "And these things I said not unto you
at the beginning, because I was with you. Are we, then, to settle such a question in this
way, that they, too, tell us that He was near His passion when He said these things? Then
it was not when He was with them at the beginning that He so spake, for He was on the very
eve of departing, and proceeding to the Father: and so also, even according to these
evangelists, it is strictly true what is here said, "And these things I said not unto you
at the beginning.

But what are we to do with the credibility of the Gospel according to Matthew, who relates
that such announcements were made to them by the Lord, not only when He was on the eve of
sitting down with His disciples to the passover supper, but also at the beginning, when
the twelve apostles are for the first time expressed by name, and sent forth on the work
of God? What, then, is the meaning of what He says here, "And these things I said not unto
you at the beginning, because I was with you; but that what He says here of the Holy
Spirit who was to come to them, and to bear witness, when they should have such ills to
endure, this He said not unto them at the beginning, because He was with themselves? 2.
The Comforter then, or Advocate (for both form the interpretation of the Greek word,
paraclète), had become necessary on Christ's departure: and therefore He had not spoken of
Him at the beginning, when He was with them, because His own presence was their comfort;
but on the eve of His own departure it behoved Him to speak of His coming, by whom it
would be brought about that with love shed abroad in their hearts they would preach the
word of God with all boldness; and with Him inwardly bearing witness with them of Christ,
they also should bear witness, and feel it to be no cause of stumbling when their Jewish
enemies put them out of the synagogues, and slew them, with the thought that they were
doing God service; because the charity beareth all things, which was to be shed abroad in
their hearts by the gift of the Holy Spirit. In this, therefore, is the whole meaning to
be found, that He was to make them His martyrs, that is, His witnesses through the Holy
Spirit; so that by His effectual working within them, they would endure the hardships of
all kinds of persecution, and, set aglow at that divine fire, lose none of their warmth in
the love of preaching. "These things," therefore, He says, "have I told you, that, when
their time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them" (ver. 4).

These things, I say, I have told you, not merely because ye shall have to endure such
things, but because, when the Comforter is come, He shall bear witness of me, that ye may
not keep them back through fear, and by whom ye yourselves shall also be enabled to bear
witness. "And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you,"
and I myself was your comfort through my bodily presence exhibited to your human senses,
and which, as infants, ye were able to comprehend. 3. "But now I go my way to Him that
sent me; and none of you," He says, "asketh me, Whither goest Thou?" He means that His
departure would be such that none would ask Him of that which they should see taking place
in broad daylight before their eyes: for previously to this they had asked Him whither He
was going, and had been answered that He was going whither they themselves could not then
come. Now, however, He promises that He will go away in such a manner that none of them
shall ask Him whither He goes. For a cloud received Him when He ascended up from their
side; and of His going into heaven they made no verbal inquiry, but had ocular evidence.

4. "But because I have said these things unto you," He adds, "sorrow hath filled your
heart. He saw, indeed, what effect these words of His were producing in their hearts; for
having not yet within them the spiritual consolation, which they were afterwards to have
by the Holy Spirit, what they still saw objectively in Christ they were afraid of losing;
and because they could have no doubt they were about to lose Him whose announcements were
always true, their human feelings were saddened, because their carnal view of Him was to
be left a blank. But He knew what was most expedient for them, because that inward sight,
wherewith the Holy Spirit was yet to comfort them, was undoubtedly superior; not by
bringing a human body into the bodies of those who saw, but by infusing Himself into the
hearts of those who believed. And then He adds, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth, it is
expedient for you that I go away. For if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto
you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you: as if He had said, It is expedient for you
that this form of a servant be taken away from you; as the Word made indeed flesh I dwell
among you; but I would not that ye should continue to love me carnally, and, content with
such milk, desire to remain infants always. "It is expedient for you that I go away:

for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you. If I withdraw not the tender
nutriment wherewith I have nourished you, ye will acquire no keen relish of solid food; if
ye adhere in a carnal way to the flesh, ye will not have room for the Spirit. For what is
this, "If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will
send Him unto you"? Was it that He could not send Him while located here Himself? Who
would venture to say so? Neither was it, that where He was, thence the Other had
withdrawn, or that He had so come from the Father as that He did not still abide with the
Father. And still further, how could He, even when having His own abode on earth, be
unable to send Him, who we know came and remained upon Him at His baptism; yea, more, from
whom we know that He was never separable? What does it mean, then, "If I go not away, the
Comforter will not come unto you; but that ye cannot receive the Spirit so long as ye
continue to know Christ after the flesh? Hence one who had already been made a partaker of
the Spirit says, "Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we
[Him] no more.

For now even the very flesh of Christ he did not know in a carnal way, when brought to a
spiritual knowledge of the Word that had been made flesh. And such, doubtless, did the
good Master wish to intimate, when He said, "If I go not away, the Comforter will not come
unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you." 5. But with Christ's bodily
departure, both the Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit, were spiritually
present with them. For had Christ departed from them in such a sense that it would be in
His place, and not along with Him, that the Holy Spirit would be present in them, what
becomes of His promise when He said, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the
world;" and, I and the Father "will come unto him, and will make Our abode with him;"
seeing that He also promised that He would send the Holy Spirit in such a way that He
would be with them for ever? In this way it was, on the other hand, that seeing they were
yet out of their present carnal or animal condition to become spiritual, with undoubted
certainty also were they yet to have in a more comprehensive way both the Father, and the
Son, and the Holy Spirit. But in no one are we to believe that the Father is present
without the Son and the Holy Spirit, or the Father and the Son without the Holy Spirit, or
the Son without the Father and the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit without the Father and
the Son, or the Father and the Holy Spirit without the Son; but wherever any one of Them
is, there also is the Trinity, one God. But here the Trinity had to be suggested in such a
way that, although there was no diversity of essence, yet the personal distinction of each
one separately should be presented to notice; where those who have a right understanding
can never imagine a separation of natures.

6. But that which follows, "And when He is come, He will convince the world of sin, and of
righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, indeed, because they believe not on me; but of
righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye shall see me no more; and of judgment,
because the prince of this world is judged" (vers. 8-11); as if it were sin simply not to
believe on Christ; and as if it were very righteousness not to see Christ; and as if that
were the very judgment, that the prince of this world, that is, the devil, is judged: all
this is very obscure, and cannot be included in the present discourse, lest; brevity only
increase the obscurity; but must rather be deferred till another occasion for such
explanation as the Lord may enable us to give.

TRACTATE 95

1. The Lord, when promising that He would send the Holy Spirit, said, "When He is come, He
will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. What does it mean?
Is it that the Lord Jesus Christ did not reprove the world of sin, when He said, "If I had
not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their
sin"? And that no one may take it to his head to say that this applied properly to the
Jews, and not to the world, did He not say in another place, "If ye were of the world, the
world would love his own"? Did He not reprove it of righteousness, when He said, "O
righteous Father, the world hath not known Thee"? And did He not reprove it of judgment
when He declared that He would say to those on the left hand, "Depart ye into everlasting
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"? And many other passages are to be found in
the holy evangel, where Christ reproveth the world of these things. Why is it, then, He
attributeth this to the Holy Spirit, as if it were His proper prerogative? Is it that,
because Christ spake only among the nation of the Jews, He does not appear to have
reproved the world, inasmuch as one may be understood to be reproved who actually hears
the reprover;

while the Holy Spirit, who was in His disciples when scattered throughout the whole world,
is to be understood as having reproved not one nation, but the world? For mark what He
said to them when about to ascend into heaven: "It is not for you to know the times or the
moments, which the Father hath put in His own power. But ye shall receive the power of the
Holy Spirit, that cometh upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in
all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Surely this is to
reprove the world. But would any one venture to say that the Holy Spirit reproveth the
world through the disciples of Christ, and that Christ Himself doth not, when the apostle
exclaims, "Would ye receive a proof of Him that speaketh in me, namely Christ? And so
those, surely, whom the Holy Spirit reproveth, Christ. reproveth likewise. But in my
opinion, because there was to be shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Spirit that love
which casteth out the fear, that might have hindered them from venturing to reprove the
world which bristled with persecutions, therefore it was that He said, "He shall reprove
the world: as if He would have said, He shall shed abroad love in your hearts, and, having
your fear thereby expelled, ye shall have freedom to reprove. We have frequently said,
however, that the operations of the Trinity are inseparable;

but the Persons needed to be set forth one by one, that not only without separating Them,
but also without confounding Them together, we may have a right understanding both of
Their Unity and Trinity. 2. He next explains what He has said" of sin, and of
righteousness, and of judgment. "Of sin indeed," He says, "because they have believed not
on me. For this sin, as if it were the only one, He has put before the others; because
with the continuance of this one, all others are retained, and in the removal of this, the
others are remitted. "But of righteousness," He adds, "because I go to the Father, and ye
shall see me no more. And here we have to consider in the first place, if any one is
rightly reproved of sin, how he may also be rightly reproved of righteousness. For if a
sinner ought to be reproved just because he is a sinner, will any one imagine that a
righteous man is also to be reproved because he is righteous? Surely not. For if at any
time a righteous man also is reproved, he is rightly reproved on this account, that,
according to Scripture, "There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth
not. And accordingly, when a righteous man is reproved, he is reproved of sin, and not of
righteousness. Since in that divine utterance also, where we read, "Be not made righteous
over-much," there is notice taken, not of the righteousness of the wise man, but of the
pride of the presumptuous. The man, therefore, that becomes "righteous over-much," by that
very excess becomes unrighteous.

For he makes himself righteous over-much who says that he has no sin, or who imagines that
he is made righteous, not by the grace of God, but by the sufficiency of his own will: nor
is he righteous through living righteously, but is rather self-inflated with the
imagination of being what he is not. By what means, then, is the world to be reproved of
righteousness, if not by the righteousness of believers? Accordingly, it is convinced of
sin, because it believeth not on Christ; and it is convinced of the righteousness of those
who do believe. For the very comparison with believers is itself a reproving of
unbelievers. And this the exposition itself sufficiently indicates. For in wishing to open
up what He has said, He adds, "Of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye shall
see me no more. He does not say, And they shall see me no more; that is, those of whom He
had said, "because they have believed not on me. Of them He spake, when expounding what He
denominated sin, in the words, "because they have believed not on me; but when expounding
what He called righteousness, whereof the world is convicted, He turned to those to whom
He was speaking, and said, "because I go to the Father, and ye shall see me no more.
Wherefore it is of its own sins, but of others' righteousness, that the world is
convicted, just as darkness is reproved by the light:

"For al things," says the apostle, "that are reproved, are made manifest by the light. For
the magnitude of the evil chargeable on those who do not believe, may be made apparent not
only by itself, but also by the goodness of those who do believe. And since the cry of
unbelievers usually is, How can we believe what we do not see so the righteousness of
unbelievers just required this very definition, "Because I go to the Father, and ye shall
see me no more. For blessed are they who see not, and yet do believe. For of those also
who saw Christ, the faith in Him that met with commendation was not that they believed
what they saw, namely, the Son of man; but that they believed what they did not see,
namely, the Son of God. But after His servant-form was itself also withdrawn from their
view, then in every respect was the word truly fulfilled, "The just liveth by faith. For
"faith," according to the definition in the Epistle to the Hebrews, "is the confidence of
those that hope, the conviction of things that are not seen."

3. But how are we to understand, "Ye shall see me no more"? For He saith not, I go to the
Father, and ye shall not see me, so as to be understood as referring to the interval of
time when He would not be seen, whether short or long, but at all events terminable; but
in saying, "Ye shall see me no more," as if a truth announced beforehand that they would
never see Christ in all time coming. Is this the righteousness we speak of, never to see
Christ, and yet to believe on Him; seeing that the faith whereby the just liveth is
commended on the very ground of believing that the Christ whom it seeth not meanwhile, it
shall see some day? Once more, in reference to this righteousness, are we to say that the
Apostle Paul was not righteous when confessing that He had seen Christ after His ascension
into heaven, which was undoubtedly the time of which He had already said, "Ye shall see me
no more"? Was Stephen, that hero of surpassing renown, not righteous in the spirit of this
righteousness, who, when they were stoning him, exclaimed, "Behold, I see the heavens
opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God"? What, then, is meant by "I
go to the Father, and ye shall see me no more," but just this, As I am while with you now?
For at that time He was still mortal in the likeness of sinful flesh.

He could suffer hunger and thirst, be wearied, and sleep; and this Christ,that is, Christ
in such a condition, they were , no more to see after He had passed from this e world to
the Father; and such, also, is therighteousness of faith, whereof the apostle t says,
"Though we have known Christ after f the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him f no more.
This, then, He says, will be your . righteousness whereof the world shall be reproved,
"because I go to the Father, and ye shall see me no more: seeing that ye shall believe in
me as in one whom ye shall not see; and when ye shall see me as I shall be then, we shall
not see me as I am while with you meanwhile; ye shall not see me in my humility, but in my
exaltation; nor in my mortality, but in my eternity; nor at the bar, but on the throne of
judgment: and by this faith of yours, in other words, your righteousness, the Holy Spirit
will reprove an unbelieving world.

4. He will also reprove it "of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. Who
is this, save he of whom He saith in another place, "Behold, the prince of the world
cometh, and shall find nothing in me; that is, nothing within his jurisdiction, nothing
belonging to him; in fact, no sin at all? For thereby is the devil the prince of the
world. For it is not of the heavens and of the earth, and of all that is in them, that the
devil is prince, in the sense in which the world is to be understood, when it is said,
"And the world was made by Him; but the devil is prince of that world, whereof in the same
passage He immediately afterwards subjoins the words, "And the world knew Him not; that
is, unbelieving men, wherewith the world through its utmost extent is filled: among whom
the believing world groaneth, which He, who made the world, chose out of the world; and of
whom He saith Himself, "The Son of man came not to judge the world, but that the world
through Him might be saved. He is the judge by whom the world is condemned, the helper
whereby the world is saved: for just as a tree is full of foliage and fruit, or a field of
chaff and wheat, so is the world full of believers and unbelievers.

Therefore the prince of this world, that is, the prince of the darkness thereof, or of
unbelievers, out of whose hands that world is rescued, to which it is said, "Ye were at
one time darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: the prince of this world, of whom He
elsewhere saith, "Now is the prince of this world cast out," is assuredly judged, inasmuch
as he is irrevocably destined to the judgment of everlasting fire. And so of this
judgment, by which the prince of the world is judged, is the world reproved by the Holy
Spirit; for it is judged along with its prince, whom it imitates in its own pride and
impiety. "For if God," in the words of the Apostle Peter, "spared not the angels that
sinned, but thrust them into prisons of infernal darkness, and gave them up to be reserved
for punishment in the judgment," how is the world otherwise than reproved of this judgment
by the Holy Spirit, when it is in the Holy Spirit that the apostle so speaketh? Let men,
therefore, believe in Christ, that they be not convicted of the sin of their own unbelief,
whereby all sins are retained: let them make their way into the number of believers, that
they be not convicted of the righteousness of those, whom, as justified, they fail to
imitate: let them beware of that future judgment, that they be not judged with the prince
of the world, whom, judged as he is, they continue to imitate.

For the unbending pride of mortals can have no thought of being spared itself, as it is
thus called to think with terror of the punishment that overtook the pride of angels.


TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124
======================================

TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124 continued

TRACTATE 96

John XVI. 12, 13. 1. In this portion of the holy Gospel, where the Lord says to His
disciples, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now," there
meets us first this subject of needful inquiry, how it was that He said a little before,
"All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you," and yet says here,
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. But how it was that
He spake of what He had not yet done as if it were done, just as the prophet testifies
that God has made those things which are still to come, when He says, "Who hath made those
things which are still to come," we have already explained as well as we could when
dealing with those words themselves. Now, however, you are perhaps wishing to know what
those things were which the apostles were then unable to bear. But which of us would
venture to assert his own present capacity for what they wanted the ability to receive?
And on this account you are neither to expect me to tell you things which perhaps I could
not comprehend myself were they told me by another; nor would you be able to bear them,
even were I talented enough to let you hear of things that are above your comprehension.
It may be, indeed, that some among you are fit enough already to comprehend things which
are still beyond the grasp of others;

and if not all about which the divine Master said, "I have yet many things to say unto
you," yet perhaps some of them: but what they were which He Himself thus omitted to tell
them, it would be rash to have even the wish to presume to say. For at that time the
apostles were not yet fitted even to die for Christ, when He said to them, "Ye cannot
follow me now," and when the very foremost of them, Peter, who had presumptuously declared
that he was already able, met with a different experience from what he anticipated: and
yet afterwards a countless number both of men and women, boys and girls, youths and
maidens, old and young, were crowned with martyrdom; and the sheep were found able for
that which, when the Lord spake these words, the shepherds were still unable to bear.
Ought, then, those sheep to have been asked, in that extremity of trial, when required to
contend for the truth even unto death, and to shed their blood for the name or doctrine of
Christ;-ought they, I say, to have been asked, Which of you would venture to account
himself ready for martyrdom, for which Peter was still unfitted, even when taught face to
face by the Lord Himself?

In the same way, therefore, one may say that Christian people, even when desiring to hear,
ought not to be told what those things are of which the Lord then said, "I have yet many
things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. If the apostles were still unable,
much more so are ye: although it may be that many now can bear what Peter then could not,
in the same way as many are able to be crowned with martyrdom which at that time was still
beyond the power of Peter, more especially that now the Holy Spirit has been sent, as He
was not then, of whom He went on immediately to add the words "Howbeit when He, the Spirit
of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth," thereby showing of a certainty that they
could not bear what He had still to say, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon
them.

2. Well, then, let us grant that it is so, that many can now bear those things when the
Holy Spirit has been sent, which could not then, prior to His coming, be borne by the
disciples: do we on that account know what it is that He would not say, as we should know
it were we reading or hearing it as uttered by Himself? For it is one thing to know
whether we or you could bear it; but quite another to know what it is, whether able to be
borne or not. But when He Himself was silent about such things, which of us could say, It
is this or that? Or if he venture to say it, how will he prove it? For who could manifest
such vanity or recklessness as when saying what he pleased to whom he pleased, even though
true, to affirm without any divine authority that it was the very thing which the Lord on
that occasion refused to utter? Which of us could do such a thing without incurring the
severest charge of rashness,-a thing which gets no countenance from prophetic or apostolic
authority?

For surely if we had read any such thing in the books confirmed by canonical authority,
which were written after our Lord's ascension, it would not have been enough to have read
such a statement, had we not also read in the same place that this was actually one of
those things which the Lord was then unwilling to tell His disciples, because they were
unable to bear them. As if, for example, I were to say that the words which we read at the
opening of this Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God: and those which follow, because they
were written afterwards, and yet without any mention of their being uttered by the Lord
Jesus when He was here in the flesh, but were written by one of His apostles, to whom they
were revealed by His Spirit, were some of those which the Lord would not then utter,
because the disciples were unable to bear them; who would listen to me in making so rash a
statement? But if in the same passage where we read the one we were also to read the
other, who would not give due credence to such an apostle?

3. But it seems to me also very absurd to say that the disciples could not then have borne
what we find recorded, about things invisible and of profoundest import, in the apostolic
epistles, which were written in after days, and of which there is no mention that the Lord
uttered them when His visible presence was with them. For why could they not bear then
what is now read in their books, land borne by every one, even though not understood? Some
things there are, indeed, in the Holy Scriptures which unbelieving men both have no
understanding of when they read or hear them, and cannot bear when they are read or heard:
as the pagans, that the world was made by Him who was crucified; as the Jews, that He
could be the Son of God, who broke up their mode of observing the Sabbath; as the
Sabellians, that the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit are a Trinity; as the Arians, that
the Son is equal to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son; as the
Photinians, that Christ is not only man like ourselves, but God also, equal to God the
Father; as the Manicheans, that Christ Jesus, by whom we must be saved, condescended to be
born in the flesh and of the flesh of man:

and all others of divers perverse sects, who can by no means bear whatever is found in the
Holy Scriptures and in the Catholic faith that stands out in opposition to their errors,
just as we cannot bear their sacrilegious vaporings and mendacious insanities. For what
else is it not to be able to bear, but not to retain in our minds with calmness and
composure? But what of all that has been written since our Lord's ascension with canonical
truth and authority, is it not read and heard with equanimity by every believer, and
catechumen also, before in his baptism he receive the Holy Spirit, even although it is not
yet understood as it ought to be? How then, could not the disciples bear any of those
things which were written after the Lord's ascension, even though the Holy Spirit was not
yet sent to them, when now they are all borne by catechumens prior to their reception of
the Holy Spirit? For although the sacramental privileges of believers are not exhibited to
them, it does not therefore happen that they cannot bear them; but in order that they may
be all the more ardently desired by them, they are honorably concealed from their view.

4. Wherefore, beloved, you need not expect to hear from us what the Lord then refrained
from telling His disciples, because they were still unable to bear them: but rather seek
to grow in the love that is shed abroad in your hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given
unto you; that, fervent in spirit, and loving spiritual things, you may be able, not by
any sign apparent to your bodily eyes, or any sound striking on your bodily ears, but by
the inward eyesight and hearing, to become acquainted with that spiritual light and that
spiritual word which carnal men are unable to bear. For that cannot be loved which is
altogether unknown. But when what is known, in however small a measure, is also loved, by
the self-same love one is led on to a better and fuller knowledge. If, then, you grow in
the love which the Holy Spirit spreads abroad in your hearts, "He will teach you all
truth; or, as other codices have it, "He will guide you in all truth: as it is said, "Lead
me in Thy way, O Lord, and I will walk in Thy truth. So shall the result be, that not from
outward teachers will you learn those things which the Lord at that time declined to
utter, but be all taught of God;

so that the very things which you have learned and believed by means of lessons and
sermons supplied from without regarding the nature of God, as incorporeal, and unconfined
by limits, and yet not rolled out as a mass of matter through infinite space, but
everywhere whole and perfect and infinite, without the gleaming of colors, without the
tracing of bodily outlines, without any markings of letters or succession of
syllables,-your minds themselves may have the power to perceive. Well, now, I have just
said something which is perhaps of that same character, and yet you have received it; and
you have not only been able to bear it, but have also listened to it with pleasure. But
were that inward Teacher, who, while still speaking in an external way to the disciples,
said, "I have still many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now," wishing to
speak inwardly to us of what I have said of the incorporeal nature of God in the same way
as He speaks to the angels, who always behold the face of the Father we should still be
unable to bear them.

Accordingly, when He says, "He will teach you all truth," or "will guide yon into all
truth," I do not think the fulfillment is possible in any one's mind in this present
life(for who is there, while living in this corruptible and soul-oppressing body, that can
know all truth, when even the apostle says, "We know in part "?), but because it is
effected by the Holy Spirit, of whom we have now received the earnest, that we shall
attain also to the actual fullness of knowledge: whereof iris said by the same apostle,
"But then face to face; and, "Now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am
known; not as a thing which he knows fully in this life, but which, as a thing that would
still be future on to the attainment of that perfection, the Lord promised us through the
love of the Spirit, when He said, "He will teach you all truth,"' or "will guide you unto
all truth."

5. As these things are so, beloved, I warn you in the love of Christ to beware of impure
seducers and sects of obscene filthiness, whereof the apostle says, "But it is a shame
even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret: lest, when they begin to
teach their horrible impurities, which no human ear whatever can bear, they declare them
to be the very things whereof the Lord said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but
ye cannot bear them now;" and assert that it is the Holy Spirit's agency that makes such
impure and detestable things possible to be borne. The evil things which no human modesty
whatever can endure are of one kind, and of quite another are the good things which man's
little understanding is unable to bear: the former are wrought in unchaste bodies, the
latter are beyond the reach of all bodies; the one is perpetrated in the filthiness of the
flesh, the other is scarcely perceivable by the pure mind. "Be ye therefore renewed in the
spirit of your mind," and "understand what is the will of God, which is good, and
acceptable, and perfect;" that, "rooted and grounded in love, ye may be able to
comprehend, with all saints, what is the length, and breadth, and height, and depth, even
to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled with all the
fullness of God." For in such a way will the Holy Spirit teach you all truth, when He
shall shed abroad that love ever more and more largely in your hearts.

TRACTATE 97

John XVI. 12, 13 (continued). 1. The Holy Spirit, whom the Lord promised to send to His
disciples, to teach them all the truth which, at the time He was speaking to them, they
were unable to bear: of the which Holy Spirit, as the apostle says, we have now received
"the earnest," an expression whereby we are to understand that His fullness is reserved
for us till another life: that Holy Spirit, therefore, teacheth believers also in the
present life, as far as they can severally apprehend what is spiritual; and enkindles a
growing desire in their breasts, according as each one makes progress in that love, which
will lead him both to love what he knows already, and to long after what still remains to
be known: so that those very things which he has some notion of at present, he may know
that he is still ignorant of, as they are yet to be known in that life which eye hath not
seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man hath perceived. But were the inner Master
wishing at present to say those things in such a way of knowing, that is, to unfold and
make them patent to our mind, our human weakness would be unable to bear them. Whereof you
remember, beloved, that I have already spoken, when we were occupied with the words of the
holy Gospel, where the Lord says, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot
bear them now.

Not that in these words of the Lord we should be suspecting an over-fastidious concealment
of no one knows what secrets, which might be uttered by the Teacher, but could not be
borne by the learner, but those very things which in connection with religious doctrine we
read and write, hear and speak of, as within the knowledge of such and such persons, were
Christ willing to utter to us in the self-same way as He speaks of them to the holy
angels, in His own Person as the only-begotten Word of the Father, and co-eternal with
Him, where are the human beings that could bear them, even were they already spiritual, as
the apostles still were not when the Lord so spoke to them, and as they afterwards became
when the Holy Spirit descended? For, of course, whatever may be known of the creature, is
less than the Creator Himself, who is the supreme and true and unchangeable God. And yet
who keeps silence about Him? Where is His name not found in the mouths of readers,
disputants, inquirers, respondents, adorers, singers, all sorts of haranguers, and lastly
even of blasphemers themselves? And although no one keeps silence about Him, who is there
that apprehends Him as He is to be understood, although He is never out of the mouths and
the hearing of men? Who is there, whose keenness of mind can even get near Him? Who is
there that would have known Him as the Trinity, had not He Himself desired so to become
known?

And what man is there that now holds his tongue about that Trinity; and yet what man is
there that has any such idea of it as the angels? The very things, therefore, that are
incessantly being uttered off-hand and openly about the eternity, the truth, the holiness
of God, are understood well by some, and badly by others: nay rather, are understood by
some, and not understood at all by others. For he that understands in a bad way, does not
understand at all. And in the case even of those by whom they are understood in a right
sense, by some they are perceived with less, by others with greater mental vividness, and
by none on earth are apprehended as they are by the angels. In the very mind, therefore,
that is to say, in the inner man, there is a kind of growth, not only in order to the
transition from milk to solid food, but also to the taking of food itself in still larger
and larger measure. But such growth is not in the way of a space-covering mass of matter,
but in that of an illuminated understanding; because that food is itself the light of the
understanding.

In order, then, to your growth and apprehension of God, and in order that your
apprehension may keep full pace with your ever-advancing growth, you ought to be
addressing your prayer, and turning your hope, not to the teacher whose voice only reaches
your ears, that is, who plants and waters only by outside labor, but to Him who giveth the
increase. 2. Accordingly, as I have admonished you in my last sermon, take heed, those of
you specially who are still children and have need of a milk diet, of turning a curious
ear to men, who have found occasion for self-deception and the deceiving of others in the
words of the Lord, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now,"
in order to the discovery of that which is unknown, while you still have minds that are
incompetent to discriminate between the true and the false; and most especially on account
of the obscene lewdnesses which Satan has instilled, by God's permission, into unstable
and carnal souls, for this end, that His judgments may everywhere be objects of terror,
and that pure discipline may best manifest its sweetness in contrast with the impurities
of wickedness; and that honor may be given to Him, and fear and modesty of demeanor
assumed by every one, who has either been kept from falling into such evils by His kingly
power, or been raised out of them by His uplifting hand. Beware, with fear and prayer, of
rushing into that mystery of Solomon's, where "the woman that is foolish and brazen-faced,
and become destitute of bread," invites the passers-by with the words, "Come and make a
pleasant feast on hidden bread, and the sweetness of stolen waters.

For the woman thus spoken of is the vanity of the impious, who, utterly senseless as they
are, fancy that they know something, just as was said of that woman, that she had "become
destitute of bread; who, though destitute of a single loaf, promises loaves; in other
words, though ignorant of the truth, she promises the knowledge of the truth. But it is
bread of a hidden character she promises, and which she declares is partaken of with
pleasure, as well as the sweetness of stolen waters; in order that what is publicly
forbidden to be uttered or believed in the Church, may be listened to and acted upon with
willingness and relish. For by such secrecy profane teachers give a kind of seasoning to
their poisons for the curious, that thereby they may imagine that they learn something
great, because counted worthy of holding a secret, and may imbibe the more sweetly the
folly which they regard as wisdom, the hearing of which, as a thing prohibited, they are
represented as stealing.

3. Hence the system of magical arts commends its nefarious rites to those who are
deceived, or ready to be so, by a sacrilegious curiosity. Hence, also, those unlawful
divinations by the inspection of the entrails of slain animals, or of the cries and
flights of birds, or of multiform demoniacal signs, are distilled by converse with
abandoned wretches into the ears of persons who are on the brink of destruction. And it is
because of these unlawful and punishable secrets that the woman mentioned above is styled
not merely "foolish," but also "audacious." But such things are alien not only to the
reality, but to the very name of our religion. And what shall we say of this foolish and
brazen-faced woman seasoning, as she does, so many wicked heresies, and serving up so many
detestable fables with Christian forms of expression? Would that they were only such as
are found in theatres, whether as the subjects of song or dancing, or turned into ridicule
by a mimicking buffoonery; and not, some of them, such as makes us grieve at the
foolishness, while wondering at the audacity that could have contrived them, against God!
And yet all these utterly senseless heretics, who wish to be styled Christians, attempt to
color the audacities of their devices, which are perfectly ahorrent to every human
feeling, with the chance presented to them of that gospel sentence uttered by the Lord, "I
have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now:" as if these were the
very things which the apostles could not then bear, and as if the Holy Spirit had taught
them what the unclean spirit, with all the length he can carry his audacity, blushes to
teach and to preach in broad daylight.

4. It is such whom the apostle foresaw through the Holy Spirit, when he said: "For the
time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall
they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears
from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. For that mentioning of secrecy and theft,
whereof it is said, "Partake with pleasure of hidden bread and the sweetness of stolen
waters," creates an itching in those who listen with ears that are lusting after spiritual
fornication, just as by a kind of itching also of desire in the flesh the soundness of
chastity is corrupted. Hear, therefore, how the apostle foresaw such things, and gave
salutary admonition about avoiding them, when be said, "Shun profane novelties of words;
for they increase unto much ungodliness, and their speech insinuates itself as cloth a
cancer. He did not say novelties of words merely; but added, "profane. For there are also
novelties of words in perfect harmony with religious doctrine, as is told us in Scripture
of the very name of Christians, when it began to be used. For itwas in Antioch that the
disciples were first called Christians after the Lord's ascension, as we read in the Acts
of the Apostles: and certain houses were afterwards called by the new names of hospices
and monasteries; but the things themselves existed prior to their names, and are confirmed
by religious truth, which also forms their defense against the wicked.

In opposition also to the impiety of Arian heretics, they coined the new term, Patris
Homousios; but there was nothing new signified by such a name; for what is called
Homousios is just this: "I and my Father are one," to wit, of one and the same substance.
For if every novelty were profane, as little should we have it said by the Lord, "A new
commandment I give unto. you; nor would the Testament be called New, nor the new song be
sung throughout the whole earth. But there is profanity in the novelties of words, when it
is said by "the foolish and audacious woman, Come and enjoy the tasting of hidden bread,
and the sweetness of stolen waters. From such enticing words of false science the apostle
also gives his prohibitory warning, in the passage where he says, "O Timothy, keep that
which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane novelties of expression, and oppositions
of science falsely so called; which some professing, have erred concerning the faith. For
there is nothing that these men so love as to profess science, and to deride as utter
silliness faith in those verities which the young are enjoined to believe.

5. But some one will say, Have spiritual men nothing in the matter of doctrine, which they
are to say nothing about to the carnal, but to speak out upon to the spiritual? If I shall
answer, They have not, I shall be immediately met with the words of the Apostle Paul in
his Epistle to the Corinthians: "I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto
carnal. As unto babes in Christ I have given you milk to drink, and not meat to eat: for
hitherto ye were not able; neither yet now are ye able; for ye are yet carnal;" and with
these, "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect;" and with these also, "Comparing
spiritual things with spiritual: but the natural man perceiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him." The meaning of all this, in order that
these words of the apostle may no longer lead to the hankering after secrets through the
profane novelties of verbiage, and that what ought always to be shunned by the spirit and
body of the chaste may not be asserted as only unable to be borne by the carnal, we shall,
with the Lord's permission, make the subject of dissertation in another discourse, so that
for the time we may bring the present to a close.

TRACTATE 98

John XVI. 12, 13 (continued). 1. From the words of our Lord, where He says, "I have yet
many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now," there arose a difficult
question, which I recollect to have put off, that it might be handled afterwards at
greater leisure, because my last discourse had reached its proper limits, and required to
be brought to a close. And now, accordingly, as we have time to redeem our promise, let us
take up its discussion as the Lord Himself shall grant us ability, who put it into our
heart to make the proposal. And the question is this: Whether spiritual men have aught in
doctrine which they should withhold from the carnal, but declare to the spiritual. For if
we shall say, They have not, we shall meet with the reply, What, then, is to be made of
the words of the apostle in writing to the Corinthians: "I could not speak unto you as
unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto babes in Christ, I have given you milk to
drink, and not meat to eat: for hitherto ye were not able; neither yet now are ye able;
for ye are yet carnal?" But if we say, They have, we have cause to fear and take heed,
lest under such a pretext detestable doctrines be taught in secret, and under the name of
spiritual, as things which cannot be understood by the carnal, may seem not only capable
of being whitewashed by plausible excuses, but deserving also to be lauded in preaching.

2. In the first place, then, your Charity ought to know that it is Christ Himself as
crucified, wherewith the apostle says that he has fed those who are babes as with milk;
but His flesh itself, in which was witnessed His real death, that is, both His real wounds
when transfixed and His blood when pierced, does not present itself to the minds of the
carnal in the same manner as to that of the spiritual, and so to the former it is milk,
and to the latter it is meat; for if they do not hear more than others, they understand
better. For the mind has not equal powers of perception even for that which is equally
received by both in faith. And so it happens that the preaching of Christ crucified, by
the apostle, was at once to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles foolishness;
and to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, the power of God, and the wisdom of
God; but to the carnal, as babes who held it only as a matter of faith, and to the
spiritual, as those of greater capacity, who perceived it as a matter of understanding; to
the former, therefore, as a milk-draught, to the latter as solid food: not that the former
knew it in one way out in the world at large, and the latter in another way in their
secret chambers; but that what both heard in the same measure when it was publicly spoken,
each apprehended in his own measure.

For inasmuch as Christ was crucified for the very purpose of shedding His blood for the
remission of sins, and of divine grace being thereby commended in the passion of His Only-
begotten, that no one should glory in man, what understanding had they of Christ crucified
who were still saying, "I am of Paul"? Was it such as Paul himself had, who could say,
"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ"? In
regard, therefore, even to Christ crucified, he himself found food in proportion to his
own capacity, and nourished them with milk in accordance with their infirmity. And still
further, knowing that what he wrote to the Corinthians might doubtless be understood in
one way by those who were still babes, and differently by those of greater capacity, he
said, "If any one among you is a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the
things that I write unto you are the commandment of the Lord; but if any man be ignorant,
let him be ignorant. Assuredly he would have the knowledge of the spiritual to be
substantial, wherever not only faith had found a suitable abode, but a certain power of
understanding was possessed; and whereby such believed those very things which as
spiritual they likewise acknowledged. But "let him be ignorant," he says, who "is
ignorant; because it was not yet revealed to him to know that which he believes. When this
takes place in a man's mind, he is said to be known of God;

for it is God who endows him with this power of understanding, as it is elsewhere said,
"But now, knowing God, or rather, being known of God. For it was not then that God first
knew those who were foreknown and chosen before the foundation of the world; but then it
was that He made them to know Himself. 3. Having ascertained this, therefore, at the
outset, that the very things, which are equally heard by the spiritual and the carnal, are
received by each according to the slender measure of his own capacity,-by some as babes,
by others as those of riper years,-by one as milk nourishment, by another as solid
food,-there seems no necessity for any matters of doctrine being retained in silence as
secrets, and concealed from infant believers, as things to be spoken of apart to those who
are older, or possessed of a riper understanding; and let us regard it as needful to act
thus, just because of the words of the apostle, "I could not speak unto you as unto
spiritual, but as unto carnal. For even this very statement of his, that he knew nothing
among them but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, he could not speak unto them as unto
spiritual, but as unto carnal; because even that they were not able to receive as
spiritual. But all who were spiritual among them received with spiritual understanding the
very same truths which the others only heard as carnal; and in this way may we understand
the words, "I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal," as if he
said, What I did speak, ye could not receive as spiritual, but as carnal.

For "the natural man"-that is, the man whose wisdom is of a mere human kind, and is called
natural [literally, soulish] from the soul, and carnal from the flesh, because the
complete man consists of soul and flesh-"perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God;
that is, the measure of grace bestowed on believers by the cross of Christ, and thinks
that all that is effected by that cross is to provide us with an example for our imitation
in contending even to death for the truth. For if men of this type, who have no desire to
be aught else than men, knew how it is that Christ crucified is "made of God unto us
wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, that, according as it is
written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. they would doubtless no longer glory
in man, nor say in a carnal spirit, "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas; but
in a spiritual way, "I am of Christ."

4. But the question is still further raised by what we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews:
"When now for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again to be taught which be
the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and
not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk hath no experience in the word of
righteousness; for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are perfect, even
those who by habit have their senses exercised to distinguish good from evil. For here we
see, as if clearly defined, what he calIs the strong meat of the perfect; and which is the
same as that which he writes to the Corinthans, "We speak wisdom among them that are
perfect. But who it was that he wished in this passage to be understood as perfect, he
proceeded to indicate in the words, "Even those who by habit have their senses exercised
to distinguish good from evil. Those, therefore, who, through a weak and undisciplined
mind, are destitute of this power, wi11 certainly, unless enabled by what may be called
the milk of faith to believe both the invisible things which they see not, and the
comprehensible things which they do not yet comprehend, be easily seduced by the promise
of science to vain and sacrilegious fables:

so as to think both of good and evil only under corporeal forms, and to have no idea of
God Himself save as some sort of body, and be able only to view evil as a substance; while
there is rather a kind of falling away from the immutable Substance in the case of all
mutable substances, which were made out of nothing by the immutable and supreme substance
itself, which is God. And assuredly whoever not only believes, but also through the
exercised inner senses of his mind understands, and perceives, and knows this, there is no
longer cause for fear that he will be seduced by those who, while accounting evil to be a
substance uncreated by God,make God Himself a mutable substance, as is done by the
Manicheans, or any other pests, if such there be, that fall into similar foily. 5. But to
those who are still babes in mind, and who as carnal, the apostle says, require to be
nourished with milk, all discoursing on such a subject, wherein we deal not only with the
believing, but also with the understanding and the knowing of what is spoken, must be
burdensome, as being still unable to perceive such things, and be more fitted to oppress
than to feed them. Whence it comes to pass that the spiritual, while not altogether silent
on such subjects to the carnal, because of the Catholic faith which is to be preached to
all, yet do not so handle them as, in their wish to simplify them to understandings that
are still deficient in capacity, to bring their discourse on the truth into disrepute,
rather than the truth that is in their discourse within the perceptions of their hearers.
Accordingly in his Epistle to the Colossians he says: "And though I be absent in the
flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and that which is
lacking in your faith in Christ. And in that to the Thessalonians: "Night and day," he
says, "praying more abundantly, that we might see your face, and might perfect that which
is lacking in your faith. Here we are, of course, to understand those who were under such
primary catechetical instruction, as implied their nourishment with milk and not with
strong meat;

of the former of which there is mention made in the Epistle to the Hebrews of an abundant
supply for such as nevertheless he would now have had to be feeding on solid food.
Accordingly he says: "Therefore leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us have
regard to the completion; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works,
and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of the baptismal font, and of the laying on of
hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. This is the copious
supply of milk, without which even they cannot live, who have already indeed their reason
sufficiently in use to enable them to believe, but who cannot distinguish good from evil,
so as to be not only a matter of faith, but also of understanding (which belongs to the
department of solid food). But when he includes doctrine also in his description of the
milk, it is that which has been delivered to us in the Creed and the Lord's Prayer.

6. But let us be far from supposing that there is any contrariety between this milk and
the food of spiritual things that has to be received by the sound understanding, and which
was wanting to the Colossians and Thessalonians, and had still to be supplied. For the
supply of the deficiency implies no disapproval of that which existed. For even in the
very food that we take, so far is there from being any contrariety between milk and solid
food, that the latter itself becomes milk, in order to make it suitable to babes, whom it
reaches through the medium of the mother's or the nurse's body; so did also mother Wisdom
herself, who is solid food in the lofty sphere of angels, condescend in a manner to become
milk for babes, when the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. But the man Christ
Himself, who in His true flesh, true cross, true death, and true resurrection is called
the pure milk of babes, is, when rightly understood by the spiritual. found to be the Lord
of angels. Accordingly, babes are not to be so fed with milk as always to remain without
understanding the Godhead of Christ; nor are they to be so withdrawn from milk as to turn
their backs on His manhood. And the same thing may also be stated in another way in this
manner:

they are neither so to be fed with milk as never to understand Christ as Creator, nor so
to be withdrawn from milk as ever to turn their backs on Christ as Mediator. In this
respect, indeed, the similitude of maternal milk and solid food scarcely harmonizes with
the reality as thus stated, but rather that of a foundation: for when the child is weaned,
so as to be withdrawn from the nourishment of infancy, he never looks again amongst solid
food for the breasts which he sucked; but Christ crucified is both milk to sucklings and
meat to the more advanced. And the similitude of a foundation is on this account the more
suitable, because, for the Completion of the structure, the building is added without the
foundation being withdrawn. 7. And since this is the case, do you, whoever you be, who are
doubtless many of you still babes in Christ, be making advances towards the solid food of
the mind, not of the belly. Grow in the ability to distinguish good from evil, and cleave
more and more to the Mediator, who delivers you from evil; which does not admit of a local
separation from you, but rather of being healed within you. But whoever shall say to you,
Believe not Christ to be truly man, or that the body of any man or animal whatever was
created by the true God, or that the Old Testament was given by the true God, and anything
else of the same sort, for such things as these were not told you previously, when your
nourishment was milk, because your heart was still unfit for the apprehension of the
truth: such an one provides you not with meat, but with poison. For therefore it was that
the blessed apostle, in addressing those who appeared to him already perfect, even after
calling himself imperfect, said, "Let us, therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus
minded: and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

And that they might not rush into the hands of seducers, whose desire would be to turn
them away from the faith by promising them the knowledge of the truth, and suppose such to
be the meaning of the apostle's words, "God shall reveal even this unto you," he forthwith
added, "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule. If,
then, thou hast come to some understanding of what is not at variance with the rule of the
Catholic faith, whereto thou hast attained as the way that is guiding thee to thy
fatherland; and hast so understood it as to feel it a duty to dismiss all doubts whatever
on the subject: add to the building, but do not abandon the foundation. And surely of such
a character ought to be any teaching given by eiders to those who are babes, as not to
involve the assertion that Christ the Lord of all, and the prophets and apostles, who are
much farther advanced in age than themselves, had in any respect spoken falsely. And not
only ought you to avoid the babbling seducers of the mind, who prate away at their fables
and falsehoods, and in such vanities make the promise, forsooth, of profound science
contrary to the rule of faith, which we have accepted as Catholic;

but avoid those also as a still more insidious pest than the others, who discuss
truthfully enough the immutability of the divine nature, or the incorporeal creature, or
the Creator, and fully prove what they affirm by the most conclusive documents and
reasonings, and yet attempt to turn you away from the one Mediator between God and men.
For such are those of whom the apostle says, "Because that, when they knew God, they
glorified Him not as God. For what advantage is it to have a true understanding of the
immutable Good to one who has no hold of Him by whom there is deliverance from evil? And
let not the admonition of the most blessed apostle by any means lose its place in your
hearts: "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him
be accursed. He does not say, More than ye have received; but, 'Other than ye have
received. For had he said the former, he would be prejudging himself, inasmuch as he
desired to come to the Thessalonians to supply what was lacking in their faith. But one
who supplies, adds to what was deficient, without taking away what existed: while he that
transgresses the rule of faith, is not progressing in the way, but turning aside from it.

8. Accordingly, when the Lord says, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot
bear them now," He means that what they were still ignorant of had afterwards to be
supplied to them, and not that what they had already learned was to be subverted. And He,
indeed, as I have already shown in a former discourse, could so speak, because the very
things which He had taught them, had He wished to unfold them to them in the same way as
they are conceived in regard to Him by the angels, their still remaining human weakness
would be unable to bear. But any spiritual man may teach another man what he knows,
provided the Holy Spirit grant him an enlarged capacity for profiling, wherein also the
teacher himself may get some further increase, in order that both may be taught of God.
Although even among the spiritual themselves there are some, doubtless, who are of greater
capacity and in a better condition than others; so that one of them attained even to
things of which it is not lawful for a man to speak. Taking advantage of which, there have
been some vain individuals, who, with a presumption that betrays the grossest folly, have
forged a Revelation of Paul, crammed with all manner of fables, which has been rejected by
the orthodox Church;

affirming it to be that whereof he had said that he was caught up into the third heavens,
and there heard unspeakable words "which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
Nevertheless, the audacity of such might be tolerable, had he said that he heard words
which it is not as yet lawful for a man to utter; but when he said, "which it is not
lawful for a man to utter," who are they that dare to utter them with such impudence and
non-success? But with these words I shall now bring this discourse to a close; whereby I
would have you to be wise indeed in that which is good, but untainted by that which is
evil.

TRACTATE 99

John XVI. 13. I. What IS this that the Lord said of the Holy Spirit, when promising that
He would come and teach His disciples all truth, or, guide them into all truth: "For He
shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak"? For this
is similar to what He said of Himself, "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I
judge. But when expounding that, we said that it might be taken as referring to His human
nature; so that He seemed as the Son to announce beforehand that His own obedience,
whereby He became obedient even unto the death of the cross, would have its place also in
the judgment, when He shall judge the quick and the dead; for He shall do so for the very
reason that He is the Son of man. Wherefore He said, "The Father judgeth no man, but hath
committed all judgment unto the Son; for in the judgment He will appear, not in the form
of God, wherein He is equal to the Father, and cannot be seen by the wicked, but in the
form of man, in which He was made even a little lower than the angels; although then He
will come in glory, and not in His original humility, yet in a way that will be
conspicuous both to the good and to the bad. Hence He says further: "And He hath given Him
authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man.

In these words of His own it is made clear that it is not that form that will be presented
in the judgment, wherein He was when He thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but
that which He assumed when He made Himself of no reputation. For He emptied Himself in
assuming the form of a servant; in which, also, for the purpose of executing judgment, He
seems to have commended His obedience, when He said, "I can of mine own self do nothing:
as I hear, I judge. For Adam, by whose disobedience, as that of one man, many were made
sinners, did not judge as he heard; for he prevaricated what he heard, and of his own self
did the evil that he did; for he did not the will of God, but his own: while this latter,
by whose obedience, as that also of one man, many are made righteous, was not only
obedient even unto the death of the cross, in respect of which He was judged as alive from
the dead; but promised also that He would be showing obedience in the very judgment
itself, wherein He is yet to act as judge of the quick and the dead, when He said, "I can
of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge. But when it is said of the Holy Spirit,
"For He shall not speak of Himself;

but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak," shall we dare to harbor the notion
that it was so said in reference to any human nature of His, or the assumption of any
creature-form? For it was the Son alone in the Trinity who assumed the form of a servant,
a form which in His case was fitted into the unity of His person, or, in other words, that
the one person, Jesus Christ, should be the Son of God and the Son of man; and so that we
should be kept from preaching a quaternity instead of the Trinity, which God forbid that
we should do. And it is on account of this one personality as consisting of two
substances, the divine and the human, that He sometimes speaks in accordance with that
wherein He is God, as when He says, "I and my Father are one; and sometimes in accordance
with His manhood, as in the words, "For the Father is greater than I; in accordance with
which also we have understood those words of His that are at present under discussion, "I
can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge. But in reference to the person of the
Holy Spirit, a considerable difficulty arises how we are to understand the words, "For He
shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; since in it
there exists not one substance of Godhead and another of humanity, or of any other
creature whatsoever.

2. For the fact that the Holy Spirit appeared in bodily form, as a dove, was a sight begun
and ended at the time: just as also, when He descended upon the disciples, there were seen
upon them cloven tongues as of fire, which also sat upon every one of them. Any one,
therefore, who says that the dove was connected with the Holy Spirit in the unity of His
person, as that it and Godhead (for the Holy Spirit is God) should go to constitute the
one person of the Holy Spirit, is compelled also to affirm the same thing of that fire;
and so may understand that he ought to assert neither. For those things in regard to the
substance of God, which needed at any time to be represented in some outward way, and so
exhibited themselves to men's bodily senses, and then passed away, were formed for the
moment by divine power from the subservient creation, and not from the dominant nature
itself; which, ever abiding the same, excites into action whatever it pleases; and, itself
unchangeable, changes all things else at its pleasure. In the same way also did that voice
from the cloud actually strike upon the bodily ears, and on that bodily sense which is
called the hearing; and yet in no way are we to believe that the Word of God, which is the
only-begotten Son, is defined, because He is called the Word, by syllables and sounds:

for when a sermon is in course of delivery, all the sounds cannot be pronounced
simultaneously; but the various individual sounds come, as it were, in their own order to
the birth, and succeed those which are dying away, so that all that we have to say is
completed only by the last syllable. Very different from this, surely, is the way in which
the Father speaketh to the Son, that is to say, God to God, His Word. But this, so far as
it can be understood by man, is a matter for the understanding of those who are fitted for
the reception of solid food, and not of milk. Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit became not
man by any assumption of humanity, and became not an angel by any assumption of angelic
nature, and as little entered into the creature-state by the assumption of any creature-
form whatever, how, in regard to Him, are we to understand those words of our Lord, "For
He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak"? A
difficult question; yea, too difficult. May the Spirit Himself be present, that, at least
up to the measure of our power of thinking on such a subject, we may be able to express
our thoughts, and that these, according to the little measure of my ability, may find
entrance into your understanding.

3. You ought, then, to be informed in the first place, and, those of you who can, to
understand, and the others, who cannot as yet understand, to believe, that in that
substantial essence, which is God, the senses are not, as if through some material
structure of a body, distributed in their appropriate places; as, in the mortal flesh of
all animals there is in one place sight, in another hearing, in another taste, in another
smelling, and over the whole the sense of touch. Far be it from us to believe so in the
case of that incorporeal and immutable nature. In it, therefore, hearing and seeing are
one and the same thing. In this way smelling also is said to exist in God; as the apostle
says, "As Christ also hath loved us, and hath given Himself for us an offering and a
sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor." And taste may be included, in accordance
with which God hateth the bitter in temper, and spueth out of His mouth those who are
lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot: and Christ our God saith, "My meat is to do the will
of Him that sent me.." There is also that divine sense of touch, in accordance with Which
the spouse saith of the bridegroom: "His left hand is under my head, and his right hand
shall embrace me." But these are not in God's case in different parts of the body. For
when He is said to know, all are included: both seeing, and hearing, and smelling, and
tasting, and touching; without any alteration of His substance, and without the existence
of any material element which is greater in one place and smaller in another: and when
there are any such thoughts of God in those even who are old in years, they are the
thoughts only of a childish mind.

4. Nor need you wonder that the ineffable knowledge of God, whereby He is cognizant of all
things, is, because of the various modes of human speech designated by the names of all
those bodily senses; since even our own mind, in other words, the inner man,-to which,
while itself exercising its knowing faculty in one uniform way, the different subjects of
its knowledge are communicated by those five messengers, as it were, of the body, when it
understands, chooses, and loves the unchangeable truth,-is said both to see the light,
whereof it is said, "That was the true light; and to hear the word, whereof it is said,
"In the beginning was the Word; and to be susceptible of smell, of which it is said, "We
will run after the smell of thy ointments; and to drink of the fountain, whereof it is
said, "With Thee is the fountain of life; and to enjoy the sense of touch, when it is
said, "But it is good for me to cleave unto God; in all of which it is not different
things, but the one intelligence, that is expressed by the names of so many senses. When,
therefore, it is said of the Holy Spirit, "For He shall not speak of Himself; but
whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak," so much the more is a simple nature, which
is simple [uncompounded] in the truest sense, to be either understood or believed, which
in its extent and sublimity far surpasses the nature of our minds.

For there is mutability in our mind, which comes by learning to the perception of what it
was previously ignorant of, and loses by unlearning what it formerly knew; and is deceived
by what has a similarity to truth, so as to approve of the false in place of the true, and
is hindered by its own obscurity as by a kind of darkness from arriving at the truth. And
so that substance is not in the truest sense simple, to which being is not identical with
knowing; for it can exist without the possession of knowledge. But it cannot be so with
that divine substance, for it is what it has. And on this account it has not knowledge in
any such way as that the knowledge whereby it knows should be to it one thing, and the
essence whereby it exists another; but both are one. Nor ought that to be called both,
which is simply one. "As the Father hath life in Himself," and He Himself is not something
different from the life that is in Him; "so hath He given to the Son to have life in
Himself," that is, hath begotten the Son, that He also should Himself be the life.
Accordingly we ought to accept what is said of the Holy Spirit, "For he shall not speak of
Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak," in such a way as to
understand thereby that He is not of Himself. Because it is the Father only who is not of
another.

For the Son is born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father; but the
Father is neither born of, nor proceedeth from, another. And yet surely there should not
on that account occur to human thought any idea of disparity in the supreme Trinity; for
both the Son is equal to Him of whom He is born, and the Holy Spirit to Him from whom He
proceedeth. But what difference there is in such a case between proceeding and being born,
would be too lengthy to make the subject of inquiry and dissertation, and would make our
definition liable to the charge of rashness, even after we had discussed it; for such a
thing is of the utmost difficulty, both for the mind to comprehend in any adequate way,
and even were it so that the mind has attained to any such comprehension, for the tongue
to explain, however able the one that presides as a teacher, or he that is present as a
hearer. Accordingly, "He shall not speak of Himself; because He is not of Himself. "But
whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: He shall hear of Him from whom He
proceedeth. To Him hearing is knowing; but knowing is being, as has been discussed above.
Because, then, He is not of Himself, but of Him from whom He proceedeth, and of whom He
has essence, of Him He has knowledge; from Him, therefore, He has hearing, which is
nothing else than knowledge.

5. And be not disturbed by the fact that the verb is put in the future tense. For it is
not said, whatsoever He hath heard, or, whatsoever He heareth; but, "whatsoever He shall
hear, that shall He speak. For such hearing is everlasting, because the knowing is
everlasting. But in the case of what is eternal, without beginning and without end, in
whatever tense the verb is put, whether in the past, or present, or future, there is no
falsehood thereby implied. For although to that immutable and ineffable nature, there is
no proper application of Was and Will be, but only Is: for that nature alone is in truth,
because incapable of change; and to it therefore was it exclusively suited to say, "I Am
That I Am," and "Thou shall say unto the children of Israel, He Who Is hath sent me unto
you: yet on account of the changeableness of the times amid which our mortal and
changeable life is spent, there is nothing false in our saying, both it was, and will be,
and is. It was in past, it is in present, it will be in future ages. It was, because it
never was wanting; it will be, because it will never be wanting; it is, because it always
is. For it has not, like one who no longer survives, died with the past; nor, like one who
abideth not, is it gliding away with the present; nor, as one who had no previous
existence, will it rise up with the future.

Accordingly, as our human manner of speaking varies with the revolutions of time, He, who
through all times was not, is not, and will not by any possibility be found wanting, may
correctly bespoken of in any tense whatever of a verb. The Holy Spirit, therefore, is
always hearing, t because He always knows: ergo, He both knew, and knows, and will know;
and in the same way He both heard, and hears, and will hear; for, as we have already said,
to Him hearing is one with knowing, and knowingwith Him is one with being. From Him,
therefore, He heard, and hears, and will hear, of whom He is; and of Him He is, from whom
He proceeds. 6. Some one may here inquire whether the Holy Spirit proceedeth also from the
Son. For the Son is Son of the Father alone, and the Father is Father of the Son alone;
but the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of one of them, but of both. You have the Lord
Himself saying, "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh
in you; and you have the apostle, "God hath sent forth the spirit of His Son into your
hearts. Are there, then, two, the one of the Father, the other of the Son? Certainly not.
For there is "one body," he said, when referring to the Church; and presently added, "and
one Spirit. And mark how he there makes up the Trinity. "As ye are called," he says, "in
one hope of your calling. "One Lord," where he certainly meant Christ to be understood;
but it remained that he should also name the Father: and accordingly there follows, "One
faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in
you all. And since, then, just as there is one Father, and one Lord, namely, the Son, so
also there is one Spirit; He is doubtless of both: especially as Christ Jesus Himself
saith, "The Spirit of your Father that dwelleth in you; and the apostle declares, "God
hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts.

You have the same apostle saying in another place, "But if the Spirit of Him that raised
up Jesus from the dead dwell in you," where he certainly intended the Spirit of the Father
to be understood; of whom, however, he says in another place, "But if any man have not the
Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. And many other testimonies there are, which plainly
show that He, who in the Trinity is styled the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit both of the
Father and of the Son. 7. And for no other reason, I suppose, is He called in a peculiar
way the Spirit; since though asked concerning each person in His turn, we cannot but admit
that the Father and the Son are each of them a Spirit; for God is a Spirit, that is, God
is not carnal, but spiritual. By the name, therefore, which they each also hold in common,
it was requisite that He should be distinctly called, who is not the one nor the other of
them, but in whom what is common to both becomes apparent. Why, then, should we not
believe that the Holy Spirit proceedeth also from the Son, seeing that He is likewise the
Spirit of the Son? For did He not so proceed, He could not, when showing Himself to His
disciples after the resurrection, have breathed sport them, and said, "Receive ye the Holy
Spirit. For what else was signified by such a breathing upon them, but that from Him also
the Holy Spirit proceedeth? And of the same character also are His words regarding the
woman that suffered from the bloody flux: "Some one hath touched me; for I perceive that
virtue is gone out of me. For that the Holy Spirit is also designated by the name of
virtue, is both clear from the passage where the angel, in reply to Mary's question, "How
shall this be, seeing I know not a man? said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and
the power [virtue] of the highest shall overshadow thee;

and our Lord Himself when giving His disciples the promise of the Spirit, said, "But tarry
ye in the city, until ye be endued with power [virtue] from on high; and on another
occasion, "Ye shall receive the power [virtue] of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and ye
shall be witnesses unto me. It is of this virtue that we are to believe, that the
evangelist says, "Virtue went out of Him, and healed them all." 8. If, then, the Holy
Spirit proceedeth both from the Father and from the Son, why said the Son, "He proceedeth
from the Father"? Why, do you think, but just because it is to Him He is wont to attribute
even that which is His own, of whom He Himself also is? Hence we have Him saying, "My
doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me." If, therefore, in such a passage we are to
understand that as His doctrine, which nevertheless He declared not to be His own, but the
Father's, how much more in that other passage are we to understand the Holy Spirit as
proceeding from Himself, where His words, "He proceedeth from the Father," were uttered so
as not to imply, He proceedeth not from me? But from Him, of whom the Son has it that He
is God (for He is God of God), He certainly has it that from Him also the Holy Spirit
proceedeth: and in this way the Holy Spirit has it of the Father Himself, that He should
also proceed from the Son, even as He proceedeth from the Father.

9. In connection with this, we come also to some understanding of the further point, that
is, so far as it can be understood by such beings as ourselves, why the Holy Spirit is not
said to be born, but to proceed: since, if He also were called by the name of Son, He
could not avoid being called the Son of both, which is utterly absurd. For no one is a son
of two, unless of a father and mother. But it would be utterly abhorrent to entertain the
suspicion of any such intervention between God the Father and God the Son. For not even a
son of human parents proceedeth at the same time from father and from mother: but at the
time that he proceedeth from the father into the mother, it is not then that he proceedeth
from the mother; and when he cometh forth from the mother into the light of day, it is not
then that he proceedeth from the father. But the Holy Spirit proceedeth not from the
Father into the Son, and then proceedeth from the Son to the work of the creature's
sanctification; but He proceedeth at the same time from both: although this the Father
hath given unto the Son, that He should proceed from Him also, even as He proceedeth from
Himself. And as little can we say that the Holy Spirit is not the life, seeing that the
Father is the life, and the Son is the life.

And in the same way as the Father, who hath life in Himself, hath given to the Son also to
have life in Himself; so hath He also given that life should proceed from Him, even as it
also proceedeth from Himself. But we come now to the words of our Lord that follow, when
He saith: "And He will show you things to come. He shall glorify me; for He shall receive
of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore,
said I, that He shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you. But as the present
discourse has already been protracted to some length, they must be left over for another.

TRACTATE 100

John XVI. 13-15 (continued). 1. When our Lord gave the promise of the coming of His Holy
Spirit, He said, "He shall teach you all truth," or, as we read in some copies, "He shall
guide you into all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear,
that shall He speak. On these Gospel words we have already discoursed as the Lord enabled
us; and now give your attention to those that follow. "And He will show you," He said,
"things to come. Over this, which is perfectly plain, there is no need to linger; for it
contains no question that demands from us any regular exposition. But the words that He
proceeds to add, "He shall make me clearly known; for He shall receive of mine, and shall
show it unto you," are not to be carelessly passed over. For by the words, "He shall make
me clearly known," we may understand, that by shedding abroad [God's] love in the hearts
of believers, and making them spiritual, He showed them how it was that the Son was equal
to the Father, whom previously they had only known according to the flesh, and as men
themselves had thought of Him only as man. Or at least that, filled themselves through
that very love with boldness, and divested of all fear, they might proclaim Christ unto
men; and so His fame be spread abroad through the whole world.

So that He said, "He shall make me clearly known," as if meaning, He shall free you from
fear, and endow you with a love that will so inflame your zeal in preaching me, that you
will send forth the odor, and commend the honor of, my glory throughout the world. For
what they were to do in the Holy Spirit, He said that the Spirit Himself would also do, as
is implied in the words, "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that
speaketh in you. The Greek word, indeed, which is docaQei, has been rendered by the Latin
interpreters in their respective translations, clarificabit ("shall make clearly known")
by one, and glorificabit ("shall glorify") by another: for the idea expressed in Greek by
the one term doca, from which is derived the verb docaQei, may be interpreted both by
claritas (brightness) and gloria (glory). For by glory every one becomes bright, and
glorious by brightness; and hence what is signified by both words, is one and the same
thing. And, as the most famous writers of the Latin tongue in olden time have defined it,
glory is the generally diffused and accepted fame of any one accompanied with praise. But
when this happened in the world in regard to Christ, we are not to suppose that it was the
bestowing of any great thing on Christ, but on the world. For to praise what is good is
not of benefit to that which receives, but to those who give the commendation.

2. But there is also a false glory, when the praise given is the result of a mistake,
whether in regard to things or to persons, or to both. For men are mistaken in regard to
things, when they think that to be good which is evil; and in regard to persons, when they
think one to be good who is evil; and in regard to both, when what is actually a vice is
esteemed a virtue; and when he who is praised for something is destitute of what he is
supposed to have, whether he be good or evil. To credit vain-glorious persons with the
things they profess, is surely a huge vice, and not a virtue; and yet you know how common
is the laudatory fame of such; for, as Scripture says, "The sinner is praised in the
desires of his soul, and he who practises iniquity is blessed. Here those who praise are
not mistaken in the persons, but in the things; for that is evil which they believe to be
good. But those who are morally corrupted with the evil of prodigality are undoubtedly
such as those who praise them do not simply suspect, but perceive them to be.

But further, if one feign himself a just man, and be not so, but, as regards all that he
seems to do in a praiseworthy way in the sight of men, does it not for God's sake, that
is, for the sake of true righteousness, but makes glory from men the only glory he seeks
and hankers after; while those with whom his extolled fame is generally accepted think of
him only as living in a praiseworthy way for God's sake,-they are not mistaken in the
thing, but are deceived in the person. For that which they believe to be good, is good;
but the person whom they believe to be good, is the reverse. But if, for example, skill in
magical arts be esteemed good, and any one, so long as he is believed to have delivered
his country by those same arts whereof all the while he is utterly ignorant, attain
amongst the irreligious to that generally accepted renown which is defined as glory, those
who so praise err in both respects; to wit, both in the thing, for they esteem that good
which is evil; and in the person, for he is not at all what they suppose him. But when, in
regard to any one who is righteous by God's grace and for God's sake, in other words,
truly righteous, there is on account of that very righteousness a generally accepted fame
of a laudatory kind, then the glory is indeed a true one;

and yet we are not to suppose that thereby the righteous man is made blessed, but rather
those who praise him are to be congratulated, because they judge rightly, and love the
righteous. And how much more, then, did Christ the Lord, by His own glory, benefit, not
Himself, but those whom He also benefited by His death? 3. But that is not a true glory
which He has among heretics, with whom, nevertheless, He appears to have a generally
accepted fame accompanied with praise. Such is no true glory, because in both respects
they are mistaken, for they both think that to be good which is not good, and they suppose
Christ to be what Christ is not. For to say that the only-begotten Son is not equal to Him
that begat, is not good: to say that the only-begotten Son of God is man only, and not
God, is not good: to say that the flesh of the Truth is not true flesh, is not good. Of
the three doctrines which I have stated, the first is held by the Arians, the second by
the Photinians, and the third by the Manicheans. But inasmuch as there is nothing in any
of them that is good, and Christ has nothing to do with them, in both respects they are in
the wrong; and they attach no true glory to Christ, although there may appear to be
amongst them a generally accepted fame regarding Christ of a laudatory character. And
accordingly all heretics together, whom it would be too tedious to enumerate, who have not
right views regarding Christ, err on this account, that their views are untrue regarding
both good things and evil.

The pagans, also, of whom great numbers are lauders of Christ, are themselves also
mistaken in both respects, saying, as they do, not in accordance with the truth of God,
but rather with their own conjectures, that He was a magician. For they reproach
Christians as being destitute of skill; but Christ they laud as a magician, and so betray
what it is that they love: Christ indeed they do not love, since what they love is that
which Christ never was. And thus, then, in both respects they are in error, for it is
wicked to be a magician; and as Christ was good, He was not a magician. Wherefore, as we
have nothing to say in this place of those who malign and blaspheme Christ,-for it is of
His glory we speak, wherewith He was glorified in the world,-it was only in the holy
Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit glorified Him with His true glory. For elsewhere,
that is, either among heretics or certain pagans, the glory He has in the world cannot be
a true one, even where there is a generally accepted fame of Him accompanied with praise.
His true glory, therefore, in the Catholic Church is celebrated in these words by the
prophet: "Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens; and Thy glory above all the earth.
Accordingly, that after His exaltation the Holy Spirit was to come, and to glorify Him,
the sacred psalm, and the Only-begotten Himself, promised as an event of the future, which
we see accomplished.

4. But when He says, "He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you," listen
thereto with Catholic ears, and receive it with Catholic minds. For not surely on that
account, as certain heretics have imagined, is the Holy Spirit inferior to the Son; as if
the Son received from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from the Son, in reference to
certain gradations of natures. Far be it from us to believe this, or to say it, and from
Christian hearts to think it. In fine, He Himself straightway solved the question, and
explained why He said so. "All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore, said I,
that He shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you." What would you more? The Holy
Spirit thus receives of the Father, of whom the Son receives; for in this Trinity the Son
is born of the Father, and from the Father the Holy Spirit proceedeth. He, however, who is
born of none, and proceedeth from none, is the Father alone. But in what sense it is that
the only-begotten Son said, "All things that the Father hath are mine" (for it certainly
was not in the same sense as when it was said to that son, who was not only begotten, but
the eider of two, "Thou art ever with me; and all that I have is thine)," will have our
careful consideration, if the Lord so will, in connection with the passage where the Only-
begotten saith to the Father, "And all mine are Thine, and Thine are mine;" so that our
present discourse may be here brought to a close, as the words that follow require a
different opening for their discussion.

TRACTATE 101

John XVI. 16-23. 1. These words of the Lord, when He says, "A little while, and ye shall
no more see me: and again a little while, and ye shall see me; because I go to the
Father," were so obscure to the disciples, before what He thus says was actually
fulfilled, that they inquired among themselves what it was that He said, and had to
confess themselves utterly ignorant. For the Gospel proceeds, "Then said some of His
disciples among themselves, What is this that He saith unto us, A little while, and ye
shall not see me: and again a little while, and ye shall see me; and, Because I go to the
Father? They said therefore, What is this that He saith, A little while we know not what
He saith." This is what moved them, that He said, "A little while, and ye shall not see
me: and again a little while, and ye shall see me." For in what precedes, because He had
not said, "A little while," but only, "I go to the Father and ye shall see me no more," He
appeared to them to have spoken, as it were, quite plainly, and they had no inquiry among
themselves, regarding it. But now, what was then obscure to them, and was shortly
afterwards revealed, is already perfectly manifest to us: for after a little while He
suffered, and they saw Him not; again, after a little while He rose, and they saw Him. But
how the words are to be taken that He used, "Ye shall no more see me," inasmuch as by the
word "more" He wished it to be understood that they would not see Him afterwards, we have
explained at the passage where He said, The Holy Spirit "shall convince of righteousness,
because I go to the Father, and ye shall see me no more;" meaning thereby, that they would
never afterwards see Christ in His present state of subjection to death.

2. "Now Jesus knew," as the evangelist proceeds to say, "that they were desirous to ask
Him, and said unto them, Ye inquire among yourselves of that I said, A little while, and
ye shall not see me: and again a little while, and ye shall see me. Verily verily, I say
unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice; and ye shall be
sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy:" which may be understood in this way,
that the disciples were thrown into sorrow over the death of the Lord, and straightway
were filled with joy at His resurrection; but the world, whereby are signified the enemies
that slew Christ, were, of course, in a state of rapture over the murder of Christ, at the
very time when the disciples were filled with sorrow. For by the name of the world the
wickedness of this world may be understood; in other words, those who are the friends of
this world. As the Apostle James says in his epistle, "Whosoever will be a friend of this
world, is become the enemy of God;" for the effect of that enmity to God was, that not
even His Only-begotten was spared.

3. And then He goes on to say, "A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her
hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the
anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. And ye now therefore have sorrow; but
I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you."
Nor does the metaphor here employed seem difficult to understand; for its key is at hand
in the exposition given by Himself of its meaning. For the pangs of parturition are
compared to sorrow, and the birth itself to joy; which is usually all the greater when it
is not a girl but a boy that is born. But when He said, "Your joy no man taketh from you,"
for their joy was Jesus Himself, there is implied what was said by the apostle, "Christ,
being raised from the dead, dieth no more; and death shall have no more dominion over
Him."

4. Hitherto in this section of the Gospel, whereon we are discoursing to-day, the tenor of
everything has been, I may say, of easy understanding: a much closer attention is needful
in connection with the words that follow. For what does He mean by the words, "And in that
day ye shall ask me nothing"? The verb to ask, used here, means not only to beg of, but
also to question; and the Greek Gospel, of which this is a translation, has a word that
may also be understood in both senses, so that by it the ambiguity is not removed; and
even though it were so, every difficulty would not thereby disappear. For we read that the
Lord Christ, after He rose again, was both questioned and petitioned. He was asked by the
disciples, on the eve of His ascension into heaven, when He would be manifested, and when
the kingdom of Israel would come; and even when already in heaven, He was petitioned
[asked] by St. Stephen to receive his spirit. And who dare either think or say that Christ
ought not to be asked, sitting as He does in heaven, and yet was asked while He abode on
earth? or that He ought not to be asked in His state of immortality, although it was men's
duty to ask Him while still in His state of subjection to death? Nay, beloved, let us ask
Him to untie with His own hands the knot of our present inquiry, by so shining into our
hearts that we may perceive what He saith.

5. For I think that His words, "But I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice,
and your joy no man taketh from you," are not to be referred to the time of His
resurrection, and when He showed them His flesh to be looked at and handled; but rather to
that of which He had already said, "He that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father; and I
will love him, and will manifest myself to him. For He had already risen, He had already
shown Himself to them in the flesh, and He was already sitting at the right hand of the
Father, when that same Apostle John, whose Gospel this is, says in his epistle, "Beloved,
now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that,
when He shall be manifested, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is. That
vision belongs not to this life, but to the future; and is not temporal, but eternal. "And
this is life eternal," in the words of Him who is that life, "that they might know Thee
the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent. Of this vision and knowledge the
apostle says, "Now we see through a glass, in a riddle; but then face to face: now I know
in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

At present the Church is in travail with the longing for this fruit of all her labor, but
then she shall bring to the birth in its actual contemplation; now she travails in birth
with groaning, then shall she bring forth in joy; now she travails in birth through her
prayers, then shall she bring forth in her praises. Thus, too, is it a male child; since
to such fruit in the contemplation are all the duties of her present conduct to be
referred. For He alone is free; because He is desired on His own account, and not in
reference to aught besides. Such conduct is in His service; for whatever is done in a good
spirit has a reference to Him, because it is done on His behalf; while He, on the other
hand, is got and held in possession on His own account, and not on that of aught besides.
And there, accordingly, we find the only end that is satisfying to ourselves. He will
therefore be eternal; for no end can satisfy us, save that which is found in Him who is
endless. With this was Philip inspired, when he said, "Show us the Father, and it
sufficeth us. And in that showing the Son gave promise also of His own presence, when He
said, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Of that,
therefore, which alone sufficeth us, we are very appropriately informed, "Your joy no man
taketh from you."

6. On this point, also, in reference to what has been said above, I think we may get a
still better understanding of the words, "A little while, and ye shall no more see me: and
again a little while, and ye shall see me. For the whole of that space over which the
present dispensation extends, is but a little while; and hence this same evangelist says
in his epistle, "It is the last hour. For in this sense also He added, "Because I go to
the Father," which is to be referred to the preceding clause, where He saith, "A little
while, and ye shall no more see me; and not to the subsequent, where He saith, "And again
a little while, and ye shall see me. For by His going to the Father, He was to bring it
about that they should not see Him. And on this account, therefore, His words did not mean
that He was about to die, and to be withdrawn from their view till His resurrection; but
that He was about to go to the Father, which He did after His resurrection, and when,
after holding intercourse with them for forty days, He ascended into heaven. He therefore
addressed the words, "A little while, and ye shall no more see me," to those who saw Him
at the time in bodily form; because He was about to go to the Father, and never thereafter
to be seen in that mortal state wherein they now beheld Him when so addressing them.

But the words that He added, "And again a little while, and ye shall see me," He gave as a
promise to the Church universal: just as to it, also, He gave the other promise, "Lo, I am
with you always, even to the end of the world. The Lord is not slack concerning His
promise: a little while, and we shall see Him, where we shall have no more any requests to
make, any questions to put; for nothing shall remain to be desired, nothing lie hid to be
inquired about. This little while appears long to us, because it is still in continuance;
when it is over, we shall then feel what a little while it was. Let not, then, our joy be
like that of the world, whereof it is said, "But the world shall rejoice; and yet let not
our sorrow in travailing in birth with such a desire be unmingled with joy; but, as the
apostle says, be "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation; for even the woman in
travail, to whom we are compared, has herself more joy over the offspring that is soon to
be, than sorrow over her present pains. But let us here close our present discourse, for
the words that follow contain a very trying question, and must not be unduly curtailed, so
that they may, if the Lord will, obtain a more befitting explanation.


TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124
======================================

TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124 continued

TRACTATE 102

John XVI. 23-28 1. We have now to consider these words of the Lord, "Verily, verily, I say
unto you, If ye shall ask anything of the Father in my name, He will give it you. It has
already been said in the earlier portions of this discourse of our Lord's, on account of
those who ask some things of the Father in Christ's name and receive them not, that there
is nothing asked of the Father in the Saviour's name that is asked in contrariety to the
method of salvation. For it is not the sound of the letters and syllables, but what the
sound itself imports, and what is rightly and truly to be understood by that sound, that
He is to be regarded as declaring, when He says, "in my name. Hence, he who has such ideas
of Christ as ought not to be entertained of the only Son of God, asketh not in His name,
even though he may not abstain from the mention of Christ in so many letters and
syllables; since it is only in His name he asketh, of whom he is thinking when he asketh.
But he who has such ideas of Him as ought to be entertained, asketh in His name, and
receiveth what he asketh, if he asketh nothing that is contrary to his own everlasting
salvation. And he receiveth it when he ought to receive it. For some things are not
refused, but are delayed till they can be given at a suitable time.

In this way, surely, we are to understand His words, "He will give you," so that thereby
we may know that those benefits are signified which are properly applicable to those who
ask. For all the saints are heard effectively in their own behalf, but are not so heard in
behalf of all besides, whether friends or enemies, or any others: for it is not said in a
general kind of way, "He will give; but, "He will give you." 2. "Hitherto," He says, "ye
have not asked anything in my name. Ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.
This that He calls a full joy is certainly no carnal joy, but a spiritual one; and when it
shall be so great as to be no longer capable of any additions to it, it will then
doubtless be full. Whatever, then, is asked as belonging to the attainment of this joy, is
to be asked in the name of Christ, if we understand the grace of God, and if we are truly
in quest of a blessed life. But if aught different from this is asked, there is nothing
asked: not that the thing itself is nothing at all, but that in comparison with what is so
great, anything else that is coveted is virtually nothing. For, of course, the man is not
actually nothing, of whom the apostle says, "He who thinketh himself to be something, when
he is nothing. But surely in comparison with the spiritual man, who knows that by the
grace of God he is what he is, he who makes vain assumptions is nothing. In this way,
then, may the words also be rightly understood, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, if ye
shall ask anything of the Father in my name, He will give [it] you; that by the words, "if
anything," should not be understood anything whatever, but anything that is not really
nothing in connection with the life of blessedness.

And what follows, "Hitherto ye have not asked anything in my name," may be understood in
two ways: either, that ye have not asked in my name, because a name that ye have not known
as it is yet to be known; or, ye have not asked anything, since in comparison with that
which ye ought to have asked, what ye have asked is to be accounted as nothing. In order,
then, that, they may ask in His name, not that which is nothing, but a full joy (since
anything different from this that they ask is virtually nothing), He addresses to them the
exhortation, "Ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full; that is, ask this in
my name, that your joy may be full, and ye shall receive. For His saints, who persevere in
asking such a good thing as this, will in no wise be defrauded by the mercy of God.

3. "These things," said He, "have I spoken to you in proverbs: but the hour cometh, when I
shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of my Father." I
might be disposed to say that this hour, whereof He speaketh, must be understood as that
future period when we shall see openly, as the blessed Paul says, "face to face;" that
what He says, "These things have I spoken to you in proverbs," is one with what has been
said by the same apostle, "Now we see through a glass, in a riddle:" and "I will show
you," because the Father shall be seen through the instrumentality of the Son, is akin to
what He says elsewhere, "Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to
whom the Son shall be pleased to reveal Him." But such a sense seems to be interfered with
by that which follows: "At that day ye shall ask in my name." For in that future world,
when we have reached the kingdom where we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He
is, what shall we then have to ask, when our desire shall be satisfied with good things?
As it is also said in another psalm: "I shall be satisfied when Thy glory shall be
revealed." For petition has to do with some kind of want, which can have no place there
where such abundance shall reign.

4. It remains, therefore, for us, so far as my capacity to apprehend it goes, to
understand Jesus as having promised that He would cause His disciples, from being carnal
and natural, to become spiritual, although not yet such as we shall be, when a spiritual
body shall also be ours; but such as was he who said, "We speak wisdom among them that are
perfect; and, "I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal; and, "We
have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is of God; that we might
know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the
words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual
things with spiritual. But the natural man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.
And thus the natural man, perceiving not the things of the Spirit of God, hears in such a
way whatever is told him of the nature of God, that he can conceive of nothing else but
some bodily form, however spacious or immense, however lustrous and magnificent, yet still
a body: and therefore he holds as proverbs all that is said of the incorporeal and
immutable substance of wisdom; not that he accounts them as proverbs, but that his
thoughts follow the same direction as those who habitually listen to proverbs without
understanding them.

But when the spiritual man begins to discern all things, and he himself is discerned by no
man, he perceives, even though in this life it still be through a glass and in part, not
by any bodily sense, and not by any imaginative conception which catches at or devises the
likenesses of all sorts of bodies, but by the clearest understanding of the mind, that God
is not material, but spiritual: in such a way does the Son show us openly of the Father,
that He, who thus shows, is also Himself seen to be of the same substance. And then it is
that those who ask, ask in His name; for in the sound of that name they understand nothing
else than what the reality is that is called by that name, and harbor not, in vanity or
infirmity of mind, the fiction of the Father being in one place, and the Son in another,
standing before the Father and making request in our behalf, with the material substances
of both occupying each its own place, and the Word pleading verbally for us with Him whose
Word He is, while a definite space interposes between the mouth of the speaker and the
ears of the hearer; and other such absurdities which those who are natural, and at the
same time carnal, fabricate for themselves in their hearts.

For any such thing, suggested by the experience of bodily habits, as occurs to spiritual
men when thinking of God, they deny and reject, and drive away, like troublesome insects,
from the eyes of their mind; and resign themselves to the purity of that light by whose
testimony and judgment they prove these bodily images that thrust themselves on their
inward vision to be altogether false. These are able to a certain extent to think of our
Lord Jesus Christ, in respect of His manhood, as addressing the Father on our behalf; but
in respect to His Godhead, as hearing [and answering] us along with the Father. And this I
am of opinion that He indicated, when He said, "And I say not that I will pray the Father
for you. But the intuitive perception of this, how it is that the Son asketh not the
Father, but that Father and Son alike listen to those who ask, is a height that can be
reached only by the spiritual eye of the mind.

5. "For the Father Himself," He says, "loveth you, because ye have loved me." Is it the
case, then, that He loveth, because we love; or rather, that we love, because He loveth?
Let this same evangelist give us the answer out of his own epistle: "We love Him," he
says, "because He first loved us." This, then, was the efficient cause of our loving, that
we were loved. And certainly to love God is the gift of God. He it was that gave the grace
to love Him, who loved while still unloved. Even when displeasing Him we were loved, that
there might be that in us whereby we should become pleasing in His sight. For we could not
love the Son unless we loved the Father also. The Father loveth us, because we love the
Son; seeing it is of the Father and Son we have received [the power] to love both the
Father and the Son: for love is shed abroad in our hearts by the Spirit of both, by which
Spirit we love both the Father and the Son, and whom we love along with the Father and the
Son. God, therefore, it was that wrought this religious love of ours whereby we worship
God; and He saw that it is good, and on that account He Himself loved that which He had
made. But He would not have wrought in us something He could love, were it not that He
loved ourselves before He wrought it.

6. "And ye have believed," He adds, "that I came out from God. I came forth from the
Father, and am come into the world: again I leave the world, and go to the Father."
Clearly we have believed. For surely it ought not to be accounted a thing incredible
because of this, that in coming to the world He came forth in such a sense from the Father
that He did not leave the Father behind; and that, on leaving the world, He goes to the
Father in such a sense that He does not actually forsake the world. For He came forth from
the Father because He is of the Father; and He came into the world, in showing to the
world His bodily form, which He had received of the Virgin. He left the world by a bodily
withdrawal, He proceeded to the Father by His ascension as man, but He forsook not the
world in the ruling activity of His presence.

TRACTATE 103

John XVI. 29-33. 1. The inward state of Christ's disciples, when before His passion He
talked with them as with children of great things, but in such a way as befitted the great
things to be spoken to children, because, having not yet received the Holy Spirit, as they
did after His resurrection, either by His own breathing upon them, or by descent from
above, they had a mental capacity for the human rather than the divine,-is everywhere
declared through the Gospel by numerous testimonies; and of a piece therewith, is what
they said in the lesson before us. For, says the evangelist, "His disciples say unto Him:
Lo, now speakest Thou plainly, and utterest no proverb. Now we are sure that Thou knowest
all things, and needest not that any man should ask Thee: by this we believe that Thou
camest forth from God. The Lord Himself had said shortly before, "These things have I
spoken unto you in proverbs: the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak to you in
proverbs. How, then, say they, "Lo, now speakest Thou plainly, and utterest no proverb"?
Was the hour, indeed, already come, when He had promised that He would nomore speak unto
them in proverbs? Certainlythat such an hour had not yet come, is shown by the
continuation of His words, which run in this way: "These things," said He, have I spoken
unto you in proverbs: the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs,
but I shall show you plainly of my Father.

At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father
for you: for the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed
that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world:
again, I leave the world, and go to the Father" (vers. 25-28). Seeing that throughout all
these words He is still promising that hour when He shall no more speak in proverbs, but
shall show them openly of the Father; the hour, when He says that they will ask in His
name, and that He will not pray the Father for them, on the ground that the Father Himself
loveth them, and that they also have loved Christ, and have believed that He came forth
from the Father, and was come into the world, and was again about to leave the world and
go to the Father: when thus that hour is still the subject of promise when He was to speak
without proverbs, why say they, "Lo, now speakest Thou plainly, and utterest no proverb;
but just because those things, which He knows to be proverbs to those who have no
understanding, they are still so far from understanding, that they do not even understand
that they do not understand them? For they were babes, and had as yet no spiritual
discernment of what they heard regarding things that had to do not with the body, but with
the spirit.

2. And still further admonishing them of their age as still small and infirm in regard to
the inner man, "Jesus answered them: Do ye now believe? Behold the hour cometh, yea, is
now come, that ye shall be scattered every man to his own, and shall leave me alone. And
yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. He had said shortly before, "I leave
the world, and go to the Father; now He says, "The Father is with me. Who goes to him who
is with him? This is a word to him that understandeth, a proverb to him that understandeth
not: and yet in such way that what at present is unintelligible to babes, is in some sort
sucked in; and even though it yield them not solid food, which they cannot as yet receive,
it denies them not at least a milky diet. It was from this diet that they drew the
knowledge that He knew all things, and needed not that any one should ask Him: and,
indeed, why they said this, is a topic worthy of inquiry. For one would think they ought
rather to have said, Thou needest not to ask any one; not, "That any one should ask Thee.
They had just said, We are sure that Thou knowest all things: and surely He that knoweth
all things is accustomed rather to be questioned by those who do not know, that in reply
to their questions they may hear what they wish from Him who knoweth all things;

and not to be Himself the questioner, as if wishing to know something, when He knoweth all
things. What, then, are we to understand by this, that, when apparently they ought to have
said to Him, whom they knew to be omniscient, Thou needest not to ask any man, they
considered it more befitting to say, "Thou needest not that any man should ask Thee"? Yea,
is it not the case that we read of both being done; to wit, that the Lord both asked, and
was asked questions? But this latter is speedily answered: for this was needful not for
Him, but for those rather whom He questioned, or by whom He was questioned. For He never
questioned any for the purpose of learning anything from them, but for the purpose rather
of teaching them. And for those who put questions to Him, as desirous of learning
something of Him, it was assuredly needful to be made acquainted with some things by Him
who knew everything. And doubtless on the same account also it was that He needed not that
any man should ask Him. As it is the case that we, when questioned by those who wish to
get some information from us, discover by their very questionings what it is that they
wish to know, we therefore need to be questioned by those whom we wish to teach, in order
that we may be acquainted with their inquiries that call for an answer:

but He, who knew all things, had no need even of that, and as little need had He of
discovering by their questions what it was that any one desired to know of Him, for before
a question was put, He knew the intention of him who was to put it. But He suffered
Himself to be questioned on this account, that He might show to those who were then
present, or to those who should either hear the things that were to be spoken or read them
when written, what was the character of those by whom He was questioned; and in this way
we might come to know both the frauds that were powerless to impose upon Him, and the ways
of approach that would turn to our profit in His sight. But to foresee the thoughts of
men, and thus to have no need that any one should ask Him, was no great matter for God,
but great enough for the babes, who said to Him, "By this we believe that Thou camest
forth from God. A much greater thing it was, for the understanding of which He wished to
have their minds expanded and enlarged, that, on their saying, and saying truly, "Thou
camest forth from God," He replied, "The Father is with me; in order that they should not
think that the Son had come forth from the Father in any sense that would lead them to
suppose that He had also withdrawn from His presence.

3. And then, in bringing to a close this weighty and protracted discourse, He said, "These
things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have
tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. The beginning of such
tribulation was to be found in that whereof, in order to show that they were infants, to
whom, as still wanting in intelligence, and mistaking one thing for another, all the great
and divine things He had said were little better than proverbs, He had previously said,
"Do ye now believe? Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered,
every man to his own. Such, I say, was the beginning of the tribulation, but not in the
same measure of their perseverance. For in adding, "and ye shall leave me alone," He did
not mean that they would be of such a character in the subsequent tribulation, which they
should have to endure in the world after His ascension, as thus to desert Him; but that in
Him they should have peace by still abiding in Him. But on the occasion of His
apprehension, not only did they outwardly abandon His bodily presence, but they mentally
abandoned their faith. And to this it is that His words have reference, "Do ye now
believe? Behold, the hour cometh, that ye shall be scattered to your own, and shall leave
me:

as if He had said, You will then be so confounded as to leave behind you even what you now
believe. For they fell into such despair and such a death, so to speak, of their old
faith, as was apparent in the case of Cleophas, who, after His resurrection, unaware that
he was speaking with Himself, and narrating what had befallen Him, said, "We trusted that
it had been He who should have redeemed Israel. That was the way in which they then left
Him, abandoning even the very faith wherewith they had formerly believed in Him. But in
that tribulation, which they encountered after His glorification and they themselves had
received the Holy Spirit, they did not leave Him: and though they fled from city to city,
from Himself they did not flee; but in order that, while having tribulation in the world,
they might have peace in Him, instead of being fugitives from Him, it was rather Himself
that they made their refuge. For in receiving the Holy Spirit, there was wrought in them
the very state described to them now in the words, "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the
world. They were of good cheer, and they conquered. But in whom, save in Him? For He had
not overcome the world, were it still to overcome His members. Hence said the apostle,
"Thanks be unto God, who giveth us the victory; and immediately added, "through our Lord
Jesus Christ:

through Him who had said to His own, "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."

TRACTATE 104

1 John XVII. 1. 2 1. Before these words, which we are now, with the Lord's help, to make
the subject of discourse, Jesus had said, "These things have I spoken unto you, that in me
ye might have peace; which we are to consider as referring, not to the later words uttered
by Him immediately before, but to all that He had addressed to them, whether from the time
that He began to account them disciples, or at least from the time after supper when He
commenced this admirable and lengthened discourse. He gave them, indeed, such a reason for
speaking to them, that either all He ever spake to them may with the utmost propriety be
referred to that end, or those especially, as His last words, which He now spake when on
the eve of dying for them, after that he who was to betray Him had quitted their company.
For He gave this as the cause of His discourse, that in Him they might have peace, just as
it is wholly on this account that we are Christians. For this peace will have no temporal
end, but will itself be the end of every pious intention and action that are ours at
present. For its sake we are endowed with His sacraments, for its sake we are instructed
by His works and sayings, for its sake we have received the earnest of the Spirit, for its
sake we believe and hope in Him, and according to His gracious giving are enkindled with
His love:

3 by this peace we are comforted in all our distresses, by it we are delivered from them
all: for its sake we endure with fortitude every tribulation, that in it we may reign in
happiness without any tribulation. Fitly therewith did He bring His words to a close,
which were proverbs to the disciples, who as yet had little understanding, but would
afterwards understand them, when He had given them the Holy Spirit of promise, of whom He
had said before: These things have I spoken unto you being yet present with you. But the
Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all
things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Such,
doubtless, was to be the hour, wherein He promised that He would no more speak unto them
in proverbs, but show them openly of the Father. For these same words of His, when
revealed by the Holy Spirit, were no more to be proverbs to those who had understanding.
For when the Holy Spirit was speaking in their hearts, there was not to be silence on the
part of the only-begotten Son, who had said that in that hour He would show them plainly
of the Father, which, of course, would no longer be a proverb to them when now endowed
with understanding.

4 But even this also, how it is that both the Son of God and the Holy Spirit speak at once
in the hearts of their spiritual ones, yea the Trinity itself, which is ever inseparably
at work, is a word to those who have, but a proverb to those who are without,
understanding. 5 2. When, therefore, He had told them on what account He had spoken all
things, namely, that in Him they might have peace while having distress in the world, and
had exhorted them to be of good cheer, because He had overcome the world; having thus
finished His discourse to them, He then directed His words to the Father, and began to
pray. For so the evangelist proceeds to say: "These things spake Jesus, and lifted up His
eyes to heaven, and said: Father, the hour is come; glorify Thy Son. The Lord, the Only-
begotten and coeternal with the Father, could in the form of a servant and out of the form
of a servant, if such were needful, pray in silence; but in this other way He wished to
show Himself as one who prayed to the Father, that He might remember that He was still our
Teacher. Accordingly, the prayer which He offered for us, He made also known to us; seeing
that it is not only the delivering of discourses to them by so great a Master, but also
the praying for them to the Father, that is a means of edification to disciples. And if so
to those who were present to hear what was said, it is certainly so also to us who were to
have the reading of it when written. Wherefore in saying this, "Father, the hour is come;

6 glorify Thy Son," He showed that all time, and every occasion when He did anything or
suffered anything to be done, were arranged by Him who was subject to no time: since those
things, which were individually future in point of time, have their efficient causes in
the wisdom of God, wherein there are no distinctions of time. Let it not, then, be
supposed that this hour came through any urgency of fate, but rather by the divine
appointment. It was no necessary law of the heavenly bodies that tied to its time the
passion of Christ; for we may well shrink from the thought that the stars should compel
their own Maker to die. It was not the time, therefore, that drove Christ to His death,
but Christ who selected the time to die: who also fixed the time, when He was born of the
Virgin, with the Father, of whom He was born independently of time. And in accordance with
this true and salutary doctrine, the Apostle Paul also says, "But when the fullness of the
time was come, God sent forth His Son; and God declares by the prophet, "In an acceptable
time have I heard Thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee; and yet again the
apostle, "Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. He then
may say, "Father, the hour is come," who has arranged every hour with the Father:

7 saying, as it were, "Father, the hour," which we fixed together for the sake of men and
of my glorification among them, "is come, glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify
Thee."3. The glorification of the Son by the Father is understood by some to consist in
this, that He spared Him not, but delivered Him up for us all. But if we say that He was
glorified by His passion, how much more was He so by His resurrection! For in His passion
our attention is directed more to His humility than to His glory, in accordance with the
testimony of the apostle, who says, "He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross: and then he goes on to say of His glorification, "Wherefore
God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name: that in
the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and
things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is
in the glory of God the Father. This is the glorification of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
took its commencement from His resurrection. His humility accordingly begins in the
apostle's discourse with the passage where he says, "He emptied Himself, and took upon Him
the form of a servant; and reaches "even to the death of the cross. But His glory begins
with the clause where he says, "Wherefore God also hath exalted Him;

8 and reaches on to the words, "is in the glory of God the Father. For even the noun
itself, if the language of the Greek codices be examined, from which the apostolic
epistles have been translated into Latin, which in the latter is read, glory, is in the
former read, doca: whence we have the verb derived in Greek for the purpose of saying
here, docason (glorify), which the Latin translator renders by "clarifica" (make
illustrious), although he might as well have said "glorifica" (glorify), which is the same
in meaning. And for the same reason, in the apostle's epistle where we find "gloria,"
"claritas" might have been used; for by so doing, the meaning would have been equally
preserved. But not to depart from the sound of the words, just as "clarificatio" (the
making lustrous) is derived from "claritas" (lustre), so is "glorificatio" (the making
glorious) from "gloria" (glory). In order, then, that the Mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus, might be made lustrous or glorious by His resurrection, He was first
humbled by suffering; for had He not died, He would not have risen from the dead. Humility
is the earning of glory; glory, the reward of humility. This, however, was done in the
form of a servant; but He was always in the form of God, and always shall His glory
continue: yea, it was not in the past as if it were no more so in the present, nor shall
it be, as if it did not yet exist;

9 but without beginning and without end, His glory is everlasting. Accordingly, when He
says, "Father, the hour is come; glorify Thy Son," it is to be understood as if He said,
The hour is come for sowing the seed-corn of humility, delay not the fruit of my glory.
But what is the meaning of the words that follow: "That Thy Son may glorify Thee"? Was it
that God the Father likewise endured the humiliation of the body or of suffering, out of
which He must needs be raised to glory? If not, how then was the Son to glorify Him, whose
eternal glory could neither appear diminished through human form, nor be enlarged in the
divine? But I will not confine such a question within the present discourse, or draw the
latter out to greater length by such a discussion.

TRACTATE 105

John XVII. 1-5. 1. That the Son was glorified by the Father in His form of a servant,
which the Father raised from the dead and set at His own right hand, is indicated by the
event itself, and is nowhere doubted by the Christian. But as He not only said, "Father,
glorify Thy Son," but likewise added, "that Thy Son may glorify Thee," it is worthy of
inquiry how it was that the Son glorified the Father, seeing that the eternal glory of the
Father neither suffered diminution in any human form, nor could be increased in respect of
its own divine perfection. In itself, indeed, the glory of the Father could neither be
diminished nor enlarged; but without any doubt it was less among men when God was known
only in Judea: and as yet children praised not the name of the Lord from the rising of the
sun to its going down. But inasmuch as this was effected by the gospel of Christ, to wit,
that the Father became known through the Son to the Gentiles, assuredly the Son also
glorified the Father. Had the Son, however, only died, and not risen again, He would
without doubt have neither been glorified by the Father, nor have glorified the Father;
but now having been glorified through His resurrection by the Father, He glorifies the
Father by the preaching of His resurrection. For this is disclosed by the very order of
the words: "Glorify," He says, "Thy Son, that Thy Son may glorify Thee;" saying, as it
were, Raise me up again, that by me Thou mayest become known to all the world.

2. And then expanding still further how it was that the Father should be glorified by the
Son, He says: "As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal
life to all that Thou hast given Him." By all flesh, He meant every man, signifying the
whole by a part; as, on the other hand, the whole man is signified by the superior part,
when the apostle says, "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers." For what else did
He mean by "every soul," save every man? And this, therefore, that power over all flesh
was given to Christ by the Father, is to be understood in respect of His humanity; for in
respect of His Godhead all things were made by Himself, and in Him were created all things
in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible. "As," then, He says, "Thou hast given Him
power over all flesh," so may Thy Son glorify Thee, in other words, make Thee known to all
flesh whom Thou hast given Him. For Thou hast so given, "that He should give eternal life
to all that Thou hast given Him."

3. "And this," He adds, "is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent. The proper order of the words is, "That they may know
Thee and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent, as the only true God. Consequently, therefore,
the Holy Spirit is also understood, because He is the Spirit of the Father and Son, as the
substantial and consubstantial love of both. For the Father and Son are not two Gods, nor
are the Father and Son and Holy Spirit three Gods; but the Trinity itself is the one only
true God. And yet the Father is not the same as the Son, nor the Son the same as the
Father, nor the Holy Spirit the same as the Father anti the Son; for the Father and Son
and Holy Spirit are three [persons], yet the Trinity itself is one God. If, then, the Son
glorifies Thee in the same manner "as Thou hast given Him power over all flesh," and hast
so given, "that He should give eternal life to all that Thou hast given Him," and "this is
life eternal, that they may know Thee; in this way, therefore, the Son glorifies Thee,
that He makes Thee known to all whom Thou hast given Him. Accordingly, if the knowledge of
God is eternal life, we are making the greater advances to life, in proportion as we are
enlarging our growth in such a knowledge. And we shall not die in the life eternal;

for then, when there shall be no death, the knowledge of God shall be perfected. Then will
be effected the full effulgence of God, because then the completed glory, as expressed in
Greek by doca. For from it we have the word docason, that is used here, and which some
Latins have interpreted by "clarifica" (make effulgent), and some by "glorifica"
(glorify). But by the ancients, glory, from which men are styled glorious, is thus
defined: Glory is the widely-spread fame of any one accompanied with praise. But if a man
is praised when the fame regarding him is believed, how will God be praised when He
Himself shall be seen? Hence it is said in Scripture, "Blessed are they that dwell in Thy
house; they will be praising Thee for ever and ever. There will God's praise continue
without end, where there shall be the full knowledge of God; and because the full
knowledge, therefore also the complete effulgence or glorification.

4. But God is first of all glorified here, while He is being made known to men by word of
mouth, and preached through the faith of believers. Wherefore, He says, "I have glorified
Thee on the earth: I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do." He does not say,
Thou orderedst; but, "Thou gavest:" where the evident grace of it is commended to notice.
For what has the human nature even in the Only-begotten, that it has not received? Did it
not receive this, that it should do no evil, but all good things, when it was assumed into
the unity of His person by the Word, by whom all things were made? But how has He finished
the work which was committed unto Him to do, when there still remains the trial of the
passion wherein He especially furnished His martyrs with the example they were to follow,
whereof, says the apostle Peter, "Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we
should follow His steps:" but just that He says He has finished, what He knew with perfect
certainty that He would finish? Just as long before, in prophecy, He used words in the
past tense, when what He said was to take place very many years afterwards: "They
pierced," He says, "my hands and my feet, they counted all my bones;" He says not, They
will pierce, and, They will count. And in this very Gospel He says, "All things that I
have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you;" to whom He afterward declares, "I
have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." For He, who has
predestinated all that is to be by sure and unchangeable causes, has done whatever He is
to do: as it was also declared of Him by the prophet, "Who hath made the things that are
to be."

5. In a way similar, also, to this, He proceeds to say: "And now, O Father, glorify thou
me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was. For He
had said above, "Father, the hour is come; glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son may glorify Thee:
in which arrangement of the words He had shown that the Father was first to be glorified
by the Son, in order that the Son might glorify the Father. But now He said, "I have
glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do; and now
glorify Thou me; as if He Himself had been the first to glorify the Father, by whom He
then demands to be glorified. We are therefore to understand that He used both words above
in accordance with that which was future, and in the order in which they were future,
"Glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son may glorify Thee: but that He now used the word in the past
tense of that which was still future, when He said, "I have glorified Thee on the earth: I
have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do. And then, when He said, "And now, O
Father, glorify Thou me with Thine own self," as if He were afterwards to be glorified by
the Father, whom He Himself had first glorified;

what did He intimate but that, when He said above, "I have glorified Thee on the earth,"
He had so spoken as if He had done what He was still to do; but that here He demanded of
the Father to do that whereby the Son should yet do so; in other words, that the Father
should glorify the Son, by means of which glorification of the Son, the Son also was yet
to glorify the Father? In fine, if, in connection with that which was still future, we put
the verb also in the future tense, where He has used the past in place of the future
tense, there will remain no obscurity in the sentence: as if He had said, "I will glorify
Thee on the earth: I will finish the work which Thou hast given me to do; and now, O
Father, glorify Thou me with Thine own self. In this way it is as plain as when He says,
"Glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son may glorify Thee: and this is indeed the whole sentence,
save that here we are told also the manner of that same glorification, which there was
left unnoticed; as if the former were explained by the latter to those whose hearts it was
able to stir, how it was that the Father should glorify the Son, and most of all how the
Son also should glorify the Father.

For in saying that the Father was glorified by Himself on the earth, but He Himself by the
Father with the Father's very self, He showed them assuredly the manner of both
glorifications. For He Himself glorified the Father on earth by preaching Him to the
nations; but the Father glorified Him with His own self in setting Him at His own right
hand. But on that very account, when He says afterward in reference to the glorifying of
the Father, "I have glorified Thee," He preferred putting the verb in the past tense, in
order to show that it was already done in the act of predestination, and what was with
perfect certainty yet to take place was to be accounted as already done; namely, that the
Son, having been glorified by the Father with the Father, would also glorify the Father on
the earth. 6. But this predestination He still more clearly disclosed in respect of His
own glorification, wherewith He was glorified by the Father, when He added, "With the
glory which I had, before the world was, with Thee." The proper order of the words is,
"which I had with Thee before the world was." To this apply His words, "And now glorify
Thou me;" that is to say, as then, so also now: as then, by predestination; so also now,
by consummmation: do Thou in the world what had already been done with Thee before the
world: do in its own time what Thou hast determined before all times. This, some have
imagined, should be so understood as if the human nature, which was assumed by the Word,
were converted into the Word, and the man were changed into God; yea, were we reflecting
with some care on the opinions they have advanced, as if the humanity were lost in the
Godhead. For no one would go the length of saying that out of such a transmutation of the
humanity the Word of God is either doubled or increased, so that either what was one
should now be two, or what was less should now be greater. Accordingly, if with His human
nature changed and converted into the Word, the Word of God will still be as great as He
was, and what He was, where is the humanity, if it is not lost?

7. But to this opinion, which I certainly do not see to be conformable to the truth, there
is nothing to urge us, if, when the Son says, "And now, O Father, glorify Thou me with
Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was," we understand
the predestination of the glory of His human nature, as thereafter, from being mortal, to
become immortal with the Father: and that this had already been done by predestination
before the world was, as also in its own time it was done in the world. For if the apostle
has said of us, "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the
world," why should it be thought incongruous with the truth, if the Father glorified our
Head at the same time as; He chose us in Him to be His members? For we were chosen in the
same way as He was glorified; inasmuch as before the world was, neither we nor the
Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, were yet in existence. But He who, in
as far as He is His Word, of His own self "made even those things which are yet to come,"
and "calleth those things which are not as though they were," certainly, in respect of His
manhood as Mediator between God and men, was Himself glorified on our behalf by God the
Father before the foundation of the world, if it be so that we also were then chosen in
Him. For what saith the apostle? "And we know that all things work together for good to
them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He did
foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might
be the first-born among many brethren: and whom He did predestinate, them He also called."

