Friday of the 6th Sunday of Pascha

"Go," He said, "and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and, which is no less important, the poor have the Gospel preached to them." Either the poor in spirit, or certainly the poor in wealth, so that there is no distinction in preaching between the noble and the common, the rich and the needy. These things display the rigor of the Master and attest to the truth of the Teacher, as all are equal in His sight who can be saved. As He said:

And what is not less than these, the poor have the Gospel preached to them, that is, the poor are enlightened by the Spirit, or hidden treasures, that there might be no difference between the rich and the poor. These things prove the faith of the Master, when all who can be saved by Him are equal.

Second, he responds to the questioner by declaring the wonders seen and heard by the disciples; on account of which he says: And answering he said to them: Go and report to John what you have heard and seen, because, as is said in Tobit twelve, "it is honorable to reveal and confess the works of God." He commands them to declare what they have seen and heard, because these two senses show us very many distinctions, so that in this the more perfect faith of John is shown, who believed by hearing alone, than that of those who saw and believed, according to that word in John twenty concerning Thomas, to whom it is said: "Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed. Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed."

Moreover, he commands them to narrate the wonders, which are indeed the principal miracles on account of their impossibility with respect to created power, such as the restoration of sight, the rectification of gait, the cleansing of the whole body, the repair of hearing, the restoration of life, and the relief of poverty. As regards the restoration of sight, he says: The blind see: Isaiah thirty-five: "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened," namely at the coming of Christ: John nine: "From the beginning of the world it has not been heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind." As regards the rectification of gait, it is said: The lame walk: Micah four: "In that day I will gather her that limps, and her whom I had cast out, I will collect"; Isaiah thirty-five: "Then shall the lame leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute shall be opened." As regards the cleansing of the whole body, it is said: Lepers are cleansed, as below in chapter seventeen ten lepers are read to have been cleansed, and as is said in Job fourteen: "Who can make clean what is conceived of unclean seed? Is it not you alone?" You therefore, who do this, are the one who is to come. As for the opening of hearing, it is added: The deaf hear. Isaiah thirty-five: "The ears of the deaf shall be opened," namely at the coming of Christ, according to that passage of Mark seven: "He has done all things well: he has made both the deaf to hear and the mute to speak." — As for the restoration of life, it is said: The dead rise again, according to that passage of Ezekiel thirty-seven: "You shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall have opened your graves and brought you forth from your tombs and given my spirit in you, and you shall live," and this is at the coming of Christ; John five: "The hour comes, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God."

Lastly, as for the relief of destitution, it is added: The poor have the Gospel preached to them, that is, they are proclaimed and exalted through the Gospel; which is evident, because the discourse of the Lord began with the commendation of the poor: Matthew five: "Blessed are the poor," and above in chapter six. And this was a certain sign of the coming of Christ, according to that passage of Isaiah twenty-nine: "The poor among men shall exult in the Holy One of Israel"; because, as it is said in the last chapter of Isaiah, "To whom shall I look but to the poor little one, contrite in spirit," etc. And James two: "Has not God chosen the poor in this world," etc.; because of Christ himself it was said: "He shall spare the poor and needy and shall save the souls of the poor"; and afterward: "And their name shall be honorable before him." And it was a great wonder that the name of the poor should become honorable and lovable and worthy of proclamation — which came about only through Jesus, who made himself poor in order to enrich and honor us who are poor; Second Corinthians eight: "You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sake he became poor, though he was rich."

And note that he says The poor have the Gospel preached to them rather than virgins or the obedient, because poverty is the foundation of evangelical perfection. For the foundation of the city of Babylon is avarice, according to that passage of First Timothy, the last chapter: "The root of all evils is covetousness"; and "pride is the beginning of all sin," as it is said in Ecclesiasticus ten; so poverty of spirit, which includes the opposite of both, namely poverty and humility, is the foundation of evangelical perfection; it is also the consummation of the same, according to that passage of Second Corinthians eight: "Their most profound poverty abounded unto the riches of their simplicity."

And note that poverty is to be proclaimed in the Gospel and is worthy of preaching on account of ten most excellent dignities. First, on account of the understanding of one's own weakness. Lamentations three: "I am the man who sees my poverty," etc.; against which, concerning the rich man, Revelation three: "You say: I am rich and made wealthy and have need of nothing, and you know not that you are wretched," etc. Second, on account of the excellence of gratuitous virtue: Second Corinthians 8: "The most profound poverty etc."; and Genesis 41: "The Lord has made me to grow in the land of my poverty." Third, on account of the abundance of interior gladness: Isaiah 29: "The poor among men shall exult in the Holy One of Israel"; and in the Psalm: "Let the poor see and be glad; seek God, and your soul shall live." Fourth, on account of the fullness of abounding sufficiency: Tobit 5: "Our poverty was sufficient for us" etc.; and again Proverbs 12: "Better is a poor man who suffices for himself than one who boasts and lacks bread"; on the contrary, Sirach 14: "The eye of the covetous is insatiable." Fifth, on account of the safeguard of heavenly protection: Proverbs 22: "Do not do violence to the poor because he is poor, nor crush the needy at the gate, for the Lord will judge his cause and will pierce those who have pierced him"; Job 5: "He will save the needy from the sword of their mouth and the poor from the hand of the violent"; and the Psalm: "The Lord has become a refuge for the poor, a helper in due times, in tribulation."

Sixth, on account of the good pleasure of divine acceptance: Isaiah, the last chapter: "Upon whom shall I look but upon the poor little one" etc.; and in the Psalm: "His eyes look upon the poor"; and Sirach 11: "There is a man who is feeble"; "and abounding in poverty, and the eye of God has looked upon him for good and has raised him up from his lowliness." Seventh, on account of the condescension of paternal piety: the Psalm: "This poor man cried out, and the Lord heard him"; again: "Because of the misery of the destitute and the groaning of the poor, now I will arise"; and again: "He will spare the poor and the needy." Eighth, on account of the eminence of judicial authority: Job 36: "He does not save the wicked, and he grants judgment to the poor"; Matthew 19: "You who have left all things shall sit upon thrones" etc. Ninth, on account of the evidence of proven perfection: Isaiah 48: "I have chosen you in the furnace of poverty"; and Revelation 2: "I know your tribulation and your poverty, but you are blasphemed by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" etc. Tenth, on account of the excellence of royal preeminence: James 2: "Has not God chosen the poor of this world as heirs of the kingdom which God has promised to those who love him?" Matthew 5: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." — If therefore the class of the poor is the most despised and the class of the rich the most exalted, it is a most excellent miracle that the poor are evangelized as kings.