8. But perhaps we shall have some fear in saying that He was predestinated, because the
apostle seems to have said so only in reference to our being made conformable to His
image. As if, indeed, any one, faithfully considering the rule of faith, were to deny that
the Son of God was predestinated, who yet cannot deny that He was man. For it is rightly
said that He was not predestinated in respect of His being the Word of God, God with God.
For how could He be predestinated, seeing He already was what He was, without beginning
and without ending, everlasting? But that, which as yet was not, had to be predestinated,
in order that it might come to pass in its time, even as it was predestinated so to come
before all times. Accordingly, whoever denies predestination of the Son of God, denies
that He was also Himself the Son of man. But, on account of those who are disputatious,
let us also on this subject listen to the apostle in the exordium of his epistles. For
both in the first of his epistles, which is that to the Romans, and in the beginning of
the epistle itself, we read:

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of
God, which He had promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His
Son, who was made for Him of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was
predestinated the Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the
resurrection from the dead. In respect, then, of this predestination also, He was gloried
before the world was, in order that His glory might be, by the resurrection from the dead,
with the Father, at whose right hand He sitteth. Accordingly, when He saw that the time of
this, His predestinated glorification, was now come, in order that what had already been
done in predestination might also be done now in actual accomplishment, He said in His
prayer, "And now, O Father, glorify Thou me with Thine own self with the glory which I had
with Thee before the world was: as if He had said, The glory which I had with Thee, that
is, that glory which I had with Thee in Thy predestination, it is time that I should have
with Thee also in sitting at Thy right hand. But as the discussion of this question has
already kept us long, what follows must be taken into consideration in another discourse.

TRACTATE 106

John XVII. 6-8. 1. In this discourse we purpose speaking, as He gives us grace, on these
words of the Lord which run thus: "I have manifested Thy name unto the men whom Thou
gavest me out of the world." If He said this only of those disciples with whom He had
supped, and to whom, before beginning His prayer, He had said so much, it can have nothing
to do with that clarification, or, as others have translated it, glorification, whereof He
was previously speaking, and whereby the Son clarifies or glorifies the Father. For what
great glory, or what like glory, was it to become known to twelve, or rather eleven mortal
creatures? But if, in saying, "I have manifested Thy name unto the men whom Thou gavest me
out of the world," He wished all to be understood, even those who were still to believe on
Him, as belonging to His great Church which was yet to be made up of all nations, and of
which it is said in the psalm, "I will confess to Thee in the great Church
[congregation];" it is plainly that glorification wherewith the Son glorifies the Father,
when He makes His name known to all nations and to so many generations of men. And what He
says here, "I have manifested Thy name unto the men whom Thou gavest me out of the world,"
is similar to what He had said a little before, "I have glorified Thee upon the earth"
,(vet. 4); putting both here and there the past for the future, as One who knew that it
was predestinated to be done, and therefore saying that He had done what He had still to
do, though without any uncertainty, in the future.

2. But what follows makes it more credible that His words, "I have manifested Thy name to
the men whom Thou gavest me out of the world," were spoken by Him of those who were
already His disciples, and not of all who were yet to believe on Him. For after these
words, He added: "Thine they were, and Thou gavest them me; and they have kept Thy word.
Now they have known that all things, whatsoever Thou hast given me, are of Thee: for I
have given unto them the words which Thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have
known surely that I came out from Thee, and they have believed that Thou didst send me.
Although all these words also might have been said of all believers still to come, when
that which was now a matter of hope had been turned into fact, inasmuch as they were words
that still pointed to the future; yet we are impelled the more to understand Him as
uttering them only of those who were at that time His disciples, by what He says shortly
afterwards: "While I was with them, I kept them in Thy name: 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" (ver. 12); meaning Judas, who betrayed Him, for He was the only one of the
apostolic twelve that perished.

And then He adds, "And now come I to Thee," from which it is manifest that it was of His
own bodily presence that He said, "While I was with them, I kept them," as if already that
presence were no longer with them. For in this way He wished to intimate His own ascension
as in the immediate future, when He said, "And now come I to Thee: going, that is, to the
Father's right hand; whence He is hereafter to come to judge the quick and the dead in the
self-same bodily presence, according to the rule of faith and sound doctrine: for in His
spiritual presence He was still, of course, to be with them after His ascension, and with
the whole of His Church in this world even to the end of time. We cannot, therefore,
rightly understand of whom He said, "While I was with them, I kept them," save as those
only who believed on Him, whom He had already begun to keep by His bodily presence, but
was now to leave without it, in order that He might keep them with the Father by His
spiritual presence. Thereafter, indeed, He also unites with them the rest of His
disciples, when He says, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for those also who shall
believe on me through their word.

Where He shows still more clearly that He was not speaking before of all who belonged to
Him, in the passage where He saith, "I have manifested Thy name unto the men whom Thou
gavest me," but of those only who were listening to Him when He so spake. 3. From the very
outset, therefore, of His prayer, when "He lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said, Father,
the hour is come; glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee," on to what He said
a little afterwards, "And now, O Father, glorify Thou me with Thine own self with the
glory which I had with Thee before the world was," He wished all His disciples to be
understood, to whom He makes the Father known, and thereby glorifies Him. For after
saying, "That Thy Son may glorify Thee," He straightway showed how that was to be done, by
adding, "As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to
as many as Thou hast given Him: and this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the
only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." For the Father cannot be glorified
through any knowledge attained by men, unless He also be known by whom He is glorified,
that is to say, by whom He is made known to the nations of the world. The glorification of
the Father is not that which was displayed in connection with the apostles only, but that
which is displayed in all men, of whom as His members Christ is the head. For the words
cannot be understood as applied to the apostles only, "As Thou hast given Him power over
all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him;" but to
all, assuredly, on whom, as believing on Him, eternal life is bestowed.

4. Accordingly, let us now see what He says about those disciples of His who were then
listening to Him. "I have manifested," He says. "Thy name unto the men whom Thou gavest
me. Did they not, then, know the name of God when they were Jews?And what of that which we
read, "God is known in Judah; His name is great in Israel"? Therefore, "I have manifested
Thy name unto these men whom Thou gavest me out of the world," and who are now hearing my
words: not that name of Thine whereby Thou art called God, but that whereby Thou art
called my Father: a name that could not be manifested without the manifestation of the Son
Himself. For this name of God, by which He is called, could not but be known in some way
to the whole creation, and so to every nation, before they believed in Christ For such is
the energy of true Godhead, that it cannot be altogether and utterly hidden from any
rational creature, so long as it makes use of its reason. For, with the exception of a few
in whom nature has become outrageously depraved, the whole race of man acknowledges God as
the maker of this world. In respect, therefore, of His being the maker I of this world
that is visible in heaven and earth around us, God was known unto all nations even before
they were indoctrinated into the faith of Christ.

But in this respect, that He was not, without grievous wrong being done to Himself, to be
worshipped alongside of false gods, God was known in Judah alone. But in respect of His
being the Father of this Christ, by whom He taketh away the sin of the world, this name of
His, previously kept secret from all, He now made manifest to those whom the Father
Himself had given Him out of the world. But how had He done so, if the hour were not yet
come, of which He had formerly said that the hour would come, "when I shall no more speak
unto you proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of my Father"? Can it be supposed that the
proverbs themselves contained such a plain anouncement? Why, then, is it said, "I will
declare to you openly," but just because that "in proverbs" is not "openly"? But when it
is no longer concealed in proverbs, but uttered in plain words, then without a doubt it is
spoken openly. How, then, had He manifested what He had not as yet openly declared? It
must be understood, therefore, in this way, that the past tense is put for the future,
like those other words, "All things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto
you: as something He had not yet done, but spoke of as if He had, because His doing of it
He knew to be infallibly pre-determined.

5. But what are we to make of the words. "Whom Thou gavest me out of the world"? For it is
said of them that they were not of the world. But this they attained to by regeneration,
and not by generation. And what, also, of that which follows, "Thine they were, and Thou
gavest them me"? Was there a time when they belonged to the Father, and not to His only-
begotten Son; and had the Father once on a time anything apart from the Son? Surely not.
Nevertheless, there was a time when God the Son had something, which that same Son as man
possessed not; for He had not yet become man of an earthly mother, when He possessed all
things in common with the Father. Wherefore in saying, "Thine they were," there is thereby
no self-disruption made by God the Son, apart from whom there was nothing ever possessed
by the Father; but it is His custom to attribute all the power He possesses to Him, of
whom He Himself is, who has the power. For of whom He has it that He is, of Him He has it
that He is able; and both together He always had, for He never had being without having
ability. Accordingly, what ever the Father could [do], always side by side with Him could
the Son; since He, who never had being without having ability, was never without the
Father, as the Father never was without Him.

And thus, as the Father is eternally omnipotent, so is the Son co-eternally omnipotent;
and if all-powerful, certainly all-possessing. For such rather, if we would speak exactly,
is the word by which we translate what is called by the Greeks pantokratwr which our
writers would not interpret by the term omnipotent, seeing that pantokratwr is all-
possessing, were it not that they felt it to be equivalent in meaning. What, then, could
the eternal all-possessing ever have, that the co-eternal all-possessing had not likewise?
In saying, therefore, "And Thou gavest them me," He intimated that it was as man He had
received this power to have them; seeing that He, who was always omnipotent, was not
always man. Accordingly, while He seems rather to have attributed it to the Father, that
He received them from Him, since all that is, is of Him, of whom He is; yet He also gave
them to Himself, that is, Christ, God with the Father, gave men to the manhood of Christ,
which had not its being with the Father. Finally, He who says in this place, "Thine they
were, and Thou gavest them me," had already said in a previous passage to the same
disciples, "I have chosen you out of the world. Here, then, let every carnal thought be
crushed and annihilated. The Son says that the men were given Him by the Father out of the
world, to whom He says elsewhere, "I have chosen you out of the world.

Those whom God the Son chose along with the Father out of the world, the very same Son as
man received out of the world from the Father; for the Father had not given them to the
Son had He not chosen them. And in this way, as the Son did not thereby set the Father
aside, when He said, "I have chosen you out of the world," seeing that they were
simultaneously chosen by the Father also: as little did He thereby exclude Himself, when
He said, "Thine they were," for they were equally also the properly of the Son. But now
that same Son as man received those who belonged not to Himself, because He also as God
received a servant-form which was not originally His own. 6. He proceeds to say, "And they
have kept Thy word: now they have known that all things, whatsoever Thou hast given me,
are of Thee; that is, they have known that I am of Thee. For the Father gave all things at
the very time when He begat Him who was to have all things. "For I have given unto them,"
He says, "the words which Thou gavest me; and they have received them; that is, they have
understood and kept hold of them. For the word is received when it is perceived by the
mind. "And they have known truly," He adds, "that I came out from Thee, and they have
believed that Thou didst send me. In this last clause we must also supply "truly; for when
He said, "They have known truly," He intended its explanation by adding, "and they have
believed. That, therefore, "they have believed truly" which "they have known truly; just
as "I came out from Thee" is the same as "Thou didst send me. When, therefore, He said,
"They have known truly," lest any might suppose that such a knowledge was already acquired
by sight, and not by faith, He subjoined the explanation, "And they have believed," so
that we should supply "truly," and understand the saying, "They have known truly," as
equivalent to "They have believed truly:

not in the way which He intimated shortly before, when He said, "Do ye now believe?The
hour cometh, and is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall
leave me alone. But "they have believed truly," that is, in the way it ought to be
believed, without constraint, with firmness, constancy, and fortitude: no longer now to go
to their own, and leave Christ alone. As yet, indeed, the disciples were not of the
character He here describes in words of the past tense, as if they were so already, but as
thereby declaring beforehand what sort they were yet to be, namely, when they had received
the Holy Spirit, who, according to the promise, should teach them all things. For how was
it, before they received the Spirit, that they kept that word of His which He spake
regarding them, as if they had done so, when the chief of them thrice denied Him, after
hearing from His lips the future fate of the man who denied Him before men? He had given
them, therefore, as He said, the words which the Father gave Him; but when at length they
received them spiritually, not in an outward way with their ears, but inwardly in their
hearts, then they truly received them, for then they truly knew them; and they truly knew
them, because they truly believed.

7. But what human language will suffice to explain how the Father gave those words to the
Son? The question, of course, will appear easier if we suppose Him to have received such
words in His capacity as the Son of man. And yet, although thus born of the Virgin, who
will undertake to relate when and how it was that He learned them, since even that very
generation which He had of the Virgin who will venture to declare? But if our idea be that
He received these words of the l Father in His capacity as begotten of, and co-eternal
with, the Father, let us then exclude all such thoughts of time as if He existed previous
to His possessing them, and so received the possession of that which He had not before;
for whatever God the Father gave to God the Son, He gave in the act of begetting. For the
Father gave those things to the Son without which He could not be the Son, in the same
manner as He gave Him being itself. For how otherwise would He give any words to the Word,
wherein in an ineffable way He hath spoken all things? But now, in reference to what
follows, you must defer your expectations till another discourse.

TRACTATE 107

John XVII. 9-13. 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. 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.

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.

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."

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.

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. 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. 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.

TRACTATE 108

John XVII. 14-19. I. While the Lord is still speaking to the Father, and praying for His
disciples, He says: "I have given them Thy saying; and the world hath hated them." That
hatred they had not yet experienced in those sufferings of their own, which afterwards
overtook them; but He speaks thus in His usual way, foretelling the future in words of the
past tense. And then, subjoining the reason of their being hated by the world, He says,
"Because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." This was conferred on
them by regeneration; for by generation they were of the world, as He had already said to
them, "I have chosen you out of the world." It was therefore a gracious privilege bestowed
upon them, that they, like Himself, should not be of the world, through the deliverance
which He was giving them from the world. He, however, was never of the world; for even in
respect of His servant-form He was born of that Holy Spirit of whom they were born again.
For if on that account they were no more of the world, because born again of the Holy
Spirit; on the same account He was never of the world, because born of the Holy Spirit.

2. "I pray not," He adds, "that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou
shouldest keep them from the evil." For they still accounted it necessary to be in the
world, although they were no longer of it. Then He repeats the same statement: "They are
not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth." For are they
kept from the evil, as He had previously prayed that they might be. But it may be inquired
how they were no more of the world, if they were not yet sanctified in the truth; or, if
they already were, why He requests that they should be so. Is it not because even those
who are sanctified still continue to make progress in the same sanctification, and grow in
holiness; and do not so without the aid of God's grace, but by His sanctifying of their
progress, even as He sanctified their outset? And hence the apostle likewise says: "He who
hath begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." The heirs
therefore of the New Testament are sanctified in that truth which was adumbrated in the
purifications of the Old Testament; and when they are sanctified in the truth, they are in
other words sanctified in Christ, who said in truth "I am the way, and the truth, and the
life." As also when He said, "The truth shall make you free," in explanation of His words,
He added soon after, "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed;" in order
to show that what He had previously called the truth, He a minute afterwards denominates
the Son. And what else did He mean by the words before us, "Sanctify them in the truth,"
but, Sanctify them in me?

3. Finally, He proceeds, and doing so fails not to suggest the same with increasing
clearness: "Thy speech (sermo) is truth." What else did He mean than "I am the truth"? For
the Greek Gospel has loUoj, which is also the word that is found in the passage where it
is said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
And that Word at least we know to be the only begotten Son of God, which "was made flesh,
and dwelt among us." Hence also there might have been put here as it actually has been put
in certain copies "Thy Word is truth;" just as in some copies that other passage is
written, "In the beginning was the speech." But in the Greek without any variation it is
loUoj in both cases. The Father therefore sanctifies in the truth, that is, in His own
Word, in His Only begotten, His own heirs and His (the Son's) co-heirs.

4. But now He still goes on to speak of the apostles, for He proceeds to add, "As Thou
hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world." Whom did He so
send but His apostles? For even the very name of apostles, which is a Greek word,
signifies in Latin nothing more than, those that are sent. God, therefore, sent His Son,
not in sinful flesh, but in the likeness ofsinful flesh; and His Son sent those who, born
themselves in sinful flesh, were sanctified by Him from the defilement of sin. 5. But
since, on the ground that the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. has
become Head of the Church, they are His members; therefore He says in the words that
follow, "And for their sakes I sanctify myself. For what means He by the words, "And for
their sakes I sanctify myself," but I sanctify them in myself, since they also are [part
of] myself? For those of whom He so speaks are, as I have said, His members; and the head
and body are one Christ, as the apostle teaches when he says of the seed of Abraham, "And
if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed," after having said before, "He saith not,
And to seeds, as in many, but as in one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. If, then, the
seed of Abraham is Christ, what else is declared to those to whom he says, "Then are ye
Abraham's seed," but then are ye Christ? Of the same character is what this very apostle
said in another place: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is
lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh. He said not, of my afflictions, but "of
Christ's; for he was a member of Christ, and in his persecutions, such as it behoved
Christ to suffer in the whole of His body, he also was filling up his own share of His
afflictions.

And to be assured of the certainty of this in the present passage, give heed to what
follows. For after saying, "And for their sakes I sanctify myself," to let us understand
that He thereby meant that He would sanctify them in Himself, He immediately added, "That
they also may be sanctified in the truth. And what else is this but in me, in accordance
with the fact that the truth is that Word in the beginning which is God? In whom also the
Son of man was Himself sanctified from the beginning of His creation, when the Word was
made flesh, for the Word and the man became one person. Then accordingly He sanctified
Himself in Himself, that is, Himself the man in Himself the Word; for the Word and the man
is one Christ, who sanctifies the manhood in the Word. But in behalf of His members He
says, "And for their sakes I,"-that is, that the benefit may be also theirs, for they too
are [included in the] I, just as it benefited me in myself, because I am man apart from
them-" I sanctify myself," that is, I sanctify them as if it were my own self in me, since
in me they also are I. "That they also may be sanctified in the truth. For what else mean
the words "they also," but ["they"] in the same way as I; "in the truth," and that "truth"
am I?

After this He now beginsto speak not only of the apostles, but also of the rest of His
members, which we shall treat of, as grace may be granted us, in another discourse.


TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124
======================================

TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124 continued

TRACTATE 109

John XVII. 20. 1 The Lord Jesus, in the now close proximity of His passion, after praying
for His disciples, whom He also named apostles, with whom He had partaken of that last
supper from which His betrayer had taken his departure on being revealed by the sop of
bread, and with whom, after the latter's departure, and before beginning His prayer in
their behalf, He had already spoken at length, conjoined all others also who were yet to
believe on Him, and said to the Father, "Neither pray I for these alone," that is, for the
disciples who were with Him at the time, "but for them also," He adds, "who shall believe
on me through their word." Whereby He wished all His own to be understood: not only such
as were then in the flesh, but those also who were yet to come. For all that have since
believed on Him have doubtless believed, and shall yet believe till He come, through the
word of the apostles; for to themselves He had said, "And ye also shall bear witness,
because ye have been with me from the beginning;" and by them was the gospel ministered
even before it was written, and every one assuredly who believeth on Christ believeth the
gospel. Accordingly, those who He says should believe on Him through their word, are not
to be understood as referring only to such as heard the apostles themselves while they
lived in the flesh; but others also after their decease, and we, too, born long
afterwards, have believed on Christ through their word. For they that were then with Him
preached to the others what they had heard from Him; and so their word, that we too might
believe, has found its way to us, and wherever His Church exists, and shall yet reach down
to posterity, whoever and wherever they be who shall hereafter believe on Him.

2. In this prayer, therefore, Jesus may seem to have omitted praying for some of His own,
unless we carefully examine His words in the prayer itself. For if He prayed first for
those, as we have already shown, who were then with Him, and afterwards for those also who
should believe on Him through their word, it may be said that He prayed not for those who
were neither with Him when He so spake, nor afterwards believed through their word, but
had done so at some previous time either of themselves, or in some other supposable
manner. For was Nathanael with Him at that time? Was Joseph of Arimathea, who begged His
body from Pilate, and of whom this same evangelist John testifies that he was already His
disciple? Were His mother, Mary, and other women who, we know from the Gospel, had been
prior to that time His disciples? Were those with Him then, of whom this evangelist John
frequently says, "Many believed on Him"? For whence came the multitude of those who, with
branches of trees, partly preceded and partly followed Him as He sat on the ass, saying,
"Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord ; and along with them the children of
whom He Himself declared that the prophecy had been uttered, "Out of the mouth of babes
and of sucklings Thou hast perfected praise"?

Whence the five hundred brethren, to all of whom at once He would not have appeared after
His resurrection had they not previously believed on Him? Whence that hundred and nine
who, with the eleven, were a hundred and twenty, when, being assembled together after His
ascension, they waited and received the promise of the Holy Spirit? Whence came all these,
save from those of Whom it was said, "Many believed on Him"? For them, therefore, the
Saviour did not at this time pray, seeing it was for those He prayed who were then with
Him, and for others not who had already, but who were yet to believe on Him through their
word. But these were certainly not with Him on that occasion, and had already believed on
Him at some previous period. I say nothing of the aged Simeon, who believed on Him when an
infant; of Anna the prophetess; of Zachariah and Elisabeth, who prophesied of Him before
He was born of the Virgin; of their son John, His forerunner, the friend of the
Bridegroom, who both recognized Him in the Holy Spirit, and preached Him in His absence,
and pointed Him out when He was present to the recognition of others; -I say nothing of
these, as it might be replied that He ought not to have prayed for such when dead, who had
gone hence with their great merits, and having met with a welcome reception were now at
rest; for a similar answer is also given in connection with the righteous of olden time.

For which of them could have been saved from the damnation awaiting the whole mass of
perdition, which has been caused by one man, had he not believed, through the revelation
of the Spirit, in the one Mediator between God and men as yet to come in the flesh? But
behoved He to pray for the apostles, and not to pray for so many who were still alive, but
were not then with Him, and had already at some previous period been brought to the faith?
Who is there that would say so? 3. We are therefore to understand that their faith in Him
was not yet such as He wished it to be, inasmuch as even Peter himself, to whom, on making
the confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," He had borne so
excellent a testimony, was disposed rather to hinder Him from dying than to believe in His
resurrection when dead, and hence was called immediately thereafter by the same of Satan.
Those, accordingly, are found to be the greater in faith who were long since deceased, and
yet, through the revelation of the Spirit, had no manner of doubt that Christ would rise
again, than those who, after attaining to the belief that He should redeem Israel, at the
sight of His death lost all the hope they previously possessed regarding Him. The best
thing for us, therefore, to believe is, that after His resurrection, when the Holy Spirit
was bestowed, and the apostles taught and confirmed, and from its outset constituted
teachers in the Church, others, through their word, attained the proper faith in Christ,
or, in other words, that they then got firm hold of the faith of His resurrection. And in
this way also, that all those who seemed to have already believed on Him really belonged
to the number of those for whom He prayed, when He said, "Neither pray I for these alone,
but for them also who shall believe on me through their word."

4. But we have still in reserve for the further solution of this question the blessed
apostle, and that robber who was a villain in wickedness, but a believer on the cross. For
the Apostle Paul tells us that he was made an apostle not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus
Christ: and speaking of his own gospel, he says, "For I neither received it of man,
neither did I learn it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." How then was he among
those of whom it is said, "They shall believe on me through their word"? On the other
hand, the robber believed at the very time when in the case of the teachers themselves
such faith as they previously possessed had utterly failed. Not even he, therefore,
believed on Christ through their word, and yet his faith was such that he confessed that
He whom he saw nailed to the cross would not only rise again, but would also reign, when
he said, "Remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom."

5. Accordingly it remains that if we are to believe that the Lord Jesus, in this prayer,
prayed for all of His own who either then were or should thereafter be in this life, which
is a state of trial upon earth, we must so understand the expression, "through their
word," as to believe that it here signified the word of faith itself which they preached
in the world, and that it was called their word because it was primarily and principally
preached by them. For it was already in the course of being preached by them in the earth
when Paul received that same word of theirs by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Whence also
it came about that he compared the Gospel with them, lest by any means he had run, or
should run, in vain; and they gave him their right hand because in him also they found,
although not given him by them, their own word which they were already preaching, and in
which they were now established. And in regard to this word of the resurrection of Christ,
it is said by the same apostle, "Whether it were I, or they, so we preach, and so ye
believed; and again, "This is the word of faith," he says, "which we preach, that if thou
shalt confess with thy mouth that Jesus is the Lord, and shalt believe in thine heart that
God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

And in the Acts of the Apostles we read that in Christ, God hath marked out [the ground
of] faith unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead. Accordingly, this word
of faith, because principally and primarily preached by the apostles who adhered to Him,
was called their word. Not, however, on that account does it cease to be the word of God
because it is called their word; for the same apostle says that the Thessalonians received
it from him "not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God. "Of God,"
for the very reason that it was freely given by God; but called "their word," because
primarily and principally committed to them by God to be preached. In the same way also
the thief mentioned above had in the matter of his own faith their word, which was called
theirs precisely because the preaching of it primarily and principally pertained to the
office they filled. And once more, when murmuring arose among the Grecian widows in
reference to the serving of the tables, previous to the time when Paul was brought to the
faith of Christ, the reply given by the apostles, who before then had adhered to the Lord,
was: "It is not good that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Then it was
that they provided for the ordination of deacons, that they themselves might not be drawn
aside from the duty of preaching the word.

Hence that was properly enough called their word which is the word of faith, whereby all,
from whatever quarter they had heard it, believed on Christ, or, as yet to hear it, should
thereafter believe. In this prayer, therefore, all whom He redeemed, whether then alive or
thereafter to live in the flesh, were prayed for by our Redeemer when, praying for the
apostles who were then with Him, He also conjoined those who were yet to believe on Him
through their word. But what, after such conjunction, He then proceeds to say, must be
reserved for discussion in another discourse.

TRACTATE 110

John XVII. 21-23. 1. After the Lord Jesus had prayed for His disciples whom He had with
Him at the time, and had conjoined with them others who were also His own, by saying,
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their
word," as if we were inquiring what or wherefore He prayed for them, He straightway
subjoined, "That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in Thee, that
they also may be one in us. And a little above, while still praying for the disciples
alone who were then with Him, He said, "Holy Father, keep in Thine own name those whom
Thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are" ver. 11). It is the same thing,
therefore, that He now also prayed for in our behalf, as He did at that time in theirs,
namely, that all-to wit, both we and they-may be one. And here we must take particular
notice that the Lord did not say that we all may be one, but, "that they all may be one;
as Thou Father, in me, and I in Thee" (where is to be understood are one, as is more
clearly expressed afterwards); because He had also said before of the disciples who were
with Him, "That they may be one, as we are. The Father, therefore, is in the Son, and the
Son in the Father, in such a way as to be one, because they are of one substance;

but while we may indeed be in them, we cannot be one with them; for they and we are not of
one substance, in as far as the Son is God along with the Father. But in as far as He is
man, He is of the same substance as we are. But at present He wished rather to call
attention to that other statement which He made use of in another place, "I and the Father
are one," where He intimated that His own nature was the same with that of the Father. And
accordingly, though the Father and Son, or even the Holy Spirit, are in us, we must not
suppose that they are of one nature with ourselves. And hence they are in us, or we are in
them, in this sense, that they are one in their own nature, and we are one in ours. For
they are in us, as God in His temple; but we are in them, as the creature in its Creator.

2. But then after saying, "That they also may be one in us," He added, "That the world may
believe that Thou hast sent me. What does He mean by this? Is it that the world will then
be brought to the faith, when we shall all be one in the Father and Son? Is not such a
state the everlasting peace, and the reward of faith, rather than faith itself? For we
shall be one not in order to our believing, but because we have believed. But although in
this life, because of the common faith itself, all who believe in one are one according to
the words of the apostle, "For ye are all one in Christ Jesus ; even thus we are one, not
in order to our believing, but because we do believe. What, then, is meant by the words,
"That they all may be one, that the world may believe"? This, doubtless, that the "all"
are themselves the believing world. For those who shall be one are not of one class, and
the world that is thereafter to believe on this very ground that these shall be one, of
another; since it is perfectly certain that He says, "That they all may be one," of those
of whom He had said before, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for those also who shall
believe on me through their word," immediately adding as He does, "That they all may be
one. And this "all," what is it but the world;

not certainly that which is hostile, but that which is believing? For you see here that He
who had said, "I pray not for the world," now prayeth for the world that it may believe.
For there is a world whereof it is written, "That we might not be condemned with this
world. For that world He prayeth not, for He is fully aware to what it is predestinated.
And there is a world whereof it is written, "For the Son of man came not to condemn the
world, but that the world through Him might be saved ; and hence the apostle also says,
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. For this world it is that He
prayeth, in saying, "That the world may believe that Thou hast sent me. For through this
faith the world is reconciled unto God when it believes in the Christ whom God has sent.
How, then, are we to understand Him when He says, "That they also may be one in us, that
the world may believe that Thou hast sent me," but just in this way, that He did not
assign the cause of the world believing to the fact that those others are one, as if it
believed on the ground that it saw them to be one; for the world itself here consisteth of
all who by their own believing become one; but in His prayer He said, "That the world may
believe," just as in His prayer He also said, "That they all may be one;

and still further in the same prayer, "That they also may be one in us. For the words,
"they all may be one," are equivalent to "the world may believe," since it is by believing
that they become one, perfectly one; that is, those who, although one by nature, had
ceased to be so by their mutual dissensions. In fine, if the verb which He uses, "I pray,"
be understood in the third clause, or rather, to make the whole fuller, be everywhere
supplied, the explanation of this sentence will be all the clearer: I pray "that they all
may be one; as Thou, Father, in me, and I in Thee ; I pray "that they also may be one in
us ; I pray "that the world may believe that Thou hast sent me. And, mark, He added the
words "in us" in order that we may know that our being made one in that love of unchanging
faithfulness is to be attributed to the grace of God, and not to ourselves: just as the
apostle, after saying, "For ye were at one time darkness, but now are ye light," that none
might attribute the doing of this to themselves, added, "in the Lord."

3. Furthermore, our Saviour in thus praying to the Father showed Himself to be man; while
He now also shows that He Himself, as being God along with the Father, doeth that which He
prayeth for, when He says, "And the glory which Thou gavest me, I have given them. And
what was that glory but immortality, which human nature was henceforth to receive in Him?
For not even He Himself had as yet received it, but in His own customary way, on account
of the absolute fixedness of predestination, He intimates what is future in verbs of the
past tense, because being now on the point of being glorified, or in other words, raised
up again by the Father, He Himself is going to raise us up to the same glory in the end.
What we have here is similar to what He says elsewhere, "As the Father raiseth up the
dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. And "whom," but just
the same as the Father? "For what things soever the Father doeth," not other things, but
"these also doeth the Son," not in a different way, but "in like manner. And in this way
He also raised up even His own self. For to this effect he said, "Destroy this temple, and
in three days I will raise it up again. Accordingly the glory of immortality, which He
says had been given Him by the Father, He must be also understood as having bestowed upon
Himself, although He does not say it.

For on this very account He more frequently says that the Father alone doeth, what He
Himself also doeth along with the Father, that everything whatever He may attribute to Him
of whom He is. But sometimes also He is silent about the Father, and says that He Himself
doeth what He only doeth along with the Father: that we may thereby understand that the
Son is not to be separated from the working of the Father, when He is silent about
Himself, and ascribes some work or other to the Father; as, on the other hand, the Father
is not separated from the working of the Son, when the Son is said, without any mention
being made of [the Father] Himself, to be doing some work in which nevertheless both are
equally engaged. When, therefore, in some work of the Father, the Son says nothing of His
own working, He commends humility, that He may become the source of sounder health to us;
but when, in turn, in the case of some work of His own, He says nothing of the working of
the Father, He commends His own equality, that we may not suppose Him to be inferior. In
this way, then, and in this passage, He neither estranges Himself from the Father's
working, although He has said, "The glory which Thou gavest me ; for He also gave it to
Himself: nor does He estrange the Father from His own working, although saying, "I have
given to them ; for the Father also gave it to them.

For the works not only of the Father and the Son, but also of the Holy Spirit, are
inseparable. But just as, because of His praying the Father in behalf of all His people,
it was His own pleasure that this should be done, "that they all may be one; so also on
the ground of His own beneficence, as expressed in the words, "The glory which Thou gavest
me, I have given them," the doing of that was none the less His pleasure; for He
immediately added, "That they may be one, as we also are one." 4. And then He added: "I in
them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one. Here He briefly intimated
Himself as tim Mediator between God and men. Nor was this said in any such way as if the
Fatherwere not in us, or we were not in the Father; since He had also said in another
place, "Wewill come unto him, and make our abode with him; and a little before in this
present passage He had not said," I in them and Thou in me," as He said now; or, They in
me, and I in Thee; but, "Thou in me, and I in Thee, and they in us. Accordingly, when He
now says, "I in them, and Thou in me," the words take this form in reference to the person
of the Mediator, like that other expression used by the apostle," Ye are Christ's, and
Christ is God's. But in adding, "That they may be made perfect in one," He showed that the
reconciliation, which is effected by the Mediator, is carried to the very length of
bringing us to the enjoyment of that perfect blessedness, which is thenceforth incapable
of further addition. Hence the words that follow, "That the world may know that Thou hast
sent me," are not, I think, to be taken as if He had again said, "That the world may
believe; for sometimes, to know, is also used in the same sense as to believe, as it is in
the words He uttered some time before:

"And they have known truly that I came out from Thee, and they have believed that Thou
didst send me. He expressed the same thing by the later words, "they have believed," as He
had done by the earlier, "they have known. But inasmuch as He here speaks of the
consummation, the knowledge must be taken for such, as it shall then be by sight, and not,
as it now is, by faith. For an order seems to have been preserved in reference to what He
said a little before, "that the world may believe; while here it is, "that the world may
know. For although He said there, "that they all may be one," and "may be one in us," yet
He did not say, "they may be made perfect in one," and so subjoined the words, "that the
world may believe that Thou hast sent me; but here He said, "That they may be made perfect
in one," and then added, not, "that the world may believe," but, "that the world may know
that Thou hast sent me. For so long as we believe what we do not see, we are not yet made
perfect, as we shall bewhen we have merited the sight of that which we believe. Most
correctly, therefore, did He say in that previous place, "That the world may believe," and
here "That the world tray know ; yet both there and here, "that Thou hast sent me ;

that we may know, so far as belongs to the inseparable love of the Father and the Son,
that at present we only believe what we are on the way, by believing, to know. And had He
said, That they may know that Thou hast sent me, it would be just of the same force as
what He actually does say, "that the world may know. For they are the world that abideth
not in enmity, as doth the world that is foreordained to damnation; but one that out of an
enemy has been transformed into a friend, and on whose account "God was in Christ
reconciling the world unto Himself. Therefore said He, "I in them, and Thou in me; as if
He had said, I in those to whom Thou hast sent me; and Thou in me, reconciling the world
unto Thyself through me. 5. In close relation to these come also His further words: "And
Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me. That is to say, in the Son the Father loveth
us, because in Him He hath chosen us before the foundation of the world. For He who loveth
the Only-begotten, certainly loveth also His members which, through His instrumentality,
He engrafted into Him by adoption. But we are not on this account equal to the only-
begotten Son, by whom we have been created and re-created, that it is said, "Thou hast
loved them as [Thou hast] also [loved] me. For one does not always intimate equality when
he says, As this, so also that other; but sometimes only, Because this is, so also is the
other; or, That the one is, in order that the other may be also. For who could say that
the apostles were sent by Christ into the world in exactly the same way as He Himself was
sent by the Father? For, to say nothing of other differences, which it would be tedious to
mention, they at all events were sent when they were already men; but He was sent in order
that He might be man; and yet He said above, "As Thou hast sent me into the world, even so
have I sent them into the world ; as if He had said, Because Thou hast sent me, I have
sent them. So also in the passage before us He says, "Thou hast loved them, as Thou hast
loved me ;

which is nothing else than this, Thou hast loved them because that Thou hast also loved
me. For He could not but love the members of the Son, seeing that He loveth the Son
Himself; nor is there any other reason for loving His members, save that He loveth
Himself. But He loveth the Son as regards His Godhead, because He begat Him equal with
Himself; He loveth Him also in regard to what He is as man, because the Only-begotten Word
was Himself made flesh, and on account of the Word is the flesh of the Word dear to Him;
but He loveth us, inasmuch as we are the members of Him whom He loveth; and in order that
we might be so, He loved us on this account before we existed. 6. The love, therefore,
wherewith God loveth, is incomprehensible and immutable. For it was not from the time that
we were reconciledunto Him by the blood of His Son that He began to love us; but He did so
before the foundation of the world, that we also might be His sons along with His Only-
begotten, before as yet we had any existence of our own. Let not the fact, then, of our
having been reconciled unto God through the death of His Son be so listened to or so
understood, as if the Son reconciled us to Him in this respect, that He now began to love
those whom He formerly hated, in the same way as enemy is reconciled to enemy, so that
thereafter they become friends, and mutual love takes the place of their mutual hatred;
but we were reconciled unto Him who already loved us, but with whom we were at enmity
because of our sin. Whether I say the truth on this, let the apostle testify, when he
says: "God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died
for us. He, therefore. had love toward us even when we were practising enmity against Him
and working iniquity; and yet to Him it is said with perfect truth, "Thou hatest, O Lord,
all workers of iniquity. Accordingly, in a wonderful and divine manner, even when He hated
us, He loved us; for He hated us, in so far as we were not what He Himself had made;

and because our own iniquity had not in every part consumed His work, He knew at once both
how, in each of us, to hate what we had done, and to love what He had done. And this,
indeed, may be understood in the case of all regarding Him to whom it is truly said, "Thou
hatest nothing that Thou hast made. For He would never have wished anything that He hated
to exist, nor would aught that the Omnipotent had not wished exist at all, were it not
that in what He hated there was also something that He loved. For He justly hateth and
reprobateth vice as utterly repugnant to the principle of His procedure, yet He loveth
even in the persons of the vitiated what is susceptible either of His own beneficence
through healing, or of His judgment by condemnation. In this way God at the same time
hateth nothing of what He has made; for as the Creator of natures, and not of vices, it
was not He who made the evil that He hateth; and of these same evils, all is good that He
really doeth, either by mercifully healing them, or by judicially regulating them. Seeing,
then, that He hateth nothing that He hath made, who can worthily describe how much He
loveth the members of His Only-begotten, and how much more the Only-begotten Himself, in
whom are hid all things visible and invisible, which were ordained in their various
classes, and which He loves in fullest harmony with such ordination?

For the members of His Only-begotten He is leading on by the liberality of His grace to an
equality with the holy angels; while the Only-begotten Himself, being Lord of all, is
doubtless Lord of angels, being by nature, as God, the equal not of angels, but rather of
the Father Himself; while through grace, in respect of which He is man, how can He
otherwise than surpass all angelic excellence, seeing that in Him human flesh and the Word
constitute but one personality? 7. Nevertheless there are not wanting some who place us
likewise before the angels; because, they say, Christ died for us and not for angels. But
what else is such a notion than the desire to glory over our very impiety? For "Christ,"
as the apostle says, "in due time died for the ungodly. Where it is not any desert of
ours, but the mercy of God, that is commended. For what can be the character of the man
who wishes himself to be lauded, because he has become so abominably diseased through his
own wickedness, that he can only be healed by the death of his physician? That surely is
not the glory of our deserts, but the medicine of our diseases. Or do we prefer ourselves
to the angels on this account, that, while there are angels also who have sinned, there
has been no such labor expended on their healing? As if something that was at least small
in amount had been undertaken for them, and what was greater for us. But had even such
been the case, it might still be a subject of inquiry whether it was so because we had
once stood in a position of superior excellence, or because we were now lying in a more
desperate condition.

But knowing as we do that the Creator of all good has imparted no grace for the reparation
of angelic evils, why do we not rather draw the inference that their fault was judged all
the more damnable, that the nature of those who committed it was of a loftier sublimity?
For to the same extent as they less than we ought to have fallen into sin, were they
superior in nature to us. But now in offending against the Creator they became all the
more detestably ungrateful for His beneficence, that they were created capable of
exercising the greater beneficence; nor was it enough for them to become deserters from
Him, but they must also become our deceivers. This, therefore, is the great goodness of
which we are to be made the subjects by Him, who hath loved us even as He hath loved
Christ, that, for His sake, whose members He wished us to he, we may be equal to the holy
angels, to whom we were created with an inferiority of nature, and have by our sin fallen
into such greater depths of unworthiness, as to make it incumbent that we should be in
some sort their associates.

TRACTATE 111

John XVII. 24-26. 1. The Lord Jesus raises up His people to a great hope, than which there
could not possibly be a greater. Listen and rejoice in hope, that, since the present is
not a life to be loved, but to be tolerated, you may have the power of patient endurance
amid all its tribulation. Listen, I say, and weigh well to what it is that our hopes are
exalted. Christ Jesus saith, The Son of God, the Only-begotten, who is co-eternal and
equal with the Father, saith: He, who for our sakes became man, but became not, like every
man besides, a liar, saith: the Way, the Life, the Truth saith: He who overcame the world,
saith of those for whom He overcame it: listen, believe, hope, desire what He saith:
"Father," He says, "I will that they also whom Thou hast given me be with me where I am.
Who are these who He says were given Him by the Father? Are they not those of whom He says
in another place, "No man cometh unto me, unless the Father, who hath sent me, draw him"?
We already know if we havemade any beneficial progress in this Gospel, how it is that the
things which He says the Father doeth, He Himself doeth likewise along with the Father.
They are those, therefore, whom He has received from the Father, whom He Himself has also
chosen out of the world, and chosen that they may be no more of the world, even as He also
is not of the world;

and yet that they also may be a world that believeth and knoweth that Christ has been sent
by God the Father that the world might be delivered from the world, and so, as a world
that was to be reconciled unto God, might not be condemned with the world that lieth in
enmity. For so He says in the beginning of this prayer: "Thou hast given Him power over
all flesh," that is, over every man, "that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou
hast given Him. Here He makes it clear that He has indeed received power over all men,
that, as the future Judge of quick and dead, He may deliver whom He pleases, and condemn
whom He pleases; but that these were given Him that to all of them He should give eternal
life. For so He says: "That He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him.
Accordingly they were not given Him that from them He should withhold eternal life;
although over them also the power has been given Him, inasmuch as He has received it over
all flesh, in other words, over every man. In this way the world that has been reconciled
will be delivered from the hostile world, when He putteth into exercise His power over it,
to send it away into death eternal; but the other He maketh His own that He may give it
everlasting life.

Accordingly, to every one, without fail, of His own sheep the Good Shepherd, as to every
one of His members the great Head, hath promised this reward, that where He is, there also
we shall be with Him; nor can that be otherwise which the omnipotent Son declared to be
His will to the omnipotent Father. For there also is the Holy Spirit, equally eternal,
equally God, the one Spirit of the two, the substance of the will of both. For the words
that we read of Him as uttering on the eve of His passion, "Yet not, Father, as I will,
but as Thou wilt," as if the Father has or had one will, and the Son another, are the echo
of our infirmity, however faith-pervaded, which our Head transfigured in Hisown person,
when He likewise bare our iniquities. But that the will of the Father and the Son is one,
of both of whom also there is but one Spirit, by including whom we come to the knowledge
of the Trinity, let piety believe, even though our infirmity meanwhile permitteth us not
to understand.

2. But as we have already, in a way proportionate to the brevity of our discourse, spoken
of the objects of the promise, and of its own stability; let us now look at this one
point, as far as we are able, what it is that He was pleased to promise when He said, "I
will that they also whom Thou hast given me be with me where I am. As far as pertains to
the creaturehood wherein He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, not even
He Himself was yet where He would afterwards be: but He could say in this way, "where I
am," to let us understand that He was soon to ascend into heaven, so that He spake of
Himself as being already there, where He was presently to be. He could do so also in the
same way as He had said on a former occasion, when speaking to Nicodemus, "No man
ascendeth into heaven, save He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in
heaven. For there also He did not say, Will be, but "is," because of the oneness of
person, wherein God is at once man, and man God. He promised, therefore, that we should be
in heaven; for thither the servant-form, which He received of the Virgin, has been
elevated, and set at the right hand of the Father. Because of the same blessed hope the
apostle also says:

"But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we
were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ; by whose grace we are saved;
and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ
Jesus. And so accordingly we may understand the Lord to have said, "That where I am, there
they may be also. He, indeed, said of Himself that He was there already; but of us He
merely declared that He wished us to be there with Him, without any indication that we
were there already But what the Lord said that He wished to be done, the apostle spake of
as already accomplished. For he said not, He will yet raise us up, and make us sit in
heavenly places; but, "hath raised us up, and made us sit in heavenly places: for it is
not without good grounds, but in believing assurance, that he reckons as already done what
he is certain will yet be done. But if it is in respect of the form of God, wherein He is
equal to the Father, that we would be inclined to understand His words, "I will that they
also be with me, where I am," let our mind get quit of every thought of material images:

whateverthe soul has had presented to it, that is endowed with length, or breadth, or
thickness, tinted by the light with any sort of bodily hue, or diffused through local
space of any kind, whether finite or infinite, let it, as far as possible, turn away from
all such notions the glance of its contemplation on the inward bent of its thoughts. And
let us not be making inquiries as to where the Son, the Father's co-equal, is, since no
one has yet found out where He is not. But if any one would inquire, let him inquire
rather how he may be with Him; not everywhere as He is, but wherever He may be. For when
He said to the man that was expiating his crimes on the tree, and making confession unto
salvation, "Today shall thou be with me in paradise," in respect to His human nature His
own soul was on that very day to be in hell, His flesh in the sepulchre; but as respected
His Godhead He was certainly also in paradise. And therefore the soul of the thief,
absolved from his by-gone crimes, and already in the blessed enjoyment of His grace,
although it could not be everywhere as He was, yet could on that very day be also with Him
in paradise, from which He, who is always everywhere, had not withdrawn. On this account,
doubtless, it was not enough for Him to say, "I will that they also be where I am; but He
added, "with me.

For to be with Him is the chief good. For even the miserable can be where He is, since
wheresoever any are, there is He also; but the blessed only are with Him, because it is
only of Him that they can be blessed. Was it not truly said to God, "If I ascend into
heaven, Thou art there; and if I go down into hell, Thou art present? or is not Christ
after all that Wisdom of God which "penetrateth everywhere because of its purity"? But the
light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not. And similarly, to take a
kind of illustration from what is visible, although greatly unlike, as the blind man, even
though he be where the light is, is yet not himself with the light, but is really absent
from that which is present; so the unbeliever and profane, or even the believer and pious,
because not yet competent to gaze on the light of wisdom, although he cannot be anywhere
that Christ is not there likewise, yet is not himself with Christ, I mean in actual sight.
For we cannot doubt that the true believer is with Christ by faith; because in reference
to this He saith, "He that is not with me is against me. But when He said to God the
Father, "I will that they also whom Thou hast given me be with me where I am," He spake
exclusively of that sight wherein we shall see Him as He is.

3. Let no one disturb the clearness of the meaning by any cloudy contradiction; but let
what follows furnish its testimony to the words that precede. For after saying, "I will
that they also be with me where I am," He went on immediately to add, "That they may
behold my glory, which Thou gavest me: for Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the
world. "That they may behold," He said; not, that they may believe. This is faith's wages,
not faith itself. For if faith has been correctly defined in the Epistle to the Hebrews as
"the assurance [conviction] of things that are not seen," why may not the wages of faith
be defined, the beholding of things which were hoped for in faith? For when we shall see
the glory which the Father hath given the Son, even though we may understand what is
spoken of in this passage, not as that [glory] which the Father gave His co-equal Son in
begetting Him, but as that which He gave Him, when become the Son of man, after the death
of the cross;-when, I say, we shall see that glory of the Son, then of a certainty shall
take place the judgment of the quick and the dead, and then shall the wicked be taken away
that he may not behold the glory of the Lord; and what [glory], save that of His Godhead?
For blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God:

and because the wicked are not pure in heart, therefore they shall not see Then shall they
go away into everlasting punishment; for so shall the wicked be taken away, that he may
not behold the glory of the Lord: but the righteous shall go into life eternal. And what
is life eternal? "That they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou
hast sent" (ver. 3): not, indeed, as those knew Him, who although impure in heart, yet
were able to see Him as He sat in judgment in His glorified servant-form; but as He is yet
to be known by the pure in heart, as the only true God, the Son along with the Father and
Holy Spirit, because the Trinity itself is the only true God. If, then, it is in reference
to His Godhead as the Son of God, equal and co-eternal with the Father, that we take the
words, "I will that they also be with me where I am," we shall be with Christ in the
Father; but He in His own way, we in ours, wherever we may be in body. For if localities
are to be understood, and such as contain incorporeal beings, and everything has a place
where it is, the eternal place of Christ where He always is, is the Father Himself, and
the place of the Father is the Son; for "I," He said, "am in the Father, and the Father in
me;

and in this prayer, "As Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee: and they are our place,
because there follows, "That they also may be one in us: and we are God's place, inasmuch
as we are His temple; even as He, who died for us and liveth for us, also prayeth for us,
that we may be one in them; because "His [dwelling] place was made in peace, and His
habitation in Zion," which we are. But who is qualified to think on such places or what is
in them, apart from the idea of space-defined capacities and material masses? Yet no
little progress is made, if at least, when any such idea presents itself to the eye of the
mind, it is denied, rejected, and reprobated: and a certain kind of light is, as far as
possible, thought of, in which such things are perceived as deserving only to be denied,
rejected, and reprobated; and the certainty of that light is known and loved, so that from
thence an upward movement is begun in us, and an effort made to reach into places farther
within: and when the mind through its own infirmity and still inferior purity has failed
to penetrate them it is driven back again, not without the sighings of love and the tears
of ardent longing, and continues to bear in patience until it is purified by faith, and
prepared by the holiness of the inward life to be able to take up its abode therein.

4. How, then, shall we not be with Christ where He is, when we shall be with Him in the
Father in whom He is? On this, also, the apostle is not without something to say to us,
although we are not yet in possession of the reality, but only cherishing the hope. For he
says, "If ye be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth
on the right hand of God: set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth.
For ye have died," he adds, "and your life is hid with Christ in God." Here, you see, our
life is meanwhile in faith and hope with Christ, where He is; because it is with Christ in
God. That, you see, is as if already accomplished for which He prayed, when He said, "I
will that they also be with me where I am;" but now only by faith. And when will it be
accomplished by actual sight? "When Christ," he says, "[who is] your life, shall appear,
then shall ye also appear with Him in glory." Then shall we appear as that which we then
shall be; for it shall then be apparent that it was not without good grounds that we
believed and hoped we should become so, before it actually took place. He will do this, to
whom the Son, after saying, "That they may behold my glory, which Thou gavest me,"
immediately added, "For Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." For in Him He
loved us also before the foundation of the world, and then foreordained what He was to do
in the end of the world.

5. "O righteous Father," He saith, "the world hath not known Thee." Just because Thou art
righteous it hath not known Thee. It is as that world which has been predestined to
condemnation really deserved, that it hath not known Him; while the world which He hath
reconciled unto Himself through Christ hath known Him not of merit, but by grace. For what
else is the knowing of Him, but eternal life which, while He undoubtedly withheld it from
the condemned world, He bestowed on the reconciled. On that very account, therefore, the
world hath not known Thee, because Thou art righteous, and hast rendered unto it according
to its deserts, that it should not know Thee: while on the same account the reconciled
world hath known Thee, because Thou art merciful, and, not for any merit of its own, but
by grace, hast supplied it with the needed help to know Thee. And then there follows, "But
I have known Thee." He is the Fountain of grace, who is by nature God, and, by grace
ineffable, man also of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin: and then on His own behalf, because
the grace of God is through Jesus Christ our Lord, He adds, "And these have known that
Thou hast sent me." Such is the reconciled world. But it is because Thou hast sent me that
they have known: by grace, therefore, have they known.

6. "And I have made known to them," He says, "Thy name, and will make it known. I have
made it known by faith, I will make it known by sight: I have made it known to those whose
present sojourn in a strange land has its appointed end, I will make it known to those
whose reign as kings shall be endless. "That the love," He adds, "wherewith [literally,
which] Thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in them. (The form of speech is unusual,
"the love, which Thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in them; for the common way of
speaking is, the love wherewith thou hast loved me. Here, of course, it is a translation
from the Greek: but there are similar forms also in Latin; as we say. He served a faithful
service, He served as a soldier a strenuous soldier-service; when apparently we ought to
have said, He served with a faithful service, he served as a soldier with a strenuous
soldier-service. But such as the form of expression is, "the love which Thou hast loved
me; one similar to it is also used by the apostle, "I have fought a good fight;

he does not say, in a good fight, which would be the more usual and perhaps correcter form
of expression. ) But how else is the love wherewith the Father loved the Son in us also,
but because we are His members and are loved in Him, since He is loved in the totality of
His person, as both Head and members? Therefore He added, "and I in them; as if saying,
Since I am also in them. For in one sense He is in us as in His temple; but in another,
because we are also Himself, seeing that, in accordance with His becoming man, that He
might be our Head, we are His body. The Saviour's prayer is finished, His passion begins;
let us, therefore, also finish the present discourse, that we may treat of His passion, as
He granteth us grace, in others to follow.

TRACTATE 112

John XVIII. 1-12. 1. When the grand and lengthened discourse was concluded which the Lord
delivered after supper, and on the eve of shedding His blood for us, to the disciples who
were then with Him, and had added the prayer addressed to His Father, the evangelist John
began thereafter the narrative of His passion in these words: "When Jesus had so spoken,
He went forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which
He entered, and His disciples. And Judas also, who betrayed Him, knew the place; for Jesus
oft-times resorted thither with His disciples. What he here relates of the Lord entering
the garden with His disciples did not take place immediately after He had brought the
prayer to a close, of which he says, "When Jesus had spoken these words: but certain other
incidents were interposed, which are passed over by the present evangelist and found in
the others; just as in this one are found many things on which the others are similarly
silent in their own narratives. But any one who desires to know how they all agree
together, and the truth which is advanced by one is never contradicted by another, may
seek for what he wants, not in these present discourses, but in other elaborate treatises;
but he will master the subject not by standing and listening, but rather by sitting down
and reading, or by giving his closest attention and thought to one who does so.

Yet let him believe before he know, whether he be able also to come to such a knowledge in
this life, or find it impossible through some existing entanglements, that there is
nothing written by any one evangelist, as far as regards those who have been received by
the Church into canonical authority, that can be contrary to his own or another's equally
veracious narrative. At present, therefore, let us look at the narrative of the blessed
John, which we have undertaken to expound, without any comparison with the others, and
without lingering over anything in it that is already sufficiently clear; so that where it
is needful to do so, we may the better answer the demand. Let us, therefore, not take His
words, "When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the brook
Cedron, where was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples," as if it were
immediately after the utterance of these words that He entered the garden; but let the
clause, "When Jesus had spoken these words," bear this meaning, that we are not to suppose
Him entering the garden before He had brought these words to a close.

2. "Judas also," he says, "who betrayed Him, knew the place; for Jesus oft-times resorted
thither with His disciples." There, accordingly, the wolf, clad in a sheep's skin, and
tolerated among the sheep by the profound counsel of the Father of the family, learned
where he might opportunely scatter the slender flock, and lay his coveted snares for the
Shepherd. "Judas then," he adds, "having received a cohort, and officers from the chief
men and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns, and torches, and weapons." It was a
cohort, not of Jews, but of soldiers. We are therefore to understand it as having been
received from the governor, as if for the purpose of securing the person of a criminal,
and by preserving the forms of legal power, to deter any from venturing to resist his
captors: although at the same time so great a band had been assembled, and came armed in
such a way as either to terrify or even attack any one who should dare to make a stand in
Christ's defense. For only in so far was His power concealed and prominence given to His
weakness, that these very measures were deemed necessary by His enemies to be taken
against Him, for whose hurt nothing would have sufficed but what was pleasing to Himself;
in His own goodness making a good use of the wicked, and doing what was good in regard to
the wicked, that He might transform the evil into the good, and distinguish between the
good and the evil.

3. "Jesus, therefore," as the evangelist proceeds to say, "knowing all things that should
come upon Him, went forth and saith unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus of
Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am [He]. And Judas also, who betrayed Him, stood with
them. As soon then as He had said unto them, I am He, they went backward, and fell to the
ground. Where now were the military cohort, and the servants of the chief men and the
Pharisees? where the terror and protection of weapons? His own single voice uttering the
words, "I am [He]," without any weapon, smote, repelled, prostrated that great crowd, with
all the ferocity of their hatred and terror of their arms. For God lay hid in that human
flesh; and eternal day was so obscured in those human limbs, that with lanterns and
torches He was sought for to be slain by the darkness. "I am [He]," He says; and He
casteth the wicked to the ground. What will He do when He cometh as judge, who did this
when giving Himself up to be judged? What will be His power when He cometh to reign, who
had this power when He came to die? And now everywhere through the gospel Christ is still
saying, "I am [He]; and the Jews are looking for antichrist, that they may go backward and
fall to the ground, as those who have abandoned what is heavenly, and are hankering after
the earthly.

It was for the very purpose of apprehending Jesus that His persecutors accompanied the
traitor: they found the One they were seeking, for they heard, "I am [He]. Why, then, did
they not seize Him, but went backward and fell, but just because so He pleased, who could
do whatever He pleased? But had He never permitted them to apprehend Him, they would
certainly not have done what they came to do, but no more would He be doing what He came
to do. They, verily, in their mad rage, sought for Him to put Him to death; but He, too,
in giving Himself to death, was seeking for us. Accordingly, having thus shown His power
to those who had the will, but not the power, to hold Him; let them now hold Him that He
may work His own will with those who know it not. 4. "Then asked He them again, Whom seek
ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am [He]. If
therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: that the saying might be fulfilled which He
spake, That of those whom Thou hast given me I have lost none." "If ye seek me," He says,
"let these go their way." He sees His enemies, and they do what He bids them: they let
those go their way, whom He would not have perish. But were they not afterwards to die?
How then, if they died now, should He lose them, were it not that as yet they did not
believe in Him, as all believe who perish not?

5. "Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and
cut off his right ear. And the servant's name was Malchus. This is the only evangelist who
has given us the very name of this servant, as Luke is the only one who tells us that the
Lord touched his ear and healed him. The interpretation of Malchus is, one who is destined
to reign. What, then, is signified by the ear that was cut off in the Lord's behalf, and
healed by the Lord, but the renewed hearing that has been pruned of its oldness, that it
may henceforth be in the newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter? Who
can doubt that he, who had such a thing done for him by Christ, was yet destined to reign
with Christ? And his being found as a servant, pertains also to that oldness that
gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. But when healing came, liberty also was shadowed
forth. Peter's deed, however, was disapproved of by the Lord, and He prevented Him from
proceeding further by the words: "Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my
Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? For in such a deed that disciple only sought
to defend his Master, without any thought of what it was intended to signify. And he had
therefore to be exhorted to the exercise of patience, and the event itself to be recorded
as an exercise of understanding.

But when He says that the cup of suffering was given Him by the Father, we have precisely
the same truth as that which was uttered by the apostle: "If God be for us, who can be
against us? He that spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all. But the originator
of this cup is also one with Him who drank it; and hence the same apostle likewise says,
"Christ loved us, and gave Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-
smelling savor." 6. "Then the cohort, and the tribune, and the officers of the Jews, took
Jesus, and bound Him." They took Him to whom they had never found access: for He continued
the day, while they remained as darkness; neither had they given heed to the words, "Come
unto Him, and be enlightened." For had they so approached Him, they would have taken Him,
not with their hands for the purpose of murder, but with their hearts for the purpose of a
welcome reception. Now, however, when they laid hold of Him in this way, their distance
from Him was vastly increased: and they bound Him by whom they themselves ought rather to
have been loosed. And perhaps there were those among themwho then fastened their fetters
on Christ, and yet were afterwards delivered by Him, and could say, "Thou hast loosed my
bonds." Let this be enough for to-day; we shall deal, God willing, with what follows in
another discourse.

TRACTATE 113

John XVIII. 13-27. 1. After that His persecutors had, through the treason of Judas, taken
and bound the Lord, who loved us, and gave Himself for us, and whom the Father spared not,
but gave Him up for us all: that we may understand that there was no praise due to Judas
for the usefulness of his treachery, but damnation for the willfulness of his wickedness:
"They led Him," as John the evangelist tells us, "to Annas first." Nor does he withhold
the reason for so doing: "For he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was the high priest
that same year. Now Caiaphas was he," he says, "who gave counsel to the Jews, that it was
expedient that one man should die for the people." And properly enough Matthew, when
wishing to say the same in fewer words, tells us that He was led to Caiaphas; for He was
also taken in the first place to Annas, simply because he was his father-in-law; and where
we have only to understand that such was the very thing that Caiaphas wished to be done.

2. "But Jesus was followed," he says, "by Simon Peter, and another disciple. Who that
other disciple is, we cannot affirm with confidence, because it is left unnoticed here.
But it is in this way that John usually refers to himself, with the addition, "whom Jesus
loved. Perhaps, therefore, it is he also in the present case; but whoever it is, letus
look at what follows. "And that disciple," he says, "was known unto the high priest, and
went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest; but Peter stood at the door
without. Then went out that other disciple, who was known unto the high priest, and spake
unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. Then saith the damsel that kept thedoor
unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not. Lo, the pillar
of greatest strength has at a single breath of air trembled to its foundations. Where is
now all that boldness of the promiser, and his overweening confidence in himself
beforehand? What now of those words, when he said, "Why cannot I follow Thee now? I will
lay down my life for Thy sake. Is this the way to follow the Master, to deny his own
discipleship? is it thus that one's life is laid down for the Lord, when one is frightened
at a maid-servant's voice, lest it should compel us to the sacrifice? But what wonder, if
God foretold what was true, and man presumptuously imagined what was false?

Assuredly in this denial of the Apostle Peter, which had now entered on its first stage,
we ought to take notice that not only is Christ denied by one who says that He is not
Christ, but by him also who, while really a Christian, himself denies that he is so. For
the Lord said not to Peter, Thou shall deny that thou art my disciple; but, "Thou shall
deny me. Him, therefore, he denied, when he denied that he was His disciple. And what else
did such a form of denial imply, but that of his own Christianity? For although the
disciples of Christ were not yet called by such a name,-because it was after His
ascension, in Antioch, first that the disciples began to be called Christians, -yet the
thing itself, that afterwards assumed such a name, already existed, those who were
afterwards called Christians were already disciples; and this common name, like the common
faith, they transmitted to their posterity. He, therefore, who denied that he was Christ's
disciple, denied the reality of the thing, of which the being called a Christian was only
the name. How many afterwards, not to speak of old men and women, whose satiated feelings
as regards the present life might more easily enable them to brave death for the
confession of Christ; and not merely the youth of both sexes, when of an age at which the
exercise of fortitude seems to be fairly required;

but even boys and girls could do-even as an innumerable company of holy martyrs with brave
hearts and by a violent death entered the kingdom of heaven-what at that moment he was
unable to do, who received the keys of that kingdom. It is here we see why it was said,
"Let these go their way," when He, who hath redeemed us by His own blood, gave Himself for
us; that the saying which He spake might be fulfilled, "Of those whom Thou hast given me I
have lost none. For assuredly, had Peter gone hence after denying the Christ, what else
would have awaited him but destruction? 3. "And the servants and officers stood beside the
fire of burning coals, for it was cold, and warmed themselves. Though it was not winter,
it was cold: which is sometimes wont to be the case even at the vernal equinox. "And Peter
was standing with them, and warming himself. The high priest then asked Jesus of His
disciples, and of His doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I always
taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort, and in secret
have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask those who heard me, what I have said unto
them: behold, they know what I said. A question occurs that ought not to be passed over,
how it is that the Lord Jesus said, "I spake openly to the world; and in particular that
which He afterwards added, "In secret have I said nothing. Did He not, even in that latest
discourse which He delivered to the disciples after supper, say to them, "These things
have I spoken unto you in proverbs; but the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak unto
you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of my Father? If, then, He spake not openly
even to the more intimate company of His disciples, but gave the promise of a time when He
would speak openly, how was it that He spake openly to the world?

And still further, as is also testified on the authority of the other evangelists, to
those who were truly His own, in comparison with others who were not His disciples, He
certainly spake with much greater plainness when He was alone with them at a distance from
the multitudes; for then He unfolded to them the parables, which He had uttered in obscure
terms to others. What then is the meaning of the words, "In secret have I said nothing"?
It is in this way we are to understand His saying, "I spake openly to the world; as if He
had said, There were many that heard me. And that word "openly" was in a certain sense
openly and in another sense not openly. It was openly, because many heard Him; and again
it was not openly, because they did not understand Him. And even what He spake to His
disciples apart, He certainly spake not in secret. For who speaketh in secret, that
speaketh before so many persons; as it is written, "At tim mouth of two or three witnesses
shall every word be established: especially if that be spoken to a few which he wisheth to
become known to many through them; as the Lord Himself said to the few whom He had as yet,
"What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light; and what ye hear in the ear, that
preach ye upon the house-tops"?

And accordingly the very thing that seemed to be spoken by Himself in secret, was in a
certain sense not spoken in secret; for it was not so spoken to remain unuttered by those
to whom it was spoken; but rather so in order to be preached in every possible direction.
A thing therefore may be uttered at once openly, and not openly; or at the same time in
secret, and yet not in secret, as it is said, "That seeing, they may see, and not see. For
how "may they see," save only because it is openly, and not in secret; and again, how is
it that the same parties "may not see," save that it is not openly, but in secret? Howbeit
the very things which they had heard without understanding, were such as could not with
justice or truth be turned into a criminal charge against Him: and as often as they tried
by their questions to find something whereof to accuse Him, He gave them such replies as
utterly discomfited all their plots, and left no ground for the calumnies they devised.
Therefore He said, "Why askest thou me? ask those who heard me, what I have said unto
them: behold, they know what I said."

4. "And when He had thus spoken, one of the officers who stood by gave Jesus a blow with
his open hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have
spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? What could be
truer, meeker, juster, than such an answer? For it is His [reply], from whom the prophetic
voice had issued before, "Make for thy goal (literally, take aim), and advance
prosperously and reign, because of truth, and meekness, and righteousness. If we consider
who it was that received the blow, might we not well feel the wish that he who struck it
were either consumed by fire from heaven, or swallowed up by the gaping earth, or seized
and carried off by devils, or visited with some other or still heavier punishment of this
kind? For what one of all these could not He, who made the world, have commanded by His
power, had He not wished rather to teach us the patience that overcometh the world? Some
one will say here, Why did He not do what He Himself commanded? for to one that smote Him,
He ought not to have answered thus, but to have turned to him the other cheek. Nay, more
than this, did He not answer truthfully, and meekly, and righteously, and at the same time
not only prepare His other cheek to him who was yet again to smite it, but His whole body
to be nailed to the tree?

And hereby He rather showed, what needed to be shown, namely, that those great precepts of
His are to be fulfilled not by bodily ostentation, but by the preparation of the heart.
For it is possible that even an angry man may visibly hold out his other cheek. How much
better, then, is it for one who is inwardly pacified to make a truthful answer, and with
tranquil mind hold himself ready for the endurance of heavier sufferings to come? Happy is
he who, in all that he suffers unjustly for righteousness' sake, can say with truth, "My
heart is ready, O God, my heart is ready; for this it is that gives cause for that which
follows: "I will sing and I give praise; which Paul and Barnabas could do even in the
cruellest of bonds. 5. But let us return to what follows in the Gospel narrative. "And
Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest." To him, according to Matthew's
account, He was led at the outset, because he was the high priest that year. For both the
pontiffs are to be understood as in the habit of acting year by year alternately, that is,
as chief priests; and these were at that time Annas and Caiaphas, as recorded by the
evangelist Luke, when telling of the time when John, the Lord's forerunner, began to
preach the kingdom of heaven and to gather disciples. For he speaks thus: "Under the high
priests Annas and Caiaphas, the word of the Lord came upon John, the son of Zacharias, in
the wilderness," etc. Accordingly these twopontiffs fulfilled their years in turn: and it
was the year of Caiaphas when Christ suffered. And so, according to Matthew, when He was
apprehended, He was taken to him; but first, according to John, they came with Him to
Annas; not because he was his colleague, but his father-in-law. And we must suppose that
it was by Caiaphas' wish that it was so done; or that their houses were so situated, that
Annas could not properly be overlooked by them as they passed on their way.

6. But the evangelist, after saying that Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas, returns to
the place of his narrative, where he had left Peter, in order to explain what had taken
place in Annas' house in regard to his threefold denial. "But Peter was standing," he
says, "and warming himself." He thus repeats what he had already stated before; and then
adds what follows. "They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? He
denied, and said, I am not." He had already denied once; this is the second time. And
then, that the third denial might also be fulfilled, "one of the servants of the high
priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did I not see thee in the garden
with him? Peter then denied again, and immediately the cock crew." Behold, the prediction
of the Physician is fulfilled, thepresumption of the sick man is brought to the light. For
there is no performance of what the latter had asserted, "I will laydown my life for Thy
sake;" but a performance of what the former had predicted, "Thou shall thrice deny me."
But with the completion of Peter's threefold denial, let the present discourse be also now
completed, that hereafter we may make a fresh start with the consideration of what was
done respecting the Lord before Pontius Pilate the governor.

TRACTATE 114

John XVIII. 28-32. 1. Let us now consider, so far as indicated by the evangelist John,
what was done with, or in regard to, our Lord Jesus Christ, when brought before Pontius
Pilate the governor. For he returns to the place of his narrative where he had left it, to
explain the denial of Peter. He had already, you know, said, "And Annas sent Him bound
unto Caiaphas the high priest:" and having returned from where he had dismissed Peter as
he was warming himself at the fire in the hall, after completing the whole of his denial,
which was thrice repeated, he says, "Then they bring Jesus unto Caiaphas into the hall of
judgment (pretorium);" for he had said that He was sent to Caiaphas by his colleague and
father-in-law Annas. But if to Caiaphas, why into the hall of judgment? Nothing else is
thereby meant to be understood than the place where Pilate the governor dwelt. And
therefore, either for some urgent reason Caiaphas had proceeded from the house of Annas,
where both had met to give Jesus a hearing, to the governor's pretorium, and had left the
hearing of Jesus to his father-in-law; or Pilate had made his pretorium in the house of
Caiaphas, which was so large as to contain separate apartments for its own master, and the
like for the judge.

2. "And it was morning; and they themselves," that is, those who brought Jesus, "went not
into the judgment hall," to wit, into that part of the house which Pilate occupied,
supposing it to be Caiaphas' house. And then in explanation of the reason why they went
not into the judgment hall, he says, "lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat
the passover." For it was the commencement of the days of unleavened bread: on which they
accounted it defilement to enter the abode of one of another nation. Impious blindness!
Would they, forsooth,be defiled by a stranger's abode, and not bedefiled by their own
wickedness? They wereafraid of being defiled by the pretorium of a foreign judge, and had
no fear of defilement from the blood of an innocent brother: not to say more than this
meanwhile, which was enough to fix guilt on the conscience of the wicked. For the
additional fact, that it was the Lord who was led to death by their impiety, and the giver
of life that was on the way to be slain, may be charged, not to their conscience, but to
their ignorance.

3. "Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered
him up unto thee." Let the question be put to, and the answer come from, those who had
been delivered from foul spirits, from the sickly who had been healed, the lepers who had
been cleansed, the deaf who were hearing, the dumb who were speaking, the blind who were
seeing, the dead who were raised to life, and, above all, the foolish who were become
wise, whether Jesus were a malefactor. But these things were said by those of whom He
Himself had already foretold by the prophet, "They rewarded me evil for good." 4. "Then
said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews
therefore said unto him. It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. What is this
that their insane cruelty saith? Did not they put Him to death, whom they were here
presenting for the very purpose? Or does the cross, forsooth, fail to kill? Such is the
folly of those who do not pursue, but persecute wisdom. What then mean the words, "It is
not lawful for us to put any man to death"? If He is a malefactor, why is it not lawful?
Did not the law command them not to spare malefactors, especially (as they accounted Him
to be) those who seduced them from their God? We are, however, to understand that they
said that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death, on account of the sanctity
of the festal day, which they had just begun to celebrate, and on account of which they
were afraid of being defiled even by entering the pretorium. Had you become so hardened,
false Israelites? Were you by your excessive malice so lost to all sense, as to imagine
that you were unpolluted by the blood of the innocent, because you gave it up to be shed
by another? Was even Pilate himself going to slay Him with his own hands, when made over
by you into his power for the very purpose? If you did not wish Him to be slain;

if you did not lay snares for Him; if you did not get Him to be betrayed to you for money;
if you did not lay hands upon Him, and bind Him, and bring Him there; if you did not with
your own hands present Him, and with your voices demand Him to be slain,-then boast that
He was not put to death by you. But if in addition to all these former deeds of yours, you
also cried out, "Crucify, crucify [him]; then hear what it is against you that the prophet
proclaims: "The sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp
sword. These, look you, are the spears, the arrows, the sword, wherewith you slew the
righteous, when you said that it was not lawful for you to put any man to death. Hence it
is also that when for the purpose of apprehending Jesus the chief priests did not
themselves come, but sent; yet the evangelist Luke says in the same passage of his
narrative, "Then said Jesus unto those who were come to him, [namely] the chief priests,
and captains of the temple, and elders, Be ye come out, as against a thief," etc?

As therefore the chief priests went not in their own persons, but by those whom they had
sent, to apprehend Jesus, what else was that but coming themselves in the authority of
their own order and so all, who cried out with impious voices for the crucifixion of
Christ, slew Him, not, indeed, directly with their own hands, but personally through him
who was impelled to such a crime by their clamor. 5. But when the evangelist John adds,
"That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spake, signifying what death He
should die: if we would understand such words as referring to the death of the cross, as
if the Jews had said, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death," for this reason
that it was one thing to be put to death, and another to be crucified: I do not see how
such can be understood as a consequence, seeing that this was their answer to the words
that Pilate had just addressed to them, "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.
If it were so, could they not then have taken Him, and crucified Him themselves, had they
desired by any such form of punishment to avoid the putting of Him to death? But who is
there that may not see the absurdity of allowing those to crucify any one, who were not
allowed to put any one to death? Nay more, did not the Lord Himself call that same death
of His, that is, the death of the cross, a putting to death, as we read in Mark, where he
says, "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief
priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him
to the Gentiles:

and they shall mock Him, and shall spit upon Him, and shall scourge Him, and shall put Him
to death, and the third day He shall rise again"? There is no doubt, therefore, that in so
speaking the Lord signified what death He should die: not that He here meant the death of
the cross to be understood, but that the Jews were to deliver Him up to the Gentiles, or,
in other words, to the Romans. For Pilate was a Roman, and had been sent by the Romans
into Judea as governor. That, then, this saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, namely, that,
being delivered up to them, He should be put to death by the Gentiles, as Jesus had
foretold would happen; therefore when Pilate, who was the Roman judge, wished to hand Him
back to the Jews, that they might judge Him according to their law, they refused to
receive Him. saying, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. And so the saying
of Jesus was fulfilled, which He foretold concerning His death, that, being delivered up
by the Jews, He should be put to death by the Gentiles: whose crime was less than that of
the Jews, who sought by this method to make themselves appear averse to His being put to
death, to the end that, not their innocence, but their madness might be made manifest.


TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124
======================================

TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124 continued

TRACTATE 115

John XVIII. 33-40. 1. What Pilate said to Christ, or what He replied to Pilate, has to be
considered and handled in the present discourse. For after the words had been addressed to
the Jews, "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law," and the Jews had replied,
"It is not lawful for us to put any man to death, Pilate entered again into the judgment
hall, and called Jesus, and said unto Him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus
answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? The Lord
indeed knew both what He Himself asked, and what reply the other was to give; but yet He
wished it to be spoken, not for the sake of information to Himself, but that what He
wished us to know might be recorded in Scripture. "Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own
nation, and the chief priests, have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus
answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my
servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from
hence. This is what the good Master wished us to know; but first there had to be shown us
the vain notion that men had regarding His kingdom, whether Gentiles or Jews, from whom
Pilate had heard it; as if He ought to have been punished with death on the ground of
aspiring to an unlawful kingdom;

or as those in the possession of royal power usually manifest their ill-will to such as
are yet to attain it, as if, for example, precautions were to be used lest His kingdom
should prove adverse either to the Romans or to the Jews. But the Lord was able to reply
to the first question of the governor, when he asked Him, "Art thou the King of the Jews?
with the words, "My kingdom is not of this world," etc.; but by questioning him in turn,
whether he said this thing of himself, or heard it from others, He wished by his answer to
show that He had been charged with this as a crime before him by the Jews: laying open to
us the thoughts of men, which were all known to Himself, that they are but vain; and now,
after Pilate's answer, giving them, both Jews and Gentiles, all the more reasonable and
fitting a reply, "My kingdom is not of this world. But had He made an immediate answer to
Pilate's question, His reply would have appeared to refer to the Gentiles only, without
including the Jews, as entertaining such an opinion regarding Him. But now when Pilate
replied, "Am I a Jew? Thine own nation, and the chief priests, have delivered thee to me;
he removed from himself the suspicion of being possibly supposed to have spoken of his own
accord, in saying that Jesus was the king of the Jews, by showing that such a statement
had been communicated to him by the Jews.

And then by saying, "What hast thou done? he made it sufficiently clear that this was
charged against Him as a crime: as if he had said, If thou deniest such kingly claims,
what hast thou done to cause thy being delivered unto me? As if there would be no ground
for wonder that one should be delivered up to a judge for punishment, who proclaimed
himself a king; but if no such assertion were made, it became needful to inquire of Him,
what else, if anything, He had done, that He should thus deserve to be delivered unto the
judge. 2. Hear then, ye Jews and Gentiles; hear, O circumcision; hear, O uncircumcision;
hear, all ye kingdoms of the earth: I interfere not with your government in this world,
"My kingdom is not of this world. Cherish ye not the utterly vain terror that threw Herod
the elder into consternation when the birth of Christ was announced, and led him to the
murder of so many infants in the hope of including Christ in the fatal number, made more
cruel by his fear than by his anger: "My kingdom," He said, "is not of this world. What
would you more? Come to the kingdom that is not of this world; come, believing, and fall
not into the madness of anger through fear. He says, indeed, prophetically of God the
Father, "Yet have I been appointed king by Him upon His holy hill of Zion; but that hill
of Zion is not of this world. For what is His kingdom, save those who believe in Him, to
whom He says, "Ye are not of the world, even as I am not of the world"? And yet He wished
them to be in the world: on that very account saying of them to the Father, "I pray not
that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the
evil. Hence also He says not here, "My kingdom is not" in this world; but, "is not of this
world.

And when He proved this by saying, "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my
servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews," He saith not, "But now is my
kingdom not" here, but, "is not from hence. For His kingdom is here until the end of the
world, having tares intermingled therewith until the harvest; for the harvest is the end
of the world, when the reapers, that is to say, the angels, shall come and gather out of
His kingdom everything that offendeth; which certainly would not be done, were it not that
His kingdom is here. But still it is not from hence; for it only sojourns as a stranger in
the world: because He says to His kingdom, "Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you
out of the world. They were therefore of the world, so long as they were not His kingdom,
but belonged to the prince of this world. Of the world therefore are all mankind, created
indeed by the true God, but generated from Adam as a vitiated and condemned stock; and
there are made into a kingdom no longer of the world, all from thence that have been
regenerated in Christ. For so did God rescue us from the power of darkness, and translate
us into the kingdom of the Son of His love: and of this kingdom it is that He saith, "My
kingdom is not of this world; or, "My kingdom is not from hence."

3. "Pilate therefore said unto Him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that
I am a king." Not that He was afraid to confess Himself a king, but "Thou sayest" has been
so balanced that He neither denies Himself to be a king (for He is a king whose kingdom is
not of this world), nor does He confess that He is such a king as to warrant the
supposition that His kingdom is of this world. For as this was the very idea in Pilate's
mind when he said, '"Art thou a king then?" so the answer he got was, "Thou sayest that I
am a king." For it was said, "Thou sayest," as if it had been said, Carnal thyself, thou
sayest it carnally. 4. Thereafter He adds, "To this end was I born, and for this cause
came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." * * Whence it is
evident that He here referred to His own temporal nativity, when by becoming incarnate He
came into the world, and not to that which had no beginning, whereby He was God through
whom the Father created the world. For this, then, that is, on this account, He declared
that He was born, and to this end He came into the world, to wit, by being born of the
Virgin, that He might bear witness unto the truth. But because all men have not faith, He
still further said, "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. He heareth, that is
to say, with the ears of the inward man, or, in other words, He obeyeth my voice, which is
equivalent to saying, He believeth me. When Christ, therefore, beareth witness unto the
truth, He beareth witness, of course, unto Himself; for from His own lips are the words,
"I am the truth; as He said also in another place, "I bear witness of myself. But when He
said, "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice," He commendeth the grace whereby
He calleth according to His own purpose.

Of which purpose the apostle says, "We know that all things work together for good to them
that love God, to those who are called according to the purpose of God," to wit, the
purpose of Him that calleth, not of those who are called; which is put still. more clearly
in another place in this way, "Labor together in the gospel according to the power of God,
who saveth us and calleth us with His holy calling, not according to our works, but
according to His own purpose and grace. For if our thoughts turn to the nature wherein we
have been created, inasmuch as we were all created by the Truth, who is there that is not
of the truth? But it is not all to whom it is given of the truth to hear, that is, to obey
the truth, and to believe in the truth; while in no case certainly is there any preceding
of merit, lest grace should cease to be grace. For had He said, Every one that heareth my
voice is of the truth, then it would be supposed that he was declared to be of the truth
because he conforms to the truth; it is not this, however, that He says, but, "Every one
that is of the truth heareth my voice. And in this way he is not of the truth simply
because he heareth His voice;

but only on this account he heareth, because he is of the truth, that is, because this is
a gift bestowed on him of the truth. And what else is this, but that by Christ's gracious
bestowal he believeth on Christ? 5. "Pilate said unto Him, What is truth?" Nor did he wait
to hear the answer; but "when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and said
unto them, I find in him no fault. But ye have a custom that I should release unto you one
at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?" I
believe when Pilate said, "What is truth?" there immediately occurred to his mind the
custom of the Jews, according to which he was wont to release unto them one at the
passover; and therefore he did not wait to hear Jesus' answer to his question, What is
truth? to avoid delay on recollecting the custom whereby He might be released unto them
during the passover-a thing which it is clear he greatly desired. It could not, however,
be torn from his heart that Jesus was the King of the Jews, but was fixed there, as in the
superscription, by the truth itself, whereof he had just inquired what it was. "But on
hearing this, they all cried again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a
robber." We blame you not, O jews, for liberating the guilty during the passover, but for
slaying the innocent; and yet unless that were done, the true passover would not take
place. But a shadowy of the truth was retained by the erring Jews, and by a marvellous
dispensation of divine wisdom the truth of that same shadow was fulfilled by deluded men;
because in order that the true passover might be kept, Christ was led as a sheep to the
sacrificial slaughter. Hence there follows the account of the injurious treatment received
by Christ at the hands of Pilate and his cohort; but this must be taken up in another
discourse.

TRACTATE 116

John XIX. 1-16. 1. On the Jews crying out that they did not wish Jesus to be released unto
them all the passover, but Barabbas the robber; nottim Saviour, but the murderer; not the
Giverof life, but the destroyer,-"then Pilate tookJesus and scourged Him." We must believe
that Pilate acted thus for no other reason than that the Jews, glutted with the injuries
done to Him, might consider themselves satisfied, and desist from madly pursuing Him
eve,unto death. With a similar intention was it that, as governor, he also permitted his
cohort to do what follows, or even perhaps ordered them, although the evangelist is silent
on the subject. For he tells us what the soldiers did thereafter, but not that Pilate
ordered it. "And the soldiers," he says, "platted a crown of thorns, and put it on His
head, and they clothed Him with a purple robe. And they came to Him and said, Hail, King
of the Jews! And they smote Him with their hands." Thus were fulfilled the very things
which Christ had foretold of Himself; thus were the martyrs moulded for the endurance of
all that their persecutors should be pleased to inflict; thus, by concealing for a time
the terror of His power, He commended to us the prior imitation of His patience; thus the
kingdom which was not of this world overcame that proud world, not by the ferocity of
fighting, but by the humility of suffering; and thus the grain of corn that was yet to be
multiplied was sown amid the horrors of shame, that it might come to fruition amid the
wonders of glory.

2. "Pilate went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth, that ye may
know that I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns and
the purple robe. And he saith unto them, Behold the man!" Hence it is apparent that these
things were done by the soldiers not without Pilate's knowledge, whether it was that he
ordered them or only permitted them, namely, for the reason we have stated above, that His
enemies might all the more willingly drink in the sight of such derisive treatment, and
cease to thirst further for His blood. Jesus goes forth to them wearing the crown of
thorns and the purple robe, not resplendent in kingly power, but laden with reproach; and
the words are addressed to them, Behold the man! If you hate your king, spare him now when
you see him sunk so low; he has been scourged, crowned with thorns, clothed with the
garments of derision, jeered at with the bitterest insults, struck with the open hand; his
ignominy is at the boiling point, let your ill-will sink to zero. But there is no such
cooling on the part of the latter, but rather a further increase of heat and vehemence.

3. "When the chief priests, therefore, and attendants saw Him, they cried out, saying,
Crucify, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them Take ye him and crucify him; for I find no
fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by the law he ought to die because
he made himself the Son of God." Behold another and still greater ground of hatred. The
former, indeed, seemed but a small matter, as that shown towards the usurpation, by an
unlawful act of daring, of the royal power; and yet of neither did Jesus falsely claim
possession, but each of them is truly His as both the only-begotten Son of God, and by Him
appointed King upon His holy hill of Zion; and both might He now have shown to be His,
were it not that in proportion to the greatness of His power, He preferred to manifest the
corresponding greatness of His patience.

4. "When Pilate, therefore, heard that saying, he was the more afraid; and entered again
into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no
answer." It is found, in comparing the narratives of all the evangelists, that this
silence on the part of our Lord Jesus Christ took place more than once, both before the
chief priests and before. Herod, to whom, as Luke intimates, Pilate had sent Him for a
hearing, and before Pilate himself; so that it was not in vain that the prophecy regarding
Him had preceded, "As the lamb before its shearer was dumb, so He opened not His mouth,"
especially on those occasions when He answered not His questioners. For although He
frequently replied to questions addressed to Him, yet because of those in regard to which
He declined making any reply, the metaphor of the lamb is supplied, in order that in His
silence He might be accounted not as guilty, but innocent. When, therefore, He was passing
through the process of judgment, wherever He opened not His mouth it was in the character
of a lamb that He did so; that is, not as one with an evil conscience who was convicted of
his sins, but as one who in His meekness was sacrificed for the sins of others.

5. "Then saith Pilate unto Him, Speakest thou not unto me knowest thou not that I have
power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered: Thou wouldest have
no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me
unto thee hath the greater sin. Here, you see, He replied; and yet wherever He replied
not, it is not as one who is criminal or cunning, but as a lamb; that is, in simplicity
and innocence He opened not His mouth. Accordingly, where He made no answer, He was silent
as a sheep; where He answered, He taught as the Shepherd. Let us therefore set ourselves
to learn what He said, what He taught also by the apostle, that "there is no power but of
God; and that he is a greater sinner who maliciously delivereth up to the power the
innocent to be slain, than the power itself, if it slay him through fear of another power
that is greater still. Of such a sort, indeed, was the power which God had given to
Pilate, that he should also be under the power of Caesar. Wherefore "thou wouldest have,"
He says, "no power against me," that is, even the little measure thou really hast,
"except" this very measure, whatever its amount, "were given thee from above. But knowing
as I do its amount, for it is not so great as to render thee altogether independent,
"therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

He, indeed, delivered me to thy power at the bidding of envy, whilst thou art to exercise
thy power upon me through the impulse of fear. And yet not even through the impulse of
fear ought one man to slay another, especially the innocent; nevertheless to do so by an
officious zeal is a much greater evil than under the constraint of fear. And therefore the
truth-speaking Teacher saith not, "He that delivered me to thee," he only hath sin, as if
the other had none; but He saith, "hath the greater sin," letting him understand that he
himself was not exempt from blame. For that of the latter is not reduced to nothing
because the other is greater. 6. "Hence Pilate sought to release Him." What is to be
understood by the word here used, "hence," as if he had not been seeking to do so before?
Read what precedes, and thou wilt find that he had already for some time been seeking to
release Jesus. By the original word, therefore, we are to understand, on this account,
that is, for this reason, that he might not contract sin by slaying an innocent man who
had been delivered into his hands, even though his sin would be less than that of the
Jews, who delivered Him to him to be put to death. "From thence," therefore, that is, for
this reason, that he might not commit such a sin, "he sought" not now for the first time,
but from the beginning, "to release Him." 7. "But the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let
this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh
against Caesar." They thought to inspire Pilate with greater fear by terrifying him about
Caesar, in order that he might put Christ to death, than formerly when they said, "We have
the law, and by the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." It was
not their law, indeed, that impelled him through fear to the deed of murder, but rather it
was his fear of the Son of God that held him back from the crime. But now he could not set
Caesar, who was the author of his own power, at nought, in the same way as the law of
another nation.

8. As yet, however, the evangelist proceeds to say: "But when Pilate heard these sayings,
he brought Jesus forth, and sat down before the tribunal, in a place that is called the
Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and
about the sixth hour." The question, at what hour the Lord was crucified, because of the
testimony supplied by another evangelist, who says, "And it was the third hour, and they
crucified Him," we shall consider as we can, if the Lord please, when we are come to the
passage itself where His crucifixion is recorded. When Pilate, therefore, had sat down
before the tribunal, "he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king! But they cried out, Away
with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate said unto them, Shall I crucify your king?"
As yet he tries to overcome the terror with which they had inspired him about Caesar, by
seeking to break them from their purpose on the ground of the ignominy it brought on
themselves, with the words, "Shall I crucify your king?" when he failed to soften them on
the ground of the ignominy done to Christ; but by and by he is overcome by fear.

9. For "the chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he Him
therefore unto them to be crucified. For he would have every appearance of acting against
Caesar if, on their declaration that they had no king but Caesar, he were wishing to
impose on them another king by releasing without punishment one whom for these very
attempts they had delivered unto him to be put to death. "Therefore he delivered Him unto
them to be crucified. But was it, then, anything different that he had previously desired
when he said, "Take ye him, and crucify him; or even earlier still, "Take ye him, and
judge him according to your law? And why did they show so great reluctance, when they
said, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death," and were in every way urgent to
have Him slain not by themselves, but by the governor, and therefore refused to receive
Him for the purpose of putting Him to death, if now for the same purpose they actually do
receive Him? Or if such be not the case, why was it said, "Then delivered he Him therefore
unto them to be crucified? Or is it of any importance? Plainly it is. For it was not said,
"Then delivered he Him therefore unto them" that they might crucify Him, but "that He
might be crucified," that is, that He might be crucified by the judicial sentence and
power of the governor.

But it is for this reason that the evangelist has said that He was delivered to them, that
he might show that they were implicated in the crime from which they tried to hold
themselves aloof; for Pilate would have done no such thing, save to implement what he
perceived to be their fixed desire. The words, however, that follow, "And they took Jesus,
and led Him away," may now refer to the soldiers, the attendants of the governor. For it
is more clearly stated afterwards, "When the soldiers therefore had crucified Him,"
although the evangelist properly does so even when he attributes the whole to the Jews,
for they it was that received what they had with the utmost greediness demanded, and they
it was that did all that they compelled to be done. But the events that follow must be
made the subject of consideration in another discourse.

TRACTATE 117

John XIX. 17-22. 1. On Pilate's judgment and condemnation before the tribunal, they took
the Lord Jesus Christ, about the sixth hour, and led Him away. "And He, bearing His cross,
went forth into the place that is called Calvary, but in Hebrew, Golgotha; where they
crucified Him." What else, then, is the meaning of the evangelist Mark saying, "And it was
the third hour, and they crucified Him," but this, that the Lord was crucified at the
third hour by the tongues of the Jews, at the sixth hour by the hands of the soldiers?
That we may understand that the fifth hour was now completed, and there was some beginning
made of the sixth, when Pilate took his seat before the tribunal, which is expressed by
John as "about the sixth hour;" and when He was led forth, and nailed to the tree with the
two robbers, and the events recorded were enacted beside His cross, the completion of the
sixth hour was fully reached, being the hour from which, on to the ninth, the sun was
obscured, and the darkness took place, we have it jointly attested on the authority of the
three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But as the Jews attempted to transfer the
crime of slaying Christ from themselves to the Romans, that is to say, to Pilate and his
soldiers, therefore Mark suppresses the hourat which Christ was crucified by the
soldiers,and which then began to enter upon the sixth, and remembers rather to give an
express place to the third hour, at which they are understood to have cried out before
Pilate, "Crucify, crucify him" (verse 6), that it not only may be seen that the former
crucified Jesus, namely, the soldiers who hung Him on the tree at the sixth hour, but the
Jews also, who at the third hour cried out to have Him crucified.

2. There is also another solution of this question, that we should not here understand the
sixth hour of the day, because John says not, And it was about the sixth hour of the day,
or about the sixth hour, but says, "And it was the parasceve of the passover, about the
sixth hour" (ver. 14). And parasceve is in Latin praeparatio (preparation); but the Jews
are fonder of using the Greek words in observances of this sort, even those of them who
speak Latin rather than Greek. It was therefore the preparation of the passover. But "our
passover, Christ," as the apostle says, "has been sacrificed; and if we reckon the
preparation of this passover from the ninth hour of the night (for then the chief priests
seem to have given their verdict for the sacrifice of the Lord, when they said, "He is
guilty of death," and when the hearing of His case was still proceeding in the high
priest's house: whence there is a kind of harmony in understanding that therewith began
the preparation of the true passover, whose shadow was the passover of the Jews, that is,
of the sacrificing of Christ, when the priests gave their sentence that He was to be
sacrificed), certainly from that hour of the night, which is conjectured to have been then
the ninth, on to the third hour of the day, when the evangelist Mark testifies that Christ
was crucified, there are six hours, three of the night, and three of the day.

Hence in the case of this parasceve of the passover, that is, the preparation of the
sacrifice of Christ, which began with the ninth hour of the night, it was about the sixth
hour; that is to say, the fifth hour was completed, and the sixth had already begun to
run, when Pilate ascended the tribunal: for that same preparation, which had begun with
the ninth hour of the night, still continued till the sacrifice of Christ, which was the
event in course of preparation, was completed, which took place at the third hour,
according to Mark, not of the preparation, but of the day; while it was also the sixth
hour, not of the day, but of the preparation, by reckoning, of course, six hours from the
ninth hour of the night to the third of the day. Of these two solutions of this difficult
question let each choose the one that pleases him. But one will judge better what to
choose who reads the very elaborate discussions on "The Harmony of the Evangelists. And if
other solutions of it can also be found, the stability of gospel truth will have a more
cumulative defense against the calumnies of unbelieving and profane vanity. And now, after
these brief discussions, let us return to the narrative of the evangelist John.

3. "And they took Jesus," he says, "and led Him away; and He, bearing His cross, went
forth unto the place that is called Calvary, in the Hebrew, Golgotha; where they crucified
Him." Jesus, therefore, went to the place where He was to be crucified, bearing His cross.
A grand spectacle! but if it be impiety that is the onlooker, a grand laughing-stock; if
piety, a grand mystery: if impiety be the onlooker, a grand demonstration of ignominy; if
piety, a grand bulwark of faith: if it is impiety that looketh on, it laughs at the King
bearing, in place of His kingly rod, the tree of His punishment; if it is piety, it sees
the King bearing the tree for His own crucifixion, which He was yet to affix even on the
foreheads of kings, exposed to the contemptuous glances of the impious in connection with
that wherein the hearts of saints were thereafter to glory. For to Paul, who was yet to
say, "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ," He
was commending that same cross of His by carrying it on His own shoulders, and bearing the
candelabrum of that light that was yet to burn, and not to be placed under a bushel.
"Bearing," therefore, "His cross, He went forth into the place that is called Calvary, in
the Hebrew, Golgotha; where they crucified Him, and two others with. Him on either side
one, and Jesus in the midst." These two, as we have learned in the narrative of the other
evangelists, were thieves with whom He was crucified, and between whom He was fixed,
whereof the prophecy sent before had declared, "And He was numbered among the
transgressors."

4. "And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross, and the writing was, Jesus of
Nazareth, the King of the Jews. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where
Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin,
The King of the Jews." For these three languages were conspicuous in that place beyond all
others: the Hebrew on account of the Jews, who gloried in the law of God; the Greek,
because of the wise men among the Gentiles; and the Latin, on account of the Romans, who
at that very time were exercising sovereign power over many and almost all countries. 5.
"Then said the chief priests of the Jews unto Pilate Write not, The King of the Jews; but
that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
Oh the ineffable power of the working of God, even in the hearts of the ignorant! Was
there not some hidden voice that sounded through Pilate's inner man with a kind, if one
may so say, of loud-toned silence, the words that had been prophesied so long before in
the very letter of the Psalms, "Corrupt not the inscription of the title"? Here, then, you
see, he corrupted it not; what he has written he has written. But the high priests, who
wished it to be corrupted, what did they say? "Write not, The King of the Jews; but that
he said, I am King of the Jews. What is it, madmen, that you say? Why do you oppose the
doing of that which you are utterly unable to alter? Will it by any such means become the
less true that Jesus said, "I am King of the Jews"? If that cannot be tampered with which
Pilate has written, can that be tampered with which the truth has uttered? But is Christ
king only of the Jews, or of the Gentiles also? Yes, of the Gentiles also.

For when He said in prophecy, "I am set king by Him upon His holy hill of Zion, declaring
the decree of the Lord," that no one might say, because of the hill of Zion, that He was
set king over the Jews alone, He immediately added, "The Lord said unto me, Thou art my
Son; this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy poossession. Whence He Himself,
speaking now with His own lips among the Jews, said, "Other sheep I have which are not of
this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one
flock and one Shepherd. Why then would we have some great mystery to be understood in this
superscription, wherein it was written, "King of the Jews," if Christ is king also of the
Gentiles? For this reason, because it was the wild olive tree that was made partaker of
the fatness of the olive tree, and not the olive tree that was made partaker of the
bitterness of the wild olive tree. For inasmuch as the title, "King of the Jews," was
truthfully written regarding Christ, who are they that are to be understood as the Jews
but the seed of Abraham, the children of the promise, who are also the children of God?
For "they," saith the apostle, "who are the children of the flesh, these are not the
children of God;

but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. And the Gentiles were those to
whom he said, "But if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to
the promise. Christ therefore is king of the Jews, but of those who are Jews by the
circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of
men, but of God; who belong to the Jerusalem thatis free, our eternal mother in heaven,
the spiritual Sarah, who casteth out the bond maid and her children from the house of
liberty. And therefore what Pilate wrote he wrote, because what the Lord said He said.

TRACTATE 118

John XIX. 23, 24. 1. The things that were done beside the Lord's cross, when at length He
was now crucified, we would take up, in dependence on His help, in the present discourse.
"Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Him, took His garments, and made four parts,
to every soldier a part; and also His coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the
top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots
for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted
my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots." It was done as the Jews
wished; not that it was they themselves, but the soldiers who obeyed Pilate, who himself
acted as judge, that crucified Jesus: and yet if we reflect on their wills, their plots,
their endeavors, their delivering up, and, lastly, on their extorting clamors, it was the
Jews certainly, more than any else, who crucified Jesus.

2. But we must not speak in a mere cursory way of the partition and dividing by lot of His
garments. For although all the four evangelists make mention thereof, yet the others do so
more briefly than John: and their notice of it is obscure, while his is in the plainest
manner possible. For Matthew says, "And after they crucified Him, they parted His
garments, casting lots. Mark: "And they crucified Him, and parted His garments, casting
lots upon them, what every man should take. Luke: "And they parted His raiment, and cast
lots. But John has told us also how many parts they made of His garments, namely, four,
that they might take one part apiece. From which it, is apparent that there were four
soldiers, who obeyed the governor's orders in crucifying Him. For he plainly says: "Then
the soldiers, when they had crucified Him, took His garments, and made four parts, to
every soldier a part; and likewise the coat," where there is understood, they took: so
that the meaning is, they took His garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part;
and they took also His coat. And he so spake, that we might see that there was no lot cast
on His other garments; but His coat, whichthey took along with the others, they did not
similarly divide. For in regard to it he proceeds to explain, "Now the coat was without
seam, woven from the top throughout.

And then telling us why they cast lots on it, he says, "They said therefore among
themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be. Hence it is clear
that in the case of the other garments they had equal parts, so that there was no need to
cast lots: but that as regards this one, they could not have had a part each without
rending it, and thereby possessing themselves only of useless fragments of it; to prevent
which, they preferred letting it come to one of them by lot. The account given by this
evangelist is also in harmony with the testimony of prophecy, which he likewise
immediately subjoins, saying, "That the scripture might be fulfilled which saith, They
parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. For He says not, they
cast lots, but "they parted: nor does He say, casting lots they parted; but while making
no mention whatever of the lot in regard to the rest of the garments, He afterwards said,
"and for my vesture they did cast lots," in reference solely to the coat that remained. On
which I shall speak as He Himself enables me, after I have first refuted the calumny,
which may possibly arise, as if the evangelists disagreed with one another, by showing
that the words of none of the others are inconsistent with the narrative of John.

3. For Matthew, in saying, "They parted His garments, casting lots," wished it to be
understood, that in the whole affair of parting the garments, the coat was also included,
on which they cast lots; for in course of parting all the garments, of which it also was
one on it alone they cast lots. To the same purpose also are the words of Luke: "Parting
His garments, they cast lots; for in the process of parting they came to the coat whereon
the lot was cast, that the entire parting of His garments among them might be completed.
And what difference is there whether it is said, "Parting they cast lots," according to
Luke; or, "They parted, casting the lot," according to Matthew: unless it be that Luke, in
saying "lots," used the plural for the singular number,-a form of speech that is not
unusual in the Holy Scriptures, although some copies are found to have "lot," and not
"lots"? Mark, therefore, is the only one who seems to have introduced any kind of
difficulty; for in saying, "Casting the lot upon them, what every man should take," his
words seem to imply, as if the lot was cast on all the garments, and not on the coat
alone. But here also brevity is the cause of the obscurity; for the words, "Casting the
lot upon them," are as if it were said, Casting the lot when they were in the process of
division; which was also the case.

For the partition of all His garments would not have been complete, had it not been
declared by lot which of them also should get possession of the coat, so as thereby to
bring any contention on the part of the dividers to an end, or rather prevent any such
from arising. In saying, therefore, "What every man should take," so far as that has to do
with the lot, we must not take it as referring to all the garments that were divided; for
the lot was cast, who should take the coat: whereof having omitted to describe the
particular form, and how, in the equal division that was made of the parts, it remained by
itself, in order, without being rent, to be awarded by lot, he therefore made use of the
expression, "what every man should take," in other words, who it was that should take it:
as if the whole were thus expressed, They parted His garments, casting the lot upon them,
who should take the coat, which had remained over in addition to their equal shares of the
rest.

4. Some one, perhaps, may inquire what is signified by the division that was made of His
garments into so many parts, and of the casting of lots for the coat. The raiment of the
Lord Jesus Christ parted into four, symbolized His quadripartite Church, as spread abroad
over the whole world, which consists of four quarters, and equally, that is to say,
harmoniously, distributed over all these quarters. On which account He elsewhere says,
that He will send His angels to gather His elect from the four winds: and what is that,
but from the four quarters of the world, east, west, north, and south? But the coat, on
which lots were cast, signifies the unity of all the parts, which is contained in the bond
of charity. And when the apostle is about to speak of charity, he says, "I show you a more
excellent way; and in another place, "To know also the love of Christ, which far excelleth
knowledge; and still further elsewhere, "And above all these things charity which is the
bond of perfectness. If, then, charity both has a more excellent way, and far excelleth
knowledge, and is enjoined above all things, it is with great propriety that the garment,
by which it is signified, is represented as woven from the top. And it was without seam,
that its sewing might never be separated; and came into the possession of one man, because
He gathereth all into one.

Just as in the case of the apostles, who formed the exact number of twelve, in other
words, were divisible into four parts of three each, when the question was put to all of
them, Peter was the only one that answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God; and to whom it was said, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,"
as if he alone received the power of binding and loosing: seeing, then, that one so spake
in behalf of all, and received the latter along with all, as if personifying the unity
itself; therefore one stands for all, because there is unity in all. Whence, also, after
here saying, "woven from the top," he added, "throughout. And this also, if referred to
its meaning, implies that no one is excluded from a share thereof, who is discovered to
belong to the whole: from which whole, as the Greek language indicates, the Church derives
her name of Catholic. And by the casting of lots, what else is commended but the grace of
God? For in this way in the person of one it reached to all, since the lot satisfied them
all, because the grace of God also in its unity reacheth unto all; and when the lot is
cast, the award is decided, not by the merits of each individual, hut by the secret
judgment of God.

5. And yet let no one say that such things had no good signification because they were
done by the bad, that is to say, not by those who followed Christ, but by those who
persecuted Him. For what could we have to say of the cross itself, which every one knows
was in like manner made and fastened to Christ by enemies and sinners? And yet it is to it
we may rightly understand the words of the apostle to be applicable, "what is the breadth,
and the length,and the height, and the depth. For its breadth lies in the transverse beam,
on which the hands of the Crucified are extended; and signifies good works in all the
breadth of love: its length extends from the transverse beam to the ground, and is that
whereto the back and feet are affixed; and signifies perseverance through the whole length
of time to the end: its height is in the summit, which rises upwards above the transverse
beam; and signifies the supernal goal, to which all works have reference, since all things
that are done well and perseveringly, in respect of their breadth and length, are to be
done also with due regard to the exalted character of the divine rewards: its depth is
found in the part that is fixed into the ground; for there it is both concealed and
invisible, and yet from thence spring up all those parts that are outstanding and evident
to the senses;

just as all that is good in us proceeds from the depths of the grace of God, which is
beyond the reach of human comprehension and judgment. But even though the cross of Christ
signified no more than what was said by the apostle, "And they who are Jesus Christ's have
crucified the flesh with the passions and lusts," how great a good it is! And yet it does
not this, unless the good spirit be lusting against the flesh, seeing that it was the
opposing, or, in other words, the evil spirit that constructed the cross of Christ. And
lastly, as every one knows, what else is the sign of Christ but the cross of Christ? For
unless that sign be applied, whether it be to the foreheads of believers, or to the very
water out of which they are regenerated, or to the oil with which they receive the
anointing chrism, or to the sacrifice that nourishes them, none of them is properly
administered. How then can it be that no good is signified by that which is done by the
wicked, when by the cross of Christ, which the wicked made, every good thing is sealed to
us in the celebration of His sacraments? But here we stop; and what follows we shall
consider at another time in the course of dissertation, as God shall grant us assistance.

TRACTATE 119

John XIX. 24-30. 1. The Lord being now crucified, and the parting of His garments having
also been completed by the casting of the lot, let us look at what the evangelist John
thereafter relates. "And these things," he says, "the soldiers did. Now there stood by the
cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary [the wife] of Cleophas, and Mary
Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by whom He
loved, He saith unto His mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple,
Behold thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home." This,
without a doubt, was the hour whereof Jesus, when about to turn the water into wine, had
said to His mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." This
hour, therefore, He had foretold, which at that time had not yet arrived, when it should
be His to acknowledge her at the point of death, and with reference to which He had been
born as a mortal man. At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He
repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human]
infirmity; but now, when in the midst of human sufferings, He commended with human
affection [the mother] by whom He had become man. For then, He who had created Mary became
known in His power; but now, that which Mary had brought forth was hanging on the cross.

2. A passage, therefore, of a moral character is here inserted. The good Teacher does what
He thereby reminds us ought to be done, and by His own example instructed His disciples
that care for their parents ought to be a matter of concern to pious children: as if that
tree to which the members of the dying One were affixed were the very chair of office from
which the Master was imparting instruction. From this wholesome doctrine it was that the
Apostle Paul had learned what he taught in turn, when he said, "But if any provide not for
his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse
than an infidel." And what are so much home concerns to any one, as parents to children,
or children to parents? Of this most wholesome precept, therefore, the very Master of the
saints set the example from Himself, when, not as God for the hand-maid whom He had
created and governed, but as a man for the mother, of whom He had been created, and whom
He was now leaving behind, He provided in some measure another son in place of Himself.
And why He did so, He indicates in the words that follow: for the evangelist says, "And
from that hour the disciple took her unto his own," speaking of himself. In this way,
indeed, he usually refers to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved: who certainly loved
them all, but him beyond the others, and with a closer familiarity, so that He even made
him lean upon His bosom at supper; in order, I believe, in this way to commend the more
highly the divine excellence of this very gospel, which He was thereafter to preach
through his instrumentality.

3. But what was this "his own," unto which John took the mother of the Lord? For he was
not outside the circle of those who said unto Him, "Lo, we have left all, and followed
Thee." No, but on that same occasion he had also heard the words, Every one that hath
forsaken these things for my sake, shall receive an hundred times as much in this world.
That disciple, therefore, had an hundredfold more than he had cast away, whereunto to
receive the mother of Him who had graciously bestowed it all. But it was in that society
that the blessed John had received an hundredfold, where no one called anything his own,
but they had all things in common; even as it is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. For
the apostles were as if having nothing, and yet possessing all things How was it, then,
that the disciple and servant received unto his own the mother of his Lord and Master,
where no one called anything his own? Or, seeing we read a little further on in the same
book, "For as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices
of them, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every
man according as he had need," are we not to understand that such distribution was made to
this disciple of what was needful, that there was also added to it the portion of the
blessed Mary, as if she were his mother; and ought we not the rather so to take the words,
"From that hour the disciple took her unto his own," that everything necessary for her was
entrusted to his care? He received her, therefore, not unto his own lands, for he had none
of his own; but to his own dutiful services, the discharge of which, by a special
dispensation, was entrusted to himself.

4. He then adds: "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that
the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of
vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and fixed it upon hyssop, and put it to
His mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, It is finished: and He
bowed His head, and gave up the ghost. Who has the power of so adjusting what he does, as
this Man had of arranging all that He suffered? But this Man was the Mediator between God
and men; the Man of whom we read in prophecy, He is man also, and who shall acknowledge
Him for the men who did such things acknowledged not this Man as God. For He who was
manifest as man, was hid as God: He who was manifest suffered all these things, and He
Himself also, who was hid, arranged them all. He saw, therefore, that all was accomplished
that required to be done before He received the vinegar, and gave up the ghost; and that
this also might be accomplished which the scripture had foretold, "And in my thirst they
gave me vinegar to drink," He said, "I thirst: as if it were, One thing still you have
failed to do, give me what you Are. For the Jews were themselves the vinegar, degenerated
as they were from the wine of the patriarchs and prophets;

and filled like a full vessel with the wickedness of this world, with hearts like a
sponge, deceitful in the formation of its cavernous and tortuous recesses. But the hyssop,
whereon they placed the sponge filled with vinegar, being a lowly herb, and purging the
heart, we fitly take for the humility of Christ Himself; which they thus enclosed, and
imagined they had completely ensnared. Hence we have it said in the psalm, "Thou shalt
purge me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed. For it is by Christ's humility that we are
cleansed; because, had He not humbled Himself, and became obedient unto the death of the
cross, His blood certainly would not have been shed for the remission of sins, or, in
other words, for our cleansing. 5. Nor need we be disturbed with the question, how the
sponge could be applied to His mouth when He was lifted up from the earth on the cross.
For as we read in the other evangelists, what is omitted by this one, it was fixed on a
reed, so that such drink as was contained in the sponge might be raised to the highest
part of the cross. By the reed, however, the scripture was signified, which was fulfilled
by this very act. For as a tongue is called either Greek or Latin, or any other,
significant of the sound, which is uttered by the tongue; so the reed may give its name to
the letter which is written with a reed. We most usually, however, call those tongues that
express the sounds of the human voice: while in calling scripture a reed, the very
rareness of the thing only enhances the mystical nature of that which it symbolizes. A
wicked people did such things, a compassionate Christ suffered them. They who did them,
knew not what they did; but He who suffered, not only knew what was done, and why it was
so, but also wrought what was good through those who were doing what was evil.

6. "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, It is finished." What, but all
that prophecy had foretold so long before? And then, because nothing now remained that
still required to be done before He died, as if He, who had power to lay down His life and
to take it up again, had at length completed all for whose completion He was waiting, "He
bowed His head, and gave up the ghost." Who can thus sleep when he pleases, as Jesus died
when He pleased? Who is there that thus puts off his garment when he pleases, as He put
off His flesh at His pleasure? Who is there that thus departs when he pleases, as He
departed this life at His pleasure? How great the power, to be hoped for or dreaded, that
must be His as judge, if such was the power He exhibited as a dying man!

TRACTATE 120

John XIX. 31-42, and XX. 1-9. 1. After that the Lord Jesus had accomplished all that He
foreknew required accomplishment before His death, and had, when it pleased Himself, given
up the ghost, what followed thereafter, as related by the evangelist, let us now consider.
"The Jews therefore," he says, "because it was the preparation (parasceve), that the
bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath-day (for that Sabbath-day was an
high day), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken
away." Not that their legs might be taken away, but the persons themselves whose legs were
broken for the purpose of effecting their death, and permitting them to be detached from
the tree, lest their continuing to hang on the crosses should defile the great festal day
by the horrible spectacle of their day-long torments. 2. "Then came the soldiers, and
brake the legs of the first, and of the other who was, crucified with Him. But when they
came to Jesus, and saw that He was dead already, they brake not His legs: but one of the
soldiers with a spear laid open His side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." A
suggestive word was made use of by the evangelist, in not saying pierced, or wounded His
side, or anything else, but "opened;that thereby, in a sense, the gate of life might be
thrown open, from whence have flowed forth the sacraments of the Church, without which
there is no entrance to the life which is the true life. That blood was shed for the
remission of sins; that water it is that makes up the health-giving cup, and supplies at
once the layer of baptism and water for drinking. This was announced beforehand, when Noah
was commanded to make a door in the side of the ark, whereby the animals might enter which
were not destined to perish in the flood, and by which the Church was prefigured. Because
of this, the first woman was formed from the side of the man when asleep, and was called
Life, and the mother of all living. Truly it pointed to a great good, prior to the great
evil of the transgression (in the guise of one thus lying asleep). This second Adam bowed
His head and fell asleep on the cross, that a spouse might be formed for Him from that
which flowed from the sleeper's side. O death, whereby the dead are raised anew to life!
What can be purer than such blood? What more health-giving than such a wound?

3. "And he that saw it," he says, "bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth
that he saith true, that ye also might believe." He said not, That ye also might know, but
"that ye might believe;" for he knoweth who hath seen, that he who hath not seen might
believe his testimony. And believing belongs more to the nature of faith than seeing. For
what else is meant by believing than giving to faith a suitable reception? "For these
things were done," he adds, "that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of Him ye
shall not break. And again, another scripture saith, They shall look on Him whom they
pierced." He has furnished two testimonies from the Scriptures for each of the things
which he has recorded as having been done. For to the words, "But widen they came to
Jesus, and saw that He was dead already, they brake not His legs," belongeth the
testimony, "A bone of Him ye shall not break:" an injunction which was laid upon those who
were commanded to celebrate the passover by the sacrifice of a sheep in the old law, which
went before as a shadow of the passion of Christ. Whence "our passover has been offered,
even Christ," of whom the prophet Isaiah also had predicted, "He shall be led as a lamb to
the slaughter." In like manner to the words which he subjoined, "But one of the soldiers
laid open His side with a spear," belongeth the other testimony, "They shall look on Him
whom they pierced;" where Christ is promised in the very flesh wherein He was afterwards
to come to be crucified.

4. "And after this, Joseph of Arimathea (being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear
of the Jews) besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave
him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. And there came also Nicodemus,
who came to Jesus by night at first, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an
hundred pound weight." We are not to explain the meaning by saying, "first bringing a
mixture of myrrh," but by attaching the word "first" to the preceding clause. For
Nicodemus had at first come to Jesus by night, as recorded by this same John in the
earlier portions of his Gospel. By the statement given us here, therefore, we are to
understand that Nicodemus came to Jesus, not then only, but then for the first time; and
that he was a regular comer afterwards, in order by hearing to become a disciple; which is
certified, nowadays at least, to almost all nations in the revelation of the body of the
most blessed Stephen. "Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes
with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury." The evangelist, I think, was not
without a purpose in so framing his words, "as the manner of the Jews is to bury;" for in
this way, unless I am mistaken, he has admonished us that, in duties of this kind, which
are observed to the dead, the customs of every nation ought to be preserved.

5. "Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new
sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid." As in the womb of the Virgin Mary no one was
conceived before Him, and no one after Him, so in this sepulchre there was no one buried
before Him, and no one after Him. "There laid they Jesus therefore, because of the Jews'
preparation; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand." He would have us to understand that the
burial was hurried, lest the evening should overtake them; when it was no longer permitted
to do any such thing, because of the preparation, which the Jews among us are more in the
habit of calling in Latin, coena pura (the pure meal). 6. "And on the first of the week
came Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and saw the stone
taken away from the sepulchre." The first of the week is what Christian practice now calls
the Lord's day, because of the resurrection of the Lord. "She ran, therefore, and came to
Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have
taken the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him." Some of
the Greek codices have, "They have taken my Lord," which may likely enough have been said
by the stronger than ordinary affection of love and handmaid relationship; but we have not
found it in the several codices to which we have had access.

7. "Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So
they ran both together: and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the
sepulchre." The repetition here is worthy of notice and of commendation for the way in
which a return is made to what had previously been omitted, and yet is added just as if it
followed in due order. For after having already said, "they came to the sepulchre," he
goes back to tell us how they came, and says, "so they ran both together," etc. Where he
shows that, by outrunning his companion, there came first to the sepulchre that other
disciple, by whom he means himself, while he relates all as if speaking of another. 8.
"And he stooping down," he says, "saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then
cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen clothes
lying, and the napkin, which had been about His head, not lying with the linen clothes,
but folded up in one place by itself." Do we suppose these things have no meaning? I can
suppose no such thing. But we hasten on to other points, on which we are compelled to
linger by the need there is for investigation, or some other kind of obscurity. For in
such things as are self-manifest, the inquiry into the meaning even of individualdetails
is, indeed, a subject of holy delight, but only for those who have leisure, which is not
the case with us.

9. "Then went in also that other disciple who had come first to the sepulchre." He came
first, and entered last. This also of a certainty is not without a meaning, but I am
without the leisure needful for its explanation. "And he saw, and believed." Here some, by
not giving due attention, suppose that John believed that Jesus had risen again; but there
is no indication of this from the words that follow. For what does he mean by immediately
adding, "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that He must rise again from the dead"?
He could not then have believed that He had risen again, when he did not know that it
behoved Him to rise again. What then did he see? what was it that he believed? What but
this, that he saw the sepulchre empty, and believed what the woman had said, that He had
been taken away from the tomb? "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that He must rise
again from the dead." Thus also when they heard of it from the Lord Himself, although it
was uttered in the plainest terms, yet from their custom of hearing Him speaking by
parables, they did not understand, and believed that something else was His meaning. But
we shall put off what follows till another discourse.

TRACTATE 121

John XX. 10-29. 1. Mary Magdalene had brought the news to His disciples, Peter and John,
that the Lord was taken away from the sepulchre; and they, when they came thither, found
only the linen clothes wherewith the body had been shrouded; and what else could they
believe but what she had told them, and what she had herself also believed? "Then the
disciples went away again unto their own" (home); that is to say, where they were
dwelling, and from which they had run to the sepulchre. "But Mary stood without at the
sepulchre weeping. For while the men returned, the weaker sex was fastened to the place by
a stronger affection. And the eyes, which had sought the Lord and had not found Him, had
now nothing else to do but weep, deeper in their sorrow that He had been taken away from
the sepulchre than that He had been slam on the tree; seeing that in the case even of such
a Master, when His living presence was withdrawn from their eyes, His remembrance also had
ceased to remain. Such grief, therefore, now kept the woman at the sepulchre. "And as she
wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre. Why she did so I know not. For she
was not ignorant that He whom she sought was no longer there, since she had herself also
carried word to the disciples that He had been taken from thence;

while they, too, had come to the sepulchre, and had sought the Lord's body, not merely by
looking, but also by entering, and had not found it. What then does it mean, that, as she
wept, she stooped down, and looked again into the sepulchre? Was it that her grief was So
excessive that she hardly thought she could believe either their eyes or her own? Or was
it rather by some divine impulse that her mind led her to look within? For look she did,
"and saw two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head and the other at the feet,
where the body of Jesus had lain. Why is it that one was sitting at the head, and the
other at the feet? Was it, since those who in Greek are called angelj are in Latin nuntii
[in English, news-bearers], that in this way they signified that the gospel of Christ was
to be preached from head to foot, from the beginning even to the end? "They say to her,
Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I
know not where they have laid Him. The angels forbade her tears: for by such a position
what else did they announce, but that which in some way or other was a future joy? For
they put the question, "Why weepest thou? as if they had said, Weep not. But she,
supposing they had put the question from ignorance, unfolded the cause of her tears.

"Because," she said, "they have taken away my Lord: calling her Lord's inanimate body her
Lord, meaning a part for the whole; just as all of us acknowledge that Jesus Christ, the
only Son of God, our Lord, who of course is at once both the Word and soul and flesh, was
nevertheless crucified and buried, while it was only His flesh that was laid in the
sepulchre. "And I know not," she added, "where they have laid Him. This was the greater
cause of sorrow, because she knew not where to go to mitigate her grief. But the hour had
now come when the joy, in some measure announced by the angels, who forbade her tears, was
to succeed the weeping. 2. Lastly, "when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and
saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why
weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto Him,
Sir, If thou hast borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him
away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni, which
is to say, Master." Let no one speak ill of the woman because she called the gardener, Sir
(domine), and Jesus, Master. For there she was asking, here she was recognizing; there she
was showing respect to a person of whom she was asking a favor, here she was recalling the
Teacher of whom she was learning to discern things human and divine. She called one lord
(sir), whose handmaid she was not, in order by him to get at the Lord to whom she
belonged. In one sense, therefore, she used the word Lord when she said, "They have taken
away my Lord; and in another, when she said, Sir (lord), if thou hast borne Him hence."
For the prophet also called those lords who were mere men, but in a different sense from
Him of whom it is written, "The Lord is His name." But how was it that this woman, who had
already turned herself back to see Jesus, when she supposed Him to be the gardener, and
was actually talking with Him, is said to have again turned herself, in order to say unto
Him "Rabboni," but just because, when she then turned herself in body, she supposed Him to
be what He was not, while now, when turned in heart, site recognized Him to be what He
was.

3. "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to
my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; to my God, and
your God. There are points in these words which we must examine with brevity indeed, but
with somewhat more than ordinary attention. For Jesus was giving a lesson in faith to the
woman, who had recognized Him as her Master, and called Him so in her reply; and this
gardener was sowing in her heart, as in His own garden, the grain of mustard seed. What
then is meant by "Touch me not"? And just as if the reason of such a prohibition would be
sought, He added, "for I am not yet ascended to my Father. What does this mean? If, while
standing on earth, He is not to be touched, how could He be touched by men when sitting in
heaven? For certainly, before He ascended, He presented Himself to the touch of the
disciples, when He said, as testified by the evangelist Luke, "Handle me, and see; for a
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have; or when He said to Thomas the
disciple, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and put forth thy hand, and
thrust it into my side.

And who could be so absurd as to affirm that He was willing indeed to be touched by the
disciples before He ascended to the Father, but refused it in the case of women till after
His ascension? But no one, even had any the will, was to be allowed to run into such
folly. For we read that women also, after His resurrection and before His ascension to the
Father, touched Jesus, among whom was Mary Magdalene herself; for it is related by Matthew
that Jesus met them, and said, "All hail. And they approached, and held Him by the feet,
and worshipped Him. This was passed over by John, but declared as the truth by Matthew. It
remains, therefore, that some sacred mystery must lie concealed in these words; and
whether we discover it or utterly fail to do so, yet we ought to be in no doubt as to its
actual existence. Accordingly, either the words, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended
to my Father," had this meaning, that by this woman the Church of the Gentiles was
symbolized, which did not believe on Christ till He had actually ascended to the Father,
or that in this way Christ wished Himself to be believed on; in other words, to be touched
spiritually, that He and the Father are one. For He has in a manner ascended to the
Father, to the inward perception of him who has made such progress in the knowledge of
Christ that he acknowledges Him as equal with the Father:

in any other way He is not rightly touched, that is to say, in any other way He is not
rightly believed on. But Mary might have still so believed as to account Him unequal with
the Father, and this certainly is forbidden her by the words, "Touch me not; that is,
Believe not thus on me according to thy present notions; let not your thoughts stretch
outwards to what I have been made in thy behalf, without passing beyond to that whereby
thou hast thyself been made. For how could it be otherwise than carnally that she still
believed on Him whom she was weeping over as a man? "For I am not yet ascended," He says,
"to my Father: there shalt thou touch me, when thou believest me to be God, in no wise
unequal with the Father. "But go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my
Father, and your Father. He saith not, Our Father: in one sense, therefore, is He mine, in
another sense, yours; by nature mine, by grace yours. "And my God, and your God. Nor did
He say here, Our God: here, therefore, also is He in one sense mine, in another sense
yours: my God; under whom I also am as man; your God, between whom and you I am mediator.

4. "Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples, I have seen the Lord, and He hath spoken
these things unto me. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when
the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus,
and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when He had so said,
He showed unto them His hands and His side. For nails had pierced His hands, a spear had
laid open His side: and there the marks of the wounds are preserved for healing the hearts
of the doubting. But the shutting of doors presented no obstacle to the matter of His
body, wherein Godhead resided. He indeed could enter without their being opened, by whose
birth the virginity of His mother remained inviolate, "Then were the disciples glad when
they saw the Lord. Then said He unto them again, Peace be unto you. Reiteration is
confirmation; for He Himself gives by the prophet a promised peace upon peace. "As the
Father hath sent me," He adds, "even so send I you. We know the Son to be equal to the
Father; but here we recognize the words of the Mediator. For He exhibits Himself as
occupying a middle position when He says, He me, and I you. "And when He had said this, He
breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

By breathing on them He signified that the Holy Spirit was the Spirit, not of the Father
alone, but likewise His own. "Whose so-ever sins," He continues, "ye remit, they are
remitted unto them; and whose soever ye retain, they are retained. The Church's love,
which is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, discharges the sins of all who are
partakers with itself, but retains the sins of those who have no participation therein.
Therefore it is, that after saying "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," He straightway added this
regarding the remission and retention of sins. 5. "But Thomas, one of the twelve, who is
called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto
him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in His hands the
print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into
His side, I will not believe. And after eight days, again His disciples were within, and
Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said,
Peace be unto you. Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands;
and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. He saw and touched the man, and
acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and
touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other. "Jesus saith
unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. He saith not, Thou hast touched
me, but, "Thou hast seen me," because sight is a kind of general sense. For sight is also
habitually named in connection with the other four senses: as when we say, Listen, and see
how well it sounds; smell it, and see how well it smells; taste it, and see how well it
savors; touch it, and see how hot it is.

Everywhere has the word, See, made itself heard, although sight, properly speaking, is
allowed to belong only to the eyes. Hence here also the Lord Himself says, "Reach hither
thy finger, and behold my hands: and what else does He mean but, Touch and see? And yet he
had no eyes in his finger. Whether therefore it was by looking, or also by touching,
"Because thou hast seen me," He says, "thou hast believed. Although it may be affirmed
that the disciple dared not so to touch, when He offered Himself for the purpose; for it
is not written, And Thomas touched Him. But whether it was by gazing only, or also by
touching that he saw and believed, what follows rather proclaims and commends the faith of
the Gentiles: "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. He made use of
words in the past tense, as One who, in His predestinating purpose, knew what was future,
as if it had already taken place. But the present discourse must be kept from the charge
of prolixity: the Lord will give us the opportunity to discourse at another time on the
topics that remain.


TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124
======================================

TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124 continued

TRACTATE 122

John XX. 30, 31, and XXI. 1-11. 1. After telling us of the incident in connection with
which the disciple Thomas had offered to his touch the places of the wounds in Christ's
body, and saw what he would not believe, and believed, the evangelist John interposes
these words, and says: "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His
disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written that ye may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life through His
name." This paragraph indicates, as it were, the end of the book; but there is afterwards
related how the Lord manifested Himself at the sea of Tiberias,and in the draught of
fishes made special reference to the mystery of the Church, as regards its future
character, in the final resurrection of the dead. I think, therefore, it is fitted to give
special prominence thereto, that there has been thus interposed, as it were, an end of the
book, and that there should be also a kind of preface to the narrative that was to follow,
in order in some measure to give it a position of greater eminence. The narrative itself
begins in this way: "After these things Jesus showed Himself again to the disciples at the
sea of Tiberias; and on this wise showed He (Himself). There were together Simon Peter,
and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and
two other of His disciples. Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing.They say unto him,
We also go with thee."

2. The inquiry is usually made in connection with this fishing of the disciples, why Peter
and the sons of Zebedee returned to whatthey were before being called by the Lord; for
they were fishers when He said to them, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of
men. And they put such reality into their following of Him then, that they left all in
order to cleave to Him as their Master: so much so, that when the rich man went away from
Him in sorrow, because of His saying to him, "Go sell that thou hast, and give to the
poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven, and come follow me," Peter said unto Him,
"Lo, we have forsaken all, and followed Thee. Why is it then that now, by the abandonment
as it were of their apostleship, they become what they were, and seek again what they had
forsaken, as if forgetful of the words they had once listened to, "No man, putting his
hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven"? Had they done so
when Jesus was lying in the grave, before He rose from the dead,-which of course they
could not have done, as the day whereon He was crucified kept them all in closest
attention till His burial, which took place before evening; while the next day was the
Sabbath, when it was unlawful for those who observed the ancestral custom to work at all;

and on the third day the Lord rose again, and recalled them to the hope which they had not
yet begun to entertain regarding Him;-yet had they then done so, we might suppose it had
been done under the influence of that despair which had taken possession of their minds.
But now, after His restoration to them alive from the tomb, after the most evident truth
of His revivified flesh offered to their eyes and hands, not only to be seen, but also to
be touched and handled; after inspecting the very marks of the wounds, even to the
confession of the Apostle Thomas, who had previously declared that he would not otherwise
believe; after the reception by His breathing on them of the Holy Spirit, and after the
words poured from His lips into their ears, "'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I
you: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever ye retain,
they are retained: they suddenly become again what they had been, fishers, not of men, but
of fishes.

3. We have therefore to give those who are disturbed by this the answer, that they were
not prohibited from seeking necessary sustenance by their manual craft, when lawful in
itself, and warranted so long as they preserved their apostleship intact, if at any time
they had no other means of gaining a livelihood. Unless any one have the boldness to
imagine or to affirm, that the Apostle Paul attained not to the perfection of those who
left all and followed Christ, seeing that, in order not to become a burden to any of those
to whom he preached the gospel, be worked with his own hands for his support: wherein we
find rather the fulfillment of his own words, "I labored more abundantly than they all;
and to which he added, "yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me: to make it
manifest that this also was to be imputed to the grace of God, that both with mind and
body he was able to labor so much more abundantly than they all, that he neither ceased
from preaching the gospel, nor drew, like them, his present support out of the gospel;
while he was sowing it much more widely and fruitfully through multitudes of nations where
the name of Christ had never previously been proclaimed. Whereby he showed that living,
that is, deriving their subsistence, by the gospel, was not imposed on the apostles as a
necessity, but conferred on them as a power.

And of this power the same apostle makes mention when he says: "If we have sown to you
spiritual things, is it a great thing if we reap your carnal things? If others are
partakers of this power among you, are not we rather? But," he adds, "we have not used
this power. And a little afterwards he says: "They who serve the altar are partakers with
the altar: even so hath the Lord ordained, that they who preach the gospel should live of
the gospel; but I have used none of these things. It is clear enough, therefore, that it
was not enjoined on the apostles, but put in their power, not to find their living
otherwise than by the gospel, and of those to whom by preaching the gospel they sowed
spiritual things, to reap their carnal things; that is, to take their bodily support, and,
as the soldiers of Christ, to receive the wages due to them, as from the inhabitants of
provinces subject to Christ. Hence that same illustrious soldier had said a little before,
in reference to this matter, "Who goetha warfare any time at his own charges? Which he
nevertheless did himself; for he labored more abundantly than they all.

If, then, the blessed Paul-that he might not use with them the power which he certainly
possessed along with the other preachers of the gospel, but went a warfare at his own
charges, that the Gentiles, who were utterly averse to the name of Christ, might not take
offense at his teaching, as something offered them for a money equivalent,-in a way very
different from that in which he had been educated, learned an altogether new art, that
while the teacher supports himself with his own hands, none of his hearers might be
burdened; how much rather did the blessed Peter, who had beforetimes been a fisherman, do
what he was already acquainted with, if at that present time he found no other means of
gaining a livelihood? 4. But some one will reply, And why did he not find them, when the
Lord had promised, saying, "Seek first the kingdom andrighteousness of God, and all these
things shall be added unto you"? Precisely also in this very way did the Lord fulfill His
promise. For who else placed there the fishes that were to be caught, but He, who, we are
bound to believe, threw them into the penury that compelled them to go a fishing, for no
other reason than that He wished to show them the miracle He had prepared, that so He
might both feed the preachers of His gospel, and at the same time enhance that gospel
itself, by the great mystery which He was about to impress on their minds by the number of
the fishes? And on this subject we also ought now to be telling you what He Himself has
set before us.

5. "Simon Peter," therefore, "saith, I go a fishing." Those who were with him "say unto
him, We also go with thee. And they went forth, and entered into a ship; and that night
they caught nothing. But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore; but the
disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any
meat? They answered Him, No. He saith unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the
ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for
the multitude of fishes. Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is
the Lord. When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his coat unto him, for he
was naked, and did cast himself into the sea. And the other disciples came in a little
ship (for they were not far from the land, but as it were two hundred cubits), dragging
the net with fishes. As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals
laid, and a fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which
ye have now caught. Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an
hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken."

6. This is a great mystery in the great Gospel of John; and to commend it the more
forcibly to our attention, the last chapter has been made its place of record.
Accordingly, inasmuch as there were seven disciples taking part in that fishing, Peter,
and Thomas, and Nathaneal, and the two sons of Zebedee, and two others whose names are
withheld, they point, by their septenary number, to the end of time. For there is a
revolution of all time in seven days. To this also pertains the statement, that when the
morning was come, Jesus stood on the shore; for the shore likewise is the limit of the
sea, and signifies therefore the end of the world. The same end of the world is shown also
by the act of Peter, in drawing the net to land, that is, to the shore. Which the Lord has
Himself elucidated, when in a certain other place He drew His similitude from a fishing
net let down into the sea: "And they drew it," He said, "to the shore." And in explanation
of what that shore was, He added, "So will it be in the end of the world."

7. That, however, is a parable in word, not one embodied in outward action; and just as in
the passage before us the Lord indicated by an outward action the kind of character the
Church would have in the end of the world, so in the same way, by that other fishing, He
indicated its present character. In doing the one at the commencement of His preaching and
this latter after His resurrection, He showed thereby in the former case that the capture
of fishes signified the good and bad presently existing in the Church; but in the latter,
the good only, whom it will contain everlastingly, when the resurrection of the dead shall
have been completed in the end of this world. Furthermore, on that previous occasion Jesus
stood not, as here, on the shore, when He gave orders for the taking of the fish, but
"entered into one of the ships, which was Simon's, and prayed him that he would thrust out
a little from the land; and He sat down therein, and taught the crowds. And when He had
left speaking, He said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a
draught. There also they put the fishes that were caught into the ship, and did not, as
here, draw the net to the shore.

By these signs, and any others that may be found, on the former occasion the Church was
prefigured as it exists in this world, and on the other, as it shall be in the end of the
world: the one accordingly took place before, and the other subsequently to the
resurrection of the Lord; because there we were signified by Christ as called, and here as
raised from the dead. On that occasion the nets are not let down on the right side, that
the good alone might not be signified, nor on the left, test the application should be
limited to the bad; but without any reference to either side, He says, "Let down your nets
for a draught," that we may understand the good and bad as mingled together: while on this
He says, "Cast the net on the right side of the ship," to signify those who stood on the
right hand, the good alone. There the net was broken on account of the schisms that were
meant to be signified; but here, as then there will be no more schisms in that supreme
peace of the saints, the evangelist was entitled to say, "And for all they were so great,"
that is, so large, "yet was not the net broken; as if with reference to the previous time
when it was broken, and a commendation of the good that was here in comparison with the
evil that preceded.

There the multitude of fishes caught was so great, that the two vessels were filled and
began to sink, that is, were weighed down to the point of sinking; for they did not
actually sink, but were in extreme jeopardy. For whence exist in the Church the great
evils under which we groan, save from the impossibility of withstanding the enormous
multitude that, almost to the entire subversion of discipline, gain an entrance, with
their morals so utterly at variance with the pathway of the saints? Here, however, they
cast the net on the right side, "and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude
of fishes. What is meant by the words, "Now they were not able to draw it," but this, that
those who belong to the resurrection of life, that is to say, to the right hand, and
depart this life within the nets of the Christian name, will be made manifest only on the
shore, in other words, when they shall rise from the dead at the end of the world?
Accordingly, they were not able to draw the nets so as to discharge into the vessel the
fishes they had caught, as was done with all of those wherewith the net was broken, and
the boats laden to sinking. But the Church possesses those right-hand ones after the close
of this life in the sleep of peace, lying hid as it were in the deep, till the net reach
the shore whither it is being drawn, as it were two hundred cubits.

And as on that first occasion it was done by two vessels, with reference to the
circumcision and the uncircumcision; so in this place, by the two hundred cubits, I am of
opinion that there is symbolized, with reference to the elect of both classes, the
circumcision and the uncircumcision, as it were two separate hundreds; because the number
that passes to the right hand is represented summarily by hundreds. And last of all, in
that former fishing the number of fishes is not expressed, as if the words were there
acted on that were uttered by the prophet, "I have declared and spoken; they are
multiplied beyond number: while here there are none beyond calculation, but the definite
number of a hundred and fifty and three; and of the reason of this number we must now,
with the Lord's help, give some account. 8. For if we determine on the number that should
indicate the law, what else can it be but ten? For we have absolute certainty that the
Decalogue of the law, that is, those ten well-known precepts, were first written by the
finger of God on two tables of stone. But the law, when it is not aided by grace, maketh
transgressors, and is only in the letter, on account of which the apostle specially
declared, "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. Let the spirit then be added to
the letter, lest the letter kill him whom the spirit makethnot alive, and let us work out
the precepts of the law, not in our own strength, but by the grace of the Saviour. But
when grace is added to the law, that is, the spirit to the letter, there is, in a kind of
way, added to ten the number of seven. For this number, namely seven, is testified by the
documents of holy writ given us for perusal, to signify the Holy Spirit. For example,
sanctity or sanctification properly pertains to the Holy Spirit, whence, as the Father is
a spirit, and the Son a spirit, because God is a spirit, so the Father is holy and the Son
holy, yet the Spirit of both is called peculiarly by the name of the Holy Spirit. Where,
then, was there the first distinct mention of sanctification inthe law but on the seventh
day? For God sanctified not the first day, when He made the light;

nor the second, when He made the firmament; nor the third, when He separated the sea from
the land, and the land brought forth grass and timber; nor the fourth, wherein the stars
were created; nor the fifth, wherein were created the animals that live in the waters or
fly in the air; nor the sixth, when the terrestrial living soul and man himself were
created; but He sanctified the seventh day, wherein He rested from all His works. The Holy
Spirit, therefore, is aptly represented by the septenary number. The prophet Isaiah
likewise says, "The Spirit of God shall rest on Him; and thereafter calls our attention to
that Spirit in His septenary work or grace, by saying, "The spirit of wisdom and
understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety; and He
shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of God. And what of the Revelation? Are they
not there called the seven Spirits of God, while there is only one and the same Spirit
dividing to every one severally as He will? But the septenary operation of the one Spirit
was so called by the Spirit Himself, whose own presence in the writer led to their being
spoken of as the seven Spirits. Accordingly, when to the number of ten, representing the
law, we add the Holy Spirit as represented by seven, we have seventeen;

and when this number is used for the adding together of every several number it contains,
from 1 up to itself, the sum amounts to one hundred and fifty-three. For if you add 2 to
1, you have 3 of course; if to these you add 3 and 4, the whole makes 10; and then if you
add all the numbers that follow up to 17, the whole amounts to the foresaid number; that
is, if to 10, which you had reached by adding all together from 1 to 4, you add 5, you
have 15; to these add 6, and the result is 21; then add 7, and you have 28; to this add 8,
and 9, and 10, and you get 55; to this add 11 and 12, and 13, and you have 91; and to this
again add 14, 15, and 16, and it comes to 136; and then add to this the remaining number
of which we have been speaking, namely, 17, and it will make up the number of fishes. But
it is not on that account merely a hundred and fifty-three saints that are meant as
hereafter to rise from the dead unto life eternal, but thousands of saints who have shared
in the grace of the Spirit, by which grace harmony is established with the law of God, as
with an adversary;

so that through the life-giving Spirit the letter no longer kills, but what is commanded
by the letter is fulfilled by the help of the Spirit, and if there is any deficiency it is
pardoned. All therefore who are sharers in such grace are symbolized by this number, that
is, are symbolically represented. This number has, besides, three times over, the number
of fifty, and three in addition, with reference to the mystery of the Trinity; while,
again, the number of fifty is made up by multiplying 7 by 7, with the addition of 1, for 7
times 7 make 49. And the 1 is added to show that there is one who is expressed by seven on
account of His sevenfold operation; and we know that it was on the fiftieth day after our
Lord's ascension that the Holy Spirit was sent, for whom the disciples were commanded to
wait according to the promise.

9. It was not, then, without a purpose that these fishes were described as so many in
number, and so large in size, that is, as both an hundred and fifty-three, and large. For
so it is written, "And He drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty
andthree. For when the Lord said, "I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill
"because about to give the Spirit, through whom the law might be fulfilled, and to add
thereby, as it were, seven to ten; after interposing a few other words He proceeded,
"Whosoevertherefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so,
he shallbe called the least in the kingdom of heaven: ] but whosoever shall do and teach
them. thesame shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. The latter, therefore, may
possibly belong to the number of great fishes. But he that is the least, who undoes in
deed what he teaches in word, may be in such a church as is signified by that first
capture of fishes, which contains both good and bad, for it also is called the kingdom of
heaven, as He says, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net that was cast into the sea,
and gathered of ever kind; where He wishes the good as well as the bad to be understood,
and of whom He declares that they are yet to be separated on the shore, to wit, at the end
of the world.

And lastly, to show that those least ones are reprobates who teach by word of mouth the
good which they undo by their evil lives, and that they will not be even the least, as it
were, in the life that is eternal, but will have no place there at all; after saying, "He
shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven," He immediately added, "For I say unto
you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and
Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Such, doubtless-these scribes
and Pharisees-are those who sit in Moses' seat, and of whom He says, "Do ye what they gay,
but do not what they do; for they say, and do not. They teach in sermons what they undo by
their morals. It therefore follows that he who is least in the kingdom of heaven, as the
Church now exists, shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven, as the Church shall be
hereafter; for by teaching what he himself is in the habit of breaking, he can have no
place in the company of those who do what they teach, and therefore will not be in the
number of great fishes, seeing it is he "who shall do and teach that shall be called great
in the kingdom of heaven. And because he will be great here, therefore shall he be there,
where he that is least shall not be.

Yea, so great will they certainly be there, that he who is less there is greater than the
greatest here. And yet those who are great here, that is, who do the good that they teach
in that kingdom of heaven into which the net gathereth good and bad, shall be greater
still in that eternal state of the heavenly kingdom,-those, I mean, who are indicated by
the fishes here as belonging to the right hand and to the resurrection of life. We have
still to discourse, as God shall grant us ability, on the meal that the Lord took with
those seven disciples, and on the words He spake after the meal, as well as on the close
of the Gospel itself; but these are topics that cannot be included in the present lecture.

TRACTATE 123

John XXI. 12-19. 1. With this third manifestation of Himself by the Lord to His disciples
after His resurrection, the Gospel of the blessed Apostle John is brought to a close, of
which we have already lectured through the earlier part as we were able, on to the place
where it is related that an hundred and fifty-three fishes were taken by the disciples to
whom He showed Himself, and for all they were so large, yet were not the nets broken. What
follows we have now to take into consideration, and to discuss as the Lord enables us, and
as the various points may appear to demand. When the fishing was over, "Jesus saith unto
them, Come [and] dine. And none of those who sat down dared to ask Him, Who art Thou?
knowing that it was the Lord." If, then, they knew, what need was there to ask? and if
there was no need wherefore is it said, "they dared not," as if there were need, but, from
some fear or other, they dared not? The meaning here, therefore, is: so great was the
evidence of the truth that Jesus Himself had appeared to these disciples, that not one of
them dared not merely to deny, but even to doubt it; for had any of them doubted it, he
ought certainly to have asked. In this sense, therefore, it was said, "No one dared to ask
Him, Who art Thou?" as if it were, No one dared to doubt that it was He Himself.

2. "And Jesus cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise. We are
likewise told here, you see, on what they dined; and of this dinner we also will say
something that is sweet and salutary, if we, too, are made by Him to partake of the food.
It is related above that these disciples, when they came to the land, "saw a fire of coals
laid, and a fish laid thereon, and bread. Here we are not to understand that the bread
also was laid upon the coals, but only to supply, They saw. And if we repeat this verbin
the place where it ought to be supplied, the whole may read thus: They saw coals laid, and
fish laid thereon, and they saw bread. Or rather in this way: They saw coals laid, and
fish laid thereon; they saw a so bread. At the Lord's command they likewise broughtof the
fishes which they themselves hadcaught; and although their doing so mightnot be actually
stated by the historian, yet there has been no silence in regard to the Lord's command.
For He says, "Bring of the fishes which ye have now caught. And when we have such
certainty that He gave the order, will any suppose that they failed to obey it?

Of this, therefore, the Lord prepared the dinner for these His seven disciples, namely, of
the fish which they had seen laid upon the coals, with an addition thereto from those
which they had caught, and of the bread which we are told with equal distinctness that
they had seen. The fish roasted is Christ having suffered; He Himself also is the bread
that cometh down from heaven. With Him is incorporated the Church, in order to the
participation in everlasting blessedness. For this reason is it said, "Bring of the fish
which ye have now caught," that all of us who cherish this hope may know that we
ourselves, through that septenary number of disciples whereby our universal community may
in this passage be understood as symbolized, partake in this great sacrament, and are
associated in the same blessedness. This is the Lord's dinner with His own disciples, and
herewith John, although having much besides that he might say of Christ, brings his
Gospel, with profound thought and an eye to important lessons, to a close. For here the
Church, such as it will be hereafter among the good alone, is signified by the draught of
an hundred and fifty-three fishes; and to those who so believe, and hope, and love, there
is demonstrated by this dinner their participation in such super-eminent blessedness.

3. "This was now," he says, "the third time that Jesus showed Himself to His disciples
after that He was risen from the dead." And this we are to refer not to the manifestations
themselves, but to the days that is to say, taking the first day when He rose again, and
the [second] eight days after, when the disciple Thomas saw and believed, and [the third]
on this day when He so acted in connection with the fishes, although how many days
afterwards it was that He did so we are not told); for on that first day He was seen more
than once, as is shown by the collated testimonies of all the evangelists: but, as we have
said, it is in accordance with the days that His manifestations are to be calculated,
making this the third; for that [manifestation] is to be reckoned the first, and all one
and the same, as included in one day, however often and to however many He showed Himself
on the day of His resurrection; the second eight days afterwards, and this the third, and
thereafter as often as He pleased on to the fortieth day, when He ascended into heaven,
although all of them have not been recorded in Scripture.

4. "So when they had dined, He saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of John, lovest thou me
more than these? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith
unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again, Simon, [son] of John, lovest thou me? He
saith unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith unto Him, Feed my
lambs. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of John, lovest thou me? Peter was
grieved because He said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto Him,
Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith unto him, Feed my
sheep. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young thou girdedst thyself, and
walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shall be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy
hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wilt not. And this spake
He, signifying by what death he should glorify God. Such was the end reached by that
denier and lover; elated by his presumption, prostrated by his denial, cleansed by his
weeping, approved by his confession, crowned by his suffering, this was the end he
reached, to die with a perfected love for the name of Him with whom, by a perverted
forwardness, he had promised to die. He would do, when strengthened by His resurrection,
what in his weakness he promised prematurely.

For the needful order was that Christ should first die for Peter's salvation, and then
that Peter should die for the preaching of Christ. The boldness thus begun by human
temerity was an utter inversion of the order that had been instituted by the Truth. Peter
thought to lay down his life for Christ, the one to be delivered in behalf of the
Deliverer, seeing that Christ had come to lay down His life for all His own, including
Peter also, which, you see, was now done. Now and henceforth a true, because graciously
bestowed, strength of heart may be assumed for incurring death itself for the name of the
Lord, and not a false one presumptuously usurped through an erroneous estimate of
ourselves. Now there is no need that we should any more fear the passage out of the
present life, because in the Lord's resurrection we have a foregoing illustration of the
life to come. Now thou hast cause, Peter, to be no longer afraid of death, because He
liveth whom thou didst mourn when dead, and whom in thy carnal love thou didst try to
hinder from dying in our behalf. Thou didst dare to step in before the Leader, and thou
didst tremble before His persecutor: now that the price has been paid for thee, it is thy
duty to follow the Buyer, and follow Him even to the death of the cross. Thou hast heard
the words of Him whom thou hast already proved to be truthful;

He Himself hath foretold thy suffering, who formerly foretold thy denial. 5. But first the
Lord asks what He knew, and that not once, but a second and a third time, whether Peter
loved Him; and just as often He has the same answer, that He is loved, while just as often
He gives Peter the same charge to feed His sheep. To the threefold denial there is now
appended a threefold confession, that his tongue may not yield a feebler service to love
than to fear, and imminent death may not appear to have elicited more from the lips than
present life. Let it be the office of love to feed the Lord's flock, if it was the signal
of fear to deny the Shepherd. Those who have this purpose in feeding the flock of Christ,
that they may have them as their own, and not as Christ's, are convicted of loving
themselves, and not Christ, from the desire either of boasting, or wielding power, or
acquiring gain, and not from the love of obeying, serving, and pleasing God. Against such,
therefore, there stands as a wakeful sentinel this thrice inculcated utterance of Christ,
of whom the apostle complains that they seek their own, not the things that are Jesus
Christ's. For what else mean the words, "Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep," than if it were
said, If thou lovest me, think not of feeding thyself, but feed my sheep as mine, and not
as thine own; seek my glory in them, and not thine own; my dominion, and not thine; my
gain, and not thine;

lest thou be found in the fellowship of those who belong to the perilous times, lovers of
their own selves, and all else that is joined on to this beginning of evils? For the
apostle, after saying, "For men shall be lovers of their own selves," proceeded to add,
"Lovers of money, boastful, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful,
wicked, irreligious, without affection, false accusers, incontinent, implacable, without
kindness, traitors, heady, blinded; lovers of pleasures more than of God; having a form of
godliness, but denying the power thereof. All these evils flow from that as their fountain
which he stated first, "lovers of their own selves. With great propriety, therefore, is
Peter addressed, "Lovest thou me? and found replying, "I love Thee: and the command
applied to him, "Feed my lambs," and this a second and a third time We have it also
demonstrated here that love and liking are one and the same thing; for the Lord also in
the last question said not Diligis me? but, Amas me? Let us, then, love not ourselves, but
Him; and in feeding His sheep, let us be seeking the things which are His, not the things
which are our own. For in some inexplicable way, I know not what, every one that loveth
himself, and not God, loveth not himself; and whoever loveth God, and not himself, he it
is that loveth himself. For he that cannot live by himself will certainly die by loving
himself; he therefore loveth not himself who loves himself to his own loss of life.

But when He is loved by whom life is preserved, a man by not loving himself only loveth
the more, when it is for this reason that he loveth not himself [namely] that he may love
Him by whom he lives. Let not those, then, who feed Christ's sheep be "lovers of their own
selves," test they feed them as if they were their own, and not His, and wish to make
their own gain of them, as "lovers of money; or to domineer over them, as "boastful; or to
glory in the honors which they receive at their hands, as "proud; or to go the length even
of originating heresies, as "blasphemers; and not to give place to the holy fathers, as
those who are "disobedient to parents; and to render evil for good to those who wish to
correct them, because unwilling to let them perish, as "unthankful; to slay their own
souls and those of others, as "wicked; to outrage the motherly bowels of the Church, as
"irreligious; to have no sympathy with the weak, as those who are "without affection; to
attempt to traduce the character of the saints, as "false accusers; to give loose reins to
the basest lusts, as "incontinent; to make lawsuits their practice, as "implacable; to
know nothing of loving service, as those who are "without kindness; to make known to the
enemies of the godly what they are well aware ought to be kept secret, as "traitors; to
disturb human modesty by shameless discussions, as "heady;

to understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm, as "blinded; and to prefer
carnal delights to spiritual joys, as those who are "lovers of pleasures more than lovers
of God. For these and such like vices, whether all of them meet in a single individual, or
whether some dominate in one and others in another, spring up in some form or another from
this one root, when men are "lovers of their own selves. A vice which is specially to be
guarded against by those who feed Christ's sheep, lest they be seeking their own, not the
things that are Jesus Christ's, and be turning those to the use of their own lusts for
whom the blood of Christ was shed. Whose love ought, in one who feedeth His sheep, to grow
up unto so great a spiritual fervor as to overcome even the natural fear of death, that
makes us unwilling to die even when we wish to live with Christ. For the Apostle Paul also
says that he had a desire to be dissolved, and to be with Christ, and yet he groans, being
burdened, and wishes not to be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality may be
swallowed up of life. And so to His present lover the Lord said, "When thou shall be old,
thou shall stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither
thou wouldest not. For this He said to him, signifying by what death he should glorify
God. "Thou shall stretch forth thy hands," He said;

in other words, thou shall be crucified. But that thou mayest come to this, "another shall
gird thee, and carry thee," not whither thou wouldest, but "whither thou wouldest not. He
told him first what would happen, and then how it should come to pass. For it was not
after being crucified, but when actually about to be crucified, that he was carried
whither he would not; for after being crucified he went his way, not whither he would not,
but rather whither he would. And though when set free from the body he wished to be with
Christ, yet, were it only possible, he had a desire for eternal life apart from the
grievousness of death, to which grievous experience he was unwillingly carried, but from
it [when all was over] he was willingly carried away; unwillingly he came to it, but
willingly he conquered it, and left this feeling of infirmity behind that makes every one
unwilling to die,-a feeling so permanently natural, that even old age itself was unable to
set the blessed Peter free from its influence, even as it was said unto him, "When thou
shalt be old," thou shall be led "whither thou wouldest not. For our consolation the
Saviour Himself transfigured also the same feeling in His own person when He said,
"Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;

and He certainly had come to die without having any necessity, but only the willingness to
die, with power to lay down His life, and with power to take it again. But however great
be the grievousness of death, it ought to be overcome by the power of that love which is
felt to Him who, being our life, was willing to endure even death in our behalf. For if
there were no grievousness, even of the smallest kind, in death, the glory of the martyrs
would not be so great. But if the good Shepherd, who laid down His own life for His sheep,
has raised up so many martyrs for Himself out of the very sheep, how much more ought those
to contend to death for the truth, and even to blood against sin, who are entrusted by Him
with the feeding, that is, with the teaching and governing of these very sheep? And on
this account, along with the preceding example of His own passion, who can fail to see
that the shepherds ought all the more to set themselves closely to imitate the Shepherd,
if He was so imitated even by many of the sheep under whom, as the one Shepherd and in the
one flock, the shepherds themselves are likewise sheep? For He made all those His sheep
for [all of] whom He died, because He Himself also became a sheep that He might suffer for
all.

TRACTATE 124

John XXI. 19-25. 1. It is no unimportant question why the Lord, when He manifested Himself
for the third time to the disciples, said unto the Apostle Peter, "Follow me; but of the
Apostle John, "Thus I wish him to remain till I come, what is that to thee? To the
discussion or solution of this question, according as the Lord shall grant us ability we
devote the last discourse of this work When the Lord, then, had announced beforehand to
Peter by what death he was to glorify God, "He saith unto him, Follow me. Then Peter,
turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; who also leaned on His
breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that shall betray Thee? Peter, therefore,
seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what [of] this man? Jesus saith unto him, Thus do I
wish him to remain till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this
saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple dieth not: yet Jesus said not unto
him, He dieth not; but, Thus do I wish him to remain till I come, what is that to thee?
You see the great extent in this Gospel of a question which, by its depth, must exercise
in no ordinary way the mind ofthe inquirer. For why is it said to Peter, "Follow me," and
not to the others who were likewise present? Surely the disciples followed Him also as
their Master.

But if it is to be understood only in reference to his suffering, was Peter the only one
that suffered for the truth of Christianity? Was there not present there amongst those
seven, another son of Zebedee, the brother of John, who, after His ascension, is plainly
recorded to have been slain by Herod? But some one may say that, as James was not
crucified, it was properly enough said to Peter, "Follow me," inasmuch as he underwent not
only death, but, like Christ, even the death of the cross. Be it so, if no other
explanation can be found that is more satisfactory. Why, then, was it said of John, "Thus
do I wish him to remain till I come, what is that to thee? and the words repeated, "Follow
thou me," as if that other, therefore, were not to follow, seeing He wished him to remain
till He comes. Who can readily believe that anything else was meant than what the brethren
who lived at the time believed, namely, that that disciple was not to die, but to abide in
this life till Jesus came? But John himself removed such an idea, by giving a flat
contradiction to the report that the Lord had said so. For why should he add, "Jesus saith
not, He dieth not," save to prevent what was false from taking hold of the hearts of men?

2. But let any one who so listeth still refuse his assent, and declare that what John
asserts is true enough, that the Lord said not that that disciple dieth not, and yet that
this is the meaning of such words as He is here recorded to have used; and further assert
that the Apostle John is still living, and maintain that he is sleeping rather than lying
dead in his tomb at Ephesus. Let him employ as an argument the current report that there
the earth is in sensible commotion, and presents a kind of heaving appearance, and assert
whether it be steadfastly or obstinately that this is occasioned by his breathing. For we
cannot fail to have some who so believe, if there is no want of those also who affirm that
Moses is alive; because it is written that his sepulchre could not be found, and that he
appeared with the Lord on the mountain along with Elias, of whom we read that he did not
die, but was translated. As if Moses' body could not have been hid somewhere in such a way
as that its position should altogether escape discovery by men, and be raised up therefrom
by divine power at the time when Elias and he were seen with Christ just as at the time of
Christ's passion many bodies of the saints arose, and after His resurrection appeared,
according to Scripture, to many in the holy city.

But still, as I began to say, if some deny the death of Moses, whom Scripture itself, in
the very passage where we read that his sepulchre could nowhere be found, explicitly
declares to have died; how much more may occasion be taken from these words where the Lord
says, "Thus do I wish him to stay till I come," to believe that John is sleeping, but
still alive, beneath the ground? Of whom we have also the tradition (which is found in
certain apocryphal scriptures), that he was present, in good health, when he ordered a
sepulchre to be made for him; and that, when it was dug and prepared with all possible
care, he laid himself down there as in a bed, and became immediately defunct: yet as those
think who so understand these words of the Lord, not really defunct, but only lying like
one in such a condition; and, while accounted dead, was actually buried when asleep, and
that he will so remain till the coming of Christ, making known meanwhile the fact of his
life by the bubbling up of the dust, which is believed to be forced by the breath of the
sleeper to ascend from the depths to the surface of the grave. I think it quite
superfluous to contend with such an opinion. For those may see for themselves who know the
locality whether the ground there does or suffers what is said regarding it, because, in
truth, we too have heard of it from those who are not altogether unreliable witnesses.

3. Meanwhile let us yield to the opinion, which we are unable to refute by any certain
evidence, lest we stir up still another question that may be put to us, Why the very
ground should seem in a kind of way to live and breathe upon the interred corpse? But can
so great a question as the one before us be settled on such grounds as these, if by a
great miracle, such as can be wrought by the Almighty, the living body lies so long asleep
beneath the ground, till the coming of the end of the world? Nay, rather, does there not
arise a wider and more difficult one, why Jesus bestowed on the disciple, whom He loved
beyond the others to such an extent that he was counted worthy to recline on His breast,
the gift of a protracted sleep in the body, when He delivered the blessed Peter, by the
eminent glory of martyrdom, from the burden of the body itself, and vouchsafed to him what
the Apostle Paul said that he desired, and committed to writing, namely, "to be let loose,
and to be with Christ"? But if, what is rather to be believed, Saint John declared that
the Lord said not, "He dieth not," for the very purpose that no such meaning might be
attached to the words which He used; and his body lieth in its sepulchre lifeless like
those of others deceased;

it remains, if that really takes place which report has spread abroad regarding the soil,
which grows up anew, though continually carried away, that it is either so done for the
purpose of commending the preciousness of his death, seeing it wants the commendation of
martyrdom (for he suffered not death at a persecutor's hand for the faith of Christ), or
on some other account that is concealed from our knowledge. Still there remains the
question, why the Lord said of one who was destined to die, "Thus I wish him to remain
till I Come." 4. And who, besides, would not be disposed, in the case of these two
apostles, Peter and John, to make this further inquiry, why the Lord loved John better,
when He Himself was better loved by Peter? For wherever John has something to say of
himself, in order that the reference may be understood without any mention of his name, he
adds this, that Jesus loved him, as if he were the only one so loved, that he might be
distinguished by this mark from the others, who were all of them certainly loved by
Christ: and what else, when he so spake, did he wish to be understood but that he himself
was more abundantly loved? and far be it that he should utter a falsehood. And what
greater proof could Jesus have given of His own greater love to him than that this man,
who was only a partner with the rest of his fellow-disciples in the great salvation,
should be the only one that leaned on the breast of the Saviour Himself? And further, that
the Apostle Peter loved Christ more than the others, may be adduced from many documentary
evidences; but to go no further after others, it is plainly enough apparent in the lesson
almost immediatelypreceding the present, in connection with that third manifestation of
the Lord, when He put to him the question, "Lovest thou me more than these?

He knew it, of course, and yet asked, in order that we also, who read the Gospel, might
know Peter's love to Christ, both from the questions of the One and the answers of the
other. But when Peter only replied, "I love Thee," without adding, "more than these," his
answer contained all that he knew of himself. For he could not know how much He was loved
by any other, not being able to look into that other's heart. But by saying in the
earliest of his answers, "Yea, Lord, Thou knowest," he stated in clear enough terms, that
it was with perfect knowledge of all that the Lord asked what He asked. The Lord therefore
knew, not only that Peter loved Him, but also that he loved Him more than the others. And
yet if we propose to ourselves, in the way of inquiry, which of the two is the better, he
that loveth Christ more or he that loveth Him less, who will hesitate to answer, he is the
better that loveth Him more? If, on the other hand, we propose this question, which of the
two is the better, he that is loved less or he that is loved more by Christ, without any
doubt we shall reply that he is the better who is loved the more by Christ. In the
comparison therefore which I drew first, Peter is superior to John; but in the latter,
John is preferred to Peter. Accordingly, we have a third to pro pose in this form:

Which of the two disciples is the better, he that loveth Christ less than his fellow-
disciple [does], and is loved more than his fellow-disciple by Christ? or he who is loved
less than his fellow-disciple by Christ, while he, more than his fellow-disciple, loveth
Christ? Here it is that the answer plainly halts, and the question grows in magnitude. As
far. however, as my own wisdom goes, I might easily reply, that he is the better who
loveth Christ the more, but he the happier who is loved the more by Christ; if only I
could thoroughly see how to defend the justice of our Deliverer in loving him the less by
whom He is loved the more, and him the more by whom He is loved the less. 5. I shall
therefore, in the manifested mercy of Him whose justice is hidden, set about the
discussion, in order to the solution of a question of such importance, in accordance with
the strength which He may graciously bestow: for hitherto it has only been proposed, not
expounded. Let this, then, be the commencement of its exposition, namely, that we bear in
mind that in this corruptible body, which burdens the soul, we live a miserable life. But
we who are now redeemed by the Mediator, and have received the earnest of the Holy Spirit,
have a blessed life in prospect, although we possess it not as yet in reality. But a hope
that is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope
for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. And it is in the evils that
every one suffers, not in the good things that he enjoys, that he has need of patience.
The present life, therefore, whereof it is written, "Is not the life of man a term of
trial upon earth? in which we are daily crying to the Lord, "Deliver us from evil," a man
is compelled to endure, even when his sins are forgiven him, although it was the first sin
that caused his falling into such misery. For the penalty is more protracted than the
fault; test the fault should be accounted small, were the penalty to end with itself.

On this account it is also, either for the demonstration of our debt of misery, or for the
amendment of our passing life, or for the exercise of the necessary patience, that man is
kept through time in the penalty, even when he is no longer held by his sin as liable to
everlasting damnation. This is the truly lamentable but unblameable condition of the
present evil days we pass in this mortal state, even while in it we look with loving eyes
to the days that are good. For it comes from the righteous anger of God, whereof the
Scriptures say, "Man, that is born of woman, is of few days and full of anger: for the
anger of God is not like that of man, the disturbance of an excited man, but the calm
fixing of righteous punishment. In this anger of His, God restraineth not, as it is
written, His tender mercies; but, besides other consolations to the miserable, which He
ceaseth not to bestow on mankind, in the fullness of time, when He knew that such had to
be done, He sent His only-begotten Son, by whom He created all things, that He might
become man while remaining God, and so be the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus:

that those who believe in Him, being absolved by the layer of regeneration from the guilt
of all their sins,-to wit, both of the original sin they have inherited by generation, and
to meet which, in particular, regeneration was instituted, and of all others contracted by
evil conduct,-might be delivered from perpetual condemnation, and live in faith and hope
and love while sojourning in this world, and be walking onward to His visible presence
amid its toilsome and perilous temptations on the one hand, but the consolations of God,
bothbodily and spiritual, on the other, ever keeping to the way which Christ has become to
them. And because, even while walking in Him, they are not exempt from sins, which creep
in through the infirmities of this life, He has given them the salutary remedies of alms
whereby their prayers might be aided when He taught them to say, "Forgive us our debts, as
we also forgive our debtors. So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troublous
life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter,
on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he
was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet
also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, "I will give unto thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven;

and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven," he represented the
universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it
like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a
rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from
Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the
Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, "On this rock will I build
my Church," because Peter had said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. On
this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the
Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore,
which is rounded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the
person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the
Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and
in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. This
Church, accordingly, which Peter represented, so long as it lives amidst evil, by loving
and following Christ is delivered from evil. But its following is the closer in those who
contend even unto death for the truth.

But to the universality [of the Church] is it said, "Follow me," even as it was for the
same universality that Christ suffered: of whom this same Peter saith, "Christ suffered
for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow His footsteps. This, then, you see is
why it was said to him, "Follow me. But there is another, an immortal life, that is not in
the midst of evil: there we shall see face to face what is seen here through a glass and
in a riddle, even when much progress is made in the beholding of the truth. There are two
states of life, therefore, preached and commended to herself from heaven, that are known
to the Church, whereof the one is in faith, the other in sight; one in the temporal
sojourn in a foreign land, the other in the eternity of the [heavenly] abode; one in
labor, the other in repose; one on the way, the other in the fatherland; one in active
work, the other in the wages of contemplation; one declines from evil and makes for good,
the other has no evil to decline from, and has great good to enjoy; the one fights with a
foe, the other reigns without a foe; the one is brave in the midst of adversities, the
other has no experience of adversity; the one is bridling its carnal lusts, the other has
full scope for spiritual delights; the one is anxious with the care of conquering, the
other secure in the peace of victory;

the one is helped in temptations, the other, free from all temptations, rejoices in the
Helper Himself; the one is occupied in relieving the indigent, the other is there, where
no indigence is found; the one pardons the sins of others, that its own may be pardoned to
itself, the other neither has anything to pardon nor does aught for which pardon has to be
asked; the one is scourged with evils that it may not be elated with good things, the
other is free from all evil by such a fullness of grace that, without any temptation to
pride, it may cleave to that which is supremely good; the one discerneth both good and
evil, the other has only that which is good presented to view: therefore the one is good,
but miserable as yet; the other, better and blessed. This one was signified by the Apostle
Peter, that other by John. The whole of the one is passed here to the end of this world,
and there finds its termination, the other is deferred for its completion till after the
end of this world, but has no end in the world to come. Hence it is said to the latter,
"Follow me; but of the former, "Thus I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to
thee follow thou me. For what means this last? So far as my wisdom goes, so far as I
comprehend, what is it but this, Follow thou me by imitating me in the endurance of
temporal evils;

let him remain till I come to restore everlasting good? And this may be expressed more
clearly in this way: Let perfected action, informed by the example of my passion, follow
me; but let contemplation only begun remain [so] till I come, to be perfected when I come.
For the godly plenitude of patience, reaching forward even unto death, followeth Christ;
but the fullness of knowledge tarrieth till Christ come, to be manifested then. For here
the evils of this world are endured in the land of the dying, while there shall be seen
the good things of the Lord in the land of the living. For in saying, "I wish him to tarry
till I come," we are not to understand Him as meaning to remain on, or abide permanently,
but to wait; seeing that what is signified by him shall certainly not be fulfilled now,
but when Christ is come. But what is signified by him to whom it was said, "Follow thou
me," unless it be done now, will never attain to the expected end. And in this life of
activity. the more we love Christ the more easily are we delivered from evil. But He
loveth us less as we now are, and therefore delivers from it, that we may not be always
such as we are. There, however, He loveth us more; for we shall not have aught about us to
displease Him, or aught that He will have to separate us from:

nor is it for aught else that He loveth us here but that He may heal and translate us from
everything He loveth not. Here, therefore, the loveth us] less, where He would not have us
remain; there in larger measure, whither He would have us to be passing, and out of that
wherein He would not that we should perish. Let Peter therefore love Him, that we may
obtain deliverance from our present mortality; let John be loved by Him, that we may be
preserved in the immortality to come. 6. But by this line of argument we have shown why
Christ loved John more than Peter, not why Peter loved Christ more than John. For if
Christ loveth us more in the world to come, where we shall live unendingly with Him, than
in the present, from which we are in the course of being rescued, that we may be always in
the other, it does not follow on that account that we shall love Him less when better
ourselves; since we can in no possible way be better ourselves, save by loving Him more.
Why was it, then, that John loved Him less than Peter, if he signified that life, wherein
He must be more abundantly loved, but because on that very account it was said, "I will
that he tarry," that is wait, "till I come; for we have not yet the love itself, which
will then be greater far, but are expecting that future, that we may have it when He shall
come? Just as in his own epistle the same apostle declares, "It has not yet appeared what
we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall
see Him as He is. Then accordingly shall we love the more that which we shall see. But the
Lord Himself.

in His predestinating knowledge, loveth more that future life of ours that is yet to come,
such as He knows it will be hereafter in us, in order that by so loving us He may draw us
onward to its possession. Wherefore, as all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth, we
know our present misery, because we feel it; and therefore we love more the mercy of the
Lord, which we wish to be exhibited in our deliverance from misery, and we ask and
experience it daily,especially in the remission of sins: this it is that was signified by
Peter, as loving more, but less beloved; because Christ loveth us less in our misery than
in our blessedness. But the contemplation of the truth, such as it then shall be, we love
less, because as yet we neither know nor possess it: this was signified by John as loving
less, and therefore waiting both for that state itself, and for the perfecting in us of
that love to Him, to which He is entitled, till the Lord come; but loved the more, because
that it is, which is symbolized by him, that maketh him blessed.

7. Let no one, however, separate these distinguished apostles. In that which was signified
by Peter, they were both alike; and in that which was signified by John, they will both be
alike hereafter. In their representative character, the one was following, the other
tarrying; but in their personal faith they were both of them enduring the present evils of
the misery here, both of them expecting the future good things of the blessedness to come.
And such is the case, not with them alone, trot with the holy universal Church, the spouse
of Christ, who has still to be rescued from the present trials, and to be preserved in the
future happiness. And these two states of life were symbolized by Peter and John, the one
by the one, the other by the other; but in this life they both of them walked for a time
by faith, and the other they shall both of them enjoy eternally by sight. For the whole
body of the saints, therefore, inseparably belonging to the body of Christ, and for their
safe pilotage through the present tempestuous life, did Peter, the first of the apostles,
receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the
same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that
mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ. For it is
not the former alone but the whole Church, that bindeth and looseth sins;

nor did the latter alone drink at the fountain of the Lord's breast, to emit again in
preaching, of the Word in the beginning, God with God, and those other sublime truths
regarding the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead. which
are to be yet beheld in that kingdom face to face, but meanwhile till the Lord's coming
are only to be seen in a mirror and in a riddle; but the Lord has Himself diffused this
very gospel through the whole world, that every one of His own may drink thereat according
to his own individual capacity. There are some who have entertained the idea-and those,
too, who are no contemptible handlers of sacred eloquence-that the Apostle John was more
loved by Christ on the ground that he never married a wife, and lived in perfect chastity
from early boyhood. There is, indeed, no distinct evidence of this in the canonical
Scriptures: nevertheless it is an idea that contributes not a little to the suitableness
of the opinion expressed above, namely, that that life was signified by him, where there
will be no marriage.

8. "This is the disciple who testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we
know that his testimony is true. And there are also," he adds, "many other things which
Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world
itself could not contain the books that should be written. We are not to suppose that in
regard to local space the world would be unable to contain them; for how could they be
written in it if it could not hear them when written? but perhaps it is that they could
not be comprehended by the capacity of the readers: although, while our faith in certain
things themselves remains unharmed, the words we use about them may not unfrequently
appear to exceed belief. This will not take place when anything that was obscure or
dubious is in course of exposition by the setting forth of its ground and reason, but only
when that which is clear of itself is either magnified or extenuated, Without any real
departure from the pathway of the truth to be intimated; for the words may outrun the
thing itself that is indicated only in such a way, that the will of him that speaketh, but
without any intention to deceive, may be apparent, so that, knowing how far he will be
believed, he, orally, either diminishes or magnifies his subject beyond the limit to which
credit will be given.

This mode of speaking is called by the Greek name hyperbole, by the masters not only of
Greek, but also of Latin literature. And this mode is found not only here, but in several
other parts also of the divine literature: as, "They set their mouths against the heavens;
and, "The top of the hair of such as go on in their trespasses; and many others of the
same kind, which are no more wanting in the sacred Scriptures than other tropes or modes
of speaking. Of these I might give a more elaborate discussion, were it not that, as the
evangelist here terminates his Gospel, I am also compelled to bring my discourse to a
close.


THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS
==========================

THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS Augustine of Hippo

AD 354–430

Bishop of Hippo, the most influential Latin father.

INTRODUCTION

The treatise opens with a short statement on the subject of the authority of the
evangelists, their number, their order, and the different plans of their narratives.
Augustin then prepares for the discussion of the questions relating to their harmony, by
joining issue in this book with those who raise a difficulty in the circumstance that
Christ has left no writing of His own, or who falsely allege that certain books were
composed by Him on the arts of magic. He also meets the objections of those who, in
opposition to the evangelical teaching, assert that the disciples of Christ at once
ascribed more to their master than he really was, when they affirmed that he was God, and
inculcated what they had not been instructed in by him, when they interdicted the worship
of the Gods. Against these antagonists he vindicates the teaching of the apostles, by
appealing to the utterances of the prophets, and by showing that the God of Israel was to
be the sole object of worship, who also, although he was the only deity to whom acceptance
was denied in former times by the Romans, and that for the very reason that he prohibited
them from worshipping other gods along with himself, has now in the end made the empire of
Rome subject to his name, and among all nations has broken their idols in pieces through
the preaching of the gospel, as he had promised by his prophets that the event should be.

CHAPTER I.-ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOSPELS.

1. In the entire number of those divine records which are contained in the sacred
writings, the gospel deservedly stands pre-eminent. For what the law and the prophets
aforetime announced as destined to come to pass, is exhibited in the gospel in its
realization and fulfilment. The first preachers of this gospel were the apostles, who
beheld our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in person when He was yet present in the flesh.
And not only did these men keep in remembrance the words heard from His lips, and the
deeds wrought by Him beneath their eyes; but they were also careful, when the duty of
preaching the gospel was laid upon them, to make mankind acquainted with those divine and
memorable occurrences which took place at aperiod antecedent to the formation of their own
connection with Him in the way of discipleship, which belonged also to the time of His
nativity, His infancy, or His youth, and with regard to which they were able to institute
exact inquiry and to obtain information, either at His own hand or at the hands of His
parents or other parties, on the ground of the most reliable intimations and the most
trustworthy testimonies. Certain of them also-namely, Matthew and John-gave to the world,
in their respective books, a written account of all those matters which it seemed needful
to commit to writing concerning Him.

2. And to preclude the supposition that, in what concerns the apprehension and
proclamation of the gospel, it is a matter of any consequence whether the enunciation
comes by men who were actual followers of this same Lord here when He manifested Himself
in the flesh and had the company of His disciples attendant on Him, or by persons who with
due credit received facts with which they became acquainted in a trustworthy manner
through the instrumentality of these former, divine providence, through the agency of the
Holy Spirit, has taken care that certain of those also who were nothing more than
followers of the first apostles should have authority given them not only to preach the
gospel, but also to compose an account of it in writing. I refer to Mark and Luke. All
those other individuals, however, who have attempted or dared to offer a written record of
the acts of the Lord or of the apostles, failed to commend themselves in their own times
as men of the character which would induce the Church to yield them its confidence, and to
admit their compositions to the canonical authority of the Holy Books. And this was the
case not merely because they were persons who could make no rightful claim to have credit
given them in their narrations, but also because in a deceitful manner they introduced
into their writings certain matters which are condemned at once by the catholic and
apostolic rule of faith, and by sound doctrine.

CHAPTER II.-ON THE ORDER OF THE EVANGELISTS, AND THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THEY WROTE.

3. Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation
over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four,-it may be for the simple
reason that there are four divisions of that world through the universal length of which
they, by their number as by a kind of mystical sign, indicated the advancing extension of
the Church of Christ,-are believed to have written in the order which follows: first
Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John. Hence, too, [it would appear that] these
had one order determined among them with regard to the matters of their personal knowledge
and their preaching [of the gospel], but a different order in reference to the task of
giving the written narrative. As far, indeed, as concerns the acquisition of their own
knowledge and the charge of preaching, those unquestionably came first in order who were
actually followers of the Lord when He was present in the flesh, and who heard Him speak
and saw Him act; and [with a commission received] from His lips they were despatched to
preach the gospel. But as respects the task of composing that record of the gospel which
is to be accepted as ordained by divine authority, there were (only) two, belonging to the
number of those whom the Lord chose before the passover, that obtained places,-namely, the
first place and the last. For the first place in order was held by Matthew, and the last
by John. And thus the remaining two, who did not belong to the number referred to, but who
at the same time had become followers of the Christ who spoke in these others, were
supported on either side by the same, like sons who were to be embraced, and who in this
way were set in the midst between these twain.

4. Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew
language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a
certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each
individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done, or left
out as matters about which there was no information things which another nevertheless is
discovered to have recorded. But the fact is, that just as they received each of them the
gift of inspiration, they abstained from adding to their several labours any superfluous
conjoint compositions. For Matthew is understood to have taken it in hand to construct the
record of the incarnation of the Lord according to the royal lineage, and to give an
account of most part of His deeds and words as they stood in relation to this present life
of men. Mark follows him closely, and looks like his attendant and epitomizer. For in his
narrative he gives nothing in concert with John apart from the others: by himself
separately, he has little to record; in conjunction with Luke, as distinguished from the
rest, he has still less; but in concord with Matthew, he has a very large number of
passages. Much, too, he narrates in words almost numerically and identically the same as
those used by Matthew, where the agreement is either with that evangelist alone, or with
him in connection with the rest.

On the other hand, Luke appears to have occupied himself rather with the priestly lineage
and character of the Lord. For although in his own way he carries the descent back to
David, what he has followed is not the royal pedigree, but the line of those who were not
kings. That genealogy, too, he has brought to a point in Nathan the son of David, which
person likewise was no king. It is not thus, however, with Matthew. For in tracing the
lineage along through Solomon the king, he has pursued with strict regularity the
succession of the other kings; and in enumerating these, he has also conserved that
mystical number of which we shall speak hereafter.

CHAPTER III.-OF THE FACE THAT MATTHEW, TOGETHER WITH MARK, HAD SPECIALLY IN VIEW THE KINGLY CHARACTER OF CHRIST, WHEREAS LUKE DEALT WITH THE PRIESTLY.

5. For the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the one true King and the one true Priest, the former
to rule us, and the latter to make expiation for us, has shown us how His own figure bore
these two parts together, which were only separately commended [to notice] among the
Fathers. This becomes apparent if (for example) we look to that inscription which was
affixed to His cross"King of the Jews: in connection also with which, and by a secret
instinct, Pilate replied, "What I have written, I have written. For it had been said
aforetime in the Psalms, "Destroy not the writing of the title. The same becomes evident,
so far as the part of priest is concerned, if we have regard to what He has taught us
concerning offering and receiving. For thus it is that He sent us beforehand a prophecy
respecting Himself, which runs thus, "Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of
Melchisedek. And in many other testimonies of the divine Scriptures, Christ appears both
as King and as Priest.

Hence, also, even David himself, whose son He is, not without good reason, more frequently
declared to be than he is said to be Abraham's son, and whom Matthew and Luke have both
alike held by,-the one viewing him as the person from whom, through Solomon, His lineage
can be traced down, and the other taking him for the person to whom, through Nathan, His
genealogy can be carried up,-did represent the part of a priest, although he was patently
a king, when he ate the shew-bread. For it was not lawful for any one to eat that, save
the priests only. To this it must be added that Luke is the only one who mentions how Mary
was discovered by the angel, and how she was related to Elisabeth, who was the wife of
Zacharias the priest. And of this Zacharias the same evangelist has recorded the fact,
that the woman whom he had for wife was one of the daughters of Aaron, which is to say she
belonged to the tribe of the priests.

6. Whereas, then, Matthew had in view the kingly character, and Luke the priestly, they
have at the same time both set forth pre-eminently the humanity of Christ: for it was
according to His humanity that Christ was made both King and Priest. To Him, too, God gave
the throne of His father David, in order that of His kingdom there should be none end. And
this was done with the purpose that there might be a mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus, to make intercession for us. Luke, on the other hand, had no one connected
with him to act as his summarist in the way that Mark was attached to Matthew. And it may
be that this is not without a certain solemn significance. For it is the right of kings
not to miss the obedient following of attendants; and hence the evangelist, who had taken
it in hand to give an account of the kingly character of Christ, had a person attached to
him as his associate who was in some fashion to follow in his steps. But inasmuch as it
was the priest's want to enter all alone into the holy of holies, in accordance with that
principle, Luke, whose object contemplated the priestly office of Christ, did not have any
one to come after him as a confederate, who was meant in some way to serve as an
epitomizer of his narrative.

CHAPTER IV.-OF THE FACT THAT JOHN UNDERTOOK THE EXPOSITION OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY.

1 7. These three evangelists, however, were for the most part engaged with those things
which Christ did through the vehicle of the flesh of man, and after the temporal fashion.
But John, on the other hand, had in view that true divinity of the Lord in which He is the
Father's equal, and directed his efforts above all to the setting forth of the divine
nature in his Gospel in such a way as he believed to be adequate to men's needs and
notions. Therefore he is borne to loftier heights, in which he leaves the other three far
behind him; so that, while in them you see men who have their conversation in a certain
manner with the man Christ on earth, in him you perceive one who has passed beyond the
cloud in which the whole earth is wrapped, and who has reached the liquid heaven from
which, with clearest and steadiest mental eye, he is able to look upon God the Word, who
was in the beginning with God, and by whom all things were made. And there, too, he can
recognise Him who was made flesh in order that He might dwell amongst us; [that Word of
whom we say,] that He assumed the flesh, not that He was changed into the flesh. For had
not this assumption of the flesh been effected in such a manner as at the same time to
conserve the unchangeable Divinity, Such a word as this could never have been
spoken,-namely, "I and the Father are one.

2 For surely the Father and the flesh are not one. And the same John is also the only one
who has recorded that witness which the Lord gave concerning Himself, when He said: "He
that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also; and, "I am in the Father, and the Father is
in me; "that they may be one, even as we are one; and, "Whatsoever the Father doeth, these
same things doeth the Son likewise. And whatever other statements there may be to the same
effect, calculated to betoken, to those who are possessed of right understanding, that
divinity of Christ in which He is the Father's equal, of all these we might almost say
that we are indebted for their introduction into the Gospel narrative to John alone. For
he is like one who has drunk in the secret of His divinity more richly and somehow more
familiarly than others, as if he drew it from the very bosom of his Lord on which it was
his wont to recline when He sat at meat.

CHAPTER V.-CONCERNING THE TWO VIRTUES, OF WHICH JOHN IS CONVERSANT WITH THE CONTEMPLATIVE, THE OTHER EVANGELISTS WITH THE ACTIVE.

1 8. Moreover, there are two several virtues (or talents) which have been proposed to the
mind of man. Of these, the one is the active, and the other the contemplative: the one
being that whereby the way is taken, and the other that whereby the goal is reached; the
one that by which men labour in order that the heart may be purified to see God, and the
other that by which men are disengaged and God is seen. Thus the former of these two
virtues is occupied with the precepts for the right exercise of the temporal life, whereas
the latter deals with the doctrine of that life which is everlasting. In this way, also,
the one operates, the other rests; for the former finds its sphere in the purging of sins,
the latter moves in the light of the purged. And thus, again, in this mortal life the one
is engaged with the work of a good conversation; while the other subsists rather on faith,
and is seen only in the person of the very few, and through the glass darkly, and only in
part in a kind of vision of the unchangeable truth. Now these two virtues are understood
to be presented emblematically in the instance of the two wives of Jacob. Of these I have
discoursed already up to the measure of my ability, and as fully as seemed to be
appropriate to my task, (in what I have written) in opposition to Faustus the Manichaean.

2 For Lia, indeed, by interpretation means "labouring," whereas Rachel signifies "the
first principle seen. And by this it is given us to understand, if one will only attend
carefully to the matter, that those three evangelists who, with pre-eminent fulness, have
handled the account of the Lord's temporal doings and those of His sayings which were
meant to bear chiefly upon the moulding of the manners of the present life, were
conversant with that active virtue; and that John, on the other hand, who narrates fewer
by far of the Lord's doings, but records with greater carefulness and with larger wealth
of detail the words which He spoke, and most especially those discourses which were
intended to introduce us to the knowledge of the unity of the Trinity and the blessedness
of the life eternal, formed his plan and framed his statement with a view to commend the
contemplative virtue to our regard.

CHAPTER VI.-OF THE FOUR LIVING CREATURES IN THE APOCALYPSE, WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY SOME IN ONE APPLICATION, AND BY OTHERS IN ANOTHER, AS APT FIGURES OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS.

9. For these reasons, it also appears to me, that of the various parties who have
interpreted the living creatures in the Apocalypse as significant of the four evangelists,
those who have taken the lion to point to Matthew, the man to Mark, the calf to Luke, and
the eagle to John, have made a more reasonable application of the figures than those who
have assigned the man to Matthew, the eagle to Mark, and the lion to John. For, in forming
their particular idea of the matter, these latter have chosen to keep in view simply the
beginnings of the books, and not the full design of the several evangelists in its
completeness, which was the matter that should, above all, have been thoroughly examined.
For surely it is with much greater propriety that the one who has brought under our notice
most largely the kingly character of Christ, should be taken to be represented by the
lion. Thus is it also that we find the lion mentioned in conjunction with the royal tribe
itself, in that passage of the Apocalypse where it is said, "The lion of the tribe of
Judah hath prevailed. For in Matthew's narrative the magi are recorded to have come from
the east to inquire after the King, and to worship Him whose birth was notified to them by
the star.

Thus, too, Herod, who himself also was a king, is [said there to be] afraid of the royal
child, and to put so many little children to death in order to make sure that the one
might be slain. Again, that Luke is intended under the figure of the calf, in reference to
the pre-eminent sacrifice made by the priest, has been doubted by neither of the two [sets
of interpreters]. For in that Gospel the narrator's account commences with Zacharias the
priest. In it mention is also made of the relationship between Mary and Elisabeth. In it,
too, it is recorded that the ceremonies proper to the earliest priestly service were
attended to in the case of the infant Christ; and a careful examination brings a variety
of other matters under our notice in this Gospel, by which it is made apparent that Luke's
object was to deal with the part of the priest. In this way it follows further, that Mark,
who has set himself neither to give an account of the kingly lineage, nor to expound
anything distinctive of the priesthood, whether on the subject of the relationship or on
that of the consecration, and who at the same time comes before us as one who handles the
things which the man Christ did, appears to be indicated simply under the figure of the
man among those four living creatures. But again, those three living creatures, whether
lion, man, or calf, have their course upon this earth;

and in like manner, those three evangelists occupy themselves chiefly with the things
which Christ did in the flesh, and with the precepts which He delivered to men, who also
bear the burden of the flesh, for their instruction in the rightful exercise of this
mortal life. Whereas John, on the other hand, soars like an eagle above the clouds of
human infirmity, and gazes upon the light of the unchangeable truth with those keenest and
steadiest eyes of the heart. Chapter VII.-A Statement of Augustin's Reason for Undertaking
This Work on the Harmony of the Evangelists, and an Exampleof the Method in Which He Meets
Those Who Allege that Christ Wrote Nothing Himself, and that His Disciples Made an
Unwarranted Affirmation in Proclaiming Him to Be God. 10. Those sacred chariots of the
Lord, however, in which He is borne throughout the earth and brings the peoples under His
easy yoke and His light burden, are assailed with calumnious charges by certain persons
who, in impious vanity or in ignorant temerity, think to rob of their credit as veracious
historians those teachers by whose instrumentality the Christian religion has been
disseminated all the world over, and through whose efforts it has yielded fruits so
plentiful that unbelievers now scarcely dare so much as to mutter their slanders in
private among themselves, kept in check by the faith of the Gentiles and by the devotion
of all the peoples. Nevertheless, inasmuch as they still strive by their calumnious
disputations to keep some from making themselves acquainted with the faith, and thus
prevent them from becoming believers, while they also endeavour to the utmost of their
power to excite agitations among others who have already attained to belief, and thereby
give them trouble;

and further, as there are some brethren who, without detriment to their own faith, have a
desire to ascertain what answer can be given to such questions, either for the advantage
of their own knowledge or for the purpose of refuting the vain utterances of their
enemies, with the inspiration and help of the Lord our God (and would that it might prove
profitable for the salvation of such men), we have undertaken in this work to demonstrate
the errors or the rashness of those who deem themselves able to prefer charges, the
subtilty of which is at least sufficiently observable, against those four different books
of the gospel which have been written by these four several evangelists. And in order to
carry out this design to a successful conclusion, we must prove that the writers in
question do not stand in any antagonism to each other. For those adversaries are in the
habit of adducing this as the palmary allegation in all their vain objections, namely,
that the evangelists are not in harmony with each other.

11. But we must first discuss a matter which is apt to present a difficulty to the minds
of some. I refer to the question why the Lord has written nothing Himself, and why He has
thus left us to the necessity of accepting the testimony of other persons who have
prepared records of His history. For this is what those parties-the a pagans more than any
-allege when they lack boldness enough to impeach or blaspheme the Lord Jesus Christ
Himself, and when they allow Him-only as a man, however-to have been possessed of the most
distinguished wisdom. In making that admission, they at the same time assert that the
disciples claimed more for their Master than He really was; so much more indeed that they
even called Him the Son of God, and the Word of God, by whom all things were made, and
affirmed that He and God are one. And in the same way they dispose of all other kindred
passages in the epistles of the apostles, in the light of which we have been taught that
He is to be worshipped as one God with the Father. For they are of opinion that He is
certainly to be honoured as the wisest of men; but they deny that He is to be worshipped
as God.

12. Wherefore, when they put the question why He has not written in His own person, it
would seem as if they were prepared to believe regarding Him whatever He might have
written concerning Himself, but not what others may have given the world to know with
respect to His life, according to the measure of their own judgment. Well, I ask them in
turn why, in the case of certain of the noblest of their own philosophers, they have
accepted the statements which their disciples left in the records they have composed,
while these sages themselves have given us no written accounts of their own lives? For
Pythagoras, than whom Greece in those days did not possess any more illustrious personage
in the sphere of that contemplative virtue, is believed to have written absolutely
nothing, whether on the subject of his own personal history or on any other theme
whatsoever. And as to Socrates, to whom, on the other hand, they have adjudged a position
of supremacy above all others in that active virtue by which the moral life is trained, so
that they do not hesitate also to aver that he was even pronounced to be the wisest of men
by the testimony of their deity Apollo,-it is indeed true that he handled the fables of
Aesop in some few short verses, and thus made use of words and numbers of his own in the
task of rendering the themes of another. But this was all.

And so far was he from having the desire to write anything himself, that he declared that
he had done even so much only because he was constrained by the imperial will of his
demon, as Plato, the noblest of all his disciples, tells us. That was a work, also, in
which he sought to set forth in fair form not so much his own thoughts, as rather the
ideas of another. What reasonable ground, therefore, have they for believing, with regard
to those sages, all that their disciples have committed to record in respect of their
history, while at the same time they refuse to credit in the case of Christ what His
disciples have written on the subject of His life? And all the more may we thus argue,
when we see how they admit that all other men have been excelled by Him in the matter of
wisdom, although they decline to acknowledge Him to be God. Is it, indeed, the case that
those persons whom they do not hesitate to allow to have been by far His inferiors, have
had the faculty of making disciples who can be trusted in all that concerns the narrative
of their careers, and that He failed in that capacity?

But if that is a most absurd statement to venture upon, then in all that belongs to the
history of that Person to whom they grant the honour of wisdom, they ought to believe not
merely what suits their own notions, but what they read in the narratives of those who
learned from this sage Himself those various facts which they have left on record on the
subject of His life.

CHAPTER VIII.-OF THE QUESTION WHY, IF CHRIST IS BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN THE WISEST OF MEN ON THE TESTIMONY OF COMMON NARRATIVE REPORT, HE SHOULD NOT BE BELIEVED TO BE GOD ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE SUPERIOR REPORT OF PREACHING.

1 13. Besides this, they ought to tell us by what means they have succeeded in acquiring
their knowledge of this fact that He was the wisest of men, or how it has had the
opportunity of reaching their ears. If they have been made acquainted with it simply by
current report, then is it the case that common report forms a more trustworthy informant
on the subject of His history than those disciples of His who, as they have gone and
preached of Him, have disseminated the same report like a penetrating savour throughout
the whole world? In fine, they ought to prefer the one kind of report to the other, and
believe that account of His life which is the superior of the two. For this report,
indeed, which is spread abroad with a wonderful clearness from that Church catholic at
whose extension through the whole world those persons are so astonished, prevails in an
incomparable fashion over the unsubstantial run, ours with which men like them occupy
themselves. This report, furthermore, which carries with it such weight and such currency,
that in dread of it they can only mutter their anxious and feeble snatches of paltry
objections within their own breasts, as if they were more afraid now of being heard than
wishful to receive credit, proclaims Christ to be the only-begotten Son of God, and
Himself God, by whom all things were made.

2 If, therefore, they choose report as their witness, why does not their choice fix on
this special report, which is so pre-eminently lustrous in its remarkable definiteness?
And if they desire the evidence of writings, why do they not take those evangelical
writings which excel all others in their commanding authority? On our side, indeed, we
accept those statements about their deities which are offered at once in their most
ancient writings and by most current report. But if these deities are to be considered
proper objects for reverence, why then do they make them the subject of laughter in the
theatres? And if, on the other hand, they are proper objects for laughter, the occasion
for such laughter must be all the greater when they are made the objects of worship in the
theatres. It remains for us to look upon those persons as themselves minded to be
witnesses concerning Christ, who, by speaking what they know not, divest themselves of the
merit of knowing what they speak about. Or if, again, they assert that they are possessed
of any books which they can maintain to have been written by Him, they ought to produce
them for our inspection. For assuredly those books (if there are such) must be most
profitable and most wholesome, seeing they are the productions of one whom they
acknowledge to have been the wisest of men. If, however, they are afraid to produce them,
it must be because they are of evil tendency;

3 but if they are evil, then the wisest of men cannot have written them. They acknowledge
Christ, however, to be the wisest of men, and consequently Christ cannot have written any
such thing.

CHAPTER IX.-OF CERTAIN PERSONS WHO PRETEND THAT CHRIST WROTE BOOKS ON THE ARTS OF MAGIC.

14. But, indeed, these persons rise to such a pitch of folly as to allege that the books
which they consider to have been written by Him contain the arts by which they think He
wrought those miracles, the fame of which has become prevalent in all quarters. And this
fancy of theirs betrays what they really love, and what their aims really are. For thus,
indeed, they show us how they entertain this opinion that Christ was the wisest of men
only for the reason that He possessed the knowledge of I know not what illicit arts, which
are justly condemned, not merely by Christian discipline, but even by the administration
of earthly government itself. And, in good sooth, if there are people who affirm that they
have read books of this nature composed by Christ, then why do they not perform with their
own hand some such works as those which so greatly excite their wonder when wrought by
Him, by taking advantage of the information which they have derived from these books?

CHAPTER X.-OF SOME WHO ARE MAN ENOUGH TO SUPPOSE THAT THE BOOKS WERE INSCRIBED WITH THE NAMES OF PETER AND PAUL.

15. Nay more, as by divine judgment, some of those who either believe, or wish to have it
believed, that Christ wrote matter of that description, have even wandered so far into
error as to allege that these same books bore on their front, in the form of epistolary
superscription, a designation addressed to Peter and Paul. And it is quite possible that
either the enemies of the name of Christ, or certain parties who thought that they might
impart to this kind of execrable arts the weight of authority drawn from so glorious a
name, may have written things of that nature under the name of Christ and the apostles.
But in such most deceitful audacity they have been so utterly blinded as simply to have
made themselves fitting objects for laughter, even with young people who as yet know
Christian literature only in boyish fashion, and rank merely in the grade of readers.

16. For when they made up their minds to represent Christ to have written in such strain
as that to His disciples, they bethought themselves of those of His followers who might
best be taken for the persons to whom Christ might most readily be believed to have
written, as the individuals who had kept by Him on the most familiar terms of friendship.
And so Peter and Paul occurred to them, I believe, just because in many places they
chanced to see these two apostles represented in pictures as both in company with Him. For
Rome, in a specially honourable and solemn manner, commends the merits of Peter and of
Paul, for this reason among others, namely, that they suffered [martyrdom] on the same
day. Thus to fall most completely into error was the due desert of men who sought for
Christ and His apostles not in the holy writings, but on painted walls. Neither is it to
be wondered at, that these fiction-limners were misled by the painters. For throughout the
whole period during which Christ lived in our mortal flesh in fellowship with His
disciples, Paul had never become His disciple.

Only after His passion, after His resurrection, after His ascension, after the mission of
the Holy Spirit from heaven, after many Jews had been converted and had shown marvellous
faith, after the stoning of Stephen the deacon and martyr, and when Paul still bore the
name Saul, and was grievously persecuting those who had become believers in Christ, did
Christ call that man [by a voice] from heaven, and made him His disciple and apostle. How,
then, is it possible that Christ could have written those books which they wish to have it
believed that He did write before His death, and which were addressed to Peter and Paul,
as those among His disciples who had been most intimate with Him, seeing that up to that
date Paul had not yet become a disciple of His at all?

CHAPTER XI.-IN OPPOSITION TO THOSE WHO FOOLISHLY IMAGINE THAT CHRIST CONVERTED THE PEOPLE TO HIMSELF BY MAGICAL ARTS.

17. Moreover, let those who madly fancy that it was by the use of magical arts that He was
able to do the great things which He did, and that it was by the practice of such rites
that He made His name a sacred thing to the peoples who were to be converted to Him, give
their attention to this question,-namely, whether by the exercise of magical arts, and
before He was born on this earth, He could also have filled with the Holy Spirit those
mighty prophets who aforetime declared those very things concerning Him as things destined
to come to pass, which we can now read in their accomplishment in the gospel, and which we
can see in their present realization in the world. For surely, even if it was by magical
arts that He secured worship for Himself, and that, too, after His death, it is not the
case that He was a magician before He was born. Nay, for the office of prophesying on the
subject of His coming, one nation had been most specially deputed; and the entire
administration of that commonwealth was ordained to be a prophecy of this King who was to
come, and who was to found a heavenly state drawnout of all nations.

CHAPTER XII.-OF THE FACT THAT THE GOD OF THE JEWS, AFTER THE SUBJUGATION OF THAT PEOPLE, WAS STILL NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ROMANS, BECAUSE HIS COMMANDMENT WAS THAT HE ALONE SHOULD BE WORSHIPPED, AND IMAGES DESTROYED.

18. Furthermore, that Hebrew nation, which, as I have said, was commissioned to prophesy
of Christ, had no other God but one God, the true God, who made heaven and earth, and all
that therein is. Under His displeasure they were ofttimes given into the power of their
enemies. And now, indeed, on account of their most heinous sin in putting Christ to death,
they have been thoroughly rooted out of Jerusalem itself, which was the capital of their
kingdom, and have been made subject to the Roman empire. Now the Romans were in the habit
of propitiating the deities of those nations whom they conquered by worshipping these
themselves, and they were accustomed to undertake the charge of their sacred rites. But
they declined to act on that principle with regard to the God of the Hebrew nation, either
when they made their attack or when they reduced the people. I believe that they perceived
that, if they admitted the worship of this Deity, whose commandment was that He only
should be worshipped, and that images should be destroyed, they would have to put away
from them all those objects to which formerly they had undertaken to do religious service,
and by the worship of which they believed their empire had grown. But in this the
falseness of their demons mightily deceived them. For surely they ought to have
apprehended the fact that it is only by the hidden will of the true God, in whose hand
resides the supreme power in all things, that the kingdom was given them and has been made
to increase, and that their position was not due to the favour of those deities who, if
they could have wielded any influence whatever in that matter, would rather have protected
their own people from being over-mastered by the Romans, or would have brought the Romans
themselves into complete subjection to them.

19. Certainly they cannot possibly affirm that the kind of piety and manners exemplified
by them became objects of love and choice on the part of the gods of the nations which
they conquered. They will never make such an assertion, if they only recall their own
early beginnings, the asylum for abandoned criminals and the fratricide of Romulus. For
when Remus and Romulus established their asylum, with the intention that whoever took
refuge there, be the crime what it might be with which he stood charged, should enjoy
impunity in his deed, they did not promulgate any precepts of penitence for bringing the
minds of such wretched men back to a right condition. By this bribe of impunity did they
not rather arm the gathered band of fearful fugitives against the states to which they
properly belonged, and the laws of which they dreaded? Or when Romulus slew his brother,
who had perpetrated no evil against him, is it the case that his mind was bent on the
vindication of justice, and not on the acquisition of absolute power? And is it true that
the deities did take their delight in manners like these, as if they were themselves
enemies to their own states, in so far as they favoured those who were the enemies of
these communities? Nay rather, neither did they by deserting them harm the one class, nor
did they by passing over to their side in any sense help the other.

For they have it not in their power to give kingship or to remove it. But that is done by
the one true God, according to His hidden counsel. And it is not His mind to make those
necessarily blessed to whom He may have given an earthly kingdom, or to make those
necessarily unhappy whom He has deprived of that position. But He makes men blessed or
wretched for other reasons and by other means, and either by permission or by actual gift
distributes temporal and earthly kingdoms to whomsoever He pleases, and for whatsoever
period He chooses, according to the fore-ordained order of the ages.

CHAPTER XIII.-OF THE QUESTION WHY GOD SUFFERED THE JEWS TO BE REDUCED TO SUBJECTION.

20. Hence also they cannot meet us fairly with this question: Why, then, did the God of
the Hebrews, whom you declare to be the supreme and true God, not only not subdue the
Romans under their power, but even fail to secure those Hebrews themselves against
subjugation by the Romans? For there were open sins of theirs that went before them, and
on account of which the prophets so long time ago predicted that this very thing would
overtake them; and above all, the reason lay in the fact, that in their impious fury they
put Christ to death, in the commission of which sin they were made blind [to the guilt of
their crime] through the deserts of other hidden transgressions. That His sufferings also
would be for the benefit of the Gentiles, was foretold by the same prophetictestimony.
Nor, in another point of view, did; the fact appear clearer, that the kingdom of that
nation, and its temple, and its priesthood, and its sacrificial system, and that mystical
unction which is called kriQma in Greek, from which the name of Christ takes its evident
application, and on account of which that nation was accustomed to speak of its kings as
anointed ones, were ordained with the express object of prefiguring Christ, than has the
kindred fact become apparent, that after the resurrection of the Christ who was put to
death began to be preached unto the believing Gentiles, all those things came to their
end, all unrecognised as the circumstance was, whether by the Romans, through whose
victory, or by the Jews, through whose subjugation, it was brought about that they did
thus reach their conclusion.

CHAPTER XIV.-OF THE FACT THAT THE GOD OF THE HEBREWS, ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE WERE CONQUERED, PROVED HIMSELF TO BE UNCONQUERED, BY OVERTHROWING THE IDOLS,AND BY TURNING ALL THE GENTILES TO HIS OWN SERVICE.

21. Here indeed we have a wonderful fact, which is not remarked by those few pagans who
have remained such,-namely, that this God of the Hebrews who was offended by the
conquered, and who was also denied acceptance by the conquerors, is now preached and
worshipped among all nations. This is that God of Israel of whom the prophet spake so long
time since, when he thus addressed the people of God: "And He who brought thee out, the
God of Israel, shall be called (the God) of the whole earth. What was thus prophesied has
been brought to pass through the name of the Christ, who comes to men in the form of a
descendant of that very Israel who was the grandson of Abraham, with whom the race of the
Hebrews began. For it was to this Israel also that it was said, "In thy seed shall all the
tribes of the earth be blessed. Thus it is shown that the God of Israel, the true God who
made heaven and earth, and who administers human affairs justly and mercifully in such
wise that neither does justice exclude mercy with Him, nor does mercy hinder justice, was
not overcome Himself when His Hebrew people suffered their overthrow, in virtue of His
permitting the kingdom and priesthood of that nation to be seized and subverted by the
Romans.

For now, indeed, by the might of this gospel of Christ, the true King and Priest, the
advent of which was prefigured by that kingdom and priesthood, the God of Israel Himself
is everywhere destroying the idols of the nations. And, in truth, it was to prevent that
destruction that the Romans refused to admit the sacred rites of this God in the way that
they admitted those of the gods of the other nations whom they conquered. Thus did He
remove both kingdom and priesthood from the prophetic nation, because He who was promised
to men through the agency of that people had already come. And by Christ the King He has
brought into subjection to His own name that Roman empire by which the said nation was
overcome; and by the strength and devotion of Christian faith, He has converted it so as
to effect a subversion of those idols, the honour ascribed to which precluded His worship
from obtaining entrance.

22. I am of opinion that it was not by means of magical arts that Christ, previous to His
birth among men, brought it about that those things which were destined to come to pass in
the course of His history, were pre-announced by so many prophets, and prefigured also by
the kingdom and priesthood established in a certain nation. For the people who are
connected with that now abolished kingdom, and who in the wonderful providence of God are
scattered throughout all lands, have indeed remained without any unction from the true
King and Priest; in which anointing the import of the name of Christ is plainly
discovered. But notwithstanding this, they still retain remnants of some of their
observances; while, on the other hand, not even in their state of overthrow and
subjugation have they accepted those Roman rites which are connected with the worship of
idols. Thus they still keep the prophetic books as the witness of Christ; and in this way
in the documents of His enemies we find proof presented of the truth of this Christ who is
the subject of prophecy. What, then, do these unhappy men disclose themselves to be, by
the unworthy method in which they laud the nameof Christ?

If anything relating to the practice of magic has been written under His name, while the
doctrine of Christ is so vehemently antagonistic to such arts, these men ought ratherin
the light of this fact to gather some idea of the greatness of that name, by the addition
of which even persons who live in opposition toHis precepts endeavour to dignify their
nefariouspractices. For just as, in the course of the diverse errors of men, many persons
have set uptheir varied heresies against the truth under the cover of His name, so the
very enemies of Christ think that, for the purposes of gaining acceptance for opinions
which they propound in opposition to the doctrine of Christ, they have no weight of
authority at their service unless they have the name of Christ.

CHAPTER XV.-OF THE FACT THAT THE PAGANS, WHEN CONSTRAINED TO LAUD CHRIST, HAVE LAUNCHED THEIR INSULTS AGAINST HIS DISCIPLES.

23. But what shall be said to this, if those vain eulogizers of Christ, and those crooked
slanderers of the Christian religion, lack the daring to blaspheme Christ, for this
particular reason that some of their philosophers, as Porphyry of Sicily has given us to
understand in his books, consulted their gods as to their response on the subject of [the
claims of] Christ, and were constrained by their own oracles to laud Christ? Nor should
that seem incredible. For we also read in the Gospel that the demons confessed Him; and in
our prophets it is written in this wise: "For the gods of the nations are demons." Thus it
happens, then, that in order to avoid attempting aught in opposition to the responses of
their own deities, they turn their blasphemies aside from Christ, and pour them forth
against His disciples. It seems to me, however, that these gods of the Gentiles, whom the
philosophers of the pagans may have consulted, if they were asked to give their judgment
on the disciples of Christ, as well as on Christ Himself, would be constrained to praise
them in like manner.

CHAPTER XVI.-OF THE FACT THAT, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF IDOLS, THE APOSTLES TAUGHT NOTHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS TAUGHT BY CHRIST OR BY THE PROPHETS.

24. Nevertheless these persons argue still to the effect that this demolition of temples,
and this condemnation of sacrifices, and this shattering of all images, are brought about,
not in virtue of the doctrine of Christ Himself, but only by the hand of His apostles,
who, as they contend, taught something different from what He taught. They think by this
device, while honouring and lauding Christ, to tear the Christian faith in pieces. For it
is at least true, that it is by the disciples of Christ that at once the works and the
words of Christ have been made known, on which this Christian religion is established,
with which a very few people of this character are still in antagonism, who do not now
indeed openly assail it, but yet continue even in these days to utter their mutterings
against it. But if they refuse to believe that Christ taught in the way indicated, let
them read the prophets, who not only enjoined the complete destruction of the
superstitions of idols, but also predicted that this subversion would come to pass in
Christian times. And if these spoke falsely, why is their word fulfilled with so mighty a
demonstration? But if they spoke truly, why is resistance offered to such divine power?

CHAPTER XVII.-IN OPPOSITION TO THE ROMANS WHO REJECTED THE GOD OF ISRAEL ALONE.