Here see I pray the beautiful art of the Saviour's management. For He does not simply say, I am; though had He so spoken, it would have been true: but He rather leads them to the proof given by the works themselves, in order that having accepted faith in Him on good grounds, and being furnished with knowledge from what had been done, they might so return to him who sent them. "For go, He says, tell John the things that ye have seen and heard." For ye have heard indeed, He says, that I have raised the dead by the all-powerful word, and by the touch of the hand: ye have seen also, while ye yourselves stood by, that those things that were spoken of old time by the holy prophets are accomplished: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the dumb hear, and the dead arise, and the poor are preached unto. All these things the blessed prophets had before announced, as about in due time to be wrought by My hands. If then I bring to pass those things that were prophecied long before, and ye are yourselves spectators of them, return and tell those things which ye have seen with your own eyes accomplished by My might and ability, and which at various times the blessed prophets foretold.

He said not positively to them I am he, but rather leads them to the certainty of the fact, in order that receiving their faith in Him, with their reason agreeing thereto, they might return to him who sent them. Hence He made not answer to the words, but to the intention of him who sent them; as it follows, And Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things you have seen and heard: as if He said, Go and tell John the things which ye have heard indeed through the Prophets, but have seen accomplished by Me. For He was then performing those things which the Prophets prophesied He would do; that is of which it is added, For the blind see, the lame walk.

Or else, He wished by this to show that whatever was passing in their hearts, could not be hid from His sight. For they were those who were offended at Him.

Christ would work miracles and teach as soon as he came to well-known sections of his own country, and this had been foretold.Isaiah went on to tell of other marvels and showed how Christ cured the lame, and how he made the blind to see and the mute to speak. "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped." After that he spoke of the other marvels: "Then shall the lame man leap like a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing for joy." This did not happen until his coming.

These are also the words of Elias, saying, The Lord himself shall come and save us. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart. (Isa. 35:4-6.)

But still these are but slight examples of the testimony to the Lord. The full assurance of faith is the cross of the Lord, His death and burial. Hence He adds, And blessed is he who shall not be offended in me. For the cross may cause offence, even to the elect. But there is no greater testimony than this of a divine person. For there is nothing which seems to be more surpassing the nature of man than that one should offer Himself for the whole world.

"And blessed is he who does not take offense at me." He reprimands John's messengers, who did not believe He was the Christ, for their scandal of unbelief, and He explains to John what he had asked, that God brings salvation, and the Lord delivers from death (Psalm 67). For, when so many signs and mighty deeds have been seen, no one could take offense but rather marvel. Yet the mind of the unfaithful bore a great scandal when they saw Him die even after so many miracles. So what does it mean to say: "Blessed is he who does not take offense at me," except to openly indicate the rejection of His death and humility? As if He were plainly stating: "Indeed, I do wondrous things, but I do not disdain to endure contempt. Therefore, since I follow in death, it is greatly necessary for people to be cautious, lest they despise in me the death they revere in signs."

Finally, however, he responds to every one who contradicts, suppressing rash judgments, which cast men headlong into various scandals. On account of which he adds: And blessed is he who shall not be scandalized in me, that is, who shall not have judged me to be a mere man and not God, in consideration of the weakness assumed: which indeed was very difficult, nay impossible, for one who did not believe: whence First Corinthians 1: "We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a scandal, but to the Gentiles foolishness." But some were scandalized on account of weakness, as were the disciples: Matthew 26: "You will all suffer scandal in me this night"; but some from malice, as the scribes and Pharisees, according to that of Matthew 15: "Do you know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?" Whence this is a general instruction for all who wish to know Christ, that on account of the infirmities which he suffered, they should not fall into scandal, according to that of Isaiah 8: "Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself, and he shall be to you for sanctification; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of scandal to the two houses of Israel, and for a ruin to the inhabitants of Jerusalem." And therefore he rightly calls such a one blessed, because he avoids the danger of error and arrives at the light of truth, as Peter, to whom it is said in Matthew 16: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to you," etc.

"And blessed is he who is not offended in me!" The Jews were indeed offended, either as not knowing the depth of the mystery or because they did not seek to know the mystery. Every part of the inspired Scripture announced beforehand that the Word of God would humble himself to emptiness and be seen on earth. This plainly refers to when he was as we are and would justify by faith every thing under heaven. Although Scripture prophesied all this, they stumbled against him, struck against the rock of offense, fell, and were ground to powder. Although they plainly saw him clothed with unspeakable dignity and surpassing glory, by means of the wondrous deeds he performed, they threw stones at him and said, "Why do you, being a man, make yourself God?" In answer to these things Christ rebuked the immeasurable infirmity of their intellect and said, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, then though you believe not me, believe my works." Blessed is he who does not stumble against Christ, that is, he who believes him.

But the mind of unbelievers suffered grave scandal in him when they saw him dying even after so many miracles. Hence Paul also says: "But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a scandal, but to the Gentiles foolishness." For it seemed foolish to men that the author of life should die for mankind; and from this, man took scandal against him, from which he ought rather to have become more indebted. For God is to be honored by men all the more worthily, the more he undertook even unworthy things for mankind. What therefore does it mean to say: "Blessed is he who is not scandalized in me," except to signify openly the abjection and humility of his death? As if he were plainly saying: I indeed do wondrous things, but I do not disdain to suffer humble things. Therefore, since I follow you in dying, men must take great care not to despise in me the death, while they venerate the signs.

When he had forewarned the disciples of John that they should believe in the Lord's cross, as they were returning, he turned to the crowds and began to provoke the poor to virtue; so that they, exalted in heart, unstable in mind, weak in counsel, might prefer things that are beautiful but fleeting to things that are useful and eternal. But instead they should take up the cross with a humble spirit rather than extol the decorations of this world; and as if they were blessed in their poverty, willingly exchange the life of the body for immortal glory. Therefore, it is not in vain that the persona of Saint John is praised here, who, disregarding idleness, did not change the form of justice for the fear of death, but rather preferred the love of life.

'What,' he said, 'did you go out into the wilderness to see? The world seems to be compared to a desert, still uncultivated, still barren, still infertile, into which the Lord denies that we should go forth, so that we might consider the men inflated in mind and empty in internal virtue, and boasting with fragile worldly glory, as a certain example and image for us to imitate: those who are subject to the storms of this world, stirred by the unstable life, and rightly compared to a reed; in whom there is no fruit of solid righteousness; who, covered with lengthy robes, entangled with knots, resound with empty noise of their mouth, with no benefit to themselves, with frequent stumbling, internally empty, externally appearing beautiful.' We are reeds, rooted in no more stable nature. And if a light breeze of favorable success blows, we beat the nearby ones with a wandering motion: unable to support, eager to harm. Reeds love rivers, and we delight in the flowing and transient world.