25. However, here is a matter which should meet with more careful consideration at their
hands,-namely, what they take the God of Israel to be, and why they have not admitted Him
to the honours of worship among them, inthe way that they have done with the gods of other
nations that have been made subject to the imperial power of Rome? This question demands
an answer all the more, when we see that they are of the mind that all the gods ought to
be worshipped by the man of wisdom. Why, then, has He been excluded from the number of
these others? If He is very mighty, why is He the only deity that is not worshipped by
them? If He has little or no might, why are the images of other gods broken in pieces by
all the nations, while He is now almost the only God that is worshipped among these
peoples? From the grasp of this question these men shall never be able to extricate
themselves, who worship both the greater and the lesser deities, whom they hold to be
gods, and at the same time refuse to worship this God, who has proved Himself stronger
than all those to whom they do service. If He is [a God] of great virtue, why has He been
deemed worthy only of rejection? And if He is [a God] of little or no power, why has He
been able to accomplish so much, although rejected? If He is good, why is He the only one
separated from the other good deities? And if He is evil, why is He, who stands thus
alone, not subjugated by so many good deities? If He is truthful, why are His precepts
scorned? And if He is a liar, why are His predictions fulfilled?

CHAPTER XVIII.-OF THE FACT THAT THE GOD OF THE HEBREWS IS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ROMANS, BECAUSE HIS WILL IS THAT HE ALONE SHOULD BE WORSHIPPED.

1 26. In fine, they may think of Him as they please. Still, we may ask whether it is the
case that the Romans refuse to consider evil deities as also proper objects of
worship,-those Romans who have erected fanes to Pallor and Fever, and who enjoin both that
the good demons are to been treated, and that the evil demons are to be propitiated.
Whatever their opinion, then, of Him may be, the question still is, Why is He the only
Deity whom they have judged worthy neither of being called upon for help, nor of being
propitiated? What God is this, who is either one so unknown, that He is the only one not
discovered as yet among so many gods, or who is one so well known that He is now the only
one worshipped by so many men? There remains, then, nothing which they can possibly allege
in explanation of their refusal to admit the worship of this God, except that His will was
that He alone should be worshipped; and His command was, that those gods of the Gentiles
that they were worshipping at the time should cease to be worshipped.

2 But an answer to this other question is rather to be required of them, namely, what or
what manner of deity they consider this God to be, who has forbidden the worship of those
other gods for whom they erected temples and images,-this God, who has also been possessed
of might so vast that His will has prevailed more in effecting the destruction of their
images than theirs has availed to secure the non-admittance of His worship. And, indeed,
the opinion of that philosopher of theirs is given in plain terms, whom, even on the
authority of their own oracle, they have maintained to have been the wisest of all men.
For the opinion of Socrates is, that every deity whatsoever ought to be worshipped just in
the manner in which he may have ordained that he should be worshipped. Consequently it
became a matter of the supremest necessity with them to refuse to worship the God of the
Hebrews. For if they were minded to worship Him in a method different from the way in
which He had declared that He ought to be worshipped, then assuredly they would have been
worshipping not this God as He is, but some figment of their own. And, on the other hand,
if they were willing to worship Him in the manner which He had indicated, then they could
not but perceive that they were not at liberty to worship those other deities whom He
interdicted them from worshipping.

3 Thus was it, therefore, that they rejected the service of the one true God, because they
were afraid that they might offend the many false gods. For they thought that the anger of
those deities would be more to their injury, than the goodwill of this God would be to
their profit.

CHAPTER XIX.-THE PROOF THAT THIS GOD IS THE TRUE GOD.

1 27. But that must have been a vain necessity and a ridiculous timidity. We ask now what
opinion regarding this God is formed by those men whose pleasure it is that all gods ought
to be worshipped. For if He ought not to be worshipped, how are all worshipped when He is
not worshipped? And if He ought to be worshipped, it cannot be that all others are to be
worshipped along with Him. For unless He is worshipped alone, He is really not worshipped
at all. Or may it perhaps be the case, that they will allege Him to be no God at all,
while they call those gods who, as we believe, have no power to do anything except so far
as permission is given them by His judgment,-have not merely no power to do good to any
one, but no power even to do harm to any, except to those who are judged by Him, who
possesses all power, to merit so to be harmed? But, as they themselves are compelled to
admit, those deities have shown less power than He has done.

2 For if those are held to be gods whose prophets, when consulted by men, have returned
responses which, that I may not call them false, were at least most convenient for their
private interests, how is not He to be regarded as God whose prophets have not only given
the congruous answer on subjects regarding which they were consulted at the special time,
but who also, in the case of subjects respecting which they were not consulted, and which
related to the universal race of man and all nations, have announced prophetically so long
time before the event those very things of which we now read, and which indeed we now
behold? If they gave the name of god to that being under whose inspiration the Sibyl sung
of the fates of the Romans, how is not He (to be called) God, who, in accordance with the
announcement aforetime given, has shown us how the Romans and all nations are coming to
believe in Himself through the gospel of Christ, as the one God, and to demolish all the
images of their fathers?

3 Finally, if they designate those as gods who have never dared through their prophets to
say anything against this God, how is not He (to be designated) God, who not only
commanded by the mouth of His prophets the destruction of their images, but who also
predicted that among all the Gentiles they would be destroyed by those who should be
enjoined to abandon their idols and to worship Him alone, and who, on receiving these
injunctions, should be His servants?

CHAPTER XX.-OF THE FACT THAT NOTHING IS DISCOVERED TO HAVE BEEN PREDICTED BY THE PROPHETS OF THE PAGANS IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOD OF THE HEBREWS.

1 28. Or let them aver, if they are able, that some Sibyl of theirs, or any one whatever
among their other prophets, announced long ago that it would come to pass that the God of
the Hebrews, the God of Israel, would be worshipped by aIl nations, declaring, at the same
time, thatthe worshippers of other gods before that time had rightly rejected Him; and
again, that the compositions of His prophets would be in such exalted authority, that in
obedience to them the Roman government itself would command the destruction of images, the
said seers at the same time giving warning against acting upon such ordinances;-let them,
I say, read out any utterances like these, if they can, from any of the books of their
prophets. For I stop not to state that those things which we can read in their books
repeat a testimony on behalf of our religion, that is, the Christian religon, which they
might have heard from the holy angels and from our prophets themselves; just as the very
devils were compelled to confess Christ when He was present in the flesh. But I pass by
these matters, regarding which, when we bring them forward, their contention is that they
were invented by our party. Most certainly, however, they may themselves be pressed to
adduce anything which has been prophesied by the seers of their own gods against the God
of the Hebrews;

2 as, on our side, we can point to declarations so remarkable at once for number and for
weight recorded in the books of our prophets against their gods, in which also we can both
note the command and recite the prediction and demonstrate the event. And over the
realization of these things, that comparatively small number of heathens who have remained
such are more inclined to grieve than they are ready to acknowledge that God who has had
the power to foretell these things as events destined to be made good; whereas in their
dealings with their own false gods, who are genuine demons, they prize nothing else so
highly as to be informed by their responses of something which is to take place with them.

CHAPTER XXI.-AN ARGUMENT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE WORSHIP OF THIS GOD, WHO, WHILE HE PROHIBITS OTHER DEITIES FROM BEING WORSHIPPED, IS NOT HIMSELF INTERDICTED BY OTHER DIVINITIES FROM BEING WORSHIPPED.

1 29. Seeing, then, that these things are so, why do not these unhappy men rather
apprehend the fact that this God is the true God, whom they perceive to be placed in a
position so thoroughly separated from the company of their own deities, that, although
they are compelled to acknowledge Him to be God, those very persons who profess that all
gods ought to be worshipped are nevertheless not permitted to worship Him along with the
rest? Now, since these deities and this God cannot be worshipped together, why is not He
selected who forbids those others to be worshipped; and why are not those deities
abandoned, who do not interdict Him from being worshipped? Or if they do indeed forbid His
worship, let the interdict be read. For what has greater claims to be recited to their
people in their temples, in which the sound of no such thing has ever been heard? And, in
good sooth, the prohibition directed by so many against one ought to be more notable and
more potent than the prohibition launched by one against so many. For if the worship of
this God is impious, then those gods are profitless, who do not interdict men from that
impiety; but if the worship of this God is pious, then, as in that worship the commandment
is given that these others are not to be worshipped, their worship is impious.

2 If, again, those deities forbid His worship, but only so diffidently that they rather
fear to be heard than dare to prohibit, who is so unwise as not to draw his own inference
from the fact, who fails to perceive that this God ought to be chosen, who in so public a
manner prohibits their worship, who commanded that their images should be destroyed, who
foretold that demolition, who Himself effected it, in preference to those deities of whom
we know not that they ordained abstinence from His worship, of whom we do not read that
they foretold such an event, and in whom we do not see power sufficient to have it brought
about? I put the question, let them give the answer: Who is this God, who thus harasses
all the gods of the Gentiles, who thus betrays all their sacred rites, who thus renders
them extinct?

CHAPTER XXII.-OF THE OPINION ENTERTAINED BY THE GENTILES REGARDING OUR GOD.

30. But why do I interrogate men whose native wit has deserted them in answering the
question as to who this God is? Some say that He is Saturn. I fancy the reason of that is
found in the sanctification of the Sabbath; for those men assign that day to Saturn. But
their own Varro, than whom they can point to no man of greater learning among them,
thought that the God of the Jews was Jupiter, and he judged that it mattered not what name
was employed, provided the same subject was understood under it; in which, I believe, we
see how he was subdued by His supremacy. For, inasmuch as the Romans are not accustomed to
worship any more exalted object than Jupiter, of which fact their Capitol is the open and
sufficient attestation, and deem him to be the king of all gods; when he observed that the
Jews worshipped the supreme God, he could not think of any object under that title other
than Jupiter himself. But whether men call the God of the Hebrews Saturn, or declare Him
to be Jupiter, let them tell us when Saturn dared to prohibit the worship of a second
deity. He did not venture to interdict the worship even of this very Jupiter, who is said
to have expelled him from his kingdom,-the son thus expelling the father. And if Jupiter,
as the more powerful deity and the conqueror, has been accepted by his worshippers, then
they ought not to worship Saturn, the conquered and expelled. But neither, on the other
hand, did Jove put his worship under the ban. Nay, that deity whom he had power to
overcome, he nevertheless suffered to continue a god.

CHAPTER XXIII.-OF THE FOLLIES WHICH THE PAGANS HAVE INDULGED IN REGARDING JUPITER AND SATURN.

31. These narratives of yours, say they, are but fables which have to be interpreted by
the wise, or else they are fit only to be laughed at; but we revere that Jupiter of whom
Maro says that "All things are full of Jove," -Virgil's Eclogues, iii. v. 60; that is to
say, the spirit of life that vivifies all things. It is not without some reason,
therefore, that Varro thought that Jove was worshipped by the Jews; for the God of the
Jews says by His prophet, "I fill heaven and earth." But what is meant by that which the
same poet names Ether? How do they take the term? For he speaks thus: "Then the omnipotent
father Ether, with fertilizing showers, Came down into the bosom of his fruitful
spouse."-Virgil's Georgics, ii. 325. They say, indeed, that this Ether is not spirit, but
a lofty body in which the heaven is stretched above the air. Is liberty conceded to the
poet to speak at one time in the language of the followers of Plato, as if God was not
body, but spirit, and at another time in the language of the Stoics, as if God was a body?
What is it, then, that they worship in their Capitol? If it is a spirit, or if again it
is, in short, the corporeal heaven itself, then what does that shield of Jupiter there
which they style the Aegis? The origin of that name, indeed, is explained by the
circumstance that a goat nourished Jupiter when he was concealed by his mother. Or is this
a fiction of the poets? But are the capitols of the Romans, then, also the mere creations
of the poets? And what is the meaning of that, certainly not poetical, but unmistakeably
farcical, variability of yours, in seeking your gods according to the ideas of
philosophers in books, and revering them according to the notions of poets in your
temples?

32. But was that Euhemerus also a poet, who declares both Jupiter himself, and his father
Saturn, and Pluto and Neptune his brothers, to have been men, in terms so exceedingly
plain that their worshippers ought all the more to render thanks to the poets, because
their inventions have not been intended so much to disparage them as rather to dress them
up? Albeit Cicero mentions that this same Euhemerus was translated into Latin by the poet
Ennius. Or was Cicero himself a poet, who, in counselling the person with whom he debates
in his Tusculan Disputations, addresses him as one possessing knowledge of things secret,
in the following terms: "If, indeed, I were to attempt to search into antiquity, and
produce from thence the subjects which the writers of Greece have given to the world, it
would be found that even those deities who are reckoned gods of the higher orders have
gone from us into heaven. Ask whose sepulchres are pointed out in Greece: call to mind,
since you have been initiated, the things which are delivered in the mysteries: then,
doubtless, you will comprehend how widely extended this belief is. This author certainly
makes ample acknowledgment of the doctrine that those gods of theirs were originally, men.
He does, indeed, benevolently surmise that they made their way into heaven. But he did not
hesitate to say in public, that even the honour thus given them in general repute was
conferred upon them by men, when he spoke of Romulus in these words:

"By good will and repute We have raised to the immortal gods that Romulus who rounded this
city. How should it be such a wonderful thing, therefore, to suppose that the more ancient
men did with respect to Jupiter and Saturn and the others what the Romans have done with
respect to Romulus, and what, in good truth, they have thought of doing even in these more
recent times also in the case of Caesar? And to these same Virgil has addressed the
additional flattery of song, saying: "Lo, the star of Caesar, descendant of Dione,
arose."-Eclogue, ix. ver. 47.Let them see to it, then, that the truth of history do not
turn out to exhibit to our view. sepulchres erected for their false gods here upon the
earth!and let them take heed lest the vanity of poetry, instead of fixing, may be but
feigning stars for their deities there in heaven. For, in reality, that one is not the
star of Jupiter, neither is this one the star of Saturn; but thesimple fact is, that upon
these stars, which were set from the foundation of the world, the names of those persons
were imposed after their death by men who were minded to honour them as gods on their
departure from this life. Andwith respect to these we may, indeed, ask how there should be
such ill desert in chastity, or such good desert in voluptuousness, that Venus should have
a star, and Minerva be denied one among those luminaries which revolve along with the sun
and moon?

33. But it may be said that Cicero, the Academic sage, who has been bold enough to make
mention of the sepulchres of their gods, and to commit the statement to writing, is a more
doubtful authority than the poets; although he did not presume to offer that assertion
simply as his own personal opinion, but put it on record as a statement contained among
the traditions of their own sacred rites. Well, then, can it also be maintained that Varro
either gives expression merely to an invention of his own, as a poet might do, or puts the
matter only dubiously, as might be the case with an Academician, because he declares that,
in the instance of all such gods, the matters of their worshiphad their origin either in
the life which theylived, or in the death which they died, among men? Or was that Egyptian
priest, Leon, either a poet or an Academician, who expounded the origin of those gods of
theirs to Alexander of Macedon, in a way somewhat different indeed from the opinion
advanced by the Greeks, but nevertheless so far accordant therewith as to make out their
deities to have been originally men?

34. But what is all this to us? Let them assert that they worship Jupiter, and not a dead
man; let them maintain that they have dedicated their Capitol not to a dead man, but to
the Spirit that vivifies all things and fills the world. And as to that shield of his,
which was made of the skin of a she-goat in honour of his nurse, let them put upon it
whatever interpretation they please. What do they say, however, about Saturn? What is it
that they worship under the name of Saturn? Is not this the deity that was the first to
come down to us from Olympus (of whom the poet sings): "Then from Olympus' height came
down Good Saturn, exiled from his crown By Jove, his mightier heir: He brought the rate to
union first Erewhile, on mountain-tops dispersed, And gave them statutes to obey, And
willed the land wherein he lay

Should Latium's title bear." -Virgil's Aeneid, viii. 320-324, Conington's trans.Does not
his very image, made as it is with the head covered, present him as one under concealment?
Was it not he that made the practice of agriculture known to the people of Italy,a fact
which is expressed by the reaping-hook? No, say they; for you may see whether the being of
whom such things are recorded was a man, and indeed one particular king: we, however,
interpret Saturn to be universal Time, as is signified also by his name in Greek: for he
is called Chronus, which word, with the aspiration thus given it, is also the vocable for
time: whence, too, in Latin he gets the name of Saturn, as if it meant that he is sated
with years. But now, what we are to make of people like these I know not, who, in their
very effort to put a more favourable meaning upon the names and the images of their gods,
make the confession that the very god who is their major deity, and the father of the
rest, is Time. For what else do they thus betray but, in fact, that all those gods of
theirs are only temporal, seeing that the very parent of them all is made out to be Time?

35. Accordingly, their more recent philosophers of the Platonic school, who have
flourished in Christian times, have been ashamed of such fancies, and have endeavoured to
interpret Saturn in another way, affirming that he received the name C ronoj in order to
signify, as it were, the fulness of intellect;their explanation being, that in Greek
fulness is expressed by the term koroj, and intellect or mind by the term nouj; which
etymology seems to be favoured also by the Latin name, on the supposition that the first
part of the word (Saturnus) came from the Latin, and the second part from the Greek: so
that he got the title Saturnus as an equivalent to satur, nouj. For they saw how absurd it
was to have that Jupiter regarded as a son of Time, whom they either considered, or wished
to have considered, eternal deity. Furthermore, however, according to this novel
interpretation, which it is marvellous that Cicero and Varro should have suffered to
escape their notice, if their ancient authorities really had it, they call Jupiter the son
of Saturn, thus denoting him, it may be, as the spirit that proceedeth forth from that
supreme mind-the spirit which they choose to look upon as the soul of this world, so to
speak, filling alike all heavenly and all earthly bodies. Whence comes also that saying of
Maro, which I have cited a little ago, namely, "All things are full of Jove"?

Should they not, then, if they are possessed of the ability, alter the superstitions
indulged in by men, just as they alter their interpretation; and either erect no images at
all, or at least build capitols to Saturn rather than to Jupiter? For they also maintain
that no rational soul can be produced gifted with wisdom, except by participation in that
supreme and unchangeable wisdom of his; and this affirmation they advance not only with
respect to the soul of a man, but even with respect to that same soul of the world which
they also designate Jove. Now we not only concede, but even very particularly proclaim,
that there is a certain supreme wisdom of God, by participation in which every soul
whatsoever that is constituted truly wise acquires its wisdom. But whether that universal
corporeal mass, which is called the world, has a kind of soul, or, so to speak, its own
soul, that is to say, a rational life by which it can govern its own movements, as is the
case with every sort of animal, is a question both vast and obscure. That is an opinion
which ought not to be affirmed, unless its truth is clearly ascertained; neither ought it
to be rejected, unless its falsehood is as clearly ascertained. And what will it matter to
man, even should this question remain for ever unsolved, since, in any case, no soul
becomes wise or blessed by drawing from any other soul but from that one supreme and
immutable wisdom of God?

36. The Romans, however, who have rounded a Capitol in honour of Jupiter, but none in
honour of Saturn, as also these other nations whose opinion it has been that Jupiter ought
to be worshipped pre-eminently and above the rest of the gods, have certainly not agreed
in sentiment with the persons referred to; who, in accordance with that mad view of
theirs, would dedicate their loftiest citadels rather to Saturn, if they had any power in
these things, and who most particularly would annihilate those mathematicians and
nativity-spinners by whom this Saturn, whom their opponents would designate the maker of
the wise, has been placed with the character of a deity of evil among the other stars. But
this opinion, nevertheless, has prevailed so mightily against them in the mind of
humanity, that men decline even to name that god, and call him Ancient rather than Saturn;
and that in so fearful a spirit of superstition, that the Carthaginians have now gone very
near to change the designation of their town, and call it the town of the Ancient more
frequently than the town of Saturn.

CHAPTER XXIV.-OF THE FACT THAT THOSE PERSONS WHO REJECT THE GOD OF ISRAEL, IN CONSEQUENCE FAIL TO WORSHIP ALL THE GODS; AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT THOSE WHO WORSHIP OTHER GODS, FAIL TO WORSHIP HIM.

1 37. It is well understood, therefore, what these worshippers of images are convicted in
reality of revering, and what they attempt to colour over. But even these new interpreters
of Saturn must be required to tell us what they think of the God of the Hebrews. For to
them also it seemed right to worship all the gods, as is done by the heathen nations,
because their pride made them ashamed to humble themselves under Christ for the remission
of their sins. What opinion, therefore, do they entertain regarding the God of Israel? For
if they do not worship Him then they do not worship all gods; and if they do worship Him,
they do not worship Him in the way that He has ordained for His own worship, because they
worship others also whose worship He has interdicted. Against such practices He issued His
prohibition by the mouth of those same prophets by whom He also announced beforehand the
destined occurrence of those very things which their images are now sustaining at the
hands of the Christians. For whatever the explanation may be, whether it be that the
angels were sent to those prophets to show them figuratively, and by the congruous forms
of visible objects, the one true God, the Creator of all things, to whom the whole
universe is made subject, and to indicate the method in which He enjoined His own worship
to proceed;

2 or whether it was that the minds of some among them were so mightily elevated by the
Holy Spirit, as to enable them to see those things in that kind of vision in which the
angels themselves behold objects: in either case it is the incontestable fact, that they
did serve that God who has prohibited the worship of other gods; and, moreover, it is
equally certain, that with the faithfulness of piety, in the kingly and in the priestly
office, they ministered at once for the good of their country, and in the interest of
those sacred ordinances which were significant of the coming of Christ as the true King
and Priest.

CHAPTER XXV.-OF THE FACT THAT THE FALSE GODS DO NOT FORBID OTHERS TO BE WORSHIPPED ALONG WITH THEMSELVES. THAT THE GOD OF ISRAEL IS THE TRUE GOD, IS PROVED BY HIS WORKS, BOTH IN PROPHECY AND IN FULFILMENT.

38. But further, in the case of the gods of the Gentiles (in their willingness to worship
whom they exhibit their unwillingness to worship that God who cannot be worshipped
together with them), let them tell us the reason why no one is found in the number of
their deities who thinks of interdicting the worship of another; while they institute them
in different offices and functions, and hold them to preside each one over objects which
pertain properly to his own special province. For if Jupiter does not prohibit the worship
of Saturn, because he is not to be taken merely for a man, who drove another man, namely
his father, out of his kingdom, but either for the body of the heavens, or for the spirit
that fills both heaven and earth, and because thus he cannot prevent that supernal mind
from being worshipped, from which he is said to have emanated: if, on the same principle
also, Saturn cannot interdict the worship of Jupiter, because he is not [to be supposed to
be merely] one who was conquered by that other in rebellion,-as was the case with a person
of the same name, by the hand of some one or other called Jupiter, from whose arms he was
fleeing when he came into Italy,-and because the primal mind favours the mind that springs
from it:

yet Vulcan at least might [be expected to] put under the ban the worship of Mars, the
paramour of his wife, and Hercules [might be thought likely to interdict] the worship of
Juno, his persecutor. What kind of foul consent must subsist among them, if even Diana,
the chaste virgin, fails to interdict the worship, I do not say merely of Venus, but even
of Priapus? For if the same individual decides to be at once a hunter and a farmer, he
must be the servant of both these deities; and yet he will be ashamed to do even so much
as erect temples for them side by side. But they may aver, that by interpretation Diana
means a certain virtue, be it what they please; and they may tell us that Priapus really
denotes the deity of fecundity, -to such an effect, at any rate, that Juno may well be
ashamed to have such a coadjutor in the task of making females fruitful. They may say what
they please; they may put any explanation upon these things which in their wisdom they
think fit: only, in spite of all that, the God of Israel will confound all their
argumentations. For in prohibiting all those deities from being worshipped, while His own
worship is hindered by none of them, and in at once commanding, foretelling, and effecting
destruction for their images and sacred rites, He has shown with sufficient clearness that
they are false and lying deities, and that He Himself is the one true and truthful God.

39. Moreover, to whom should it not seem strange that those worshippers, now become few in
number, of deities both numerous and false, should refuse to do homage to Him of whom,
when the question is put to them as to what deity He is; they dare not at least assert,
whatever answer they may think to give, that He is no God at all? For if they deny His
deity, they are very easily refuted by His works, both in prophecy and in fulfilment. I do
not speak of those works which they deem themselves at liberty not to credit, such as His
work in the beginning, when He made heaven and earth, and all that is in them. Neither do
I specify here those events which carry us back into the remotest antiquity, such as the
translation of Enoch, the destruction of the impious by the flood, and the saving of
righteous Noah and his house from the deluge, by means of the [ark of] wood. I begin the
statement of His doings among men with Abraham. To this man, indeed, was given by an
angelic oracle an intelligible promise, which we now see in its realization. For to him it
was said, "In thy seed shall all nations be blessed. Of his seed, then, sprang the people
of Israel, whence came the Virgin Mary, who was the mother of Christ; and that in Him all
the nations are blessed, let them now be hold enough to deny if they can.

This same promise was made also to Isaac the son of Abraham. It was given again to Jacob
the grandson of Abraham. This Jacob was also called Israel, from whom that whole people
derived both its descent and its name so that indeed the God of this people was called the
God of Israel: not that He is not also the God of the Gentiles, whether they are ignorant
of Him or now know Him; but that in this people He willed that the power of His promises
should be made more conspicuously apparent. For that people, which at first was multiplied
in Egypt, and after a time was delivered from a state of slavery there by the hand of
Moses, with many signs and portents, saw most of the Gentile nations subdued under it, and
obtained possession also of the land of promise, in which it reigned in the person of
kings of its own, who sprang from the tribe of Judah. This Judah, also, was one of the
twelve sons of Israel, the grandson of Abraham. And from him were descended the people
called the Jews, who, with the help of God Himself, did great achievements, and who also,
when He chastised them, endured many sufferings on account of their sins, until the coming
of that Seed to whom the promise was given, in whom all the nations were to be blessed,
and [for whose sake] they were willingly to break in pieces the idols of their fathers.

CHAPTER XXVI.-OF THE FACT THAT IDOLATRY HAS BEEN SUBVERTED BY THE NAME OF CHRIST, AND BY THE FAITH OF CHRISTIANS ACCORDING TO THE PROPHECIES.

40. For truly what is thus effected by Christians is not a thing which belongs only to
Christian times, but one which was predicted very long ago. Those very Jews who have
remained enemies to the name of Christ, and regarding whose destined perfidy these
prophetic writings have not been silent, do themselves possess and peruse the prophet who
Says: "O Lord my God, and my refuge in the day of evil, the Gentiles shall come unto Thee
from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have worshipped mendacious
idols, and there is no profit in them." Behold, that is now being done; behold, now the
Gentiles are coining from the ends of the earth to Christ, uttering things like these, and
breaking their idols! Of signal consequence, too, is this which God has done for His
Church in its world-wide extension, in that the Jewish nation, which has been deservedly
overthrown and scattered abroad throughout the lands, has been made to carry about with it
everywhere the records of our prophecies, so that it might not be possible to look upon
these predictions as concocted by ourselves; and thus the enemy of our faith has been made
a witness to our truth. How, then, can it be possible that the disciples of Christ have
taught what they have not learned from Christ, as those foolish men in their silly fancies
object, with the view of getting the superstitious worship of heathen gods and idols
subverted? Can it be said also that those prophecies which are still read in these days,
in the books of the enemies of Christ, were the inventions of the disciples of Christ?

41. Who, then, has effected the demolition of these systems but the God of Israel? For to
this people was the announcement made by those divine voices which were addressed to
Moses: "Hear, O Israel; the Lord thy God is one God. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any
graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is in the earth
beneath. And again, in order that this people might put an end to these things wherever it
received power to do so, this commandment was also laid upon the nation: "Thou shalt not
bow down to their gods, nor serve them; thou shalt not do after their works, but thou
shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. But who shall say that
Christ and Christians have no connection with Israel, seeing that Israel was the grandson
of Abraham, to whom first, as afterwards to his son Isaac, and then to his grandson Israel
himself, that promise was given, which I have already mentioned, namely: "In thy seed
shall all nations be blessed"? That prediction we see now in its fulfilment in Christ. For
it was of this line that the Virgin was born, concerning whom a prophet of the people of
Israel and of the God of Israel sang in these terms: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and
bear a son; and they shall call His name Emmanuel. For by interpretation, Emmanuel means,
"God with us.

This God of Israel, therefore, who has interdicted the worship of other gods, who has
interdicted the making of idols, who has commanded their destruction, who by His prophet
has predicted that the Gentiles from the ends of the earth would say, "Surely our fathers
have worshipped mendacious idols, in which there is no profit; this same God is He who, by
the name of Christ and by the faith of Christians, has ordered, promised, and exhibited
the overthrow of all these superstitions. In vain, therefore, do these unhappy men,
knowing that they have been prohibited from blaspheming the name of Christ, even by their
own gods, that is to say, by the demons who fear the name of Christ, seek to make it out,
that this kind of doctrine is something strange to Him, in the power of which the
Christians dispute against idols, and root out all those false religions, wherever they
have the opportunity.

CHAPTER XXVII.-AN ARGUMENT URGING IT UPON THE REMNANT OF IDOLATERS THAT THEY SHOULD AT LENGTH BECOME SERVANTS OF THIS TRUE GOD, WHO EVERYWHERE IS SUBVERTING IDOLS.

1 42. Let them now give their answer with respect to the God of Israel, to whom, as
teaching and enjoining such things, witness is borne not only by the books of the
Christians, but also by those of the Jews. Regarding Him, let them ask the counsel of
their own deities, who have prevented the blaspheming of Christ. Concerning the God of
Israel, let them give a contumelious response if they dare. But whom are they to consult?
or where are they to ask counsel now? Let them peruse the books of their own authorities.
If they consider the God of Israel to be Jupiter, as Varro has written (that I may speak
for the time being in accordance with their own way of thinking), why then do they not
believe that the idols are to be destroyed by Jupiter? If they deem Him to he Saturn, why
do they not worship Him? Or why do they not worship Him in that manner in which, by the
voice of those prophets through whom He has made good the things which He has foretold, He
has ordained His worship to be conducted? Why do they not believe that images are to be
destroyed by Him, and the worship of other gods forbidden?

2 If He is neither Jove nor Saturn (and surely, if He were one of these, He would not
speak out so mightily against the sacred rites of their Jove and Saturn), who then is this
God, who, with all their consideration for other gods, is the only Deity not worshipped by
them, and who, nevertheless, so manifestly brings it about that He shall Himself be the
sole object of worship, to the overthrow of all other gods, and to the humiliation of
everything proud and highly exalted, which has lifted itself up against Christ in behalf
of idols, persecuting and slaying Christians? But, in good truth, men are now asking into
what secret recesses these worshippers withdraw, when they are minded to offer sacrifice;
or into what regions of obscurity they thrust back these same gods of theirs, to prevent
their being discovered and broken in pieces by the Christians. Whence comes this mode of
dealing, if not from the fear of those laws and those rulers by whose instrumentality the
God of Israel discovers His power, and who are now made subject to the name of Christ. And
that it should be so He promised long ago, when He said by the prophet: "Yea, all kings of
the earth shall worship Him: all nations shall serve Him."

CHAPTER XXVIII.-OF THE PREDICTED REJECTION OF IDOLS.

43. It cannot be questioned that what was predicted at sundry times by His prophets is now
being realized,-namely, the announcement that He would disclaim His impious people (not,
indeed, the people as a whole, because even of the Israelites many have believed in
Christ; for His apostles themselves belonged to that nation), and would humble every proud
and injurious person, so that He should Himself alone be exalted, that is to say, alone be
manifested to men as lofty and mighty; until idols should be cast away by those who
believe, and be concealed by those who believe not; when the earth is broken by His fear,
that is to say, when the men of earth are subdued by fear, to wit, by fearing His law, or
the law of those who, being at once believers in His name and rulers among the nations,
shall interdict such sacrilegious practices.

44. For these things, which I have thus briefly stated in the way of introduction, and
with a view to their readier apprehension, are thus expressed by the prophet: And now, O
house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord. For He has disclaimed
His people the house of Israel, because the country was replenished, as from the
beginning, with their soothsayings as with those of strangers, and many strange children
were born to them. For their country was replenished with silver and gold, neither was
there any numbering of their treasures; their land also is full of horses, neither was
there any numbering of their chariots: their land also is full of the abominations of the
works of their own hands, and they have worshipped that which their own fingers have made.
And the mean man has bowed himself, and the great man has humbled himself; and I will not
forgive it them. And now enter ye into the rocks, and hide yourselves in the earth from
before the fear of the Lord, and from the majesty of His power, when He arises to crush
the earth: for the eyes of the Lord are lofty, and man is low; and the haughtiness of men
shall be humbled, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. For the day of the Lord
of Hosts shall be upon every one that is injurious and proud, and upon every one that is
lifted up and humbled, and they shall be brought low;

and upon every cedar of Lebanon of the high ones and the lifted up, and upon every tree of
the Lebanon of Bashan, and upon every mountain, and upon every high hill, and upon every
ship of the sea, and upon every spectacle of the beauty of ships. And the contumely of men
shall be humbled and shall fall, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day; and all
things made by hands they shall hide in dens, and in holes of the rocks, and in caves of
the earth, from before the fear of the Lord, and from the majesty of His power, when He
arises to crush the earth: for in that day aman shall cast away the abominations of gold
and silver, the vain and evil things which theymade for worship, in order to go into the
cleftsof the solid rock, and into the holes of the rocks, from before the fear of the
Lord, and from the majesty of His power, when He arises to break the earth in pieces.

CHAPTER XXIX.-OF THE QUESTION WHY THE HEATHEN SHOULD REFUSE TO WORSHIP THE GOD OF ISRAEL; EVEN ALTHOUGH THEY DEEM HIM TO BE ONLY THE PRESIDING DIVINITY OF THE ELEMENTS?

1 45. What do they say of this God of Sabaoth, which term, by interpretation, means the
God of powers or of armies, inasmuch as the powers and the armies of the angels serve Him?
What do they say of this God of Israel; for He is the God of that people from whom came
the seed wherein all the nations were to be blessed? Why is He the only deity excluded
from worship by those very persons who contend that all the gods ought to be worshipped?
Why do they refuse their belief to Him who both proves other gods to be false gods, and
also overthrows them? I have heard one of them declare that he had read, in some
philosopher or other, the statement that, from what the Jews did in their sacred
observances, he had come to know what God they worshipped. "He is the deity," said he,
"that presides over those elements of which this visible and material universe is
constructed; when in the Holy Scriptures of His prophets it is plainly shown that the
people of Israel were commanded to worship that God who made heaven and earth, and from
whom comes all true wisdom. But what need is there for further disputation on this
subject, seeing that it is quite sufficient for my present purpose to point out how they
entertain any kind of presumptuous opinions regarding that God whom yet they cannot deny
to be a God?

2 If, indeed, He is the deity that presides over the elements of which this world
consists, why is He not worshipped in preference to Neptune, who presides over the sea
only? Why not, again, in preference to Silvanus, who presides over the fields and woods
only? Why not in preference to the Sun, who presides over the day only, or who also rules
over the entire heat of heaven? Why not in preference to the Moon, who presides over the
night only, or who also shines pre-eminent for power over moisture? Why not in preference
to Juno, who is supposed to hold possession of the air only? For certainly those deities,
whoever they may be, who preside over the parts, must necessarily be under that Deity who
wields the presidency over all the elements, and over the entire universe. But this Deity
prohibits the worship of all those deities. Why, then, is it that these men, in opposition
to the injunction of One greater than those deities, not only choose to worship them, but
also decline, for their sakes, to worship Him? Not yet have they discovered any constant
and intelligible judgment to pronounce on this God of Israel; neither will they ever
discover any such judgment, until they find out that He alone is the true God, by whom all
things were created.


THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS
==========================

THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS continued

CHAPTER XXX.-OF THE FACT THAT, AS THE PROPHECIES HAVE BEEN FULFILLED, THE GOD OF ISRAEL HAS NOW BEEN MADE KNOWN EVERYWHERE.

1 46. Thus it was with a certain person named Lucan, one of their great declaimers in
verse. For a long time, as I believe, he endeavored to find out, by his own cogitations,
or by the perusal of the books of his own fellow-countrymen, who the God of the Jews was;
and failing to prosecute his inquiry in the way of piety, he did not succeed. Yet he chose
rather to speak of Him as the uncertain God whom he did not find out, than absolutely to
deny the title of God to that Deity of whose existence he perceived proofs so great. For
he says: "And Judaea, devoted to the worship f an uncertain God." -Lucan, Book ii. towards
the end. 2 And as yet this God, the holy and true God of Israel, had not done by the name
of Christ among all nations works so great as those which have been wrought after Lucan's
times up to our own day. But now who is so obdurate as not to be moved, who so dull as not
to be inflamed, seeing that the saying of Scripture is fulfilled, "For there is not one
that is hid from the heat thereof; and seeing also that those other things which were
predicted so long time ago in this same Psalm from which I have cited one little verse,
are now set forth in their accomplishment in the clearest light? For under this term of
the "heavens" the apostles of Jesus Christ were denoted, because God was to preside in
them with a view to the publishing of the gospel. Now, therefore, the heavens have
declared the glory of God, and the firmament has proclaimed the works of His hands. Day
unto day has given forth speech, and night unto night has shown knowledge. Now there is no
speech or language where their voices are not heard. Their sound has gone out into all the
earth, and their words to the end of the world. Now hath He set His tabernacle in the sun,
that is, in manifestation; which tabernacle is His Church. For in order to do so (as the
words proceed in the passage) He came forth from His chamber like a bridegroom;

3 that is to say, the Word, wedded with the flesh of man, came forth from the Virgin's
womb. Now has He rejoiced as a strong man, and has run His race. Now has His going forth
been made from the height of heaven, and His return even to the height of heaven. And
accordingly, with the completest propriety, there follows upon this the verse which I have
already mentioned: "And there is not one that is hid from the heat thereof [or, His heat].
And still these men make choice of their little, weak, prating objections, which are like
stubble to be reduced to ashes in that fire, rather than like gold to be purged of its
dross by it; while at once the fallacious monuments of their false gods have been brought
to nought, and the veracious promises of that uncertain God have been proved to be sure.

CHAPTER XXXI.-THE FULFILMENT OF THE PROPHECIES CONCERNING CHRIST.

47. Wherefore let those evil applauders of Christ, who refuse to become Christians, desist
from making the allegation that Christ did not teach that their gods were to be abandoned,
and their images broken in pieces. For the God of Israel, regarding whom it was declared
aforetime that He should be called the God of the whole earth, is now indeed actually
called the God of the whole earth. By the mouth of His prophets He predicted that this
would come to pass, and by Christ He did bring it eventually to pass at the fit time.
Assuredly, if the God of Israel is now named the God of the whole earth, what He has
commanded must needs be made good; for He who has given the commandment is now well known.
But, further, that He is made known by Christ and in Christ, in order that His Church may
be extended throughout the world, and that by its instrumentality the God of Israel may be
named the God of the whole earth, those who please may read a little earlier in the same
prophet. That paragraph may also be cited by me. It is not so long as to make it requisite
for us to pass it by. Here there is much said about the presence, the humility, and the
passion of Christ, and about the body of which He is the Head, that is, His Church, where
it is called barren, like one that did not bear.

For during many years the Church, which was destined to subsist among all the nations with
its children, that is, with its saints, was not apparent, as Christ remained yet
unannounced by the evangelists to those to whom He had not been declared by the prophets.
Again, it is said that there shall be more children for her who is forsaken than for her
who has a husband, under which name of a husband the Law was signified, or the King whom
the people of Israel first received. For neither had the Gentiles received the Law at the
period at which the prophet spake; nor had the King of Christians yet appeared to the
nations, although from these Gentile nations a much more fruitful and numerous multitude
of saints has now proceeded. It is in this manner, therefore, that Isaiah speaks,
commencing with the humility of Christ, and turning afterwards to an address to the
Church, on to that verse which we have already instanced, where he says: And He who
brought thee out, the same God of Israel, shall be called the God of the whole earth.
Behold, says he, my Servant shall deal prudently, and shall be exalted and honoured
exceedingly. As many shall be astonied at Thee; so shall Thy marred visage, nevertheless,
be seen by all, and Thine honour by men. For so shall many nations be astonied at Him, and
the kings shall shut their mouths. For they shall see to whom it has not been told of Him;

and those who have not heard shall understand. O Lord, who hath believed our report, and
to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have proclaimed before Him as a servant, as a
root in a thirsty soil; He hath no form nor comeliness. And we have seen Him, and He had
neither beauty nor seemliness; but His countenance is despised, and His state rejected by
all men: a man stricken, and acquainted with the bearing of infirmities; on account of
which His face is turned aside, injured, and little esteemed. He bears our infirmities,
and is in sorrows for us. And we did esteem Him to be in sorrows, and to be stricken and
in punishment. But He was wounded for our transgressions, and He was enfeebled for our
iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are
healed. All we, like sheep, have gone astray, and the Lord hath given Him up for our sins.
And whereas He was evil entreated, He opened not His mouth; He was brought as a sheep to
the slaughter; and as a lamb before him who shears it is dumb, so He opened not His mouth.
In humility was His judgment taken. Who shall declare His generation? For His life shall
be cut off out of the land; by the iniquities of my people is He led to death. Therefore
shall I give the wicked for His sepulture, and the rich on account of His death;

because He did no iniquity, neither was any deceit in His mouth. The Lord is pleased to
clear Him in regard to His stroke. If ye shall give your soul for your offences, ye shall
see the seed of the longest life. And the Lord is pleased to take away His soul from
sorrows, to show Him the light, and to set Him forth in sight, and to justify the
righteous One who serves many well; and He shall bear their sins. Therefore shall He have
many for His inheritance, and shall divide the spoils of the strong; for which reason His
soul was delivered over to death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bare
the sins of many, and was delivered for their iniquities. Rejoice, O barren, thou that
dost not bear: exult, and cry aloud, thou that dost not travail with child; for more are
the children of the desolate than those of her who has a husband. For the Lord hath said,
Enlarge the place of thy tent, and fix thy courts; there is no reason why thou shouldst
spare: lengthen thy cords, and strengthen Thy stakes firmly. Yea, again and again break
thou forth on the right hand and on the left. For thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and
thou shall inhabit the cities which were desolate. There is nothing for thee to fear. For
thou shall prevail, and be not thou confounded as if thou shall be put to shame. For thou
shall forget thy confusion for ever:

thou shall not remember the shame of thy widowhood, since I who made thee am the Lord; the
Lord is His name: and He who brought thee out, the very God of Israel, shall be called the
God of the whole earth. 48. What can be said in opposition to this evidence, and this
expression of things both foretold and fulfilled? If they suppose that His disciples have
given a false testimony on the subject of the divinity of Christ, will they also doubt the
passion of Christ? No: they are not accustomed to believe that He rose from the dead; but,
at the same time, they are quite ready to believe that He suffered all that men are wont
to suffer, because they wish Him to be held to be a man and nothing more. According to
this, then, He was led like a sheep to the slaughter; He was numbered with the
transgressors; He was wounded for our sins; by His stripes were we healed; His face was
marred, and little esteemed, and smitten with the palms, and defiled with the spittle; His
position was disfigured on the cross; He was led to death by the iniquities of the people
Israel; He is the man who had no form nor comeliness when He was buffeted with the fists,
when He was crowned with the thorns, when He was derided as He hung (upon the tree); He is
the than who, as the lamb is dumb before its shearer, opened not His mouth, when it was
said to Him by those who mocked Him, "Prophesy to us, thou Christ. Now, however, He is
exalted verily, now He is honoured exceedingly; truly many nations are now astonied at
Him.

Now the kings have shut their mouth, by which they were wont to promulgate the most
ruthless laws against the Christians. Truly those now see to whom it was not told of Him,
and those who have not heard understand. For those Gentile nations to whom the prophets
made no announcement, do now rather see for themselves how true these things are which
were of old reported by the prophets; and those who have not heard Isaiah speak in his own
proper person, now understand from his writings the things which he spoke concerning Him.
For even in the said nation of the Jews, who believed the report of the prophets, or to
whom was that arm of the Lord revealed, which is this very Christ who was announced by
them, seeing that by their own hands they perpetrated those crimes against Christ, the
commission of which had been predicted by the prophets whom they possessed? But now,
indeed, He possesses many by inheritance; and He divides the spoils of the strong, since
the devil and the demons have now been cast out and given up, and the possessions once
held by them have been distributed by Him among the fabrics of His churches and for other
necessary services.

CHAPTER XXXII.-A STATEMENT IN VINDICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLES AS OPPOSED TO IDOLATRY, IN THE WORDS OF THE PROPHECIES.

49. What, then, do these men, who are at once the perverse applauders of Christ and the
slanderers of Christians, say to these facts? Can it be that Christ, by the use of magical
arts, caused those predictions to be uttered so long ago by the prophets? or have His
disciples invented them? Is it thus that the Church, in her extension among the Gentile
nations, though once barren, has been made to rejoice now in the possession of more
children than that synagogue had which, in its Law or its King, had received, as it were,
a husband? or is it thus that this Church has been led to enlarge the place of her tent,
and to occupy all nations and tongues, so that now she lengthens her cords beyond the
limits to which the rights of the empire of Rome extend, yea, even on to the territories
of the Persians and the Indians and other barbarous nations? or that, on the right hand by
means of true Christians, and on the left hand by means of pretended Christians, His name
is being made known among such a multitude of peoples? or that His seed is made to inherit
the Gentiles, so as now to inhabit cities which had been left desolate of the true worship
of God and the true religion?

or that His Church has been so little daunted by the threats and furies of men, even at
times when she has been covered with the blood of martyrs, like one clad in purple array,
that she has prevailed over persecutors at once so numerous, so violent, and so powerful?
or that she has not been confounded, like one put to shame, when it was a great crime to
be or to become a Christian? or that she is made to forget her confusion for ever,
because, where sin had abounded, grace did much more abound? or that she is taught not to
remember the shame of her widowhood, because only for a little was she forsaken and
subjected to opprobrium, while now she shines forth once more with such eminent glory? or,
in fine, is it only a fiction concocted by Christ's disciples, that the Lord who made her,
and brought her forth from the denomination of the devil and the demons, the very God of
Israel is now called the God of the whole earth; all which, nevertheless, the prophets,
whose books are now in the hands of the enemies of Christ, foretold so long before Christ
became the Son of man?

50. From this, therefore, let them understand that the matter is not left obscure or
doubtful even to the slowest and dullest minds: from this, I say, let these perverse
applauders of Christ and execrators of the Christian religion understand that the
disciples of Christ have learned and taught, in opposition to their gods, precisely what
the doctrine of Christ contains. For the God of Israel is found to have enjoined in the
books of the prophets that all these objects which those men are minded to worship should
be held in abomination and be destroyed, while He Himself is now named the God of the
whole earth, through the instrumentality of Christ and the Church of Christ, exactly as He
promised so long time ago. For if, indeed, in their marvellous folly, they fancy that
Christ worshipped their gods, and that it was only through them that He had power to do
things so great as these, we may well ask whether the God of Israel also worshipped their
gods, who has now fulfilled by Christ what tie promised with respect to the extension of
His own worship through all the nations, and with respect to the detestationand subversion
of those other deities? Where are their gods? Where are the vaticinations of their
fanatics, and the divinations of their prophets? Where are the auguries, or the auspices,
or the soothsayings, or the oracles of demons?

Why is it that, out of the ancient books which constitute the records of this type of
religion, nothing in the form either of admonition or of prediction is advanced to oppose
the Christian faith, or to controvert the truth of those prophets of ours, who have now
come to be so well understood among all nations? "We have offended our gods," they say in
reply, "and they have deserted us for that reason: that explains it also why the
Christians have prevailed against us, and why the bliss of human life, exhausted and
impaired, goes to wreck among us. We challenge them, however, to take the books of their
own seers, and read out to us any statement purporting that the kind of issue which has
come upon them would be brought on them by the Christians: nay, we challenge them to
recite any passages in which, if not Christ (for they wish to make Him out to have been a
worshipper of their own gods), at least this God of Israel, who is allowed to be the
subverter of other deities, is held up as a deity destined to be rejected and worthy of
detestation. But never will they produce any such passage, unless, perchance, it be some
fabrication of their own. And if ever they do cite any such statement, the fact that it is
but a fiction of their own will betray itself in the unnoticeable manner in which a matter
of so grave importance is found adduced;

whereas, in good truth, before what has been predicted should have come to pass, it
behoved to have been proclaimed in the temples of the gods of all nations, with a view to
the timeous preparation and warning of aIl who are now minded to be Christians.

CHAPTER XXXIII.-A STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THOSE WHO MAKE THE COMPLAINT THAT THE BLISS OF HUMAN LIFE HAS BEEN IMPAIRED BY THE ENTRANCE OF CHRISTIAN TIMES.

1 51. Finally, as to the complaint which they make with respect to the impairing of the
bliss of human life by the entrance of Christian times, if they only peruse the books of
their own philosophers, who reprehend those very things which are now being taken out of
their way in spite of all their unwillingness and murmuring, they will indeed find that
great praise is due to the times of Christ. For what diminution is made in their
happiness, unless it be in what they most basely and luxuriously abused, to the great
injury of their Creator? or unless, perchance, it be the case that evil times originate in
such circumstances as these, in which throughout almost alI states the theatres are
failing, and with them, too, the dens of vice and the public profession of iniquity: yea,
altogether the forums and cities in which the demons used to be worshipped are falling.
How comes it, then, that they are falling, unless it be in consequence of the failure of
those very things, in the lustful and sacrilegious use of which they were constructed? Did
not their own Cicero, when commending a certain actor of the name of Roscius, call him a
man so clever as to be the only one worthy enough to make it due for him to come upon the
stage; and yet, again, so good a man as to be the only one so worthy as to make it due for
him not to approach it?

2 What else did he disclose with such remarkable clearness by this saying, but the fact
that the stage was so base there, that a person was under the greater obligation not to
connect himself with it, in proportion as he was a better man than most? And vet their
gods were pleased with such things of shame as he deemed fit only to be removed to a
distance from good men. But we have also an open confession of the same Cicero, where he
says that he had to appease Flora, the mother of sports, by frequent celebration; in which
sports such an excess of vice is wont to be exhibited, that, in comparison with them,
others are respectable, from engaging in which, nevertheless, good men are prohibited. Who
is this mother Flora, and what manner of goddess is she, who is thus conciliated and
propitiated by a practice of vice indulged in with more than usual frequency and with
looser reins? How much more honourable now was it for a Roscius to step upon the stage,
than for a Cicero to worship a goddess of this kind! If the gods of the Gentile nations
are offended because the supplies are lessened which are instituted for the purpose of
such celebrations, it is apparent of what character those must be who are delighted with
such things. But if, on the other hand, the gods themselves in their wrath diminish these
supplies, their anger yields us better services than their placability.

3 Wherefore let these men either confute their own philosophers, who have reprehended the
same practices on the side of wanton men; or else let them break in pieces those gods of
theirs who have made such demands upon their worshippers, if indeed they still find any
such deities either to break in pieces or to conceal. But let them cease from their
blasphemous habit of charging Christian times with the failure of their true prosperity,-a
prosperity, indeed, so used by them that they were sinking into all that is base and
hurtful,-lest thereby they be only putting us all the more emphatically in mind of reasons
for the ampler praise of the power of Christ.

CHAPTER XXXIV.-EPILOGUE TO THE PRECEDING.

1 52. Much more might I say on this subject, were it not that the requirements of the task
which I have undertaken compel me to conclude this book, and revert to the object
originally proposed. When, indeed, I took it in hand to solve those problems of the
Gospels which meet us where the four evangelists, as it seems to certain critics, fail to
harmonize with each other, by setting forth to the best of my ability the particular
designs which they severally have in view, I was met first by the necessity of discussing
a question which some are accustomed to bring before us,-the question, namely, as to the
reason why we cannot produce any writings composed by Christ Himself. For their aim is to
get Him credited with the writing of some other composition, I know not of what sort,
which may be suitable to their inclinations, and with having indulged in no sentiments of
antagonism to their gods, but rather with having paid respect to them in a kind of magical
worship; and their wish is also to get it believed that His disciples not only gave a
false account of Him when they declared Him to be the God by whom all things were made,
while He was really nothing more than a man, although certainly a man of the most exalted
wisdom, but also that they taught with regard to these gods of theirs something different
from what they had themselves learned from Him.

2 This is how it happens that we have been engaged preferentially in pressing them with
arguments concerning the God of Israel, who is now worshipped by all nations through the
medium of the Church of the Christians, who is also subverting their sacrilegious vanities
the whole world over, exactly as He announced by the mouth of the prophets so long ago,
and who has now fulfilled those predictions by the name of Christ, in whom He had promised
that all nations should be blessed. And from all this they ought to understand that Christ
could neither have known nor taught anything else with regard to their gods than what was
enjoined and foretold by the God of Israel through the agency of these prophets of His by
whom He promised, and ultimately sent, this very Christ, in whose name, according to the
promise given to the fathers, when all nations were pronounced blessed, it has come to
pass that this same God of Israel should be called the God of the whole earth. By this,
too, they ought to see that His disciples did not depart from the doctrine of their Master
when they forbade the worship of the gods of the Gentiles, with the view of preventing us
from addressing our supplications to insensate images, or from having fellowship with
demons, or from serving the creature rather than the Creator with the homage of religious
worship.

CHAPTER XXXV.-OF THE FACT THAT THE MYSTERY OF A MEDIATOR WAS MADE KNOWN TO THOSE WHO LIVED IN ANCIENT TIMES BY THE AGENCY OF PROPHECY, AS IT IS NOW DECLARED TO US IN THE GOSPEL.

53. Wherefore, seeing that Christ Himself is that Wisdom of God by whom all things were
created, and considering that no rational intelligences, whether of angels or of men,
receive wisdom except by participation in this Wisdom wherewith we are united by that Holy
Spirit through whom charity is shed abroad in our hearts (which Trinity at the same time
constitutes one God), Divine Providence, having respect to the interests of mortal men
whose time-bound life was held engaged in things which rise into being and die, decreed
that this same Wisdom of God, assuming into the unity of His person the (nature of) man,
in which He might be born according to the conditions of time, and live and die and rise
again, should utter and perform and bear and sustain things congruous to our salvation;
and thus, in exemplary fashion, show at once to men on earth the way for a return to
heaven, and to those angels who are above us, the way to retain their position in heaven.
For unless, also, in the nature of the reasonable soul, and under the conditions of an
existence in time, something came newly into being,-that is to say, unless that began to
be which previously was not,-there could never be any passing from a life of utter
corruption and folly into one of wisdom and true goodness.

And thus, as truth in the contemplative lives in the enjoyment of things eternal, while
faith in the believing is what is due to things which are made, man is purified through
that faith which is conversant with temporal things, in order to his being made capable of
receiving the truth of things eternal. For one of their noblest intellects, the
philosopher Plato, in the treatise which is named the Timaeus, speaks also to this effect:
"As eternity is to that which is made, so truth to faith. Those two belong to the things
above,-namely, eternity and truth; these two belong to the things below,-namely, that
which is made and faith. In order, therefore, that we may be called off from the lowest
objects, and led up again to the highest, and in order also that what is made may attain
to the eternal, we must come through faith to truth. And because all contraries are
reduced to unity by some middle factor, and because also the iniquity of time alienated us
from the righteousness of eternity, there was need of some mediatorial righteousness of a
temporal nature; which mediatizing factor might be temporal on the side of those lowest
objects, but also righteous on the side of these highest, and thus, by adapting itself to
the former without cutting itself off from the latter, might bring back those lowest
objects to the highest.

Accordingly, Christ was named the Mediator between God and men, who stood between the
immortal God and mortal man, as being Himself both God and man, who reconciled man to God,
who continued to be what He (formerly) was, but was made also what He (formerly) was not.
And the same Person is for us at once the (centre of the) said faith in things that are
made, and the truth in things eternal. 54. This great and unutterable mystery, this
kingdom and priesthood, was revealed by prophecy to the men of ancient time, and is now
preached by the gospel to their descendants. For it behoved that, at some period or other,
that should be made good among all nations which for a long time had been promised through
the medium of a single nation. Accordingly, He who sent the prophets before His own.
descent also despatched the apostles after His ascension. Moreover, in virtue of the man
assumed by Him, He stands to all His disciples in the relation of the head to the members
of His body. Therefore, when those disciples have written matters which He declared and
spake to them, it ought not by any means to be said that He has written nothing Himself;
since the truth is, that His members have accomplished only what they became acquainted
with by the repeated statements of the Head. For all that He was minded to give for our
perusal on the subject of His own doings and sayings, He commanded to be written by those
disciples, whom He thus used as if they were His own hands.

Whoever apprehends this correspondence of unity and this concordant service of the
members, all in harmony in the discharge of diverse offices under the Head, will receive
the account which he gets in the Gospel through the narratives constructed by the
disciples, in the same kind of spirit in which he might look upon the actual hand of the
Lord Himself, which He bore in that body which was made His own, were he to see it engaged
in the act of writing. For this reason let us now rather proceed to examine into the real
character of those passages in which these critics suppose the evangelists to have given
contradictory accounts (a thing which only those who fail to understand the matter aright
can fancy to be the case); so that, when these problems are solved, it may also be made
apparent that the members in that body have preserved a befitting harmony in the unity of
the body itself, not only by identity in sentiment, but also by constructing records
consonant with that identity.

INTRODUCTION

1 In this book Augustin undertakes an orderly examination of the Gospel according to
Matthew, on to the narrative of the Supper, and institutes a comparison between it and the
other gospels by Mark, Luke, and John, with the view of demonstrating a complete harmony
between the four evangelists throughout all these sections.

The Prologue.

2 1. Whereas, in a discourse of no small length and of imperative importance, which we
have finished within the compass of one book, we have refuted the folly of those who think
that the disciples who have given us these Gospel histories deserve only to be
disparagingly handled, for the express reason that no writings are produced by us with the
claim of being compositions which have proceeded immediately from the hand of that Christ
whom they refuse indeed to worship as God, but whom, nevertheless, they do not hesitate to
pronounce worthy to be honoured as a man far surpassing all other men in wisdom; and as,
further, we have confuted those who strive to make Him out to have written in a strain
suiting their perverted inclinations, but not in terms calculated, by their perusal and
acceptance, to set men right, or to turn them from their perverse ways, let us now look
into the accounts which the four evangelists have given us of Christ, with the view of
seeing how self-consistent they are, and how truly in harmony with each other. And let us
do so in the hope that no offence, even of the smallest order may be felt in this line of
things in the Christian faith by those who exhibit more curiosity than capacity, in so far
as they think that a study of the evangelical books, conducted not in the way of a merely
cursory perusal, but in the form of a more than ordinarily careful investigation, has
disclosed to them certain matters of an inapposite and contradictory nature, and in so far
as their notion is, that these things are to be held up as objections in the spirit of
contention, rather than pondered in the spirit of consideration.

CHAPTER I.-A STATEMENT OF THE REASON WHY THE ENUMERATION OF THE ANCESTORS OF CHRIST IS CARRIED DOWN TO JOSEPH, WHILE CHRIST WAS NOT BORN OF THAT MAN'S SEED, BUT OF THE VIRGIN MARY.

2. The evangelist Matthew has commenced his narrative in these terms: "The book of the
generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. By this exordium he
shows with sufficient clearness that his undertaking is to give an account of the
generation of Christ according to the flesh. For, according to this, Christ is the Son of
man, - a title which He also gives very frequently to Himself, thereby commending to our
notice what in His compassion He has condescended to be on our behalf. For that heavenly
and eternal generation, in virtue of which He is the only-begotten Son of God, before
every creature, because all things were made by Him, is so ineffable, that it is of it
that the word of the prophet must be understood when he says, "Who shall declare His
generation? Matthew therefore traces out the human generation of Christ, mentioning His
ancestors from Abraham downwards, and carrying them on to Joseph the husband of Mary, of
whom Jesus was born. For it was not held allowable to consider him dissociated from the
married estate which was entered into with Mary, on the ground that she gave birth to
Christ, not as the wedded wife of Joseph, but as a virgin.

For by this example an illustrious recommendation is made to faithful married persons of
the principle, that even when by common consent they maintain their continence, the
relation can still remain, and can still be called one of wedlock, inasmuch as, although
there is no connection between the sexes of the body, there is the keeping of the
affections of the mind; particularly so for this reason, that in their case we see how the
birth of a son was a possibility apart from anything of that carnal intercourse which is
to be practised with the purpose of the procreation of children only. Moreover, the mere
fact that he had not begotten Him by act of his own, was no sufficient reason why Joseph
should not be called the father of Christ; for indeed he could be in all propriety the
father of one whom he had not begotten by his own wife, but had adopted from some other
person.

3. Christ, it is true, was also supposed to be the son of Joseph in another way, as if He
had been born simply of that man's seed. But this supposition was entertained by persons
whose notice the virginity of Mary escaped. For Luke says: "And Jesus Himself began to be
about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph." This Luke, however,
instead of naming Mary His only parent, had not the slightest hesitation in also speaking
of both parties as His parents, when he says: "And the boy grew and waxed strong, filled
with wisdom, and the grace of God was in Him: and His parents went to Jerusalem every year
at the feast of the passover." But lest any one may fancy that by the "parents" here are
rather to be understood the blood relations of Mary along with the mother herself, what
shall be said to that preceding word of the same Luke, namely, "And His father and mother
marvelled at those things which were spoken of Him"? Since, then, he also makes the
statement that Christ was born, not in consequence of Joseph's connection with the mother,
but simply of Mary the virgin, how can he call him His father, unless it be that we are to
understand him to have been truly the husband of Mary, without the intercourse of the
flesh indeed, but in virtue of the real union of marriage; and thus also to have been in a
much closer relation the father of Christ, in so far as He was born of his wife, than
would have been the case had He been only adopted from some other party? And this makes it
clear that the clause,"as was supposed," is inserted with a view to those who are of
opinion that He was begotten by Joseph in the same way as other men are begotten.

CHAPTER II.-AN EXPLANATION OF THE SENSE IN WHICH CHRIST IS THE SON OF DAVID, ALTHOUGH HE WAS NOT BEGOTTEN IN THE WAY OF ORDINARY GENERATION BY JOSEPH THE SON OF DAVID.

4. Thus, too, even if one were able to demonstrate that no descent, according to the laws
of blood, could be claimed from David for Mary, we should have warrant enough to hold
Christ to be the son of David, on the ground of that same mode of reckoning by which also
Joseph is called His father. But seeing that the Apostle Paul unmistakably tells us that
"Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh," how much more ought we to accept
without any hesitation the position that Mary herself also was descended in some way,
according to the laws of blood, from the lineage of David? Moreover, since this woman's
connection with the priestly family also is a matter not left in absolute obscurity,
inasmuch as Luke inserts the statement that Elisabeth, whom he records to be of the
daughters of Aaron, was her cousin, we ought most firmly to hold by the fact that the
flesh of Christ sprang from both lines; to wit, from the line of the kings, and from that
of the priests, in the case of which persons there was also instituted a certain mystical
unction which was symbolically expressive among this people of the Hebrews. In other
words, there was a chrism; which term makes the import of the name of Christ patent, and
presents it as something indicated so long time ago by an intimation so very intelligible.

CHAPTER III.-A STATEMENT OF THE REASON WHY MATTHEW ENUMERATES ONE SUCCESSION OF ANCESTORS FOR CHRIST, AND LUKE ANOTHER.

5. Furthermore, as to those critics who find a difficulty in the circumstance that Matthew
enumerates one series of ancestors, beginning With David and travelling downwards to
Joseph, while Luke specifies a different succession, tracing it from Joseph upwards as far
as to David, they might easily perceive that Joseph may have had two fathers,-namely, one
by whom he was begotten, and a second by whom he may have been adopted. For it was an
ancient custom also among that people to adopt children with the view of making sons for
themselves of those whom they had not begotten. For, leaving out of sight the fact that
Pharaoh's daughter adopted Moses (as she was a foreigner), Jacob himself adopted his own
grandsons, the sons of Joseph, in these very intelligible terms: "Now, therefore, thy two
sons which were born unto thee before I came unto thee, are mine: Ephraim and Manasseh
shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon: and thy issue which thou begettest after them shall
be thine. Whence also it came to pass that there were twelve tribes of Israel, although
the tribe of Levi was omitted, which did service in the temple; for along with that one
the whole number was thirteen, the sons of Jacob themselves being twelve.

Thus, too, we can understand how Luke, in the genealogy contained in his Gospel, has named
a father for Joseph, not in the person of the father by whom he was begotten, but in that
of the father by whom he was adopted, tracing the list of the progenitors upwards until
David is reached. For, seeing that there is a necessity, as both evangelists give a true
narrative,-to wit, both Matthew and Luke,-that one of them should hold by the line of the
father who begat Joseph, and the other by the line of the father who adopted him, whom
should we suppose more likely to have preserved the lineage of the adopting father, than
that evangelist who has declined to speak of Joseph as begotten by the person whose son he
has nevertheless reported him to be? For it is more appropriate that one should have been
called the son of the man by whom he was adopted, than that he should be said to have been
begotten by the man of whose flesh he was not descended. Now when Matthew, accordingly,
used the phrases, "Abraham begat Isaac," "Isaac begat Jacob," and so on, keeping steadily
by the term "begat," until he said at the close, "and Jacob begat Joseph," he gave us to
know with sufficient clearness, that he had traced out the order of ancestors on to that
father by whom Joseph was not adopted, but begotten.

6. But even although Luke had said that Joseph was begotten by Heli, that expression ought
not to disturb us to such an extent as to lead us to believe anything else than that by
the one evangelist the father begetting was mentioned, and by the other the father
adopting. For there is nothing absurd in saying that a person has begotten, not after the
flesh, it may be, but in love, one whom he has adopted as a son. Those of us, to wit, to
whom God has given power to become His sons, He did not beget of His own nature and
substance, as was the case with His only Son; but He did indeed adopt us in His love. And
this phrase the apostle is seen repeatedly to employ just in order to distinguish from us
the only-begotten Son who is before every creature, by whom all things were made, who
alone is begotten of the substance of the Father; who, in accordance with the equality of
divinity, is absolutely what the Father is, and who is declared to have been sent with the
view of assuming to Himself the flesh proper to that race to which we too belong according
to our nature, in order that by His participation in our mortality, through His love for
us, He might make us partakers of His own divinity in the way of adoption. For the apostle
speaks thus:

"But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made
under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption
of sons. And vet we are also said to be born of God,-that is to say, in so far as we, who
already were men, have received power to be made the sons of God,-to be made such,
moreover, by grace, and not by nature. For if we were sons by nature, we never could have
been aught else. But when John said, "To them gave He power to become the sons of God,
even to them that believe on His name," he proceeded at once to add these words, "which
were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Thus, of the same persons he said, first, that having received power they became the sons
of God, which is what is meant by that adoption which Paul mentions; and secondly, that
they were born of God. And in order the more plainly to show by what grace this is
effected, he continued thus: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," -as if he
meant to say, What wonder is it that those should have been made sons of God, although
they were flesh, on whose behalf the only Son was made flesh, although He was the Word?

Howbeit there is this vast difference between the two cases, that when we are made the
sons of God we are changed for the better; but when the Son of God was made the son of
man, He was not indeed changed into the worse, but He did certainly assume to Himself what
was below Him. James also speaks to this effect: "Of His own will begat He us by the word
of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of His creatures. And to preclude our
supposing, as it might appear from the use of this term "begat," that we are made what He
is Himself, he here points out very plainly, that what is conceded to us in virtue of this
adoption, is a kind of headship among the creatures. 7. It would be no departure from the
truth, therefore, even had Luke said that Joseph was begotten by the person by whom he was
really adopted. Even in that way he did in fact beget him, not indeed to be a man, but
certainly to be a son; just as God has begotten us to be His sons, whom He had previously
made to the effect of being men. But He begat only one to be not simply the Son, which the
Father is not, but also God, which the Father in like manner is. At the same time, it is
evident that if Luke had employed that phraseology, it would be altogether a matter of
dubiety as to which of the two writers mentioned the father adopting, and which the father
begetting of his own flesh; just as, on the other hand, although neither of them had used
the word "begat," and although the former evangelist had called him the son of the one
person, and the latter the son of the other, it would nevertheless be doubtful which of
them named the father by whom he was begotten, and which the father by whom he was
adopted. As the case stands now, however, -the one evangelist saying that "Jacob begat
Joseph," and the other speaking of "Joseph who was the son of Heli,"-by the very
distinction which they have made between the expressions, they have elegantly indicated
the different objects which they have taken in hand.

But surely it might easily suggest itself, as I have said, to a man of piety decided
enough to make him consider it right to seek some worthier explanation than that of simply
crediting the evangelist with stating what is false; it might, I repeat, readily suggest
itself to such aperson to examine what reasons there might befor one man being (supposed)
capable of havingtwo fathers This, indeed, might have suggested itself even to those
detractors, were it not that they preferred contention to consideration.

CHAPTER IV.-OF THE REASON WHY FORTY GENERATIONS (NOT INCLUDING CHRIST HIMSELF) ARE FOUND IN MATTHEW, ALTHOUGH HE DIVIDES THEM INTO THREE SUCCESSIONS OF FOURTEEN EACH.

8. The matter next to be introduced, moreover, is one requiring, in order to its right
apprehension and contemplation, a reader of the greatest attention and carefulness. For it
has been acutely observed that Matthew, who had proposed to himself the task of commending
the kingly character in Christ, named, exclusive of Christ Himself, forty men in the
series of generations. Now this number denotes the period in which, in this age and on
this earth, it behoves us to be ruled by Christ in accordance with that painful discipline
whereby "God scourgeth," as it is written, "every son that He receiveth;" and of which
also an apostle says that "we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of
God." This discipline is also signified by that rod of iron, concerning which we read this
statement in a Psalm: "Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron;" which words occur after
the saying, "Yet I am set king by Him upon His holy hill of Zion!" For the good, too, are
ruled with a rod of iron, as it is said of them: "The time is come that judgment should
begin at the house of God; and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be to them that
obey not the gospel of God? and if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the
ungodly and the sinner appear?" To the same persons the sentence that follows also
applies: "Thou shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." For the good, indeed,
are ruled by this discipline, while the wicked are crushed by it. And these two different
classes of persons are mentioned here as if they were the same, on account of the identity
of the signs employed in reference to the wicked in common with the good.

9. That this number, then, is a sign of that laborious period in which, under the
discipline of Christ the King, we have to fight against the devil, is also indicated by
the fact that both the law and the prophets solemnized a fast of forty days,-that is to
say, a humbling of the soul,-in the person of Moses and Elias, who fasted each for a space
of forty days. And what else does the Gospel narrative shadow forth under the fast of the
Lord Himself, during which forty days He was also tempted of the devil, than that
condition of temptation which appertains to us through all the space of this age, and
which He bore in the flesh which He condescended to take to Himself from our mortality?
After the resurrection also, it was His will to remain with His disciples on the earth not
longer than forty days, continuing to mingle for that space of time with this life of
theirs in the way of human intercourse, and partaking along with them of the food needful
for mortal men, although He Himself was to die no more; and all this was done with the
view of signifying to them through these forty days, that although His presence should be
hidden from their eyes, He would yet fulfil what He promised when He said, "Lo, I am with
you, even to the end of the world.

And in explanation of the circumstance that this particular number should denote this
temporal and earthly life, what suggests itself most immediately in the meantime, although
there may be another and subtler method of accounting for it, is the consideration that
the seasons of the years also revolve in four successive alternations, and that the world
itself has its bounds determined by four divisions, which Scripture sometimes designates
by the names of the winds,-East and West, Aquilo [or North] and Meridian [or South]. But
the number forty is equivalent to four times ten. Furthermore, the number ten itself is
made up by adding the several numbers in succession from one up to four together. 10. In
this way, then, as Matthew undertook the task of presenting the record of Christ as the
King who came into this world, and into this earthly and mortal life of men, for the
purpose of exercising rule over us who have to struggle with temptation, he began with
Abraham, and enumerated forty men. For Christ came in the flesh from that very nation of
the Hebrews with a view to the keeping of which as a people distinct from the other
nations, God separated Abraham from his own country and his own kindred. And the
circumstance that the promise contained an intimation of the race from which He was
destined to come, served very specially to make the prediction and announcement concerning
Him something all the clearer. Thus the evangelist did indeed mark out fourteen
generations in each of three several members, stating that from Abraham until David there
were fourteen generations, and from David until the carrying away into Babylon other
fourteen generations, and another fourteen from that period on to the nativity of Christ.
But he did not then reckon them all up in one sum, counting them one by one, and saying
that thus they make up forty-two in all. For among these progenitors there is one who is
enumerated twice, namely Jechonias, with whom a kind of deflection was made in the
direction of extraneous nations at the time when the transmigration into Babylon took
place.

When the enumeration, moreover, is thus bent from the direct order of progression, and is
made to form, if we may so say, a kind of corner for the purpose of taking a different
course, what meets us at that corner is mentioned twice over,-namely, at the close of the
preceding series, and at the head of the deflection specified. And this, too, was a figure
of Christ as the one who was, in a certain sense, to pass from the circumcision to the
uncircumcision, or, so to speak, from Jerusalem to Babylon, and to be, as it were, the
corner-stone to all who believe on Him, whether on the one side or on the other. Thus was
God making preparations then in a figurative manner for things which were to come in
truth. For Jechonias himself, with whose name the kind of corner which I have in view was
prefigured, is by interpretation the "preparation of God. In this way, therefore, there
are really not forty-two distinct generations named here, which would be the proper sum of
three times fourteen; but, as there is a double enumeration of one of the names, we have
here forty generations in all, taking into account the fact that Christ Himself is
reckoned in the number, who, like the kingly president over this [significant] number
forty, superintends the administration of this temporal and earthly life of ours.

11. And inasmuch as it was Matthew's intention to set forth Christ as descending with the
object of sharing this mortal state with us, he has mentioned those same generations from
Abraham on to Joseph, and on to the birth of Christ Himself, in the form of a descending
scale, and at the very beginning of his Gospel. Luke, on the other hand, details those
generations not at the commencement of his Gospel, but at the point of Christ's baptism,
and gives them not in the descending, but in the ascending order, ascribing to Him
preferentially the character of a priest in the expiation of sins, as where the voice from
heaven declared Him, and where John himself delivered his testimony in these terms:
"Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!" Besides, in the process
by which he traces the genealogy upwards, he passes Abraham and carries us back to God, to
whom, purified and atoned for, we are reconciled. Of merit, too, He has sustained in
Himself the origination of our adoption; for we are made the sons of God through adoption,
by believing on the Son of God. Moreover, on our account the Son of God was pleased to be
made the son of man by the generation which is proper to the flesh. And the evangelist has
shown clearly enough that he did not name Joseph the son of Hell on the ground that he was
begotten of him, but only on the ground that he was adopted by him. For he has spoken of
Adam also as the son of God, who, strictly speaking, was made by God, but was also, as it
may be said, constituted a son in paradise by the grace which afterwards he lost through
his transgression.

12. In this way, it is the taking of our sins upon Himself by the Lord Christ that is
signified in the genealogy of Matthew, while in the genealogy of Luke it is the abolition
of our sins by the Lord Christ that is expressed. In accordance with these ideas, the one
details the names in the descending scale, and the other in the ascending. For when the
apostle says, "God sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin," he refers to the
taking of our sins upon Himself by Christ. But when he adds, "for sin, to condemn sin in
the flesh," he expresses the expiation of sins. Consequently Matthew traces the succession
downwards from David through Solomon, in connection with whose mother it was that he
sinned; while Luke carries the genealogy upwards to the same David through Nathan, by
which prophet God took away his sin. The number, also, which Luke follows does most
certainly best indicate the taking away of sins. For inasmuch as in Christ, who Himself
had no sin, there is assuredly no iniquity allied to the iniquities of men which He bore
in His flesh, the number adopted by Matthew makes forty when Christ is excepted. On the
contrary, inasmuch as, by clearing us of all sin and purging us, He places us in a right
relation to His own and His Father's righteousness (so that the apostle's word is made
good:

"But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit" ), in the number used by Luke we find
included both Christ Himself, with whom the enumeration begins, and God, with whom it
closes; and the sum becomes thus seventy-seven, which denotes the through remission and
abolition of all sins. This perfect removal of sins the Lord Himself also clearly
represented under the mystery of this number, when He said that the person sinning ought
to be forgiven not only seven times, but even unto seventy times seven. 13. A careful
inquiry will make it plain that it is not without some reason that this latter number is
made to refer to the purging of all sins. For the number ten is shown to be, as one may
say, the number of justice [righteousness] in the instance of the ten precepts of the law.
Moreover, sin is the transgression of the law. And the transgression of the number ten is
expressed suitably in the eleven; whence also we find instructions to have been given to
the effect that there should be eleven curtains of haircloth constructed in the
tabernacle; for who can doubt that the haircloth has a bearing upon the expression of sin?
Thus, too, inasmuch as all time in its revolution runs in spaces of days designated by the
number seven, we find that when the number eleven is multiplied by the number seven, we
are brought with all due propriety to the number seventy-seven as the sign of sin in its
totality. In this enumeration, therefore, we come upon the symbol for the full remission
of sins, as expiation is made for us by the flesh of our Priest, with whose name the
calculation of this number starts here; and as reconciliation is also effected for us with
God, with whose name the reckoning of this number is here brought to its conclusion by the
Holy Spirit, who appeared in the form of a dove on the occasion of that baptism in
connection with which the number in question is mentioned.

Chapter V.-A Statement of the Manner in Which Luke's Procedure is Proved to Be in Harmony
with Matthew's in Those Matters Concerning the Conception and the Infancy or Boyhood of
Christ, Which are Omitted by the One and Recorded by the Other. 14. After the enumeration
of the generations, Matthew proceeds thus: Now the birth of Christ was on this wise.
Whereas His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found
with child of the Holy Ghost. What Matthew has omitted to state here regarding the way in
which that came to pass, has been set forth by Luke after his account of the conception of
John. His narrative is to the following effect: And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel
was sent from God unto a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man
whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin's name was Mary. And the
angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with
thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw these things, she was troubled at his
saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said
unto her: Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found favour with God. Behold, thou shall conceive
in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and
shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of
His father David: and He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom
there shall be no end.

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel
answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born shall be
called the Son of God; and then follow matters not belonging to the question at present in
hand. Now all this Matthew has recorded [summarily], when he tells us of Mary that "she
was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Neither is there any contradiction between the two
evangelists, in so far as Luke has set forth in detail what Matthew has omitted to notice;
for both bear witness that Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost. And in the same way there is
no want of concord between them, when Matthew, in his turn, connects with the narrative
something which Luke leaves out. For Matthew proceeds to give us the following statement:
Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example,
was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the
angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear
not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy
Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall
save His people from their sins.

Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the
prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son; and
His name shall be called Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God with us. Then Joseph,
being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him
his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he called
His name Jesus. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Herod the
king, and so forth. 15. With respect to the city of Bethlehem, Matthew and Luke are at
one. But Luke explains in what way and for what reason Joseph and Mary came to it; whereas
Matthew gives no such explanation. On the other hand, while Luke is silent on the subject
of the journey of the magi from the east, Matthew furnishes an account of it. That
narrative he constructs as follows, in immediate connection with what he has already
offered: Behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that
is born King of the Jews? for we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship
Him. Now, when Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled. And in this manner
the account goes on, down to the passage where of these magi it is written that, "being
warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their
own country another way." This entire section is omitted by Luke, just as Matthew fails to
mention some other circumstances which are mentioned byLuke: as, for example, that the
Lord was laid in a manger; and that an angel announced His birth to the shepherds; and
that there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God; and that the
shepherds came and saw that that was true which the angel had announced to them; and that
on the day of His circumcision He received His name; as also the incidents reported by the
same Luke to have occurred after the days of the purification of Mary were
fulfilled,-namely, their taking Him to Jerusalem, and the words spoken in the temple by
Simeon or Anna concerning Him, when, filled with the Holy Ghost, they recognized Him. Of
all these things Matthew says nothing.

16. Hence, a subject which deserves inquiry is the question concerning the precise time
when these events took place which are omitted by Matthew and given by Luke, and those, on
the other hand, which have been omitted by Luke and given by Matthew. For after his
account of the return of the magi who had come from the east to their own country, Matthew
proceeds to tell us how Joseph was warned by an angel to flee into Egypt with the young
child, to prevent His being put to death by Herod; and then how Herod failed to find Him,
but slew the children from two years old and under; thereafter, how, when Herod was dead,
Joseph returned from Egypt, and, on hearing that Archelaus reigned in Judaea instead of
his father Herod, went to reside with the boy in Galilee, at the city Nazareth. All these
facts, again, are passed over by Luke. Nothing, however, like a want of harmony can be
made out between the two writers merely on the ground that the latter states what the
former omits, or that the former mentions what the latter leaves unnoticed. But the real
question is as to the exact period at which these things could have taken place which
Matthew has linked on to his narrative;

to wit, the departure of the family into Egypt, and their return from it after Herod's
death, and their residence at that time in the town of Nazareth, the very place to which
Luke tells us that they went back after they had performed in the temple all things
regarding the boy according to the law of the Lord. Here, accordingly, we have to take
notice of a fact which will also hold good for other like cases, and which will secure our
minds against similar agitation or disturbance in subsequent instances. I refer to the
circumstance that each evangelist constructs his own particular narrative on a kind of
plan which gives it the appearance of being the complete and orderly record of the events
in their succession. For, preserving a simple silence on the subject of those incidents of
which he intends to give no account, he then connects those which he does wish to relate
with what he has been immediately recounting, in such a manner as to make the recital seem
continuous.

At the same time, when one of them mentions facts of which the other has given no notice,
the order of narrative, if carefully considered, will be found to indicate the point at
which the writer by whom the omissions are made has taken the leap in his account, and
thus has attached the facts, which it was his purpose to introduce, in such a manner to
the preceding context as to give the appearance of a connected series, in which the one
incident follows immediately on the other, without the interposition of anything else. On
this principle, therefore, we understand that where he tells us how the wise men were
warned in a dream not to return to Herod, and how they went back to their own country by
another way, Matthew has simply omitted all that Luke has related respecting all that
happened to the Lord in the temple, and all that was said by Simeon and Anna; while, on
the other hand, Luke has omitted in the same place all notice of the journey into Egypt,
which is given by Matthew, and has introduced the return to the city of Nazareth as if it
were immediately consecutive.

17. If any one wishes, however, to make up one complete narrative out of all that is said
or left unsaid by these two evangelists respectively, on the subject of Christ's nativity
and infancy or boyhood, he may arrange the different statements in the following
order:-Now the birth of Christ was on this wise. There was, in the days of Herod the king
of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia; and his wife was of
the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before
God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. And they had no
child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were well stricken in years. And
it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God, in the order of
his course, according to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense
when he went into the temple of the Lord: and the whole multitude of the people were
praying without at the time of incense. And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord
standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him he was
troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for
thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shall call his
name John. And thou shall have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord: and be shall drink neither wine nor strong
drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many
of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him
in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and
the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people perfect for the Lord.
And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my
wife well stricken in years. And the angel, answering, said unto him, I am Gabriel, that
stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to show thee these glad
tidings. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these
things shall be performed, because thou hast not believed my words, which shall be
fulfilled in their season. And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he
tarried in the temple. And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they
perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: and he beckoned unto them, and remained
speechless. And it came to pass that, as soon as the days of his ministration were
accomplished, he departed to his own house.

And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein He looked upon me, to take away my
reproach among men. And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city
of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the
house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said,
Hail, thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women.
And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of
salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast
found favour with God. Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and
shall call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest;
and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: and He shall reign in
the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto
the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said
unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall
overshadow thee:

therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this
is the sixth month with her who is called barren. For with God nothing shall be
impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy
word. And the angel departed from her. And Mary arose in those days, and went into the
hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; and entered into the house of Zacharias, and
saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary,
the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: and she spake
out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of
thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? for, lo,
as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb
for joy. And blessed art thou that didst believe, for there shall be a performance of
those things which were told thee from the Lord. And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the
Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For He hath regarded the low estate
of His handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

For He that is mighty hath done to me great things, and holy is His name. And His mercy is
on them that fear Him, from generation to generation. He hath made strength with His arm;
He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their heart. He hath put down the mighty
from their seat, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good
things, and the rich He hath sent empty away. He hath holpen His servant Israel, in
remembrance of his mercy: as He spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for
ever. And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house. Then it
proceeds thus:-She was found with child of the Holy Ghost Then Joseph her husband, being a
just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away
privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto
him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy
wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a
son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus: for He shall save His people from their sins.

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the
prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and
they shall call His name Emmanuel; which, being interpreted, is, God with us. Then Joseph,
being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him
his wife, and knew her not. Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered,
and she brought forth a son. And her neighbours and her relatives heard that the Lord
magnified His mercy with her; and they congratulated her. And it came to pass, that on the
eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the
name of his father. And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.
And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name. And they
made signs to his father, how he would have him called. And he asked for a writing table,
and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all. And his mouth was opened
immediately, and his tongue, and he spake and praised God. And fear came on all them that
dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill
country of Judaea. And all they that had heard them laid them up in their heart, saying,
What manner of child, thinkest thou, shall this be? For the hand of the Lord was with him.
And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, Blessed
be the Lord God of lsrael; for He hath visited and redeemed His people, and hath raised up
an horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David; as He spake by the mouth of
His holy prophets, which have been since the world began;

(to give) salvation from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us: to perform
mercy with our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant, the oath which He sware to
Abraham our father that He would give to us; in order that, being saved out of the hand of
our enemies, we might serve Him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him,
all our days. And thou, child, shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt
go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways; to give knowledge of salvation unto
His people, for the remission of their sins, through the tender mercy of our God; whereby
the dayspring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness and
in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. And the child grew, and
waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts until the day of his showing unto Israel.
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that
all the world should be taxed. This first taxing was made when Syrinus was governor of
Syria. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the
city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of
David, to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was,
that while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And
she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped Him in swaddling-clothes, and laid Him
in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same
country shepherds watching and keeping the virgils of the night over their flock. And, lo,
the angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them; and
they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you
good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day, in
the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you:
Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling-clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there
was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God
in the highest, and on earth peace to men of goodwill.

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds
said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come
to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary
and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they understood the
saying which had been told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it,
wondered also at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all
these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and
praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, His name was
called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before He was conceived in the womb. And
then it proceeds thus: Behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying.
Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen His star in the east, and are
come to worship Him. Now when Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and
all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the
people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him,
In Bethlehem of Judaea;

for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not
the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule
my people Israel. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them
diligently the time of the star which appeared unto them. And he sent them to Bethlehem,
and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring
me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they had heard the king, they
departed; and, lo, the star which they had seen in the east went before them, until it
came and stood over where the young child was. And when they saw the star, they rejoiced
with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they found the child
with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshipped Him: and when they had opened their
treasures, they presented unto Him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And being warned
of God in a dream that they should not return unto Herod, they departed into their town
country another way. Then, after this account of their return, the narrative goes on thus:

When the days of her (His mother's) purification, according to the law of Moses, were
accomplished, they brought Him to Jerusalem, to present Him to the Lord (as it is written
in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the
Lord), and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A
pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons. And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem
whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation
of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was in him. And it had been revealed unto him by the Holy
Ghost, that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by
the Spirit into the temple. And when His parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for Him
after the custom of the law, then took he Him up in his arms, and said, Lord, now lettest
Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word: for mine eyes have seen Thy
salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the
Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel. And His father and mother marvelled at those
things which were spoken of Him. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary His mother,
Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign
that shall be spoken against; and a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also, that the
thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the
daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with her
husband seven years from her virginity; and she was a widow of about fourscore and four
years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers day
and night. And she, coming in that instant, gave thanks also unto the Lord, and spake of
Him to all them that looked for the redemption of Jerusalem.

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, behold, the angel
of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and His
mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word; for Herod will
seek the young child to destroy Him. When he arose, he took the young child and His mother
by night, and departed into Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod; that it might
be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I
called my Son. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding
wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the
coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had
diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy
the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. But
when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
saying, Arise, and take the young child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel;
for they are dead which sought the young child's life.

And he arose, and took the young child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.
But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea, in the room of his father Herod, he
was afraid to go thither; and being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the
parts of Galilee; and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. And the child grew, and
waxed strong, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was in Him. And His parents went to
Jerusalem every year, at the feast of the passover. And when He was twelve years old, they
went up to Jerusalem, after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days,
as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and His parents knew not of
it. But they, supposing Him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they
sought Him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found Him not, they turned
back again to Jerusalem seeking Him. And it came to pass, that after three days they found
Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them
questions. And all that heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. And
when they saw Him, they were amazed. And His mother said to Him, Son, why hast thou thus
dealt with us?

behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing. And He said unto them, How is it that ye
sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? And they understood not
the saying which He spake unto them. And He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and
was subject unto them; and His mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus
increased in wisdom and age, and in favour with God and men.

CHAPTER VI.-ON THE POSITION GIVEN TO THE PREACHING OF JOHN THE BAPTIST IN ALL THE FOUR EVANGELISTS.

18. Now at this point commences the account of the preaching of John, which is presented
by all the four. For after the words which I have placed last in the order of his
narrative thus far,-the words with which he introduces the testimony from the prophet,
namely, He shall be called a Nazarene,-Matthew proceeds immediately to give us this
recital: "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,"
etc. And Mark, who has told us nothing of the nativity or infancy or youth of the Lord,
has made his Gospel begin with the same event,-that is to say, with the preaching of John.
For it is thus that he sets out: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God; as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send a messenger before Thy face,
which shall prepare Thy way before Thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight. John was in the wilderness
baptizing, and preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, etc. Luke,
again, follows up the passage in which he says, "And Jesus increased in wisdom and age,
and in favour with God and man," by a section in which he speaks of the preaching of John
in these terms:

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor
of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea
and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas
being the high priests, the word of God came unto John, the son of Zacharias, in the
wilderness, etc. The Apostle John, too, the most eminent of the four evangelists, after
discoursing of the Word of God, who is also the Son, antecedent to all the ages of
creaturely existence, inasmuch as all things were made by Him, has introduced in the
immediate context his account of the preaching and testimony of John, and proceeds thus:
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This will be enough at once to make it
plain that the narratives concerning John the Baptist given by the four evangelists are
not at variance with one another.

And there will be no occasion for requiring or demanding that to be done in all detail in
this instance which we have already done in the case of the genealogies of the Christ who
was born of Mary, to the effect of proving how Matthew and Luke are in harmony with each
other, of showing how we might construct one consistent narrative out of the two, and of
demonstrating on behoof of those of less acute perception, that although one of these
evangelists may mention what the other omits, or omit what the other mentions, he does not
thereby make it in any sense difficult to accept the veracity of the account given by the
other. For when a single example [of this method of harmonizing] has been set before us,
whether in the way in which it has been presented by me, or in some other method in which
it may more satisfactorily be exhibited, every man can understand that, in all other
similar passages, what he has seen done here may be done again.

19. Accordingly, let us now study, as I have said, the harmony of the four evangelists in
the narratives regarding John the Baptist. Matthew proceeds in these terms: In those days
came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea. Mark has not used the phrase
"In those days," because he has given no recital of any series of events at the head of
his Gospel immediately before this narrative, so that he might be understood to speak in
reference to the dates of such events under the terms, "In those days. Luke, on the other
hand, with greater precision has defined those times of the preaching or baptism of John,
by means of the notes of the temporal power. For he says: Now, in the fifteenth year of
the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being
tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of
Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high
priests, the word of God came unto John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. We ought
not, however, to understand that what was actually meant by Matthew when He said, "In
those days," was simply the space of days literally limited to the specified period of
these powers. On the contrary, it is apparent that he intended the note of time which was
conveyed in the phrase "In those days," to be taken to refer to a much longer period.

For he first gives us the account of the return of Christ from Egypt after the death of
Herod,-an incident, indeed, which took place at the time of His infancy or childhood, and
with which, consequently, Luke's statement of what befell Him in the temple when He was
twelve years of age is quite consistent. Then, immediately after this narrative of the
recall of the infant or boy out of Egypt, Matthew continues thus in due order: "Now, in
those days came John the Baptist. And thus under that phrase he certainly covers not
merely the days of His childhood, but all the days intervening between His nativity and
this period at which John began to preach and to baptize. At this period, moreover, Christ
is found already to have attained to man's estate; for John and he were of the same age;
and it is stated that He was about thirty years of age when He was baptized by the former.


THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS
==========================

THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS continued

CHAPTER VII.-OF THE TWO HERODS.

20. But with respect to the mention of Herod, it is well understood that some are apt to
be influenced by the circumstance that Luke has told us how, in the days of John's
baptizing, and at the time when the Lord, being then a grown man, was also baptized, Herod
was tetrarch of Galilee; whereas Matthew tells us that the boy Jesus returned from Egypt
after the death of Herod. Now these two accounts cannot both be true, unless we may also
suppose that there were two different Herods. But as no one can fail to be aware that this
is e perfectly possible case, what must be the blindness in which those persons pursue
their mad follies, who are so quick to launch false charges against the truth, of the
Gospels; and how miserably inconsiderate must they be, not to reflect that two men may
have been called by the same name? Yet this is a thing of which examples abound on all
sides. For this latter Herod is understood to have been the son of the former Herod: just
as Archelaus also was, whom Matthew states to have succeeded to the throne of Judaea on
the death of his father; and as Philip was, who is introduced by Luke as the brother of
Herod the tetrarch, and as himself tetrarch of Ituraea. For the Herod who sought the life
of the child Christ was king; whereas this other Herod, his son, was not called king, but
tetrarch, which is a Greek word, signifying etymologically one set over the fourth part of
a kingdom.

Chapter VIII.-An Explanation of the Statement Made by Matthew, to the Effect that Joseph
Was Afraid to Go with the Infant Christ into Jerusalem on Account of Archelaus, and Yet
Was Not Afraid to Go into Galilee, Where Herod, that Prince's Brother, Was Tetrarch. 21.
Here again, however, it may happen that a difficulty will be found, and that some, seeing
that Matthew has told us how Joseph was afraid to go into Judaea with the child on his
return, expressly for the reason that Archelaus the son reigned there in place of his
father Herod, may be led to ask how he could have gone into Galilee, where, as Luke bears
witness, there was another son of that Herod, namely, Herod the tetrarch. But such a
difficulty can only be founded on the fancy that the times indicated as those in which
there was such apprehension on the child's account were identical with the times dealt
with now by Luke: whereas it is conspicuously evident that there is a change in the
periods, because we no longer find Archelaus represented as king in Judaea; but in place
of him we have Pontius Pilate, who also was not the king of the Jews, but only their
governor, in whose times the sons of the eider Herod, acting under Tiberius Caesar, held
not the kingdom, but the tetrarchy. And all this certainly had not come to pass at the
time when Joseph, in fear of the Archelaus who was then reigning in Judaea, betook
himself, together with the child, into Galilee, where was also his city Nazareth.

Chapter IX.-An Explanation of the Circumstance that Matthew States that Joseph's Reason
for Going into Galilee with the Child Christ Was His Fear of Archelaus, Who Was Reigning
at that Time in Jerusalem in Place of His Father, While Luke Tells Us that the Reason for
Going into Galilee Was the Fact that Their City Nazareth Was There. 22. Or may a question
perchance be raised as to how Matthew tells us that His parents went with the boy Jesus
into Galilee, because they were unwilling to go into Judaea in consequence of their fear
of Archelaus; whereas it would rather appear that the reason for their going into Galilee
was, as Luke has not failed to indicate, the consideration that their city was Nazareth of
Galilee? Well, but we must observe, that when the angel said to Joseph in his dreams in
Egypt, "Arise, and take the young child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel,"
the words were understood at first by Joseph in a way that made him consider himself
commanded to journey into Judaea. For that was the first interpretation that could have
been put upon the phrase, "the land of Israel. But again, after ascertaining that
Archelaus, the son of Herod, was reigning there, he declined to expose himself to such
danger, inasmuch as this phrase, "the land of Israel," was capable also of being so
understood as to cover Galilee too, because the people of Israel were occupants of that
territory as well as the other. At the same time, this question also admits of being
solved in another manner. For it might have appeared to the parents of Christ that they
were called to take up their residence along with the boy, concerning whom such
information had been conveyed to them through the responses of angels, just in Jerusalem
itself, where was the temple of the Lord:

and it may thus be, that when they came back out of Egypt, they would have gone directly
thither in that belief, and have taken up their abode there, had it not been that they
were terrified at the presence of Archelaus. And certainly they did not receive any such
instructions from heaven to take up their residence there as would have made it their
imperative duty to set at nought the fears they entertained of Archelaus. Chapter X.-A
Statement of the Reason Why Luke Tells Us that "His Parents Went to Jerusalem Every Year
at the Feast of the Passover" Along with the Boy; While Matthew Intimates that Their Dread
of Archelaus Made Them Afraid to Go There on Their Return from Egypt. 23. Or does any one
put to us this question, How was it, then, that His parents went up to Jerusalem every
year during the boyhood of Christ, as Luke's narrative bears, if they were prevented from
going there by the fear of Archelaus? Well, I should not deem it any very difficult task
to solve this question, even although none of the evangelists has given us to understand
how long Archelaus reigned there. For it might have been the case that, simply for that
one day, and with the intention of returning forthwith, they went up on the day of the
feast, without attracting any notice among the vast multitudes then assembled, to the city
where, nevertheless, they were afraid to make their residence on other days. And thus they
might at once have saved themselves from the appearance of being so irreligious as to
neglect the observance of the feast, and have avoided drawing attention upon themselves by
a continued sojourn. But further, although all the evangelists have omitted to tell us
what was the length of the reign of Archelaus, we have still open to us this obvious
method of explaining the matter, namely, to understand the custom to which Luke refers,
when he says that they were in the habit of going to Jerusalem every year, as one
prosecuted at a time when Archelaus was no more an object of fear.

But if the reign of Archelaus should be made out to have lasted for a somewhat longer
period on the authority of any extra-evangelical history which appears to deserve credit,
the consideration which I have indicated above should still prove quite
sufficient,-namely, the supposition that the fear which the parents of the child
entertained of a residence in Jerusalem was, nevertheless, not of such a nature as to lead
them to neglect the observance of the sacred festival to which they were under obligation
in the fear of God, and which they might very easily go about in a manner that would not
attract public attention to them. For surely it is nothing incredible that, by taking
advantage of favourable opportunities, whether by day or by hour, men may (safely venture
to) approach places in which they nevertheless are afraid to be found tarrying. Chapter
XI.-An Examination of the Question as to How It Was Possible for Them to Go Up, According
to Luke's Statement, with Him to Jerusalem to the Temple, When the Days of the
Purification of the Mother of Christ Were Accomplished, in Order to Perform the Usual
Rites, If It is Correctly Recorded by Matthew, that Herod Had Already Learned from the
Wise Men that the Child Was Born in Whose Stead, When He Sought for Him, He Slew So Many
Children.

24. Hereby also we see how another question is solved, if any one indeed finds a
difficulty in it. I allude to the question as to how it was possible, on the supposition
that the elder Herod was already anxious (to obtain information regarding Him), and
agitated by the intelligence received from the wise men concerning the birth of the King
of the Jews, for them, when the days of the purification of His mother were accomplished,
to go up in any safety with Him to the temple, in order to see to the performance of those
things which were according to the law of the Lord, and which are specified by Luke. For
who can fail to perceive that this solitary day might very easily have escaped the notice
of a king, whose attention was engaged with a multitude of affairs? Or if it does not
appear probable that Herod, who was waiting in the extremest anxiety to see what report
the wise men would bring back to him concerning the child, should have been so long in
finding out how he had been mocked, that, only after the mother's purification was already
past, and the solemnities proper to the first-born were performed with respect to the
child in the temple, nay more, only after their departure into Egypt, did it come into his
mind to seek the life of the child, and to slay so many little ones;-if, I say, any one
finds a difficulty in this, I shall not pause to state the numerous and important
occupations by which the king's attention may have been engaged, and for the space of many
days either wholly diverted from such thoughts, or prevented from following them out. For
it is not possible to enumerate all the cases which might have made that perfectly
possible. No one, however, is so ignorant of human affairs as either to deny or to
question that there may very easily have been many such matters of importance (to
preoccupy the king).

For to whom will not the thought occur, that reports, whether true or false, of many other
more terrible things may possibly have been brought to the king, so that the person who
had been apprehensive of a certain royal child, who after a number of years might prove an
adversary to himself or to his sons, might be so agitated with the terrors of certain more
immediate dangers, as to have his attention forcibly removed from that earlier anxiety,
and engaged rather with the devising of measures to ward off other more instantly
threatening perils? Wherefore, leaving all such considerations unspecified, I simply
venture on the assertion that, when the wise men failed to bring back any report to him,
Herod may have believed that they had been misled by a deceptive vision of a star, and
that, after their want of success in discovering Him whom they had supposed to have been
born, they had been ashamed to return to him; and that in this way the king, having his
fears allayed, had given up the idea of asking after and persecuting the child.

Consequently, when they had gone with Him to Jerusalem after the purification of His
mother, and when those things had been performed in the temple which are recounted by
Luke, inasmuch as the words which were spoken by Simeon and Anna in their prophesyings
regarding Him, when publicity began to be given to them by the persons who had heard them,
were like to call back the king's mind then to its original design, Joseph obeyed the
warning conveyed to him in the dream, and fled with the child and His mother into Egypt.
Afterwards, when the things which had been done and said in the temple were made quite
public, Herod perceived that he had been mocked; and then, in his desire to get at the
death of Christ, he slew the multitude of children, as Matthew records.

CHAPTER XII.-CONCERNING THE WORDS ASCRIBED TO JOHN BY ALL THE FOUR EVANGELISTS RESPECTIVELY.

25. Moreover, Matthew makes up his account of John in the following manner:-Now in those
days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, and saying, Repent ye,
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is He that is spoken of by the prophet
Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord,
make His paths straight. Mark also and Luke agree in presenting this testimony of Isaiah
as one referring to John. Luke, indeed, has likewise recorded some other words from the
same prophet, which follow those already cited, when he gives his narrative of John the
Baptist. The evangelist John, again, mentions that John the Baptist did also personally
advance this same testimony of Isaiah regarding himself. And, to a similar effect, Matthew
here has given us certain words of John which are unrecorded by the other evangelists. For
he speaks of him as "preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, and saying, Repent ye, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand; "which words of John have been omitted by the others. In
what follows, however, in immediate connection with that passage in Matthew's
Gospel,-namely, the sentence, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the
way of the Lord, make His paths straight,"-the position is ambiguous;

and it does not clearly appear whether this is something recited by Matthew in his own
person, or rather a continuance of the words spoken by John himself, so as to lead us to
understand the whole passage to be the reproduction of John's own utterance, in this way:
"Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; for this is He that was spoken of by the
prophet Isaiah," and so on. For it ought to create no difficulty against this latter view,
that he does not say, "For I am He that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah," but employs
the phraseology, "For this is He that was spoken of. For that, indeed, is a mode of speech
which the evangelists Matthew and John are in the habit of using in reference to
themselves. Thus Matthew has adopted the phrase, "He found a man sitting at the receipt of
custom," instead of "He found me. John, too, says, "This is the disciple which testifieth
of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true," instead
of "I am," etc., or, "My testimony is true. Yea, our Lord Himself very frequently uses the
words, "The Son of man," or, "The Son of God," instead of saying, "I. So, again, He tells
us that "it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day," instead of
saying, "It behoved me to suffer.

Consequently it is perfectly possible that the clause, "For this is He that was spoken of
by the prophet Isaiah," which immediately follows the saying, "Repent ye, for the kingdom
of heaven is at hand," may be but a continuation of what John the Baptist said of himself;
so that only after these words cited from the speaker himself will Matthew's own narrative
proceed, being thus resumed: "And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair," and so
forth. But if this is the case, then it need not seem wonderful that, when asked what he
had to say regarding himself, he should reply, according to the narrative of the
evangelist John, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness," as he had already
spoken in the same terms when enjoining on them the duty of repentance. Accordingly,
Matthew goes on to tell us about his attire and his mode of living, and continues his
account thus: And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle
about his loins, and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Mark also gives us this same
statement almost in so many words. But the other two evangelists omit it.

26. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative, and says: Then went out to him Jerusalem and
all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized by him in Jordan,
confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his
baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the
wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance; and think not to say
within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of
these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. For now the axe is laid unto the root of
the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be hewn down
and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He that is to
come after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize
you in the Holy Spirit and fire: whose fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge
His floor, and gather His wheat into the garner; but He will burn up the chaff with
unquenchable fire. This whole passage is also given by Luke, who ascribes almost the same
words to John.

And where there is any variation in the words, there is nevertheless no real departure
from the sense.Thus, for example, Matthew tells us that John said, "And think not to say
within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father," where Luke puts it thus: "And begin not
to say, We have Abraham to our father. Again, in the former we have the words, "I indeed
baptize you with water unto repentance; whereas the latter brings in the questions put by
the multitudes as to what they should do, and represents John to have replied to them with
a statement of good works as the fruits of repentance,-all which is omitted by Matthew.
So, when Luke tells us what reply the Baptist made to the people when they were musing in
their hearts concerning Him, and thinking whether He were the Christ, he gives us simply
the words, "I indeed baptize you with water," and does not add the phrase, "unto
repentance. Further,in Matthew the Baptist says, "But he that is to come after me is
mightier than I; while in Luke he is exhibited as saying, "But one mightier than I cometh.
In like manner, according to Matthew, he says, "whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; but
according to the other, his words are, "the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to
unloose. The latter sayings are recorded also by Mark, although he makes no mention of
those other matters. For, after noticing his attire and his mode of living, he goes on
thus:

"And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose
shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose: I have baptized you with water, but He
shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit. In the notice of the shoes, therefore, he differs
from Luke in so far as he has added the words, "to stoop down; and in the account of the
baptism he differs from both these others in so far as he does not say, "and in fire," but
only, "in the Holy Spirit. For as in Matthew, so also in Luke, the words are the same, and
they are given in the same order, "He shall baptize you in the Spirit and in fire,"-with
this single exception, that Luke has not added the adjective "Holy," while Matthew has
given it thus: "in the Holy Spirit and in fire. The statements made by these three are
attested by the evangelist John, when he says: "John bears witness of Him, and cries,
saying, This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me; for
He was before me. For thus he indicates that the thing was spoken by John at the time at
which those other evangelists record him to have uttered the words. Thus, too, he gives us
to understand that John was repeating and calling into notice again something which he had
already spoken, when he said, "This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me."

27. If now the question is asked, as to which of the words we are to suppose the most
likely to have been the precise words used by John the Baptist, whether those recorded as
spoken by him in Matthew's Gospel, or those in Luke's, or those which Mark has introduced,
among the few sentences which he mentions to have been uttered by him, while he omits
notice of all the rest, it will not be deemed worth while creating any difficulty for
oneself in a matter of that kind, by any one who wisely understands that the real
requisite in order to get at the knowledge of the truth is just to make sure of the things
really meant, whatever may be the precise words in which they happen to be expressed. For
although one writer may retain a certain order in the words, and another present a
different one, there is surely no real contradiction in that. Nor, again, need there be
any antagonism between the two, although one may state what another omits. For it is
evident that the evangelists have set forth these matters just in accordance with the
recollection each retained of them, and just according as their several predilections
prompted them to employ greater brevity or richer detail. on certain points, while giving,
nevertheless, the same account of the subjects themselves.

28. Thus, too, in what more pertinently concerns the matter in hand, it is sufficiently
obvious that, since the truth of the Gospel, conveyed in that word of God which abides
eternal and unchangeable above all that is created, but which at the same time has been
disseminated throughout the world by the instrumentality of temporal symbols, and by the
tongues of men, has possessed itself of the most exalted height of authority, we ought not
to suppose that any one of the writers is giving an unreliable account, if, when several
persons are recalling some matter either heard or seen by them, they fail to follow the
very same plan, or to use the very same words, while describing, nevertheless, the self-
same fact. Neither should we indulge such a supposition, although the order of the words
may be varied; or although some words may be substituted in place of others, which
nevertheless have the same meaning; or although something may be left unsaid, either
because it has not occurred to the mind of the recorder, or because it becomes readily
intelligible from other statements which are given; or although, among other matters which
(may not bear directly on his immediate purpose, but which) he decides on mentioning
rather for the sake of the narrative, and in order to preserve the proper order of time,
one of them may introduce something which he does not feel called upon to expound as a
whole at length, but only to touch upon in part;

or although, with the view of illustrating his meaning, and making it thoroughly clear,
the person to whom authority is given to compose the narrative makes some additions of his
own, not indeed in the subject-matter itself, but in the words by which it is expressed;
or although, while retaining a perfectly reliable comprehension of the fact itself, he may
not be entirely successful, howeverhe may make that his aim, in calling to mind and
reciting anew with the most literal accuracy the very words which he heard on the
occasion. Moreover, if any one affirms that the evangelists ought certainly to have had
that kind of capacity imparted to them by the power of the Holy Spirit, which would secure
them against all variation the one from the other, either in the kind of words, or in
their order, or in their number, that person fails to perceive, that just in proportion as
the authority of the evangelists [under their existing conditions] is made pre-eminent,
the credit of all other men who offer true statements of events ought to have been
established on a stronger basis by their instrumentality: so that when several parties
happen to narrate the same circumstance, none of them can by any means be rightly charged
with untruthfulness if he differs from the other only in such a way as can be defended on
the ground of the antecedent example of the evangelists themselves.

For as we are not at liberty either to suppose or to say that any one of the evangelists
has stated what is false, so it will be apparent that any other writer is as little
chargeable with untruth, with whom, in the process of recalling anything for narration, it
has fared only in a way similar to that in which it is shown to have fared with those
evangelists. And just as it belongs to the highest morality to guard against all that is
false, so ought we all the more to be ruled by an authority so eminent, to the effect that
we should not suppose ourselves to come upon what must be false, when we find the
narratives of any writers differ from each other in the manner in which the records of the
evangelists are proved to contain variations. At the same time, in what most seriously
concerns the faithfulness of doctrinal teaching, we should also understand that it is not
so much in mere words, as rather truth in the facts themselves, that is to be sought and
embraced; for as to writers who do not employ precisely the same modes of statement, if
they only do not present discrepancies with respect to the facts and the sentiments
themselves, we accept them as holding the same position in veracity.

29. With respect, then, to those comparisons which I have instituted between the several
narratives of the evangelists, what do these present that must be considered to be of a
contradictory order? Are we to regard in this light the circumstance that one of them has
given us the words, "whose shoes I am not worthy to bear," whereas the others speak of
the" unloosing of the latchet of the shoe"? For here, indeed, the difference seems to be
neither in the mere words, nor in the order of the words, nor in any matter of simple
phraseology, but in the actual matter of fact, when in the one case the "bearing of the
shoe" is mentioned, and in the other the "unloosing of the shoe's latchet. Quite fairly,
therefore, may the question be put, as to what it was that John declared himself unworthy
to do-whether to bear the shoes, or to unloose the shoe's latchet. For if only the one of
these two sentences was uttered by him, then that evangelist will appear to have given the
correct narrative who was in a position to record what was said; while the writer who has
given the saying in another form, although he may not indeed have offered an
[intentionally] false account of it, may at any rate be taken to have made a slip of
memory, and will be reckoned thus to have stated one thing instead of another.

It is only seemly, however, that no charge of absolute unveracity should be laid against
the evangelists, and that, too, not only with regard to that kind of unveracity which
comes by the positive telling of what is false, but also with regard to that which arises
through forgetfulness. Therefore, if it is pertinent to the matter to deduce one sense
from the words "to bear the shoes," and another sense from the words "to unloose the
shoe's latchet," what should one suppose the correct interpretation to be put on the
facts, but that John did give utterance to both these sentences, either on two different
occasions or in one and the same connection? For he might very well have expressed himself
thus, "whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose, and whose shoes I am not worthy to
bear: and then one of the evangelists may have reproduced the one portion of the saying,
and the rest of them the other; while, notwithstanding this, all of them have really given
a veracious narrative.

But further, if, when he spoke of the shoes of the Lord, John meant nothing more than to
convey the idea of His supremacy and his own lowliness, then, whichever of the two sayings
may have actually been uttered by him, whether that regarding the unloosing of the latchet
of the shoes, or that respecting the bearing of the shoes, the self-same sense is still
correctly preserved by any writer who, while making mention of the shoes in words of his
own, has expressed at the same time the same idea of lowliness, and thus has not made any
departure from the real mind [of the person of whom he writes]. It is therefore a useful
principle, and one particularly worthy of being borne in mind, when we are speaking of the
concord of the evangelists, that there is no divergence [to be supposed] from truth, even
when they introduce some saying different from what was actually uttered by the person
concerning whom the narrative is given, provided that, notwithstanding this, they set
forth as his mind precisely what is also so conveyed by that one among them who reproduces
the words as they were literally spoken. For thus we learn the salutary lesson, that our
aim should be nothing else than to ascertain what is the mind and intention of the person
who speaks.

CHAPTER XIII.-OF THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.

30. Matthew then continues his narrative in the following terms: "Then cometh Jesus from
Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade Him, saying, I have
need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me? And Jesus answering, said unto him,
Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he
suffered Him." The others also attest the fact that Jesus came to John. The three also
mention that He was baptized. But they omit all mention of one circumstance recorded by
Matthew, namely, that John addressed the Lord, or that the Lord made answer to John.

CHAPTER XIV.-OF THE WORDS OR THE VOICE THAT CAME FROM HEAVEN UPON HIM WHEN HE HAD BEEN BAPTIZED.

1 31. Thereafter Matthew proceeds thus: "And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up
straightway out of the water; and, lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the
Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him; and, lo, a voice from heaven
saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. This incident is also recorded
in a similar manner by two of the others, namely Mark and Luke. But at the same time,
while preserving the sense intact, they use different modes of expression in reproducing
the terms of the voice which came from heaven. For although Matthew tells us that the
words were, "This is my beloved Son," while the other two put them in this form, "Thou art
my beloved Son," these different methods of speech serve but to convey the same sense,
according to the principle which has been discussed above. For the heavenly voice gave
utterance only to one of these sentences; but by the form of words thus adopted, namely,
"This is my beloved Son," it was the evangelist's intention to show that the saying was
meant to intimate specially to the hearers there [and not to Jesus] the fact that He was
the Son of God. With this view, he chose to give the sentence, "Thou art my beloved Son,"
this turn, "This is my beloved Son," as if it were addressed directly to the people. For
it was not meant to intimate to Christ a fact which He knew already;

2 but the object was to let the people who were present hear it, for whose sakes indeed
the voice itself was given. But furthermore now, with regard to the circumstance that the
first of them puts the saying thus, "In whom I am well pleased," the second thus," In Thee
I am well pleased; and the third thus," In Thee it has pleased me;" -if you ask which of
these different modes represents what was actually expressed by the voice, you may fix on
whichever you will, provided only that you understand that those of the writers who have
not reproduced the self-same form of speech have still reproduced the identical sense
intended to he conveyed. And these variations in the modes of expression are also useful
in this way, that they make it possible for us to reach a more adequate conception of the
saying than might have been the case with only one form, and that they also secure it
against being interpreted in a sense not consonant with the real state of the case. For as
to the sentence, "In whom I am well pleased," if any one thinks of taking it as if it
meant that God is pleased with Himself in the Son, he is taught a lesson of prudence by
the other turn which is given to the saying, "In Thee I am well pleased.

3 And on the other hand, if, looking at this last by itself, any one supposes the meaning
to be, that in the Son the Father had favour with men, he learns something from the third
form of the utterance, "In Thee it has pleased me. From this it becomes sufficiently
apparent, that whichever of the evangelists may have preserved for us the words as they
were literally uttered by the heavenly voice, the others have varied the terms only with
the object of setting forth the same sense more familiarly; so that what is thus given by
all of them might be understood as if the expression were: In Thee I have set my good
pleasure; that is to say, by Thee to do what is my pleasure. But once more, with respect
to that rendering which is contained in some codices of the Gospel according to Luke, and
which bears that the words heard in the heavenly voice were those that are written in the
Psalm, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee; although it is said not to be
found in the more ancient Greek codices, yet if it can be established by any copies worthy
of credit, what results but that we suppose both voices to have been heard from heaven, in
one or other verbal order?

CHAPTER XV.-AN EXPLANATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT, ACCORDING TO THE EVANGELIST JOHN, JOHN THE BAPTIST SAYS, "I KNEW HIM NOT;" WHILE. ACCORDING TO THE OTHERS, IT IS FOUND THAT HE DID ALREADY KNOW HIM.

32. Again, the account of the dove given in the Gospel according to John does not mention
the time at which the incident happened, but contains a statement of the words of John the
Baptist as reporting what he saw. In this section, the question rises as to how it is
said, "And I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto
me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is He
which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit." For if he came to I know Him only at the time when
he saw the dove descending upon Him, the inquiry is raised as to how he could have said to
Him, as He came to be baptized, "I ought rather to be baptized of Thee." For the Baptist
addressed Him thus before the dove descended. From this, however, it is evident that,
although he did know Him [in a certain sense] before this time,-for he even leaped in his
mother's womb when Mary visited Elisabeth, -there was yet something which was not known to
him up to this time, and which he learned by the descending of the dove,-namely, the fact
that He baptized in the Holy Spirit by a certain divine power proper to Himself; so that
no man who received this baptism from God, even although he baptized some, should be able
to say that that which he imparted was his own, or that the Holy Spirit was given by him.

CHAPTER XVI.-OF THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS.

33. Matthew proceeds with his narrative in these terms: "Then was Jesus led up of the
Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil. And when He had fasted forty days
and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. And when the tempter came to Him, he said,
If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But He answered and
said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth
out of the mouth of God. And so the account continues, until we come to the words, Then
the devil left him: and, behold, angels came and ministered unto Him." This whole
narrative is given also in a similar manner by Luke, although not in the same order. And
this makes it uncertain which of the two latter temptations took place first: whether it
was that the kingdoms of the world were shown Him first, and then that He Himself was
taken up to the pinnacle of the temple thereafter; or whether it was that this latter act
occurred first, and that the other scene followed it. It is, however, a matter of no real
consequence, provided it be clear that all these incidents did take place. And as Luke
sets forth the same events and ideas in different words, attention need not ever be called
to the fact that no loss results thereby to truth. Mark, again, does indeed attest the
fact that He was tempted of the devil in the wilderness for forty days and forty nights;
but he gives no statement of what was said to Him, or of the replies He made. At the same
time, he does not fail to notice the circumstance which is omitted by Luke, namely, that
the angels ministered unto Him. John, however, has left out this whole passage.

CHAPTER XVII.-OF THE CALLING OF THE APOSTLES AS THEY WERE FISHING.

34. Matthew's narrative is continued thus: "Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast
into prison, He departed into Galilee. Mark states the same fact, as also does Luke, only
Luke says nothing in the present section as to John being cast into prison. The evangelist
John, again, tells us that, before Jesus went into Galilee, Peter and Andrew were with Him
one day, and that on that occasion the former had this name, Peter, given him, while
before that period he was called Simon. Likewise John tells us, that on the day following,
when Jesus was now desirous of going forth unto Galilee, He found Philip, and said to him
that he shouldfollow Him. Thus, too, the evangelist comes to give the narrative about
Nathanael. Further, he informs us that on the third day, when He was yet in Galilee, Jesus
wrought the miracle of the turning of the water into wine at Cana. All these incidents are
left unrecorded by the other evangelists, who continue their narratives at once with the
statement of the return of Jesus into Galilee. Hence we are to understand that there was
an interval here of several days, during which those incidents took place in the history
of the disciples which are inserted at this point by John. Neither is there anything
contradictory here to that other passage where Matthew tells us how the Lord said to
Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church.

But we are not to understand that that was the time when he first received this name; but
we are rather to suppose that this took place on the occasion when it was said to him, as
John mentions, "Thou shall be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, A stone. Thus
the Lord could address him at that later period by this very name, when He said, "Thou art
Peter. For He does not say then, "Thou shalt be called Peter," but, "Thou art Peter;
because on a previous occasion he had already been spoken to in this manner, "Thou shalt
be called." 35. After this, Matthew goes on with his narrative in these terms: "And
leaving the city of Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capharnaum, which is upon the sea-
coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim;" and so forth, until we come to the
conclusion of the sermon which He delivered on the mount. In this section of the
narrative, Mark agrees with him in attesting the calling of the disciples Peter and
Andrew, and a little after that, the calling of James and John. But whereas Matthew
introduces in this immediate context his account of that lengthened sermon which He
delivered on the mount, after He cured a multitude, and when great crowds followed Him,
Mark has inserted other matters at this point, touching His teaching in the synagogue, and
the people's amazement at His doctrine. Then, too, he has stated what Matthew also states,
although not till after that lengthened sermon has been given, namely, that "He taught
them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes." He has likewise given us the
account of the man out of whom the unclean spirit was cast; and after that the story of
Peter's mother-in-law. In these things, moreover, Luke is in accord with him. But Matthew
has given us no notice of the evil spirit here. The story of Peter's mother-in-law,
however, he has not omitted, only he brings it in at a later stage.

36. In this paragraph, moreover, which we are at present considering, the same Matthew
follows up his account of the calling of those disciples to whom, when they were engaged
in fishing, He gave the command to follow Him, by a narrative to the effect that He went
about Galilee, teaching in the synagogues, and preaching the gospel, and healing all
manner of sickness; and that when multitudes had gathered about Him, He went up into a
mountain, and delivered that lengthened sermon [already alluded to]. Thus the evangelist
gives us ground for understanding that those incidents which are recorded by Mark after
the election of those same disciples, took place at the period when He was going about
Galilee, and teaching in their synagogues. We are at liberty also to suppose that what
happened to Peter's mother-in-law came in at this point; and that he has mentioned at a
later stage what he has passed over here, although he has not indeed brought up at that
later point, for direct recital, everything else which is omitted at the earlier.

37. The question may indeed be raised as to how John gives us this account of the calling
of the disciples, which is to the effect that, certainly not in Galilee, but in the
vicinity of the Jordan, Andrew first of all became a follower of the Lord, together with
another disciple whose name is not declared; that, in the second place, Peter got that
name from Him; and thirdly, that Philip was called to follow Him; whereas the other three
evangelists, in a satisfactory concord with each other, Matthew and Mark in particular
being remarkably at one here, tell us that the men were called when they were engaged in
fishing. Luke, it is true, does not mention Andrew by name. Nevertheless, we can gather
that he was in that same vessel, from the narrative of Matthew and Mark, who furnish a
concise history of the manner in which the affair was gone about. Luke, however, presents
us with a fuller and clearer exposition of the circumstances, and gives us also an account
of the miracle which was performed there in the haul of fishes, and of the fact that
previous to that the Lord spake to. the multitudes when He was seated in the boat. There
may also seem to be a discrepancy in this respect, that Luke records the saying, "From
henceforth thou shalt catch men," as if it had been addressed by the Lord to Peter alone,
while the others have exhibited it as spoken to both the brothers.

But it may very well be the case that these words were spoken first to Peter himself, when
he was seized with amazement at the immense multitude of fishes which were caught, and
this will then be the incident introduced by Luke; and that they were addressed to the two
together somewhat later, which [second utterance] will be the one noticed by the other two
evangelists. Therefore the circumstance which we have mentioned with regard to John's
narrative deserves to be carefully considered; for it may indeed be supposed to bring
before us a contradiction of no slight importance. For if it be the case that in the
vicinity of the Jordan, and before Jesus went into Galilee, two men, on hearing the
testimony of John the Baptist, followed Jesus; that of these two disciples the one was
Andrew, who at once went and brought his own brother Simon to Jesus; and that on this
occasion that brother received the name Peter, by which he was thereafter to be
called,-how can it be said by the other evangelists that He found them engaged in fishing
in Galilee, and called them there to be His disciples?

How can these diverse accounts be reconciled, unless it be that we are to understand that
those men did not gain such a view of Jesus on the occasion connected with the vicinity of
the Jordan as would lead them to attach themselves to Him for ever, but that they simply
came to know who He was, and, after their first wonder at His Person, returned to their
former engagements? 38. For [it is noticeable that] again in Cana of Galilee, after He had
turned the water into wine, this same John tells us how His disciples believed on Him. The
narrative of that miracle proceeds thus: "And the third day there was a marriage in Cana
of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there. And both Jesus was called and His disciples
to the marriage." Now, surely, if it was on this occasion that they believed on Him, as
the evangelist tells us a little further on, they were not yet His disciples at the time
when they were called to the marriage. This, however, is a mode of speech of the same kind
with what is intended when we say that the Apostle Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia; for
certainly he was not an apostle at that period. In like manner are we told here that the
disciples of Christ were invited to the marriage, by which we are to understand, not that
they were already disciples, but only that they were to be His disciples. For, at the time
when this narrative was prepared and committed to writing, they were the disciples of
Christ in fact; and that is the reason why the evangelist, as the historian of past times,
has thus spoken of them.

39. But further, as to John's statement, that "after this He went down to Capharnaum, He
and His mother, and His brethren and His disciples; and they continued there not many
days; it is uncertain whether by this period these men had already attached themselves to
Him, in particular Peter and Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee. For Matthew first of all
tells us that He came and dwelt in Capharnaum, and then that He called them from their
boats as they were engaged in fishing. On the other hand, John says that His disciples
came with Him to Capharnaum. Now it may be the case that Matthew has but gone over here
something he had omitted in its proper order. For he does not say, "After this, walking by
the sea of Galilee, He saw two brethren," but, without any indication of the strict
consecution of time, simply, "And walking by the sea of Galilee, He saw two brethren," and
so forth: consequently it is quite possible that he has recorded at this later period not
something which took place actually at that later time, but only something which he had
omitted to introduce before;

so that the men may be understood in this way to have come along with Him to Capharnaum,
to which place John states that He did come, He and His mother and His disciples:or should
we rather suppose that these were a different body of disciples, as He [may already have]
had a follower in Philip, whom He called in this particular manner, by saying to him,
"Follow me"? For in what order all the twelve apostles were called is not apparent from
the narratives of the evangelists. Indeed, not only is the succession of the various
callings left unrecorded; but even the fact of the calling is not mentioned in the case of
all of them, the only vocations specified being those of Philip, and Peter and Andrew, and
the sons of Zebedee, and Matthew the publican, who was also called Levi. The first and
only person, however, who received a separate name from Him was Peter. For He did not give
the sons of Zebedee their names individually, but He called them both together the sons of
thunder.

40. Besides, we ought certainly to note the fact that the evangelical and apostolical
Scriptures do not confine this designation of His "disciples" to those twelve alone, but
give the same appellation to all those who believed on Him, and were educated under His
instruction for the kingdom of heaven. Out of the whole number of such He chose twelve,
whom He also named apostles, as Luke mentions. For a little further on he says: And He
came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the concourse of His disciples and a
great multitude of people. And surely he would not speak of a "concourse" [or "crowd"] of
disciples if he referred only to twelve men. In other passages of the Scriptures also the
fact is plainly apparent, that all those were called His disciples who were instructed by
Him in what pertained to eternal life. 41. But the question may be asked, how He called
the fishermen from their boats two by two, namely, calling Peter and Andrew first, and
then going forward a little and calling other two, namely the sons of Zebedee, according
to the narratives of Matthew and Mark; whereas Luke's version of the matter is, that both
their boats were filled with the immense haul of fishes. And his statement bears further,
that Peter's partners, to wit, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were summoned to the
men's help when they were unable to drag out their crowded nets, and that all who were
there were astonished at the enormous draught of fishes which had been taken; and that
when Jesus said to Peter, "Fear not, from henceforth thou shall catch men,"although the
words had been addressed to Peter alone, they all nevertheless followed Him when they had
brought their ships to land. Well, we are to understand by this, that what Luke introduces
here was what took place first, and that these men were not called by the Lord on this
occasion, but only that the prediction was uttered to Peter by himself, that he would be a
fisher of men. That saying, moreover, was not intended to convey that they would never
thereafter be catchers of fish. For we read that even after the Lord's resurrection they
were engaged again in fishing. The words, therefore, imported simply that thereafter he
would catch men, and they did not bear that henceforth he would not catch fish.

And in this way we are at perfect liberty to suppose that they returned to the catching of
fish, according to their habit; so that those incidents which are related by Matthew and
Mark might easily take place at a period subsequent to this. I refer to what occurred at
the time when He called the disciples two by two, and Himself gave them the command to
follow Him, at first addressing Peter and Andrew, and then the others, namely, the two
sons of Zebedee. For on that occasion they did not follow Him only after they had drawn up
their ships on shore, as with the intention of returning to them, but they went after Him
immediately, as after one who summoned and commanded them to follow Him.

CHAPTER XVIII.-OF THE DATE OF HIS DEPARTURE INTO GALILEE.

1 42. Furthermore, we must consider the question how the evangelist John, before there is
any mention of the casting of John the Baptist into prison, tells us that Jesus went into
Galilee. For, after relating how He turned the water into wine at Cana of Galilee, and how
He came down to Capernaum with His mother and His disciples, and how they abode there not
many days, he tells us that He went up then to Jerusalem on account of the passover; that
after this He came into the land of Judaea along with His disciples, and tarried there
with them, and baptized; and then in what follows at this point the evangelist says: "And
John also was baptizing in Aenon, near to Salim, because there was much water there; and
they came, and were baptized: for John was not yet cast into prison. On the other hand,
Matthew says: "Now when He had heard that John was cast into prison, Jesus departed into
Galilee. In like manner, Mark's words are: "Now, after that John was put in prison, Jesus
came into Galilee. Luke, again, says nothing indeed about the imprisonment of John; but
notwithstanding this, after his account of the baptism and temptation of Christ, he also
makes a statement to the same effect with that of these other two, namely, that Jesus went
into Galilee. For he has connected the several parts of his narrative here in this way:
"And when all the temptation was ended, the devil departed from Him for a season;

2 and Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and there went out a fame of
Him through all the region round about," From all this, however, we may gather, not that
these three evangelists have made any statement opposed to the evangelist John, but only
that they have left unrecorded the Lord's first advent in Galilee after His baptism; on
which occasion also He turned the water into wine there. For at that period John had not
yet been cast into prison. And we are also to understand that these three evangelists have
introduced into the context of these narratives an account of another journey of His into
Galilee, which took place after John's imprisonment, regarding which return into Galilee
the evangelist John himself furnishes the following notice: "When, therefore, Jesus knew
how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus makes and baptizes more disciples than John (though
Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples), he left Judaea, and departed again into
Galilee. So, then, we perceive that by that time John hadbeen already cast into prison;
and further, thatthe Jews had heard that He was making and baptizing more disciples than
John had made and baptized.

CHAPTER XIX.-OF THE LENGTHENED SERMON WHICH, ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, HE DELIVERED ON THE MOUNT.

43. Now, regarding that lengthened sermon which, according to Matthew, the Lord delivered
on the mount, let us at present see whether it appears that the rest of the evangelists
stand in no manner of antagonism to it. Mark, it is true, has not recorded it at all,
neither has he preserved any utterances of Christ's in any way resembling it, with the
exception of certain sentences which are not given connectedly, but occur here and there,
and which the Lord repeated in other places. Nevertheless, he has left a space in the text
of his narrative indicating the point at which we may understand this sermon to have been
spoken, although it has been left unrecited. That is the place where he says: "And He was
preaching in their synagogues, and in all Galilee, and was casting out devils." Under the
head of this preaching, in which he says Jesus engaged in all Galilee, we may also
understand that discourse to be comprehended which was delivered on the mount, and which
is detailed by Matthew. For the same Mark continues his account thus: "And there came a
leper to Him, beseeching Him; and kneeling down to Him, said, If Thou wilt, Thou canst
make me clean." And he goes on with the rest of the story of the cleansing of this leper,
in such a manner as to make it intelligible to us that the person in question is the very
man who is mentioned by Matthew as having been healed at the time when the Lord came down
from the mount after the delivery of His discourse. For this is how Matthew gives the
history there: "Now, when He was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed
Him; and, behold, there came a leper, and worshipped Him, saying, Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou
canst make me clean;" and so on.

44. This leper is also referred to by Luke? not indeed in this order, but after the manner
in which the writers are accustomed to act, recording at a subsequent point things which
have been omitted at a previous stage, or bringing in at an earlier point occurrences
which took place at a later period, according as they had incidents suggested to their
minds by the heavenly influence, with which indeed they had become acquainted before, but
which they were afterwards prompted to commit to writing as they came up to their
recollection. This same Luke, however, has also left us a version of his own of that
copious discourse of the Lord, in a passage which he commences just as the section in
Matthew begins. For in the latter the words run thus: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven;" while in the former they are put thus: "Blessed be ye
poor: for yours is the kingdom of God." Then, too, much of what follows in Luke's
narrative is similar to what we have in the other. And finally, the conclusion given to
the sermon is repeated in both Gospels in its entire identity,-namely, the story of the
wise man who builds upon the rock, and the foolish man who builds upon the sand; the only
difference being, that Luke speaks only of the stream beating against the house, and does
not mention also the rain and the wind, as they occur in Matthew. Accordingly, it might
very readily be believed that he has there introduced the self-same discourse of the Lord,
but that at the same time he has omitted certain sentences which Matthew has inserted;
that he has also brought in other sayings which Matthew has not mentioned; and that, in a
similar manner, he has expressed certain of these utterances in somewhat different terms,
but without detriment to the integrity of the truth.

45. This we might very well suppose to have been the case, as I have said, were it not
that a difficulty is felt to attach to the circumstance that Matthew tells us how this
discourse was delivered on a mount by the Lord in a sitting posture; while Luke says that
it was spoken on a plain by the Lord in a standing posture. This difference, accordingly,
makes it seem as if the former referred to one discourse, and the latter to another. And
what should there be, indeed, to hinder [us from supposing] Christ to have repeated
elsewhere some words which He had already spoken, or from doing a second time certain
things which He had already done on some previous occasion? However, that these two
discourses, of which the one is inserted by Matthew and the other by Luke, are not
separated by a long space of time, is with much probability inferred from the fact that,
at once in what precedes and in what follows them, both the evangelists have related
certain incidents either similar or perfectly identical, so that it is not unreasonably
felt that the narrations of the writers who introduce these things are occupied with the
same localities and days. For Matthew's recital proceeds in the following terms: "And
there followed Him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from
Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan. And seeing the multitudes, He went up
into a mountain; and when He was set, His disciples came unto Him:

and He opened His mouth, and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven ; and so forth. Here it may appear that His desire was to
free Himself from the great crowds of people, and that for this reason He went up into the
mountain, as if He meant to withdraw Himself from the multitudes, and seek an opportunity
of speaking with His disciples alone. And this seems to be certified also by Luke, whose
account is to the following effect: "And it came to pass in those days, that He went out
into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day, He
called unto Him His disciples: and of them He chose twelve, whom also He named apostles;
Simon, whom He also named Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and
Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon, who is called
Zelotes, Judas the brother of James, and Judas Scarioth, which was the traitor. And He
came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of His disciples, and a great
multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea-coast of Tyre and
Sidon, which had come to hear Him, and to be healed of their diseases; and they that were
vexed with unclean spirits were healed. And the whole multitude sought to touch Him; for
there went virtue out of Him, and healed them all.

And He lifted up His eyes on His disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the
kingdom of heaven; and so on. Here the relation permits us to understand that, after
selecting on the mountain twelve disciples out of the larger body, whom He also named
apostles (which incident Matthew has omitted), He then delivered that discourse which
Matthew has introduced, and which Luke has left unnoticed,-that is to say, the one on the
mount; and that thereafter, when He had now come down, He spoke in the plain a second
discourse similar to the first, on which Matthew is silent, but which is detailed by Luke;
and further, that both these sermons were concluded in the same manner. 46. But, again, as
regards what Matthew proceeds to state after the termination of that discourse-namely
this, "And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished
at His doctrine," -it may appear that the speakers there were those multitudes of
disciples out of whom He had chosen the twelve. Moreover, when the evangelist goes on
immediately in these terms, "And when Hewas come down from the mountain, great multitudes
followed Him; and, behold, there came a leper and worshipped Him," we are at libertyto
suppose that that incident took place subsequently to both discourses,-not only after the
one which Matthew records, but also after the one which Luke inserts. For it is not made
apparent what length of time elapsed after the descent from the mountain. But Matthew's
intention was simply to indicate the fact itself, that after that descent there were great
multitudes of people with the Lord on the occasion when He cleansed the leper, and not to
specify what period of time had intervened. And this supposition may all the more readily
be entertained, since [we find that] Luke tells us how the same leper was cleansed at a
time when the Lord was now in a certain city,-a circumstance which Matthew has not cared
to mention.

47. After all, however, this explanation may also be suggested,-namely, that in the first
instance the Lord, along with His disciples and no others, was on some more elevated
portion of the mountain, and that during the period of His stay there He chose out of the
number of His followers those twelve; that then He came down in company with them, not
indeed from the mountain itself, but from that said altitude on the mountain, into the
plain-that is to say, into some level spot which was found on the slope of the mountain,
and which was capable of accommodating great multitudes; and that thereafter, when He had
seated Himself, His disciples took up their position next Him, and in these circumstances
He delivered both to them and to the other multitudes who were present one discourse,
which Matthew and Luke have both recorded, their modes of narrating it being indeed
different, but the truth being given with equal fidelity by the two writers in all that
concerns the facts and sayings which both of them have recounted. For we have already
prefaced our inquiry with the position, which indeed ought of itself to have been obvious
to all without the need of any one to give them counsel to that effect beforehand, that
there is not [necessarily] any antagonism between writers, although one may omit something
which another mentions; nor, again, although one states a fact in one way, and another in
a different method, provided that the same truth is set forth in regard to the objects and
sayings themselves. In this way, therefore, Matthew's sentence, "Now when He was come down
from the mountain," may at the same time be understood to refer also to the plain, which
there might very well have been on the slope of the mountain. And thereafter Matthew tells
the story of the cleansing of the leper, which is also given in a similar manner by Mark
and Luke.

CHAPTER XX.-AN EXPLANATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MATTHEW TELLS US HOW THE CENTURION CAME TO JESUS ON BEHALF OF HIS SERVANT, WHILE LUKE'S STATEMENT IS THAT THE CENTURION DESPATCHED FRIENDS TO HIM.

48. After these things, Matthew proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "And
when Jesus was entered into Capharnaum, there came unto Him a centurion, beseeching Him,
and saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, and he is grievously
tormented;" and so forth, on to the place where it is said, "And his servant was healed in
the self-same hour." This case of the centurion's servant is related also by Luke; only
Luke does not bring it in, as Matthew does, after the cleansing of the leper, whose story
he has recorded as something suggested to his recollection at a later stage, but
introduces it after the conclusion of that lengthened sermon already discussed. For he
connects the two sections in this way: "Now when He had ended all His sayings in the
audience of the people, He entered into Capharnaum; and a certain centurion's servant, who
was dear unto him, was sick and ready to die;" and so forth, until we come to the verse
where it is said that he was healed. Here, then, we notice that it was not till after He
had ended all His words in the hearing of the people that Christ entered Capharnaum; by
which we are to understand simply that He did not make that entrance before He had brought
these sayings to their conclusion; and we are not to take it as intimating the length of
that period of time which intervened between the delivery of these discourses and the
entrance into Capharnaum. In this interval that leper was cleansed, whose case is recorded
by Matthew in its own proper place, but is given by Luke only at a later point.

49. Accordingly, let us proceed to consider whether Matthew and Luke are at one in the
account of this servant. Matthew's words, then, are these: "There came unto Him a
centurion, beseeching Him, and saying, My servant lieth at home sick of the palsy. Now
this seems to be inconsistent with the version presented by Luke, which runs thus: "And
when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto Him the elders of the Jews, beseeching Him that He
would come and healhis servant. And when they came to Jesus, they besought Him instantly,
saying, That he was worthy for whom He should do this: for he loveth our nation, and he
hath built us a synagogue. Then Jesus went with them. And when He was now not far from the
house, the centurion sent friends to Him, saying unto Him, Lord, trouble not Thyself; for
I am not worthy that Thou shouldest enter under my roof: wherefore neither thought I
myself worthy to come unto Thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed. For if
this was the manner in which the incident took place, how can Matthew's statement, that
there "came to Him a certain centurion," be correct, seeing that the man did not come in
person, but sent his friends? The apparent discrepancy, however, will disappear if we look
carefully into the matter, and observe that Matthew has simply held by a very familiar
mode of expression.

For not only are we accustomed to speak of one as coming even before he actually reaches
the place he is said to have approached, whence, too, we speak of one as making small
approach or making great approach to what he is desirous of reaching; but we also not
unfrequently speak of that access, for the sake of getting at which the approach is made,
as reached even although the person who is said to reach another may not himself see the
individual whom he reaches, inasmuch as it may be through a friend that he reaches the
person whose favour is necessary to him. This, indeed, is a custom which has so thoroughly
established itself, that even in the language of every-day life now those men are called
Perventores who, in the practice of canvassing, get at the inaccessible ears, as one may
say, of any of the men of influence, by the intervention of suitable personages. If,
therefore, access itself is thus familiarly said to be gained by the means of other
parties, how much more may an approach be said to take place, although it be by means of
others, which always remains something short of actual access! For it is surely the case,
that a person may be able to do very much in the way of approach, but yet may have failed
to succeed in actually reaching what he sought to get at.

Consequently it is nothing out of the way for Matthew,-a fact, indeed, which may be
understood by any intelligence,-when thus dealing with an approach on the part of the
centurion to the Lord, which was effected in the person of others, to have chosen to
express the matter in this compendious method, "There came a centurion to Him." 50. At the
same time, however, we must be careful enough to discern a certain mystical depth in the
phraseology adopted by the evangelist, which is in accordance with these words of the
Psalm, "Come ye to Him, and be ye lightened." For in this way, inasmuch as theLord Himself
commended the faith of the centurion, in which indeed his approach was really made to
Jesus, in such terms that He declared,"I have not found so great faith in Israel," the
evangelist wisely chose to speak of the man himself as coming to Jesus, rather than to
bring in the persons through whom he had conveyed his words. And furthermore, Luke has
unfolded the whole incident to us just as it occurred, in a form constraining us to
understand from his narrative in what manner another writer, who was also incapable of
making any false statement,might have spoken of the man himself as coming. It is in this
way, too, that the woman who suffered from the issue of blood, although she took hold
merely of the hem of His garment, did yet touch the Lord more effectually than those
multitudes did by whom He was thronged. For just as she touched the Lord the more
effectually, in so far as she believed the more earnestly, so the centurion also came the
more really to the Lord, inasmuch as he believed the more thoroughly. And now, as regards
the rest of this paragraph, it would be a superfluous task to go over in detail the
various matters which are recounted by the one and omitted by the other. For, according to
the principle brought under notice at the outset, there is not to be found in these
peculiarities any actual antagonism between the writers.

CHAPTER XXI.-OF THE ORDER IN WHICH THE NARRATIVE CONCERNING PETER'S MOTHER-IN-LAW IS INTRODUCED.

51. Matthew proceeds in the following terms: "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house,
He saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. And He touched her hand, and the fever
left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them. Matthew has not indicated the date of
this incident; that is to say, he has specified neither before what event nor after what
occurrence it took place. For we are certainly under no necessity of supposing that,
because it is recorded after a certain event, it must also have happenedin actual matter
of fact after that event. And unquestionably, in this case, we are to understand that he
has introduced for record here something which he had omitted to notice previously. For
Mark brings in this narrative before his account of that cleansing of the leper which he
would appear to have placed after the delivery of the sermon on the mount; which
discourse, however, he has left unrelated. And thus, too Luke inserts this story of
Peter's mother-in-law after an occurrence which it follows likewise in Mark's version, but
also before that lengthened discourse, which has been reproduced by him, and which may
appear to be one with the sermon which Matthew states to have been delivered on the mount.
For of what consequence is it in what place any of them may give his account;

or what difference does it make whether he inserts the matter in its proper order, or
brings in at a particular point what was previously omitted, or mentions at an earlier
stage what really happened at a later, provided only that he contradicts neither himself
nor a second writer in the narrative of the same facts or of others? For as it is not in
one's own power, however admirable and trustworthy may be the knowledge he has once
obtained of the facts, to determine the order in which he will recall them to memory (for
the way in which one thing comes into a person's mind before or after another is something
which proceeds not as we will, but simply as it is given to us), it is reasonable enough
to suppose that each of the evangelists believed it to have been his duty to relate what
he had to relate in that order in which it had pleased God to suggest to his recollection
the matters he was engaged in recording. At least this might hold good in the case of
those incidents with regard to which the question of order, whether it were this or that,
detracted nothing from evangelical authority and truth.

52. But as to the reason why the Holy Spirit, who divideth to every man severally as He
will, and who therefore undoubtedly, with a view to the establishing of their books on so
distinguished an eminence of authority, also governs and rules the minds of the holy men
themselves in the matter of suggesting the things they were to commit to writing, has left
one historian at liberty to construct his narrative in one way, and another in a different
fashion, that is a question which any one may look into with pious consideration, and for
which, by divine help, the answer also may possibly be found. That, however, is not the
object of the work which we have taken in hand at present. The task we have proposed to
ourselves is simply to demonstrate that not one of the evangelists contradicts either
himself or his fellow-historians, whatever be the precise order in which he may have had
the ability or may have preferred to compose his account of matters belonging to the
doings and sayings of Christ; and that, too, at once in the case of subjects identical
with those recorded by others, and in the case of subjects different from these. For this
reason, therefore, when the order of times is not apparent, we ought not to feel it a
matter of any consequence what order any of them may have adopted in relating the events.
But wherever the order is apparent, if the evangelist then presents anything which seems
to be inconsistent with his own statements, or with those of another, we must certainly
take the passage into consideration, and endeavour to clear up the difficulty.

CHAPTER XXII.-OF THE ORDER OF THE INCIDENTS WHICH ARE RECORDED AFTER THIS SECTION AND OF THE QUESTION WHETHER MATTHEW MARK, AND LUKE ARE CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER IN THESE.

1 53. Matthew, accordingly, continues his narration thus: "Now when the even was come,
they brought unto Him many that were possessed with devils; and He cast out the spirits
with His word, and healed all that were sick: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. That
this belongs in date to the same day, he indicates with sufficient clearness by these
words which he subjoins, "Now when the even was come. In a similar manner, after
concluding his account of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law with the sentence, "And she
ministered unto them," Mark has appended the following statement: "And at even, when the
sun did set, they brought unto Him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed of
the devils. And all the city was gathered together at the door. And He healed many that
were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to
speak, because they knew Him. And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, He
went out, and departed into a solitary place. Here Mark appears to have preserved the
order in such wise, that after the statement conveyed in the words "And at even," he gives
this note of time: "And in the morning, rising up a great while before day.

2 And although there is no absolute necessity for supposing either that, when we have the
words "And at even," the reference must be to the evening of the very same day, or that
when the phrase "In the morning" meets us, it must mean the morning after the self-same
night; still, however that may be, this order in the occurrences may fairly appear to have
been preserved with a view to an orderly arrangement of the times. Moreover, Luke, too,
after relating the story of Peter's mother-in-law, while he does not indeed say expressly,
"And at even," has at least used a phrase which conveys the same sense. For he proceeds
thus: "Now when the sun had set, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought
them unto Him; and He laid His hands on every one of them, and healed them. And devils
also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And He,
rebuking them, suffered them not to speak: for they knew that He was Christ. And when it
was day, He departed and went into a desert place. Here, again, we see precisely the same
order of times preserved as we discovered in Mark.

3 But Matthew, who appears to have introduced the story of Peter's mother-in-law not
according to the order in which the incident itself took place, but simply in the
succession in which he had it suggested to his mind after previous omission, has first
recorded what happened on that same day, to wit, when even was come; and thereafter,
instead of subjoining the notice of the morning, goes on with his account in these terms:
"Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about Him, He gave commandment to depart unto the
other side of the lake. This, then, is something new, differing from what is given in the
context by Mark and Luke, who, after the notice of the even, bring in the mention of the
morning. Consequently, as regards this verse in Matthew, "Now when Jesus saw great
multitudes about Him, He gave commandment to depart unto the other side of the lake," we
ought simply to understand that he has introduced here another fact which he has had
brought to mind at this point,-namely, the fact that on a certain day, when Jesus had seen
great multitudes about Him, He gave instructions to cross to the other side of the lake.


THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS
==========================

THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS continued

CHAPTER XXIII.-OF THE PERSON WHO SAID TO THE LORD, "I WILL FOLLOW THEE WHITHERSOEVER THOU GOEST;" AND OF THE OTHER THINGS CONNECTED THEREWITH, AND OF THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY ARE RECORDED BY MATTHEW AND LUKE.

54. He next appends the following statement: "And a certain scribe came and said unto Him,
Master, I will follow Thee whithersoever thou goest; and so on, down to the words, "Let
the dead bury their dead. We have a narrative in similar terms also in Luke. But he
inserts it only after a variety of other matters, and without any explicit note of the
order of time, but after the fashion of one only bethinking himself of the incident at
that point. He leaves us also uncertain whether he brings it in there as something
previously omitted, or as an anticipatory notice of something which in actual fact took
place subsequently to those incidents by which it is followed in the history. For he
proceeds thus: "And it came to pass, that as they went in the way, a certain man said unto
Him, I will follow Thee whithersoever Thou goest. And the Lord's answer is given here in
precisely the same terms as we find recited in Matthew. Now, although Matthew tells us
that this took place at the time when He gave commandment to depart unto the other side of
the lake, and Luke, on the other hand, speaks of an occasion when they "went in the way,"
there is no necessary contradiction in that. For it may be the case that they went in the
way just in order to come to the lake.

Again, in what is said about the person who begged to be allowed first to bury his father,
Matthew and Luke are thoroughly at one. For the mere fact that Matthew has introduced
first the words of the man who made the request regarding his father, and that he has put
after that the saying of the Lord, "Follow me," whereas Luke puts the Lord's command,
"Follow me," first, and the declaration of the petitioner second, is a matter of no
consequence to the sense itself. Luke has also made mention of yet another person, who
said, "Lord, I will follow Thee, but let me first bid them farewell which are at home at
my house; of which individual Matthewsays nothing. And thereafter Luke proceeds to another
subject altogether, and not to what followed in the actual order of time. The passage
runs: "And after these things, the Lord appointed other seventy-two also. That this
occurred "after these things"is indeed manifest; but at what length of time after these
things the Lord did so is not apparent. Nevertheless, in this interval that took place
which Matthew subjoins next in succession. For the same Matthew still keeps up the order
of time, and continues his narrative, as we shall now see.

Chapter XXIV.-Of the Lord's Crossing the Lake on that Occasion on Which He Slept in the
Vessel, and of the Casting Out of Those Devils Whom He Suffered to Go into the Swine; And
of the Consistency of the Accounts Given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke of All that Was Done
and Said on These Occasions. 55. "And when He was entered into a ship, His disciples
followed Him. And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea. And so the story goes
on, until we come to the words, "And He came into His own city. Those two narratives which
are told by Matthew in continuous succession,-namely, that regarding the calm upon the sea
after Jesus was roused from His sleep and had commanded the winds, and that concerning the
persons who were possessed with the fierce devil, and who brake their bands and were
driven into the wilderness,-are given also in like manner by Mark and Luke. Some parts of
these stories are expressed, indeed, in different terms by the different writers, but the
sense remains the same. This is the case, for example, when Matthew represents the Lord to
have said, "Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? while Mark's version is, "Why are ye
fearful? Is it that ye have no faith? For Mark's word refers to that perfect faith which
is like a grain of mustard seed; and so he, too, speaks in effect of the "little faith.
Luke, again, puts it thus: "Where is your faith? Accordingly, the whole utterance may
perhaps have gone thus: "Why are ye fearful? Where is your faith, O ye of little faith?
And so one of them records one part, and another another part, of the entire saying. The
same may be the case with the words spoken by the disciples when they awoke Him. Matthew
gives us: "Lord, save us:

weperish. Mark has: "Master, carest Thou not that we perish? AndLuke says simply, "Master,
we perish. These different expressions, however, convey one and the same meaning on the
part of those who were awaking the Lord, and who were wishful to secure their safety.
Neither need we inquire which of these several forms is to be preferred as the one
actually addressed to Christ. For whether they really used the one or the other of these
three phraseologies, or expressed themselves in different words, which are unrecorded by
any one of the evangelists, but which were equally well adapted to give the like
representation of what was meant, what difference does it make in the fact itself? At the
same time, it may also possibly have been the case that, when several parties in concert
were trying to awake Him, all these various modes of expression had been used, one by one
person, and another by another. In the same way, too, we may deal with the exclamation on
the stilling of the tempest, which, according to Matthew, was, "What manner of man is
this, that the winds and the sea obey Him? according to Mark, "What man, thinkest thou, is
this, that both the wind and the sea obey Him? and according to Luke, "What man, thinkest
thou, is this? for He commandeth both the winds and the sea, and they obey Him. Who can
fail to see that the sense in all these forms is quite identical? For the expression,
"What man, thinkest thou, is this?

has precisely the same import with the other, "What manner of man is this? And where the
words" He commandeth "are omitted, it can at least be understood as a matter of course
that the obedience is rendered to the person commanding. 56. Moreover, with respect to the
circumstance that Matthew states that there were two men who were afflicted with the
legion of devils which received permission to go into the swine, whereas Mark and Luke
instance only a single individual, we may suppose that one of these parties was a person
of some kind of superior notability and repute, whose case was particularly lamented by
that district, and for whose deliverance there was special anxiety. With the intention of
indicating that fact, two of the evangelists have judged it proper to make mention only of
the one person, in connection with whom the fame of this deed had been spread abroad the
more extensively and remarkably. Neither should any scruple be excited by the different
forms in which the words uttered by the possessed have been reproduced by the various
evangelists. For we may either resolve them all into one and the same thing, or suppose
them all to have been actually spoken. Nor, again, should we find any difficulty in the
circumstance that with Matthew the address is couched in the plural number, but with Mark
and Luke in the singular. For these latter two tell us at the same time, that when the man
was asked what was his name, he answered that he was Legion, because the devils were many.
Nor, once more, is there any discrepancy between Mark's statement that the herd of swine
was round about the mountain, and Luke's, that they were on the mountain. For the herd of
swine was so great that one portion of it might be on the mountain, and another only round
about it. For, as Mark has expressly informed us, there were about two thousand swine.

Chapter XXV.-Of the Man Sick of the Palsy to Whom the Lord Said, "Thy Sins are Forgiven
Thee," And "Take Up Try Bed;" And in Especial, of the Question Whether Matthew and Mark
are Consistent with Each Other in Their Notice of the Place Where This Incident Took
Place, in So Far as Matthew Says It Happened "In His Own City," While Mark Says It Was in
Capharnaum. 57. Hereupon Matthew proceeds with his recital, still preserving the order of
time, and connects his narrative in the following manner:-"And He entered into a ship, and
passed over, and came into His own city. And, behold, they brought to Him a man sick of
the palsy, lying on a bed;" and so on down to where it is said "But when the multitude saw
it, they marvelled; and glorified God, which had given such power unto men." Mark and Luke
have also told the story of this paralytic. Now, as regards Matthew's stating that the
Lord said," Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee;" while Luke makes the
address run, not as "son," but as "man,"-this only helps to bring out the Lord's meaning
more explicitly. For these sins were [thus said to be] forgiven to the "man," inasmuch as
the very fact that he was a man would make it impossible for him to say, "I have not
sinned;" and at the same time, that mode of address served to indicate that He who forgave
sins to man was Himself God. Mark, again, has given the same form of words as Matthew, but
he has left out the terms, "Be of good cheer." It is also possible, indeed, that the whole
saying ran thus: "Man, be of good cheer: son, thy sins are forgiven thee;" or thus: "Son,
be of good cheer: man, thy sins are forgiven thee;" or the words may have been spoken in
some Other congruous order.

58. A difficulty, however, may certainly arise when we observe how Matthew tells the story
of the paralytic after this fashion: "And He entered into a ship, and passed over, and
came into His own city. And, behold, they brought to Him a man sick of the palsy, lying on
a bed; whereas Mark speaks of the incident as taking place not in His own city, which
indeed is called Nazareth, but in Capharnaum. His narrative is to the following effect:-"
And again He entered into Capharnaum after some days; and it was noised that He was in the
house. And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to
receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and He spake a word unto them. And they
came unto Him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. And when they
could not come nigh unto Him for the press, they uncovered the roof where He was: and when
they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. And when
Jesus saw their faith; and so forth. Luke, on the other hand, does not mention the place
in which the incident happened, but gives the tale thus: "And it came to pass on a certain
day that He was sitting teaching, and there were Pharisees and doctors of the law also
sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem:

and the power of the Lord was present to heal them. And, behold, men brought in a bed a
man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him
before Him. And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of
the multitude, they went upon the house-top, and let him down through the tiling with his
couch into the midst before Jesus. And when He saw their faith, He said, Man, thy sins are
forgiven thee; and so forth. The question, therefore, remains one between Mark and
Matthew, in so far as Matthew writes of the incident as taking place in the Lord's city;
while Mark locates it in Capharnaum. This question would be more difficult to solve if
Matthew mentioned Nazareth by name. But, as the case stands, when we reflect that the
state of Galilee itself might have been called Christ's city, because Nazareth was in
Galilee, just as the whole region which was made up of so many cities is yet called a
Roman state; when, further, it is considered that so many nations are comprehended in that
city, of which it is written, "Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God;

and also that God's ancient people, though dwelling in so many cities, have yet been
spoken of as one house, the house of Israel, -who can doubtthat [it may be fairly said
that] Jesus wrought this work in His own city [or, state], inasmuch as He did it in the
city of Capharnaum, which was a city of that Galilee to which He had returned when He
crossed over again from the country of the Gerasenes, so that when He came into Galilee He
might correctly be said to have come into His own city [or, state], in which ever town of
Galilee He might happen to be? This explanation may be vindicated more particularly on the
ground that Capharnaum itself held a position of such eminence in Galilee that it was
reckoned to be a kind of metropolis. But even were it altogether illegitimate to take the
city of Christ in the sense either of Galilee itself, in which Nazareth was situated, or
of Capharnaum, which was distinguished as in a certain sense the capital of Galilee, we
might still affirm that Matthew has simply passed over all that happened after Jesus came
into His own city until He reached Capharnaum, and that he has simply tacked on the
narrative of the healing of the paralytic at this point; just as the writers do in many
instances, leaving unnoticed much that intervenes, and, without any express indication of
the omissions they are making, proceeding precisely as if what they subjoin, followed
actually in literal succession.

CHAPTER XXVI.-OF THE CALLING OF MATTHEW, AND OF THE QUESTION WHETHER MATTHEW'S OWN ACCOUNT IS IN HARMONY WITH THOSE OF MARK AND LUKE WHEN THEY SPEAK OF LEVI THE SON OF ALPHAEUS.

59. Matthew next continues his narrative in the following terms:-" And as Jesus passed
forth from thence, He saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and He
saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed Him." Mark gives this story also, and
keeps the same order, bringing it in after the notice of the healing of the man who was
sick of the palsy. His version runs thus: "And He went forth again by the sea-side; and
all the multitude resorted unto Him, and He taught them. And as He passed by, He saw Levi
the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he
arose, and followed Him." There is no contradiction here; for Matthew is the same person
with Levi. Luke also introduces this after the story of the healing of the same man who
was sick of the palsy. He writes in these terms: "And after these things He went forth,
and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and He said unto him,
Follow me. And he left all, rose up, and followed Him." Now, from this it will appear to
be the most reasonable explanation to say that Matthew records these things here in the
form of things previously passed over, and now brought to mind. For certainly we must
believe that Matthew's calling took place before the delivery of the sermon on the mount.
For Luke tells us that on this mountain on that occasion the election was made of all
these twelve, whom Jesus also named apostles, out of the larger body of the disciples.

Chapter XXVII.-Of the Feast at Which It Was Objected at Once that Christ Ate with Sinners,
and that His Disciples Did Not Fast; Of the Circumstance that the Evangelists Seem to Give
Different Accounts of the Parties by Whom These Objections Were Alleged; And of the
Question Whether Matthew and Mark and Luke are Also in Harmony with Each Other in the
Reports Given of the Words of These Persons, and of the Replies Returned by the Lord. 60.
Matthew, accordingly, goes on to say: "And it came to pass, as He sat at meat in the
house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and His disciples;"
and so on, down to where we read, "But they put new wine into new bottles, and both are
preserved." Here Matthew has not told us particularly in whose house it was that Jesus was
sitting at meat along with the publicans and sinners. This might make it appear as if he
had not appended this notice in its strict order here, but had introduced at this point,
in the way of reminiscence, something which actually took place on a different occasion,
were it not that Mark and Luke, who repeat the account in terms thoroughly similar, have
made it plain that it was in the house of Levi-that is to say, Matthew-that Jesus sat at
meat, and all these sayings were uttered which follow. For Mark states the same fact,
keeping also the same order, in the following manner: "And it came to pass, as He sat at
meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus." Accordingly,
when he says, "in his house," he certainly refers to the person of whom he was speaking
directly before, and that was Levi. To the same effect, after the words, "He saith unto
him, Follow me; and he left all, rose up, and followed Him," Luke has appended immediately
this statement: "And Levi made Him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great
company of publicans and of others that sat down with them." And thus it is manifest in
whose house it was that these things took place.

61. Let us next look into the words which these three evangelists have all brought in as
having been addressed to the Lord, and also into the replies which were made by Him.
Matthew says: "And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto His disciples, Why eateth
your Master with publicans and sinners? This reappears very nearly in the same words in
Mark: "How is it that He eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? Only we find thus
that Matthew has omitted one thing which Mark inserts-namely, the addition "and drinketh.
But of what consequence can that be, since the sense is fully given, the idea suggested
being that they were partaking of a repast in company? Luke, on the other hand, seems to
have recorded this scene somewhat differently. For his version proceeds thus: "But their
scribes and Pharisees murmured against His disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with
publicans and sinners? But his intention in this certainly is not to indicate that their
Master was not referred to on that occasion, but to intimate that the objection was
levelled against all of them together, both Himself and His disciples; the charge,
however, which was to be taken to be meant both of Him and of them, being addressed
directly not to Him, but to them. For the fact is that Luke himself, no less than the
others, represents the Lord as making the reply, and saying, "I came not to call the
righteous, but sinners to repentance.

And He would not have returned that answer to them, had not their words, "Why do ye eat
and drink? been directed very specially to Himself. For the same reason, Matthew and Mark
have told us that the objection which was brought against Him was stated immediately to
His disciples, because, when the allegation was addressed to the disciples, the charge was
thereby laid all the more seriously against the Master whom these disciples were imitating
and following. One and the same sense, therefore, is conveyed; and it is expressed all the
better in consequence of these variations employed in some of the terms, while the matter
of fact itself is left intact. In like manner we may deal with the accounts of the Lord's
reply. Matthew's runs thus: "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are
sick; but go ye and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I
am not come to call the righteous, but sinners. Mark and Luke have also preserved for us
the same sense in almost the same words, with this exception, that they both fail to
introduce that quotation from the prophet, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice. Luke,
again, after the words, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners," has added the
term, "unto repentance. This addition serves to bring out the sense more fully, so as to
preclude any one from supposing that sinners are loved by Christ, purely for the very
reason that they are sinners.

For this similitude also of the sick indicates clearly what God means by the calling of
sinners, -that it is like the physician with the sick,-and that its object verily is that
men should be saved from their iniquity as from disease; which healing is effected by
repentance. 62. In the same way, we may subject what is said about the disciples of John
to examination. Matthew's words are these: "Then came to Him the disciples of John,
saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft? The purport of Mark's version is similar:
"And the disciples of John and the Pharisees used to fast. And they come and say unto Him,
Why do the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not? The only
semblance of a discrepancy that can be found here, is in the possibility of supposing that
the mention of the Pharisees as having spoken along with the disciples of John is an
addition of Mark's, while Matthew states only that the disciples of John expressed
themselves to the above effect. But the words which were actually uttered by the parties,
according to Mark's version, rather indicate that the speakers and the persons spoken of
were not the same individuals. I mean, that the persons who came to Jesus were the guests
who were then present, that they came because the disciples of John and the Pharisees were
fasting, and that they uttered the above words with respect to these parties. In this way,
the evangelist's phrase, "they come," would not refer to the persons regarding whom he had
just thrown in the remark, "And the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting.

But the case would be, that as those parties were fasting, some others here, who are moved
by that fact, come to Him, and put this question to Him, "Why do the disciples of John and
of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not? This is more clearly expressed by Luke.
For, evidently with the same idea in his mind, after stating what answer the Lord returned
in the words in which He spoke about the calling of sinners under the similitude of those
who are sick, he proceeds thus: "And they said unto Him, Why do the disciples of John fast
often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees, but thine eat and
drink? Here, then, we see that, as was the case with Mark, Luke has mentioned one party as
speaking to this intent in relation to other parties. How comes it, therefore, that
Matthew says, "Then came to Him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees
fast? The explanation may be, that those individuals were also present, and that all these
various parties were eager to advance this charge, as they severally found opportunity.
And the sentiments which sought expression on this occasion have been conveyed by the
three evangelists undervaried terms, but yet without any divergence from a true statement
of the fact itself.

63. Once more, we find that Matthew and Mark have given similar accounts of what was said
about the children of the bridegroom not fasting as long as the bridegroom is with them,
with this exception, that Mark has named them the children of the bridals, while Matthew
has designated them the children of the bridegroom. That, however, is a matter of no
moment. For by the children of the bridals we understand at once those connected with the
bridegroom, and those connected with the bride. The sense, therefore, is obvious and
identical, and neither different nor contradictory. Luke, again, does not say, "Can the
children of the bridegroom fast? but, "Can ye make the children of the bridegroom fast,
while the bridegroom is with them? By expressing it in this method, the evangelist has
elegantly opened up the self-same sense in a way calculated to suggest something else.
Forthus the idea is conveyed, that those very persons who were speaking would try to make
the children of the bridegroom mourn and fast, inasmuch as they would [seek to] put the
bridegroom to death. Moreover, Matthew's phrase, "mourn," is of the same import as that
used by Mark and Luke, namely, "fast. For Matthew also says further on, "Then shall they
fast," and not, "Then shall they mourn. But by the use of this phrase, he has indicated
that the Lord spoke of that kind of fasting which pertains to the lowliness of
tribulation.

In the same way, too, the Lord may be understood to have pictured out a different kind of
fasting, which stands related to the rapture of a mind dwelling in the heights of things
spiritual, and for that reason estranged in a certain measure from the meats that are for
the body, when He made use of those subsequent similitudes touching the new cloth and the
new wine, by which He showed that this kind of fasting is an incongruity for sensual and
carnal people, who are taken up with the cares of the body, and who consequently still
remain in the old mind. These similitudes are also embodied in similar terms by the other
two evangelists. And it should be sufficiently evident that there need be no real
discrepancy, although one may introduce something, whether belonging to the subject-matter
itself, or merely to the terms in which that subject is expressed, which another leaves
out; provided only that there be neither any departure from a genuine identity in sense,
nor any contradiction created between the different forms which may be adopted for
expressing the same thing.

Chapter XXVIII.-Of the Raising of the Daughter of the Ruler of the Synagogue, and of the
Woman Who Touched the Hem of His Garment; Of the Question, Also, as to Whether the Order
in Which These Incidents are Narrated Exhibits Any Contradiction in Any of the Writers by
Whom They are Reported; And in Particular, of the Words in Which the Ruler of the
Synagogue Addressed His Request to the Lord. 64. Still keeping by the order of time,
Matthew next continues to the following effect: "While He spake these things unto them,
behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped Him, saying, My daughter is even now
dead; but come and lay Thy hand upon her, and she shall live; and so on, until we come to
the words, "and the maid arose. And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land. The
other two, namely, Mark and Luke, in like manner give this same account, only they do not
keep by the same order now. For they bring up this narrative in a different place, and
insert it in another connection; to wit, at the point where He crosses the take and
returns from the country of the Gerasenes, after casting out the devils and permitting
them to go into the swine. Thus Mark introduces it, after he has related what took place
among the Gerasenes, in the following manner: "And when Jesus was passed over again by
ship unto the other side, much people gathered unto Him: and He was nigh unto the sea. And
there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw Him, he
fell at His feet," etc. By this, then, we are certainly to understand that the occurrence
in connection with the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue did take place after Jesus
had passed across the lake again in the ship.

It does not, however, appear from the words themselves how long after that passage this
thing happened. But that some time did elapse is clear. For had there not been an
interval, no period would be left within which those circumstances might fall which
Matthew has just related in the matter of the feast in his house. These, indeed, he has
told after the fashion of the evangelists, as if they were the story of another person's
doings. But they are the story really of what took place in his own case, and at his own
house. And after that narrative, what follows in the immediate context is nothing else
than this notice of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue. For he has constructed the
whole recital in such a manner, that the mode of transition from one thing to the other
has itself indicated with sufficient clearness that the words immediately, following give
the narrative of what actually took place in immediate consecution. For after mentioning,
in connection with the former incident, those words which Jesus spake with respect to the
new cloth and the new wine, he has subjoined these other words, without any interruption
in the narrative, namely, "While He spake these things unto them, behold, there came a
certain ruler. And this shows that, if the person approached Him while He was speaking
these things, nothing else either done or said by Him could have intervened.

In Mark's account, on the other hand, the place is quite apparent, as we have already
pointed out, where other things [left unrecorded by him] might very well have come in. The
case is much the same also with Luke, who, when he proceeds to follow up his version of
the story of the miracle wrought among the Gerasenes, by giving his account of the
daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, does not pass on to that in any such way as to
place it in antagonism with Matthew's version, who, by his words, "While He yet spake
these things," gives us plainly to understand that the occurrence took place after those
parables about the cloth and the wine. For when he has concluded his statement of what
happened among the Gerasenes, Luke passes to the next subject in the following manner;
"And it came to pass that, when Jesus was returned, the people gladly received Him; for
they were all waiting for Him. And, behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a
ruler of the synagogue, and he fell down at Jesus' feet," and so on. Thus we are given to
understand that the crowd did indeed receive Jesus forthwith on the said occasion: for He
was the person for whose return they, were waiting. But what is conveyed in the words
which are directly added, "And, behold, there came a man whose name was Jairus," is not to
be taken to have occurred literally in immediate succession.

On the contrary, the feast with the publicans, as Matthew records it, took place before
that. For Matthew connects this present incident with that feast in such a way as to make
it impossible for us to suppose that any other sequence of events can be the correct
order. 65. In this narrative, then, which we have undertaken to consider at present, all
these three evangelists indeed are unquestionably at one in the account which they give of
the woman who was afflicted with the issue of blood. Nor is it a matter of any real
consequence, that something which is passed by in silence by one of them is related by
another; or that Mark says, "Who touched my clothes?" while Luke says, "Who touched me?"
For the one has only adopted the phrase in use and wont, whereas the other has given the
stricter expression. But for all that, both of them convey the same meaning. For it is
more usual with us to say, "You are tearing me," than to say, "You are tearing my
clothes;" as, notwithstanding the term, the sense we wish to convey is obvious enough.

66. At the same time, however, there remains the fact that Matthew represents the ruler of
the synagogue to have spoken to the Lord of his daughter, not merely as one likely to die,
or as dying, or as on the very point of expiring, but as even then dead; while these other
two evangelists report her as now nigh unto death, but not yet really dead, and keep so
strictly to that version of the circumstances, that they tell us how the persons came at a
later stage with the intelligence of her actual death, and with the message that for this
reason the Master ought not now to trouble Himself by coming, with the purpose of laying
His hand upon her, and so preventing her from dying,-the matter not being put as if He was
one possessed of ability to raise the once dead to life. It becomes necessary for us,
therefore, to investigate this fact lest it may seem to exhibit any contradiction between
the accounts. And the way to explain it is to suppose that, by reason of brevity in the
narrative, Matthew has preferred to express it as if the Lord had been really asked to do
what it is clear He did actually do, namely, raise the dead to life. For what Matthew
directs our attention to, is not the mere words spoken by the father about his daughter,
but what is of more importance, his mind and purpose. Thus he has given words calculated
to represent the father's real thoughts.

For he had so thoroughly despaired of his child's case, that not believing that she whom
he had just left dying, could possibly now be found yet in life, his thought rather was
that she might be made alive again. Accordingly two of the evangelists have introduced the
words which were literally spoken by Jairus. But Matthew has exhibited rather what the man
secretly wished and thought. Thus both petitions were really addressed to the Lord;
namely, either that He should restore the dying damsel, or that, if she was already dead,
He might raise her to life again. But as it was Matthew's object to tell the whole story
in short compass, he has represented the father as directly expressing in his request
what, it is certain, had been his own real wish, and what Christ actually did. It is true,
indeed, that if those two evangelists, or one of them, had told us that the father himself
spake the words which the parties who came from his house uttered,-namely, that Jesus
should not now trouble Himself, because the damsel had died,-then the words which Matthew
has put into his mouth would not be in harmony with his thoughts. But, as the case really
stands, it is not said that he gave his consent to the parties who brought that report,
and who bade the Master no more think of coming now. And together with this, we have to
observe, that when the Lord addressed him in these terms, "Fear not:

believe only, and she shall be made whole," He did not find fault with him on the ground
of his want of belief, but really encouraged him to a yet stronger faith. For this ruler
had faith like that which was exhibited by the person who said, "Lord, I believe; help
Thou mine unbelief." 67. Seeing, then, that the case stands thus, from these varied and
yet not inconsistent modes of statement adopted by the evangelists, we evidently learn a
lesson of the utmost utility, and of great necessity,-namely, that in any man's words the
thing which we ought narrowly to regard is only the writer's thought which was meant to be
expressed, and to which the words ought to be subservient; and further, that we should not
suppose one to be giving an incorrect statement, if he happens to convey in different
words what the person really meant whose words he fails to reproduce literally. And we
ought not to let the wretched cavillers at words fancy that truth must be tied somehow or
other to the jots and tittles of letters; whereas the fact is, that not in the matter of
words only, but equally in all other methods by which sentiments are indicated, the
sentiment itself, and nothing else, is what ought to be looked at.

68. Moreover, as to the circumstance that some codices of Matthew's Gospel contain the
reading, "For the woman is not dead, but sleepeth," while Mark and Luke certify that she
was a damsel of the age of twelve years, we may suppose that Matthew has followed the
Hebrew mode of speech here. For in other passages of Scripture, as well as here, it is
found that not only those who had already known a man, but all females in general,
including untouched virgins, are called women. That is the case, for instance, where it is
written of Eve, "He made it into a woman;" and again, in the book of Numbers, where the
women who have not known a man by lying with him, that is to say, the virgins, are ordered
to be saved from being put to death. Adopting the same phraseology, Paul, too, says of
Christ Himself, that He was "made of a woman." And it is better, therefore, to understand
the matter according to these analogies, than to suppose that this damsel of twelve years
of age was already married, or had known a man.

CHAPTER XXIX.-OF THE TWO BLIND MEN AND THE DUMB DEMONIAC WHOSE STORIES ARE RELATED ONLY BY MATTHEW.

69. Matthew proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "And when Jesus departed
thence, two blind men followed Him, crying and saying, Thou son of David, have mercy on
us;" and so on, down to the verse where we read, "But the Pharisees said, He casteth out
devils through the prince of the devils." Matthew is the only one who introduces this
account of the two blind men and the dumb demoniac. For those two blind men, whose story
is given also by the others, are not the two before us here. Nevertheless there is such
similarity in the occurrences, that if Matthew himself had not recorded the latter
incident as well as the former, it might have been thought that the one which he relates
at present has also been given by these other two evangelists. There is this fact,
therefore, which we ought to bear carefully in mind,-namely, that there are some
occurrences which resemble each other. For we have a proof of this in the circumstance
that the very same evangelist mentions both incidents here. And thus, if at any time we
find any such occurrences narrated individually by the several evangelists, and discover
some contradiction in the accounts, which seems not to admit of being solved [on the
principle of harmonizing], it may occur to us that the explanation simply is, that this
[apparently contradictory] circumstance did not take place [on that particular occasion],
but that what did happen then was only something resembling it, or something which was
gone about in a similar manner.

Chapter XXX.-Of the Section Where It is Recorded, that Being Moved with Compassion for the
Multitudes, He Sent His Disciples, Giving Them Power to Work Cures, and Charged Them with
Many Instructions, Directing Them How to Live; And of the Question Concerning the Proof of
Matthew's Harmony Here with Mark and Luke, Especially on the Subject of the Staff, Which
Matthew Says the Lord Told Them They Were Not to Carry, While According to Mark It is the
Only Thing They Were to Carry; And Also of the Wearing of the Shoes and Coats. 70. As to
the events next related, it is true that their exact order is not made apparent by
Matthew's narrative. For after the notices of the two incidents in connection with the
blind men and the dumb demoniac, he continues in the following manner: "And Jesus went
about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the kingdom
of the gospel, and healing every sickness and every disease. But when He saw the
multitudes, He was moved with compassion on them, because they were troubled and
prostrate, as sheep having no shepherd. Then saith He unto His disciples, The harvest
truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest,
that He will send forth labourers into His harvest. And when He had called unto Him His
twelve disciples, He gave them power against unclean spirits; and so forth, down to the
words, "Verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. This whole passage which we
have now mentioned shows how He gave many counsels to His disciples. But whether Matthew
has subjoined this section in its historical order, or has made its order dependent only
on the succession in which it came up to his own mind, as has already been said, is not
made apparent. Mark appears to have handled this paragraph in a succinct method, and to
have entered upon its recital in the following terms: "And He went round about the
villages, teaching in their circuit:

and He called unto Him the twelve, and began to send them by two and two, and gave them
power over unclean spirits; and so on, down to where we read, "Shake off the dust from
your feet for a testimony against them. But before narrating this incident, Mark has
inserted, immediately after the story of the raising of the daughter of the ruler of the
synagogue, an account of what took place on that occasion on which, in His own country,
the people were astonished at the Lord, and asked from whence He had such wisdom and such
capabilities, when they perceived His judgment: which account is given by Matthew after
these counsels to the disciples, and after a number of other matters. It is uncertain,
therefore, whether what thus happened in His own country has been recorded by Matthew in
the succession in which it came to mind, after having been omitted at first, or whether it
has been introduced by Mark in the way of an anticipation; and which of them, in short,
has kept the order of actual occurrence, and which of them the order of his own
recollection. Luke, again, in immediate succession to the mention of the raising of the
daughter of Jaïrus to life, subjoins this paragraph, bearing on the power and the counsels
given to the disciples, and that indeed with as great brevity as Mark.

This evangelist, however, does not, any more than the others, introduce the subject in
such a way as to produce the impression that it comes in also in the strictly historical
order. Moreover, with regard to the names of the disciples, Luke, who gives their names in
another place, -that is to say, in the earlier passage, where they are [represented as
being] chosen on the mountain,-is not at variance in any respect with Matthew, with the
exception of the single instance of the name of Judas the brother of James, whom Matthew
designates Thaddaeus, although some codices also read Lebbaeus. But who would ever think
of denying that one man may be known under two or three names? 71. Another question which
it is also usual to put is this: How comes it that Matthew and Luke have stated that the
Lord said to His disciples that they were not to take a staff with them, whereas Mark puts
the matter in this way: "And He commanded them that they should take nothing for their
journey, save a staff only;" and proceeds further in this strain, "no scrip, no bread, no
money in their purse:" thereby making it quite evident that his narrative belongs to the
same place and circumstances with which the narratives of those others deal who have
mentioned that the staff was not to be taken? Now this question admits of being solved on
the principle of understanding that the staff which, according to Mark, was to be taken,
bears one sense, and that the staff which,according to Matthew and Luke, was not to be
taken with them, is to be interpreted in a different sense; just in the same way as we
find the term "temptation" used in one meaning, when it is said, "God tempteth no man,"
and in a different meaning where it is said, "The Lord your God tempteth [proveth] you, to
know whether ye love Him." For in the former case the temptation of seduction is intended;
but in the latter the temptation of probation. Another parallel occurs in the case of the
term "judgment," which must be taken in one way, where it is said, "They that have done
good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of
judgment;" and in another way, where it is said, "Judge me, O God, and discern my cause,
in respect of an ungodly nation." For the former refers to the judgment of damnation, and
the latter to the judgment of discrimination.

72. And there are many other words which do not retain one uniform signification, but are
introduced so as to suit a variety of connections, and thus are understood in a variety of
ways, and sometimes, indeed, are adopted along with an explanation. We have an example in
the saying, "Be not children in understanding; howbeit in malice be ye little children,
that in understanding ye may be perfect. For here is a sentence which, in a brief and
pregnant form, might have been expressed thus: "Be ye not children; howbeit be ye
children. The same is the case with the words, "If any man among you thinketh himself to
be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise. For what else is the
statement there but this: "Let him not be wise, that he may be wise"? Moreover, the
sentences are sometimes so put as to exercise the judgment of the inquirer. An instance of
this kind occurs in what is said in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Bear ye one another's
burdens, and so ye will fulfil the law of Christ. For if a man thinketh himself to be
something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But it is meet that every man should
prove his own work; and then shall he have rejoicing in himself, and not in another. For
every man shall bear his own burden.

Now, unless the word "burden" can be taken in different senses, without doubt one would
suppose that the same writer contradicts himself in what he says here, and that, too, when
the words are placed in such close neighbourhood in one paragraph. For when he has just
said, "One shall bear another's burdens," after the lapse of a very brief interval he
says, "Every man shall bear his own burden. But the one refers to the burdens which are to
be borne in sharing in one's infirmity, the other to the burdens borne in the rendering of
an account of our own actions to God: the former are burdens to be borne in our [duties
of] fellowship with brethren; the latter are those peculiar to ourselves, and borne by
every man for himself. And in the same way, once more, the "rod" of which the apostle
spoke in the words, "Shall I come unto you with a rod? is meant in a spiritual sense;
while the same term bears the literal meaning when it occurs of the rod applied to a
horse, or used for some other purpose of the kind, not to mention, in the meantime, also
other metaphorical significations of this phrase.

73. Both these counsels, therefore, must be accepted as having been spoken by the Lord to
the apostles; namely, at once that they should not take a staff, and that they should take
nothing save a staff only. For when He said to them, according to Matthew, "Provide
neither gold nor silver, nor money in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two
coats, neither shoes, nor yet a staff," He added immediately, "for the workman is worthy
of his meat. And by this He makes it sufficiently obvious why it is that He would have
them provide and carry none of these things. He shows that His reason was, not that these
things are not necessary for the sustenance of this life, but because He was sending them
in such a manner as to declare plainly that these things were due to them by those very
persons who were to hear believingly the gospel preached by them; just as wages are the
soldier's due, and as the fruit of the vine is the right of the planters, and the milk of
the flock the right of the shepherds. For which reason Paul also speaks in this wise: "Who
goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of
the fruit thereof? who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? For under
these figures he was speaking of those things which are necessary to the preachers of the
gospel. And so, a little further on, he says:

"If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your
carnal things? If others are partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?
Nevertheless we have not used this power. This makes it apparent that by these
instructions the Lord did not mean that the evangelists should not seek their support in
any other way than by depending on what was offered them by those to whom they preached
the gospel (otherwise this very apostle acted contrary to this precept when he acquired a
livelihood for himself by the labours of his own hands, because he would not be chargeable
to any of them ), but that He gave them a power in the exercise of which they should know
such things to be their due. Now, when any commandment is given by the Lord, there is the
guiltof non-obedience if it is not observed; but when any power is given, any one is at
liberty to abstain from its use, and, as it were, to recede from his right. Accordingly,
when the Lord spake these things to the disciples, He did what that apostle expounds more
clearly a little further on, when he says, "Do ye not know that they who minister in the
temple live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers
with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the gospel should
live of the gospel. But I have used none of these things.

When he says, therefore, that the Lord ordained it thus, but that he did not use the
ordinance, he certainly indicates that it was a power to use that was given him, and not a
necessity of service that was imposed upon him. 74. Accordingly, as our Lord ordained what
the apostle declares Him to have ordained,-namely, that those who preach the gospel should
live of the gospel,-He gave these counsels to the apostles in order that they might be
withoutthe care of providing or of carrying with themthings necessary for this life,
whether great or the very smallest; consequently He introduced this term, "neither a
staff," with the view of showing that, on the part of those who were faithful to Him, all
things were due to His ministers, who themselves, too, required nothing superfluous. And
thus, when He added the words, "For the workman is worthy of his meat," He indicated quite
clearly, and made it thoroughly plain, how and for what reason it was that He spake all
these things. It is this kind of power, therefore, that the Lord denoted under the term
"staff," when He said that they should "take nothing" for their journey, save a staff
only. For the sentence might also have been briefly expressed in this way: "Take with you
none of the necessaries of life, neither a staff, save a staff only. So that the phrase
"neither a staff" may be taken to be equivalent to "not even the smallest things; while
the addition, "save a staff only," may be understood to mean that, in virtue of that power
which they received from the Lord, and which was signified by the name "staff" [or,
"rod"], even those things which were not carried with them would not be wanting to them.

Our Lord therefore used both phrases. But inasmuch as one and the same evangelist has not
recorded them both, the writer who has told us that the rod, as introduced in the one
sense, was to be taken, is supposed to be in antagonism to him who has told us that the
rod, as occurring again in the other sense, was not to be taken. After this explanation of
the matter, however, no such supposition ought to be entertained. 75. In like manner,
also, when Matthew tells us that the shoes were not to be carried with them on the
journey, what is intended is the checking of that care which thinks that such things must
be carried with them, because otherwise they might be unprovided. Thus, too, the import of
what is said regarding the two coats is, that none of them should think of taking with him
another coat in addition to the one in which he was clad, as if he was afraid that he
might come to be in want, while all the time the power (which was received from the Lord)
made him sure of getting what was needful. To the same effect, when Mark says that they
were to be shod with sandals or soles, he gives us to understand that this matter of the
shoe has some sort of mystical significance, the point being that the foot is to be
neither covered, nor yet left bare to the ground; by which the idea may be conveyed that
the gospel was neither to be concealed, nor yet made to depend on the good things of
earth. And as to the fact that what is forbidden is neither the carrying nor the
possessing of two coats, but more distinctly the putting of them on,-the words being, "and
not put on two coats,"-what counsel is conveyed to them therein but this, that they ought
to walk not in duplicity, but in simplicity?

76. Thus it is not by any means to be made a matter of doubt that the Lord Himself spake
all these words, some of them with a literal import, and others of them with a figurative,
although the evangelists may have introduced them only in part into their writings,-one
inserting one section, and another giving a different portion. Certain passages, at the
same time, have been recorded in identical terms either by some two of them, or by some
three, or even by all the four together. And yet not even when this is the case can we
take it for granted that everything has been committed to writing which was either uttered
or done by Him. Moreover, if any one fancies that the Lord could not in the course of the
same discourse have used some expressions with a figurative application and others with a
literal, let him but examine His other addresses, and he will see how rash and
inconsiderate such a notion is. For, then (to mention but a single instance which occurs
meantime to my mind), when Christ gives the counsel not to let the left hand know what the
right hand doeth, he may suppose himself under the necessity of accepting in the same
figurative sense at once the almsgivings themselves referred to, and the other
instructions offered on that occasion.

77. In good truth, I must repeat here once more an admonition which it behoves the reader
to keep in mind, so as not to be requiring that kind of advice so very frequently, namely,
that in various passages of His discourses, the Lord has reiterated much which He had
uttered already on other occasions. It is needful, indeed, to call this fact to mind,
lest, when it happens that the order of such passages does not appear to fit in with the
narrative of another of the evangelists, the reader should fancy that this establishes
some contradiction between them; whereas he ought really to understand it to be due to the
fact that something is repeated a second time in that connection which had been already
expressed elsewhere. And this is a remark that should be held applicable not only to His
words, but also to His deeds. For there is nothing to hinder us from believing that the
same thing may have taken place more than once. But for a man to impeach the gospel simply
because he does not believe in the repeated occurrence of some incident, which no one [at
least] can prove to be an impossible event, betrays mere sacrilegious vanity.

CHAPTER XXXI.-OF THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY MATTHEW AND LUKE OF THE OCCASION WHEN JOHN THE BAPTIST WAS IN PRISON, AND DESPATCHED HIS DISCIPLES ON A MISSION TO THE LORD.

78. Matthew proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "And it came to pass, when
Jesus had made an end of commanding His twelve disciples, He departed thence to teach and
to preach in their cities. Now, when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he
sent two of his disciples, and said unto Him, Art thou He that should come, or do we look
for another?" and so on, until we come to the words, "And Wisdom is justified of her
children." This whole section relating to John the Baptist, touching the message which he
sent to Jesus, and the tenor of the reply which those whom he despatched received, and the
terms in which the Lord spoke of John after the departure of these persons, is introduced
also by Luke. The order, however, is not the same. But it is not made clear which of them
gives the order of his own recollections, and which keeps by the historical succession of
the things themselves.

CHAPTER XXXII.-OF THE OCCASION ON WHICH HE UPBRAIDED THE CITIES BECAUSE THEY REPENTED NOT, WHICH INCIDENT IS RECORDED BY LUKE AS WELL AS BY MATTHEW; AND OF THE QUESTION REGARDING MATTHEW'S HARMONY WITH LUKE IN THE MATTER OF THE ORDER.

1 79. Thereafter Matthew goes on as follows: "Then began He to upbraid the cities wherein
most of His mighty works were done, because they repented not; and so on, down to where we
read, "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom at the day of judgment, than for
you. This section likewise is given by Luke, who reports it also as an utterence from the
lips of the Lord in connection with a certain continuous discourse which He delivered.
This circumstance makes it the rather appear that Luke has recorded these words in the
strict consecution in which they were spoken by the Lord, while Matthew has kept by the
order of his own recollections. Or if it is supposed that Matthew's words, "Then began He
to upbraid the cities," must be taken in such a way as to imply that the intention was to
express, by the term "then," the precise point of time at which the saying was uttered,
and not to signify in a somewhat broader way the period at which many of these things were
done and spoken, then I say that any one entertaining that idea may equally well believe
these sentences to have been pronounced on two different occasions.

2 For if it is the fact that even in one and the same evangelist some things are found
which the Lord utters twice over, as is the case with this very Luke in the instance of
the counsel not to take a scrip for the journey, and so with other things in like manner
which we find to have been spoken by the Lord in two. different places, -why should it
seem strange if some other word of the Lord, which was originally uttered on two separate
occasions, may happen also to be recorded by two several evangelists, each of whom gives
it in the order in which it was actually spoken, and if thus the order seems to be
different in the two, simply because the sentences were uttered both on the occasion
noticed by the one, and on that referred to by the other?

CHAPTER XXXIII.-OF THE OCCASION ON WHICH HE CALLS THEM TO TAKE HIS YOKE AND BURDEN UPON THEM, AND OF THE QUESTION AS TO THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE ORDER OF NARRATION.

80. Matthew proceeds thus: "At that time Jesus answered and said, I make my acknowledgment
to Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the wise
and prudent," and so on, down to where we read, "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is
light." This passage is also noticed by Luke, but only in part. For he does not give us
the words, "Come unto me, all ye that labour," and the rest. It is, however, quite
legitimate to suppose that all this may have been said on one occasion by the Lord, and
yet that Luke has not recorded the whole of what was said on that occasion. For Matthew's
phrase is, that "at that time Jesus answered and said;" by which is meant the time after
His upbraiding of the cities. Luke, on the other hand, interposes some matters, although
they are not many, after that upbraiding of the cities; and then he subjoins this
sentence: "In that hour He rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said." Thus, too, we see that
even if Matthew's expression had been, not "at that time," but "in that very hour," still
what Luke inserts in the interval is so little that it would not appear an unreasonable
thing to give it as all spoken in the same hour.

Chapter XXXIV.-Of the Passage in Which It is Said that the Disciples Plucked the Ears of
Corn and Ate Them; And of the Question as to How Matthew, Mark, and Luke are in Harmony
with Each Other with Respect to the Order of Narration There. 81. Matthew continues his
history in the fob lowing terms: "At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath-day through the
corn; and His disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to
eat;" and so forth, on to the words, "For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath-day."
This is also given both by Mark and by Luke, in a way precluding any idea of antagonism.
At the same time, these latter do not employ the definition "at that time." That fact,
consequently, may perhaps make it the more probable that Matthew has retained the order of
actual occurrence here, and that the others have kept by the order of their own
recollections; unless, indeed, this phrase "at that time" is to be taken in a broader
sense, that is to say, as indicating the period at which these many and various incidents
took place.

Chapter XXXV.-Of the Man with the Withered Hand, Who Was Restored on the Sabbath-Day; And
of the Question as to How Matthew's Narrative of This Incident Can Be Harmonized with
Those of Mark and Luke, Either in the Matter of the Order of Events, or in the Report of
the Words Spoken by the Lord and by the Jews. 82. Matthew continues his account thus: "And
when He was departed thence, He went into their synagogue: and, behold, there was a man
which had his hand withered; and so on, down to the words, "And it was restored whole,
like as the other. The restoring of this man who had the withered hand is also not passed
over in silence by Mark and Luke. Now, the circumstance that this day is also designated a
Sabbath might possibly lead us to suppose that both the plucking of the ears of corn and
the healing of this man took place on the same day, were it not that Luke has made it
plain that it was on a different Sabbath that the cure of the withered hand was wrought.
Accordingly, when Matthew says, "And when He was departed thence, He came into their
synagogue," the words do indeed import that the said coming did not take place until after
He had departed from the previously mentioned locality; but, at the same time, they leave
the question undecided as to the number of days which may have elapsed between His passing
from the aforesaid corn-field and His coming into their synagogue; and they express
nothing as to His going there in direct and immediate succession. And thus space is
offered us for getting in the narrative of Luke, who tells us that it was on another
Sabbath that this man's hand was restored.

But it is possible that a difficulty may be felt in the circumstance that Matthew has told
us how the people put this question to the Lord, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day?
wishing thereby to find an occasion for accusing Him; and that in reply He set before them
the parable of the sheep in these terms: "What man shall there be among you that shall
have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath-day, will he not lay hold on it
and lift it out? How much, then, is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to
do well on the Sabbath-days; whereas Mark and Luke rather represent the people to have had
this question put to them by the Lord, "Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath-day, or to
do evil? to save life, or to kill? We solve this difficulty, however, by the supposition
that the people in the first instance asked the Lord, "Is it lawful to heal on the
Sabbath-day? that thereupon, knowing the thoughts of the men who were thus seeking an
occasion for accusing Him, He set the man whom He had been on the point of healing in
their midst, and addressed to them the interrogations which Mark and Luke mention to have
been put; that, as they remained silent, He next put before them the parable of the sheep,
and drew the conclusion that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath-day;

and that, finally, when He had looked round about on them with anger, as Mark tells us,
being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, He said to the man, "Stretch forth thine
hand." Chapter XXXVI.-Of Another Question Which Demands Our Consideration, Namely,
Whether, in Passing from the Account of the Man Whose Withered Hand Was Restored, These
Three Evangelists Proceed to Their Next Subjects in Such a Way as to Create No
Contradictions in Regard to the Order of Their Narrations. 83. Matthew continues his
narrative, connecting it in the following manner with what precedes: "But the Pharisees
went out and held a council against Him, how they might destroy Him. But when Jesus knew
it, He withdrew Himself from thence: and great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them
all; and charged them that they should not make Him known: that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet Esaias, saying;" and so forth, down to where it is said,
"And in His name shall the Gentiles trust." He is the only one that records these facts.
The other two have advanced to other themes. Mark, it is true, seems to some extent to
have kept by the historical order: for he tells us how Jesus, on discovering the malignant
disposition which was entertained toward Him by the Jews, withdrew to the sea along with
His disciples, and that then vast multitudes flocked to Him, and He healed great numbers
of them. But, at the same time, it is not quite clear at what precise point He begins to
pass to a new subject, different from what would have followed in strict succession. He
leaves it uncertain whether such a transition is made at the point where he tells us how
the multitudes gathered about Him (for if that was the case now, it might equally well
have been the case at some other time), or at the point where He says that "He goeth up
into a mountain." It is this latter circumstance that Luke also appears to notice when he
says, "And it came to pass in those days, that He went out into a mountain to pray." For
by the expression "in those days," he makes it plain enough that the incident referred to
did not occur in immediate succession upon what precedes.

CHAPTER XXXVII.-OF THE CONSISTENCY OF THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY MATTHEW AND LUKE REGARDING THE DUMB AND BLIND MAN WHO WAS POSSESSED WITH A DEVIL.

84. Matthew then goes on with his recital in the following fashion: "Then was brought unto
Him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb; and He healed him, insomuch that he both
spake and saw." Luke introduces this narrative, not in the same order, but after a number
of other matters. He also speaks of the man only as dumb, and not as blind in addition.
But it is not to be inferred, from the mere circumstance of his silence as to some portion
or other of the account, that he speaks of an entirely different person. For he has
likewise recorded what followed [immediately after that cure], as it stands also in
Matthew. Chapter XXXVIII.-Of the Occasion on Which It Was Said to Him that He Cast Out
Devils in the Power of Beelzebub, and of the Declarations Drawn Forth from Him by that
Circumstance in Regard to the Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit, and with Respect to the
Two Trees; And of the Question Whether There is Not Some Discrepancy in These Sections
Between Matthew and the Other Two Evangelists, and Particularly Between Matthew and Luke.

85. Matthew proceeds with his narrative in the following term: "And all the people were
amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they
said, This fellow doth not cast out devils but in Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. And
Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself shall
be brought to desolation;" and so on, down to the words, "By thy words thou shalt be
justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Mark does not bring in this
allegation against Jesus, that He cast out devils in [the power of] Beelzebub, in
immediate sequence on the story of the dumb man; but after certain other matters, recorded
by himself alone, he introduces this incident also, either because he recalled it to mind
in a different connection, and so appended it there, or because he had at first made
certain omissions in his history, and after noticing these, took up this order of
narration again. On the other hand, Luke gives an account of these things almost in the
same language as Matthew has employed. And the circumstance that Luke here designates the
Spirit of God as the finger of God, does not betray any departure from a genuine identity
in sense; but it rather teaches us an additional lesson, giving us to know in what manner
we are to interpret the phrase "the finger of God" wherever it occurs in the Scriptures.
Moreover, with regard to other matters which are left unmentioned in this section both by
Mark and by Luke, no difficulty can be raised by these. Neither can that be the case with
some other circumstances which are related by them in somewhat different terms, for the
sense still remains the same.

Chapter XXXIX.-Of the Question as to the Manner of Matthew's Agreement with Luke in the
Accounts Which are Given of the Lord's Reply to Certain Persons Who Sought a Sign, When He
Spoke of Jonas the Prophet, and of the Ninevites, and of the Queen of the South, and of
the Unclean Spirit Which, When It Has Gone Out of the Man, Returns and Finds the House
Garnished. 86. Matthew goes on and relates what followed thus: "Then certain of the
scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign of thee; and so
on, down to where we read, "Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation. These
words are recorded also by Luke in this connection, although in a somewhat different
order. For he has mentioned the fact that they sought of the Lord a sign from heaven at an
earlier point in his narrative, which makes it follow immediately on his version of the
miracle wrought on the dumb man. He has not, however, recorded there the reply which was
given to them by the Lord. But further on, after [telling us how] the people were gathered
together, he states that this answer was returned to the persons who, as he gives us to
understand, were mentioned by him in those earlier verses as seeking of Him a sign from
heaven. And that reply he also subjoins, only after introducing the passage regarding the
woman who said to the Lord, "Blessed is the womb that bare thee. This notice of the woman,
moreover, he inserts after relating the Lord's discourse concerning the unclean spirit
that goes out of the man, and then returns and finds the house garnished.

In this way, then, after the notice of the woman, and after his statement of the reply
which was made to the multitudes on the subject of the sign which they sought from heaven,
he brings in the similitude of the prophet Jonas; and then, directly continuing the Lord's
discourse, he next instances what was said concerning the Queen of the South and the
Ninevites. Thus he has rather related something which Matthew has passed over in silence,
than omitted any of the facts which that evangelist has narrated in this place. And
furthermore, who can fail to perceive that the question as to the precise order in which
these words were uttered by the Lord is a superfluous one? For this lesson also we ought
to learn, on the unimpeachable authority of the evangelists,-namely, that no offence
against truth need be supposed on the part of a writer, although he may not reproduce the
discourse of some speaker in the precise order in which the person from whose lips it
proceeded might have given it; the fact being, that the mere item of the order, whether it
be this or that, does not affect the subject-matter itself. And by his present version
Luke indicates that this discourse of the Lord was of greater length than we might
otherwise have supposed; and he records certain topics handled in it, which resemble those
which are mentioned by Matthew in his recital of the sermon which was delivered on the
mount.

So that we take these words to have been spoken twice over, to wit, on that previous
occasion, and again on this one. But on the conclusion of this discourse Luke proceeds to
another subject, as to which it is uncertain whether, in the account which he gives of it,
he has kept by the order of actual occurrence. For he connects it in this way: "And as He
spake, a certain Pharisee besought Him to dine with him. He does not say, however, "as He
spake these words," but only "as He spake. For if he had said, "as He spake these words,"
the expression would of course have compelled us to suppose that the incidents referred
to, besides being recorded by him in this order, also took place on the Lord's part in
that same order. Chapter XL.-Of the Question as to Whether There is Any Discrepancy
Between Matthew on the One Hand, and Mark and Luke on the Other, in Regard to the Order in
Which the Notice is Given of the Occasion on Which His Mother and His Brethren Were
Announced to Him.

87. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "While He yet talked
to the people, behold, His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to speak to
Him; and so on, down to the words, "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is
in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Without doubt, we ought to
understand this to have occurred in immediate sequence on the preceding incidents. For he
has prefaced his transition to this narrative by the words, "While He yet talked to the
people; and what does this term "yet" refer to, but to the very matter of which He was
speaking on that occasion? For the expression is not, "When He talked to the people,
Behold, His mother and His brethren; but, "While He was yet speaking," etc. And that
phraseology compels us to suppose that it was at the very time when He was still engaged
in speaking of those things which were mentioned immediately above. For Mark has also
related what our Lord said after His declaration on the subject of the blasphemy against
the Holy Spirit. He gives it thus: "And there came His mother and His brethren," omitting
certain matters which meet us in the context connected with that discourse of the Lord,
and which Matthew has introduced there with greater fulness than Mark, and Luke, again,
with greater fulness than Matthew.

On the other hand, Luke has not kept the historical order in the report which he offers of
this incident, but has given it by anticipation, and has narrated it as he recalled it to
memory, at a point antecedent to the date of its literal occurrence. But furthermore, he
has brought it in in such a manner that it appears dissociated from any close connection
either with what precedes it or with what follows it. For, after reporting certain of the
Lord's parables, he has introduced his notice of what took place with His mother and His
brethren in the following manner: "Then came to Him His mother and His brethren, and could
not come at Him for the press. Thus he has not explained at what precise time it was that
they came to Him. And again, when he passes off from this subject, he proceeds in these
terms: "Now it came to pass on one of the days, that He went into a ship with His
disciples. And certainly, when he employs this expression, "it came to pass on one of the
days," he indicates clearly enough that we are under no necessity of supposing that the
day meant was the very day on which this incident took place, or the one following in
immediate succession.

Consequently, neither in the matter of the Lord's words, nor in that of the historical
order of the occurrences related, does Matthew's account of the incident which occurred in
connection with the mother and the brethren of the Lord, exhibit any want of harmony with
the versions given of the same by the other two evangelists. Chapter XLI.-Of the Words
Which Were Spoken Out of the Ship on the Subject of the Sower, Whose Seed, as He Sowed It,
Fell Partly on the Wayside, Etc.; And Concerning the Man Who Had Tares Sowed Over and
Above His Wheat; And Concerning the Grain of Mustard Seed and the Leaven; As Also of What
He Said in the House Regarding the Treasure Hid in the Field, and the Pearl, and the Net
Cast into the Sea, and the Man that Brings Out of His Treasure Things New and Old; And of
the Method in Which Matthew's Harmony with Mark and Luke is Proved Both with Respect to
the Things Which They Have Reported in Common with Him, and in the Matter of the Order of
Narration.

88. Matthew continues thus: "In that day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the
seaside: and great multitudes were gathered together unto Him, so that He went into a ship
and sat, and the whole multitude stood on the shore. And He spake many things unto them in
parables, saying; and so on, down to the words, "Therefore every scribe which is
instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which
bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old. That the things narrated in this
passage took place immediately after the incident touching the mother and the brethren of
the Lord, and that Matthew has also retained that historical order in his version. of
these events, is indicated by the circumstance that, in passing from the one subject to
the other, he has expressed the connection by this mode of speech: "In that day went Jesus
out of the house, and sat by the sea-side; and greatmultitudes were gathered together unto
Him. For by adopting this phrase, "in that day" (unless perchance the word "day," in
accordance with a use and wont of the Scriptures, may signify simply "time"), he intimates
clearly enough either that the thing now related took place in immediate succession on
what precedes, or that much at least could not have intervened. This inference is
confirmed by the fact that Mark keeps by the same order.

Luke, on the other hand, after his account of what happened with the mother and the
brethren of the Lord, passes to a different subject. But at the same time, in making that
transition, he does not institute any such connection as bears the appearance of a want of
consistency with this order. Consequently, in all those passages in which Mark and Luke
have reported in common with Matthew the words which were spoken by the Lord, there is no
questioning their harmony with one another. Moreover, the sections which are given by
Matthew only are even much more beyond the range of controversy. And in the matter of the
order of narration, although it is presented somewhat differently by the various
evangelists, according as they have proceeded severally along the line of historical
succession, or along that of the succession of recollection, I see as little reason for
alleging any discrepancy of statement or any contradiction between any of the writers.

Chapter XLII.-Of His Coming into His Own Country, and of the Astonishment of the People at
His Doctrine, as They Looked with Contempt Upon His Lineage; Of Matthew's Harmony with
Mark and Luke in This Section; And in Particular, of the Question Whether the Order of
Narration Which is Presented by the First of These Evangelists Does Not Exhibit Some Want
of Consistency with that of the Other Two. 89. Matthew thence proceeds as follows: "And it
came to pass that, when Jesus had finished these parables, He departed thence: and when He
was come into His own country, He taught them in their synagogues;" and so on, down to the
words, "And He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief." Thus he passes
from the above discourse containing the parables, on to this passage, in such a way as not
to make it absolutely necessary for us to take the one to have followed in immediate
historical succession upon the other. All the more may we suppose this to be the case,
when we see how Mark passes on from these parables to a subject which is not identical
with Matthew's directly succeeding theme, but quite different from that, and agreeing
rather with what Luke introduces; and how he has constructed his narrative in such a
manner as to make the balance of credibility rest on the side of the supposition, that
what followed in immediate historical sequence was rather the occurrences which these two
latter evangelists both insert in near connection [with the parables],-namely, the
incidents of the ship in which Jesus was asleep, and the miracle performed in the
expulsion of the devils in the country of the Gerasenes, -two events which Matthew has
already recalled and introduced at an earlier stage of his record. At present, therefore,
we have to consider whether [Matthew's report of] what the Lord spoke, and what was said
to Him in His own country, is in concord with the accounts given by the other two, namely,
Mark and Luke. For, in widely different and dissimilar sections of his history, John
mentions words, either spoken to the Lord or spoken by Him, which resemble those recorded
in this passage by the other three evangelists.

90. Now Mark, indeed, gives this passage in terms almost precisely identical with those
which meet us in Matthew; with the one exception, that what he says the Lord was called by
His fellow-townsmen is, "the carpenter, and the son of Mary," and not, as Matthew tells
us, the "carpenter's son. Neither is there anything to marvel at in this, since He might
quite fairly have have been designated by both these names. For in taking Him to be the
son of a carpenter, they naturally also took Him to be a carpenter. Luke, on the other
hand, sets forth the same incident on a wider scale, and records a variety of other
matters which took place in that connection. And this account he brings in at a point not
long subsequent to His baptism and temptation, thus unquestionably introducing by
anticipation what really happened only after the occurrence of a number of intervening
circumstances. In this, therefore, every one may see an illustration of a principle of
prime consequence in relation to this most weighty question concerning the harmony of the
evangelists, which we have undertaken to solve by the help of God, -the principle, namely,
that it is not by mere ignorance that these writers have been led to make certain
omissions, and that it is as little through simple ignorance of the actual historical
order of events that they have [at times] preferred to keep by the order in which these
events were recalled to their own memory.

The correctness of this principle may be gathered most clearly from the fact that, at a
point antecedent to any account given by him of anything done by the Lord at Capharnaum,
Luke has anticipated the literal date, and has inserted this passage which we have at
present under consideration, and in which we are told how His fellow-citizens at once were
astonished at the might of the authority which was in Him, and expressed their contempt
for the meanness of His family. For he tells us that He addressed them in these terms: "Ye
will surely say unto me, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in
Capharnaum, do also here in thy country; while, so far as the narrative of this same Luke
is concerned, we have not yet read of Him as having done anything at Capharnaum.
Furthermore, as it will not take up much time, and as, besides, it is both a very simple
and a highly needful matter to do so, we insert here the whole context, showing the
subject from which and the method in which the writer has come to give the contents of
this section. After his statement regarding the Lord's baptism and temptation, he proceeds
in these terms: "And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from Him for
a season. And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a
fame of Him through all the region round about. And He taught in their synagogues, and was
magnified of all.

And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up: and, as his custom was, He went
into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered
unto Him the book of the prophet Esaias: and when He had opened the book, He found the
place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed
me. He hath sent me to preach the gospel to the poor, to proclaim deliverance to the
captives, and sight to the blind; to set at liberty them that are bruised, to proclaim the
accepted year of the Lord, and the day of retribution. And when He had closed the book, He
gave it again to the minister, and sat down: and the eyes of all them that were in the
synagogue were fastened on Him. And He began to say unto them, This day is this scripture
fulfilled in your ears. And all bare Him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which
proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son? And He said unto
them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have
heard done in Capharnaum, do also here in thy country. And so he continues with the rest,
until this entire section in his narrative is gone over.

What, therefore, can be more manifest, than that he has knowingly introduced this notice
at a point antecedent to its historical date, seeing it admits of no question that he
knowsand refers to certain mighty deeds done by Him before this period in Capharnaum,
which, at the same time, he is aware he has not as yet narrated in detail? For certainly
he has not made such an advance with his history from his notice of the Lord's baptism, as
that he should be supposed to have forgotten the fact that up to thispoint he has not
mentioned any of the things which took place in Capharnaum; the truth being, that he has
just begun here, after the baptism, to give us his narrative concerning the Lord
personally. Chapter XLIII.-Of the Mutual Consistency of the Accounts Which are Given by
Matthew, Mark, and Luke of What Was Said by Herod on Hearing About the Wonderful Works of
the Lord, and of Their Concord in Regard to the Order of Narration.

91. Matthew continues: "At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, and
said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist: he is risen from the dead; and therefore
mighty works do show forth themselves in him. Mark gives the same passage, and in the same
manner, but not in the same order. For, after relating how the Lord sent forth the
disciples with the charge to take nothing with them on the journey save a staff only, and
after bringing to its close so much of the discourse which was then delivered as has been
recorded by him, he has subjoined this section. He does not, however, connect it in such a
way as to compel us to suppose that what it narrates took place actually in immediate
sequence on what precedes it in the history. And in this, indeed, Matthew is at one with
him. For Matthew's expression is, "at that time," not "on that day," or "at that hour.
Only there is this difference between them, that Mark refers not to Herod himself as the
utterer of the words in question, but to the people, his statement being this: "They said
that John the Baptist was risen from the dead; whereas Matthew makes Herod himself the
speaker, the phrase being: "He said unto his servants.