However, if someone uproots this reed from the earth and plants it in the garden, and removes any excess, stripping off the old man with his actions, and tempers himself with the handwriting of a fast-writing scribe, it begins not to be a reed, but a pen, which imprints the precepts of celestial Scriptures in the depths of the mind, and inscribes them on the tablets of the heart. Concerning this pen, you have what is said: My tongue is the pen of a fast-writing scribe (Psalm 45:2), which some want to refer to Christ. Therefore, in one place both the word and the pen, and the scribe are read. The word, because it sprang forth from the mysterious birth of the Father: 'My heart hath uttered a good word' (Psalm xlv, 1). The pen, because the flesh of Christ expressed the line of paternal will, and fulfilled the divine commandments by the outpouring of sacred blood. The scribe, because with his pen he revealed to us the mysteries of the paternal disposition through a certain distinctness, either of the Old and New Testament, or of divinity and flesh.

Imitate this pen according to the temperament of your flesh. And dip your pen, that is, your flesh, not in ink, but in the spirit of the living God, so that what you write may be eternal. With such a pen, Paul wrote that letter, of which he said: 'You are our letter . . . written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God' (2 Corinthians 3:2-3). Dip your flesh in the blood of Christ, as it is written: 'That your foot may be dipped in blood' (Psalm 68:24). And so, let the imprint of your soul and the step of your mind be marked with unwavering confession of the crucifixion of the Lord. Immerse your flesh in the blood of Christ, if you want to wash away vices, erase sins, and bear the death of Christ in your own flesh, as the Apostle says: Carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus Christ (II Cor. IV, 10).

Not unmeaningly then is the character of John praised there, who preferred the way of righteousness to the love of life, and swerved not through fear of death. For this world seems to be compared to a desert, into which, as yet barren and uncultivated, the Lord says we must not so enter as to regard men puffed up with a fleshly mind, and devoid of inward virtue, and vaunting themselves in the heights of frail worldly glory, as a kind of example and model for our imitation. And such being exposed to the storms of this world, and tossed to and fro by a restless life, are rightly compared to a reed.

(Simeon) Now these things were spoken by our Lord after the departure of John's disciples, for He would not utter the praises of the Baptist while they were present, lest His words should be counted as those of a flatterer.

And when John's messengers had departed, He began to speak to the crowds about John. Because the surrounding crowd did not understand the mystery of the question and thought that John doubted Christ, whom he had pointed out, to clarify that John had not questioned for his own sake but for his disciples, He added to John's praise.

Why did you go out into the desert? To see a reed shaken by the wind? He indicated this, not by asserting, but by denying. For a reed is, immediately upon being touched by the air, bent to one side. And what is designated by the reed if not a carnal mind, which, as soon as it is touched by favor or reproach, inclines to any direction? For if an aura of favor blows from a human mouth, it is glad, is exalted, and bends itself entirely to the grace. But if the wind of detraction bursts forth from where the breeze of praise was coming, immediately it inclines this as if to the other side to the force of fury. But John was not a reed shaken by the wind, for neither did favor make him gentle, nor did anyone's anger make him harsh; neither did he know how to be elevated by prosperity nor to be inclined by adversity.

But why did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft garments? Behold, those who are in precious clothing and in luxury are in the houses of kings. For John is described as having been clothed in camel's hair. Therefore, he says, not those who endure hardships for God but those who avoid hardships and give themselves only to exterior things, seeking the softness and pleasure of the present life, do not fight for the heavenly kingdom but for the earthly one. Let no one, therefore, think that there is no sin in luxury and pursuit of clothing because if this were not a fault, by no means would the Lord have praised John for the roughness of his clothing. Although this, that John was said not to be dressed in soft garments, can be understood differently through symbolic interpretation. For he was not dressed in soft garments because he did not indulge the life of sinners with gentleness but rebuked them with the vigor of harsh invective, saying: "Brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Luke III).

But why did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. For the role of a prophet is to tell what is to come, not also to reveal it. Therefore John is more than a prophet, because he not only foretold by running before Him but also announced by showing Him.

And when they had departed etc. Above he confirmed the testimony of John through the evidence of truth in himself; here secondly he confirms it through the evidence of virtue in John who testified. Moreover, the prerogative of virtue is shown to have been fourfold in John: first, namely, as regards the merit of life; second, as regards the office of teaching; third, as regards the gift of grace; fourth, as regards the proclamation of renown. As regards the first, it should be noted that the merit of life is commended in John in two ways: first, as regards constancy in the face of difficulties; second, as regards abstinence in respect of pleasurable things.

There is therefore first introduced a commendation of the constancy of John in the absence of the disciples: on account of which he says: And when the messengers of John had departed, having obtained the resolution of the question, returning as good messengers to him by whom they had been sent: concerning whom Job thirty-eight says: "Will you send forth lightnings, and will they go, and returning say to you: We are here?" In their absence John ought to be praised, so that the praise may be shown to be true, not adulatory: therefore it is said: He began to speak about John to the crowds: he began indeed to praise him to the crowds, lest John should seem to have sent his disciples to Christ out of doubt.

Therefore he begins to commend him for constancy: What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed shaken by the wind? As if to say: John is not like a reed, so as to tremble and be shaken by any impulse, but strong and fixed in faith and in all goodness: according to what James one says: "Let him ask in faith, nothing wavering: for he who wavers is like a wave of the sea, which is moved and carried about by the wind." "But a double-minded man is inconstant in all his ways." Such truly is a reed, but John was not such, since he was most holy, since it is said in Ecclesiasticus twenty-seven: "A holy man remains in wisdom like the sun: for a fool is changed like the moon." Such are all the Saints, according to that passage in Ephesians four: "Let us not be little children, tossed about and carried around by every wind of doctrine in the wickedness of men." Therefore Paul entreated in Second Thessalonians two: "We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you be not quickly moved from your understanding." But whoever wishes to attain this constancy must leave the world and go out to John in the desert, according to what is said in First Maccabees two: "Mattathias cried out with a loud voice: Everyone who has zeal for the Law, let him go out after me"; and it follows that "many went out into the desert."

(ubi sup.) The Lord, knowing the secrets of men, foresaw that some would say, If until now John is ignorant of Jesus, how did lie show Him to us, saying, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world? To quench therefore this feeling which had taken possession of them, He prevented the injury which might arise from the offence, as it follows, And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John, what went ye out for to see? A reed shaken in the wind? As if He said, Ye marvelled at John the Baptist, and oftentimes came to see him, passing over long journeys in the desert; surely in vain, if you think him so fickle as to be like a reed bending down whichever way the wind moves it. For such he appeal's to be, who lightly avows his ignorance of the things which he knows.

But after John's disciples were dismissed, let us hear what He says to the crowds about the same John: "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed shaken by the wind?" This He clearly brought forth not by affirming, but by denying. For a reed, as soon as a breeze touches it, bends to the other side. And what is signified by the reed but a carnal mind? Which, as soon as it is touched by favor or detraction, immediately inclines to either side. For if a breeze of favor blows from human lips, it rejoices, is lifted up, and bends itself entirely, as it were, toward grace. But if from the same place whence the breeze of praise was coming, a wind of detraction bursts forth, it immediately inclines him, as it were, to the other side, toward the violence of fury. But John was not a reed shaken by the wind, because neither did flattery make him gentle, nor did anyone's detraction make him harsh with anger. Neither did prosperity know how to lift him up, nor adversity to cast him down. Therefore John was not a reed shaken by the wind, whom no change of circumstances bent from the uprightness of his position. Let us learn therefore, dearest brothers, not to be a reed shaken by the wind; let us make firm our mind placed amid the breezes of tongues, let the posture of our mind stand unbending. Let no detraction provoke us to anger, and let no favor incline us to the relaxation of useless grace. Let not prosperity lift us up, nor adversity disturb us, so that we who are fixed in the solidity of faith may in no way be moved by the changeableness of passing things.

John was also greatest among those that are born of women because he prophesied from the very womb of his mother, and though in darkness, was not ignorant of the light which had already come.

(Hom. 37. in Matt.) By each of these sayings He shows John to be neither naturally nor easily shaken or diverted from any purpose.

(non occ.) But you went not out into the desert, (where there is no pleasantness,) leaving your cities, except as caring for this man.

And although very many become effeminate by the use of softer garments, yet here other garments seem to be meant, namely, our mortal bodies, by which our souls are clothed. Again, luxurious acts and habits are soft garments, but those whose languid limbs are wasted away in luxuries are shut out of the kingdom of heaven, whom the rulers of this world and of darkness have taken captive. For these are the kings who exercise tyranny over those who are their fellows in their own works.

(ubi sup.) We have also an infallible testimony to John's way of life in his manner of clothing, and his imprisonment, into which he never would have been cast had he known how to court princes; as it follows, But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed with soft raiment? Behold they who are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' houses. By being clothed with soft raiment, he signifies men who live luxuriously.

Secondly, there is added the commendation of John's abstinence with respect to pleasurable things; on account of which he says: But what did you go out to see? that is, to consider: A man clothed in soft garments? as if to say: no. For John, most holy, was a stranger to all softness of carnality, as is said in Matthew 3: "Now John had a garment of camel's hair, and his food was locusts." He was truly of the number of evangelical men, in whose person it is said in 1 Timothy 6: "Having food and wherewith to be covered, let us be content with these"; wherewith to be covered he says, not: wherewith to be adorned. Bernard to Eugenius: "The Apostles were mighty in battle, not soft in silk; and if you are a son of the Apostles and Prophets, do you likewise." But whoever wishes to do this must forsake the world and go out into the desert with John. — On account of which he adds: Behold, those who are in costly apparel and in delicacies are in the houses of kings: as if to say: costly apparel and a luxurious life belong to worldly men, not to spiritual men and Christians. Whence in 1 Peter 3 it is said of women: "Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold and silver, or the putting on of apparel." On which Gregory says: "Let no one think that there is no sin in the wearing of costly garments. Consider what fault it is that even men should desire that from which the pastor of the Church took care to prohibit even women." For costly garments of this kind are carnal and luxurious, but in delicacies the spiritual life is imperiled; whence 1 Timothy 5: "The widow who lives in delicacies is dead while living"; Jeremiah 31: "How long will you be dissolved in delicacies, O wandering daughter"? Moreover, costly and luxurious garments of this kind are customarily an occasion of vainglory; and therefore he adds: They are in the houses of kings: concerning which Sirach 11: "Never glory in clothing, nor exalt yourself in the day of your honor."

Accordingly, deriding those who are clothed in luxurious garments, He says in the Gospel: "Lo, they who live in gorgeous apparel and luxury are in earthly palaces." He says in perishable palaces, where are love of display, love of popularity, and flattery and deceit. But those that wait at the court of heaven around the King of all, are sanctified in the immortal vesture of the Spirit, that is, the flesh, and so put on incorruptibility.

(ubi sup.) How then could a religious strictness, so great that it subdued to itself all fleshly lusts, sink down to such ignorance, except from a frivolity of mind, which is not fostered by austerities, but by worldly delights. If then ye imitate John, as one who cared not for pleasure, award him also the strength of mind, which befits his continence. But if strictness no more tends to this than a life of luxury, why do you, not respecting those who live delicately, admire the inhabitant of the desert, and his wretched garment of camel's hair.

But still more is added about the description of him: "But what did you go out into the desert to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Behold, those who are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings." For John is described as having been clothed in woven camel's hair. And what does it mean to say, "Behold, those who are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings," except to demonstrate by a clear statement that those who flee from enduring hardships for God do not serve the heavenly King but an earthly one, but rather, devoted only to external things, they seek the softness and pleasure of the present life? Therefore let no one think that there is no sin in the extravagance and pursuit of clothing, because if this were not a fault, the Lord would in no way have praised John for the roughness of his garment. If this were not a fault, the apostle Peter would never have restrained women through his epistle from the desire for costly garments, saying: "Not in costly apparel." Consider, therefore, what a fault it is for men also to desire that from which the pastor of the Church took care to prohibit even women.

Although what is said about John not being clothed in soft garments can also be understood in another way through its symbolic meaning. For he was not clothed in soft garments because he did not nurture the life of sinners with flatteries, but rebuked them with the force of harsh denunciation, saying: "Brood of vipers, who has shown you how to flee from the wrath to come?" Hence it is also said through Solomon: "The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails driven deep." For the words of the wise are compared to nails and goads because they do not know how to caress the faults of sinners, but to pierce them.

(Hom. 29. in ep. ad Heb.) But a soft garment relaxes the austerity of the soul; and if worn by a hard and rigorous body, soon, by such effeminacy, makes it frail and delicate. But when the body becomes softer, the soul must also share the injury; for generally its workings correspond with the conditions of the body.

That Lord walked in humility and obscurity, with no definite home: for "the Son of man," said He, "hath not where to lay His head; " unadorned in dress, for else He had not said, "Behold, they who are clad in soft raiment are in kings' houses: " in short, inglorious in countenance and aspect, just as Isaiah withal had fore-announced.

For whether He speaks of any "least person" by reason of his humble position, or of Himself, as being thought to be less than John-since all were running into the wilderness after John rather than after Christ ("What went ye out into the wilderness to see? " )-the Creator has equal right to claim as His own both John, greater than any born of women, and Christ, or every "least person in the kingdom of heaven," who was destined to be greater than John in that kingdom, although equally pertaining to the Creator, and who would be so much greater than the prophet, because he would not have been offended at Christ, an infirmity which then lessened the greatness of John.

But "what manner of man is this? for He commandeth even the winds and water!" Of course He is the new master and proprietor of the elements, now that the Creator is deposed, and excluded from their possession! Nothing of the kind.

Indeed, greater than a prophet (or more than a prophet) was he in whom the prophets terminate; for many desired to see Him whom he saw, whom he baptized.

But what did you go out to see? After the Savior commended John with respect to the merit of his life, here he commends him with respect to the office of teaching, and in right order, because a good life ought to come before authoritative teaching. Moreover, the office of teaching is commended in John in two ways, namely with respect to clarity in knowing and with respect to authority in teaching, which two things render the office of a teacher perfect.