Luke, again, keeping the same order of narration as Mark, and introducing it also indeed,
like Mark, in no such way as to compel us to suppose that his order must have been the
order of actual occurrence, presents his version of the same passage in the following
terms: "Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by Him: and he was perplexed,
because that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead; and of some, that
Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again. And Herod
said, John have I beheaded: but who is this of whom I hear such things? And he desired to
see Him. In these words Luke also attests Mark's statement, at least, so far as concerns
the affirmation that it was not Herod himself, but other parties, who said that John was
risen from the dead. But as regards his mentioning how Herod was perplexed, and his
bringing in thereafter those words of the same prince: "John have I beheaded: but who is
this of whom I hear such things? we must either understand that after the said perplexity
he became persuaded in his own mind of the truth of what was asserted by others, when he
spoke to his servants, in accordance with the version given by Matthew, which runs thus:
"And he said to his servants, This is John the Baptist: he is risen from the dead; and
therefore mighty works do show forth themselves in him;

or we must suppose that these words were uttered in a manner betraying that he was still
in a state of perplexity. For had he said, "Can this be John the Baptist? or, "Can it
chance that this is John the Baptist? there would have been no need of saying anything
about a mode of utterance by which he might have revealed his dubiety and perplexity. But
seeing that these forms of expression are not before us, his words may be taken to have
been pronounced in either of two ways: so that we may either suppose him to have been
convinced by what was said by others, and so to have spoken the words in question with a
real belief [in John's reappearance]; or we may imagine him to have been still in that
state of hesitancy of which mention is made by Luke. Our explanation is favoured by the
fact that Mark, who had already told us how it was by others that the statement was made
as to John having risen from the dead, does not fail to let us know also that in the end
Herod himself spoke to this effect: "It is John whom I beheaded: he is risen from the
dead. For these words may also be taken to have beenpronounced in either of two
ways,-namely, asthe utterances either of one corroborating a fact, or of one in doubt.

Moreover, while Luke passes on to a new subject after the notice which he gives of this
incident, those other two, Matthew and Mark, take occasion to tell us at this point in
what way John was put to death by Herod.


THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS
==========================

THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS continued

CHAPTER XLIV.-OF THE ORDER IN WHICH THE ACCOUNTS OF JOHN'S IMPRISONMENT AND DEATH ARE GIVEN BY THESE THREE EVANGELISTS.

1 92. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "For Herod laid
hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother's wife;
and so on, down to the words, "And his disciples came and took up the body, and buried it,
and went and told Jesus. Mark gives this narrative in similar terms. Luke, on the other
hand, does not relate it in the same succession, but introduces it in connection with his
statement of the baptism wherewith the Lord was baptized. Hence we are to understand him
to have acted by anticipation here, and to have taken the opportunity of recording at this
point an event which took place actually a considerable period later. For he has first
reported those words which John spake with regard to the Lord-namely, that "His fan is in
His hand, and that He will thoroughly purge His floor, and will gather the wheat into His
garner; but the chaff He will burn up with fire unquenchable; and immediately thereafter
he has appended his statement of an incident which the evangelist John demonstrates not to
have taken place in direct historical sequence. For this latter writer mentions that,
after Jesus had been baptized, He went into Galilee at the period when He turned the water
into wine; and that, after a sojourn of a few days in Capharnaum, He left that district
and returned to the land of Judaea, and there baptized a multitude about the Jordan,
previous to the time when John was imprisoned.

2 Now what reader, unless he were all the better versed in these writings, would not take
it to be implied here that it was after the utterance of the words with regard to the fan
and the purged floor that Herod became incensed against John, and cast him into prison?
Yet, that the incident referred to here did not, as matter of fact, occur in the order in
which it is here recorded, we have already shown elsewhere; and, indeed, Luke himself puts
the proof into our hands. For if [he had meant that] John's incarceration took place
immediately after the utterance of those words, then what are we to make of the fact that
in Luke's own narrative the baptism of Jesus is introduced subsequently to his notice of
the imprisonment of John? Consequently it is manifest that, recalling the circumstance in
connection with the present occasion, he has brought it in here by anticipation, and has
thus inserted it in his history at a point antecedent to a number of incidents, of which
it was his purpose to leave us some record, and which, in point of time, were antecedent
to this mishap that befell John. But it is as little the case that the other two
evangelists, Matthew and Mark, have placed the fact of John's imprisonment in that
position in their narratives which, as is apparent also from their own writings, belonged
to it in the actual order of events.

3 For they, too, have told us how it was on John's being cast into prison that the Lord
went into Galilee; and then, after [relating] a number of things which He did in Galilee,
they come to Herod's admonition or doubt as to the rising again from the dead of that John
whom he beheaded; and in connection with this latter occasion, they give us the story of
all that occurred in the matter of John's incarceration and death.

CHAPTER XLV.-OF THE ORDER AND THE METHOD IN WHICH ALL THE FOUR EVANGELISTS COME TO THE NARRATION OF THE MIRACLE OF THE FIVE LOAVES.

93. After stating how the report of John's death was brought to Christ, Matthew continues
his account, and introduces it in the following connection: "When Jesus heard of it, He
departed thence by ship into a desert place apart: and when the people had heard thereof,
they followed Him on foot out of the cities. And He went forth, and saw a great multitude,
and was moved with compassion toward them, and He healed their sick. He mentions,
therefore, that this took place immediately after John had suffered. Consequently it was
after this that those things took place which have been previously recorded-namely, the
circumstances which alarmed Herod, and induced him to say,"John have I beheaded. For it
must surely I be understood that these incidents occurred subsequently which report
carried to the ears of Herod, so that he became anxious, and was inperplexity as to who
that person possibly could be of whom he heard things so remarkable, when he had himself
put John to death. Mark, again, after relating how John suffered, mentions that the
disciples who had been sent forth returned to Jesus, and told Him all that they had done
and taught; and that the Lord (a fact which he alone records) directed them to rest for a
little while in a desert place, and that He went on board a vessel with them, and
departed; and that the crowds of people, when they perceived that movement, went before
them to that place; and that the Lord had compassion on them, and taught them many things;

and that, when the hour was now advancing, it came to pass that all who were present were
made to eat of the five loaves and the two fishes. This miracle has been recorded by all
the four evangelists. For in like manner, Luke, who has given an account of the death of
John at a much earlier stage in his narrative, in connection with the occasion of which we
have spoken, in the present context tells us first of Herod's perplexity as to who the
Lord could be, and immediately thereafter appends statements to the same effect with those
in Mark,-namely, that the apostles returned to Him, and reported to Him all that they had
done; and that then He took them with Him and departed into a desert place, and that the
multitudes followed Him thither, and that He spake to them concerning the kingdom of God,
and restored those who stood in need of healing. Then, too, he mentions that, when the day
was declining, the miracle of the five loaves was wrought.

94. But John, again, who differs greatly from those three in this respect, that he deals
more with the discourses which the Lord delivered than with the works which He so
marvellously wrought, after recording how He left Judaea and departed the second time into
Galilee, which departure is understood to have taken place at the time to which the other
evangelists also refer when they tell us that on John's imprisonment He went into
Galilee,-after recording this, I say, John inserts in the immediate context of his
narrative the considerable discourse which He spake as He was passing through Samaria, on
the occasion of His meeting with the Samaritan woman whom He found at the well; and then
he states that two days after this He departed thence and went into Galilee, and that
thereupon He came to Cana of Galilee, where He had turned the water into wine, and that
there He healed the son of a certain nobleman. But as to other things which the rest have
told us He did and said in Galilee, John is silent. At the same time, however, he mentions
something which the others have left unnoticed,-namely, the fact that He went up to
Jerusalem on the day of the feast, and there wrought the miracle on the man who had the
infirmity of thirty-eight years standing, and who found no one by whose help he might be
carried down to the pool in which people afflicted with various diseases were healed.

In connection with this, John also relates how He spake many things on that occasion. He
tells us, further, that after these events He departed across the sea of Galilee, which is
also the sea of Tiberias, and that a great multitude followed Him; that thereupon He went
away to a mountain, and there sat with His disciples,-the passover, a feast of the Jews,
being then nigh; that then, on lifting up His eyes and seeing a very great company, He fed
them with the five loaves and the two fishes; which notice is given us also by the other
evangelists. And this makes it certain that he has passed by those incidents which form
the course along which these others have come to introduce the notice of this miracle into
their narratives. Nevertheless, while different methods of narration, as it appears, are
prosecuted, and while the first three evangelists have thus left unnoticed certain matters
which the fourth has recorded, we see how those three, on the one hand, who have been
keeping nearly the same course, have found a direct meeting-point with each other at this
miracle of the five loaves;

and how this fourth writer, on the other hand, who is conversant above all with the
profound teachings of the Lord's discourses, in relating some other matters on which the
rest are silent, has sped round in a certain method upon their track, and, while about to
soar off from their pathway after a brief space again into the region of loftier subjects,
has found a meeting-point with them in the view of presenting this narrative of the
miracle of the five loaves, which is common to them all.

CHAPTER XLVI.-OF THE QUESTION AS TO HOW THE FOUR EVANGELISTS HARMONIZE WITH EACH OTHER ON THIS SAME SUBJECT OF THE MIRACLE OF THE FIVE LOAVES.

95. Matthew then proceeds and carries on his narrative in due consecution to the said
incident connected with the five loaves in the following manner: "And when it was evening,
His disciples came to Him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send
the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals. But
Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat; and so forth, down to
where we read, "And the number of those who ate was five thousand men, besides women and
children. This miracle, therefore, which all the four evangelists record, and in which
they are supposed to betray certain discrepancies with each other, must be examined and
subjected to discussion, in order that we may also learn from this instance some rules
which will be applicable to all other similar cases in the form of principles regulating
modes of statement in which, however diversethey may be, the same sense is nevertheless
retained, and the same veracity in the expressionof matters of fact is preserved. And,
indeed, this investigation ought to begin not with Matthew, although that would be in
accordance with the order in which the evangelists stand, but rather with John, by whom
the narrative in question is told with such particularity as to record even the names of
the disciples with whom the Lord conversed on this subject. For he gives the history in
the following terms:

"When Jesus than lifted up His eyes, and saw a very great company come unto Him, He saith
unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? And this He said to prove him;
for He Himselfknew what He would do. Philip answered Him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread
is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little. One of His
disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto Him, There is a lad here, which hath
five barley loaves, and two fishes; but what are they among so many? Jesus said therefore,
Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in
number about five thousand. Jesus then took the loaves; and when He had given thanks, He
distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise
of the fishes as much as they would. And when they were filled, He said unto His
disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that they be not lost. Therefore they
gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley
loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten."

96. The inquiry which we have here to handle does not concern itself with a statement
given by this evangelist, in which he specifies the kind of loaves; for he has not omitted
to mention, what has been omitted by the others, that they were barley loaves. Neither
does the question deal with what he has left unnoticed,-namely, the fact that, in addition
to the five thousand men, there were also women and children, as Matthew tells us. And it
ought now by all means to be a settled matter, and one kept regularly in view in all such
investigations, that no one should find any difficulty in the there circumstance that
something which is unrecorded by one writer is related by another. But the question here
is as to how the several matters narrated by these writers may be [shown to be] all true,
so that the one of them, in giving his own peculiar version, does not put out of court the
account offered by the other.

For if the Lord, according to the narrative of John, on seeing the multitudes before Him,
asked Philip,with the view of proving him, whence bread might be got to be given to them,
a difficulty may be raised as to the truth of the statement which is made by the
others,-namely, that the disciples first said to the Lord that He should send the
multitudes away, in order that they might go and purchase food for themselves in the
neighbouring localities, and that He made this reply to them, according to Matthew: "They
need not depart; give ye them to eat. With this last Mark and Luke also agree, only that
they leave out the words, "They need not depart. We are to suppose, therefore, that after
these words the Lord looked at the multitude, and spoke to Philip in the terms which John
records, but which those others have omitted. Then the reply which, according to John, was
made by Philip, is mentioned by Mark as having been given by the disciples, -the intention
being, that we should understand Philip to have returned this answer as the mouthpiece of
the rest; although they may also have put the plural number in place of the singular,
according to very frequent usage. The words here actually ascribed to Philip-namely, "Two
hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a
little" -have their counterpart in this version by Mark, "Shall we go and buy two hundred
pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?

The expression, again, which the same Mark relates to have been used by the Lord, namely,
"How many loaves have ye? has been passed by without notice by the rest. On the other
hand, the statement occurring in John, to the effect that Andrew made the suggestion about
the five loaves and the two fishes, appears in the others, who use here the plural number
instead of the singular, as a notice referring the suggestion to the disciples generally.
And, indeed, Luke has coupled Philip's reply together with Andrew's answer in one
sentence. For when he says, "We have no more but five loaves and two fishes," he reports
Andrew's response; but when he adds, "except we should go and buy meat for all this
people," he seems to carry us back to Philip's reply, only that he has left unnoticed the
"two hundred pennyworth. At the same time, that [sentence about the going and buying meat]
may also be understood to be implied in Andrew's own words. For after saying, "There is a
lad here which hath five barley loaves and two fishes," he likewise subjoined, "But what
are they among so many? And this last clause really means the same as the expression in
question, namely, "except we should go and buy meat for all this people."

97. From all this variety of statement which is found in connection with a genuine harmony
in regard to the matters of fact and the ideas conveyed, it becomes sufficiently clear
that we have the wholesome lesson inculcated upon us, hat what we have to look to in
studying a person's words is nothing else than the intention of the speakers; in setting
forth which intention all truthful narrators ought to take the utmost pains when they
record anything, whether it may relate to man, or to angels, or to God. For the subjects'
mind and intention admit of being expressed in words which should leave no appearance of
any discrepancies as regards the matter of fact. 98. In this connection, it is true, we
ought not to omit to direct the reader's attention to certain other matters which may turn
out to be of a kindred nature with those already considered. One of these is found in the
circumstance that Luke has stated that they were ordered to sit down by fifties, whereas
Mark's version is that it was by hundreds and by fifties. This difference, however,
creates no real difficulty. The truth is, that the one has reported simply a part, and the
other has given the whole. For the evangelist who has introduced the notice of the
hundreds as well as the fifties has just mentioned something which the other has left
unmentioned. But there is no contradiction between them on that account. If, indeed, the
one had noticed only the fifties, and the other only the hundreds, they might certainly
have seemed to be in some antagonism with each other, and it might not have been easy to
make it plain that both instructions were actually uttered, although only the one has been
specified by the former writer, and the other by the latter. And yet, even in such a case,
who will not acknowledge that when the matter was subjected to more careful consideration,
the solution should have been discovered? This I have instanced now for this reason, that
matters of that kind do often present themselves, which, while they really contain no
discrepancies, appear to do so to persons who pay insufficient attention to them, and
pronounce upon them inconsiderately.

Chapter XLVII.-Of His Walking Upon the Water, and of the Questions Regarding the Harmony
of the Evangelists Who Have Narrated that Scene, and Regarding the Manner in Which They
Pass Off from the Section Recording the Occasion on Which He Fed the Multitudes with the
Five Loaves, 99. Matthew goes on with his account in the following terms: "And when He had
sent the multitudes away, He went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening
was come, He was there alone. But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with
waves: for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth watch of the night He came unto them,
walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were troubled,
saying, It is a spirit; and so on, down to the words, "They came and worshipped Him,
saying, Of a truth Thou art the Son of God. In like manner, Mark, after narrating the
miracle of the five loaves, gives his account of this same incident in the following
terms: "And when it was late, the ship was in the midst of the sea, and He alone on the
land. And He saw them toiling in rowing: for the wind was contrary to them," and so on.
This is similar to Matthew's version, except that nothing is said as to Peter's walking
upon the waters. But here we must see to it, that no difficulty be found in what Mark has
stated regarding the Lord, namely, that, when He walked upon the waters, He would also
have passed by them.

For in what way could they have understood this, were it not that He was really proceeding
in a different direction from them, as if minded to pass those persons by like strangers,
who were so far from recognizing Him that they took Him to be a spirit? Who, however, is
so obtuse as not to perceive that this bears a mystical significance? At the same time,
too, He came to the help of the men in their perturbation and outcry, and said to them,
"Be of good cheer, it is I; be not afraid. What is the explanation, therefore, of His wish
to pass by those persons whom nevertheless He thus encouraged when they were in terror,
but that that intention to pass them by was made to serve the purpose of drawing forth
those cries to which it was meet to bear succour? 100. Furthermore, John still tarries for
a little space with these others. For, after his recital of the miracle of the five
loaves, he also gives us some account of the vessel that laboured, and of the Lord's act
in walking upon the sea. This notice he connects with his preceding narrative in the
following manner: "When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take Him by
force and make Him a king, He departed again into a mountain Himself alone. And when it
became late, His disciples went down unto the sea; and when they had entered into a ship,
they came over the sea to Capharnaum: and it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.
And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew," and so on. In this there cannot
appear to be anything contrary to the records preserved in the other Gospels, unless it be
the circumstance that Matthew tells us how, when the multitudes were sent away, He went up
into a mountain, in order that there He might pray alone; while John states that He was on
a mountain with those same multitudes whom He fed with the five loaves.

But seeing that John also informs us how He departed into a mountain after the said
miracle, to preclude His being taken possession of by the multitudes, who wished to make
Him a king, it is surely evident that they had come down from the mountain to more level
ground when those loaves were provided for the crowds. And consequently there is no
contradiction between the statements made by Matthew and John as to His going up again to
the mountain. The only difference is, that Matthew uses the phrase "He went up," while
John's term is "He departed. And there would be an antagonism between these two, only if
in departing He had not gone up. Nor, again, is any want of harmony betrayed by the fact
that Matthew's words are, "He went up into a mountain apart to pray; whereas John puts it
thus: "When He perceived that they would come to make Him a king, He departed again into a
mountain Himself alone. Surely the matter of the departure is in no way a thing
antagonistic to the matter of prayer. For, indeed, the Lord, who in His own person
transformed the body of our humiliation in order that He might make it like unto the body
of His own glory, hereby taught us also the truth that the matter of departure should be
to us in like manner grave matter for prayer.

Neither, again, is there any defect of consistency proved by the circumstance that Matthew
has told us first how He commanded His disciples to embark in the little ship, and to go
before Him unto the other side of the lake until He sent the multitudes away, and then
informs us that, after the multitudes were sent away, He Himself went up into a mountain
alone to pray; while John mentions first that He departed unto a mountain alone, and then
proceeds thus: "And when it became late, His disciples came down unto the sea; and when
they had entered into a ship," etc. For who will not perceive that, in recapitulating the
facts, John has spoken of something as actually done at a later point by the disciples,
which Jesus had already charged them to do before His own departure unto the mountain;
just as it is a familiar procedure in discourse, to revert in some fashion or other to any
matter which otherwise would have been passed over But inasmuch as it may not be
specifically noted that a reversion, especially when done briefly and instantaneously, is
made to something omitted, the auditors are sometimes led to suppose that the occurrence
which is mentioned at the later stage also took place literally at the later period.

In this way the evangelist's statement really is, that to those persons whom he had
described as embarking in the ship and coming across the sea to Capharnaum, the Lord came,
walking toward them upon the waters, as they were toiling in the deep; which approach of
the Lord of course took place at the earlier point, during the said voyage in which they
were making their way to Capharnaum. 101. On the other hand, Luke, after the record of the
miracle of the five loaves, passes to another subject, and diverges from this order of
narration. For he makes no mention of that little ship, and of the Lord's pathway over the
waters. But after the statement conveyed in these words, "And they did all eat, and were
filled, and there was taken up of fragments that remained to them twelve baskets," he has
subjoined the following notice: "And it came to pass, as He was alone praying, His
disciples were with Him; and He asked them, saying, Who say the people that I am? Thus he
relates in this succession something new, which is not given by those three who have left
us the account of the manner in which the Lord walked upon the waters, and came to the
disciples when they were on the voyage. It ought not, however, on this account, to be
supposed that it was on that same mountain to which Matthew has told us He went up in
order to pray alone, that He said to His disciples, "Who say the people that I am? For
Luke, too, seems to harmonize with Matthew in this, because his words are, "as He was
alone praying; while Matthew's were, "He went up unto a mountain alone to pray.

But it must by all means be held to have been on a different occasion that He put this
question, since [it is said here, both that] He prayed alone, and [that] the disciples
were with Him. Thus Luke, indeed, has mentioned only the fact of His being alone, but has
said nothing of His being without His disciples, as is the case with Matthew and John,
since [according to these latter] they left Him in order to go before Him to the other
side of the sea. For with unmistakeable plainness Luke has added the statement that "His
disciples also were with Him. Consequently, in saying that He was alone, he meant his
statement to refer to the multitudes, who did not abide with Him. Chapter XLVIII.-Of the
Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Matthew and Mark on the One Hand, and John on the
Other, in the Accounts Which the Three Give Together of What Took Place After the Other
Side of the Lake Was Reached.

102. Matthew proceeds as follows: "And when they were gone over, they came into the land
of Genesar. And when the men of that place had knowledge of Him, they sent out unto all
that country round about, and brought unto Him all that were diseased, and besought Him
that they might only touch the hem of His garment: and as many as touched were made
perfectly whole. Then came to Him scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy
disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they
eat bread," and so on, down to the words, "But to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a
man. This is also related by Mark, in a way which precludes the raising of any question
about discrepancies. For anything expressed here by the one in a form differing from that
used by the other, involves at least no departure from identity in sense. John, on the
other hand, fixing his attention, as his wont is, upon the Lord's discourses, passes on
from the notice of the ship, which the Lord reached by walking upon the waters, to what
took place after they disembarked upon the land, and mentions that He took occasion from
the eating of the bread to deliver many lessons, dealing pre-eminently with divine things.
After this address, too, his narrative is again borne on to one subject after another, in
a sublime strain.

At the same time, this transition which he thus makes to different themes does not involve
any real want of harmony, although he exhibits certain divergencies from these others,
with the order of events presented by the rest of the evangelists. For what is there to
hinder us from supposing at once that those persons, whose story is given by Matthew and
Mark, were healed by the Lord, and that He delivered this discourse which John recounts to
the people who followed Him across the sea? Such a supposition is made all the more
reasonable by the fact that Capharnaum, to which place they are said, according to John,
to have crossed, is near the take of Genesar; and that, again, is the district into which
they came, according to Matthew, on landing.

CHAPTER XLIX.-OF THE WOMAN OF CANAAN WHO SAID, "YET THE DOGS EAT OF THE CRUMBS WHICH FALL FROM THEIR MASTERS' TABLES," AND OF THE HARMONY BETWEEN THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY MATTHEW AND THAT BY LUKE.

1 103. Matthew, accordingly, proceeds with his narrative, after the notice of that
discourse which the Lord delivered in the presence of the Pharisees on the subject of the
unwashed hands. Preserving also the order of the succeeding events, as far as it is
indicated by the transitions from the one to the other, he introduces this account into
the context in the following manner: "And Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts
of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried
unto Him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, Thou son of David; my daughter is grievously
vexed with a devil. But He answered her not a word," and so on, down to the words, "O
woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made
whole from that very hour. This story of the woman of Canaan is recorded also by Mark, who
keeps the same order of events, and gives no occasion to raise any question as to a want
of harmony, unless it be found in the circumstance that he tells us how the Lord was in
the house at the time when the said woman came to Him with the petition on behalf of her
daughter. Now we might readily suppose that Matthew has simply omitted mention of the
house, while nevertheless relating the same occurrence.

2 But inasmuch as he states that the disciples made the suggestion to Him in these terms,
"Send her away, for she crieth after us," he seems to imply distinctly that the woman gave
utterance to these cries of entreaty behind the Lord as He walked on. In what sense, then,
could it have been "in the house," unless we are to take Mark to have intimated the fact,
that she had gone into the place where Jesus then was, when he mentioned at the beginning
of the narrative that He was in the house? But when Matthew says that "He answered her not
a word," he has given us also to understand what neither of the two evangelists has
related explicitly,-namely, the fact that during that silence which He maintained Jesus
went out of the house. And in this manner all the other particulars arebrought into a
connection which from this point onwards presents no kind of appearance of discrepancy.
For as to what Mark records with respect to the answer which the Lord gave her, to the
effect that it was not meet to take the children's bread and cast it unto the dogs, that,
reply was returned only after the interposition of certain sayings which Matthew has not
left unrecorded.

3 That is to say, [we are to suppose that] there came in first the request which the
disciples addressed to Him in regard to the woman's case, and the answer He gave them, to
the effect that He was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; that next
there was her own approach, or, in other words, her coming after Him, and worshipping Him,
saying, "Lord, help me; and that then, after all these incidents, those words were spoken
which have been recorded by both the evangelists.

CHAPTER L.-OF THE OCCASION ON WHICH HE FED THE MULTITUDES WITH THE SEVEN LOAVES, AND OF THE QUESTION AS TO THE HARMONY BETWEEN MATTHEW AND MARK IN THEIR ACCOUNTS OF THAT MIRACLE.

104. Matthew proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "And when Jesus had
departed from thence, He came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and went up into a mountain,
and sat down there. And great multitudes came unto Him, having with them those that were
lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet, and He
healed them; insomuch that the multitudes wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the
maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of
Israel. Then Jesus called His disciples unto Him, and said, I have compassion on the
multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat," and so
on, down to the words, "And they that did eat were four thousand men, besides women and
children." This other miracle of the seven loaves and the few little fishes is recorded
also by Mark, and that too in almost the same order; the exception being that he inserts
before it a narrative given by no other,-namely, that relating to the deaf man whose ears
the Lord opened, when He spat and said, "Effeta," that is, Be opened.

105. In the case of this miracle of the seven loaves, it is certainly not a superfluous
task to call attention to the fact that these two evangelists, Matthew and Mark, have thus
introduced it into their narrative. For if one of them had recorded this miracle, who at
the same time had taken no notice of the instance of the five loaves, he would have been
judged to stand opposed to the rest. For in such circumstances, who would not have
supposed that there was only the one miracle wrought in actual fact, and that an
incomplete and unveracious version of it had been given by the writer referred to, or by
the others, or by all of them together; so [that we must have imagined] either that the
one evangelist, by a mistake on his own part, had been led to mention seven loaves instead
of five; or that the other two, whether as having both presented an incorrect statement,
or as having been misled through a slip of memory, had put the number five for the number
seven. In like manner, it might have been supposed that there was a contradiction between
the twelve baskets and the seven baskets, and again, between the five thousand and the
four thousand, expressing the numbers of those who were fed.

But now, since those evangelists who have given us the account of the miracle of the seven
loaves have also not failed to mention the other miracle of the five loaves, no difficulty
can be felt by any one, and all can see that both works were really wrought. This,
accordingly, we have instanced, in order that, if in any other passage we come upon some
similar deed of the Lord's, which, as told by one evangelist, seems so utterly contrary to
the version of it given by another that no method of solving the difficulty can possibly
be found, we may understand the explanation to be simply this, that both incidents really
took place, and that they were recorded separately by the two several writers. This is
precisely what we have already recommended to attention in the matter of the seating of
the multitudes by hundreds and by fifties. For were it not for the circumstance that both
these numbers are found noted by the one historian, we might have supposed that the
different writers had made contradictory statements.

Chapter LI.-Of Matthew's Declaration That, on Leaving These Parts, He Came into the Coasts
of Magedan; And of the Question as to His Agreement with Mark in that Intimation, as Well
as in the Notice of the Saying About Jonah, Which Was Returned Again as an Answer to Those
Who Sought a Sign. 106. Matthew continues as follows: "And He sent away the multitude, and
took ship, and came into the coasts of Magedan;" and so on, down to the words, "A wicked
and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it
but the sign of the prophet Jonas." This has already been recorded in another connection
by the same Matthew. Hence again and again we must hold by the position that the Lord
spake the same words on repeated occasions; so that when any completely irreconcilable
difference appears between statements of His utterances, we are to understand the words to
have been spoken twice over. In this case, indeed, Mark also keeps the same order; and
after his account of the miracle of the seven loaves, subjoins the same intimation as is
given us in Matthew, only with this difference, that Matthew's expression for the locality
is not Dalmanutha, as is read in certain codices, but Magedan. There is no reason,
however, for questioning the fact that it is the same place that is intended under both
names. For most codices, even of Mark's Gospel, give no other reading than that of
Magedan. Neither should any difficulty be felt in the fact that Mark does not say, as
Matthew does, that in the answer which the Lord returned to those who sought after a sign,
He referred to Jonah, but mentions simply that He replied in these terms: "There shall no
sign be given unto it." For we are given to understand what kind of sign they asked-
namely, one from heaven. And he has simply omitted to specify the words which Matthew has
introduced regarding Jonas.

CHAPTER LII.-OF MATTHEW'S AGREEMENT WITH MARK IN THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES, AS REGARDS BOTH THE SUBJECT ITSELF AND THE ORDER OF NARRATIVE.

107. Matthew proceeds: "And He left them, and departed. And when His disciples were come
to the other side, they forgot to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed, and
beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees;" and so forth, down to where
we read, "Then understood they that He bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of
the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." These words are recorded also by
Mark, and that likewise in the same order.

CHAPTER LIII.-OF THE OCCASION ON WHICH HE ASKED THE DISCIPLES WHOM MEN SAID THAT HE WAS; AND OF THE QUESTION WHETHER, WITH REGARD EITHER TO THE SUBJECT-MATTER OR THE ORDER, THERE ARE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE.

108. Matthew continues thus: "And Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi; and He
asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? And they said,
Some say that Thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the
prophets;" and so on, down to the words," And whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven." Mark relates this nearly in the same order. But he has brought in
before it a narrative which is given by him alone, -namely, that regarding the giving of
sight to that blind man who said to the Lord, "I see men as trees walking." Luke, again,
also records this incident, inserting it after his account of the miracle of the five
loaves; and, as we have already shown above, the order of recollection which is followed
in his case is not antagonistic to the order adopted by these others. Some difficulty,
however, may be imagined in the circumstance that Luke's representation bears that the
Lord put this question, as to whom men held Him to be, to His disciples at a time when He
was alone praying, and when His disciples were also with Him; whereas Mark, on the other
hand, tells us that the question was put by Him to the disciples when they were on the
way. But this will be a difficulty only to the man who has never prayed on the way.

109. I recollect having already stated that no one should suppose that Peter received that
name for the first time on the occasion when He said to Him, "Thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my Church." For the time at which he did obtain this name was that
referred to by John, when he mentions that he was addressed in these terms: "Thou shalt be
called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, Peter." Hence, too, we are as little to think
that Peter got this designation on the occasion to which Mark alludes, when he recounts
the twelve apostles individually by name, and tells us how James and John were called the
sons of thunder, merely on the ground that in that passage he has recorded the fact that
He surnamed him Peter. For that circumstance is noticed there simply because it was
suggested to the writer's recollection at that particular point, and not because it took
place in actual fact at that specific time.

CHAPTER LIV.-OF THE OCCASION ON WHICH HE ANNOUNCED HIS COMING PASSION TO THE DISCIPLES, AND OF THE MEASURE OF CONCORD BETWEEN MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE IN THE ACCOUNTS WHICH THEY GIVE OF THE SAME.

110. Matthew proceeds in the following strain: "Then charged He His disciples that they
should tell no man that He was Jesus the Christ. From that time forth began Jesus to show
unto His disciples how that He must go into Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the
elders, and chief priests, and scribes;" and so on, down to where we read, "Thou savourest
not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Mark and Luke add these passages
in the same order. Only Luke says nothing about the opposition which Peter expressed to
the passion of Christ.

CHAPTER LV.-OF THE HARMONY BETWEEN THE THREE EVANGELISTS IN THE NOTICES WHICH THEY SUBJOIN OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE LORD CHARGED THE MAN TO FOLLOW HIM WHO WISHED TO COME AFTER HIM.

111. Matthew continues thus: "Then said Jesus unto His disciples, If any man will come
after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me;" and so on, down to
the words, "And then He shall reward every man according to his work." This is appended
also by Mark, who keeps the same order. But he does not say of the Son of man, who was to
come with His angels, that He is to reward every man according to his work. Nevertheless,
he mentions at the same time that the Lord spoke to this effect: "Whosoever shall be
ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the
Son of man be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." And
this may be taken to bear the same sense as is expressed by Matthew, when he says, that
"He shall reward every man according to his work." Luke also adds the same statements in
the same order, slightly varying the terms indeed in which they are conveyed, but still
showing a complete parallel with the others in regard to the truthful reproduction of the
self-same ideas.

Chapter LVI.-Of the Manifestation Which the Lord Made of Himself, in Company with Moses
and Elias, to His Disciples on the Mountain; And of the Question Concerning the Harmony
Between the First Three Evangelists with Regard to the Order and the Circumstances of that
Event; And in Especial, the Number of the Days, in So Far as Matthew and Mark State that
It Took Place After Six Days, While Luke Says that It Was After Eight Days. 112. Matthew
proceeds thus: "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste
of death till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom. And after six days, Jesus
taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into an high mountain;" and
so on, down to where we read, "Tell the vision to no man until the Son of man be risen
again from the dead." This vision of the Lord upon the mount in the presence of the three
disciples, Peter, James, and John, on which occasion also the testimony of the Father's
voice was borne Him from heaven, is related by the three evangelists in the same order,
and in a manner expressing the same sense completely. And as regards other matters, they
may be seen by the readers to be in accordance with those modes of narration of which we
have given examples in many passages already, and in which there are diversities in
expression without any consequent diversity in meaning.

113. But with respect to the circumstance that Mark, along with Matthew, tells us how the
event took place after six days, while Luke states that it was after eight days, those who
find a difficulty here do not deserve to be set aside with contempt, but should be
enlightened by the offering of explanations. For when we announce a space of days in these
terms, "after so many days," sometimes we do not include in the number the day on which we
speak, or the day on which the thing itself which we intimate beforehand or promise is
declared to take place, but reckon only the intervening days, on the real and full and
final expiry of which the incident in question is to occur. This is what Matthew and Mark
have done. Leaving out of their calculation the day on which Jesus spoke these words, and
the day on which He exhibited that memorable spectacle on the mount, they have regarded
simply the intermediate days, and thus have used the expression, "after six days." But
Luke, reckoning in the extreme day at either end, that is to say, the first day and the
last day, has made it "after eight days," in accordance with that mode of speech in which
the part is put for the whole.

114. Moreover, the statement which Luke makes with regard to Moses and Elias in these
terms, "And it came to pass, as they departed from Him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it
is good for us to be here," and so forth, ought not to be considered antagonistic to what
Matthew and Mark have subjoined to the same effect, as if they made Peter offer this
suggestion while Moses and Elias were still talking with the Lord. For they have not
expressly said that it was at that time, but rather they have simply left unnoticed the
fact which Luke has added,-namely, that it was as they went away that Peter made the
suggestion to the Lord with respect to the making of three tabernacles. At the same time,
Luke has appended the intimation that it was as they were entering the cloud that the
voice came from heaven,-a circumstance which is not affirmed, but which is as little
contradicted, by the others.

CHAPTER LVII.-OF THE HARMONY BETWEEN MATTHEW AND MARK IN THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN OF THE OCCASION ON WHICH HE SPOKE TO THE DISCIPLES CONCERNING THE COMING OF ELIAS.

115. Matthew goes on thus: "And His disciples asked Him, saying, Why then say the scribes
that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first
come and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and they knew
him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man
suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of John the
Baptist." This same passage is given also by Mark, who keeps also the same order; and
although he exhibits some diversity of expression, he makes no departure from a truthful
representation of the same sense. He has not, however, added the statement, that the
disciples understood that the Lord had referred to John the Baptist in saying that Elias
was come already.

CHAPTER LVIII.-OF THE MAN WHO BROUGHT BEFORE HIM HIS SON, WHOM THE DISCIPLES WERE UNABLE TO HEAL; AND OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THESE THREE EVANGELISTS ALSO IN THE MATTER OF THE ORDER OF NARRATION HERE.

116. Matthew goes on in the following terms: "And when He was come to the multitude, there
came to Him a certain man, kneeling down before Him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my
son; for he is lunatic, and sore vexed;" and so on, down to the words, "Howbeit this kind
is not cast out but by prayer and fasting." Both Mark and Luke record this incident, and
that, too, in the same order, without any suspicion of a want of harmony.

CHAPTER LIX.-OF THE OCCASION ON WHICH THE DISCIPLES WERE EXCEEDING SORRY WHEN HE SPOKE TO THEM OF HIS PASSION, AS IT IS RELATED IN THE SAME ORDER BY THE THREE EVANGELISTS.

117. Matthew continues thus: "And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The
Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men; and they shall kill Him, and the third
day He shall rise again. And they were exceeding sorry." Mark and Luke record this passage
in the same order.

CHAPTER LX.-OF HIS PAYING THE TRIBUTE MONEY OUT OF THE MOUTH OF THE FISH, AN INCIDENT WHICH MATTHEW ALONE MENTIONS.

118. Matthew continues in these terms: "And when they were come to Capharnaum, they that
received tribute money came to Peter, and said to him, Doth not your master pay tribute?
He saith, Yes;" and so on, down to where we read: "Thou shall find a piece of money: that
take, and give unto them for me and thee." He is the only one who relates this occurrence,
after the interposition of which he follows again the order which is pursued also by Mark
and Luke in company with him. Chapter LXI.-Of the Little Child Whom He Set Before Them for
Their Imitation, and of the Offences of the World; Of the Members of the Body Causing
Offences; Of the Angels of the Little Ones, Who Behold the Face of the Father; Of the One
Sheep Out of the Hundred Sheep; Of the Reproving of a Brother in Private; Of the Loosing
and the Binding of Sins; Of The, Agreement of Two, and the Gathering Together of Three; Of
the Forgiving of Sins Even Unto Seventy Times Seven; Of the Servant Who Had His Own Large
Debt Remitted, and Yet Refused to Remit the Small Debt Which His Fellow-Servant Owed to
Him; And of the Question as to Matthew's Harmony with the Other Evangelists on All These
Subjects.

119. The same Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "In that
hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who,thinkest Thou, is the greater in the
kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child untoHim, and set him in the midst of
them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little
children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven; and so on, down to the words, "So
likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not
every one his brother their trespasses. Of this somewhat lengthened discourse which was
spoken by the Lord, Mark, instead of giving the whole, has presented only certain
portions, in dealing with which he follows meantime the same order. He has also introduced
some matters which Matthew doesnot mention. Moreover, in this complete discourse, so far
as we have taken it under consideration, the only interruption is that which is made by
Peter, when he inquires how often a brother ought to be forgiven. The Lord, however, was
speaking in a strain which makes it quite clear that even the question which Peter thus
proposed, and the answer which was returned to him, belong really to the same address.
Luke, again, records none of these things in the order here observed, with the exception
of the incident with the little child whom He set before His disciples, for their
imitation when they were thinking of their own greatness.

For if he has also narrated some other matters of a tenor resembling those which are
inserted in this discourse, these are sayings which he has recalled for notice in other
connections, and on occasions different from the present: just as John introduces the
Lord's words on the subject of the forgiveness of sins,-namely, those to the effect that
they should be remitted to him to whom the apostles remitted them, and that they should be
retained to him to whom they retained them, as spoken by the Lord after His resurrection;
while Matthew mentions that in the discourse now under notice the Lord made this
declaration, which, however, the self-same evangelist at the same time affirms to have
been given on a previous occasion to Peter. Therefore, to preclude the necessity of having
always to inculcate the same rule, we ought to bear in mind the fact that Jesus uttered
the same word repeatedly, and in a number of different places,-a principle which we have
pressed so often upon your attention already; and this consideration should save us from
feeling any perplexity, even although the order of the sayings may be thought to create
some difficulty.

Chapter LXII.-Of the Harmony Subsisting Between Matthew and Mark in the Accounts Which
They Offer of the Time When He Was Asked Whether It Was Lawful to Put Away One's Wife, and
Especially in Regard to the Specific Questions and Replies Which Passed Between the Lord
and the Jews, and in Which the Evangelists Seem to Be, to Some Small Extent, at Variance.
120. Matthew continues giving his narrative in the following manner: "And it came to pass,
that when Jesus had finished these sayings, He departed from Galilee, and came into the
coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; and great multitudes followed Him; and He healed them
there. The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying, Is it lawful top a man
to put away his wife for every cause?" And so on, down to the words, "He that is able to
receive it, let him receive it." Mark also records this, and observes the same order. At
the same time, we must certainly see to it that no appearance of contradiction be supposed
to arise from the circumstance that the same Mark tells us how the Pharisees were asked by
the Lord as to what Moses commanded them, and that on His questioning them to that effect
they returned the answer regarding the bill of divorcement which Moses suffered them to
write; whereas, according to Matthew's version, it was after the Lord had spoken those
words in which He had shown them, out of the law, how God made male and female to be one
flesh, and how, therefore, those [thus joined together of Him] ought not to be put asunder
by man, that they gave the reply, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of
divorcement, and to put her away?" To this interrogation, also [as Matthew puts it], He
says again in reply, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put
away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." There is no difficulty, I repeat,
in this; for it is not the case that Mark makes no kind of mention of the reply which was
thus given by the Lord, but he brings it in after the answer which was returned by them to
His question relating to the bill of divorcement.

121. As far as the order or method of statement here adopted is concerned, we ought to
understand that it in no way affects the truth of the subject itself, whether the question
regarding the permission to write a bill of divorcement given by the said Moses, by whom
also it is recorded that God made male and female to be one flesh, was addressed by these
Pharisees to the Lord at the time when He was forbidding the separation of husband and
wife, and confirming His declaration on that subject by the authority of the law; or
whether the said question was conveyed in the reply which the same persons returned to the
Lord, at the time when He asked them about what Moses had commanded them. For His
intention was not to offer them any reason for the permission which Moses thus granted
them until they had first mentioned the matter themselves; which intention on His part is
what is indicated by the inquiry which Mark has introduced. On the other hand, their
desire was to use the authority of Moses in commanding the giving of a bill of
divorcement, for the purpose of stopping His mouth, so to speak, in the matter of
forbidding, as they believed He undoubtedly would do, a man to put away his wife. For they
had approached Him with the view of saying what would tempt Him.

And this desire of theirs is what is indicated by Matthew, when, instead of stating how
they were interrogated first themselves, he represents them as having of their own accord
put the question about the precept of Moses, in order that they might thereby, as it were,
convict the Lord of doing what was wrong in prohibiting the putting away of wives.
Wherefore, since the mind of the speakers, in the service of which the words ought to
stand, has been exhibited by both evangelists, it is no matter how the modes of narration
adopted by the two may differ, provided neither of them fails to give a correct
representation of the subject itself. 122. Another view of the matter may also be taken,
namely, that, in accordance with Mark's statement, when these persons began by questioning
the Lord on the subject of the putting away of a wife, He questioned them in turn as to
what Moses commanded them; and that, on their replying that Moses suffered them to write a
bill of divorcement and put the wife away, He made His answer to them regarding the said
law which was given by Moses, reminding them how God instituted the union of male and
female, and addressing them in the words which are inserted by Matthew, namely, "Have ye
not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female?" and so on.
On hearing these words, they repeated in the form of an inquiry what they had already
given utterance to when replying to His first interrogation, namely the expression, "Why
did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" Then Jesus
showed that the reason was the hardness of their heart; which explanation Mark brings in,
with a view to brevity, at an earlier point, as if it had been given in reply to that
former response of theirs, which Matthew has passed over. And this he does as judging that
no injury could be done to the truth at whichever point the explanation might be
introduced, seeing that the words, with a view to which it was returned, had been uttered
twice in the same form; and seeing also that the Lord, in any case, had offered the said
explanation in reply to such words.

Chapter LXIII.-Of the Little Children on Whom He Laid His Hands; Of the Rich Man to Whom
He Said, "Sell All that Thou Hast;" Of the Vineyard in Which the Labourers Were Hired at
Different Hours; And of the Question as to the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Matthew
and the Other Two Evangelists on These Subjects. 123. Matthew proceeds thus: "Then were
there brought unto Him little children, that He should put His hands on them, and pray;
and the disciples rebuked them; and so on, down to where we read, "For many are called,
but few are chosen. Mark has followed the same order here as Matthew. But Matthew is the
only one who introduces the section relating to the labourers who were hired for the
vineyard. Luke, on the other hand, first mentions what He said to those who were asking
each other who should be the greatest, and next subjoins at once the passage concerning
the man whom they had seen casting out devils, although he did not follow Him; then he
parts company with the other two at the point where he tells us how He stedfastly set His
face to go to Jerusalem; and after the interposition of a number of subjects, he joins
them again in giving the story of the rich man, to whom the word is addressed, "Sell all
that thou hast," which individual's case is related here by the other two evangelists, but
still in the succession which is followed by all the narratives alike. For in the passage
referred to in Luke, that writer does not fail to bring in the story of the little
children, just as the other two do immediately before the mention of the rich man.

With regard, then, to the accounts which are given us of this rich person, who asks what
good thing he should do in order to obtain eternal life, there may appear to be some
discrepancy between them, because the words were, according to Matthew, "Why askest thou
me about the good? while according to the others they were, "Why callest thou me good? The
sentence, "Why askest thou me about the good? may then be referred more particularly to
what was expressed by the man when he put the question, "What good thing shall I do? For
there we have both the name "good" applied to Christ, and the question put. But the
address "Good Master" does not of itself convey the question. Accordingly, the best method
of disposing of it is to understand both these sentences to have been uttered, "Why
callest thou me good? and, "Why askest thou me about the good?"

Chapter LXIV.-Of the Occasions on Which He Foretold His Passion in Private to His
Disciples; And of the Time When the Mother of Zebedee's Children Came with Her Sons,
Requesting that One of Them Should Sit on His Right Hand, and the Other on His Left Hand;
And of the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Matthew and the Other Two Evangelists on
These Subjects. 124. Matthew continues his narrative in the following terms: "And Jesus,
going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples apart, and said unto them, Behold, we go
up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the
scribes, and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to
mock, and to scourge, and to crucify Him; and the third day He shall rise again. Then came
to Him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping Him, and desiring a
certain thing of Him; and so on, down to the words, "Even as the Son of man came not to be
ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many. Here again Mark
keeps the same order as Matthew, only he represents the sons of Zebedee to have made the
request themselves; while Matthew has stated that it was preferred on their behalf not by
their own personal application, but by their mother, as she had laid what was their wish
before the Lord. Hence Mark has briefly intimated what was said on that occasion as spoken
by them, rather than by her [in their name]. And to conclude with the matter, it is to
them rather than to her, according to Matthew no less than according to Mark, that the
Lord returned His reply.

Luke, on the other hand, after narrating in the same order our Lord's predictions to the
twelve disciples on the subject of His passion and resurrection, leaves unnoticed what the
other two evangelists immediately go on to record; and after the interposition of these
passages, he is joined by his fellow-writers again [at the point where they report the
incident] at Jericho. Moreover, as to what Matthew and Mark have stated with respect to
the princes of the Gentiles exercising dominion over those who are subject to
them,-namely, that it should not be so with them [the disciples], but that he who was
greatest among them should even be a servant to the others,-Luke also gives us something
of the same tenor, although not in that connection; and the order itself indicates that
the same sentiment was expressed by the Lord on a second occasion.

CHAPTER LXV.-OF THE ABSENCE OF ANY ANTAGONISM BETWEEN MATTHEW AND MARK, OR BETWEEN MATTHEW AND LUKE, IN THE ACCOUNT OFFERED OF THE GIVING OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND MEN OF JERICHO.

125. Matthew continues thus: "And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude
followed Him. And, behold, two blind men sitting by the wayside heard that Jesus passed
by, and cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David;" and so on, down
to the words, "And immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed Him." Mark
also records this incident, but mentions only one blind man. This difficulty is solved in
the way in which a former difficulty was explained which met us in the case of the two
persons who were tormented by the legion of devils in the territory of the Gerasenes. For,
that in this instance also of the two blind men whom he [Matthew] alone has introduced
here, one of them was of pre-eminent note and repute in that city, is a fact made clear
enough by the single consideration, that Mark has recorded both his own name and his
father's; a circumstance which scarcely comes across us in all the many cases of healing
which had been already performed by the Lord, unless that miracle be an exception, in the
recital of which the evangelist has mentioned by name Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue,
whose daughter Jesus restored to life. And in this latter instance this intention becomes
the more apparent, from the fact that the said ruler of the synagogue was certainly a man
of rank in the place. Consequently there can be little doubt that this Bartimaeus, the son
of Timaeus, had fallen from some position of great prosperity, and was now regarded as an
object of the most notorious and the most remarkable wretchedness, because, in addition to
being blind, he had also to sit begging. And this is also the reason, then, why Mark has
chosen to mention only the one whose restoration to sight acquired for the miracle a fame
as widespread as was the notoriety which the man's misfortune itself had gained.

126. But Luke, although he mentions an incident altogether of the same tenor, is
nevertheless to be understood as really narrating only a similar miracle which was wrought
in the case of another blind man, and as putting on record its similarity to the said
miracle in the method of performance. For he states that it was performed when He was
coming nigh unto Jericho; while the others say that it took place when He was departing
from Jericho. Now the name of the city, and the resemblance in the deed, favour the
supposition that there was but one such occurrence. But still, the idea that the
evangelists really contradict each other here, in so far as the one says, "As He was come
nigh unto Jericho," while the others put it thus, "As He came out of Jericho," is one
which no one surely will be prevailed on to accept, unless those who would have it more
readily credited that the gospel is unveracious, than that He wrought two miracles of a
similar nature and in similar circumstances. But every faithful son of the gospel will
most readily perceive which of these two alternatives is the more credible, and which the
rather to be accepted as true; and, indeed, every gainsayer too, when he is advised
concerning the real state of the case, will answer himself either by thesilence which he
will have to observe, or at least by the tenor of his reflections should he decline to be
silent.

CHAPTER LXVI.-OF THE COLT OF THE ASS WHICH IS MENTIONED BY MATTHEW, AND OF THE CONSISTENCY OF HIS ACCOUNT WITH THAT OF THE OTHER EVANGELISTS, WHO SPEAK ONLY OF THE ASS.

127. Matthew goes on with his narrative in the following terms: "And when they drew nigh
unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the Mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two
disciples, saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye
shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her; and so on, down to the words, "Blessed is He
that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest. Mark also records this
occurrence, and inserts it in the same order. Luke, on the other hand, tarries a space by
Jericho, recounting certain matters which these others have omitted,-namely, the story of
Zacchaeus, the chief of the publicans, and some sayings which are couched in parabolic
form. After instancing these things, however, this evangelist again joins company with the
others in the narrative relating to the ass on which Jesus sat. And let not the
circumstance stagger us, that Matthew speaks both of an ass and of the colt of an ass,
while the others say nothing of the ass. For here again we must bear in mind the rule
which we have already introduced in dealing with the statements about the seating of the
people by fifties and by hundreds on the occasion on which the multitudes were fed with
the five loaves. Now, after this principle has been brought into application, the reader
should not feel any serious difficulty in the present case.

Indeed, even had Matthew said nothing about the colt, just as his fellow-historians have
taken no notice of the ass, the fact should not have created any such perplexity as to
induce the idea of an insuperable contradiction between the two statements, when the one
writer speaks only of the ass, and the others only of the colt of the ass. But how much
less cause then for any disquietude ought there to be, when we see that the one writer has
mentioned the ass to which the others have omitted to refer, in such a manner as at the
same time not to leave unnoticed also the colt of which the rest have spoken! In fine,
where it is possible to suppose both objects to have been included in the occurrence,
there is no real antagonism, although the one writer may specify only the one thing, and
another only the other. How much less need there be any contradiction, when the one writer
particularizes the one object, and another instances both!

128. Again, although John tells us nothing as to the way in which the Lord despatched His
disciples to fetch these animals to Him, nevertheless he inserts a brief allusion to this
colt, and cites also the word of the prophet which Matthew makes use of. In the case also
of this testimony from the prophet, the terms in which it is reproduced by the
evangelists, although they exhibit certain differences, do not fail to express a sense
identical in intention. Some difficulty, however, may be felt in the fact that Matthew
adduces this passage in a forth whichrepresents the prophet to have made mention of the
ass; whereas this is not the case, either with the quotation as introduced by John, or
with the version given in the ecclesiastical codices of the translation in common use. An
explanation of this variation seems to me to be found in the fact that Matthew is
understood to have written his Gospel in the Hebrew language. Moreover, it is manifest
that the translation which bears the name of the Septuagint differs in some particulars
from the text which is found in the Hebrew by those who know that tongue, and by the
several scholars who have given us renderings of the same Hebrew books.

And if an explanation is asked for this discrepancy, or for the circumstance that the
weighty authority of the Septuagint translation diverges in many passages from the
rendering of the truth which is discovered in the Hebrew codices, I am of opinion that
nomore probable account of the matter will suggest itself, than the supposition that the
Seventy composed their version under the influence of the very Spirit by whose inspiration
the things which they were engaged in translating had been originally spoken. This is an
idea which receives confirmation also from the marvellous consent which is asserted to
have characterized them. Consequently, when these translators, while not departing from
the real mind of God from which these sayings proceeded, and to the expression of which
the words ought to be subservient, gave a different form to some matters in their
reproduction of the text, they had no intention of exemplifying anything else than the
very thing which we now admiringly contemplate in that kind of harmonious diversity which
marks the four evangelists, and in the light of which it is made clear that there is no
failure from strict truth, although one historian may give an account of some theme in a
manner different indeed from another, and yet not so different as to involve an actual
departure from the sense intended by the person with whom he is bound to be in concord and
agreement.

To understand this is of advantage to character, with a view at once to guard against what
is false, and to pronounce correctly upon it; and it is of no less consequence to faith
itself, in the way of precluding the supposition that, as it were with consecrated sounds,
truth has a kind of defence provided for it which might imply God's handing over to us not
only the thing itself, but likewise the very words which are required for its enunciation;
whereas the fact rather is, that the theme itself which is to be expressed is so decidedly
deemed of superior importance to the words in which it has to be expressed, that we would
be under no obligation to ask about them at all, if it were possible for us to know the
truth without the terms, as God knows it, and as His angels also know it in Him.

CHAPTER LXVII.-OF THE EXPULSION OF THE SELLERS AND BUYERS FROM THE TEMPLE, AND OF THE QUESTION AS TO THE HARMONY BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE EVANGELISTS AND JOHN, WHO RELATES THE SAME INCIDENT IN A WIDELY DIFFERENT CONNECTION.

129. Matthew goes on with his narrative in the following terms: "And when He was come into
Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? And the multitude said, This is
Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee. And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast
out all them that sold and bought in the temple." and so on, down to where we read, "But
ye have made it a den of thieves." This account of the multitude of sellers who were cast
out of the temple is given by all the evangelists; but John introduces it in a remarkably
different order. For, after recording the testimony borne by John the Baptist to Jesus,
and mentioning that He went into Galilee at the time when He turned the water into wine,
and after he has also noticed the sojourn of a few days in Capharnaum, John proceeds to
tell us that He went up to Jerusalem at the season of the Jews' passover, and when He had
made a scourge of small cords, drove out of the temple those who were selling in it. This
makes it evident that this act was performed by the Lord not on a single occasion, but
twice over; but that only the first instance is put on record by John, and the last by the
other three.

Chapter LXVIII.-Of the Withering of the Fig-Tree, and of the Question as to the Absence of
Any Contradiction Between Matthew and the Other Evangelists in the Accounts Given of that
Incident, as Well as the Other Matters Related in Connection with It; And Very Specially
as to the Consistency Between Matthew and Mark in the Matter of the Order of Narration.
130. Matthew continues thus: "And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He
healed them. And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that He did,
and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David, they were
sore displeased, and said unto Him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto
them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected
praise? And He left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and He lodged there. Now
in the morning, as He returned into the city, He hungered. And when He saw a single fig-
tree in the way, He came to it, and found nothing thereon but leaves only, and said unto
it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig-tree withered
away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig-tree
withered away! But Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have
faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig-tree; but also,
if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea, it
shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall
receive."

131. Mark also records this occurrence in due succession. He does not, however, follow the
same order in his narrative. For first of all, the fact which is related by Matthew,
namely, that Jesus went into the temple, and cast out those who sold and bought there, is
not mentioned at that point by Mark. On the other hand, Mark tells us that He looked round
about upon all things, and, when the eventide was now come, went out into Bethany with the
twelve. Next he informs us that on another day, when they were coming from Bethany, He was
hungry, and cursed the fig-tree, as Matthew also intimates. Then the said Mark subjoins
the statement that He came into Jerusalem, and that, on going into the temple, He cast out
those who sold and bought there, as if that incident took place not on the first day
specified, but on a different day. But inasmuch as Matthew puts the connection in these
terms, "And He left them, and went out of the city into Bethany," and tells us that it was
when returning in the morning into the city that He cursed the tree, it is more reasonable
to suppose that he, rather than Mark, has preserved the strict order of time so far as
regards the incident of the expulsion of the sellers and buyers from the temple.

For when he uses the phrase, "And He left them, and went out," who can be understood by
those parties whom He is thus said to have left, but those with whom He was previously
speaking,-namely, the persons who were so sore displeased because the children cried out,
"Hosanna to the Son of David"? It follows, then, that Mark has omitted what took place on
the first day, when He went into the temple; and in mentioning that He found nothing on
the fig-tree but leaves, he has introduced what He called to mind only there, but what
really occurred on the second day, as both evangelists testify. Then, further, his account
bears that the astonishment which the disciples expressed at finding how the fig-tree had
withered away, and the reply which the Lord made to them on the subject of faith, and the
casting of the mountain into the sea, belonged not to this same second day on which He
said to the tree, "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever," but to a third day. For
in connection with the second day, the said Mark has recorded the incident of the casting
of the sellers out of the temple, which he had omitted to notice as belonging to the first
day.

Accordingly, it is in connection with this second day that he tells us how Jesus went out
of the city, when even was come, and how, when they passed by in the morning, the
disciples saw the fig-tree dried up from the roots, and how Peter, calling to remembrance,
said unto Him, "Master, behold the fig-tree which Thou cursedst is withered away. Then,
too, he informs us that He gave the answer relating to the power of faith. On the other
hand, Matthew recounts these matters in a manner importing that they all took place on
this second day; that is to say, both the word addressed to the tree, "Let no fruit grow
on thee from henceforward for ever," and the withering that ensued so speedily in the
tree, and the reply which He made on the subject of the power of faith to His disciples
when they observed that withering and marvelled at it. Fromthis we are to understand that
Mark, on his side, has recorded in connection with the second day what he had omitted to
notice as occurring really on the first,-namely, the incident of the expulsion of the
sellers and buyers from the temple.

On the other hand, Matthew, after mentioningwhat was done on the second day,- namely, the
cursing of the fig-tree as He was returning in the morning from Bethany into the city,-has
omitted certain facts which Mark has inserted, namely, His coming into the city, andHis
going out of it in the evening, and the astonishment which the disciples expressed at
finding the tree dried up as they passed by in the morning; and then to what had taken
place on the second day, which was the day on which the tree was cursed, he has attached
what really took place on the third day, -namely, the amazement of the disciples at seeing
the tree's withered condition, and the declaration which they heard from the Lord on the
subject of the power of faith. These several facts Matthew has connected together in such
a manner that, were we not compelled to turn our attention to the matter by Mark's
narrative, we should be unable to recognise either at what point or with regard to what
circumstances the former writer has left anything unrecorded in his narrative. The case
therefore stands thus: Matthew first presents the facts conveyed in these words, "And He
left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and He lodged there. Now in the morning,
as He returned into the city, He hungered;

and when He saw a single fig-tree in the way, He came to it, and found nothing thereon but
leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever; and
presently the fig-tree withered away. Then, omitting the other matters which belonged to
that same day, he has immediately subjoined this statement, "And when the disciples saw
it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is it withered away! although it was on another day
that they saw this sight, and on another day that they thus marvelled. But it is
understood that the tree did not wither at the precise time when they saw it, but
presently when it was cursed. For what they saw was not the tree in the process of drying
up, but the tree already dried completely up; and thus they learned that it had withered
away immediately on the Lord's sentence.


THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS
==========================

THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS continued

CHAPTER LXIX.-OF THE HARMONY BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE EVANGELISTS IN THEIR ACCOUNTS OF THE OCCASION ON WHICH THE JEWS ASKED THE LORD BY WHAT AUTHORITY HE DID THESE THINGS.

132. Matthew continues his narrative in the following terms: "And when He was come into
the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto Him as He was
teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this
authority? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if
ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism
of John, whence was it? and so on, down to the words, "Neither tell I you by what
authority I do these things. The other two, Mark and Luke, have also set forth this whole
passage, and that, too, in almost as many words. Neither does there appear to be any
discrepancy between them in regard to the order, the only exception being found in the
circumstance of which I have spoken above, -namely, that Matthew omits certain matters
belonging to a different day, and has constructed his narrative with a connection which,
were our attention not called [otherwise] to the fact, might lead to the supposition that
he was still treating of the second day, where Mark deals with the third. Moreover, Luke
has not appended his notice of this incident, as if he meant to go over the days in
orderly succession;

but after recording the expulsion of the sellers and buyers from the temple, he has passed
by without notice all that is contained in the statements above-His going out into
Bethany, and His returning to the city, and what was done to the fig-tree, and the reply
touching the power of faith which was made to the disciples when they marvelled. And then,
after all these omissions, he has introduced the next section of his narrative in these
terms: "And He taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests, and the scribes, and the
chief of the people sought to destroy Him; and could not find what they might do: for all
the people were very attentive to hear Him. And it came to pass, that on one of these
days, as He taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests
and the scribes came upon Him, with the elders, and spake unto Him, saying, Tell us, by
what authority doest thou these things? and so on; all which the other two evangelists
record in like manner. From this it is apparent that he is in no antagonism with the
others, even with regard to the order; since what he states to have taken place "on one of
those days," may be understood to belong to that particular day on which they also have
reported it to have occurred.

Chapter LXX.-Of the Two Sons Who Were Commanded by Their Father to Go into His Vineyard,
and of the Vineyard Which Was Let Out to Other Husbandmen; Of the Question Concerning the
Consistency of Matthew's Version of These Passages with Those Given by the Other Two
Evangelists, with Whom He Retains the Same Order; As Also, in Particular, Concerning the
Harmony of His Version of the Parable, Which is Recorded by All the Three, Regarding the
Vineyard that Was Let Out; And in Reference Specially to the Reply Made by the Persons to
Whom that Parable Was Spoken, in Relating Which Matthew Seems to Differ Somewhat from the
Others. 133. Matthew goes on thus: "But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he
came to the first, and said, Son, go work to-day in my vineyard. But he answered and said,
I will not; but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said
likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir; and went not;" and so on, down to the
words, "And whosoever shall fall upon this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it
shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Mark and Luke do not mention the parable of the
two sons to whom the order was given to go and labour in the vineyard. But what is
narrated by Matthew subsequently to that,-namely, the parable of the vineyard which was
let out to the husbandmen, who persecuted the servants that were sent to them, and
afterwards put to death the beloved son, and thrust him out of the vineyard,-is not left
unrecorded also by those two. And in detailing it they likewise both retain the same
order, that is to say, they bring it in after that declaration of their inability to tell
which was made by the Jews when interrogated regarding the baptism of John, and after the
reply which He returned to them in these words: "Neither do I tell you by what authority I
do these things."

134. Now no question implying any contradiction between these accounts rises here, unless
it be raised by the circumstance that Matthew, after telling us how the Lord addressed to
the Jews this interrogation, "When the lord, therefore, of the vineyard cometh, what will
he do unto those husbandmen?" adds, that they answered and said, "He will miserably
destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall
render him the fruits in their seasons." For Mark does not record these last words as if
they constituted the reply returned by the men; but he introduces them as if they were
really spoken by the Lord immediately after the question which was put by Him, so that in
a certain way He answered Himself. For [in this Gospel] He speaks thus: "What shall
therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will
give the vineyard unto others." But it is quite easy for us to suppose,either that the
men's words are subjoined herewithout the insertion of the explanatory clause "they said,"
or "they replied," that being left to be understood; or else that the said response is
ascribed to the Lord Himself rather than to these men, because when they answered with
such truth, He also, who is Himself the Truth, really gave the same reply in reference to
the persons in question.

135. More serious difficulty, however, may be created by the fact that Luke not only does
not speak of them as the parties who made that answer (for he, as well as Mark, attributes
these words to the Lord), but even represents them to have given a contrary reply, and to
have said, "God forbid. For his narrative proceeds in these terms: "What therefore shall
the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and
shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. And He
beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders
rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? How then is it that, according to
Matthew's version, the men to whom He spake these words said, "He will miserably destroy
those wicked men, and will let out this vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render
him the fruits in their seasons; whereas, according to Luke, they gave a reply
inconsistent with any terms like these, when they said, "God forbid"? And, in truth, what
the Lord proceeds immediately to say regarding the stone which was rejected by the
builders, and yet was made the head of the corner, is introduced in a manner implying that
by this testimony those were confuted who were gainsaying the real meaning of the parable.

For Matthew, no less than Luke, records that passage as if it were intended to meet the
gainsayers, when he says, "Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the
builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? For what is implied by this
question, "Did ye never read," but that the answer which they had given was opposed to the
real intention [of the parable]? This is also indicated by Mark, who gives these same
words in the following manner: "And have ye not read this scripture, The stone which the
builders rejected is become the head of the corner? This sentence, therefore, appears to
occupy in Luke, rather than the others, the place which is properly assignable to it as
originally uttered. For it is brought in by him directly after the contradiction expressed
by those men when they said, "God forbid. And the form in which it is cast by him,-namely,
"What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is
become the head of the corner? "-is equivalent insense to the other modes of statement.
For the real meaning of the sentence is indicated equally well, whichever of the three
phrases is used, "Did ye never read? or, "And have ye not read? or, "What is this, then,
that is written?"

136. It remains, therefore, for us to understand that among the people who were listening
on that occasion, there were some who replied in the terms related by Matthew, when he
writes thus: "They say unto Him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let
out his vineyard unto other husbandmen;" and that there were also some who answered in the
way indicated by Luke, that is to say, with the words, "God forbid." Accordingly, those
persons who had replied to the Lord to the former effect, were replied to by these other
individuals in the crowd with the explanation, "God forbid." But the answer which was
really given by the first of these two parties, to whom the second said in return, "God
forbid," has been ascribed both by Mark and by Luke to the Lord Himself, on the ground
that, as I have already intimated, the Truth Himself spake by these men, whether as by
persons who knew not that they were wicked, in the same way that He spake also by
Caiaphas, who when he was high priest prophesied without realizing what he said, or as by
persons who did understand, and who had come by this time both to knowledge and to belief.
For there was also present on this occasion that multitude of people at whose hand the
prophecy had already received a fulfilment, when they met Him in a mighty concourse on His
approach, and hailed Him with the acclaim, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the
Lord."

137. Neither should we stumble at the circumstance that the same Matthew has stated that
the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the Lord, and asked Him by what
authority He did these things, and who gave Him this authority, on the occasion when He
to, in turn, interrogated them concerning the baptism of John, inquiring whence it was,
whether from heaven or of men; to whom also, on their replying that they did not know, He
said, "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do those things. For he has followed up
this with the words introduced in the immediate context, "But what think ye? A certain man
had two sons," and so forth. Thus this discourse is brought into a connection which is
continued, uninterrupted by the interposition either of any thing or of any person, down
to what is related regarding the vineyard which was let out to the husbandmen. It may,
indeed, be supposed that He spake all these words to the chief priests and the eiders of
the people, by whom He had been interrogated with regard to His authority. But then, if
these persons had indeed questioned Him with a view to tempt Him, and with a hostile
intention, they could not be taken for men who had believed, and who cited the remarkable
testimony in favour of the Lord which was taken from a prophet;

and surely it is only if they had the character of those who believed, and not of those
who were ignorant, that they could have given a reply like this: "He will miserably
destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen. This
peculiarity [of Matthew's account], however, should not by any means so perplex us as to
lead us to imagine that there were none who believed among the multitudes who listened at
this time to the Lord's parables. For it is only for the sake of brevity that the same
Matthew has passed over in silence what Luke does not fail to mention,-namely, the fact
that the said parable was not spoken only to the parties who had interrogated Him on the
subject of His authority, but to the people. For the latter evangelist puts it thus: "Then
began He to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard," and so
on. Accordingly, we may well understand that among the people then assembled there might
also have been persons who could listen to Him as those did who before this had said,
"Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord; and that either these, or some of
them, were the individuals who replied in the words, "He will miserably destroy these
wicked men, and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen.

The answer actually returned by these men, moreover, has been attributed to the Lord
Himself by Mark and Luke, not only because their words were really His words, inasmuch as
He is the Truth that ofttimes speaks even by the wicked and the ignorant, moving the mind
of man by a certain hidden instinct, not in the merit of man's holiness, but by the right
of His own proper power; but also because the men may have been of a character admitting
of their being reckoned, not without reason, as already members in the true body of
Christ, so that what was said by them might quite warrantably be ascribed to Him whose
members they were. For by this time He had baptized more than John, and had multitudes of
disciples, as the same evangelists repeatedly testify; and from among these followers He
also drew those five hundred brethren, to whom the Apostle Paul tells us that He showed
Himself after His resurrection. And this explanation of the matter is supported by the
fact that the phrase which occurs in the version. by this same Matthew,-namely, "They say
unto Him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men,"-is not put in a form necessitating
us to take the pronoun illi in the plural number, as if it was intended to mark out the
words expressly as the reply made by the persons who had craftily questioned Him on the
subject of His authority;

but the clause, "They say unto Him," is so expressed that the term illi should be taken
for the singular pronoun, and not the plural, and should be held to signify "unto Him,"
that is to say, unto the Lord Himself, as is made clear in the Greek codices, without a
single atom of ambiguity. 138. There is a certain discourse of the Lord which is given by
the evangelist John, and which may help us more readily to understand the statement I thus
make. It is to this effect: "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye
continue in my word, then ye shall be my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free. And they answered Him, We be Abraham's seed, and were
never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be free? Jesus answered them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the
servant abideth not in the house for ever; but the Son abideth for ever. If the Son,
therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham's
seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. Now surely it is not
to be supposed that He spake these words, "Ye seek to kill me" to those persons who had
already believed on Him, and to whom He had said, "If ye abide in my word, then shall ye
be my disciples indeed.

But inasmuch as He had spoken in these latter terms to the men who had already believed on
Him, and as, moreover, there was present on that occasion a multitude of people, among
whom there were many who were hostile to Him, even although the evangelist does not tell
us explicitly who those parties were who made the reply referred to, the very nature of
the answer which they gave, and the tenor of the words which thereupon were rightly
directed to them by Him, make it sufficiently clear what specific persons were then
addressed, and what words were spoken to them in particular. Precisely, therefore, as in
the multitude thus alluded to by John there were some whohad already believed on Jesus,
and also some who sought to kill Him, in that other concourse which we are discussing at
present there were some who had craftily questioned the Lord onthe subject of the
authority by which He did these things; and there were also others who had hailed Him, not
in deceit, but in faith, with the acclaim, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the
Lord. And thus, too, there were persons present who could say, "He will destroy those men,
and will give his vineyard to others. This saying, furthermore, may be rightly understood
to have been the voice of the Lord Himself, either in virtue of that Truth which in His
own Person He is Himself, or on the ground of the unity which subsists between the members
of His body and the head.

There were also certain individuals present who, when these other parties gave that kind
of answer, said to them, "God forbid," because they understood the parable to be directed
against themselves.

CHAPTER LXXI.-OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE KING'S SON, TO WHICH THE MULTITUDES WERE INVITED; AND OF THE ORDER IN WHICH MATTHEW INTRODUCES THAT SECTION AS COMPARED WITH LUKE, WHO GIVES US A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR NARRATIVE IN ANOTHER CONNECTION.

139. Matthew goes on as follows: "And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard His
parables, they perceived that He spake of them: and when they sought to lay hands on Him,
they feared the multitude, because they took Him for a prophet. And Jesus answered and
spake unto them again by parables, and said, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain
king which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were
bidden to the wedding, and they would not come;" and so on, down to the words "For many
are called, but few are chosen." This parable concerning the guests who were invited to
the wedding is related only by Matthew. Luke also records something which resembles it.
But that is really a different passage, as the order itself sufficiently indicates,
although there is some similarity between the two. The matters introduced, however, by
Matthew immediately after the parable concerning the vineyard, and the killing of the son
of the bead of the house,-namely, the Jews' perception that this whole discourse was
directed against them, and their beginning to contrive treacherous schemes against
Him,-are attested likewise by Mark and Luke, who also keep the same order in inserting
them. But after this paragraph they proceed to another subject, and immediately subjoin a
passage which Matthew has also indeed introduced in due order, but only subsequently to
this parable of the marriage, which he alone has put on record here.

CHAPTER LXXII.-OF THE HARMONY CHARACTERIZING THE NARRATIVES GIVEN BY THESE THREE EVANGELISTS REGARDING THE DUTY OF RENDERING TO CAESAR THE COIN BEARING HIS IMAGE, AND REGARDING THE WOMAN WHO HAD BEEN MARRIED TO THE SEVEN BROTHERS.

140. Matthew then continues in these terms: "Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how
they might entangle Him in His talk. And they send out unto Him their disciples, with the
Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in
truth, neither carest thou for any man; for thou regardest not the person of men: tell us
therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?" and so on,
down to the words, "And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at His
doctrine." Mark and Luke give a similar account of these two replies made by the
Lord,-namely, the one on the subject of the coin, which was prompted by the question as to
the duty of giving tribute to Caesar; and the other on the subject of the resurrection,
which was suggested by the case of the woman who had married the seven brothers in
succession. Neither do these two evangelists differ in the matter of the order. For after
the parable which told of the men to whom the vineyard was let out, and which also dealt
with the Jews (against whom it was directed), and the evil counsel they were devising
(which sections are given by all three evangelists together), these two, Mark and Luke,
pass over the parable of the guests who were invited to the wedding (which only Matthew
has introduced), and thereafter they join company again with the first evangelist, when
they record these two passages which deal with Caesar's tribute, and the woman who was the
wife of seven different husbands, inserting them in precisely the same order, with a
consistency which admits of no question.

Chapter LXXIII.-Of the Person to Whom the Two Precepts Concerning the Love of God and the
Love of Our Neighbour Were Commended; And of the Question as to the Order of Narration
Which is Observed by Matthew and Mark, and the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Them and
Luke. 141. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "But when the
Pharisees had heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
And one of them, which was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him, and saying,
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is
the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." This
is recorded also by Mark, and that too in the same order. Neither should there be any
difficulty in the statement made by Matthew, to the effect that the person by whom the
question was put to the Lord tempted Him; whereas Mark says nothing about that, but tells
us at the end of the paragraph how the Lord said to the man, as to one who answered
discreetly, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." For it is quite possible that,
although the man approached Him with the view of tempting Him, he may have been set right
by the Lord's response. Or we need not at any rate take the tempting referred to in a bad
sense, as if it were the device of one who sought to deceive an adversary; but we may
rather suppose it to have been the result of caution, as if it were the act of one who
wished to have further trial of a person who was unknown to him. For it is not without a
good purpose that this sentence has been written, "He that is hasty to give credit is
light-minded, and shall be impaired."

142. Luke, on the other hand, not indeed in this order, but in a widely different
connection, introduces something which resembles this. But whether in that passage he is
actually recording this same incident, or whether the person with whom the Lord [is
represented to have] dealt in a similar manner there on the subject of those two
commandments is quite another individual, is altogether uncertain. At the same time, it
may appear right to regard the person who is introduced by Luke as a different individual
from the one before us here, not only on the ground of the remarkable divergence in the
order of narration, but also because he is there reported to have replied to a question
which was addressed to him by the Lord, and in that reply to have himself mentioned those
two precepts. The same opinion is further confirmed by the fact that, after telling us how
the Lord said to him, "This do, and thou shall live,"-thus instructing him to do that
great thing which, according to his own answer, was contained in the law,-the evangelist
follows up what had passed with the statement, "But he, willing to justify himself, said
unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? Thereupon, too [according to Luke], the Lord told the
story of the man who was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers.
Consequently, considering that this individual is described at the outset as tempting
Christ, and is represented to have repeated the two commandments in his reply;

and considering, further, that after the counsel which was given by the Lord in the words,
"This do, and thou shalt live," he is not commended as good, but, on the contrary, has
this said of him, "But he, willing to justify himself," etc., whereas the person who is
mentioned in parallel order both by Mark and by Luke received a commendation so marked,
that the Lord spake to him in these terms, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God,"-the
more probable view is that which takes the person who appears on that occasion to be a
different individual from the man who comes before us here. Chapter LXXIV.-Of the Passage
in Which the Jews are Asked to Say Whose Son They Suppose Christ to Be; And of the
Question Whether There is Not a Discrepancy Between Matthew and the Other Two Evangelists,
in So Far as He States the Inquiry to Have Been, "What Think Ye of Christ? Whose Son is
He?" And Tells Us that to This They Replied, "The Son of David;"Whereas the Others Put It
Thus, "How Say the Scribes that Christ is David's Son?"

143. Matthew goes on thus: "Now when the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked
them, saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He? They say unto Him, The son of
David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in Spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord
said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool? If
David then call Him Lord, how is He his son? And no man was able to answer Him a word,
neither durst any man from that day forth ask Him any more questions. This is given also
by Mark in due course, and in the same order. Luke, again, only omits mention of the
person who asked the Lord which was the first commandment in the law, and, after passing
over that incident in silence, observes the same order once more as the others, narrating
just as these, do this question which the Lord put to the Jews concerning Christ, as to
how He was David's son. Neither is the sense at all affected by the circumstance that, as
Matthew puts it, when Jesus had asked them what they thought of Christ, and whose son He
was, they [the Pharisees] replied, "The son of David," and then He proposed the further
query as to how David then called Him Lord; whereas, according to the version presented by
the other two, Mark and Luke, we do not find either that these persons were directly
interrogated, or that they made any answer.

For we ought to take this view of the matter, namely, that these two evangelists have
introduced the sentiments which were expressed by the Lord Himself after the reply made by
those parties, and have recorded the terms in which He spoke in the hearing of those whom
He wished profitably to instruct in His authority, and to turn away from the teaching of
the scribes, and whose knowledge of Christ amounted then only to this, that He was made of
the seed of David according to the flesh, while they did not understand that He was God,
and on that ground also the Lord even of David. It is in this way, therefore, that in the
accounts given by these two evangelists, the Lord is mentioned in a manner which makes it
appear as if He was discoursing on the subject of these erroneous teachers to men whom He
desired to see delivered from the errors in which these scribes were involved. Thus, too,
the question, which is presented by Matthew in the form, "What say ye? is to be taken not
as addressed directly to these [Pharisees], but rather as expressed only with reference to
those parties, and directed really to the persons whom He was desirous of instructing.

Chapter LXXV.-Of the Pharisees Who Sit in the Seat of Moses, and Enjoin Things Which They
Do Not, and of the Other Words Spoken by the Lord Against These Same Pharisees; Of the
Question Whether Matthew's Narrative Agrees Here with Those Which are Given by the Other
Two Evangelists, and in Particular with that of Luke, Who Introduces a Passage Resembling
This One, Although It is Brought in Not in This Order, But in Another Connection. 144.
Matthew proceeds with his account, observing the following order of narration: "Then spake
Jesus to the multitude, and to His disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in
Moses' seat: all, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do
not ye after their works: for they say, and do not; and so on, down to the words, "Ye
shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of
the Lord. Luke also mentions a similar discourse which was spoken by the Lord in
opposition to the Pharisees and the scribes and the doctors of the law, but reports it as
delivered in the house of a certain Pharisee, who had invited Him to a feast. In order to
relate that passage, he has made a digression from the order which is followed by Matthew,
about the point at which they have both put on record the Lord's sayings respecting the
sign of the three days and nights in the history of Jonas, and the queen of the south, and
the unclean spirit that returns and finds the house swept. And that paragraph is followed
up by Matthew with these words: "While He yet talked to the people, behold, His mother and
His brethren stood without, desiring to speak with Him.

But in the version which the third Gospel presents of the discourse then spoken by the
Lord, after the recital of certain sayings of the Lord which Matthew has omitted to
notice, Luke turns off from the order which he had been observing in concert with Matthew,
to that his immediately subsequent narrative runs thus: "And as He spake, a certain
Pharisee besought Him to dine with him: and He went in, and sat down to meat. And when the
Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that He had not first washed before dinner. And the Lord
said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and platter. And
after this, Luke reports other utterances which were directed against the said Pharisees
and scribes and teachers of the law, which are of a similar tenor to those which Matthew
also recounts in this passage which we have taken in hand at present to consider.
Wherefore, although Matthew records these things in a manner which, while it is true
indeed that the house of that Pharisee is not mentioned by name, yet does not specify as
the scene where the words were spoken any place entirely inconsistent with the idea of His
having been in the house referred to; still the facts that the Lord by this time [i.e.

according to Matthew's Gospel] had left Galilee and come into Jerusalem, and that the
incidents alluded to above, on to the discourse which is now under review, are so arranged
in the context after His arrival as to make it only reasonable to understand them to have
taken place in Jerusalem, whereas Luke's narrative deals with what occurred at the time
when the Lord as yet was only journeying towards Jerusalem, are considerations which lead
me to the conclusion that these are not the same, but only two similar discourses, of
which the former evangelist has reported the one, and the latter the other. 145. This is
also a matter which requires some consideration,-namely, the question how it is said here,
"Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name
of the Lord," when, according to this same Matthew, they had already expressed themselves
to this effect. Besides, Luke likewise tells us that a reply containing these very words
had previously been returned by the Lord to the persons who had counselled Him to leave
their locality, because Herod sought to kill Him. That evangelist represents these self-
same terms, which Matthew records here, to have been employed by Him in the declaration
which He directed on that occasion against Jerusalem itself. For Luke's narrative proceeds
in the following manner: "The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto
Him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. And He said unto them, Go
ye and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and
the third day I am perfected. Nevertheless, I must walk to-day, and to-morrow, and the day
following; for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often
would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her
wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house shall be left unto you desolate:

and I say unto you, that ye shall not see me until the time come when ye shall say,
Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord. There does not seem, however, to be
anything contradictory to the narration thus given by Luke in the circumstance that the
multitudes said, when the Lord was approaching Jerusalem, "Blessed is He that cometh in
the name of the Lord. For, according to the order which is followed by Luke, He had not
yet come to the scene in question, and the words had not been uttered. But since he does
not tell us that He did actually leave the place at that time, not to return to it until
the period came when such words would be spoken by them (for He continues on His journey
until he arrives at Jerusalem; and the saying, "Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures
to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I am perfected," is to be taken to have been
uttered by Him in a mystical and figurative sense: for certainly He did not suffer at a
time answering literally to the third day after the present occasion;

nay, He immediately goes on to say, "Nevertheless, I must walk to-day, and to-morrow, and
the day following"), we are indeed constrained also to put a mystical interpretation upon
the sentence, "Ye shall not see me henceforth, until the time come when ye shall say,
Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord," and to understand it to refer to that
advent of His in which He is to come in His effulgent brightness; it being thereby also
implied, that what He expressed in the declaration, "I cast out devils, and I do cures to-
day and to-morrow, and the third day I am perfected," bears upon His body, which is the
Church. For devils are cast out when the nations abandon their ancestral superstitions and
believe on Him; and cures are wrought when men renounce the devil and this world, and live
in accordance with His commandments, even unto the consummation of the resurrection, in
which there shall, as it were, be realized that perfecting on the third day; that is to
say, the Church shall be perfected up to the measure of the angelic fulness through the
realized immortality of the body as well as the soul. Therefore the order followed by
Matthew is by no means to be understood to involve a digression to another connection.

But we are rather to suppose, either that Luke has antedated the events which took place
in Jerusalem, and has introduced them at this point simply as they were here suggested to
his recollection, before his narrative really brings the Lord to Jerusalem; or that the
Lord, when drawing near the same city on that occasion, did actually reply to the persons
who counselled Him to be on His guard against Herod, in terms resembling those in which
Matthew represents Him to have spoken also to the multitudes at a period when He had
already arrived in Jerusalem, and when all these events had taken place which have been
detailed above.

CHAPTER LXXVI.-OF THE HARMONY IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER OF NARRATION SUBSISTING BETWEEN MATTHEW AND THE OTHER TWO EVANGELISTS IN THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN OF THE OCCASION ON WHICH HE FORETOLD THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE.

1 146. Matthew proceeds with his history in the following terms: "And Jesus went out and
departed from the temple; and His disciples came to Him for to show Him the buildings of
the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye all these things? Verily I say unto you,
There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be thrown down. This
incident is related also by Mark, and nearly in the same order. But he brings it in after
a digression of some small extent, which is made with a view to mention the case of the
widow who put the two mites into the treasury, which occurrence is recorded only by Mark
and Luke. For [in proof that Mark's order is essentially the same as Matthew's, we need
only notice that] in Mark's version also, after the account of the Lord's discussion with
the Jews on the occasion when He asked them how they held Christ to be David's son, we
have a narrative of what He said in warning them against the Pharisees and their
hypocrisy,-a section which Matthew has presented on the amplest scale, introducing into it
a larger number of the Lord's sayings on that occasion. Then after this paragraph, which
has been handled briefly by Mark, and treated with great fulness by Matthew, Mark, as I
have said, introduces the passage about the widow who was at once so extremely poor, and
yet abounded so remarkably.

2 And finally, without interpolating anything else, he subjoins a section in which he
comes again into unison with Matthew,-namely, that relating to the destruction of the
temple. In like manner, Luke first states the question which was propounded regarding
Christ, as to how He was the son of David, and then mentions a few of the words which were
spoken in cautioning them against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Thereafter he proceeds,
as Mark does, to tell the story of the widow who cast the two mites into the treasury. And
finally he appends the statement, which appears also in Matthew and Mark, on the subject
of the destined overthrow of the temple.

CHAPTER LXXVII.-OF THE HARMONY SUBSISTING BETWEEN THE THREE EVANGELISTS IN THEIR NARRATIVES OF THE DISCOURSE WHICH HE DELIVERED ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES, WHEN THE DISCIPLES ASKED WHEN THE CONSUMMATION SHOULD HAPPEN.

147. Matthew continues in the following strain: "And as He sat upon the mount of Olives,
the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and
what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered, and
said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you: for many shall come in my name, saying,
I am Christ; and shall deceive many;" and so on, down to where we read, "And these shall
go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." We have now,
therefore, to examine this lengthened discourse as it meets us in the three evangelists,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. For they all introduce it in their narratives, and that, too, in
the same order. Here, as elsewhere, each of these writers gives some matters which are
peculiar to himself, in which, nevertheless, we have not to apprehend any suspicion of
inconsistency. But what we have to make sure of is the proof that, in those passages which
are exact parallels, they are nowhere to be regarded as in antagonism with each other. For
if anything bearing the appearance of a contradiction meets us here, the simple
affirmation that it is something wholly distinct, and uttered by the Lord in similar terms
indeed, but on a totally different occasion, cannot be deemed a legitimate mode of
explanation in a case like this, where the narrative, as given by all the three
evangelists, moves in the same connection at once of subjects and of dates. Moreover, the
mere fact that the writers do not all observe the same order in the reports which they
give of the same sentiments expressed by the Lord, certainly does not in any way affect
either the understanding or the communication of the subject itself, provided the matters
which are represented by them to have been spoken by Him are not inconsistent the one with
the other.

148. Again, what Matthew states in this form, "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be
preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come," is
given also in the same connection by Mark in the following manner: "And the gospel must
first be published among all nations." Mark has not added the words, "and then shall the
end come;" but he indicates what they express, when he uses the phrase "first "in the
sentence, "And the gospel must first be published among all nations." For they had asked
Him about the end. And therefore, when He addresses them thus, "The gospel must first be
published among all nations," the term "first" clearly suggests the idea of something to
be done before the consummation should come. 149. In like manner, what Matthew states
thus, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the
prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth let him understand," is put in the
following form by Mark: "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation standing
where it ought not, let him that readeth understand." But though the phrase is thus
altered, the sense conveyed is the same. For the point of the clause "where it ought not,"
is that the abomination of desolation ought not to be in the holy place. Luke's method of
putting it, again, is neither, "And when ye shall see the abomination of desolation stand
in the holy place," nor "where it ought not," but, "And when ye shall see Jerusalem
compassed with an army, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." At that time,
therefore, will the abomination of desolation be in the holy place.

150. Again, what is given by Matthew in the following terms: "Then let them which be in
Judaea flee into the mountains; and let him which is on the house-top not come down to
take anything out of his house; neither let him which is in the field return back to take
his clothes," is reported also by Mark almost in so many words. On the other hand, Luke's
version proceeds thus: "Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains. Thus far
he agrees with the other two. But he presents what is subsequent to that in a different
form. For he goes on to say, "And let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and
let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto: for these be the days of
vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Now these statements seem
to present differences enough between each other. For the one, as it occurs in the first
two evangelists, runs thus: "Let him which is on the house-top not come down to take
anything out of his house; whereas what is given by the third evangelist is to this
effect: "And let them which are in the midst of it depart out.

The import, however, may be, that in the great agitation which will arise in the face of
so mighty an impending peril, those shut up in the state of siege (which is expressed by
the phrase, "they which are in the midst of it") will appear upon the housetop [or
"wall"], amazed and anxious to see what terror hangs over them, or what method of escape
may open. Still the question rises, How does this third evangelist say here, "let them
depart out," when he has already used these terms: "And when ye shall see Jerusalem
compassed with an army"? For what is brought in after this-namely, the sentence, "And let
not them that are in the countries enter there-into "-appears to form part of one
consistent admonition; and we can perceive how those who are outside the city are not to
enter into it; but the difficulty is to see how those who are in the midst of it are to
depart out, when the city is already compassed with an army.

Well, may not this expression, "in the midst of it," indicate a time when the danger will
be so urgent as to leave no opportunity open, so far as temporal means are concerned, for
the preservation of this present life in the body, and that the fact that this will be a
time when the soul ought to be ready and free, and neither taken up with, nor burdened by,
carnal desires, is imported by the phrase employed by the first two writers-namely, "on
the house-top," or, "on the wall"? In this way the third evangelist's phraseology, "let
them depart out" (which really means, let them no more be engrossed with the desire of
this life, but let them be prepared to pass into another life), is equivalent in sense to
the terms used by the other two," let him not come down to take anything out of his house"
(which really means, "let not his affections turn towards the flesh, as if it could yield
him anything to his advantage then").

And in like manner the phrase adopted by the one, "And let not them that are in the
countries enter thereunto" (which is to say, "Let not those who, with good purpose of
heart, have already placed themselves outside it, indulge again in any carnal lust or
longing after it"), denotes precisely what the other two evangelists embody in the
sentence, "Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes," which
is much the same as to state that he should not again involve himself in cares of which he
had been unburdened. 151. Moreover, Matthew proceeds thus: "But pray ye that your flight
be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath-day. Part of this is given and part omitted
by Mark, when he says, "And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. Luke, on the
other hand, leaves this out entirely, and instead of it introduces something which is
peculiar to himself, and by which he appears to me to have cast light upon this very
clause which has been set before us somewhat obscurely by these others. For his version
runs thus: "And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with
surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you
unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole
earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all
these things that shall come to pass. This is to be understood to be the same flight as is
mentioned by Matthew, which should not be taken in the winter or on the Sabbath-day. That
"winter," moreover, refers to these "cares of this life" which Luke has specified
directly; and the "Sabbath-day" refers in like manner to the "surfeiting and drunkenness.
For sad cares are like a winter;

and surfeiting and drunkenness drown and bury the heart in carnal delights and luxury-an
evil which is expressed under the term "Sabbath-day," because of old, as is the case with
them still, the Jews had the very pernicious custom of rePelling in pleasure on that day,
when they were ignorant of the spiritual Sabbath. Or, if something else is intended by the
words whichthus appear in Matthew and Mark, Luke's termsmay also be taken to bear on
something else, while no question implying any antagonism between them need be raised for
all that. At present, however, we have not undertaken the task of expounding the Gospels,
but only that of defending them against groundless charges of falsehood and deceit.
Furthermore, other matters which Matthew has inserted in this discourse, and which are
common to him and Mark, present no difficulty. On the other hand, with respect to those
sections which are common to him and Luke, [it is to be remarked that] these are not
introduced into the present discourse by Luke, although in regard to the order of
narration here they are at one. But he records sentences of like tenor in other
connections, either reproducing them as they suggested themselves to his memory, and thus
bringing them in by anticipation so as to relate at an earlier point words which, as
spoken by the Lord, belong really to a later;

or else, giving us tounderstand that they were uttered twice over by the Lord, once on the
occasion referred to by Matthew, and on a second occasion, with which Luke himself deals.
Chapter LXXVIII.-Of the Question Whether There is Any Contradiction Between Matthew and
Mark on the One Hand, and John on the Other, in So Far as the Former State that After Two
Days Was to Be the Feast of the Passover, and Afterwards Tells Us that He Was in Bethany,
While the Latter Gives a Parallel Narrative of What Took Place at Bethany, But Mentions
that It Was Six Days Before the Passover. 152. Matthew continues thus: "And it came to
pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, He said unto His disciples, Ye know that
after two days will be the feast of the passover, and the Son of man shall be betrayed to
be crucified." This is attested in like manner by the other two,-namely, Mark and
Luke,-and that, too, with a thorough harmony on the subject of the order of narration.
They do not, however, introduce the sentence as one spoken by the Lord Himself. They make
no statement to that effect. At the same time, Mark, speaking in his own person, does tell
us that "after two days was the feast of the passover and of unleavened bread." And Luke
likewise gives this as his own affirmation: "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh,
which is called the passover;" that is to say, it "drew nigh" in this sense, that it was
to take place after two days' space, as the other two are more apparently at one in
expressing it. John, on the other hand, has mentioned in three several places the nearness
of this same feast-day. In the two earlier instances the intimation is made when he is
engaged in recording certain matters of another tenor. But on the third occasion his
narrative appears clearly to deal with those very times, in connection with which the
other three evangelists also notice the subject,-that is to say, the times when the Lord's
passion was actually imminent.

153. But to those who look into the matter without sufficient care, there may seem to be a
contradiction involved in the fact that Matthew and Mark, after stating that the passover
was to be after two days, have at once informed us how Jesus was in Bethany on that
occasion, on which the account of the precious ointment comes before us; whereas John,
when he is about to give us the same narrative concerning the ointment, begins by telling
us that Jesus came to Bethany six days before the passover. Now, the question is, how the
passover could be spoken of by those two evangelists as about to be celebrated two days
after, seeing that we find them, immediately after they have made this statement, in
company with John, giving us an account of the scene with the ointment in Bethany; while
in that connection the last-named writer informs us, that the feast of the passover was to
take place six days after. Nevertheless, those who are perplexed by this difficulty simply
fail to perceive that Matthew and Mark have brought in their account of the scene which
was enacted in Bethany really in the form of a recapitulation, not as if the time of its
occurrence was actually subsequent to the [time indicated in the] announcement made by
them on the subject of the two days' space, but as an event which had already taken place
at a date when there was still a period of six days preceding the passover.

For neither of them has appended his account of what took place at Bethany to his
statement regarding the celebration of the passover after two days' space in any such
terms as these: "After these things, when He was in Bethany. But Matthew's phrase is this:
"Now when Jesus was in Bethany. And Mark's version is simply this: "And being in Bethany,"
etc.; which is a method of expression that may certainly be taken to refer to a period
antecedent to the utterance of what was said two days before the passover. The case,
therefore, stands thus: As we gather from the narrative of John, Jesus came to Bethany six
days before the passover; there the supper took place, in connection with which we get the
account of the precious ointment; leaving this place, He came next to Jerusalem, sitting
upon an ass; and thereafter happened those things which they relate to have occurred after
this arrival of His in Jerusalem. Consequently, even although the evangelists do not
mention the fact, we understand that between the day on which He came to Bethany, and
which witnessed the scene with the ointment, and the day to which all these deeds and
words which are at present before us belonged, there elapsed a period of four days, so
that at this point might come in the day which the two evangelists have defined by their
statement as to the celebration of the passover two days after.

Further, when Luke says, "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh," he does not indeed
make any express mention of a two days' space; but still, the nearness which he has
instanced ought to be accepted as made good by this very space of two days. Again, when
John makes the statement that "the Jews' passover was nigh at hand," he does not intend a
two days' space to be understood thereby, but means that there was a period of six days
before the passover. Thus it is that, on recording certain matters immediately after this
affirmation, with the intention of specifying what measure of nearness he had in view when
he spoke of the passover as nigh at hand, he next proceeds in the following strain: "Then
Jesus, six days before the passover, came to Bethany, where Lazarus had died, whom Jesus
raised from the dead; and there they made Him a supper. This is the incident which Matthew
and Mark introduce in the form of a recapitulation, after the statement that after two
days would be the passover. In their recapitulation they thus come back upon the day in
Bethany, which was yet a six days' space off from the passover, and give us the account
which John also gives of the supper and the ointment.

Subsequently to that scene, we are to suppose Him to come to Jerusalem, and then, after
the occurrence of the other things recorded, to reach this day, which was still a two
days' space from the passover, and from which these evangelists have made this digression,
with the object of giving a recapitulatory notice of the incident with the ointment in
Bethany. And after the completion of that narrative, they return once more to the point
from which they made the digression; that is to say, they now proceed to record the words
spoken by the Lord two days before the passover. For if we remove the notice of the
incident at Bethany, which they have introduced as a digression from the literal order,
and have given in the form of a recollection and recapitulation inserted at a point
subsequent to its actual historical position, and if we then set the narrative in its
regular connection, the recital will go on as follows;-according to Matthew, the Lord's
words coming in thus: "Ye know that after two days shall be the feast of the passover, and
the Son of man shall be betrayed to be crucified. Then assembled together the chief
priests and the elders of the people unto the palace of the high priest, who was called
Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill Him. But they
said, Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the people. Then one of the
twelve, called Judas Scarioth, went unto the chief priests," etc.

For between the place where it is said, "lest there be an uproar among the people," and
the passage where we read, "then one of the disciples, called Judas, went," etc., that
notice of the scene at Bethany intervenes, which they have introduced by way of
recapitulation. Consequently, by leaving it out, we have established such a connection in
the narrative as may make our conclusion satisfactory, that there is no contradiction here
in the matter of the order of times. Again, if we deal with Mark's Gospel in like manner,
and omit the account of the same supper at Bethany, which he also has brought in as a
recapitulation, his narrative will proceed in the following order: "Now after two days was
the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes
sought how they might take Him by craft, and put Him to death. For they said, Not on the
feast-day, lest there be an uproar of the people. And Judas Scariothes, one of the twelve,
went unto the chief priests, to betray Him. Here, again, the incident at Bethany which
these evangelists have inserted, by way of recapitulation, is placed between the clause,
"lest there be an uproar of the people," and the verse which we have attached immediately
to that, namely, "And Judas Scariothes, one of the twelve. Luke, on the other hand, has
simply omitted the said occurrence at Bethany.

This is the explanation which we give in reference to the six days before the passover,
which is the space mentioned by John when narrating what took place at Bethany, and in
reference to the two days before the passover, which is the period specified by Matthew
and Mark when presenting their account, in direct sequence upon the statement thus made,
of that same scene in Bethany which has been recorded also by John. Chapter LXXIX.-Of the
Concord Between Matthew, Mark, and John in Their Notices of the Supper at Bethany, at
Which the Woman Poured the Precious Ointment on the Lord, and of the Method in Which These
Accounts are to Be Harmonized with that of Luke, When He Records an Incident of a Similar
Nature at a Different Period. 154. Matthew, then, continuing his narrative from the point
up to which we had concluded its examination, proceeds in the following terms: "Then
assembled together the chief priests and the elders of the people unto the palace of the
high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty
and kill Him: but they said, Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the
people. Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto
Him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment, and poured it on His head as He
sat at meat; and so on down to the words, "there shall also this that this woman hath done
be told for a memorial of her. The scene with the woman and the costly ointment at Bethany
we have now to consider, as it is thus detailed.

For although Luke records an incident resembling this, and although the name which he
assigns to the person in whose house the Lord was supping might also suggest an identity
between the two narratives (for Luke likewise names the host "Simon"), still, since there
is nothing either in nature or in the customs of men to make the case an incredible one,
that as one man may have two names, two men may with all the greater likelihood have one
and the same name, it is more reasonable to believe that the Simon in whose house [it is
thus supposed, according to Luke's version, that] this scene at Bethany took place, was a
different person from the Simon [named by Matthew]. For Luke, again, does not specify
Bethany as the place where the incident which he records happened. And although it is true
that he in no way particularizes the town or village in which that occurrence took place,
still his narrative does not seem to deal with the same locality. Consequently, my opinion
is, that there is but one interpretation to be put upon the matter.

That is not, however, to suppose that the woman who appears in Matthew was an entirely
different person from the woman who approached the feet of Jesus on that occasion in the
character of a sinner, and kissed them, and washed them with her tears, and wiped them
with her hair, and anointed them with ointment, in reference to whose case Jesus also made
use of the parable of the two debtors, and said that her sins, which were many, were
forgiven her because she loved much. But my theory is, that it was the same Mary who did
this deed on two separate occasions, the one being that which Luke has put on record, when
she approached Him first of all in that remarkable humility, and with those tears, and
obtained the forgiveness of her sins. For John, too, although he has not given the kind of
recital which Luke has left us of the circumstances connected with that incident, has at
least mentioned the fact, in commending the same Mary to our notice, when he has just
begun to tell the story of the raising of Lazarus, and before his narrative brings the
Lord to Bethany itself. The history which he offers us of that transaction proceeds thus:
"Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary; and her sister
Martha. It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with
her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.

By this statement John attests what Luke has told us when he records a scene of this
nature in the house of a certain Pharisee, whose name was Simon. Here, then, we see that
Mary had acted in this way before that time. And what she did a second time in Bethany is
a different matter, which does not belong to Luke's narrative, but is related by three of
the evangelists in concert, namely, John, Matthew, and Mark. 155. Let us therefore notice
how harmony is maintained here between these three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and John,
regarding whom there is no doubt that they record the self-same occurrence at Bethany, on
occasion of which the disciples also, as all three mention, murmured against the woman,
ostensibly on the ground of the waste of the very precious ointment. Now the further fact
that Matthew and Mark tell us that it was the Lord's head on which the ointment was
poured, while John says it was His feet, can be shown to involve no contradiction, if we
apply the principle which we have already expounded in dealing with the scene of the
feeding of the multitudes with the five loaves. For as there was one writer who, in giving
his account of that incident, did not fail to specify that the people sat down at once by
fifties and by hundreds, although another spoke only of the fifties, no contradiction
could be supposed to emerge. There might indeed have seemed to be some difficulty, if the
one evangelist had referred only to the hundreds, and the other only to the fifties; and
yet, even in that case, the correct finding should have been to the effect that they were
seated both by fifties and by hundreds.

And this example ought to have made it plain to us, as I pressed it upon my readers in
discussing that section, that even where the several evangelists introduce only the one
fact each, we should take the case to have been really, that both things were elements in
the actual occurrence. In the same way, our conclusion with regard to the passage now
before us should be, that the woman poured the ointment not only upon the Lord's head, but
also on His feet. It is true that some person may possibly be found absurd and artful
enough to argue, that because Mark states that the ointment was poured out only after the
alabaster vase was broken there could not have remained in the shattered vessel anything
with which she could anoint His feet. But while a person of that character, in his
endeavours to disprove the veracity of the Gospel, may contend that the vase was broken,
in a manner making it impossible that any portion of the contents could have been left in
it, how much better and more accordant with piety must the position of a very different
individual appear, whose aim will be to uphold the truthfulness of the Gospel, and who may
therefore contend that the vessel was not broken in a manner involving the total
outpouring of the ointment!

Moreover, if that calumniator is so persistently blinded as to attempt to shatter the
harmony of the evangelists on this subject of the shattering of the vase, he should rather
accept the alternative, that the [Lord's] feet were anointed before the vessel itself was
broken, and that it thus remained whole, and filled with ointment sufficient for the
anointing also of the head, when, by the breakage referred to, the entire contents were
discharged. For we allow that there is a due regard to the several parts of our nature
when the act commences with the head, but [we may also say that] an equally natural order
is preserved when we ascend from the feet to the head. 156. The other matters belonging to
this incident do not seem to me to raise any question really involving a difficulty. There
is the circumstance that the other evangelists mention how the disciples murmured about
the [wasteful] outpouring of the precious ointment, whereas John states that Judas was the
person who thus expressed himself, and tells us, in explanation of the fact, that "he was
a thief." But I think it is evident that this same Judas was the person referred to under
the [general] name of the disciples, the plural number being used here instead of the
singular, in accordance with that mode of speech of which we have already introduced an
explanation in the case of Philip and the miracle of the five loaves. It may also be
understood in this way, that the other disciples either felt as Judas felt, or spoke as he
did, or were brought over to that view of the matter by what Judas said, and that Matthew
and Mark consequently have expressed in word what was really the mind of the whole
company; but that Judas spoke as he did just because he was a thief, whereas what prompted
the rest was their care for the poor; and further, that John has chosen to record the
utterance of such sentiments only in the instance of that one [among the disciples] whose
habit of acting the thief he believed it right to bring out in connection with this
occasion.

CHAPTER LXXX.-OF THE HARMONY CHARACTERIZING THE ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE GIVEN BY MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE, OF THE OCCASION ON WHICH HE SENT HIS DISCIPLES TO MAKE PREPARATIONS FOR HIS EATING THE PASSOVER.