First, therefore, as regards limpidity in knowing the divine mystery, it is said: But what did you go out to see? A Prophet? to whom, namely, the Lord reveals future things, according to that passage in Amos 3: "For the Lord God does nothing without first revealing His secret to His servants the Prophets." But to this one He not only foretold future things, but also showed Himself in present reality; and therefore He adds: Yes, I say to you, and more than a Prophet. Concerning whom Ambrose says: "Because many desired to see Him whom this one prophesied, whom this one beheld, whom this one baptized"; therefore, by pointing out Christ with his finger and seeing Him with his eye, he was more excellent and more blessed than the other Prophets, according to that passage below in chapter 10: "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. For I say to you that many Prophets and kings wished to see what you see, and did not see it." And therefore, because his office was more excellent than that of the Prophets, the Baptist, in John 1, when the Pharisees asked: "Are you the Prophet?" answers: "I am not, but the voice of one crying in the wilderness." Nor is there any contradiction, but rather harmony, because a prophet foretells future and absent things, but a voice makes manifest things present.

"What then did you go out to see?" Perhaps you say, "A prophet." Yes, I agree. He is a saint and a prophet. He even surpasses the dignity of a prophet.

(ubi sup.) But perhaps it does not concern us to excuse John upon this ground, for you confess that he is worthy of imitation, hence He adds, But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Verily I say unto you, more than a prophet. For the prophets foretold that Christ would come, but John not only foretold that He would come, but also declared Him to be present, saying, Behold the Lamb of God.

But what went you out into the desert to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet. For the office of a prophet is to foretell things to come, not also to show them. John therefore is more than a prophet, because the one whom he had prophesied by going before, he also pointed out by showing. But since he is denied to be a reed shaken by the wind, since he is said not to be clothed in soft garments, since the name of prophet is declared to be inadequate for him, let us now hear what may worthily be said of him.

(ubi sup.) The voice of the Lord is indeed sufficient to bear testimony to John's pre-eminence among men. But any one will find the real facts of the case confirming the same, by considering his food, his manner of life, the loftiness of his mind. For he dwelt on earth as one who had come down from heaven, casting no care upon his body, his mind raised up to heaven, and united to God alone, taking no thought for worldly things; his conversation grave and gentle, for with the Jewish people he dealt honestly and zealously, with the king boldly, with his own disciples mildly. He did nothing idle or trifling, but all things becomingly.

Far greater still is his perverseness when, not being the Christ of John, he yet bestows on John his testimony, affirming him to be a prophet, nay more, his messenger, applying to him the Scripture, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." He graciously adduced the prophecy in the superior sense of the alternative mentioned by the perplexed John, in order that, by affirming that His own precursor was already come in the person of John, He might quench the doubt which lurked in his question: "Art thou He that, should come, or look we for another? "Now that the forerunner had fulfilled his mission, and the way of the Lord was prepared, He ought now to be acknowledged as that (Christ) for whom the forerunner had made ready the way.

Turning now to the law, which is properly ours-that is, to the Gospel-by what kind of examples are we met, until we come to definite dogmas? Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: one modest, in Zechariah the priest; one absolute, in John the forerunner: one appeasing God; one preaching Christ: one proclaiming a perfect priest; one exhibiting "more than a prophet," -him, namely, who has not only preached or personally pointed out, but even baptized Christ.

But he prepared the way of the Lord not only in the order of birth according to the flesh, and as the messenger of faith, but also as the forerunner of His glorious passion. Hence it follows, Who shall prepare thy way before thee.

(ubi sup.) But by the words which follow, Before thy face, he signifies nearness of time, for John appeared to men close to the coming of Christ. Wherefore must he indeed be considered more than a prophet, for those also who in battle fight close to the sides of kings, are their most distinguished and greatest friends.

This is he of whom it is written, "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way before you." What is called angel in Greek, is called messenger in Latin. Therefore rightly, he who is sent to announce the divine judge is called an angel, so that he maintains the dignity in name which he fulfills in deed. Indeed it is a high name, but the life does not fall short of the name. But also all who are rated by the name of priesthood are called angels, the prophet attesting, who says: "The lips of a priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth, for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts" (Malachi II). And indeed every one of the faithful, as much as he is able, as much as he receives the infusion of supernal grace, if he calls back his neighbor from wickedness, if he takes care to exhort to good works, if he announces the eternal kingdom or punishment to the erring, when he expends the words of holy announcement, he indeed becomes an angel.

Second, as regards authority in teaching through divine mandate, it is said: This is he of whom it is written, namely in Malachi 3, where the Father speaks to the Son: "Behold, I send my angel," that is, my authoritative messenger, John, who is called an angel not by simplicity of nature but by the authority of his teaching, according to that passage in Malachi 2: "The lips of the priest shall guard knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth, because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts." John is therefore called a messenger in the manner of an Angel because, just as the Angels "see the face of the Father" in the Godhead, so he himself saw the face of Christ and pointed Him out in the flesh. — On account of which He adds: Before your face, that is, your appearance in the flesh, concerning which it is said in the Psalm: "Show us your face, and we shall be saved." This face Isaiah desired in the person of the Fathers, in chapter 64: "Would that you would rend the heavens and come down; the mountains would melt before your face." — And because they were not prepared to receive that face unless they were forewarned, therefore it is said: Who has prepared your way before you, namely by being born, by living among men, by baptizing, by preaching. For in all these ways he was joined to Christ, as a voice to a word. Therefore it was rightly said of him in Isaiah 40, and taken up above in chapter 3 and in John 1: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord"; so that that passage in Isaiah 35 may be fulfilled: "There shall be for you a straight way, so that fools may not err along it."

Not only did he announce before that I am coming but pointed me out close at hand, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God that bears the sin of the world." The prophet's voice testified of him as the one who was sent before my face to prepare the way before me.

(ubi sup.) Having then described his character by the place where he dwelt, by his clothing, and from the crowds who went to see him, He introduces the testimony of the prophet, saying, This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my angel. (Mal. 3:1.)

There follows: This is he of whom it is written: Behold, I send my angel before your face, who will prepare your way before you. For what is called angelus in Greek is called nuntius (messenger) in Latin. Rightly therefore he who is sent to announce the heavenly judge is called an angel, that he may preserve in his name the dignity which he fulfills in his work. It is indeed a lofty name, but his life is not inferior to his name.

Beloved brothers, let us not say it to our judgment, since all who are designated by the name of priest are called angels, as the prophet attests when he says: "The lips of the priest guard knowledge, and they seek the law from his mouth, because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts." But you too, if you wish, can merit the loftiness of this name. For each one of you, insofar as he is able, insofar as he has received the grace of heavenly inspiration, if he calls back his neighbor from wickedness, if he takes care to exhort him to do good, if he proclaims the eternal kingdom or punishment to one who errs, when he bestows the words of holy proclamation, he surely becomes an angel. And let no one say: "I am not sufficient to admonish, I am not fit to exhort." Offer what you can, lest what you received and kept badly be demanded of you in torments. For he who studied to hide his talent rather than to spend it had received no more than one talent. And we know that in the tabernacle of God not only bowls but also, by the Lord's command, cups were made. By bowls, indeed, abundant teaching is designated; by cups, however, small and limited knowledge. One person, full of the teaching of truth, intoxicates the minds of his hearers. By what he says, therefore, he surely offers a bowl. Another cannot fully express what he perceives, but because he proclaims it in some way, he surely offers a taste through a cup. Therefore, placed in God's tabernacle, that is, in the holy Church, if you cannot minister bowls through the wisdom of teaching, give to your neighbors cups of a good word insofar as you are able according to divine generosity. Insofar as you perceive yourselves to have progressed, draw others along with you; desire to have companions on the way to God. If any of you, brothers, goes to the forum or perhaps to the baths, he invites someone he sees to be idle to come with him. Let that same earthly activity of yours be fitting for you, and if you are heading toward God, take care not to come to him alone. For thus it is written: "Let him who hears say: Come"; so that he who has already received in his heart the voice of heavenly love may also give forth to his neighbors the voice of exhortation. And perhaps he does not have bread to offer alms to the needy; but he who has a tongue has something greater to give. For it is more to restore with the food of the word a mind that will live forever than to satisfy with earthly bread the belly of flesh that will die. Therefore, brothers, do not withhold from your neighbors the alms of the word. I admonish you together with myself that we refrain from idle speech, that we avoid speaking uselessly. Insofar as we are able to restrain our tongue, let not words flow away into the wind, since the Judge says: "Every idle word that men have spoken, they will render an account of it on the day of judgment." An idle word is one that lacks either the usefulness of righteousness or the reason of just necessity. Therefore turn idle conversations to the pursuit of edification: consider how swiftly the times of this life flee away; attend to how strictly the Judge comes. Place him before the eyes of your heart; make him known to the minds of your neighbors; so that insofar as your strength allows, if you do not neglect to proclaim him, you may be worthy to be called angels by him along with John.

Now He called him an "angel," on account of the magnitude of the mighty deeds which he was to achieve (which mighty deeds Joshua the son of Nun did, and you yourselves read), and on account of his office of prophet announcing (to wit) the divine will; just as withal the Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a future "angel," through the prophet: "Behold, I send mine angel before Thy"-that is, Christ's-"face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee." Nor is it a novel practice to the Holy Spirit to call those "angels" whom God has appointed as ministers of His power.

He calls a man an angel, not because he was by nature an angel, for he was by nature a man, but because he exercised the office of an angel, in heralding the advent of Christ.

But is not even He greater, of whom Moses said: 'The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet' (Deut. xviii, 15)? And of whom it is said: 'And every soul which will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from the people' (ibid., 19)? If, then, Christ is a prophet, how is He greater than all? Do we deny that Christ is a prophet? Nay, we confess Him to be the Lord of the prophets. But I assert that John is a prophet, and I say that he is greater than all, but only among them that are born of women, not among those that are born of a virgin. For indeed he was greater than those with whom he could be equal by the lot of birth. That nature is different from this, and cannot be compared with human generations. There can be no comparison between man and God; each person is preferred to their own. In fact, to such an extent could there be no comparison between John and the Son of God; that he is even considered inferior to the angels.

But if Christ also is a prophet, how is this man greater than all. But it is said, among those born of woman, not of a virgin. For He was greater than those, whose equal he might be in way of birth, as it follows, For I say unto you, of those that are born of woman, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist.

Lastly, so impossible is it that there should be any comparison between John and the Son of God, that he is counted even below the angels; as it follows, But he that is least in the kingdom of God, is greater than he.

For He is of another nature, which bears not comparison with human kind. For there can be no comparing of God with men.

For I say to you: Among those born of women there is no greater prophet than John the Baptist. Among those born of women, he says. Therefore he is preferred to those men who are born of women and from the intercourse of a man, and not to the one who is born of a Virgin and the Holy Spirit. Although in judgment he preferred John to all other prophets and patriarchs, and to all men, yet he equated the others to John. For it does not immediately follow that if others are not greater than him, he is greater than others, but rather that he has equality with the other saints.

Whoever is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. This sentence can be understood in two ways. Either he called the kingdom of God what we have not yet received and in which we are not yet, whence at the end he will say: 'Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom' (Matthew XXV); and where there are so many holy angels, any one of whom, being the least, is certainly greater than any holy and just man who bears the body which is corrupt and weighs down the soul (Wisdom IX). Or, if he intends the kingdom of God to mean the Church of this time, whose children are all from the foundation of the human race to the present, as many as could have been just and holy, surely the Lord signified himself, who at the time of birth was lesser than John, but greater in the eternity of divinity and the dominion of power. Therefore, according to the former explanation, it is thus distinguished: Whoever is least in the kingdom of God. And then it is added: is greater than he. According to the latter, thus: Whoever is least, and then it is added, in the kingdom of God, is greater than he.

These words may be understood in two ways. For either he called that the kingdom of God, which we have not yet received, (in which are the Angels,) and the very least among them is greater than any righteous man, who bears about a body, which weighs down the soul. Or if by the kingdom of God be meant to be understood the Church of this time, the Lord referred to Himself, who in the time of His birth came after John, but was greater in divine authority, and the power of the Lord. Moreover, according to the first explanation, the distinction is as follows, But he who is least in the kingdom of God, and then it is added, is greater than he. According to the latter, But he who is least, and then added, is greater in the kingdom of God than he.

For I say to you: Greater etc. Here thirdly Christ commends his precursor with regard to the gift of divine grace, by which he was "great before the Lord," according to what is said above in chapter one. And since the gift of grace in John had a prerogative in degree and a measure of limitation in status: therefore he intimates these two things when he commends the gift of grace in John.

First, therefore, he commends John with regard to the prerogative of the gratuitous gift in respect of a mere man, when he says: For I say to you: Among those born of women there is no greater prophet than John the Baptist. He is not, therefore, among men in the degree of grace at the lowest or middle level; it is necessary, therefore, that he be at the highest. Whence from this it is said not only that he is great, but that he is the greatest, so that what is said of Joshua in Ecclesiasticus forty-six can be said of him: "Who was great according to his name, greatest in saving the elect of God." For because he had great grace, therefore he was called John. He was also great through the merit of his life, greater through the mastery of his teaching, greatest through the privilege of grace. However, he is not said to be greater than all, so as to be preferred above all, but that no other was greater than he; nor is this said of all universally past and future, but of those then past. Nor is it said with respect to both sexes, but only the male; whence the Virgin Mary is not included, who "was exalted above the choirs of Angels," having no pure creature superior to her nor even equal, according to that passage of Song of Songs six: "One is my dove, my perfect one, she is the only one of her mother, the chosen one of her who bore her."