157. Matthew proceeds thus: "Then one of the twelve, who is called Judas [of] Scarioth,
went unto the chief priests, and said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver
Him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver; and so on down to
the words, "And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them, and they made ready the
passover. Nothing in this section can be supposed to stand in any contradiction with the
versions of Mark and Luke, who record this same passage in a similar manner. For as
regards the statement given by Matthew in these terms, "Go into the city to such a man,
and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand: I will keep the passover at thy
house with my disciples," it just indicates the person whom Mark and Luke name the
"goodman of the house," or the "master of the house," in which the dining-room was shown
them where they were to make ready the passover. And Matthew has expressed this by simply
bringing in the phrase, "to such a man," as a brief explanation introduced by himself with
the view of succinctly giving us to understand who the person referred to was. For if he
had said that the Lord addressed them in words like these:

"Go into the city, and say unto him [or "it "], The Master saith, My time is at hand, I
will keep the passover at thy house," it might have been supposed that the terms were
intended to be directed to the city itself. For this reason, therefore, Matthew has
inserted the statement, that the Lord bade them go "to such a man," not, however, as a
statement made by the Lord, whose instructions he was recording, but simply as one
volunteered by himself, with the view of avoiding the necessity of narrating the whole at
length, when it seemed to him that this was all that required to be mentioned in order to
bring out with sufficient accuracy what was really meant by the person who gave the order.
For who can fail to see that no one naturally speaks to others in such an indefinite
fashion as this, "Go ye to such a man"? If, again, the words had been, "Go ye to any one
whatsoever," or "to any one you please," the mode of expression might have been correct
enough, but the person to whom the disciples were sent would have been left uncertain:
whereas Mark and Luke present him as a certain definitely indicated individual, although
they pass over his name in silence. The Lord Himself, we may be sure, knew to what person
it was that He despatched them.

And in order that those also whom He was thus sending might be able to discover the
individual meant, He gave them, before they set out, a particular sign which they were to
follow,-namely, the appearance of a man bearing a pitcher or a vessel of water,-and told
them, that if they went after him, they would reach the house which He intended. Hence,
seeing that it was not competent here to employ the phraseology," Go to any one you
please," which is indeed legitimate enough, so far as the demands of linguistic propriety
are concerned, but which an accurate statement of the matter dealt with here renders
inadmissible in this passage, with how much less warrant could an expression like this
have been used here (by the speaker Himself), "Go to such a man," which the usage of
correct language can never admit at all? But it is manifest that the disciples were sent
by the Lord, plainly, not to any man they pleased, but to "such a man," that is to say, to
a certain definite individual. And that is a thing which the evangelist, speaking in his
own person, could quite rightly have related to us, by putting it in this way: "He sent
them to such a man, in order to say to him, I will keep the passover at thy house. He
might also have expressed it thus: "He sent them to such a man, saying, Go, say to him, I
will keep the passover at thy house.

And thus it is that, after giving us the words actually spoken by the Lord Himself,
namely, "Go into the city," he has introduced this addition of his own, "to such a man,"
which he does, however, not as if the Lord had thus expressed Himself, but simply with the
view of giving us to understand, although the name is left unrecorded, that there was a
particular person in the city to whom the Lord's disciples were sent, in order to make
ready the passover. Thus, too, after the two [or three] words brought in that manner as an
explanation of his own, he takes up again the order of the words as they were uttered by
the Lord Himself, namely, "And say unto him, The Master saith. And if you ask now "to
whom" they were to say this, the correct reply is given [at once] in these terms, To that
particular man to whom the evangelist has given us to understand that the Lord sent them,
when, speaking in His own person, he introduced the clause, "to such a man. The clause
thus inserted may indeed contain a rather unusual mode of expression, but still it is a
perfectly legitimate phraseology when it is thus understood. Or it may be, that in the
Hebrew language, in which Matthew is reported to have written, there is some peculiar
usage which might make it entirely accordant with the laws of correct expression, even
were the whole taken to have been spoken by the Lord Himself.

Whether that is the case, those who understand that tongue may decide. Even in the Latin
language itself, indeed, this kind of expression might also be used, in terms like these:
"Go into the city to such a man as may be indicated by a person who shall meet you
carrying a pitcher of water. If the instructions were conveyed in such words as these,
they could be acted upon without any ambiguity. Or again, if the terms were anything like
these, "Go into the city to such a man, who resides in this or the other place, in such
and such a house," then the note thus given of the place and the designation of the house
would make it quite possible to understand the commission delivered, and to execute it.
But when these instructions, and all others of a similar order, are left entirely untold,
the person who in such circumstances uses this kind of address, "Go to such a man, and say
unto him," cannot possibly be listened to intelligently for this obvious reason, that when
he employs the terms, "to such a man," he intends a certain particular individual to be
understood by them, and yet offers us no hint by which he may be identified. But if we are
to suppose that the clause referred to is one introduced as an explanation by the
evangelist himself, [we may find that] the requirements of brevity will render the
expression somewhat obscure, without, however, making it incorrect.

Moreover, as to the fact, that where Mark speaks of a pitcher of water, Luke mentions a
vessel, the simple explanation is, that the one has used a word indicative of the kind of
vessel, and the other a term indicative of its capacity, while both evangelists have
nevertheless preserved the real meaning actually intended. 158. Matthew proceeds thus:
"Now when the even was Come, He sat down with the twelve disciples; and as they did eat,
He said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding
sorrowful, and began every one of them to say, Lord, is it I?" and so on, down to where we
read, "Then Judas, which betrayed Him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto
him, Thou hast said." In what we have now presented for consideration here, the other
three evangelists, who also record such matters, offer nothing calculated to raise any
question of serious difficulty.

INTRODUCTION

1 This book contains a demonstration of the harmony of the evangelists from the accounts
of the Supper on to the end of the Gospel, the narratives given by the several writers
being collated, and the whole arranged in one orderly connection.

Prologue.

2 1. Inasmuch as we have now reached that point in the history at which all the four
evangelists necessarily hold their course in company on to the conclusion, without
presenting any serious divergence the one from the other, if it happens anywhere that one
of them makes mention of something which another leaves unnoticed, it appears to me that
we may demonstrate the consistency maintained by the various evangelists with greater
expedition, if from this point onwards we now bring all the statements given by all the
writers together into one connection, and arrange the whole in a single narration, and
under one view. I consider that in this way the task which we have undertaken may be
discharged with greater convenience and facility than otherwise might be the case. What we
have now before us, therefore, is to attempt the construction of a single narrative, in
which we shall include all the particulars, and for which we shall possess the attestation
of those evangelists who, (each selecting for recital out of the whole number of facts
those which he had either the ability or the desire to relate,) have prepared these
records for us: this being done in such a manner, moreover, that all these statements, in
regard to which we have to prove an entire freedom from contradictions, are taken as made
by all the evangelists together.

CHAPTER I.-OF THE METHOD IN WHICH THE FOUR EVANGELISTS ARE SHOWN TO BE AT ONE IN THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN OF THE LORD'S SUPPER AND THE INDICATION OF HIS BETRAYER.

2. Let us commence here, accordingly, with the notice presented by Matthew, [which runs
thus]: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave
it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. Both Mark and Luke also gave
this section. It is true that Luke has made mention of the cup twice over: first before He
gave the bread; and, secondly, after the bread has been given. But the fact is, that what
is stated in that earlier connection has been introduced, according to this writer's
habit, by anticipation, while the words which he has inserted here in their proper order
are left unrecorded in those previous verses, and the two passages when put together make
up exactly what stands expressed by those other evangelists. John, on the other hand, has
said nothing about the body and blood of the Lord in this context; but he plainly
certifies that the Lord spake to that effect on another occasion, with much greater
fulness than here. At present, however, after recording how the Lord rose from supper and
washed the disciples' feet, and after telling us also the reason why the Lord dealt thus
with them, in expressing which He had intimated, although still obscurely, and by the use
of a testimony of Scripture, the fact that He was being betrayed by the man who was to eat
of His bread, at this point John comes to the section in question, which the other three
evangelists also unite in introducing.

He presents it thus: "When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit, and testified,
and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, That one of you shall betray me. Then the
disciples looked (as the same John subjoins) one on another, doubting of whom He spake.
"And (as Matthew and Mark tell us) they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of
them to say unto Him, Is it I? And He answered and said (as Matthew proceeds to state), He
that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. Matthew also goes on
to make the following addition to the preceding: "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is
written of Him; but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed! it had
been good for that man if he had not been born. Mark, too, is at one with him here as
regards both the words themselves and the order of narration. Then Matthew continues thus:
"Then Judas, which betrayed Him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him,
Thou hast said. Even these words did not say explicitly whether he was himself the man.
For the sentence still admits of being understood as if its point was this, "I am not the
person who has said so. All this, too, may quite easily have been uttered by Judas and
answered by the Lord without its being noticed by all the others.

3. After this, Matthew proceeds to insert the mystery of His body and blood, as it was
committed then by the Lord to the disciples. Here Mark and Luke act correspondingly. But
after He had handed the cup to them, [we find that] He spoke again concerning His
betrayer, in terms which Luke recounts, when he says, "But, behold, the hand of him that
betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth as it was determined:
but woe unto that man by whom He shall be betrayed." At this point we must now suppose
that to come in which is narrated by John while these others omit it, just as John has
also passed by certain matters which they have detailed. In accordance with this, after
the giving of the cup, and after the Lord's subsequent saying which has been brought in by
Luke,-namely, "But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table,"
etc.,-the statement made by John is [to be taken as immediately] subjoined. It is to the
following effect: "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus
loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said unto him, Who is he of whom He
speaketh? He then, when he had laid himself on Jesus' breast, saith unto Him, Lord, who is
it? Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when
He had dipped the sop, He gave it to Judas, the son of Simon [of] Scarioth. And after the
sop Satan then entered into him."

4. Here we must take care not to let John underlie the appearance not only of standing in
antagonism to Luke, who had stated before this, that Satan entered into the heart of Judas
at the time when he made his bargain with the Jews to betray Him on receipt of a sum of
money, but also of contradicting himself. For, at an earlier point, and previous to [his
notice of] the receiving of this sop, he had made use of these terms: "And supper being
ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas to betray Him. And how does he
enter into the heart, but by putting unrighteous persuasions into the thoughts of
unrighteous men? The explanation, however, is this. We ought to suppose Judas to have been
more fully taken possession of by the devil now, just as on theother hand, in the instance
of the good, those who had already received the Holy Spirit on that occasion, subsequently
to His resurrection, when He breathed upon them and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost,"
also obtained a fuller gift of that Spirit at a later time, namely, when He was sent down
from above on the day of Pentecost. In like manner, Satan then entered into this man after
the sop. And (as John himself mentions in the immediate context) "Jesus saith unto him,
What thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent He spake this
unto him;

for some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy those
things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the
poor. He then, having received the sop, went immediately out; and it was night. Therefore,
when he was gone out, Jesus saith, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified
in Him: and if God be glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall
straightway glorify Him."


THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS
==========================

THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS continued

CHAPTER II.-OF THE PROOF OF THEIR FREEDOM FROM ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE NOTICES GIVEN OF THE PREDICTIONS OF PETER'S DENIALS.

5. "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and, as I said
unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come;so now I say unto you. A new commandment I
give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one
another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to
another. Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither
I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter saith unto
Him, Lord, why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake. Jesus
answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
The cock shall not crow, until thou deniest me thrice. John, from whose Gospel I have
taken the passage introduced above, is not the only evangelist who details this incident
of the prophetic announcement of his own denial to Peter. The other three also record the
same thing. They do not, however, take one and the same particular point in the discourses
[of Christ] as their occasion for proceeding to this narration. For Matthew and Mark both
introduce it in a completely parallel order, and at the same stage of their narrative,
namely, after the Lord left the house in which they had eaten the passover;

while Luke and John, on the other hand, bring it in before He left that scene. Still we
might easily suppose, either that it has been inserted in the way of a recapitulation by
the one couple of evangelists, or that it has been inserted in the way of an anticipation
by the other; only such a supposition may be made more doubtful by the circumstance that
there is so remarkable a diversity, not only in the Lord's words, but even in those
sentiments of His by which the incident in question is introduced, and by which Peter was
moved to venture his presumptuous asseveration that he would die with the Lord or for the
Lord. These considerations may constrain us rather to understand the narratives really to
import that the man uttered his presumptuous declaration thrice over, as it was called
forth by different occasions in the series of Christ's discourses, and that also three
several times the answer was returned him by the Lord, which intimated that before the
cock crew he would deny Him thrice.

6. And surely there is nothing incredible in supposing that Peter was moved to such an act
of presumption on several occasions, separated from each other by certain intervals of
time, as he was actually instigated to deny Him repeatedly. Neither should it seem
unreasonable to fancy that the Lord gave him a reply in similar terms at three successive
periods, especially when [we see that] in immediate connection with each other, and
without the interposition of anything else either in fact or word, Christ addressed the
question to him three several times whether he loved Him, and that, when Peter returned
the same answer thrice over, He also gave him thrice over the self-same charge to feed His
sheep. That it is the more reasonable thing to suppose that Peter displayed his
presumption on three different occasions, and that thrice over he received from the Lord a
warning with respect to his triple denial, is further proved, as we may see, by the very
terms employed by the evangelists, which record sayings uttered by the Lord in diverse
form and of diverse import. Let us here call attention again to that passage which I
introduced a little ago from the Gospel of John. There we certainly find that He had
expressed Himself in this way "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall
seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye
love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one
to another. Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, whither goest Thou? Now, surely it is
evident here that what moved Peter to utter this question, "Lord, whither goest Thou? was
the words which the Lord Himself had spoken. For he had heard Him say, "Whither I go, ye
cannot come. Then Jesus made this reply to the said Peter: "Whither I go, thou canst not
follow me now, but thou shall follow me afterwards. Thereupon Peter expressed himself
thus: "Lord, why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake. And to
this presumptuous declaration the Lord responded by predicting his denial. Luke, again,
first mentions how the Lord said, "Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he
may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and, when thou
art converted, strengthen thy brethren: next he proceeds immediately to tell us how Peter
replied to this effect: "Lord, I am ready to go with Thee, both unto prison and to death;
and then he continues thus: "And He said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this
day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

Now, who can fail to perceive that this is an occasion by itself, and that the incident in
connection with which Peter was incited to make the presumptuous declaration already
referred to is an entirely different one? But, once more, Matthew presents us with the
following passage: "And when they had sung an hymn," he says, "they went out into the
Mount of Olives. Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this
night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be
scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. The same
passage is given in precisely the same form by Mark. What similarity is there, however, in
these words, or in the ideas expressed by them, either to the terms in which John
represents Peter to have made his presumptuous declaration, or to those in which Luke
exhibits him as uttering such an asseveration? And so we find that in Matthew's narrative
the connection proceeds immediately thus: "Peter answered and said unto Him, Though all
men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus saith unto him,
Verily, I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
Peter saith unto him, Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee. Likewise
also said all His disciples."

7. All this is recorded almost in the same language also by Mark, only that he has not put
in so general a form what the Lord said with regard to the manner in which the event [of
Peter's failure] was to be brought about, but has given it a more particular turn. For his
version is this: "Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the
cock crow twice; thou shalt deny me thrice. Thus it appears that all of them tell us how
the Lord foretold that Peter would deny Him before the cock crew, but that they do not all
mention how often the cock was to crow, and that Mark is the only one who has presented a
more explicit notice of this incident in the narrative. Hence some are of opinion that
Mark's statement is not in harmony with those of the others. But this is simply because
they do not give sufficient attention to the facts of the case, and, above all, because
they approach the question under the cloud of a prejudiced mind, in consequence of their
being possessed by a hostile disposition towards the gospel. The fact is, that Peter's
denial, when taken as a whole, is a threefold denial. For he remained in the same state of
mental agitation, and harboured the same mendacious intention, until what had been
foretold regarding him was brought to his mind, and healing came to him by bitter weeping
and sorrow of heart.

It is evident, however, that if this complete denial-that is to say, the threefold denial-
is taken to have commenced only after the first crowing of the cock, three of the
evangelists will appear to have given an incorrect account of the matter. For Matthew's
version is this: "Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou
shalt deny me thrice; and Luke puts it thus: "I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow
this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me; and John presents it in
this form: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, the cock shall not crow till thou hast denied
me thrice. And thus, in different terms and with words introduced in diverse successions,
these three evangelists have expressed one and the same sense as conveyed by the words
which the Lord spake-namely, the fact that, before the cock should crow, Peter was to deny
Him thrice. On the other hand, if [we suppose that] he went through the whole triple
denial before the cock began to crow at all, then Mark will be made to underlie the charge
of having given a superfluous statement when he puts these words into the Lord's mouth:
"Verily I say unto thee, That this day, before the cock crow twice, thou shall deny me
thrice.

For to what purpose would it be to say, "before the cock crow twice," when, on the
supposition that this entire threefold denial was gone through previous to the first
crowing of the cock, it is self-evident that a negation, which would thus be proved to
have been completed before the first cockcrow, must also, as matter of course, be
understood to have been fully uttered before the second cockcrow and before the third,
and, in short, before all the cockcrowings which took place on that same night? But,
inasmuch as this threefold denial was begun previous to the first crowing of the cock,
those three evangelists concerned themselves with noticing, not the time at which Peter
was to complete it, but the extent to which it was to be carried, and the period at which
it was to commence; that is to say, their object was to bring out the facts that it was to
be thrice repeated, and that it was to begin previous to the cockcrowing. At the same
time, so far as the man's own mind is concerned, we might also quite well understand it to
have been engaged in, as a whole, previous to the first cockcrow.

For although it is true that, so far as regards the actual utterance of the individual who
was guilty of the denial, that threefold negation was only entered upon previous to the
first cockcrow, and really finished before the second cockcrow, still it is equally true
that, in so far as the disposition of mind and the apprehensions indulged by Peter were
concerned, it was conceived, as a whole, before the first cockcrow. Neither is it a matter
of any consequence of what duration those intervals of delay were which elapsed between
the several utterances of that thrice-recurring voice, if it is the case that the denial
completely possessed his heart even previous to the first cockcrow,-in consequence,
indeed, of his having imbibed a spirit of terror so abject as to make him capable of
denying the Lord when he was questioned regarding Him, not only once, but a second time,
and even a third time.

Thus, a more correct and careful consideration of the matter might show us that, precisely
as it is declared that the man who looketh on a woman to lust after her has committed
adultery with her already in his heart, so, in the present instance, inasmuch as in the
words which he spoke, Peter merely expressed the apprehension which he had already
conceived with such intensity in his mind as to make it capable of enduring even on to a
third repetition of his denial of the Lord, this threefold negation is to be assigned as a
whole to that particular period at which the fear that sufficed thus to carry him on to a
threefold denial took possession of him. In this way, too, it may be made apparent that,
even if the words in which the denial was couched began to break forth from him only after
the first cockcrow, when his heart was smitten by the inquiries addressed to him, it would
involve neither any absurdity nor any untruthfulness, although it were said that before
the cock crew he denied Him thrice, seeing that, in any case, previous to the crowing of
the cock, his mind had been assailed by an apprehension violent enough to be able to draw
him on even to a third denial.

All the less, therefore, ought we to feel any difficulty in the matter, if it appears that
the threefold denial, as expressed also in the thrice-recurring utterances of the person
who made the denial, was entered upon previous to the crowing of the cock, although it was
not completed before the first cockcrow. We may take a parallel case, and suppose an
intimation to be made to the following effect to a person: "This night, before the cock
crow, you will write a letter to me, in which you will revile me thrice. Well, surely in
this instance, if the man began to write the letter] before the cock had crowed at all,
and finished it after the cock had crowed for the first time,that would be no reason for
alleging that the intimation previously made was false. The fact, therefore, is that, in
putting these words into the Lord's lips, "Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me
thrice," Mark has given us a plainer indication of the intervals of time which separated
the utterances themselves. And when we come to the said section of the evangelical
narrative, we shall see that the circumstances are presented in a manner which exhibits,
in that connection also, the harmony subsisting among the evangelists.

8. If, however, the demand is to get at the very words, literally and completely, which
the Lord addressed to Peter, we answer that it is impossible to discover these; and
further, that it is simply superfluous to ask them, inasmuch as the speaker's meaning-to
intimate which wasthe object He had in view in uttering the words-admits of being
understood with the utmost plainness, even under the diverse terms employed by the
evangelists. And whether, then, it be the case that Peter, instigated at different
occasions in the course of the Lord's sayings, made his presumptuous declaration three
several times, and had his denial foretold him thrice over by the Lord, as is the more
probable result to which our investigation points us; or whether it may appear that the
accounts given by all the evangelists are capable of being reduced to a single statement,
when a certain order of narration is adopted, so that it could be proved that it was only
on one occasion that the Lord predicted to Peter, on the exhibition of his presumptuous
spirit, the fact that he would deny Him;-in either case, any contradiction between the
evangelists will fail to be detected, as nothing of that nature really exists.

Chapter III.-Of the Manner in Which It Can Be Shown that No Discrepancies Exist Between
Them in the Accounts Which They Give of the Words Which Were Spoken by the Lord, on to the
Time of His Leaving the House in Which They Had Supped. 9. At this point, therefore, we
may now follow, as far as we can, the order of the narrative, as gathered from all the
evangelists together. Thus, then, after the prediction in question had been made to Peter,
according to John's version, the same John proceeds with his statement, and introduces in
this connection the Lord's discourse, which was to the following effect: "Let not your
heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many
mansions; and so forth. He narrates at length the sayings, so memorable and so pre-
eminently sublime, of which He delivered Himself in the course of that address, until, in
due connection, he comes to the passage where the Lord speaks as follows: "O righteous
Father, the world hath not known Thee: but I have known Thee, and these have known that
Thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them Thy name, and will declare it; that the
love wherewith Thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them. Again we find, according
to the narrative given by Luke, that there arose "a strife among them which of them should
be accounted the greatest. And He said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise
lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But
ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he
that is chief, as he that doth serve.

For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that
sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. And ye are they which have
continued with me in my temptations: and I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath
appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The said Luke also immediately subjoins to
these words the following passage: "And the Lord said to Simon: Simon, behold, Satan hath
desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy
faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto
Him: Lord, I am ready to go with Thee, both into prison, and to death. And He said, I tell
thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shall thrice deny that
thou knowest me. And He said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and
shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. Then said He unto them, But now, he
that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let
him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, this that is written must yet be
accomplished in me, And He was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning
me have an end.

And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said unto them, It is enough.
Next comes the passage, given both by Matthew and by Mark: "And when they had sung an
hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives. Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be
offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the
sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before
you into Galilee. Peter answered and said unto Him, Though all men shall be offended
because of Thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto
thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter saith unto
Him, Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee. Likewise also said all the
disciples. We have introduced the preceding section as it is presented by Matthew. But
Mark also records it almost in so many and the same words, with the exception of the
apparent discrepancy, which we have already cleared up above, on the subject of the
crowing of the cock.

Chapter IV.-Of What Took Place in the Piece of Ground or Garden to Which They Came on
Leaving the House After the Supper; And of the Method in Which, in John's Silence on the
Subject, a Real Harmony Can Be Demonstrated Between the Other Three Evangelists-Namely,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 10. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in the same
connection as follows: "Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane. This
is mentioned also by Mark. Luke, too, refers to it, although he does not notice the piece
of ground by name. For he says: "And He came out, and went, as was His wont, to the Mount
of Olives; and His disciples also followed Him. And when He was at the place, He said unto
them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation. That is the place which the other two have
instanced under the name of Gethsemane. There, we understand, was the garden which John
brings into notice when he gives the following narration: "When Jesus had spoken these
words, He went forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into
the which He entered, and His disciples. Then taking Matthew's record, we get this
statement next in order: "He said unto His disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray
yonder. And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful
and very heavy. Then saith He unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death:
tarry ye here, and watch with me. And He went a little farther, and fell on His face, and
prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless
not as I will, but as Thou wilt.

And He cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What!
could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation:
the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. He went away again the second time,
and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me except I drink it,
Thy will be done. And He came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy. And
He left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. Then
cometh He to His disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold,
the hour is at hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise,
let us be going: behold, he is at hand that shall betray me."

11. Mark also records these passages, introducing them quite in the same method and
succession. Some of the sentences, however, are given with greater brevity by him, and
others are somewhat more fully explained. These sayings of our Lord, indeed, may seem in
one portion to stand in some manner of contradiction to each other as they are presented
in Matthew's version. I refer to the fact that [it is stated there that] He came to His
disciples after His third prayer, and said to them, "Sleep on now, and take your rest:
behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of
sinners. Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that shall betray me. For what are
we to make of the direction thus given above, "Sleep on now, and take your rest," when
there is immediately subjoined this other declaration, "Behold, the hour is at hand," and
thereafter also the instruction, "Arise, let us be going "? Those readers who perceive
something like a contradiction here, seek to pronounce these words, "Sleep on now, and
take your rest," in a way betokening that they were spoken in reproach, and not in
permission. And this is an expedient which might quite fairly be adopted were there any
necessity for it.

Mark, however, has reproduced these sayings in a manner which implies that after He had
expressed himself in the terms, "Sleep on now, and take your rest," He added the words,
"It is enough," and then appended to these the further statement, "The hour is come;
behold, the Son of man shall be betrayed. Hence we may conclude that the case really stood
thus: namely, that after addressing these words to them, "Sleep on now, and take your
rest," the Lord was silent for a space, so that what He had thus given them permission to
do might be [seen to be] really acted upon; and that thereafter He made the other
declaration" Behold the hour is come" Thus it is that in Mark's Gospel we find those words
[regarding the sleeping] followed immediately by the phrase, "It is enough; that is to
say," the rest which you have had is enough now. But as no distinct notice is introduced
of this silence on the Lord's part which intervened then, the passage comes to be
understood in a forced manner, and it is supposed that a peculiar pronunciation must be
given to these words.

12. Luke, on the other hand, has omitted to mention the number of times that He prayed. He
has told us, however, a fact which is not recorded by the others-namely, that when He
prayed He was strengthened by an angel, and that, as He prayed more earnestly, He had a
bloody sweat, with drops falling down to the ground. Thus it appears that when he makes
the statement, "And when He rose up from prayer, and was come to His disciples," he does
not indicate how often He had prayed by that time. But still, in so doing, he does not
stand in any kind of antagonism to the other two. Moreover, John does indeed mention how
He entered into the garden along with His disciples. But he does not relate how He was
occupied there up to the period when His betrayer came in along with the Jews to apprehend
Him.

13. These three evangelists, therefore, have in this manner narrated the same incident,
just as, on the other hand, one man might give three several accounts of a single
occurrence, with a certain measure of diversity in his statements, and yet without any
real contradiction. Luke, for example, has specified the distance to which He went forward
from the disciples-that is to say, when He withdrew from them in order to pray-more
definitely than the others. For he tells us that it was "about a stone's cast. Mark,
again, states first of all in his own words how the Lord prayed that, "If it were
possible, the hour might pass from Him," referring to the hour of His Passion, which be
also expresses presently by the term "cup. He then reproduces the Lord's own words, in the
following manner: "Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee: take away this cup from
me. And if we connect with these terms the clause which is given by the other two
evangelists, and for which Mark himself has also already introduced a clear parallel,
presented as a statement made in his own person instead of the Lord's, the whole sentence
will be exhibited in this form: "Father, if it be possible, (for) all things are possible
unto Thee, take away this cup from me. And it will be so put just to prevent any one from
supposing that He made the Father's power less than it is when He said, "If it be
possible.

For thus His words were not "If Thou canst do it" but "If it be possible. And anything is
possible which He wills. Therefore, the expression, "If it be possible," has here just the
same force as, "If Thou wilt. For Mark has made the sense in which the phrase, "If it be
possible," is to be taken quite plain, when he says, "All things are possible unto Thee.
And further, the fact that these writers have recorded how He said, "Nevertheless, not
what I will, but what Thou wilt" (an expression which means precisely the same as this
other form, "Nevertheless, not my will but Thine be done"), shows us clearly enough that
it was with reference not to any absolute impossibility on the Father's side, but only to
His will, that these words, "If it be possible," were spoken. This is made the more
apparent by the plainer statement which Luke has presented to the same effect. For his
version is not, "If it be possible," but, "If Thou be willing. And to this clearer
declaration of what was really meant we may add, with the effect of still greater
clearness, the clause which Mark has inserted, so that the whole will proceed thus: "If
Thou be willing, (for) all things are possible unto Thee, take away this cup from me."

14. Again, as to Mark's mentioning that the Lord said not only "Father," but "Abba,
Father," the explanation simply is, that "Abba" is in Hebrew exactly what "Pater" is in
Latin. And perhaps the Lord may have used both words with some kind of symbolical
significance, intending to indicate thereby, that in sustaining this sorrow He bore the
part of His body, which is the Church, of which He has been made the corner-stone, and
which comes to Him [in the person of disciples gathered] partly out of the Hebrews, to
whom He refers when He says "Abba," and partly out of the Gentiles, to whom He refers when
He says "Pater" [Father]. The Apostle Paul also makes use of the same significant
expression. For he says, "In whom we cry, Abba, Father; and, in another passage, "God sent
His Spirit into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. For it was meet that the good Master
and true Saviour, by sharing in the sufferings of the more infirm, should in His own
person illustrate the truth that His witnesses ought not to despair, although it might
perchance happen that, through human frailty, sorrow might steal in upon their hearts at
the time of suffering; seeing that they would overcome it if, mindful that God knows what
is best for those whose well-being He regards, they gave His will the preference over
their own. On this subject, however, as a whole, the present is not the time for entering
on any more detailed discussion.

For we have to deal simply with the question concerning the harmony of the evangelists,
from whose varied modes of narration we gather the wholesome lesson that, in order to get
at the truth, the one essential thing to aim at in dealing with the terms is simply the
intention which the speaker had in view in using them. For the word "Father" means just
the same as the phrase "Abba, Father. But with a view to bring out the mystic
significance, the expression, "Abba, Father," is the clearer form; while, for indicating
the unity, the word "Father" is sufficient. And that the Lord did indeed employ this
method of address, "Abba, Father," must be accepted as matter of fact. But still His
intention would not appear very obvious were there not the means (since others use simply
the term "Father") to show that under such a form of expression those two Churches, which
are constituted, the one out of the Jews, and the other out of the Gentiles, are presented
as also really one. In this way, then, [we may suppose that] the phrase, "Abba, Father,"
was adopted in order to convey the same idea as was indicated by the Lord on another
occasion, when He said, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold. In these words He
certainly referred to the Gentiles, since He had sheep also among the people of Israel.

But in that passage He goes on immediately to add the declaration, "Them also I must
bring, that there may be one fold and one Shepherd. And so we may say that, just as the
phrase, "Abba, Father," contains the idea of [the two races,] the Israelites and the
Gentiles, the word "Father," used alone, points to the one flock which these two
constitute.

CHAPTER V.-OF THE ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE GIVEN BY ALL THE FOUR EVANGELISTS IN REGARD TO WHAT WAS DONE AND SAID ON THE OCCASION OF HIS APPREHENSION; AND OF THE PROOF THAT THESE DIFFERENT NARRATIVES EXHIBIT NO REAL DISCREPANCIES.

15. When we follow the versions presented by Matthew and Mark, we find that the history
now proceeds thus: "And while He yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with
him a great multitude, with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the
people. Now he that betrayed Him, gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that
same is He; hold Him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master; and
kissed Him." First of all, however, as we gather from Luke's statement, He said to the
traitor, "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" Next, as we learn from
Matthew, He spoke thus: "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" Thereafter He added certain
words which are found in John's narrative, which runs in the following strain: "Whom seek
ye? They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am He. And Judas also,
which betrayed Him, stood with them. As soon then as He had said unto them, I am He, they
went backward, and fell to the ground. Then asked He them again, Whom seek ye? And they
said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am He: if therefore ye
seek me, let these go their way; that the saying might be fulfilled which He spake, Of
them which thou gavest me have I lost none."

16. Next comes in a passage, which is given by Luke as follows: "When they which were
about Him saw what would follow, they said unto Him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
And one of them smote the servant of the high priest," as is noticed by all the four
historians, "and cut off his ear," which, as we are informed by Luke and John, was his
"right ear." Moreover, we gather also from John that the person who smote the servant was
Peter, and that the name of the man whom he thus struck was Malchus. Next we take what
Luke mentions, namely, "Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far;" with which we must
connect the words appended by Matthew, namely, "Put up thy sword into his place: for all
they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray
to my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how
then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" Along with these words we
may also place the question to which John tells us He gave utterance on the same occasion,
namely, "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" And then, as is
recorded by Luke, He touched the ear of the person who had been struck, and healed him.

17. Neither should we let the idea disturb us, that some contradiction may be found in the
circumstance that Luke tells us how, when the disciples asked Him whether they should
smite with the sword, the Lord replied in these words, "Suffer ye thus far," in a manner
which might seem to imply that He thus expressed Himself, after the blow had been struck,
in terms bearing that He was satisfied with what had been done so far, but desired nothing
further to be done; whereas the language which is employed by Matthew might give us rather
to understand that this whole incident of the use which Peter made of the sword was
displeasing to the Lord. For it is more correct to suppose that when they put the question
to Him, "Lord, shall we smite with the sword? He replied then, "Suffer ye thus far; His
meaning being this: "Let not what is about to take place agitate you. These men are to be
suffered to go thus far; that is to say, so far as to apprehend me, and thus to effect the
fulfilment of those things which are written of me. We have further to suppose, however,
that during the time which passed in the interchange of the question addressed by them to
the Lord, and the reply returned by Him to them, Peter was borne on by his intense desire
to appear as defender, and by his stronger excitement in the Lord's behalf, to deal the
blow.

But while these two things might easily have happened at the same time, two different
statements could not have been uttered by the same person in one breath. For the writer
would not have used the expression, "And Jesus answered and said," unless the words were a
reply to the question which had been addressed by those who were about Him, and not a
statement directed to Peter's act. For Matthew is the only one who has recorded the
judgment passed by Jesus on Peter's act. And in that passage the phrase which Matthew has
employed is also not in the form, "Jesus answered Peter thus, Put up thy sword; but it
runs in these terms: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up thy sword; from which it appears
that it was after the deed that Jesus thus declared Himself. What is contained, again, in
the phraseology used by Luke, namely, "And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far,"
must be taken to have been the reply which was returned to the parties who had put the
question to Him. But inasmuch as, according to our previous explanation, the single blow
with which the servant was struck was delivered just during the time when the terms of the
said question and answer were passing between these persons and the Lord, the writer has
considered it right to record that act in the same particular order, so that it stands
inserted between the words of the interrogation and those in which the response was
couched.

Consequently, there is nothing here in antagonism to the statement introduced by Matthew,
namely, "For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword,"-that is to say,
those who may have used the sword. But there might appear to be some inconsistency here if
the Lord's answer were taken in a sense which would show Him to have expressed approval on
this occasion of the voluntary use of the sword, even although it was only to the effect
of a single wound, and that, too, not a fatal one. The words, however, which were
addressed to Peter may be understood, as a whole, in an application quite in harmony with
the rest; so that, bringing in also what Luke and Matthew have reported, as I have stated
above, we obtain the following connection: "Suffer ye thus far. Put up thy sword into its
place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword," etc. In what way,
moreover, this sentence, "Suffer ye thus far," is to be understood, I have explained
already. And if there is any better method of interpreting it, be it so. Only let the
veracity of the evangelists be maintained in any case.

18. After this, Matthew continues the narrative, and mentions that in that hour He
addressed the multitude as follows: "Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and
staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on
me." Then He added also certain words, which Luke introduces thus: "But this is your hour,
and the power of darkness." Next comes the sentence given by Matthew: "But all this was
done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples
forsook Him and fled." This last fact is recorded also by Mark. The same evangelist makes
also the following addition: "And there followed Him a certain young man, having a linen
cloth cast about his naked body; and when they laid hold on him, he left the linen cloth,
and fled from them naked."

Chapter VI.-Of the Harmony Characterizing the Accounts Which These Evangelists Give of
What Happened When the Lord Was Led Away to the House of the High Priest, as Also of the
Occurrences Which Took Place Within the Said House After He Was Conducted There in the
Nighttime, and in Particular of the Incident of Peter's Denial. 19. In the line of
Matthew's narrative we come next upon this statement: "And they that laid hold on Jesus
led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were
assembled." We learn, however, from John that He was conducted first to Annas, the father-
in-law of Caiaphas. On the other hand, Mark and Luke omit all mention of the name of the
high priest. Moreover [we find that] He was led away bound. For, as John informs us, there
were at hand there, in the multitude, a tribune and a cohort, and the servants of the
Jews. Then in Matthew we have these words: "But Peter followed Him afar off unto the high
priest's palace, and went in and sat with the servants to see the end." To this passage in
the narrative Mark makes this addition: "And he warmed himself at the fire." Luke also
makes a statement which amounts to the same, thus: "Peter followed afar off: and when they
had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were sat down together, Peter sat down
among them." And John proceeds in these terms: "And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did
another disciple. That disciple (namely, that other) was known unto the high priest, and
went in (as John also tells us) with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. But Peter
(as the same John adds) stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple,
which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought
in Peter." For , the last fact we are thus indebted to John's narrative. And in this way
we see how it came about that Peter also got inside, and was within the hall, as the other
evangelists mention.

20. Then Matthew's report goes on thus: "Now the chief priests and elders and all the
council sought false witness against Jesus, to put Him to death, but found none: yea,
though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. Mark comes in here with the
explanation, that "their witness agreed not together. But, as Matthew continues, "At the
last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple
of God, and to build it in three days. Mark states that there were also others who said,
"We have heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within
three days I will build another made without hands. And therefore (as Mark also observes
in the same passage) their witness did not agree together. Then Matthew gives us the
following relation: "And the high priest arose and said unto Him, Answerest thou nothing?
What is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held His peace. And the high priest
answered and said unto Him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether
thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said. Mark reports the
same passage in different terms, only he omits to mention the fact that the high priest
adjured Him. He makes it plain, however, that the two expressions ascribed to Jesus as the
reply to the high priest,-namely, "Thou hast said," and, "I am," -really amount to the
same.

For, as the said Mark puts it, the narrative goes on thus: "And Jesus said, I am; and ye
shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of
heaven. This is just as Matthew also presents the passage, with the solitary exception
that he does not say that Jesus replied in the phrase "I am. Again, Matthew goes on
further in this strain: "Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken
blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his
blasphemy. What think ye? And they answered and said, He is guilty of death. Mark's
version of this is entirely to the same effect. So Matthew continues, "Then did they spit
in His face, and buffeted Him, and others smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying,
Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee? Mark reports these things in
like manner. He also mentions a further fact, namely, that they covered His face. On these
incidents we have likewise the testimony of Luke.

21. These things the Lord is understood to have passed through on to the early morning in
the high priest's house, to which He was first conducted, and in which Peter was also
tempted. With respect, however, to this temptation of Peter, which took place during the
time that the Lord was enduring these injuries, the several evangelists do not present the
same order in the recital of the circumstances. For Matthew and Mark first narrate the
injuries offered to the Lord, and then this temptation of Peter. Luke, again, first
describes Peter's temptation, and only after that the reproaches borne by the Lord; while
John, on the other hand, first recounts part of Peter's temptation, then introduces some
verses recording what the Lord had to bear, next appends a statement to the effect that
the Lord was sent away thence (i.e. from Annas) to Caiaphas the high priest, and then at
this point resumes and sums up the relation which he had commenced of Peter's temptation
in the house to which he was first conducted, giving a full account of that incident,
thereafter reverting to the succession of things befalling the Lord, and telling us how He
was brought to Caiaphas.

22. Accordingly, Matthew proceeds as follows: "Now Peter sat without in the palace; and a
damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before
them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.And as he went out into the porch, another
maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of
Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. And after a while came
unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them, for thy
speech bewrayeth thee. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying that he knew not the
man. And immediately the cock crew." Such is Matthew's version. But we are also given to
understand that after he had gone outside, and when he had now denied the Lord once, the
first cock crew,-a fact which Matthew does not specify, but which is intimated by Mark.

23. But it was not when he was outside at the gate that he denied the Lord the second
time. That took place after he had come back to the fire-place. There was no need,
however, to mention the precise time at which he did thus return. Consequently Mark goes
on with his narrative of the incident in these terms: "And he went out into the porch, and
the cock crew. And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is
one of them. And he denied it again. This is not the same maid, however, as the former
one, but another, as Matthew tells us. Nay, we gather further that on the occasion of the
second denial he was addressed by two parties, namely, by the maid who is mentioned by
Matthew and Mark, and also by another person who is noticed by Luke. For Luke's account
runs in this style: "And Peter followed afar off. And when they had kindled a fire in the
midst of the hall, and were sat down together, Peter sat down among them. But a certain
maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man
was also with him. And he denied Him, saying, Woman, I know Him not. And after a little
while, another saw him, and said, "Thou art also of them.

Now the clause, "And after a little while," which Luke introduces, covers the period
during which [we may suppose that] Peter went out and the first cock crew. By this time,
however, he had come in again; and thus we can understand the consistency of John's
narrative, which informs us that he denied the Lord the second time as he stood by the
fire. For in his version of Peter's first denial, John not only says nothing about the
first crowing of the cock (which holds good of the other evangelists, too, with the
exception of Mark), but also leaves unnoticed the fact that it was as he sat by the fire
that the maid recognised him. For all that John says there is this, "Then saith the damsel
that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I
am not. Then he brings in the statement which he deemed it right to make on the subject of
what took place with Jesus in that same house. His record of this is to the following
effect: "And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, for it
was cold. And they warmed themselves; and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. Here,
therefore, we may suppose Peter to have gone out, and by this time to have come in again.
For at first he was sitting by the fire; and after a space, as we gather, he had returned,
and commenced to stand [by the hearth].

24. It may be, however, that some one will say to us: Peter had not actually gone out as
yet, but had only risen with the purpose of going out. This may be the allegation of one
who is of opinion that the second interrogation and denial took place when Peter was
outside at the door. Let us therefore look at what follows in John's narrative. It is to
this effect: "The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His doctrine.
Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in thesynagogue, and in the
temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou
me? ask them which heard me what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. And
when He had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of
his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken
evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? And Annas sent Him bound
to Caiaphas the high priest. This certainly shows us that Annas was high priest. For Jesus
had not been sent to Caiaphas as yet, when the question was thus put to Him, "Answerest
thou the high priest so? Mention is also made of Annas and Caiaphas as high priests by
Luke at the beginning of his Gospel.

After these statements, John reverts to the account which he had previously begun of
Peter's denial. Thus he brings us back to the house in which the incidents took place
which he has recorded, and from which Jesus was sent away to Caiaphas, to whom He was
being conducted at the commencement of this scene, as Matthew has informed us. Moreover,
it is in the way of a recapitulation that John records the matters regarding Peter which
he has introduced at this point. Falling back upon his narration of that incident with the
view of making up a complete account of the threefold denial, he proceeds thus: "And Simon
stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his
disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not. Here, therefore, we find that Peter's second
denial occurred, not when he was at the door,but as he was standing by the fire. This,
however, could not have been the case, had he notreturned by this time after having gone
outside.For it is not that by this second occasion he had actually gone out, and that the
other maid who is referred to saw him there outside; but the matter is put as if it was on
his going out that she saw him;

or, in other words, it was when he rose to go out that she observed him, and said to those
who were there,-that is, to those who were gathered by the fire inside, within the
court,-"This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. Then we are to suppose that the man
who had thus gone outside, on hearing thisassertion, came in again, and swore to those
whowere now inimically disposed, "I do not know the man. In like manner, Mark also says of
this same maid, that "she began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. For
this damsel was speaking not to Peter, but to those who had remained there when he went
out. At the same time, she spoke in such a manner that he heard her words; whereupon he
came back and stood again by the fire, and met their words with a negative. Then we have
the statement made by John in these terms: "They said, Art not thou also one of his
disciples? We understand this question to have been addressed to him on his return as he
stood there; and we also recognise the harmony in which this stands with the position that
on this occasion Peter had to do not only with that other maid who is mentioned by Matthew
and Mark in connection with this second denial, but also with that other person who is
introduced by Luke. This is the reason why John uses the plural, "They said.

The explanation then may be, that when the maid said to those who were with her in the
court as he went out, "This is one of them," he heard her words and returned with the
purpose of clearing himself, as it were, by a denial. Or, in accordance with the more
probable theory, we may suppose that he did not catch what was said about him as he went
out, and that on his return the maid and the other person who is introduced by Luke
addressed him thus, "Art not thou also one of his disciples? that he met them with a
denial, "and said, I am not; and further, that when this other person of whom Luke speaks
insisted more pertinaciously, and said, "Surely thou art one of them," Peter answered
thus, "Man, I am not. Still, when we compare together all the statements made by the
several evangelists on this subject, we come clearly to the conclusion, that Peter's
second denial took place, not when he was at the door, but when he was within, by the fire
in the court. It becomes evident, therefore, that Matthew and Mark, who have told us how
he went without, have left the fact of his return unnoticed simply with a view to brevity.

25. Accordingly, let us next examine into the consistency of the evangelists so far as the
third denial is concerned, which we have previously instanced in the statement given by
Matthew only. Mark then goes on with his version in these terms: "And a little after, they
that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilaean.
But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak. And
immediately the second time the cock crew. Luke, again, continues his narrative, relating
the same incident in this fashion: "And about the space of one hour after, another
confidently affirmed, Of a truth this fellow also was with him; for he is a Galilaean. And
Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately while he yet spake the cock
crew. John follows with his account of Peter's third denial, which is thus given: "One of
the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not
I see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again; and immediately the cock crew.
Now what precise period of time is meant under the phrase, "a little after," which is
employed by Matthew and Mark, is made clear by Luke, when he says, "And about the space of
one hour after. John, however, conveys no intimation of this space of time.

Again, with respect to the circumstance that Matthew and Mark use the plural number
instead of the singular, and speak of the persons who were engaged with Peter, while Luke
mentions only a single individual, and John, too, specifies but one, particularizing him
further as kinsman to him whose ear Peter cut off; we may easily explain it either by
understanding Matthew and Mark to have adopted a familiar method of speech here in
employing the plural number simply instead of the singular, or by supposing that one of
the persons present-one who knew Peter and had seen him-took the lead in making the
declaration, and that the rest, imitating his confidence, joined him in pressing the
assertion upon Peter. If this is the case, then two of the evangelists have given the
general statement, using simply the plural number; while the other two have preferred to
particularize only the one special individual who played the chief part in the
transaction. But, once more, Matthew affirms that the words, "Surely thou also art one of
them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee," were spoken to Peter himself. In like manner, John
tells us that the question, "Did not I see thee in the garden with him? was addressed
directly to Peter. But Mark, on the other hand, gives us to understand that the sentence,
"Surely he is one of them, for he is also a Galilaean," was what those who stood by said
to each other about Peter.

And, in the same way, Luke indicates that the declaration uttered by the other person, who
said, "Of a truth, this fellow also was with him, for he is a Galilaean," was not
addressed to Peter, but was made regarding Peter. These variations, however, may be
explained either by understanding the evangelists, who speak of Peter as the person
directly addressed, to have fairly reproduced the general sense, inasmuch as what was
spoken about the man in his own presence was much the same as if it had been spoken
immediately to him; or by supposing that both these methods of address were actually
practised, and that the one has been noticed by the former evangelists, and the other by
the latter. Moreover, we take the second cockcrowing to have occurred after the third
denial, as Mark has expressly informed us. 26. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in
these terms: "And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which He had said unto him, Before
the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly. Mark, again,
gives it thus: "And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said unto him, Before the
cock crow twice thou shall deny me thrice. And he began to weep. Luke's version is as
follows: "And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the
Lord, how He had said unto him, Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter
went out and wept bitterly. John says nothing about Peter's recollection and weeping. Now,
the statement made here by Luke, to the effect that "the Lord turned and looked upon
Peter," is one which requires more careful consideration, with a view to its correct
acceptance. For although there are also inner halls (or courts), so named, it was in the
outer court (or hall) that Peter appeared on this occasion among the servants, who were
warming themselves along with him at the fire. And it is not a credible supposition that
Jesus was heard by the Jews in this place, so that we might also understand the look
referred to have been a look with the bodily eye. For Matthew presents us first with this
narrative: "Then did they spit in His face and buffeted Him;

and others smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ,
who is he that smote thee? And then he follows this up immediately with the paragraph
about Peter: "Now Peter sat without in the palace. He would not, however, have used this
latter expression, had it not been the case that the things previously alluded to were
done to the Lord inside the house. And, indeed, as we gather from Mark's version, these
things took place not simply in the interior, but also in the upper parts of the house.
For, after recording the said circumstances, Mark goes on thus: "And as Peter was beneath
in the palace. Thus, as Matthew's words, "Now Peter sat without in the palace," show us
that the things previously mentioned took place inside the house, so Mark's words, "And as
Peter was beneath in the palace," indicate that they were done not only in the interior,
but in the upper parts of the house. But if this is the case, how could the Lord have
looked on Peter with the actual glance of the bodily eye?

These considerations bring me to the conclusion, that the look in question was one cast
upon Peter from Heaven, the effect of which was to bring up before his mind the number of
times he had now denied [his Master], and the declaration which the Lord had made to him
prophetically, and in this way (the Lord thus looking mercifully upon him ), to lead him
to repent, and to weep salutary tears. The expression, therefore, will be a parallel to
other modes of speech which we employ daily, as when we thus pray, "Lord, look upon me; or
as when, in reference to one who has been delivered by the divine mercy from some danger
or trouble, we say that the "Lord looked upon him. In the Scriptures, also, we find such
words as these: "Look upon me and hear me; and "Return, O Lord, and deliver my soul. And,
according to my judgment, a similar view is to be taken of the expression adopted here,
when it is said that "the Lord turned and looked upon Peter; and Peter remembered the word
of the Lord. Finally, we have to notice how, while it is the more usual practice with the
evangelists to employ the name "Jesus" in preference to the word "Lord" in their
narratives, Luke has used the latter term exclusively in the said sentence, saying
expressly, "The `Lord' turned and looked upon Peter;

and Peter remembered the word of the `Lord:'" whereas Matthew and Mark have passed over
this "look" in silence, and consequently have said that Peter remembered not the word of
the "Lord," but the word of "Jesus. From this, therefore, we may gather that the "look"
thus proceeding from Jesus was not one with the eyes of the human body, but a look cast
from Heaven. Chapter VII.-Of the Thorough Harmony of the Evangelists in the Different
Accounts of What Took Place in the Early Morning, Previous to the Delivery of Jesus to
Pilate; And of the Question Touching the Passage Which is Quoted on the Subject of the
Price Set Upon the Lord, and Which is Ascribed to Jeremiah by Matthew, Although No Such
Paragraph is Found in the Writings of that Prophet. 27. Matthew next proceeds as follows:
"When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel
against Jesus, to put Him to death; and when they had bound Him, they led Him away, and
delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor. Mark's version is to the like effect: "And
straightway in the morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and
scribes, and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried Him away, and delivered Him
to Pilate. Luke, again, after completing his account of Peter's denial, recapitulates what
Jesus had to endure when it was now about daybreak, as it appears, and continues his
narrative in the following connection: "And the men that held Jesus mocked Him, and smote
Him; and when they had blindfolded Him, they struck Him on the face, and asked Him,
saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake
they against Him. And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people, and the chief
priests, and the scribes came together, and led Him into their council, saying, Art thou
the Christ? tell us. And He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I
also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on
the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And
He said unto them, Ye say that I am.

And they said, What need we further witness? For we ourselves have heard of His own mouth.
And the whole multitude of them arose, and led Him unto Pilate. Luke has thus recorded all
these things. His statement contains certain facts which are also related by Matthew and
Mark; namely, that the Lord was asked whether He was the Son of God, and that He made this
reply, "I say unto you, hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of
power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. And we gather that these things took place when
the day was now breaking, because Luke's expression is, "And as soon as it was day. Thus
Luke's narrative is similar to those of the others, although he also introduces something
which these others have left unnoticed. We gather further, that when it was yet night, the
Lord faced the ordeal of the false witnesses,-a fact which is recorded briefly by Matthew
and Mark, and which is passed over in silence by Luke, who, however, has told the story of
what was done when the dawn was coming in. The former two-namely, Matthew and Mark-have
given connected narratives of all that the Lord passed through until early morning. After
that, however, they have reverted to the story of Peter's denial;

on the conclusion of which they have come back upon the events of the early morning, and
have introduced the other circumstances which remained for recital with a view to the
completion of their account of what befell the Lord. But up to this point they have given
no account of the occurrences belonging specifically to the morning. In like manner John,
after recording what was done with the Lord as fully as he deemed requisite, and after
telling also the whole story of Peter's denial, continues his narrative in these terms:
"Then lead they Jesus to Caiaphas, unto the hall of judgment. And it was early. Here we
might suppose either that there had been something imperatively requiring Caiaphas'
presence in the hall of judgment, and that he was absent on the occasion when the other
chief priests held an inquiry on the Lord; or else that the hall of judgment was in his
house; and that yet from the beginning of this scene they had thus only been leading Jesus
away to the personage in whose presence He was at last actually conducted. But as they
brought the accused person in the character of one already convicted, and as it had
previously approved itself to Caiaphas' judgment that Jesus should die, there was no
further delay in delivering Him over to Pilate, with a view to His being put to death. And
thus it is that Matthew here relates what took place between Pilate and the Lord.

28. First, however, he makes a digression with the purpose of telling the story of Judas'
end, which is related only by him. His account is in these terms: "Then Judas, which had
betrayed Him, when he saw that He was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the
thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned, in that I
have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? See thou to that. And
he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged
himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to
put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and
bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was
called, The field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by
Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him
that was valued, whom the children of Israel did value, and gave them for the potter's
field, as the Lord appointed me."

29. Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this passage is not found
in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks that damage is thus done to the
veracity of the evangelist, let him first take notice of the fact that this ascription of
the passage to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and that some
of them state simply that it I was spoken "by the prophet." It is possible, therefore, to
affirm that those codices deserve rather to be followed which do not contain the name of
Jeremiah. For these words were certainly spoken by a prophet, only that prophet was
Zechariah. In this way the supposition is, that those codices are faulty which contain the
name of Jeremiah, because they ought either to have given the name of Zechariah or to have
mentioned no name at all, as is the case with a certain copy, merely stating that it was
spoken "by the prophet, saying," which prophet would assuredly be understood to be
Zechariah. However, let others adopt this method of defence, if they are so minded. For my
part, I am not satisfied with it; and the reason is, that a majority of codices contain
the name of Jeremiah, and that those critics who have studied the Gospel with more than
usual care in the Greek copies, report that they have found it stand so in the more
ancient Greek exemplars. I look also to this further consideration, namely, that there was
no reason why this name should have been added [subsequently to the true text], and a
corruption thus created; whereas there was certainly an intelligible reason for erasing
the name from so many of the codices. For venturesome inexperience might readily have done
that, when perplexed with the problem presented by the fact that this passage could not be
found in Jeremiah.

30. How, then, is the matter to be explained, but by supposing that this has been done in
accordance with the more secret counsel of that providence of God by which the minds of
the evangelists were governed? For it may have been the case, that when Matthew was
engaged in composing his Gospel, the word Jeremiah occurred to his mind, in accordance
with a familiar experience, instead of Zechariah. Such an inaccuracy, however, he would
most undoubtedly have corrected (having his attention called to it, as surely would have
been the case, by some who might have read it while he was still alive in the flesh), had
he not reflected that [perhaps] it was not without a purpose that the name of the one
prophet had been suggested instead of the other in the process of recalling the
circumstances (which process of recollection was also directed by the Holy Spirit), and
that this might not have occurred to him had it not been the Lord's purpose to have it so
written.

If it is asked, however, why the Lord should have so determined it, there is this first
and most serviceable reason, which deserves our most immediate consideration, namely, that
some idea was thus conveyed of the marvellous manner in which all the holy prophets,
speaking in one spirit, continued in perfect unison with each other in their utterances,-a
circumstance certainly much more calculated to impress the mind than would have been the
case had all the words of all these prophets been spoken by the mouth of a single
individual. The same consideration might also fitly suggest the duty of accepting
unhesitatingly whatever the Holy Spirit has given expression to through the agency of
these prophets, and of looking upon their individual communications as also those of the
whole body, and on their collective communications as also those of each separately. If,
then, it is the case that words spoken by Jeremiah are really as much Zechariah's as
Jeremiah's, and, on the other hand, that words spoken by Zechariah are really as much
Jeremiah's as they are Zechariah's, what necessity was there for Matthew to correct his
text when he read over what he had written, and found that the one name had occurred to
him instead of the other?

Was it not rather the proper course for him to bow to the authority of the Holy Spirit,
under whose guidance he certainly felt his mind to be placed in a more decided sense than
is the case with us, and consequently to leave untouched what he had thus written, in
accordance with the Lord's counsel and appointment, with the intent to give us to
understand that the prophets maintain so complete a harmony with each other in the matter
of their utterances that it becomes nothing absurd, but, in fact, a most consistent thing
for us to credit Jeremiah with a sentence originally spoken by Zechariah? For if, in these
days of ours, a person, desiring to bring under our notice the words of a certain
individual, happens to mention the name of another by whom the words were not actually
uttered, but who at the same time is the most intimate friend and associate of the man by
whom they were really spoken; and if forthwith recollecting that he has given the one name
instead of the other, he recovers himself and corrects the mistake, but does it
nevertheless in some such way as this, "After all, what I said was not amiss;

what would we take to be meant by this, but just that there subsists so perfect a unison
of sentiment between the two parties-that is to say, the man whose words the individual in
question intended to repeat, and the second person whose name occurred to him at the time
instead of that of the other-that it comes much to the same thing to represent the words
to have been spoken by the former as to say that they were uttered by the latter? How much
more, then, is this a usage which might well be understood and most particularly commended
to our attention in the case of the holy prophets, so that we might accept the books
composed by the whole series of them, as if they formed but a single book written by one
author, in which no discrepancy with regard to the subjects dealt with should be supposed
to exist, as none would be found, and in which there would be a more remarkable example of
consistency and veracity than would have been the case had a single individual, even the
most learned, been the enunciator of all these sayings? Therefore, while there are those,
whether unbelievers or merely ignorant men, who endeavour to find an argument here to help
them in demonstrating a want of harmony between the holy evangelists, men of faith and
learning, on the other hand, ought rather to bring this into the service of proving the
unity which characterizes the holy prophets.

31. I have also another reason (the fuller discussion of which must be reserved, I think,
for another opportunity, in order to prevent the present discourse from extending to
larger limits than may be allowed by the necessity which rests upon us to bring this work
to a conclusion) to offer in explanation of the fact that the name of Jeremiah has been
permitted, or rather directed, by the authority of the Holy Spirit, to stand in this
passage instead of that of Zechariah. It is stated in Jeremiah that he bought a field from
the son of his brother, and paid him money for it. That sum of money is not given, indeed,
under the name of the particular price which is found in Zechariah, namely, thirty pieces
of silver; but, on the other hand, there is no mention of the buying of the field in
Zechariah. Now, it is evident that the evangelist has interpreted the prophecy which
speaks of the thirty pieces of silver as something which has received its fulfilment only
in the Lord's case, so that it is made to stand for the price set upon Him.

But again, that the words which were uttered by Jeremiah on the subject of the purchase of
the field have also a bearing upon the same matter, may have been mystically signified by
the selection thus made in introducing [into the evangelical narrative] the name of
Jeremiah, who spoke of the purchase of the field, instead of that of Zechariah, to whom we
are indebted for the notice of the thirty pieces of silver. In this way, on perusing first
the Gospel, and finding the name of Jeremiah there, and then, again, on perusing Jeremiah,
and failing there to discover the passage about the thirty pieces of silver, but seeing at
the same time the section about the purchase of the field, the reader would be taught to
compare the two paragraphs together, and get at the real meaning of the prophecy, and
learn how it also stands in relation to this fulfilment of prophecy which was exhibited in
the instance of our Lord. For [it is also to be remarked that] Matthew makes the following
addition to the passage cited, namely, "Whom the children of Israel did value; and gave
them the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me. Now, these words are not to be found
either in Zechariah or in Jeremiah.

Hence we must rather take them to have been inserted with a nice and mystical meaning by
the evangelist, on his own responsibility,-the Lord having given him to understand, by
revelation, that a prophecy of the said tenor had a real reference to this occurrence,
which took place in connection with the price set upon Christ. Moreover, in Jeremiah, the
evidence of the purchase of the field is ordered to be cast into an earthen vessel. Inlike
manner, we find in the Gospel that the money paid for the Lord was used for the purchase
of a potter's field, which field also was to be employed as a burying-place for strangers.
And it may be that all this was significant of the permanence of the repose of those who
sojourn like strangers in this present world, and are buried with Christ by baptism. For
the Lord also declared to Jeremiah, that the said purchase of the field was expressive of
the fact that in that land [of Judaea] there would be a remnant of the people delivered
from their captivity. I judged it proper to give some sort of sketch of these things, as I
was calling attention to the kind of significance which a really careful and painstaking
study should look for in these testimonies of the prophets, when they are reduced to a
unity and compared with the evangelical narrative. These, then, are the statements which
Matthew has introduced with reference to the traitor Judas.


THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS
==========================

THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS continued

CHAPTER VIII.-OF THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNTS WHICH THE EVANGELISTS GIVE OF WHAT TOOK PLACE IN PILATE'S PRESENCE.

32. He next proceeds as follows: "And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor
asked Him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus saith unto him, Thou sayest. And
when He was accused of the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then saith
Pilate unto Him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And He
answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly. Now at that
feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And
they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered
together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus
which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered Him. But when he was
set down on the judgment-seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do
with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas,
and destroy Jesus. But the governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will
ye that I release unto you? And they said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I
do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified. The
governor said to them, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying,
Let him be crucified.

When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took
water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of
this just person; see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on
us, and on our children. Then released he Barabbas unto them; and when he had scourged
Jesus, he delivered Him to them to be crucified. These are the things which Matthew has
reported to have been done to the Lord by Pilate. 33. Mark also presents an almost entire
identity with the above, both in language and in subject. The words, however, in which
Pilate replied to the people when they asked him to release one prisoner according to the
custom of the feast, are reported by this evangelist as follows: "But Pilate answered
them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? On the other hand,
Matthew gives them thus: "Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto
them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
There need be no difficulty in the circumstance that Matthew says nothing about the people
having requested that one should be released unto them. But it may fairly be asked, what
were the words which Pilate actually uttered, whether these reported by Matthew, or those
recited by Mark. For there seems to be some difference between these two forms of
expression, namely, "Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is
called Christ? and, "Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? Nevertheless,
as they were in the habit of calling their kings "anointed ones," and one might use the
one term or the other, it is evident that what Pilate asked them was whether they would
have the King of the Jews, that is, the Christ, released unto them.

And it matters nothing to the real identity in meaning that Mark, desiring simply to
relate what concerned the Lord Himself, has not mentioned Barabbas here. For, in the
report which he gives of their reply, he indicates with sufficient clearness who the
person was whom they asked to have released unto them. His version is this: "But the chief
priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them. Then he
proceeds to add the sentence, "And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye
then that I should do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? This makes it plain
enough now, that in speaking of the King of the Jews, Mark meant to express the very sense
which Matthew intended to convey by using the term "Christ. For kings were not called
"anointed ones" except among the Jews; and the form which Matthew gives to the words in
question is this, "Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called
Christ? So Mark continues, "And they cried out again, Crucify him: which appears thus in
Matthew, "They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. Again Mark goes on, "Then Pilate
said unto them Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly,
Crucify him. Matthew has not recorded this passage;

but he has introduced the statement, "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but
that rather a tumult was made," and has also informed us how he washed his hands before
the people with the view of declaring himself innocent of the blood of that just person (a
circumstance not reported by Mark and the others). And thus he has also shown us with all
due plainness how the governor dealt with the people with the intention of securing His
release. This has been briefly referred to by Mark, when he tells us that Pilate said,
"Why, what evil hath he done? And thereupon Mark also concludes his account of what took
place between Pilate and the Lord in these terms: "And so Pilate, willing to content the
people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged Him, to be
crucified. The above is Mark's recital of what occurred in presence of the governor.

34. Luke gives the following version of what took place in presence of Pilate: "And they
began to accuse Him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to
give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king. The previous two
evangelists have not recorded these words, although they do mention the fact that these
parties accused Him. Luke is thus the one who has specified the terms of the false
accusations which were brought against Him. On the other hand, he does not state that
Pilate said to Him, "Answerest thou nothing? behold, how many things they witness against
thee. Instead of introducing these sentences, Luke goes on to relate other matters which
are also reported by these two. Thus he continues: "And Pilate asked Him, saying, Art thou
the King of the Jews? And He answered him and said, Thou sayest. Matthew and Mark have
likewise inserted this fact, previous to the statement that Jesus was taken to task for
not answering His accusers. The truth, however, is not at all affected by the order in
which Luke has narrated these things; and as little is it affected by the mere
circumstance that one writer passes over some incident without notice, which another
expressly specifies. We have an instance in what follows; namely, "Then said Pilate to the
chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all
Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place. But when Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked
whether the man were a Galilean. And as soon as he knew that He belonged unto Herod's
jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time. And
when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad; for he was desirous to see Him of a long
season, because he had heard many things of Him, and he hoped to see some miracle done by
Him. Then he questioned with Him in many words; but He answered him nothing. And the chief
priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him. And Herod with his men of war set
Him at nought, and mocked Him, and arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him again to
Pilate. And the same day Herod and Pilate were made friends together: for before they were
at enmity between themselves. All these things are related by Luke alone, namely, the fact
that the Lord was sent by Pilate to Herod, and the account of what took place on that
occasion. At the same time, among the statements which he makes in this passage, there are
some bearing a resemblance to matters which may be found reported by the other evangelists
in connection with different portions of their narrations.

But the immediate object of these others, however, was to recount simply the various
things which were done in Pilate's presence on to the time when the Lord was delivered
over to be crucified. In accordance with his own plan, however, Luke makes the above
digression with the view of telling what occurred with Herod; and after that he reverts to
the history of what took place in the governor's presence. Thus he now continues as
follows: "And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the
people, said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me as one that perverteth the
people: and, behold, I having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man
touching those things whereof ye accuse him. Here we notice that he has omitted to mention
how Pilate asked the Lord what answer He had to make to His accusers. Thereafter he
proceeds in these terms: "No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him: and, lo, nothing
worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him and release him. For of
necessity he must release one unto them at the feast. And they cried out all at once,
saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas; who for a certain sedition made
in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison. Pilate, therefore, willing to release
Jesus, spake again to them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.

And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause
of death in him: I will therefore chastise him and let him go. And they were instant with
loud voices, requiring that He might be crucified; and the voices of them prevailed. The
repeated effort which Pilate, in his desire to accomplish the release of Jesus, thus made
to gain the people's consent, is satisfactorily attested by Matthew, although in a very
few words, when he says, "But when Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that
rather a tumult was made. For he would not have made such a statement at all, had not
Pilate exerted himself earnestly in that direction, although at the same time he has not
told us how often he made such attempts to rescue Jesus from their fury. Accordingly, Luke
concludes his report of what took place in the governor's presence in this fashion: "And
Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. And he released unto them him
that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they desired; but he delivered
Jesus to their will."

35. Let us next take the account of these same incidents-that is to say, those in which
Pilate was engaged-as it is presented by John. He proceeds thus: "And they themselves went
not into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the
passover. Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this
man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have
delivered him up unto thee. We must look into this passage in order to show that it
contains nothing inconsistent with Luke's version, which states that certain charges were
brought against Him, and also specifies their terms. For Luke's words are these: "And they
began to accuse Him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to
give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a king. On the other hand,
according to the paragraph which I have now cited from John, the Jews seem to have been
unwilling to state any specific accusations, when Pilate asked them, "What accusation
bring ye against this man? For their reply was, "If he were not a malefactor, we would not
have delivered him up unto thee; the purport of which was, that he should accept their
authority, cease to inquire what fault was alleged against Him, and believe Him guilty for
the simple reason that He had been [reckoned] worthy of being delivered up by them to him.

This being the case, then, we ought to suppose that both these versions report words which
were actually said, both the one before us at present, and the one given by Luke. For
among the multitude of sayings and replies which passed between the parties, these writers
have made their own selections as far as their judgment allowed them to go, and each of
them has introduced into his narrative just what he considered sufficient. It is also true
that John himself mentions certain charges which were alleged against Him, and which we
shall find in their proper connections. Here, then, he proceeds thus: "Then said Pilate
unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews, therefore, said
unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; that the saying of Jesus might
be fulfilled, which He spake, signifying what death He should die. Then Pilate entered
into the judgment-hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto Him, Art thou the King of
the Jews? And Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it
thee of me? This again may seem not to harmonize with what is recorded by the
others,-namely, "Jesus answered, Thou sayest,"-unless it is made clear in what follows
that the one thing was said as well as the other.

Hence he gives us to understand that the matters which he records next are [not to be
regarded as] things never actually uttered by the Lord, but are rather to be considered
things which have been passed over in silence by the other evangelists. Mark, therefore,
what remains of his narrative. It proceeds thus: "Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own
nation, and the chief priests, have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus
answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my
servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from
hence. Pilate therefore said unto Him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest
that I am a king. Behold, here is the point at which he comes to that which the other
evangelists have reported. And then he goes on, the Lord being still the speaker, to
recite other matters which the rest have not recorded. His terms are these: "To this end
was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the
truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is
truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I
find no fault in him. But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the
passover:

will ye, therefore, that I release unto you the King of the Jews? Then cried they all
again, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. Then Pilate, therefore, took
Jesus, and scourged Him. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on His
head, and they put on Him a purple robe; and they came to Him and said, Hail, King of the
Jews! and they smote Him with their hands. Pilate went forth again, and saith unto them,
Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. Then came
Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them,
Behold the man! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw Him, they cried out,
saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him;
for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought
to die, because he made himself the Son of God. This may fit in with what Luke reports to
have been stated in the accusation brought by the Jews,-namely, "We found this fellow
perverting our nation,"-so that we might append here the reason given for it, "Because he
made himself the Son of God. John then goes on in the following strain: "When Pilate,
therefore, heard that saying, he was the more afraid, and went again into the judgment-
hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou?

But Jesus gave him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto Him, Speakest thou not unto me?
knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus
answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from
above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. From thenceforth
Pilate sought to release Him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go,
thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar.
This may very well agree with what Luke records in connection with the said accusation
brought by the Jews. For after the words, "We found this fellow perverting our nation," he
has added the clause, "And forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he
himself is Christ a king. This will also offer a solution for the difficulty previously
referred to, namely, the occasion which might seem to be given for supposing John to have
indicated that no specific charge was laid by the Jews against the Lord, when they
answered and said unto him, "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him
up unto thee. John then continues in the following strain: "When Pilate therefore heard
that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment-seat, in a place that is
called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the
passover, and about the sixth hour;

and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King? But they cried out, Away with him, crucify
him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered, We
have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified. The
above is John's version of what was done by Pilate.

CHAPTER IX.-OF THE MOCKERY WHICH HE SUSTAINED AT THE HANDS OF PILATE'S COHORT, AND OF THE HARMONY SUBSISTING AMONG THE THREE EVANGELISTS WHO REPORT THAT SCENE, NAMELY, MATTHEW, MARK, AND JOHN.

1 36. We have now reached the point at which we may study the Lord's passion, strictly so
called, as it is presented in the narrative of these four evangelists. Matthew commences
his account as follows: "Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common
hall, and gathered unto Him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped Him, and put on
Him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon His
head, and a reed in His right hand: and they bowed the knee before Him, and mocked Him,
saying, Hail, King of the Jews! At the same stage in the narrative, Mark delivers himself
thus: "And the soldiers led Him away into the hall called Praetorium; and they called
together the whole band. And they clothed Him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns,
and put it on His head, and began to salute Him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they
smote Him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon Him, and, bowing their knees,
worshipped Him. Here, therefore, we perceive that while Matthew tells us how they "put on
Him a scarlet robe," Mark speaks of purple, with which He was clothed. The explanation may
be that the said scarlet robe was employed instead of the royal purple by these scoffers.
There is also a certain red-coloured purple which resembles scarlet very closely.

2 And it may also be the case that Mark has noticed the purple which the robe contained,
although it was properly scarlet. Luke has left this without mention. On the other hand,
previous to stating how Pilate delivered Him up to be crucified, John has introduced the
following passage: "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged Him. And the soldiers
platted a crown of thorns, and put it on His head, and they put on Him a purple robe, and
said, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote Him with their hands. This makes it evident
that Matthew and Mark have reported this incident in the way of a recapitulation, and that
it did not actually take place after Pilate had delivered Him up to be crucified. For John
informs us distinctly enough that these things took place when He yet was with Pilate.
Hence we conclude that the other evangelists have introduced the occurrence at that
particular point, just because, having previously passed it by, they recollected it there.
This is also borne out by what Matthew proceeds next to relate. He continues thus: "And
they spit upon Him, and took the reed, and smote Him on the head. And after that they had
mocked Him, they took the robe off from Him, and put His own raiment on Him, and led Him
away to crucify Him.

3 Here we are given to understand that the taking the robe off Him and the clothing Him
with His own raiment were done at the close, when He was being led away. This is given by
Mark, as follows: "And when they had mocked Him. they took off the purple from Him, and
put His own clothes on Him." 4 Chapter X.-Of the Method in Which We Can Reconcile the
Statement Which is Made by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to the Effect that Another Person Was
Pressed into the Service of Carrying the Cross of Jesus, with that Given by John, Who Says
that Jesus Bore It Himself. 37. Matthew, accordingly, goes on with his narrative in these
terms: "And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they
compelled to bear His cross." In like manner, Mark says: "And they led Him out to be
crucified. And they compelled one Simon, a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the
country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear His cross." Luke's version is also to
this effect: "And as they led Him away, they laid hold upon one Simon a Cyrenian, coming
out of the country; and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus." On
the other hand, John records the matter as follows: "And they took Jesus, and led Him
away. And He bearing His cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which
is called in the Hebrew, Golgotha; where they crucified Him." From all this we understand
that Jesus was carrying the cross Himself as He went forth into the place mentioned. But
on the way the said Simon, who is named by the other three evangelists, was pressed into
the service, and got the cross to carry for the rest of the course until the spot was
reached. Thus we find that both circumstances really took place; namely, first the one
noticed by John, and thereafter the one instanced by the other three.

CHAPTER XI.-OF THE CONSISTENCY OF MATTHEW'S VERSION WITH THAT OF MARK IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE POTION OFFERED HIM TO DRINK, WHICH IS INTRODUCED BEFORE THE NARRATIVE OF HIS CRUCIFIXION.

38. Matthew then proceeds in these terms: "And they came unto a place called Golgotha;
that is to say, a place of a skull." So far as the place is concerned, they are most
unmistakeably at one. The same Matthew next adds, "and they gave Him wine to drink,
mingled with gall; and when He had tasted thereof, He would not drink." This is given by
Mark as follows: "And they gave Him to drink wine mingled with myrrh; and He received it
not." Here we may understand Matthew to have conveyed the same sense as Mark, when he
speaks of the wine being "mingled with gall." For the gall is mentioned with a view to
express the bitterness of the potion. And wine mingled with myrrh is remarkable for its
bitterness. The fact may also be that gall and myrrh together made the wine exceedingly
bitter. Again, when Mark says that "He received it not," we understand the phrase to
denote that He did not receive it so as actually to drink it. He did taste it, however, as
Matthew certifies. Thus Mark's words, "He received it not," convey the same meaning as
Matthew's version, "He would not drink." The former, however, has said nothing about His
tasting the potion.

CHAPTER XII.-OF THE CONCORD PRESERVED AMONG ALL THE FOUR EVANGELISTS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PARTING OF HIS RAIMENT.

39. Matthew goes on thus: "And after they crucified Him, they parted His garments, casting
lots: and sitting down, they watched Him." Mark reports the same incident, as follows:
"And crucifying Him, they parted His garments, casting lots upon them, what every man
should take." In like manner Luke says: "And they parted His raiment, and cast lots. And
the people stood beholding." The occurrence is thus recorded briefly by the first three.
But John gives us a more detailed narrative of the method in which the act was gone about.
His version runs thus: "Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His
garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also His coat: now the coat
was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let
us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the Scripture might be
fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments, and for my vesture they did cast lots."

CHAPTER XIII.-OF THE HOUR OF THE LORD'S PASSION, AND OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN MARK AND JOHN IN THE ARTICLE OF THE "THIRD" HOUR AND THE "SIXTH."

40. Matthew continues thus: "And they set up over His head His accusation written, `This
is Jesus the King of the Jews.'" Mark, on the other hand, before making any such
statement, inserts these words: "And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him." For
he subjoins these terms immediately after he has told us about the parting of the
garments. This, then, is a matter which we must consider with special care, lest any
serious error emerge. For there are some who entertain the idea that the Lord was
certainly crucified at the third hour; and that thereafter, from the sixth hour on to the
ninth, the darkness covered the land. According to this theory, we should have to
understand three hours to have passed between the time when He was crucified and the time
when the darkness occurred. And this view might certainly be held with all due warrant,
were it not that John has stated that it was about the sixth hour when Pilate sat down on
the judgment-seat, in a place that is called the Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. For
his version goes on in this manner: "And as it was the preparation of the passover, and
about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out,
Away with him, away with him! crucify him! Pilate said unto them, Shall I crucify your
king? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he Him
therefore unto them to be crucified." If Jesus, therefore, was delivered up to the Jews to
be crucified when it was about the sixth hour, and when Pilate was then sitting upon the
judgment-seat, how could He have been crucified at the third hour, as some have been led
to suppose, in consequence of a misinterpretation of the words of Mark?

41. First, then, let us consider what the hour really is at which He can have been
crucified; and then we shall see how it happens that Mark has reported Him to have been
crucified at the third hour. Now it was about the sixth hour when Pilate, who was sitting,
as has been stated, at the time upon the judgment-seat, delivered Him up to be crucified.
The expression is not that it was the sixth hour fully, but only that it was about the
sixth hour; that is to say, the fifth hour was entirely gone, and so much of the sixth
hour had also been entered upon. These writers, however, could not naturally use such
phraseologies as the fifth hour and a quarter, or the fifth hour and a third, or the fifth
hour and a hall or anything of that kind. For the Scriptures have the well-known habit of
dealing simply with the round numbers, without mention of fractions, especially in matters
of time. We have an example of this in the case of the "eight days," after which, as they
tell us, He went up into a mountain, -a space which is given by Matthew and Mark as "six
days after," because they look simply at the days between the one from which the reckoning
commences and the one with which it closes. This is particularly to be kept in view when
we notice how measured the terms are which John employs here. For he says not "the sixth
hour," but "about the sixth hour.

And yet, even had he not expressed himself in that way, but had stated merely that it was
the sixth hour, it would still be competent for us to interpret the phrase in accordance
with the method of speech with which we are, as I said, familiar in Scripture, namely, the
use of the round numbers. And thus we could still take the sense quite fairly to be that,
on the completion of the fifth hour and the commencement of the sixth, those matters were
going on which are recorded in connection with the Lord's crucifixion, until, on the close
of the sixth hour, and when He was hanging on the cross, the darkness occurred which is
attested by three of the evangelists, namely, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 42. In due order,
let us now inquire how it is that Mark, after telling us that they parted His garments
when they were crucifying Him, casting lots upon them what every man should take, has
appended this statement, "And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him. Now here he
had already made the declaration, "And crucifying Him, they parted His garments; and the
other evangelists also certify that, when He was crucified, they parted His garments. If,
therefore, it was Mark's design to specify the time at which the incident took place, it
would have been enough for him to say simply, "And it was the third hour. What reason,
then, can be assigned for his having added these words, "And they crucified Him," but
that, under the summary statement thus inserted, he intended significantly to suggest
something which might be found a subject for consideration, when the Scripture in question
was read in times in which the whole Church knew perfectly well what hour it was at which
the Lord was hanged upon the tree, and the means were possessed for either correcting the
writer's error or confuting his want of truth?

But, inasmuch as he was quite aware of the fact that the Lord was suspended on the cross]
by the soldiers, and not by the Jews, as John most plainly affirms, his hidden object [in
bringing in the said clause] was to convey the idea that those parties who cried out that
He should be crucified were the Lord's real crucifiers, rather than the men who simply
discharged their service to their chief in accordance with their duty. We understand,
accordingly, that it was the third hour when the Jews cried out that the Lord should be
crucified. And thus it is intimated most truly that these persons did really crucify
Christ at the time when they cried out. All the more, too, did this merit notice, because
they were unwilling to have the appearance of having done the deed themselves, and with
that view delivered Him up unto Pilate, as their words indicate clearly enough in the
report given by John. For, after stating how Pilate said to them, "What accusation bring
ye against this man? his version proceeds thus: "They answered and said unto him, If he
were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto
them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him,
It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. Consequently, what they were especially
unwilling to have the appearance of doing, that Mark here shows that they actually did do
at the third hour.

For he judged most truly that the Lord's murderer was rather the tongue of the Jews than
the hand of the soldiers. 43. Moreover, if any one alleges that it was not the third hour
when the Jews cried out for the first time in the terms referred to, he simply displays
himself most insanely to be an enemy to the Gospel; unless perchance he can prove himself
able to produce some new solution of the problem. For he cannot possibly establish the
position that it was not the third hour at the period alluded to. And, consequently, we
surely ought rather to credit a veracious evangelist than the contentious suspicions of
men. But you may ask, How can you prove that it was the third hour? I answer, Because I
believe the evangelists; and if you also believe them, show me how the Lord can have been
crucified both at the sixth hour and at the third. For, to make a frank acknowledgment, we
cannot get over the statement of the sixth hour in John's narrative; and Mark records the
third hour: and, therefore, if both of us accept the testimony of these writers, show me
any other way in which both these notes of time can be taken as literally correct. If you
can do so, I shall most cheerfully acquiesce. For what I prize is not my own opinion, but
the truth of the Gospel. And I could wish, indeed, that more methods of clearing up this
problem might be discovered by others. Until that be done, however, join me, if it please
you, in taking advantage of the solution which I have propounded. For if no explanation
can be found, this one will suffice of itself. But if another can be devised, when it is
unfolded, we shall make our choice. Only don't consider it an inevitable conclusion that
any one of all the four evangelists has stated what is false, or has fallen into error in
a position of authority at once so elevated and so holy.

44. Again, if any one affirms his ability to prove it not to have been the third hour when
the Jews cried out in the terms in question, because, after Mark's statement to this
effect, "And Pilate answered, and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do
unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? And they cried out again, Crucify him," we
find no further details introduced into the narrative of the same evangelist, but are led
on at once to the statement, that the Lord was delivered up by Pilate to be crucified-an
act which John mentions to have taken place about the sixth hour;-I repeat, if any one
adduces such an argument, let him understand that many things have been passed by without
record here, which occurred in the interval when Pilate was engaged in looking out for
some means by which he could rescue Jesus from the Jews, and was exerting himself most
strenuously by every means in his power to withstand their maddened desires. For Matthew
says, "Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do, then, with Jesus, which is called Christ?
They all say, Let him be crucified. Then we affirm it to have been the third hour.

And when the same Matthew goes on to add the sentence, "But when Pilate saw that he could
prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made," we understand that a period of two
hours had passed, during the attempts made by Pilate to effect the release of Jesus, and
the tumults raised by the Jews in their efforts to defeat him, and that the sixth hour had
then commenced, previous to the close of which those things took place which are related
as happening between the time when Pilate delivered up the Lord and the oncoming of the
darkness. Once more, as regards what Matthew records above,-namely, "And when he was set
down on the judgment-seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with
that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him," -we
remark, that Pilate really took his seat upon the tribunal at a later point, but that,
among the earlier incidents which Matthew was recounting, the account given of Pilate's
wife came into his mind, and he decided on inserting it in this particular connection,
with the view of preparing us for understanding how Pilate had an especially urgent reason
for wishing, even on to the last, not to deliver Him up to the Jews.

45. Luke, again, after mentioning how Pilate said, "I will therefore chastise him and let
him go," tells us that the whole multitude then cried out, "Away with this man, and
release unto us Barabbas." But perhaps they had not yet exclaimed, "Crucify him!" For Luke
next proceeds thus: "Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake gain to them. But
they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him!" This is understood to have been at the
third hour. Luke then continues in these terms: "And he said unto them the third time,
Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore
chastise him and let him go. And they were instant With loud voices requiring that He
might be crucified. And the voices of them prevailed." Here, then, this evangelist also
makes it quite evident that there was a great tumult. With sufficient accuracy for the
purposes of my inquiry into the truth, we can further gather how long the interval was
after which he spoke to them in these terms, "Why, what evil hath he done?" And when he
adds thereafter, "They were instant with loud voices, requiring that He might be
crucified, and the voices of them prevailed," who can fail to perceive that this clamour
was made just because they saw that Pilate was unwilling to deliver the Lord up to them?
And, inasmuch as he was exceedingly reluctant to give Him up, he did not certainly yield
at present in a moment, but in reality two hours and something more were passed by him in
that state of hesitancy.

46. Interrogate John in like manner, and see how strong this hesitancy was on Pilate's
part, and how he shrank from so shameful a service. For this evangelist records these
incidents much more fully, although even he certainly does not mention all the occurrences
which took up these two hours and part of the sixth hour. After telling us how Pilate
scourged Jesus, and allowed the robe to be put on Him in derision by the soldiers, and
suffered Him to be subjected to ill-treatment and many acts of mockery (all of which was
permitted by Pilate, as I believe, really with the view of mitigating their fury and
keeping them from persevering in their maddened desire for His death), John continues his
account in the following manner: "Pilate went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I
bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus
forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them,
Behold the man! The object of this was, that they might gaze upon that spectacle of
ignominy and be appeased. But the evangelist proceeds again: "When the chief priests
therefore and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him! It was
then the third hour, as we maintain. Mark also what follows: "Pilate saith unto them, Take
ye him, and crucify him; for I find no fault in him.

The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made
himself the Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
and went again into the judgment-hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus
gave him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto Him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou
not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered,
Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above:
therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. From thenceforth Pilate
sought to release Him. Now, when it is said here that "Pilate sought to release Him," how
long a space of time may we suppose to have been spent in that effort, and how many things
may have beer omitted here among the sayings which were uttered by Pilate, or the
contradictions which were raised by the Jews, until these Jews gave expression to the
words which moved him, and made him yield? For the writer goes on thus: "But the Jews
cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh
himself a king speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he
brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment-seat, in a place that is called the
Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, about
the sixth hour.

Thus, then, between that exclamation of the Jews when they first cried out, "Crucify him,"
at which period it was the third hour, and this moment when he sat down on the judgment-
seat, two hours had passed, which had been taken up with Pilate's attempts to delay
matters and the tumults raised by the Jews; and by this time the fifth hour was quite
spent, and so much of the sixth hour had been entered. Then the narrative goes on thus:
"He saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with
him! crucify him! But not even now was Pilate so overcome by the apprehension of their
bringing a charge against himself as to be very ready to yield. For his wife had sent to
him when he was sitting at this time upon the judgment-seat,-an incident which Matthew,
who is the only one that records it, has given by anticipation, introducing it before he
comes to its proper place (according to the order of time) in his narrative, and bringing
it in at another point which he judged opportune. In this way, Pilate, still continuing
his efforts to prevent further advances, said then to them, "Shall I crucify your king?
Thereupon "the chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he Him
therefore unto them to be crucified.

And in the time that passed when He was on the way, and when He was crucified along with
the two robbers, and when His garments were parted and the possession of His coat was
decided by lot, and the various deeds of contumely were done to Him (for, while these
different things were going on, gibes were also cast at Him), the sixth hour was fully
spent, and the darkness came on, which is mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 47. Let
such impious pertinacity therefore perish, and let it be believed that the Lord Jesus
Christ was crucified at once at the third hour by the voice of the Jews, and at the sixth
by the hands of the soldiers. For during these tumults on the part of the Jews, and these
agitations on the side of Pilate, upwards of two hours elapsed from the time when they
burst out with the cry, "Crucify Him. But again, even Mark, who studies brevity above all
the other evangelists, has been pleased to give a concise indication of Pilate's desire
and of his efforts to save the Lord's life. For, after giving us this statement, "And they
cried again, Crucify him" (in which he gives us to understand that they had cried out
before this, when they asked that Barabbas might be released to them), he has appended
these words: "Then Pilate continued to say unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? Thus by
one short sentence he has given us an idea of matters which took a long time for their
transaction. At the same time, however, keeping in view the correct apprehension of his
meaning, he does not say, "Then Pilate said unto them," but expresses himself thus: "Then
Pilate continued to say unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? For, if his phrase had
been "said," we might have understood him to mean that such words were uttered only once.

But, by adopting the terms, "continued to say," he has made it clear enough to the
intelligent that Pilate spoke repeatedly, and in a number of ways. Let us therefore
consider how briefly Mark has expressed this as compared with Matthew, how briefly Matthew
as compared with Luke, how briefly Luke as compared with John, while at the same time each
of these writers has introduced now one thing and now another peculiar to himself. In
fine, let us also consider how brief is even the narrative given by John himself, as
compared with the number of things which took place, and the space of time occupied by
their occurrence. And let us give up the madness of opposition, and believe that two
hours, and something more, may quite well have passed in the interval referred to. 48. If
any one, however, asserts that if this was the real state of the case, Mark might have
mentioned the third hour explicitly at the point at which it really was the third hour,
namely, when the voices of the Jews were lifted up demanding that the Lord should be
crucified; and, further, that he might have told us plainly there that those vociferators
did really crucify Him at that time,-such a reasoner is simply imposing laws upon the
historians of truth in his own overweening pride. For he might as well maintain that if he
were himself to be a narrator of these occurrences, they ought all to be recorded just in
the same way and the same order by all other writers as they have been recorded by
himself. Let him therefore be content to reckon his own notion inferior to that of Mark
the evangelist, who has judged it right to insert the statement just at the point at which
it was suggested to him by divine inspiration. For the recollections of those historians
have been ruled by the hand of Him who rules the waters, as it is written, according to
His own good pleasure. For the human memory moves through a variety of thoughts, and it is
not in any man's power to regulate either the subject which comes into his mind or the
time of its suggestion.

Seeing, then, that thoseholy and truthful men, in this matter of the order of their
narrations, committed the casualties of their recollections (if such a phrase may be used)
to the direction of the hidden power of God, to whom nothing is casual, it does not become
any mere man, in his low estate, removed far from the vision of God, and sojourning
distantly from Him, to say, "This ought to have been introduced here; for he is utterly
ignorant of the reason which led God to will its being inserted in the place it occupies.
The word of an apostle is to this effect: "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them
that are lost. And again he says: "To the one indeed we are the savour of life unto life;
to the other, the savour of death unto death; and adds immediately, "And who is sufficient
for these things?" -that is to say, who is sufficient to comprehend how righteously that
is done? The Lord Himself expresses the same when He says, "I am come that they which see
not might see, and that they which see might be made blind. For it is in the depth of the
riches of the knowledge and wisdom of God that it comes to pass that of the same lump one
vessel is made unto honour, and another unto dishonour. And to flesh and blood it is said,
"O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

Who, then, knows the mind of the Lord in the matter now under consideration? or who hath
been His counsellor, where He has in such wise ruled the hearts of these evangelists in
their recollections, and has raised them to so commanding a position of authority in the
sublime edifice of His Church, that those very things which are capable of presenting the
appearance of contradictions in them become the means by which many are made blind,
deservedly given over to the lusts of their own heart, and to a reprobate mind; and by
which also many are exercised in the thorough cultivation of a pious understanding, in
accordance with the hidden righteousness of the Almighty? For the language of a prophet in
speaking to the Lord is this: "Thy thoughts are exceeding deep. An inconsiderate man will
not know, and a foolish man will not understand these things." 49. Moreover, I request and
admonish those who read the statement which, with the help of the Lord, has thus been
elaborated by us, to bear in mind this discourse, which I have thought it needful to
introduce in the present connection, in every similar difficulty which may be raised in
such inquiries, so that there may be no necessity for repeating the same thing over and
over again. Besides, any one who is willing to clear himself of the hardness of impiety,
and to give his attention to the subject, will easily perceive how opportune the place is
in which Mark has inserted this notice of the third hour, so that every one may there be
led to bethink himself of an hour at which the Jews really crucified the Lord, although
they sought to transfer the burden of the crime to the Romans, whether to the leaders
among them or to the soldiers,[as we see] when we come here upon the record of what was
done by the soldiers in the discharge of their duty. For this writer says here, "And
crucifying Him, they parted His garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should
take." And to whom can this refer but to the soldiers, as is made manifest in John's
narrative? Thus, lest any one should leave the Jews out of account, and make the
conception of so great a crime lie against those soldiers, Mark gives us here the
statement, "And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him,"-his object being to have
those Jews rather discovered to be the real crucifiers, who will be found by the careful
investigator in a position making it quite possible for them to have cried out for the
Lord's crucifixion at the third hour, while he observes that what was done by the soldiers
took place at the sixth hour.

50. At the same time, however, there are not wanting persons who would have the time of
the preparation-which is referred to by John, when he says, "And it was the preparation of
the passover, about the sixth hour"-understood under this third hour of the day, which was
also the period at which Pilate sat down upon the judgment-seat. In this way the
completion of the said third hour would appear to be the time when He was crucified, and
when He was now hanging on the tree. Other three hours must then be supposed to have
passed, at the end of which He gave up the ghost. According to this idea, too, the
darkness would have commenced with the hour at which He died-that is to say, the sixth
hour of the day-and have lasted until the ninth. For these persons affirm that the
preparation of the passover of the Jews was indeed on the day which was followed by the
day of the Sabbath, because the days of unleavened bread began with the said Sabbath; but
that, nevertheless, the true passover, which was being realized in the Lord's passion, the
passover not of the Jews, but of the Christians, began to be prepared-that is, to have its
parasceue-from the ninth hour of the night onwards, inasmuch as the Lord was then being
prepared for being put to death by the Jews. For the term parasceue means by
interpretation "preparation.

Between the said ninth hour of the night, therefore, and His crucifixion, the period
occurs which is called by John the sixth hour of the parasceue, and by Mark the third hour
of the day; so that, according to this view, Mark has not introduced by way of
recapitulation into his record the hour at which the Jews cried out, "Crucify him, crucify
him," but has expressly mentioned the third hour as the hour at which the Lord was nailed
to the tree. What believer would not receive this solution of the problem with favour,
were it only possible to find some point [in the narrative of incidents] in connection
with the said ninth hour, at which we could suppose, in due consistency with other
circumstances, the parasceue of our passover-that is to say, the preparation of the death
of Christ-to have commenced. For, if we say that it began at the time when the Lord was
apprehended by the Jews, it was still but the first parts of the night. If we hold that it
was at the time when He was conducted to the house of Caiaphas' father-in-law, where He
was also heard by the chief priests, the cock had not crowed at all as yet, as we gather
from Peter's denial, which took place only when the cock was heard. Again, if we suppose
it was at the time when He was delivered up to Pilate, we have in the plainest terms the
statement of Scripture, to the effect that by this time it was morning.

Consequently, it only remains for us to understand that this parasceue of the passover-
that is to say, the preparation for the death of the Lord-commenced at the period when all
the chief priests, in whose presence He was first heard, answered and said, "He is guilty
of death," an utterance which we find reported both by Matthew and by Mark; so that they
are taken to have introduced, in the form of a recapitulation, at a later stage, facts
relating to the denial of Peter, which in point of historical order had taken place at an
earlier point. And it is nothing unreasonable to conjecture, that the time at which, as I
have said, they pronounced Him guilty of death, may very well have been the ninth hour of
the night, between which time and the hour at which Pilate sat down on the judgment-seat
there came in this sixth hour, as it is called-not, however, the sixth hour of the day,
but that of the parasceue-that is to say, the preparation for the sacrifice of the Lord,
which is the true passover. And, on this theory, the Lord was suspended on the tree when
the sixth hour of the same parasceue was completed, which occurred at the completion of
the third hour of the day.

We may make our choice, therefore, between this view and the other, which supposes Mark to
have introduced the third hour by way of reminiscence, and to have had it especially in
view, in mentioning the hour there, to suggest the fact of the condemnation brought upon
the Jews in the matter of the Lord's crucifixion, in so far as they are understood to have
been in a position to raise the clamour for His crucifixion to such an effect that we may
hold them to have been the persons who actually crucified Him, rather than the men by
whose hands He was suspended on the tree; just as the centurion, already referred to,
approached the Lord in a more genuine sense than could be said of those friends whom He
sent [on the matter-of-fact mission]. But whichever of these two views we adopt,
unquestionably a solution is found for this problem on the subject of the hour of the
Lord's passion, which is most remarkably apt at once to excite the impudence of the
contentious and I to agitate the inexperience of the weak.

CHAPTER XIV.-OF THE HARMONY PRESERVED AMONG ALL THE EVANGELISTS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE TWO ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED ALONG WITH HIM.

51. Matthew continues his narrative in the following terms: "Then were there two robbers
crucified with Him, one on the right hand, and another on the left." Mark and Luke give it
also in a similar form. Neither does John raise any question of difficulty, although he
has made no mention of those robbers. For he says, "And two other with Him, on either side
one,and Jesus in the midst." But there would have been a contradiction if John had spoken
of these others as innocent, while the former evangelists called them robbers.

CHAPTER XV.-OF THE CONSISTENCY OF THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PARTIES WHO INSULTED THE LORD.

52. Matthew goes on in the following strain: "And they that passed by reviled Him, wagging
their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
save thyself: if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross." Mark's statement
agrees with this almost to the letter. Then Matthew continues thus: "Likewise also the
chief priests, mocking Him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he
cannot save: if he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we
will believe him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now, if He will: for he said, I
am the Son of God." Mark and Luke, although they report the words differently,
nevertheless agree in conveying the same meaning, although the one passes without notice
something which the other mentions. For they are both really at one on the subject of the
chief priests, giving us to understand that they insulted the Lord when He was crucified.
The only difference is, that Mark does not specify the elders, while Luke, who has
instanced the rulers, has not added the designation "of the priests," and thus has rather
comprehended the whole body of the leading men under the general designation; so that we
may fairly take both the scribes and the elders to be included in his description.

Chapter XVI.-Of the Derision Ascribed to the Robbers, and of the Question Regarding the
Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Matthew and Mark on the One Hand, and Luke on the
Other, When the Last-Named Evangelist States that One of the Two Mocked Him, and that the
Other Believed on Him. 53. Matthew continues his narrative in these terms: "The robbers
also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth. Mark is quite in harmony
with Matthew here, giving the same statement in different words. On the other hand, Luke
may be thought to contradict this, unless we be careful not to forget a certain mode of
speech which is sufficiently familiar. For Luke's narrative runs thus: "And one of the
malefactors which were hanged railed on Him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and
us. And then the same writer proceeds to introduce into the same context the following
recital: "But the other answering, rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing
thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of
our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me
when Thou comest into Thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, To-
day thou shall be with me in paradise. The question then is, how we can reconcile either
Matthew's report, "The robbers also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His
teeth," or Mark's, namely, "And they that were crucified with Him reviled Him," with
Luke's testimony, which is to the effect that one of them reviled Christ, but that the
other arrested him and believed on the Lord.

The explanation will be, that Matthew and Mark, presenting a concise version of the
passage under review, have employed the plural number instead of the singular; as is the
case in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where we find the statement given in the plural form,
that "they stopped the mouths of lions," while Daniel alone is understood to be referred
to. Again, the plural number is adopted where it is said that they "were sawn asunder,"
while that manner of death is reported only of Isaiah. In the same way, when it is said in
the Psalm, "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers took counsel together,"
etc., the plural number is employed instead of the singular, according to the exposition
given of the passage in the Acts of the Apostles. For those who have made use of the
testimony of the said Psalm in that book take the kings to refer to Herod, and the princes
to Pilate. But further, inasmuch as the pagans are in the habit of bringing such
slanderous charges against the Gospel, I would ask them to consider how their own writers
have spoken of Phaedras and Medeas and Clytemnestras, when there really was but a single
individual reputed trader each of these names. And what is more common, for example, than
for a person to say, "The rustics also behave insolently to me," even although it should
only be one that acted rudely?

In short, no real discrepancy would be created by the restriction of Luke's report to one
of the two robbers, unless the other evangelists had declared expressly that "both" the
malefactors reviled the Lord; for in that case it would not be possible for us to suppose
only one individual intended under the plural number. Seeing, however, that the phrase
employed is "the robbers," or "those who were crucified with Him," and the term "both" is
not added, the expression is one which might have been used if both these men had been
engaged in the thing, but which might equally well be adopted if one of the two had been
implicated in it,-that fact being then conveyed by the use of the plural number, according
to a familiar method of speech.

CHAPTER XVII.-OF THE HARMONY OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS IN THEIR NOTICES OF THE DRAUGHT OF VINEGAR.

54. Matthew proceeds in the following terms: "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness
over all the land unto the ninth hour. The same fact is attested by two others of the
evangelists. Luke adds, however, a statement of the cause of the darkness, namely, that
"the sun was darkened. Again, Matthew continues thus: "And about the ninth hour Jesus
cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani! that is to say, My God, my
God, why hast Thou forsaken me? And some of them that stood there, when they heard that,
said, This man calleth for Elias. Mark's agreement with this is almost complete, so far as
regards the words, and not only almost, but altogether complete, so far as the sense is
concerned. Matthew next makes this statement: "And straightway one of them ran, and took a
sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink. Mark
presents it in a similar form: "And one ran, and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put
it on a reed, and gave Him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come
to take Him down. Matthew, however, has represented these words about Elias to have been
spoken, not by the person who offered the sponge with the vinegar, but by the rest. For
his version runs thus: "But the rest said, Let be;

let us see whether Elias will come to save Him;" -from which, therefore, we infer that
both the man specially referred to and the others who were there expressed themselves in
these terms. Luke, again, has introduced this notice of the vinegar previous to his report
of the robber's insolence. He gives it thus: "And the soldiers also mocked Him, coming to
Him, and offering Him vinegar, and saying, If thou be the King of the Jews, save thyself.
It has been Luke's purpose to embrace in one statement what was done and what was said by
the soldiers. And we ought to feel no difficulty in the circumstance that he has not said
explicitly that it was "one" of them who offered the vinegar. For, adopting a method of
expression which we have discussed above, he has simply put the plural number for the
singular. Moreover, John has also given us an account of the vinegar, where he says:
"After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture
might be fulfilled, said, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they
filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to His mouth. But
although the said John thus informs us that Jesus said "I thirst," and also mentions that
there was a vessel full of vinegar there, while the other evangelists leave these things
unspecified, there is nothing to marvel at in this.

Chapter XVIII.-Of the Lord's Successive Utterances When He Was About to Die; And of the
Question Whether Matthew and Mark are in Harmony with Luke in Their Reports of These
Sayings, and Also Whether These Three Evangelists are in Harmony with John. 55. Matthew
proceeds as follows: "And Jesus, crying again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. In
like manner, Mark says, "And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. Luke,
again, has told us what He said when that loud voice was uttered. For his version is thus:
"And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit:
and saying this, He gave up the ghost. John, on the other hand, as he has left unnoticed
the first voice, which Matthew and Mark have reported-namely, "Eli, Eli"-has also passed
over in silence the one which has been recited only by Luke, while the other two have
referred to it under the designation of the "loud voice. I allude to the cry, "Father,
into Thy hands I commend my spirit. Luke has also attested the fact that this exclamation
was uttered with a loud voice; and hence we may understand this particular cry to be
identified with the loud voice which Matthew and Mark have specified. But John has stated
a fact which is noticed by none of the other three, namely, that He said "It is finished,"
after He had received the vinegar. This cry we take to have been uttered previous to the
loud voice referred to. For these are John's words: "When Jesus, therefore, had received
the vinegar, He said, It is finished; and He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost.

In the interval elapsing between this cry, "It is finished," and what is referred to in
the subsequent sentence, "and He bowed His head and gave up the ghost," the voice was
uttered which John himself has passed over without record, but which the other three have
noticed. For the precise succession appears to be this, namely, that He said first "It is
finished," when what had been prophesied regarding Him was fulfilled in Him, and that
thereafter-as if He had been waiting for this, like one, indeed, who died when He willed
it to be so-He commended His spirit [to His Father], and resigned it. But, whatever the
order may be in which a person may consider it likely that these words were spoken, he
ought above all things to guard against entertaining the notion that any one of the
evangelists is in antagonism with another, when one leaves unmentioned something which
another has repeated, or particularizes something which another has passed by in silence.

CHAPTER XIX.-OF THE RENDING OF THE VEIL OF THE TEMPLE, AND OF THE QUESTION WHETHER MATTHEW AND MARK REALLY HARMONIZE WITH LUKE WITH RESPECT TO THE ORDER IN WHICH THAT INCIDENT TOOK PLACE.

56. Matthew proceeds thus: "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the
top to the bottom." Mark's version is also as follows: "And the veil of the temple was
rent in twain from the top to the bottom." Luke likewise gives a statement in similar
terms: "And the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." He does not introduce it,
however, in the same order. For, with the intention of attaching miracle to miracle, he
has told us first how "the sun was darkened," and then has deemed it right to subjoin the
said sentence in immediate succession, namely, "And the veil of the temple was rent in the
midst." Thus it would appear that he has introduced at an earlier point this incident,
which really took place when the Lord expired, so as to give us there a summary
description of the circumstances relating to the drinking of the vinegar, and the loud
voice, and the death itself, which are understood to have taken place previous to the
rending of the veil, and after the darkness had come in. For Matthew has inserted this
sentence, "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent," in immediate succession to the
statement, "And Jesus, crying again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost;" and has thus
given us clearly to understand that the time when the veil was rent was after Jesus had
given up His spirit. If, however, he had not added the words, "And behold," but had said
simply, "And the veil of the temple was rent," it would have been uncertain whether Mark
and he had narrated the incident in the form of a recapitulation, while Luke had kept the
exact order, or whether Luke had given the summary account of what these others had
introduced in the correct historical succession.