Secondly, he intimates the measure of that gift with respect to the man Christ, with regard to whom he says: But he who is lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. The kingdom of heaven here he calls the Church, according to how Gregory expounds that passage of Matthew thirteen: "He will send his Angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all scandals." The lesser in this kingdom is called the more humble; but this is Christ, of whom it is said in the Psalm: "You diminished him a little less than the Angels, with glory and honor you crowned him." For because, as is said in Philippians two, "he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death," "the Lord gave him the name which is above every name." And thus was verified that passage of Isaiah sixty: "The least shall become a thousand, and a little one a most strong nation." And this is the divine law which he himself gave in Matthew eighteen: "Whoever shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven." Thus indeed, nay rather in every way Christ humbled himself more: below in chapter twenty-two: "Who is greater, he who reclines at table, or he who serves? But I am in the midst of you as one who serves." Whence Gregory says: "Humble yourself as much as you can; Christ will still be more humble." It could nevertheless be explained concerning the Blessed, that the least of the good Angels would be greater than John for that state: for there is "a fire of charity in Zion, and a furnace in Jerusalem," Isaiah thirty-one.

And how shall not the discipline of this child be perfect, which extends to all, leading as a schoolmaster us as children who are His little ones? He has stretched forth to us those hands of His that are conspicuously worthy of trust. To this child additional testimony is borne by John, "the greatest prophet among those born of women:" "Behold the Lamb of God!" For since Scripture calls the infant children lambs, it has also called Him-God the Word-who became man for our sakes, and who wished in all points to be made like to us-"the Lamb of God"-Him, namely, that is the Son of God, the child of the Father.

There were then certain who prided themselves upon their performance of what was required by the law: the Scribes namely, and Pharisees, and others of their party; who were regarded according to their professions as exact observers of the law, and claimed on this score, that their heads should be adorned with honours. This too is the reason why they neither accepted faith in Christ, nor paid due honour to that mode of life which truly is praiseworthy and blameless: even that which is regulated by the commands of the Gospel. The purpose, therefore, of Christ the Saviour of all, was to shew them that the honours both of the religious and moral service that are by the law, were of small account, and not worthy of being attained to, or oven perhaps absolutely nothing, and unavailing for edification: while the grace that is by faith in Him is the pledge of blessings worthy of admiration, and able to adorn with incomparable honour those that possess it. Many, then, as I said, were observers of the law, and greatly puffed up on this account: they even gave out that they had attained to the perfection of all that is praiseworthy, in the exact performance of the righteousness that consisted in shadows and types. In order, then, that, as I said, He might prove that those who believe in Him are better and superior to them, and that the glories of the followers of the law are evidently but small in comparison with the evangelic mode of life, He takes him who was the best of their whole class, but nevertheless was born of woman, I mean the blessed Baptist: and having affirmed that he is a prophet, or rather above the measure of the prophets, and that among those born of women no one had arisen greater than he in righteousness, that namely, which is by the law, He declares, that he who is small, who falls short, that is, of his measure, and is inferior to him in the righteousness that is by the law, is greater than he:—not greater, in legal righteousness, but in the kingdom of God, even in faith, and the excellencies which result from faith. For faith crowns those that receive it with glories that surpass the law. And this thou learnest, and wilt thyself affirm to be the case, when thou meetest with the words of the blessed Paul: for having declared himself to be free from blame in the righteousness that is by the law, he added forthwith, "But those things that were gain unto me, those I have counted loss for Christ's sake: and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ: not having my own righteousness which is by the law, but the righteousness that is of the faith of Jesus Christ." And the Israelites he even considers deserving of great blame, thus saying: "For being ignorant of God's righteousness, that namely which is by Christ, and seeking to establish their own; even that which is by the law; they have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the completion of the law for righteousness unto every one that believeth." And again, when speaking of these things: "We, he says, who by nature are Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also have believed in Jesus Christ, that we may be justified in Him." The being justified, therefore, by Christ, that is to say, by faith in Him, surpasses the glories of the righteousness that is by the law. For this reason the blessed Baptist is brought forward, as one who had attained the foremost place in legal righteousness, and to a praise so far incomparable. And yet even thus he is ranked as less than one who is least: "for the least, He says, is greater than he in the kingdom of God." But the kingdom of God signifies, as we affirm, the grace that is by faith, by means of which we are accounted worthy of every blessing, and of the possession of the rich gifts which come from above from God. For it frees us from all blame; and makes us to be the sons of God, partakers of the Holy Ghost, and heirs of a heavenly inheritance.

And I bear him witness that there hath not arisen among those born of women one greater than he: but he that is least—in the life I mean according to the law—in the kingdom of God is greater than he. How and in what manner? In that the blessed John, together with as many as preceded him, was born of woman: but they who have received the faith, are no more called the sons of women, but as the wise Evangelist said, "are born of God." "For to all, he says, who received Him, that is, Christ, He gave power to become the sons of God, even to them who believe on His Name: who have been born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." For we have been born again to the adoption of the sons, "not of corruptible seed," but, as Scripture saith, "by the living and abiding Word of God." Those then who are not of corruptible seed, but, on the contrary, have been born of God, are superior to any one born of woman.

But in a mystery, when showing the superiority of John among those that are born of women, he places in opposition something greater, namely, Himself who was born by the holy Spirit the Son of God. For the kingdom of the Lord is the Spirit of God. Although then as respects works and holiness, we may be inferior to those who attained unto the mystery of the law, whom John represents, yet through Christ we have greater things, being made partakers of the Divine nature.

(lib. l. Ep. 33.) John was also greatest among those that are born of women, because he prophesied from the very womb of his mother, and though in darkness, was not ignorant of the light which had already come.

(ubi sup.) For He adds this, that the abundant praise of John might not give the Jews a pretext to prefer John to Christ. But do not suppose that he spoke comparatively of His being greater than John.

And who of all the ancients, who were accounted worthy of the sublime and wonderful gift, was like unto John the Baptist? According to the testimony, which Christ spake concerning him, "He was the greatest of all the Prophets"; and again He said, "Verily I say unto you, among those born of women there is none greater than John the Baptist." Now let us understand and see how and what was the rule and conduct of life of this marvellous man who arrived at such greatness as this, and why he was accounted worthy of all this gift, and with what increase and with how great labours, and after what asceticism, and for how long a time he lived a solitary life away from human intercourse; and when we have seen and have understood these matters of his life, let us consider the greatness of the things which were unto him, and let us understand first of all the things which concern the will, and afterwards the things which concern grace, for until the will shewed its fruits the Spirit gave not its gift.

That forerunner was indeed "greater than all of women born; " but for all that, He who was least in the kingdom of God was not subject to him; as if the kingdom in which the least person was greater than John belonged to one God, while John, who was greater than all of women born, belonged himself to another God.