CHAPTER XX.-OF THE QUESTION AS TO THE CONSISTENCY OF THE SEVERAL NOTICES GIVEN BY MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ASTONISHMENT FELT BY THE CENTURION AND THOSE WHO WERE WITH HIM.

57. Matthew proceeds thus: "And the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves
were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves
after the resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. There is no
reason to fear that these facts, which have been related only by Matthew, may appear to be
inconsistent with the narratives presented by any one of the rest. The same evangelist
then continues as follows: "Now when the centurion, and they that were with him watching
Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying,
Truly this was the Son of God. Mark offers this version: "And when the centurion which
stood over against Him saw that He so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly
this was the Son of God. Luke's report runs thus: "Now when the centurion saw what was
done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man. Here Matthew says that
it was when they saw the earthquake that the centurion and those who were with him were
thus astonished, whereas Luke represents the man's amazement to have been drawn forth by
the fact that Jesus uttered such a cry, and then gave up the ghost; thus making it clear
how He had it in His own power to determine the time for His dying. But this involves no
discrepancy.

For as the said Matthew not only tells us how the centurion "saw the earthquake," but also
appends the words, "and those things that were done," he has indicated that there was room
enough for Luke to represent the Lord's death as itself the thing which called forth the
centurion's wonder. For that event is also one of the things which were done in so
marvellous a manner then. At the same time, even although Matthew had not added any such
statement, it would still have been perfectly legitimate to suppose, that as many
astonishing things did take place at that time, and as the centurion and those who were
with him may well have looked upon them all with amazement, the historians were at liberty
to select for narration any particular incident which they were severally disposed to
instance as the subject of the man's wonder. And it would not be fair to impeach them with
inconsistency, simply because one of them may have specified one occurrence as the
immediate cause of the centurion's amazement, while another introduces a different
incident. For all these events together had really been matters for the man's
astonishment. Again, the mere fact that one evangelist tells us that the centurion said,
"Truly this was the Son of God," while another informs us that the words were, "Truly this
man was the Son of God," will create no difficulty to any one who has retained some
recollection of the numerous statements and discussions bearing upon similar cases, which
have already been given above.

For these different versions of the words both convey precisely the same sense and
although one writer introduces the wore "man" while another does not, that implies no kind
of contradiction. A greater appearance of discrepancy may be supposed to be created by the
circumstance, that the words which Luke reports the centurion to have uttered are not
"This was the Son of God," but "This was a righteous man. But we ought to suppose either
that both things were actually said by the centurion, and that two of the evangelists have
recorded the one expression, and the third the other; or else perhaps that it was Luke's
intention to bring out the exact idea which the centurion had in view when he said that
Jesus was the Son of God. For it may be the case that the centurion did not really
understand Him to be the Only-begotten, equal with the Father; but that he called Him the
Son of God simply because he believed Him to be a righteous man, as many righteous men
have been named sons of God. Moreover, when Luke says, "Now when the centurion saw what
was done," he has really used terms which cover all the marvellous things which occurred
on that occasion, commemorating a single deed of wonder, so to speak, of which all those
miraculous incidents were, as we may say, members and parts.

But, once more, as regards the circumstance that Matthew has also referred to those who
were with the centurion, while the others have left these parties unnoticed, to whom will
this not explain itself on the well-understood principle that there is no contradiction
necessarily involved in the mere fact that one writer records what another passes by
without mention? And, finally, as to Matthew's having told us that "they feared greatly,"
while Luke has said nothing about the man being afraid, but has informed us that "he
glorified God," who can fail to understand that he glorified [God] just by the fear which
he exhibited? Chapter XXI.-Of the Women Who Were Standing There, and of the Question
Whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Who Have Stated that They Stood Afar Off, are in
Antagonism with John, Who Has Mentioned that One of Them Stood by the Cross. 58. Matthew
proceeds thus: "And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from
Galilee: among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the
mother of Zebedee's children. Mark gives it in this form: "There were also women looking
on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and of
Joseph, and Salome (who also, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered unto
Him); and many other women which came up with Him unto Jerusalem. I see nothing which can
be supposed to constitute a discrepancy between these writers here. For in what way can
the truth be affected by the fact that some of these women are named in both lists, while
others are referred to only in the one? Luke has likewise connected his narrations as
follows: "And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which
were done, smote their breasts, and returned. And all His acquaintance and the women that
followed Him from Galilee stood afar off beholding these things. Here we perceive that he
is quite in harmony with the former two as far as regards the presence of the women,
although he does not mention any of them by name.

On the subject of the multitude of people who were also present, and who, as they beheld
the things which were done, smote their breasts and returned, he is in like manner at one
with Matthew, although that evangelist has introduced into the context this distinct
statement: "Now the centurion and they that were with him. Thus it simply appears that
Luke is the only one who has spoken expressly of His "acquaintance" who stood afar off.
For John has also noticed the presence of the women before the Lord gave up the ghost. His
narrative runs thus: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's
sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His
mother, and the disciple standing by whom He loved, He saith unto His mother, Woman,
behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that
disciple took her unto his own home. Now, as regards this statement, had not Matthew and
Mark at the same time mentioned Mary Magdalene most explicitly by name, it might have been
possible for us to say that there was one company of women afar off, and another near the
cross. For none of these writers has mentioned the Lord's mother here but John himself.

The question, therefore, which rises now is this, How can we understand the same Mary
Magdalene both to have stood afar off along with other women, as the accounts of Matthew
and Mark bear, and to have been by the cross, as John tells us, unless it be the case that
these women were at such a distance as made it quite legitimate to say at once that they
were near, because they were at hand there in the sight of Him, and also afar off in
comparison with the crowd of people who were standing round about in closer vicinity along
with the centurion and the soldiers? It is open for us, then, to suppose that those women
who were present at the scene along with the Lord's mother, after He commended her to the
disciple, began then to retire with the view of extricating themselves from the dense mass
of people, and of looking on at what remained to be done from a greater distance. And in
this way the rest of the evangelists, who have introduced their notices of these women
only after the Lord's death, have properly reported them to be standing by that time afar
off.

CHAPTER XXII.-OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EVANGELISTS ARE ALL AT ONE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE NARRATIVE REGARDING JOSEPH, WHO BEGGED THE LORD'S BODY FROM PILATE, AND WHETHER JOHN'S VERSION CONTAINS ANY STATEMENTS AT VARIANCE WITH EACH OTHER.

1 59. Matthew proceeds as follows: "Now when the even was come, there came a rich man of
Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: he went to Pilate, and
begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. Mark presents it
in this form: "And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is,
the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, an honourable councillor, which also
waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body
of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled if He were already dead: and, calling unto him the
centurion, he asked him whether He had been any while dead. And when he knew it of the
centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. Luke's report runs in these terms: "And, behold,
there was a man named Joseph, a councillor; and he was a good man, and a just (the same
had not consented to the counsel and deed of them): he was of Arimathea, a city of the
Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. This man went unto Pilate, and
begged the body of Jesus. John, on the other hand, first narrates the breaking of the legs
of those who had been crucified with the Lord, and the piercing of the Lord's side with
the lance (which whole passage has been recorded by him alone), and then subjoins a
statement which is of the same tenor with what is given by the other evangelists.

2 It proceeds in these terms: "And after this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of
Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body
of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. There
is nothing here to give any one of them the appearance of being in antagonism with
another. But some one may perhaps ask whether John is not inconsistent with himself, when
he at once unites with the rest in telling us how Joseph begged the body of Jesus, and
comes forward as the only one who states here that Joseph had been a disciple of Jesus
secretly for fear of the Jews. For the question may reasonably be raised as to how it
happened that the man who had been a disciple secretly for fear had the courage to beg His
body-a thing which not one of those who were His open followers was bold enough to do. We
must understand, however, that this man did so in the confidence which his dignified
position gave him, the possession of which rendered it possible for him to make his way on
familiar terms into Pilate's presence. And we must suppose, further, that in the
performance of that last service relating to the interment, he cared less for the Jews,
however he tried in ordinary circumstances, when hearing the Lord, to avoid exposing
himself to their enmity.

CHAPTER XXIII.-OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FIRST THREE EVANGELISTS ARE QUITE IN HARMONY WITH JOHN IN THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN OF HIS BURIAL.

1 60. Matthew proceeds thus: "And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean
linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he
rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. Mark's version is as
follows: "And he bought fine linen, and took Him down, and wrapped Him in the linen, and
laid Him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of
the sepulchre. Luke reports it in those terms: "And he took it down, and wrapped it in
linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was
laid. So far as these three narratives are concerned, no allegation of a want of harmony
can possibly be raised. John, however, tells us that the burial of the Lord was attended
to not only by Joseph, but also by Nicodemus. For he begins with Nicodemus in due
connection with what precedes, and goes on with his narrative as follows: "And there came
also Nicodemus (which at the first came to Jesus by night), and brought a mixture of myrrh
and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then, introducing Joseph again at this point, he
continues in these terms: "Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes
with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where He was
crucified there was a garden;

2 and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they
Jesus, therefore, because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at
hand. But there is really as little ground for supposing any discrepancy here as there was
in the former case, if we take a correct view of the statement. For those evangelists who
have left Nicodemus unnoticed have not affirmed that the Lord was buried by Joseph alone,
although he is the only one introduced into their records. Neither does the fact, that
these three are all at one in informing us how the Lord was wrapped in the linen cloth by
Joseph, preclude us from entertaining the idea that other linen stuffs may have been
brought by Nicodemus, and added to what was given by Joseph, so that John may be perfectly
correct in his narrative, especially as what he tells us is that the Lord was wrapped not
in a linen cloth, but in linen clothes. At the same time, when we take into account the
handkerchief which was used for the head, and the bandages with which the whole body was
swathed, and consider that all these were made of linen, we can see how, even although
there was really but a single linen cloth [of the kind referred to by the first three
evangelists] there, it could still have been stated with the most perfect truth that "they
wound Him in linen clothes.

3 For the phrase, linen clothes, is one applied generally to all textures made of flax.


THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS
==========================

THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS continued

CHAPTER XXIV.-OF THE ABSENCE OF ALL DISCREPANCIES IN THE NARRATIVES CONSTRUCTED BY THE FOUR EVANGELISTS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE EVENTS WHICH TOOK PLACE ABOUT THE TIME OF THE LORD'S RESURRECTION.

61. Matthew proceeds thus: "And there was there Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary,
sitting over against the sepulchre." This is givenby Mark as follows: "And Mary
Magdalene,and Mary the mother of Joseph, beheld where He was laid." So far it is evident
that there is no kind of inconsistency between the accounts. 62. Matthew continues in
these terms: "Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief
priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate. saying, Sir, we have remembered that
deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command
therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by
night and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risenfrom the dead: so the last
error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch; go your way,
make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone,
and setting a watch." This narrative is given only by Matthew. Nothing, however, is stated
by any of the others which can have the appearance of contrariety.

63. Again, the same Matthew carries on his recital as follows: "Now, in the evening of the
Sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and
the other Mary, to see the sepulchre. And, behold, them was a great earthquake: for the
angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door,
and sat upon it. And his countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered
and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay: And
go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead; and, behold, He goeth
before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have told you. Mark is in harmony
with this. It is possible, however, that some difficulty may be felt in the circumstance
that, according to Matthew's version, the stone was already rolled away from the
sepulchre, and the angel was sitting upon it. For Mark tells us that the women entered
into the sepulchre, and there saw a young man sitting on the right side, covered with a
long white garment, and that they were affrighted.

But the explanation may be, that Matthew has simply said nothing about the angel whom they
saw when they entered into the sepulchre, and that Mark has said nothing about the one
whom they saw sitting outside upon the stone. In this way they would have seen two angels,
and have got two separate angelic reports relating to Jesus,-namely, first one from the
angel whom they saw sitting outside upon the stone, and then another from the angel whom
they saw sitting on the right side when they entered into the sepulchre. Thus, too, the
injunction given them by the angel who was sitting outside, and which was conveyed in the
words, "Come, and see the place where the Lord lay," would have served to encourage them
to go within the tomb; on coming to which, as has been said, and venturing within it, we
may suppose then, to have seen the angel concerning whom Matthew tells us nothing, but of
whom Mark discourses, sitting on the right side, from whom also they heard things of like
tenor to those they had previously listened to. Or if this explanation is not
satisfactory, we ought certainly to accept the theory that, as they entered into the
sepulchre, they came within asection of the ground where, it is reasonable to suppose, a
certain space had been by that time securely enclosed, extending a little distance in
front of the rock which had been cut out in order to construct the place of sepulture; so
that, according to this view, what they.

really beheld was the one angel sitting on the right side, in the space thus referred to,
which same angel Matthew also represents to have been sitting upon the stone which he had
rolled away from the mouth of the tomb when the earthquake took place, that is to say,
from the place which had been dug out in the rock for a sepulchre. 64. It may also be
asked how it is that Mark says: "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre;
for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they anything to any man; for they were
afraid;" whereas Matthew's statement is in these terms: "And they departed quickly from
the sepulchre with fear and great joy, and did run to bring His disciples word. The
explanation, however, may be that the women did not venture to tell either of the angels
themselves,-that is, they had not courage enough to say anything in reply to what they had
heard from the angels. Or, indeed, it may be that they were not bold enough to speak to
the guards whom they saw lying there; for the joy which Matthew mentions is not
inconsistent with the fear of which Mark takes notice. Indeed, we ought to have supposed
that both feelings had possession of their minds, even although Matthew himself had said
nothing about the fear. But now, when this evangelist also particularizes it, saying,
"They departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy," he allows nothing to
remain which can occasion any question of difficulty on this subject.

65. At the same time, a question, which is not to be dealt with lightly, does arise here
with respect to the exact hour at which the women came to the sepulchre. For when Matthew
says, "Now, on the evening of the Sabbath, when it was dawning toward the first day of the
week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre," what are we to make
of Mark's statement, which runs thus: "And very early in the morning, the first day of the
week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun"? It is to be observed that in
this Mark states nothing inconsistent with the reports given by other two of the
evangelists, namely, Luke and John. For when Luke says, "Very early in the morning," and
when John puts it thus, "Early, when it was yet dark," they convey the same sense which
Mark is understood to express when he says, "Very early, at the rising of the sun; that is
to say, they all refer to the period when the heavens were now beginning to brighten in
the east, which, of course, does not take place but when the sunrise is at hand. For it is
the brightness which is diffused by the rising sun that is familiarly designated by the
name of the dawn. Consequently, Mark does not contradict the other evangelist who uses the
phrase, "When it was yet dark;

for as the day breaks, what remains of the darkness [of the night] passes away just in
proportion as the sun continues to rise. And this phrase, "Very early in the morning,"
need not be taken to mean that the sun itself was actually seen by this time [blazing]
over the lands; but it is rather to be taken as like the kind of expression which we are
in the habit of employing when speaking to people to whom we wish to intimate that
something should be done more betimes than usual. For when we have used the term, "Early
in the morning," if we wish to keep the persons addressed from supposing that we refer
directly to the time when the sun is already conspicuously visible over earth, we usually
add the word "very," and say, "very early in the morning," in order that they may clearly
understand that we allude to the time which is also called the daybreak. At the same time,
it is also customary for men, after the cockcrow has been repeatedly heard, and when they
begin to surmise that the day is now approaching, to say, "It is now early in the morning;
and when after this they weigh their words and observe that, as the sun now rises,-that is
to say, as it now makes its immediate advent into these parts,-the sky is just beginning
to redden, or to brighten, those who said, "It is early in the morning," then amplify
their expression and say, "It is very early in the morning.

But what does it matter, provided only that, whichever method of explanation be preferred,
we understand that what is meant by Mark, when he uses the terms "early in the morning,"
is just the same as is intended by Luke when he adopts the phrase, "in the morning; and
that the whole expression employed by the former-namely, "very early in the morning"
-amounts to the same as that which we find in Luke-namely, "very early in the dawn," -and
as that which is chosen by John when he says, "early, when it was yet dark"? Moreover,
when Mark speaks of the "rising of the sun," he just means that by its rising the sun was
now beginning to bring the light in upon the sky. But the question now is this: how can
Matthew be in harmony with these three when he says neither "in the early morning" nor
"early in the morning," but "in the evening of the Sabbath, when it was beginning to dawn
toward the first day of the week"? This is a matter which must be carefully investigated.
Now, under that first part of the night, which is [here called] the evening, Matthew
intended to refer to this particular night, at the close of which the women came to the
sepulchre. And we understand his reason for so referring to the said night to have been
this: that by the time of the evening it was lawful for them to bring the spices, because
the Sabbath was then indeed over.

Consequently, as they were hindered by the Sabbath from doing so previously, he has given
a designation of the night, taken from the time at which it began to be a lawful thing for
them to do what they did at any period of the same night which pleased them. Thus,
therefore, the phrase "in the evening of the Sabbath" is used, as if what was said had
been "in the night of the Sabbath," or in other words, in the night which follows the day
of the Sabbath. The express words which he employs thus indicate this with sufficient
clearness. For his terms are these: "Now, in the evening of the Sabbath, when it began to
dawn toward the first day of the week; and that could not be the case if what we had to
understand to be denoted by the mention of the "evening" was simply the first short space
of the night, or in other words, only the beginning of the night. For what can be said "to
begin to dawn toward the first day of the week" is not explicitly the beginning [of the
night], but the night itself, as it commences to be brought to its close by the advance of
the light. For the terminus of the first part of the night is just the beginning of the
second part, but the terminus of the whole night is the light.

Hence we could not speak of the evening as dawning toward the first day of the week unless
under the term "evening" we should understand the night itself to be meant, which, as a
whole, is brought to its close by the light. It is also a familiar method of speech in
divine Scripture to express the whole under the part; and thus, under the word "evening"
here, the evangelist has denoted the whole night, which finds its extreme point in the
dawn. For it was in the dawn that those women came to the sepulchre; and in this way they
really came on the night, which is here indicated by the term "evening. For, as I have
said, the night as a whole is denoted by that word; consequently, at whatever period of
that night they might have come, they certainly did come in the said night. And,
accordingly, if they came at the latest point in that night, it is still unquestionably
the case that they did come in the said night. But it could not be said to be on "the
evening, when it began to dawn toward the first day of the week," unless the night as a
whole can be understood under that expression. Accordingly, the women who came in the
night referred to, came in the evening specified. And if they came at any period, even the
latest during that night, they surely came in the night itself.

66. For the space of three days, which elapsed between the Lord's death and resurrection,
cannot be correctly understood except in the light of that form of expression according to
which the part is dealt with as the whole. For He said Himself, "For as Jonas was three
days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth. Now, in whichever way we reckon the times, whether
from the point when He yielded up the ghost, or from the date of his burial, the sum does
not come out clearly, unless we take the intermediate day, that is to say, the Sabbath, as
a complete day-in other words, a full day along with its night,-and, on the other hand,
understand those days between which that one intervenes-that is to say, the day of the
preparation and the first day of the week, which we designate the Lord's day-to be dealt
with on the principle of the part standing for the whole.

For of what avail is it that some, hard pressed by these difficulties, and not knowing the
very large part which the mode of expression referred to-namely, that which takes the part
as the whole-plays in the matter of solving the problems presented in the Holy Scriptures,
have struck out the idea of reckoning as a distinct night those three hours, namely, from
the sixth hour to the ninth, during which the sun was darkened, and as a distinct day the
other three hours, during which the sun was restored again to the lands, that is to say,
from the ninth hour on to its setting? For the night connected with the coming Sabbath
follows, and if we compute it along with its day, there will then be two days and two
nights. But, further, after the Sabbath there comes in the night connected with the first
day of the week, that is to say, with the dawning of the Lord's day, which was the time
when the Lord arose. Consequently, the result to which this mode of calculation leads us
will be just two days and two nights, and one night, even supposing it possible to take
the last as a complete night, and taking it for granted that we were not to show that the
said dawn was in reality the ultimate portion of the same.

Thus it would appear that, even although we were to compute these six hours in that
fashion, during three of which the sun was darkened, and during the other three of which
it shone forth again, we would not establish a satisfactory reckoning of three days and
three nights. In accordance, therefore, with the usage which meets us so frequently in the
language of the Scriptures, and which deals with the part as the whole, it remains for us
to hold the time of the preparation to constitute the day at the one extremity, on which
the Lord was crucified and buried, and, from that limit, to find one whole day along with
its night which was fully spent. In this way, too, we must take the intermediate member,
that is to say the day of the Sabbath, not as calculated simply from the part, but as a
really complete day. The third day, again, must be computed from its first part; that is
to say, calculating from the night, we must look upon it as making up a whole day when its
day-portion is connected with it. Thus we shall get a space of three days, on the analogy
of a case already considered, namely, those eight days after which the Lord went up into a
mountain; with respect to which period we find that Matthew and Mark, fixing their
attention simply on the complete days intervening, have put it thus, "After six days,"
whereas Luke's representation of the same is this, "An eight days after."

67. Let us now proceed, therefore, to look into the rest of this passage, and see how in
other respects these statements are quite consistent with what is given by Matthew. For
Luke tells us, with the utmost plainness, that two angels were seen by those women who
came to the sepulchre. One of these angels we have understood to be referred to by each of
the first two evangelists; that is to say, one of them is noticed by Matthew, namely, the
one who was sitting outside upon the stone, and a second by Mark, namely, the one who was
sitting within the sepulchre on the right side. But Luke's version of the scene is to the
following effect: "And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. And the
women which had come with Him from Galilee beheld the sepulchre, and how His body was
laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath-day,
according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the
morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared. And
they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not
the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout,
behold, two men stood by them in shining garments; and as they were afraid, and bowed down
their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee,
saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified,
and the third day rise again. And they remembered His words. And they returned from the
sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. The question,
therefore, is this, how can these angels have been seen sitting each one
separately,-namely, one outside upon the stone, according to Matthew, and another within
upon the right side, according to Mark,-if Luke's report of the same bears that the two
stood beside those women, although the words ascribed to them are similar? Well, it is
still possible for us to suppose that one angel was seen by the women in the position
assigned by Matthew, and in the circumstances indicated by Mark, as we have already
explained. In this way, we may understand the said women to have entered into the
sepulchre, that is to say, into a certain space which had been fenced off within a kind of
enclosure, in such a manner that an entrance might be said to be made when they came in
front of the rocky place in which the sepulchre was constructed; and there we may take
them to have beheld the angel sitting upon the stone which had been rolled away from the
tomb, as Matthew tells us, or in other words, the angel sitting on the right side, as Mark
expresses it.

And then we may further surmise that the said women, after they had gone within, and when
they were looking at the place where the body of the Lord lay, saw other two angels
standing, as Luke informs us, by whom they were addressed in similar terms, with a view to
animate their minds and edify their faith. 68. But let us also examine John's version, and
see whether or in what manner its consistency with these others is apparent. John, then,
narrates these incidents as follows: "Now the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene
early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and saw the stone taken away from the
sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciples whom
Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and
we know not where they have laid Him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple,
and they came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did
outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he, stooping down, saw the linen
clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into
the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about His head,
not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in
also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For
as yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. Then the
disciples went away again unto their own home. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre
weeping:

and, as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in
white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had
lain. They say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have
taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him. And when she had thus said,
she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus
saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the
gardener, saith unto Him, Sir, if thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid
Him, and I will take Him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith
unto Him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am
not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my
Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told, the
disciples that she had seen the Lord, and, that He had spoken these things unto her. In
the narrative thus given by John, the statement of the day or time when the sepulchre
wascome to agrees with the accounts presented by the rest. Again, in the report of two
angels who were seen, he is also at one with Luke.

But when we observe how the one evangelist tells us that these angels were seen standing,
while the other says that they were sitting; when we notice, also, that there are certain
other things which are left unrecorded by these two writers; and, further, when we
consider how questions are thus raised regarding the possibility of proving the
consistency of the one set of historians with the other on these subjects, and of fixing
the order in which those said things took place,we see that, unless we submit the whole to
a careful examination, there may easily appear to be contradictions here between the
several narratives. 69. This being the case, therefore, let us, so far as the Lord may
help us, take all these incidents, which took place about the time of the Lord's
resurrection, as they are brought before us in the statements of all the evangelists
together, and let us arrange them in one connected narrative, which will exhibit them,
precisely as they may have actually occurred. It was in the early morning of the first day
of the week, as all the evangelists are at one in attesting, that the women came to the
sepulchre. By that time, all that is recorded by Matthew alone had already taken place;
that is to say, in regard to the quaking of the earth, and the rolling away of the stone,
and the terror of the guards, with which they were so stricken, that in some part they lay
like dead men. Then, as John informs us, came Mary Magdalene, who unquestionably was
surpassingly more ardent in her love than these other women who had ministered to the
Lord; so that it was not unreasonable in John to make mention of her alone, leaving those
others unnamed, who, however, were along with her, as we gather from the reports given by
others of the evangelists. She came accordingly;

and when she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre, without pausing to make any more
minute investigation, and never doubting but that the body of Jesus had been removed from
the tomb, she ran, as the same John states, and told the state of matters to Peter and to
John himself. For John is himself that disciple whom Jesus loved. They then set out
running to the sepulchre; and John, reaching the spot first, stooped down and saw the
linen clothes lying, but he did not go within. But Peter followed up, and went into the
sepulchre, and saw the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, which had been about His head,
not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then John
entered also, and saw in like manner, and believed what Mary had told him, namely, that
the Lord had been taken away from the sepulchre. "For as yet they knew not the Scripture,
that He must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own
home. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping," -that is to say, before the place
in the rock in which the sepulchre was constructed, but at the same time within that space
into which they had now entered; for there was a garden there, as the same John mentions.
Then they saw the angel sitting on the right side, upon the stone which was rolled away
from the sepulchre; of which angel both Matthew and Mark discourse.

"Then he said unto them, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay: and
go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead; and, behold, He goeth
before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have told you. In Mark we also find
a passage similar in tenor to the above. At these words, Mary, still weeping, bent down
and looked forwards into the sepulchre, and beheld the two angels, who are introduced to
us in John's narrative, sitting in white raiment, one at the head, and the other at the
feet, where the body of Jesus had been deposited. "They say unto her, Woman, why weepest
thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they
have laid Him. Here we are to suppose the angels to have risen up, so that they could be
seen standing, as Luke states that they were seen, and then, according to the narrative of
the same Luke, to have addressed the women, as they were afraid and bowed down their faces
to the earth. The terms were these: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not
here, but is risen:

remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be
delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise. And they
remembered His words. It was after this that, as we learn from John, "Mary turned herself
back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman,
why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto
Him, Sir, if thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take
Him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni;
which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to
my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your
Father; and to my God, and your God. Then she departed from the sepulchre, that is to say,
from the ground where there was space for the garden in front of the stone which had been
dug out. Along with her there were also those other women, who, as Mark tells us, were
surprised with fear and trembling. And they told nothing to any one. At this point we next
take up what Matthew has recorded in the following passage: "Behold, Jesus met them,
saying, All hail! And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him.

For thus we gather that, on coming to the sepulchre, they were twice addressed by the
angels; and, again, that they were also twice addressed by the Lord Himself, namely, at
the point at which Mary took Him to be the gardener, and a second time at present, when He
meets them on the way, with a view to strengthen them by such a repetition, and to bring
them out of their state of fear. "Then, accordingly, said He unto them, Be not afraid: go,
tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me. "Then came Mary
Magdalene, and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these
things unto her;" -not herself alone, however, but with her also those other women to whom
Luke alludes when he says, "Which told these things unto the eleven disciples, and all the
rest. And their words seemed to them like madness, and they believed them not. Mark also
attests these facts; for, after telling us how the women went out from the sepulchre,
trembling and amazed, and said nothing to any man, he subjoins the statement, that the
Lord rose early the first day of the week, and appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of
whom He had cast seven devils, and that she went and told them who had been with Him, as
they mourned and wept, and that they, when they heard that He was alive, and had been seen
of her, believed not.

It is further to be observed, that Matthew has also introduced a notice to the effect
that, as the women who had seen and heard all these things were going away, there came
likewise into the city some of the guards who had been lying like dead men, and that these
persons reported to the chief priests all the things that were done, that is to say, those
of them which they were themselves also in a position to observe. He tells us, moreover,
that when they were assembled with the elders and had taken counsel, they gave large money
unto the soldiers, and bade them say that His disciples came and stole Him away while they
slept, promising at the same time to secure them against the governor, who had given those
guards. Finally, he adds that they took the money, and did as they had been taught, and
that this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

Chapter XXV.-Of Christ's Subsequent Manifestations of Himself to the Disciples, and of the
Question Whether a Thorough Harmony Can Be Established Between the Different Narratives
When the Notices Given by the Four Several Evangelists, as Well as Those Presented by the
Apostle Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles, are Compared Together. 70. We must take up
the consideration of the manner in which the Lord showed Himself to the disciples after
His resurrection, and that with the view not only of bringing out clearly the consistency
of the four evangelists with each other on these subjects, but also of exhibiting their
agreement with the Apostle Paul, who discourses of the theme in his First Epistle to the
Corinthians. The statement by the latter runs in the following terms: "For I delivered
unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day
according to the Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after
that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain
unto this day, but some are fallen asleep. After that, He was seen of James; then of all
the apostles. And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. Now
this succession of the appearances is one which has been given by none of the evangelists.
Hence we must examine whether the order which they have put on record does not stand in
antagonism to this. For neither has Paul related all, nor have the evangelists included
everything in their reports.

And the real subject for our investigation, therefore, is the question, whether, among the
incidents which do come under our notice in these various narratives, there is anything
fitted to establish a discrepancy between the writers. Now Luke is the only one among the
four evangelists who omits to tell us how the Lord was seen by the women, and confines his
statement to the appearance of the angels. Matthew, again, informs us that He met them as
they were returning from the sepulchre. Mark likewise mentions that He appeared first to
Mary Magdalene; as also does John. Only Mark does not state how He manifested Himself to
her, while John does give us an explanation of that. Moreover, Luke not only passes by in
silence the fact that He showed Himself to the women, as I have already remarked, but also
reports that two disciples, one of whom was Cleophas, talked with Him, before they
recognised Him, in a strain which seems to imply that the women had related no other
appearance seen by them than that of the angels who told them that He was alive. For
Luke's narrative proceeds thus: "And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village
called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked
together of all these things which hadhappened. And it came to pass that, while they
communed together and reasoned, Jesus Himself drew near, and went with them. But their
eyes were holden, that they should not know Him.

And He said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to
another, as ye walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleophas, answering,
said unto Him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which
are come to pass there in these days? And He said unto them, What things? And they said
unto Him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before
God and all the people; and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be
condemned to death, and have crucified Him. But we trusted that it had been He that should
have redeemed Israel: and besides all this, to-day is the third day since these things
were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early
at the sepulchre; and when they found not His body, they came, saying, that they had also
seen a vision of angels, which said that He was alive. And certain of them which were with
us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women said; but Him they saw not.
All these things they relate, according to Luke's narrative, just as they were able to
command their recollections and bethink themselves of what had been reported to them by
the women, or by the disciples who had run to the sepulchre when the intelligence was
conveyed to them that His body had been removed from the place.

It is at the same time true that Luke himself reports only Peter to have run to the tomb,
and there to have stooped down and seen the linen clothes laid by themselves, and then to
have departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. This notice about
Peter, moreover, is introduced previous to the narrative of these two disciples whom He
found on the way, and subsequently to the story of the women who had seen the angels, and
who had heard from them that Jesus had risen again; so that this position might seem to
mark the period at which Peter ran to the sepulchre. But still we must suppose that Luke
has inserted the passage about Peter here in the form of a recapitulation. For the time
when Peter ran to the sepulchre was also the time when John ran to it; and at that point
all that they had heard was simply the statement conveyed to them by the women, and in
particular by Mary Magdalene, to the effect that the body had been carried away.
Furthermore, the period at which the said woman brought such tidings was just the occasion
when she saw the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

And it was at a later point that these other things occurred, connected with the vision of
the angels, and the appearance of the Lord Himself, who showed Himself twice over to the
women, namely, once at the sepulchre, and a second time when He met them as they were
returning from the tomb. This, however, took place previous to His being seen by those two
upon the journey, one of whom was Cleophas. For, when this Cleophas was talking with the
Lord, before he recognized who He was, he did not say expressly that Peter had gone to the
sepulchre. But his words were these: "Certain of them which were with us went to the
sepulchre, and found it even so as the women said; which last statement is also to be
understood as introduced in the form of a recapitulation. For the reference is to the
report brought first of all by the women to Peter and John about the removal of the body.
And thus, when Luke here informs us that Peter ran to the sepulchre, and also states how
Cleophas mentioned that some of those who were with them went to the tomb, he is to be
taken as attesting John's account, which bears that two persons proceeded to the
sepulchre. But Luke has specified Peter alone in the first instance, just because it was
to him that Mary had brought the earliest tidings.

A difficulty, however, may also be felt in the circumstance that the same Luke does not
say that Peter entered, but only that he stooped down and saw the linen clothes hid by
themselves, and that thereupon he departed, wondering in himself; whereas John intimates
that it was rather himself (for he is the disciple whom Jesus loved) that looked at the
scene in this fashion, not going within the sepulchre, which he was the first to reach,
but simply bending down and beholding the linen clothes laid in their place; although he
also adds that he did enter the tomb afterwards. The explanation, therefore, is simply
this, that Peter at first did stoop down and look in after the fashion which Luke
specifies, but to which John makes no allusion; and that he went actually in somewhat
later, but still before John entered. And in this way we shall find that all these writers
have given a true account of what occurred in terms which betray no discrepancies.

71. Taking, then, not only the reports presented by the four evangelists, but also the
statement given by the Apostle Paul, we shall endeavour to bring the whole into a single
connected narrative, and exhibit the order in which all these incidents may have taken
place, comprehending all the Lord's appearances to the male disciples, and leaving out His
earlier declarations to the women. Now, in the entire number of the men, Peter is
understood to be the one to whom Christ showed Himself first. At least, this holds good so
far as regards all the individuals who are actually mentioned by the four evangelists, and
by the Apostle Paul. But, at the same time, who would be bold enough either to affirm or
to deny that He may have appeared to some one among them before He showed Himself to
Peter, although all these writers pass the matter over in silence? For the statement which
Paul also gives is not in the form, "He was seen first of Cephas. But it runs thus: "He
was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that He was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once. And thus it is not made clear who these twelve were, just as we are not
informed who these five hundred were. It is quite possible, indeed, that the twelve here
instanced were some unknown twelve belonging to the multitude of the disciples. For now
the apostle might speak of those whom the Lord designated apostles, not as the twelve, but
as the eleven.

Some codices, indeed, contain this very reading. I take that, however, to be an emendation
introduced by men who were perplexed by the text, supposing it to refer to those twelve
apostles who, by the time when Judas disappeared, were really only eleven. It may be the
case, then, that those are the more correct codices which contain the reading "eleven; or
it may be that Paul intended some other twelve disciples to be understood by that phrase;
or, once more, the fact may be that he meant that consecrated number to remain as before,
although the circle had been reduced to eleven: for this number twelve, as it was used of
the apostles, had so mystical an importance, that, in order to keep the spiritual symbol
of the same number, there could be but a single individual, namely, Matthias, elected to
fill the place of Judas But whichever of these several views may be adopted, nothing
necessarily results which can appear to be inconsistent with truth, or at variance with
any one most trustworthy historian among them. Still, it remains the probable supposition,
that, after He was seen of Peter, He appeared next to those two, of whom Cleophas was one,
and regarding whom Luke presents us with a complete narrative, while Mark gives us only a
very brief notice. The latter evangelist reports the same incident in these concise terms:
"And after that He appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked and went to a
country-seat.

For it is not unreasonable for us to suppose that the place of residence referred to may
also have been styled a country-seat; just as Bethlehem itself, which formerly was called
a city, is even at the present time also named a village, although its honour has now been
made so much the greater since the name of this Lord, who was born in it, has been
proclaimed so extensively throughout the Churches of all nations. In the Greek codices,
indeed, the reading which we discover is rather "estate" than "country-seat. But that term
was employed not only of residences, but also of free towns and colonies beyond the city,
which is the head and mother of the rest, and is therefore called the metropolis. 72.
Again, if Mark tells us that the Lord appeared to these persons in another form, Luke
refers to the same when he says that their eyes, were holden, that they should not know
Him. For something had come upon their eyes which was suffered to remain until the
breaking of the bread, in reference to a well-known mystery, so that only then was the
different form in Him made visible to them, and they did not recognise Him, as is shown by
Luke's narrative, until the breaking of the bread took place. And thus, in apt accordance
with the state of their minds, which were still ignorant of the truth, that it behoved
Christ to die and rise again, their eyes sustained something of a similar order; not,
indeed, that the truth itself proved misleading, but that they were themselves incompetent
to perceive the truth, and thought of the matter as something else than it was. The deeper
significance of all which is this, that no one should consider himself to have attained
the knowledge of Christ, if he is not a member in His body-that is to say, in His Church-
the unity of which is commended to our notice under the sacramental symbol of the bread by
an apostle, when he says: "We being many are one bread and one body.

So was it that, when He handed to them the bread which He had blessed, their eyes were
opened, and they recognised Him, that is to say, their eyes were opened for such knowledge
of Him, in so far as the impediment was now removed which had prevented them from
recognising Him. For certainly they were not walking with closed eyes. But there was
something in them which debarred them from seeing correctly what was in their view,-a
state of matters, indeed, which is the familiar result of darkness, or of a certain kind
of humour. It is not meant by this, however, that the Lord could not alter the form of His
flesh, so that His figure might be literally and actually different, and not the one which
they were in the habit of beholding. For, indeed, even before His passion, He was
transfigured on the mount so that His countenance "did shine as the sun. And He who made
genuine wine out of genuine water can also transform any body whatsoever in all
unquestionable reality into any other kind of body which may please Him. But what is meant
is, that He had not acted so when He appeared in another form unto those two individuals.
For He did not appear to be what He was ,o to these men, because their eyes were holden,
so that they should not know Him. Moreover, not unsuitably may we suppose that this
impediment in their eyes came from Satan, with the view of precluding their recognition of
Jesus.

But, nevertheless, permission that it should be so was given by Christ on to the point at
which the mystery of the bread was taken up. And thus the lesson might be, that it is when
we become participants in the unity of His body, that we are to understand the impediment
of the adversary to be removed, and liberty to be given us to know Christ. 73. Besides, it
is necessary to believe that these were the same persons to whom Mark also refers. For he
informs us, that they went and told these things to the rest: just as Luke states, that
the persons in question rose up the same hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the
eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, "The Lord is risen indeed,
and hath appeared to Simon. And then he adds that these two also told what things were
done on the way, and how He was known of them in breaking of bread. By this time,
therefore, a report of the resurrection of Jesus had been conveyed by those women, and
also by Simon Peter, to whom He had already shown Himself. For these two disciples found
those to whom they came in Jerusalem talking of that very subject. Consequently, it may be
the case that fear made them decline mentioning formerly, when they were on the way, that
they had heard that He had risen again, so that they confined themselves to stating how
the angels had been seen by the women. For, not knowing with whom they were conversing,
they might reasonably be anxious not to let any word drop from them on the subject of
Christ's resurrection, lest they should fall into the hands of the Jews. But again, we
must remark that Mark states that "they went and told it unto the residue: neither
believed they them:

whereas Luke tells us that these others were already saying that the Lord was risen
indeed, and had appeared unto Simon. Is not the explanation, however, simply this, that
there were some of them there who refused to credit what was related? Moreover, to whom
can it fail to be clear that Mark has just omitted certain matters which are fully set
forth in Luke's narrative,-that is to say, the subjects of the conversation which Jesus
had with them before He recognised them, and the manner in which they came to know Him in
the breaking of the bread? For, after recording how He appeared to them in another form,
as they went towards a country-seat, Mark has immediately appended the sentence, "And they
went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them; as if men could tell of a
person whom they had not recognised, or as if those to whom He had appeared only in
another form could know Him! Without doubt, therefore, Mark has simply given us no
explanation of the way in which they came to know Him, so as to be able to report the same
to others.

And this, then, is a thing which deserves to be imprinted on our memory, in order that we
may accustom ourselves to keep in view the habit which these evangelists have of passing
over those matters which they do not put on record, and of connecting the facts which they
do relate in such a manner that, among those who fail to give due consideration to the
usage referred to, nothing proves itself a more fruitful source of misapprehension than
this, leading them to imagine the existence of discrepancies in the sacred writers. 74.
Luke next proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "And as they thus spake,
Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you: it is I;
be not afraid. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a
spirit. And He said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your
hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when He had thus spoken, He showed them
His hands and His feet. It is to this act, by which the Lord showed Himself after His
resurrection, that John is also understood to refer when he discourses as follows: "Then,
when it was late on the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the
disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and
saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when He had so said, He showed unto them His hands
and His side. Thus, too, we may connect with these words of John certain matters which
Luke reports, but which John Himself omits. For Luke continues in these terms: "And while
they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And
they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

And when He had eaten before them, He took what remained, and gave it unto them. Again, a
passage which Luke omits, but which John presents, may next be connected with these words.
It is to the following effect: "Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord. Then
said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I
you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the
Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins
ye retain, they are retained. Once more, we may attach to the above section another which
John has left out, but which Luke inserts. It runs thus: "And He said unto them, These are
the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be
fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms,
concerning me. Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the
Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer,
and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should
be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of
these things. And I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city,
until ye be endued with power from on high.

Observe, then, how Luke has here referred to that promise of the Holy Spirit which we do
not elsewhere find made by the Lord, save in John's Gospel. And this deserves something
more than a passing notice, in order that we may bear in mind how the evangelists attest
each other's truth, even on subjects which some of them may not themselves record, but
which they nevertheless know to have been reported. After these matters, Luke passes over
in silence all else that happened, and introduces nothing into his narrative beyond the
occasion when Jesus ascended into heaven. And at the same time he appends this [statement
of the ascension], just as if it followed immediately upon these words which the Lord
spake, at the same time with those other transactions on the first day of the week, that
is to say, on the day on which the Lord rose again; whereas, in the Acts of the Apostles,
the self-same Luke tells us that the event really took place on the fortieth day after His
resurrection. Finally, as regards the fact that John states that the Apostle Thomas was
not present with these others on the occasion under review, whereas, according to Luke,
the two disciples, of whom Cleophas was one, returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven
assembled and those who were with them, it admits of little doubt that we must suppose
Thomas simply to have left the company before the Lord showed Himself to the brethren when
they were talking in the terms noticed above.

75. This being the case, John now records a second manifestation of Himself, which was
vouchsafed by the Lord to the disciples eight days after, on which occasion Thomas also
was present, who had not seen Him up to that time. The narrative proceeds thus: "And after
eight days again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, the
doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith He to
Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and
thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto
Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto Him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou
hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. This second
appearance of the Lord among the disciples-that is to say, the appearance which John
records in the second instance-we might also recognise as alluded to by Mark in a section
concisely disposing of it, according to that evangelist's habit. A difficulty, however, is
created by the circumstance that his terms are these: "Lastly, He appeared unto those
eleven as they sat at meat. The difficulty does not lie in the mere fact that John says
nothing about their sitting at meat, for he might well have omitted that;

but it does rest in the use of the word "lastly," for that makes it seem as if He did not
show Himself to them after that occasion, whereas John still proceeds to record a third
appearance of the Lord by the sea of Tiberias. And then we have to keep in view the fact
that the same Mark tells us how Jesus "upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of
heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen. In these
words he refers to the two disciples to whom He appeared after He was risen, as they went
toward a country-seat, and to Peter, to whom the examination of Luke's narrative has shown
us that He manifested Himself first of all [among the apostles],-perhaps also to Mary
Magdalene, and those other women who were along with her on the occasion when He was seen
by them at the sepulchre, and again when He met them as they were returning on the way.
For the said Mark has constructed his record in a manner which leads him first to insert
his brief notice of the two disciples to whom He appeared as they went toward the country-
seat, and of their giving a report to the residue and obtaining no credit, and then to
subjoin in the immediate connection this statement: "Lastly, He appeared unto the eleven
as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because
they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen.

How, then, is this phrase "lastly" used, as if they did not see Him subsequently to this
occasion? For the last time that the apostles saw the Lord upon the earth was really the
time when He ascended into heaven, and that event took place on the fortieth day after His
resurrection. Now, is it likely that He would upbraid them at that period on the ground
that they had not believed those who had seen Him after He was risen, when by that time
they had seen Him themselves so often after His resurrection, and especially when they had
seen Him on the very day of His resurrection,-that is to say, on the first day of the
week, when it was now about night, as Luke and John record? It remains for us, therefore,
to suppose that, in the passage under review, it was Mark's intention to give a statement,
in his own concise fashion, simply on the subject of the said day of the Lord's
resurrection; that is to say, that first day of the week on which Mary and the other women
who were along with her saw Him after daybreak, on which also Peter beheld Him, on which
likewise He appeared to the two disciples, of whom Cleophas was one, and to whom Mark
himself also seems to refer; on which, further, when it was now about night, He showed
Himself to the eleven (Thomas, however, being excepted) and those who were with them;

and on which, finally, the persons already instanced reported to the disciples the things
which they had seen. Hence it is that he has employed the term "lastly," because the
incident mentioned was the last that took place on this same day. For the night was now
coming on by the time that the two disciples had returned from the place where they had
recognised Him in the breaking of bread, and had made their way into Jerusalem and found
the eleven, as Luke tells us, and those who were with them, speaking to each other about
the Lord's resurrection and about His having appeared to Peter; to whom these two also
related what had occurred on the way, and how they came to know Him in the breaking of
bread. But, assuredly, there were also there some who did not believe. Hence we see the
truth of Mark's words, "Neither believed they them. When these, therefore, were now
sitting at meat, as Mark informs us, and when they were talking of these subjects, as Luke
tells us, the Lord stood in their midst, and said unto them, "Peace be unto you," as Luke
and John both record. Moreover, the doors were shut when He entered among them, as John
alone mentions.

And thus, among the words which, as Luke and John have reported, the Lord spoke to the
disciples on that occasion, this expostulation also comes in, which is instanced by Mark,
and in which He upbraided them for not believing those who had seen Him after He was
risen. 76. But, again, a difficulty may also be felt in understanding how Mark says that
the Lord appeared to the eleven as they sat at meat, if the time referred to is really the
beginning of the night of that Lord's day, as is indicated by Luke and John. For John,
indeed, tells us plainly that the Apostle Thomas was not with them on that occasion; and
we believe that he left them before the Lord entered among them, but after the two
disciples who returned from the village had been conversing with the eleven, as we
discover from Luke. Luke, it is true, presents a point in his narrative, at which we may
fairly suppose, first, that Thomas went out while they were talking of these subjects, and
then that the Lord came in Mark, however, who says, "Lastly, He appeared unto the eleven
as they sat at meat," compels us to admit that Thomas also was there. But it may be the
case, perhaps, that he chose to style them the eleven, although one of the company was
absent, because the same apostolic society was designated by this number at the time
previous to the election of Matthias in the place of Judas.

Or, if there is a difficulty in accepting this explanation, we may still suppose that,
after the many manifestations in which He vouchsafed His presence to the disciples during
the forty days, He also showed Himself on one final occasion to the eleven as they sat at
meat,-that is to say, on the fortieth day itself; and that, as He was now on the point of
leaving them and ascending into heaven, He was mindedon that memorable day specially to
upbraid them with their refusal to believe those who had seen Him after He had risen until
they should first have seen Him themselves; and this particularly because it was the case
that, when the) preached the gospel subsequently to His ascension, the very Gentiles would
be ready to believe what they did not see. For, after mentioning this upbraiding, Mark at
once proceeds to subjoin this passage: "And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world,
and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
but he that believeth not shall be damned. If, therefore, they were charged to preach that
he who believes not shall be condemned, when that indeed which he believes not is just
what he has not seen, was it not meet that they should themselves first of all be thus
reproved for their own refusal to believe those to whom the Lord had shown Himself at an
earlier stage until they should have seen Him with their own eyes?

77. In what follows we have a further recommendation to take this to have been the last
manifestation of Himself in bodily fashion which the Lord gave to the apostles. For the
same Mark continues in these terms: "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my
name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up
serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands
on the sick, and they shall recover. Then he appends this statement: "So then, after the
Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of
God. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and
confirming the word by signs following. Now, when he says, "So then, after the Lord had
spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven," he appears probably enough to indicate
that this was the last discourse He held with them upon the earth. At the same time, the
words do not seem to shut us up to that idea absolutely. For what he says is not, "after
He had spoken these things unto them," but simply, "after He had spoken unto them;

and hence it would be quite admissible, were there any necessity for such a theory, to
suppose that this was not the last discourse, and that was not the last day on which He
was present with them upon the earth, but that all the matters regarding which He spake
with them in all these days may be referred to in the sentence," After He had spoken unto
them, He was received up into heaven. But, inasmuch as the considerations which we have
detailed above lead us rather to conclude that this was the last day, than to suppose that
the allusion is specifically to the eleven at a time when, in consequence of the absence
of Thomas, they were only ten, we are of opinion that after this discourse which Mark
mentions, and with which we have to connect in their proper order those other words,
whether of the disciples or of the Lord Himself, which are recorded in the Acts of the
Apostles, we must believe the Lord to have been received up into heaven, to wit, on the
fortieth day after the day of His resurrection.

78. John, again, although he tells us plainly that he has passed over many of the things
which Jesus did, has been pleased, nevertheless, to give us a narrative of a third
manifestation of Himself, which the Lord granted to the disciples after the resurrection,
namely, by the sea of Tiberias, and before seven of the disciples,-that is to say, Peter,
Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two others who are not mentioned by name. That
is the occasion when they were engaged in fishing; when, in obedience to His command, they
cast the nets on the right side, and drew to land great fishes, a hundred and fifty and
three: when He also asked Peter three times whether He was loved by him, and charged him
to feed His sheep, and delivered a prophecy regarding what he would suffer, and said also,
with reference to John, "Thus I will that he tarry till I come." And with this John has
brought his Gospel to its conclusion.

79. We have next to consider now what was the occasion of His first appearance to the
disciples in Galilee. For this incident, which John narrates as the third in order, took
place in Galilee by the sea of Tiberias. And one may perceive that the scene was in that
district, if he calls to mind the miracle of the five loaves, the narrative of which the
same John commences in these terms: "After these things Jesus went over the sea of
Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias. And what should naturally be supposed to be the
proper locality for His first manifestation to the disciples after His resurrection but
Galilee? This seems to be the conclusion to which we should be led when we recollect the
words of the angel who, according to Matthew's Gospel, addressed the women as they came to
the sepulchre. The words were these: "Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus of
Nazareth, which was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the
place where the Lord lay: and go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen from the
dead; and, behold, He goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have
told you. Mark presents a similar report, whether the angel of whom he speaks be the same
one or a different. His version runs thus: "Be not affrighted: ye seek Jesus of Nazareth
which was crucified; He is risen; He is not here:

behold the place where they laid Him. But go your way, tell His disciples and Peter that
He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see Him, as He said unto you. Now the
impression which these words seem to produce is, that Jesus was not to show Himself to His
disciples after His resurrection, but in Galilee. The appearance thus referred to,
however, is not recorded even by Mark himself, who has informed us how He showed Himself
first to Mary Magdalene in the early morning of the first day of the week; how she went
and told them that had been with Him as they mourned and wept; how these persons refused
to believe her; how, after this, He was next seen by the two disciples who were going to
the residence in the country; how these twain reported what had occurred to them to the
residue, which, as Luke and John agree in certifying, took place in Jerusalem on the very
day of the Lord's resurrection, and when night was now coming on. Thereafter the same
evangelist comes next to that appearance which he calls His last, and which was vouchsafed
to the eleven as they sat at meat; and when he has given us his account of that scene, he
tells us how He was received up into heaven, which event took place, as we know, on the
Mount Olivet, at no great distance from Jerusalem.

Thus Mark nowhere relates the actual fulfilment of that which he declares to have been
announced beforehand by the angel. Matthew, on the other hand, confines his statement to a
single occurrence, and refers to no other locality whatsoever, whether earlier or later,
where the disciples saw the Lord after He was risen, but the Galilee which was specified
in the angel's prediction. This evangelist, in short, first introduces his notice of the
terms in which the women were addressed by the angel; then he subjoins an account of what
happened as they were going, and how the members of the watch were bribed to give a false
report; and then he inserts his statement [of the appearance in Galilee], just as if that
were the very event which followed immediately on what he has been relating. For, indeed,
the angel's words, "He is risen; and behold, He goeth before you into Galilee," were
really such as might make it seem reasonable to suppose that nothing would intervene
[before that manifestation in Galilee]. Matthew's version, accordingly, proceeds as
follows: "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus
had appointed them. And when they saw Him, they worshipped Him: but some doubted. And
Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you:

and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. In these terms has Matthew
closed his Gospel. 80. Thus, then, were it not that the consideration of the narratives
given by others of the evangelists led us inevitably to examine the whole subject with
greater care, we might entertain the idea that the scene of the Lord's first manifestation
of Himself to the disciples after His resurrection, could be nowhere else but in Galilee.
In like manner, had Mark passed over the angel's announcement without notice, any one
might have supposed that Matthew was induced to tell us how the disciples went away to a
mountain in Galilee, and there worshipped the Lord, by his desire to show the actual
fulfilment of the charge, and of the prediction which he had also recorded to have been
conveyed by the angel. As the case now stands, however, Luke and John both certify with
sufficient clearness, that on the very day of His resurrection the Lord was seen by His
disciples in Jerusalem, which is at such a distance from Galilee as makes it impossible
for Him to have been seen by these same individuals in both places in the course of a
single day. In like manner, Mark, while he does report in similar terms the announcement
made by the angel, nowhere mentions that the Lord actually was seen in Galilee by His
disciples after He was risen. These, therefore, are considerations which strongly force
upon us an inquiry into the real import of this saying, "Behold, He goeth before you into
Galilee! there shall ye see Him.

For if Matthew himself, too, had not stated that the eleven disciples went away into
Galilee into a mountain, where Jesus had appointed them, and that they saw Him there and
worshipped Him, we might have supposed that there was no literal fulfilment of the
prediction in question, but that the whole announcement was intended to convey a
figurative meaning. And a parallel to that we should then find in the words recorded by
Luke, namely, "Behold I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the
third day I shall be perfected; which prediction certainly was not accomplished in the
letter. In like manner, if the angel had said, "He goeth before you into Galilee, there
shall ye see Him first; or, "Only there shall ye see Him; or, "Nowhere else but there
shall ye see Him; unquestionably, in that case, Matthew would have been in antagonism with
the rest of the evangelists. As the matter stands, however, the words are simply these:
"Behold, He goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him; and there is no
statement of the precise time at which that meeting was to take place-whether at the
earliest opportunity, and before He was seen by them elsewhere, or at a later period, and
after they had seen Him also in other places besides Galilee;

and, further, although Matthew relates that the disciples went away into Galilee into a
mountain, he neither specifies the day of that departure, nor constructs his narrative in
an order which would force upon us the necessity of supposing that this particular event
must have been actually the first appearance. Consequently, we may conclude that Matthew
stands in no antagonism with the narratives of the other evangelists, but that he makes it
quite competent for us, in due consistency with his own report, to understand the meaning
and accept the truth of these other accounts. At the same time, as the Lord thus pointed,
not to the place where He intended first to manifest Himself, but to the locality of
Galilee, where undoubtedly He appeared afterwards; and as He conveyed these instructions
about beholding Himself at once through the angel, who said," Behold, He goeth before you
into Galilee: there shall ye see Him; and by His own words, "Go, tell my brethren, that
they go into Galilee, and there shall ye see me;"-in these facts we find considerations
which make every believer anxious to inquire with what mystical significance all this may
be understood to have been stated.

81. In the first place, however, we must also consider the question of the time at which
He may thus have shown Himself in bodily form in Galilee, according to the statement given
by Matthew in these terms: "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee into a
mountain where Jesus had appointed them; and when they saw Him, they worshipped Him; but
some doubted. That it was not on the day of His resurrection is manifest. For Luke and
John agree in telling us most plainly that He was seen in Jerusalem that very day, when
the night was coming on; while Mark is not so clear on the subject. When was it, then,
that they saw the Lord in Galilee? I do not refer to the appearance mentioned by John, by
the sea of Tiberias; for on that occasion there were only seven of them present, and they
were found fishing. But I mean the appearance detailed by Matthew, when the eleven were on
the mountain, to which Jesus had gone before them, according to the announcement made by
the angel. For the import of Matthew's statement appears to be this, that they found Him
there just because He had gone before them according to appointment.

It did not take place, then, either on the day on which He rose, or in the eight days that
followed, after which space John states that the Lord showed Himself to the disciples,
when Thomas, who had not seen Him on the day of His resurrection, saw Him for the first
time. For, surely, on the supposition that the eleven had really seen Him on the mountain
in Galilee within the period of these eight days, it may well be asked how Thomas, who had
been of the number of these eleven, could be said to have seen Him for the first time at
the end of these eight days. To that question there is no answer, unless, indeed, one
could say that they were not the eleven, who by that time bore the specific designation of
Apostles, but some other eleven disciples singled out of the numerous body of His
followers. For those eleven were, indeed, the only persons who were yet called by the name
of Apostles, but they were not the only disciples. It may perhaps be the case, therefore,
that the apostles are really referred to; that not all but only some of them were there;
that there were also other disciples with them, so that the number of persons present was
made up to eleven; and that Thomas, who saw the Lord for the first time at the end of
those eight days, was absent on this occasion.

For when Mark mentions the said eleven, he does not use the general expression "eleven,"
but says explicitly, "He appeared unto the eleven. Luke, likewise, puts it thus: "They
returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with
them. There he gives us to understand that these were the eleven-that is to say, the
apostles. For when he adds, "and those who were with them," he has surely indicated
plainly enough, that those with whom these others were, were styled "the eleven" in some
eminent sense; and this leads us to understand those to be meant who were now called
distinctively Apostles. Consequently, it is quite possible that, out of the body of
apostles and other disciples, the number of eleven disciples was made up who saw Jesus
upon the mountain in Galilee, within the space of these eight days. 82. But another
difficulty in the way of this settlement arises here. For, when John has recorded how the
Lord was seen, not by the eleven on the mountain, but by seven of them when they were
fishing in the sea of Tiberias, he appends the following statement: "This is now the third
time that Jesus showed Himself to His disciples, after that He was risen from the dead.
Now, if we accept the theory that the Lord was seen by the company of the eleven disciples
within the period of these eight days, and previous to His being seen by Thomas, this
scene by the sea of Tiberias will not be the third but the fourth time that He showed
Himself. Here, indeed, we must take care not to let any one suppose that, in speaking of
the third time, John meant that there were in all only three appearances of the Lord. On
the contrary, we must understand him to refer to the number of the days, and not to the
number of the manifestations themselves; and, further, it is to be observed that these
days are not presented as coming in immediate succession after each other, but as
separated by intervals in accordance with intimations given by the evangelist himself.
For, keeping out of view His appearance to the women, it is made perfectly plain in the
Gospel that He showed Himself three several times on the first day after He was risen;
namely, once to Peter; again to those two disciples, of whom Cleophas was one;

and a third time to the larger body, while they were conversing with each other as the
night came on. But all these John, looking to the fact that they took place on a single
day, reckons as one appearance. Then he identifies a second-that is to say, an appearance
on another day-with the occasion on which Thomas also saw Him; and he particularizes a
third by the sea of Tiberias, that is to say, not literally His third appearance, but the
third day of His self-manifestations. Thus the result is, that after all these incidents,
we are constrained to suppose this other occasion to have occurred on which, according to
Matthew, the eleven disciples saw Him on the mountain in Galilee, to which He had gone
before them according to appointment, so that all that had been foretold, both by the
angel and by Himself, should be fulfilled even to the letter.

83. Consequently, in the four evangelists we find mention made of ten distinct appearances
of the Lord to different persons after His resurrection. First, to the women near the
sepulchre. Secondly, to the same women as they were on the way returning from the
sepulchre. Thirdly, to Peter. Fourthly, to the two who were going to the place in the
country. Fifthly, to the larger number in Jerusalem, when Thomas was not present. Sixthly,
on the occasion when Thomas saw Him. Seventhly, by the sea of Tiberias. Eighthly, on the
mountain in Galilee, of which Matthew speaks. Ninthly, at the time to which Mark refers in
the words, "Lastly, as they sat at meat," thereby intimating that now they were no more to
eat with Him upon the earth. Tenthly, on the same day, not now indeed upon the earth, but
lifted up in the cloud, as He ascended into heaven, as Mark and Luke record. This last
appearance, indeed, is introduced by Mark, directly after he has told us how the Lord
showed Himself to them as they sat at meat. For his narrative goes on connectedly as
follows: "So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven.

Luke, on the other hand, omits all that may have passed between Him and His disciples
during the forty days, and, after giving the history of the first day of His resurrection-
life, when He showed Himself to the larger number in Jerusalem, he silently connects
therewith the closing day on which He ascended up into heaven. His statement proceeds in
this form: "And He led them out as far as to Bethany; and He lifted up His hands, and
blessed them; and it came to pass, that while He blessed them, He was parted from them,
and carried up into heaven. Thus, therefore, besides seeing Him upon the earth, they
beheld Him also as He was borne up into heaven. So many times, then, is He reported in the
evangelical books to have been seen by different individuals, previous to His completed
ascension into heaven, namely, nine times upon the earth, and once in the air as He was
ascending.

84. At the same time, all is not recorded, as John plainly declares. For He had frequent
intercourse with His disciples during the forty days which preceded His ascension into
heaven. He had not, however, showed Himself to them throughout all these forty days
without interruption. For John tells us, that after the first day of His resurrection-
life, there elapsed other eight days, at the end of which space He appeared to them again.
The appearance which is identified [in John] as the third-namely, the one by the sea of
Tiberias-may perhaps have taken place on an immediately succeeding day; for there is
nothing antagonistic to that. And then He showed Himself when it seethed the proper time
to Him, as He had appointed with them (which appointment had also been conveyed in the
previous prophetic announcement) to go before them into Galilee. And all throughout these
forty days, He appeared on occasions, and to individuals, and in modes, just asHe was
minded. To these appearances Peter alludes when, in the discourse which he delivered
before Cornelius and those who were withhim, he says, "Even to us who did eat and
drinkwith Him after He rose from the dead, for the space of forty days. It is not meant,
however, that they had eaten and drunk with Him daily throughout these forty days. For
that would becontrary to John's statement, who has interposed the space of eight days,
during which He was not seen, and makes His third appearance take place by the sea of
Tiberias.

At the same time, even although He [should be supposed to have] manifested Himself to them
and lived with them every day after that period, that would not come into antagonism with
anything in the narrative. And, perhaps, this expression, "for the space of forty days,"
which is equivalent to four times ten, and may thus sustain a mystical reference to the
whole world or the whole temporal age, has been used just because those first ten days,
within which the said eight fall, may not incongruously be reckoned, in accordance with
the practice of the Scriptures, on the principle of dealing with the part in general terms
as the whole. 85. Let us therefore compare what is said by the Apostle Paul with the view
of deciding whether it raises any question of difficulty. His statement proceeds thus:
"That He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen of
Cephas." He does not say, "He was seen first of Cephas" For this would be inconsistent
with the fact that it is recorded in the Gospel that He appeared first to the women. He
continues thus: "then of the twelve;" and whoever the individuals may have been to whom He
then showed Himself, and whatever the precise hour, this was at least on the very day of
His resurrection. Again he goes on: "After that He was seen of above five hundred brethren
at once." And whether these were gathered together with the eleven when the doors were
shut for fear of the Jews, and when Jesus came to them after Thomas had gone out from the
company, or whether the reference is to some other appearance subsequent to these eight
days, no discrepancy is created. Again he says, "after that He was seen of James." We
ought not, however, to suppose this to mean that this was the first occasion on which He
was seen of James; but we may take it to allude to some special appearance to that apostle
by himself. Next he adds, "then of all the apostles," which does not imply that this was
the first time that He showed Himself to them, but that from this period He lived in more
familiar intercourse with them on to the day of His ascension. Finally he says, "And last
of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." But that was a revelation
of Himself from heaven some considerable time after His ascension.

86. Consequently, let us now take up the subject which we had postponed, and inquire what
mystical meaning may underlie the report given by Matthew and Mark, namely, that on rising
He made this statement, "I will go before you into Galilee: there shall ye see me. For
this announcement, if it was fulfilled at all, was certainly not fulfilled till a
considerable interval had elapsed; whereas it is couched in terms which seem to lead us
(although such a conclusion is not an absolute necessity) most naturally to expect that
the appearance referred to would be either the only one or the first that would ensue. We
observe, however, that the words in question are not given as the words of the evangelist
himself, in the form of a narrative of a past occurrence, but as the words of the angel,
who spoke according to the Lord's commission, and subsequently also as the words of the
Lord Himself; that is to say, the words are used by the evangelist in his narrative, but
they are presented by him as a direct statement of what was spoken by the angel and by the
Lord. This, therefore, unquestionably compels us to accept them as uttered prophetically.
Now Galilee may be interpreted to mean either "Transmigration" or "Revelation.

Consequently, if we adopt the idea of "Transmigration," what other sense occurs to us to
put upon the sentence," He goeth before you into Galilee, there shall you see Him," but
just this, that the grace of Christ was to be transferred from the people of Israel to the
Gentiles? That in preaching the gospel to these Gentiles, the apostles would meet with no
acceptance unless the Lord prepared a way for them in the hearts of men,-this may be what
is to be understood by the sentence, "He goeth before you into Galilee. And, again, that
they would look with joy and wonder at the breaking down and removing of difficulties, and
at the opening of a door for them in the Lord through the enlightenment of the
believing,-this is what is to be understood by the words, "there shall ye see Him; that is
to say, there shall ye find His members, there shall ye recognise His living body in the
person of those who shall receive you. Or, if we follow the second view which takes
Galilee to signify "Revelation," the idea may be, that He was now no more to be in the
form of a servant, but in that form in which He is equal with the Father; as He promised
to those who loved Him when He said, according to the testimony of John, "And I will love
him, and will manifest myself to him.

That is to say, He was afterwards to manifest Himself, not merely as they saw Him before,
nor merely in the way in which, rising as He did with His wounds upon Him, He was to give
Himself to be touched as well as seen by them, but in the character of that ineffable
light, wherewith He enlightens every man that cometh into this world, and in virtue of
which He shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehends Him not. Thus has He gone
before us to something from which He withdraws not, although He comes to us, and which
does not involve His leaving us, although He has preceded us thither. That will be a
revelation which may be spoken of as a true Galilee, when we shall be like Him; there
shall we see Him as He is. Then, also, will there be for us the more blessed
transmigration, from this world into that eternity, if we embrace His precepts so as to be
counted worthy of being set apart on His right hand. For there, those on the left hand
shall go away into eternal burning, but the righteous into life eternal. Hence they shall
pass thither, and there, shall they see Him, as the wicked do not see Him. For the wicked
shall be taken away, so that he shall not see the brightness of the Lord; and the
unrighteousness shall not see the light.

For He says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent; even as He shall be known in that eternity to which He
will bring His servants by the form of a servant, in order that in liberty they may
contemplate the form of the Lord.

INTRODUCTION

1 This book embraces a discussion of those passages which are peculiar to Mark, Luke, or
John.

Prologue.

2 1. As we have examined Matthew's narrative in its complete connection, and as the
comparison which we have carried out between it and the other three on to its conclusion
has established the fact, that not one of these evangelists contains anything either at
variance with other statements in his own Gospel, or inconsistent with the accounts
presented by his fellow-historians, let us now subject Mark to a similar scrutiny. Our
plan will be to omit those sections which he has in common with Matthew, which we have
already investigated as far as seemed requisite and are now done with, and to take up
those paragraphs which remain, with the view of submitting them to discussion and
comparison, and of demonstrating their thorough harmony with what is related by the other
evangelists on to the notice of the Lord's Supper. For we have already dealt with all the
incidents which are reported in all the four Gospels from that point on to the end, and
have considered the subject of their mutual consistency.

3 Chapter 1.-Of the Question Regarding the Proof that Mark's Gospel is in Harmony with the
Rest in What is Narrated (Those Passages Which He Has in Common with Matthew Being Left
Out of Account), from Its Beginning Down to the Section Where It is Said, "And They Go
into Capharnaum, and Straightway on the Sabbath-Day He Taught Them:" Which Incident is
Reported Also by Luke. 2. Mark, then, commences as follows: "The beginning of the gospel
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God: as it is written in the prophet Isaiah;" and so on, down
to where it is said, "And they go into Capharnaum; and straightway on the Sabbath-day He
entered into the synagogue and taught them." In this entire context, everything has been
examined above in connection with Matthew. This particular statement, however, about His
going into the synagogue at Capharnaum and teaching them on the Sabbath-day, is one which
Mark has in common with Luke. But it raises no question of difficulty.


THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS
==========================

THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS continued

CHAPTER II.-OF THE MAN OUT OF WHOM THE UNCLEAN SPIRIT THAT WAS TORMENTING HIM WAS CAST, AND OF THE QUESTION WHETHER MARK'S VERSION IS QUITE CONSISTENT WITH THAT OF LUKE, WHO IS AT ONE WITH HIM IN REPORTING THE INCIDENT.

3. Mark proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "And they were astonished at
His doctrine: for He taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. And
there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit: and he cried out, saying, What
have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? and so on,
down to the passage where we read, "And He preached in the synagogues throughout all
Galilee, and cast out devils. Although there are some points here which are common only to
Mark and Luke, the entire contents of this section have also been already dealt with when
we were going over Matthew's narrative in its continuity. For all these matters came into
the order of narration in such a manner that I thought they could not be passed over. But
Luke says that this unclean spirit went out of the man in such a way as not to hurt him:
whereas Mark's statement is to this effect: "And the unclean spirit cometh out of him,
tearing him, and crying with a loud voice. There may seem, therefore, to be some
discrepancy here. For how could the unclean spirit have been "tearing him," or, as some
codices have it, "tormenting. him," if, as Luke says, he" hurt him not"? Luke, however,
gives the notice in full, thus: "And when the devil had thrown him in the midst, he came
out of him, and "hurt him not.

Thus we are to understand that when Mark says, "tormenting him," he just refers to what
Luke expresses in the sentence, "When he had thrown him in the midst. And when the latter
appends the words, "and hurt him not," the meaning simply is, that the said tossing of the
man's limbs and tormenting him did not debilitate him, as is often the case with the exit
of devils, when, at times, some of the members are even destroyed in the process of
removing the trouble. Chapter III.-Of the Question Whether Mark's Reports of the Repeated
Occasions on Which the Name of Peter Was Brought into Prominence are Not at Variance with
the Statement Which John Has Given Us of the Particular Time at Which the Apostle Received
that Name. 4. The same Mark continues as follows: "And there came a leper to Him,
beseeching Him, and kneeling down to Him, and saying unto Him, If thou wilt, thou canst
make me clean; and so on, down to where it is said, "And they cried out, saying, Thou art
the Son of God: and He straightway charged them that they should not make Him known. Luke
also records something similar to the last passage which we have here adduced. But nothing
emerges involving any discrepancy. Mark proceeds thus: "And He goeth up into a mountain,
and calleth unto Him whom He would: and they came unto Him. And He ordained twelve that
they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach; and He gave them
power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils. And Simon He surnamed Peter; and so on,
down to where it is said, "And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great
things Jesus had done: and all men did marvel. I am aware that I have spoken already of
the names of the disciples when following the order of Matthew's narrative. Here,
therefore, I repeat the caution, that no one should suppose Simon to have received the
name Peter on this occasion for the first time, or fancy that Mark is here in any
antagonism with John, who reports that disciple to have been addressed long before in
these terms: "Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, A stone.

For John has there recorded the very words in which the Lord gave him that name. Mark, on
the other hand, has introduced the matter in the form of a recapitulation in this passage,
when he says, "And Simon He surnamed Peter. For, as it was his intention to enumerate the
names of the twelve apostles here, and it was necessary for him thus to mention Peter, he
decided briefly to intimate the fact that the said name was not borne by that disciple all
along, but was given him by the Lord, not, however, at the time with which Mark was
immediately dealing, but on the occasion in connection with which John has introduced the
very words employed by the Lord. The other matters embraced within this paragraph, present
nothing inconsistent with any of the other Gospels, and they have also been discussed
previously. Chapter IV.-Of the Words, "The More He Charged Them to Tell No One, So Much
the More a Great Deal They Published It;" And of the Question Whether that Statement is
Not Inconsistent with His Prescience, Which is Commended to Our Notice in the Gospel.

5. Mark continues thus: "And when Jesus was passed over again by ship unto the other side,
much people gathered unto Him: and He was nigh unto the sea; and so on, down to where we
read, "And the apostles gathered themselves together unto Jesus, and told Him all things,
both what they had done, and what they had taught. This last portion Mark has in common
with Luke, and there is no discrepancy between them. The rest of the contents of this
section we have already discussed. Mark continues in these terms: "And He said unto them,
Come ye apart into a desert place, and rest a while; and so on, down to the words, "But
the more He charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it; and were beyond
measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well: He maketh both the deaf to hear,
and the dumb to speak. In all this there is nothing which presents the appearance of any
want of harmony between Mark and Luke; and the whole of the above we have already
considered, when we were comparing these evangelists with Matthew. At the same time, we
must make sure that no one shall suppose that the last statement, which I have cited here
from Mark's Gospel, is in antagonism with the entire body of the evangelists, who, in
reporting most of His other deeds and words, make it plain that He knew what went on in
men;

that is to say, that their thoughts and desires could not be concealed from Him. Thus John
puts it very clearly in the following passage: "But Jesus did not commit Himself unto
them, because He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man; for He knew
what was in man. But what wonder is it that He should discern the present thoughts of men,
if He announced beforehand to Peter the thought which he was to entertain in the future,
but which he certainly had not then, at the very time when he was boldly declaring himself
ready to die for Him, or with Him? This being the case, then, how can it fail to appear as
if this knowledge and foreknowledge, which He possessed in so supreme a measure, is
contradicted by Mark's statement, "He charged them that they should tell no man: but the
more He charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it"? For if He, as one
who held in His own knowledge all the intentions of men, both present and future was aware
that they would publish it all the more the more He charged them not to publish it, what
purpose could He have in giving them such a charge? Well, but may not the explanation be
this, that he desired to give backward ones to understand how much more zealously and
fervently they ought to preach on whom He lays the commission to preach, if even men who
were interdicted were unable to keep silent?

Chapter V.-Of the Statement Which John Made Concerning the Man Who Cast Out Devils
Although He Did Not Belong to the Circle of the Disciples; And of the Lord's Reply,
"Forbid Them Not, for He that is Not Against You is on Your Part;" And of the Question
Whether that Response Does Not Contradict the Other Sentence, in Which He Said, "He that
is Not with Me is Against Me." 6. Mark proceeds as follows: "In those days again, the
multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat; and so on, down to the words, "John
answered Him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, and he followeth
not us; and we forbade him. But Jesus said, Forbid him not; for there is no man which
shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me; for he that is not
against you is on your side. Luke relates this in similar terms, with this exception, that
he does not insert the clause, "for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name
that can lightly speak evil of me. Consequently, there is nothing here to raise the
question of any discrepancy between these two. We must see, however, whether this sentence
must be supposed to stand in opposition to another of the Lord's sayings, namely, the one
to this effect, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me
scattereth abroad. For how was this man not against Him, who was notwith Him, and of whom
John reported that he did not unite with them in following Him, if he is against Him who
is not with Him? Or if the man was against Him, how does He say to the disciples, "Forbid
him not; for he that is not against you is on your side"?

Will any one aver that it is of consequence to observe that here He says to the disciples,
"He that is not against you is on your side; whereas, in the other passage, He spoke of
Himself in the terms, "He that is not with me is against me"? That would make it appear,
indeed, as if it were possible for one not to be with Him, although he was associated with
those disciples of His who are, so to speak; His very members. Besides, how would the
truth of such sayings as these stand then: "He that receiveth you receiveth me; and
"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it
unto me"? Or is it possible for one not to be against Him, although he may be against His
disciples? Nay; for what shall we make then of words like these: "He that despiseth you,
despiseth me; and, "Inasmuch as ye did it not unto the least of mine, ye did it not unto
me; and, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me," -although it was His disciples that Saul
was persecuting? But, in good truth, the sense intended to be conveyed is just this, that,
so far as a man is not with Him, so far is he against Him; and again, that, so far as a
man is not against Him, so far is he with Him.

For example, take this very case of the individual who was working miracles in the name of
Christ, and yet was not in the company of Christ's disciples: so far as this man was
working miracles in His name, so far was he with them, and so far he was not against them.
But, inasmuch as they had prohibited the man from doing a thing in which, so far forth, he
was really with them, the Lord said to them," Forbid him not. For what they ought to have
forbidden was what was outside their fellowship, so that they might bring him over to the
unity of the Church, and not a thing like this, in which he was at one with them, that is
to say, so far as he commended the name of their Master and Lord in the casting out of
devils. And this is the principle on which the Catholic Church acts, not condemning common
sacraments among heretics; for in these they are with us, and they are not against us. But
she condemns and forbids division and separation, or any sentiment adverse to peace and
truth. For therein they are against us, just because they are not with us in that, and
because, not gathering with us, they are consequently scattering.

Chapter VI.-Of the Circumstance that Mark Has Recorded More Than Luke as Spoken by the
Lord in Connection with the Case of This Man Who Was Casting Out Devils in the Name of
Christ, Although He Was Not Following with the Disciples; And of the Question How These
Additional Words Can Be Shown to Have a Real Bearing Upon What Christ Had in View in
Forbidding the Individual to Be Interdicted Who Was Performing Miracles in His Name. 7.
Mark proceeds with his narrative in these terms: "For whosoever shall give you a cup of
water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall
not lose his reward. And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe on
me, it is betterfor him that a millstone were hanged about hisneck, and he were cast into
the sea. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life
maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall bequenched;
where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And so on, down to where it is
said, "Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another. These words Mark
represents to have been spoken by the Lord in the connection immediately following what He
said in forbidding the man to be interdicted who was casting out devils in His name, and
yet was not following Him along with the disciples. In this section, too, he introduces
some matters which are not found in any of the other evangelists, but also some which
occur in Matthew as well, and some which we come across in like manner both in Matthew and
in Luke.

Those other evangelists, however, bring in these matters in different connections, and in
another order of facts, and not at this particular pointwhen the statement was made to
Christ about the man who did not follow Him along with the disciples, and yet was casting
out devils in His name. My opinion, therefore, is, that the Lord did really utter sayings
in this connection, according to Mark's attestation, of which he also delivered Himself on
other occasions, and this for the simple reason, that they were sufficiently pertinent to
this expression of His mind which he gave here, when He forbade the placing of any
interdict upon the working of miracles in His name, even although that should be done by a
man who did not follow Him along with His disciples. For Mark presents the relation of the
one passage to the other thus: "For he that isnot against us is on our part; for whosoever
shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I
say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. This makes it plain that even this man, whose
case John had taken up, and thus had given occasion for the Lord to commence the discourse
referred to, was not separating himself from the society of the disciples to any such
effect as to scorn it like a heretic.

But his position was something parallel to the familiar one of men who, while not going
the length yet of receiving the sacraments of Christ, nevertheless favour the Christian
name so far as even to receive Christians, and accommodate themselves to them for this
very reason, and none other, that they are Christian; of which type of persons it is that
He tells us that they do not lose their reward. This does not mean, however, that they
ought at once to think themselves quite safe and secure simply on account of this kindness
which they cherish towards Christians, while at the same time they are neither cleansed by
Christ's baptism, nor incorporated into the unit), of His body. But the import is, that
they are now being guided by the mercy of God in such a way that they may also come to
these higher things, and so quit this present world in safety. And such persons assuredly
are more profitable [servants], even before they become associated with the number of
Christians, than those individuals who, while already bearing the Christian name and
partaking in the Christian sacraments, recommend courses which are only fitted to drag
others, whom they may persuade to adopt them, along with themselves into eternal
punishment. These are the persons to whom He refers under the figure of the members of the
body, and whom He commands to be cast out from the body, like an offending hand or eye;

that is to say, to be cut off from the fellowship of that unity, in order that they should
seek rather to enter into life without such associates, than to go into hell in their
company. Moreover, they are separated from those from whom they separate themselves, just
when no consent is yielded to their evil recommendations, that is to say, to the offences
in which they indulge. And if, indeed, they are discovered in the character of their
perversity to all good men with whom they have any fellowship, they are cut off completely
from the fellowship of all, and also from participation in the divine sacraments. But if
they are known in this character only to some, while their perversity is unknown to the
majority, they must just be borne with, as the chaff is endured in the thrashing-floor
previous to the winnowing; that is to say, they must be dealt with in a manner which will
neither involve any agreement with them in the fellowship of unrighteousness, nor lead to
a forsaking of the society of the good on their account. This is what is done by those who
have salt in themselves, and who have peace one with another.

CHAPTER VII.-OF THE FACT THAT FROM THIS POINT ON TO THE LORD'S SUPPER, WITH WHICH ACT THE DISCUSSION OF ALL THE NARRATIVES OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS CONJOINTLY COMMENCED, NO QUESTION CALLING FOR SPECIAL EXAMINATION IS RAISED BY MARK'S GOSPEL.

8. Mark continues as follows: "And He arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of
Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto Him again; and, as He was
wont, He taught them again;" and so on, down to where it is said, "For all they did cast
in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her
living." In this entire context, all the above has been subjected to investigation
already, with the view of removing the appearance of any contrariety, when we were
comparing the other Gospels in due order with Matthew. This narrative, however, of the
poor widow who cast two mites into the treasury is reported only by two of them, namely,
Mark and Luke. But their harmony admits of no question. And from this point onwards to the
Lord's Supper, which latter act formed the starting-point for our discussion of all the
records of the four evangelists taken conjointly, Mark introduces nothing of a kind to
make it necessary for us to institute a special comparison between it and any other
statement, or to conduct an inquiry with the view of dispelling any appearance of
discrepancy.

CHAPTER VIII.-OF LUKE'S GOSPEL, AND SPECIALLY OF THE HARMONY BETWEEN ITS COMMENCEMENT AND THE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

9. Next in succession, therefore, let is now go over the Gospel of Luke in regular order.
We shall omit, however, those passages which he has in common with Matthew and Mark. For
all these have been already handled. Luke, then, begins his narrative in the following
fashion: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of
these things which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to
me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto
thee in order most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those
things, wherein thou hast been instructed. This beginning does not pertain immediately to
the narrative presented in the Gospel. But it suggests to us to be cognizant of the fact,
that this same Luke is also the writer of the other book which bears the name of the Acts
of the Apostles. Our ground for holding this opinion is not merely the circumstance that
the name of Theophilus occurs there as well as here. For it might quite well happen that
there was a second person with the name of Theophilus; and even if it was one and the same
person that was referred to in both cases, still another composition might have been
addressed to him by a different individual, just as the Gospel was written in his behoof
by Luke.

We base our view of the identity of authorship, however, on the fact that this second book
commences in the following strain: "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all
that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He, through the Holy Ghost,
gave commandment unto the apostles whom He chose to preach the gospel. This statement
gives us to understand that, previous to this, he had written one of those four books of
the gospel which are held in the loftiest authority in the Church. At the same time, when
he tells us that he had composed a treatise of all that Jesus began both to do and teach
until the day in which He gave commandment to the apostles, we are not to take this to
mean that he actually has given us a full account in his Gospel of all that Jesus did and
said when He lived with His apostles on earth. For that would be contrary to what John
affirms when he says that there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if
they should be written every one, the world itself could not contain the books. And
besides, it is the admitted fact that not a few things have been narrated by the other
evangelists, which Luke himself has not touched upon in his history.

The sense therefore is, that he wrote a treatise of all these things, in so far as he made
a selection out of the whole mass of materials for his narrative, and introduced those
facts which he judged fit and suitable for the satisfactory discharge of the responsible
duty laid upon him. Again, when he speaks of many who had "taken in hand to set forth in
order a declaration of those things which have been fulfilled among us," he seems to refer
to certain parties who had not been able to complete the task which they had assumed.
Hence he also says that it seemed good to him also to "write carefully in order, forasmuch
as many have taken in hand," etc. The allusion here, however, we ought to take to be to
those writers who have attained to no authority in the Church, just because they were
utterly incompetent rightly to carry out what they took in hand. Moreover, the author at
present before us has not confined himself to the task of bringing down his narrative to
the events of the Lord's resurrection and assumption; neither has it been his aim simply
to have a place commensurate in honour with his labours in the company of the four writers
of the Gospel Scriptures. But he has also undertaken a record of what was done
subsequently by the hands of the apostles;

and relating as many of those events as he believed to be needful and helpful to the
edification of the faith of readers or hearers, he has given us a narrative so faithful,
that his is the only book that has been reckoned worthy of acceptance in the Church as a
history of the Acts of the Apostles; while all these other writers who attempted, although
deficient in the trustworthiness which was the first requisite, to compose an account of
the doings and sayings of the apostles, have met with rejection. And, further, Mark and
Luke certainly wrote at a time when it was quite possible to put them to the test not only
by the Church of Christ, but also by the apostles themselves who were still alive in the
flesh. Chapter IX.-Of the Question How It Can Be Shown that the Narrative of the Haul of
Fishes Which Luke Has Given Us is Not to Be Identified with the Record of an Apparently
Similar Incident Which John Has Reported Subsequently to the Lord's Resurrection; And of
the Fact that from This Point on to the Lord's Supper, from Which Event Onwards to the End
the Combined Accounts of All the Evangelists Have Been Examined, No Difficulty Calling for
Special Consideration Emerges in the Gospel of Luke Any More Than in that of Mark.

10. Luke, then, commences his Gospel in the following fashion: "There was in the days of
Herod the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his
wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth;"and so on, down to the
passage where it is said, "Now when He had left speaking, He said unto Simon, Launch out
into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught." In this whole section, there is
nothing to stir any question as to discrepancies. It is true that John appears to relate
something resembling the last passage. But what he gives is really something widely
different. I refer to what took place by the sea of Tiberias after the Lord's
resurrection. In that instance, not only is the particular time extremely different, but
the circumstances themselves are of quite another character. For there the nets were cast
on the right side, and a hundred and fifty and three fishes were caught. It is added, too,
that they were great fishes. And the evangelist, therefore, has felt it necessary to
state, that "for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken," surely just because
he had in view the previous case, which is recorded by Luke, and in connection with which
the nets were broken by reason of the multitude of fishes. As for the rest, Luke has not
recounted things like those which John has narrated, except in relation to the Lord's
passion and resurrection. And this whole section, which comes in between the Lord's Supper
and the conclusion, has already been handled by us in a manner which has yielded, as the
result of a comparison of the testimonies of all the evangelists conjointly, the
demonstration of an entire absence of discrepancies between them.

CHAPTER X.-OF THE EVANGELIST JOHN, AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN HIM AND THE OTHER THREE.

11. John remains, between whom and others there is left no comparison to be instituted.
For, however the evangelists may each have reported some matters which are not recorded by
the others, it will be hard to prove that any question involving real discrepancy arises
out of these. Thus, too, it is a clearly admitted position that the first three-namely,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke-have occupied themselves chiefly with the humanity of our Lord
Jesus Christ, according to which He is both king and priest. And in this way, Mark, who
seems to answer to the figure of the man in the well-known mystical symbol of the four
living creatures, either appears to be preferentially the companion of Matthew, as he
narrates a larger number of matters in unison with him than with the rest, and therein
acts in due harmony with the idea of the kingly character whose wont it is, as I have
stated in the first book, to be not unaccompanied by attendants; or else, in accordance
with the more probable account of the matter, he holds a course in conjunction with both
[the other Synoptists]. For although he is at one with Matthew in the larger number of
passages, he is nevertheless at one rather with Luke in some others.

And this very fact shows him to stand related at once to the lion and to the steer, that
is to say, to the kingly office which Matthew emphasizes, and to the sacerdotal which Luke
introduces, wherein also Christ appears distinctively as man, as the figure which Mark
sustains stands related to both these. On the other hand, Christ's divinity, in virtue of
which He is equal to the Father, in accordance with which He is the Word, and God with
God, and the Word that was made flesh in order to dwell among us, in accordance with which
also. He and the Father are one, has been taken specially in hand by John with a view to
its recommendation to our minds. Like an eagle, he abides among Christ's sayings of the
sublimer order, and in no way descends to earth but on rare occasions. In brief, although
he declares plainly his own knowledge of the Lord's mother, he nevertheless neither unites
with Matthew and Luke in recording His nativity, nor associates himself with all the three
in relating His baptism; but all that he does there is simply to present the testimony
delivered by John in a lofty and sublime fashion, and then, quitting the company of these
others, he proceeds with Him to the marriage in Cana of Galilee. And there, although the
evangelist himself mentions His mother by that very name, He nevertheless addresses her
thus: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?

In this, however, [it is to be understood that] He does not repel her of whom He received
the flesh, but means to convey the conception of His divinity with special fitness at Ibis
time, when He is about to change the water into wine; which divinity, likewise, had made
that woman, and had not itself been made in her. 12. Then, after noticing the few days
spent in Capharnaum, the evangelist comes again to the temple, where he states that Jesus
spoke of the temple of His body in these terms: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I
will raise it up:" in which declaration emphatic intimation is given not only that God was
in that temple in the person of the Word that was made flesh, but also that He Himself
raised the said flesh to life, in the veritable exercise of that prerogative which He has
in His oneness with the Father, and according to which He does not act separately from
Him; whereas it will perhaps be found that, in all other passages, the phrase which
Scripture employs is one to the effect that God raised Him: neither is there any such
expression, found anywhere else as that, when God raised, Christ, Christ also raised
Himself, because He is one God with the Father; which is the import of the passage now
before us, in which He says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

13. Then how great and how divine are the words reported to have been spoken with
Nicodemus! From these the evangelist proceeds again to the testimony of John, and brings
before our notice the fact, that the friend of the bridegroom cannot but rejoice because
of the bridegroom's voice. In this statement He gives us to understand that the soul of
man neither has light derivable from itself, nor can have blessing, except by
participation in the unchangeable wisdom. Thereafter he carries us on to the case of the
woman of Samaria, in connection with which mention is made of the water, whereof if a man
drinks, he shall never thirst again. Once more, he brings us again to Cana of Galilee,
where Jesus had made the water wine. In that narrative he tells us how He spoke to the
nobleman, whose son was sick, in these terms: "Except ye see signs and wonders ye believe
not :" in which saying He aims at lifting the mind of the believer high above all things
mutable, so that He would not have even the miracles themselves, which, however they may
bear the impression of what is divine, are yet wrought in the instance of what is
changeable in bodies, made objects of seeking on the part of the faithful.

14. Next he brings us back to Jerusalem, and tells the story of the healing of the man who
had an infirmity of thirty-eight years' standing. What words are spoken on this occasion,
and how ample is the discourse!Here we are met by the sentence, "The Jews sought to kill
Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making
Himself equal with God." In this passage it is made sufficiently plain that He did not
speak of God as His Father in the ordinary sense in which holy men are in the habit of
using the phrase, but that He meant that He is His equal. For, a little before this, He
had said to those who were impeaching Him with violating the Sabbath-day, "My Father
worketh hitherto, and I work." Then their fury flamed forth, not merely because He said
that God was His Father, but because He wished it to be understood that He was equal with
God, when He used the phrase, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." In which utterance
He also shows it to be matter of course that, as the Father works, the Son should work
also; because the Father does not work without the Son. And this is in accordance with
what He states a little further on in the same passage, when these parties were incensed
at His declaration, namely, "For what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son
likewise."

15. Then at length John descends to bear company with the other three, whose course is
with the same Lord, but upon the earth, and joins them in recording the feeding of the
five thousand men with the five loaves. In this narrative, however, he is the only one who
mentions, that when the people wished to make Him a king, Jesus departed into a mountain
Himself alone. And in making that statement, his intention appears to me to have been just
to communicate to the reasonable soul the truth, that Christ reigns over our mind and
reason purely in a sphere in which He is exalted above us, in which He has no community of
naturewith men, and in which He is verily by Himself alone, as He is the Father's only
fellow. This, however, is a mystical truth, which escapes the cognizance of carnal men,
whose life creeps upon the lower soil of this earth, just because it is so sublime a
mystery. Hence Christ Himself also departs into the mountain from the men whose habit is
to seek for His kingdom with earthly conceptions of it. Thus is it that He expresses
Himself elsewhere to this effect, "My kingdom is not of this world. And this, again, is
something which is reported only by John, who soars high over earth in a kind of ethereal
flight, and delights himself in the light of the Sun of righteousness.

Then, on passing from the narrative connected with this mountain, and from the miracle of
the five loaves, he still keeps company with the same three for a little while, until the
notice of the crossing of the sea is reached, and the occasion on which Jesus walked upon
the waters. But at this point he at once rises again to the region of the Lord's
discourses, and relates those words, so grave, so lengthened, so sustainedly lofty and
elevated, which had their occasion in the multiplying of the bread, when He addressed the
multitudes to the following effect: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye seek me, not
because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour
not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life.
After which sayings, He continues to discourse in similar terms for a very long period,
and in the most exalted strain. At that time, some fell away from the sublime teaching of
such words, namely, those who walked no more with Him afterwards. But there were also
those who did cleave to Him; and these were they who were able to receive the meaning of
this saying, "It is the spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. For
surely it is true, that even through the flesh it is the spirit that profiteth, and the
spirit alone that profiteth; whereas the flesh without the spirit profiteth nothing.

16. Next we come to the passage where His brethren-that is to say, His relations according
to the flesh-urge Him to go up to the feast-day, in order that He may have an opportunity
of making Himself known to the multitude. And here, again, how supremely elevated is the
tone of His reply! "My time is not yet come, but your time is alway ready. The world
cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it that the works thereof are
evil. So it is the case, then, that "your time is alway ready," because ye desire that
kind of day to which the prophet refers when he says, "But I have not laboured following
Thee, O Lord; and the day of man I have not desired, Thou knowest: that is to say, to soar
to the light of the Word, and to desire that day which Abraham desired to see, and which
he did see, and was glad. And again, how wonderful, how divine, how sublime are the words
which John represents Him to have spoken after He had gone up to the temple, at the time
of the feast! They are such as these: that where He was about to go, thither they could
not come; that they both knew Him, and knew whence He was; that He who sent Him is true,
whom they knew not, which is much the same as if He had said, "Ye both know whence I am,
and know not whence I am.

And what else did He wish to be understood by such utterances, but that it was possible
for Him to be known to them according to the flesh, in respect of lineage and country, but
that, so far as regarded His divinity, He was unknown to them? On this occasion, too, when
He spoke of the gift of the Holy Spirit, He showed them who He was, inasmuch as He could
hold the power of bestowing that highest boon. 17. Again, how weighty are the things which
this evangelist reports Jesus to have spoken, when He came back to the temple from Mount
Olivet, and after the forgiveness which He extended to the adulteress, who had been
brought before Him by His tempters, as one deserving to be stoned: on which occasion He
wrote with His finger upon the ground, as if He would indicate that people of the
character of these men would be written on earth, and not in heaven, as He also admonished
His disciples to rejoice that their names were written in heaven! Or, it may be that He
meant to convey the idea that it was by humbling Himself (which He expressed by bending
down His head) that He wrought signs upon the earth; or, that the time was now come when
His law should be written, not, as formerly, on the sterile stone, but on a soil which
would yield fruit. Accordingly, after these incidents, He affirmed Himself to be the light
of the world, and declared that be who followed Him would not walk in darkness, but would
have the light of life. He said, also, that He was "the beginning which also discoursed to
them. By which designation He clearly distinguished Himself from the light which He made,
and presented Himself as the Light by which all things have been made.

Consequently, when He said that He was the light of the world, we are not to take the
words to bear simply the sense intended when He addressed the disciples in similar terms,
saying, "Ye are the light of the world. For they are compared only to the kindled light,
which is not to be put beneath a bushel, but to be set upon a candlestick; as He also says
of John the Baptist, that "he was a burning and shining light. But He is Himself the
beginning, of whom it is likewise declared, that "of His fulness have all we received. On
the occasion presently under review, He asserted further that He, the Son, is the Truth,
which will make us free, and without which no man will be free. 18. Next, after telling
the story of the giving of sight to the man who was blind from his birth, John tarries for
a space over the copious discourse to which that incident gave occasion, on the subject of
the sheep, and the shepherd, and the door, and the power of laying down His life and
taking it again, wherein He gave token of the supreme might of His divinity. Thereafter,
he relates how, at the time when the feast of the dedication was being celebrated in
Jerusalem, the Jews said to Him, "How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the
Christ, tell us plainly." And then he reports the sublime words which the Lord uttered
when the opportunity thus arose for a discourse. It was on this occasion that He said, "I
and my Father are one." After this, again, he brings before us the raising of Lazarus from
the dead: in connection with which miracle the Lord said, "I am the resurrection and the
life: he that believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever
liveth and believeth in me shall never die." In these words what do we recognise but the
sublimity of the Godhead of Him, in fellowship with whom we shall live for ever? Once
more, John joins Matthew and Mark in what is recorded about Bethany, where the scene took
place with the precious ointment which was poured upon His feet and His head by Mary. And
then, on to the Lord's passion and resurrection, John keeps by the other three
evangelists, but only in so far as his narrative engages itself with the same places.

19. Moreover, so far as regards the Lord's discourses, he does not cease to ascend to the
sublimer and more extended utterances of which, from this point also, He delivered
Himself. For he inserts a lofty address which the Lord spoke on the occasion when, through
Philip and Andrew, the Gentiles expressed their desire to see Him, and which is introduced
by none of the other evangelists. There, too, he reports the remarkable words which were
spoken again on the subject of the light which enlightens and makes men the children of
light. Thereafter, in connection with the Supper itself, of which none of the evangelists
has failed to give us some notice, how affluent and how lofty are those words of Jesus
which John records, but which the others have passed over in silence! I may instance not
only His commendation of humility, when He washed the disciples' feet, but also that
marvellously overpowering and pre-eminently copious discourse which the Lord delivered to
the eleven who remained with Him after His betrayer had been indicated by the morsel of
bread, and had gone out. It was in this discourse, over which John lingers long, that He
said, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also.

It was in it, too, that He expressed Himself so largely about the Holy Spirit, the
Comforter, whom He was to send to them, and about His own glory, which He had with the
Father before the world was, and about His making us one in Himself, even as He and the
Father are one,-not that He and the Father and we should be one, but that we should be one
as they are one. And many other things of a wonderfully sublime order did He utter in that
connection. But who can fail to see that to discuss such themes in any manner that would
be worthy of them, even if we were competent to do so, is at least not the task which we
have undertaken in the present effort? For our object is to help those who are lovers of
the Word of God and students of holy truth to understand that, in his Gospel, John was
indeed an announcer and preacher of the same Christ, the true and truthful One of whom the
other three who have composed Gospels also testified, and to whom the rest of the apostles
likewise bore witness, who, although they did not take in hand the construction of written
narratives, did at least discharge the kindred service in officially preaching of Him:

but that, at the same time, he was borne to far loftier heights in the doctrine of Christ
from the very beginning of his book, and that it was but on rare occasions that he kept to
the level pursued by the others. These occasions were the following in particular, namely:
first by the Jordan, in reference to the testimony of John the Baptist; secondly, on the
other side of the sea of Tiberias, when the Lord fed the multitudes with the five loaves,
and walked upon the waters; thirdly, in Bethany, where He had the precious ointment poured
over Him by the devotion of a woman of faith. And so he proceeds, until he meets them at
the time of the Passion, which, as matter of course, he had to relate in conjunction with
them. But, even in that section, and on the particular subject of the Lord's Supper, which
has been left unnoticed by none of them, he has presented us with a much more affluent
statement, as if he drew his materials directly from the treasure-store of that bosom of
the Lord on which it was his wont to recline. Then, again, [John shows us how] He
astonishes Pilate with words of a sublimer import, declaring that His kingdom is not of
this world, and that He was born a King, and that He came into the world for this purpose,
that He might bear witness to the truth.

[It is in this Gospel also that] He withdraws Himself from Mary with some deep mystical
intention after His resurrection, and says to her, "Touch me not; for I am not yet
ascended to my Father. It is here, too, that He imparts the Holy Spirit to the disciples
by breathing on them giving us thereby to understand that this Spirit who is
consubstantial and co-eternal with the Trinity, should not be considered to be simply the
Spirit of the Father, but should also be held to be the Spirit of the Son. 20. Finally, He
here commits His sheep to the care of Peter, who loves Him, and thrice confesses that
love, and then He states that He wills this very John so to tarry until He comes. In which
utterance, again, He seems to me to have conveyed in a profound and mystical way the fact
that this evangelical stewardship of John's, in which he is borne aloft into the most
liquid light of the Word, where it is possible to behold the equality and unchangeableness
of the Trinity, and in which, above all, we see at what a distance from all others in
respect of essential character that humanity stands by whose assumption it occurred that
the Word was made flesh, cannot be clearly discerned and recognised until the Lord Himself
comes. Consequently, it will tarry thus until He comes. At present it will tarry in the
faith of believers, but hereafter it will be possible to contemplate it face to face, when
He, our Life, shall appear, and when we shall appear with Him in glory. But if any one
supposes that with man, living, as he still does, in this mortal life, it may be possible
for a person to dispel and clear off every obscurity induced by corporeal and carnal
fancies, and to attain to the serenest light of changeless truth, and to cleave constantly
and unswervingly to that with a mind thoroughly estranged from the course of this present
life, that man understands neither what he asks, nor who he is that put such a
supposition.

Let such an individual rather accept the authority, at once lofty and free from all
deceitfulness, which tells us that, as long as we are in the body, we are absent from the
Lord, and that we walk by faith find not by sight? And thus, with all perseverance keeping
and guarding his faith and hope and charity, let him look forward to the sight which is
promised, in accordance with that earnest which we have received of the Holy Ghost, who
shall teach us all truth, when God, who raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall also
quicken our mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in us. But before this body, which
is dead by reason of sin, is quickened, it is without doubt corruptible, and presseth down
the soul. And if, in the body, man is ever helped to reach beyond the cloud with which the
whole earth is covered, -that is to say, beyond this carnal darkness with which the whole
life of earth is covered,-it is simply as if he were touched with a rapid coruscation,
only to sink swiftly into his natural infirmity, the desire surviving by which he may
again be excited (to what is evil), and the purity being insufficient to establish him (in
what is good). The more, however, any one can do this, the greater is he; while the less
he can do so, the less is he.

And if the mind of a man has as yet had no such experience-in which mind nevertheless
Christ dwells by faith-he ought to strive earnestly to diminish the lusts of this world,
and to make an end of them by the exercise of moral virtue, walking, as it were, in the
company of these three evangelists with Christ the Mediator. And, with the joy of large
hope, let him in faith hold Him who is alway the Son of God, but who, for our sakes,
became the Son of man, in order that His eternal power and Godhead might be united with
our weakness and mortality, and, on the basis of what is ours, make a way for us in
Himself and to Himself. That a man may be kept from sinning, he should be ruled by Christ
the King. If he happens to sin, he may obtain remission from Christ, who is also priest.
And thus, nurtured in the exercise of a good conversation and life, and borne out of the
atmosphere of earth on the wings of a twofold love, as on a pair of strong pinions, so may
he be enlightened by the same Christ, who is also the Word, the Word who was in the
beginning, the Word who was with God, and the Word who was God; and although that will
still be through a glass darkly, it will be a sublime kind of illumination far superior to
every corporeal similitude.

Wherefore, although it is the gifts of the active virtue that shine pre-eminent in the
first three evangelists, while it is the gift of the contemplative virtue that discerns
such subjects, nevertheless, this Gospel of John, in so far as it also is in part, will so
tarry until that which is perfect comes. And to one, indeed, is given by the Spirit the
word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit. One man regardeth the
day to the Lord; another receives a clearer draught from the breast of the Lord; another
is caught up even to the third heaven, and hears unspeakable words. But all, as long as
they are in the body, are absent from the Lord. And for all believers living in the good
hope, whose names are written in the book of life, there is still in reserve that which is
referred to in the words, "And I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him.
Nevertheless, the greater the advance which a man may make in the apprehension and
knowledge of this theme during the time of this absence from the Lord, all the more
carefully should he guard against those devilish vices, pride and envy. Let him remember
that this very Gospel of John, which urges us so pre-eminently to the contemplation of
truth, gives a no less remarkable prominence to the inculcation of the sweet grace of
charity.

Let him also consider that most true and wholesome precept which is couched in the words,
"The greater thou art, the more humble thyself in all. For the evangelist who presents
Christ to us in a far loftier strain of teaching than all the others, is also the one in
whose narrative the Lord washes the disciples' feet.


SOURCES AND CREDITS
===================

Where each text comes from, and the licence under which it may be reused.

TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55–124 English translation: an older public-domain
translation as collected in the Writings-Database (HistoricalChristianFaith), mostly from
the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers and similar nineteenth-century editions.
SermonIndex has only divided it into chapters and short sections; the wording is the
translator’s own. No Greek or Latin text is shown beside it yet, and no modern English
version has been made. Licence: Public domain.

THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS English translation: an older public-domain translation as
collected in the Writings-Database (HistoricalChristianFaith), mostly from the Ante-
Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers and similar nineteenth-century editions.
SermonIndex has only divided it into chapters and short sections; the wording is the
translator’s own. No Greek or Latin text is shown beside it yet, and no modern English
version has been made. Licence: Public domain.