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.

(Tr. lxvii. 1) Our Lord consoles His disciples, who, as men, would be naturally alarmed and troubled at the idea of His death, by assuring them of His divinity: Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in Me; as if they must believe in Him, if they believed in God; which would not follow, unless Christ were God. Ye are in fear for this form of a servant; let not your heart be troubled; the form of God shall raise it up.

He therefore first exhorts them that, considering the manner of departing, they should not be troubled by his departure nor fail in faith, but rather believe. Therefore he says: Let not your heart be troubled, but let it believe: whence: You believe in God, believe also in me. Let it not be troubled by absence, but believe in the absent one: just as you believe in God, whom you do not see. And the reason why they ought not to be troubled but to believe is this: namely, that the Lord does not depart from them entirely, but goes before them, so that he may again take them up to glory, in which there are many mansions already prepared according to eternal election, but still to be prepared according to merits: whence this word to prepare, according to Augustine's exposition, is taken in the text according to these two significations.

The whole can nevertheless be expounded in one signification of this word to prepare, so that the sense is: Let not your heart be troubled, but believe in me; because in my Father's house there are many mansions, in which you will rest together with me, to which I prepare the way; therefore you ought not to grieve. But then you would have cause to grieve, if it were not so, I would have told you, that is, if I had not said: Because I go to prepare a place for you, I will take you up again, etc. But I have said this and I say it; whence: And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again and will take you to myself, etc. However it may be read, an exhortation to faith is made.

Ye believe in God, believe also in Me.

He is making an able soldier out of one who but now was a coward, and while the disciples were smarting with the anxieties of fear He bids them take to themselves the terrible power of faith. For thus are we safe, and not otherwise, according surely to the song of the Psalmist: The Lord is my illumination and my saviour; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the shield of my life; of tvhom shall I be afraid? For if the all-powerful God fights for us and shields us, who could ever have power to harm us? And who will by any chance advance to such a height of power as to keep the elect in subjection to him, and to force them to submit to the evil designs of his perverse imagination? Or who could take by his spear and lead captive those that wear the panoply of God? Faith therefore is a weapon whose blade is stout and broad, that drives away all cowardice that may spring from expectation of coming suffering, and that renders the darts of evil-doers utterly void of effect and utterly profitless of success in their temptations. And this being the nature of faith, we must further notice another point: Christ bade them believe not in God alone, but also on Himself, not implying thereby that He is at all different from the One Who is in His nature God, I mean as regards identity of essence; but that to believe in God and to suppose that the province of faith must be wholly bound up in this one phrase, is rather a peculiar characteristic of the Jewish imagination, whereas the inclusion of the name of the Son within the compass of faith in God indicates the acceptance of an injunction of evangelic preaching. For those at least who are rightly minded must believe in God the Father, and not merely in the Son, but also in the fact of His Incarnation, and in the Holy Ghost. For the Persons of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity are distinguished both by difference of names and by the peculiar qualities and special offices of each: for the Father is Father and not Son, the Son again is Son and not Father, and the Holy Ghost is the Spirit peculiar to the Godhead. And yet the Trinity is summed up into a common Unity of Essence, so that our Creed gives us not three Gods, but one God. Still, I maintain that we must preserve accurately the definitions of our faith, not content with saying "We believe in God," but fully explaining our confession, and attaching to each Person the same measure of glory. For in our minds there should be no difference as to the intensity of our faith: our faith in the Father is not to be greater than our faith in the Son, or even than our faith in the Holy Ghost. But one and the same is the extent and the manner of our confession, uttered in regard to each of the three Persons with the same measure of faith; in such a way that herein again the Holy Trinity may appear in Unity of nature, so that the glory that encircles It may be seen in unchallenged perfection, and our souls may display our faith in the Father and in the Son, even in His Incarnation, and in the Holy Ghost. And I believe no man, if he were wise, would make any distinction between the Word of God and the Temple formed from the virgin, at least as regards the question of sonship; for there is One Lord, Jesus Christ, according to the saying of Paul. But let him who would sever into two sons Him Who is One and One alone, know surely that he is denying the faith. The inspired Paul, for instance, in working out very excellently and accurately the doctrine on this point, would have us confess our belief not simply in Christ as the Only-begotten, but also in Him as made like unto us, that is, made man, and as having both died and risen again from the dead. For what does he say? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach: that if thou shalt say with thy mouth, Jesus is Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Now if we believe on the Son as having risen again, who was He that died so that He might rise again? But it is evident that He is reckoned to have died according to the flesh. For His own body was imprisoned in the bonds of death, and restored to life again: for it was a body that shared in our natural life, though containing in itself in full perfection that peculiar indwelling power so mysteriously united to it, namely an energy capable of bestowing life. Whensoever therefore any one shall sever these two natures, and in separating the flesh from Him Who corporeally dwelt therein shall dare to speak of two sons, let him know that he is believing on the flesh alone. For the Divine Scriptures teach us to believe on Him Who was crucified and died and rose again from the dead, as being no other than the Word of God Himself; not so much in regard to identity of essence, for the body of Christ is body and not Word, though it be the body of the Word; but rather in respect of veritable sonship. And if any one were to think that herein we are not speaking with all possible accuracy, he would have to come forward and show us the Word Who is from God dead as regards His Divine nature, a thing which it is impossible or rather impious even to conceive.

Let not your heart be troubled.

By saying that Peter's courage will fail him so utterly that he will deny his Master thrice, and will suffer so sad a downfall in one single night, He almost seems by the overwhelming weight of His words to arouse in the disciples the extremity of terror at the dangers before them. Whence it may very well have happened that the other disciples began at once to reason with one another, saying: "What can be the nature, the extent, or the exceeding heaviness of that dread of coming troubles, and of that temptation so irresistible as to attack the chief among us and overcome him, not once only, but many times by the same assault, and that within so brief a space of time? Surely, who among us will escape a yet worse plight, or how can any other among us withstand such an attack, when Peter wavers and yields as of necessity to the grievous weight of the trials that beset him? Vainly it seems have we endured toils for the sake of our duty in following Him: our efforts are ending only in the exhaustion of our vital powers, though they seemed to hold out to us a prospect of life with God." There is surely nothing improbable in supposing that the disciples were thus reasoning in their inmost thoughts: and since it was needful to restore again their drooping spirits, He introduces as it were the necessary antidote to the reasonings and fears that His words had aroused, and bids them arm themselves with a calm and untroubled spirit, saying to them: Let not your heart be troubled. Notice, however, in how guarded a manner He promises them the forgiveness of |232 their coming feebleness of spirit. He does not say plainly: "I will forgive you even in spite of your weakness," or. "I will be present with you none the less, although you deny Me and forsake Me;" His object therein being, not to completely remove their fears of shame, or completely take away their suspicions of failure, lest He should seem to make out their error to be a light matter and teach them to regard as of no account the blame they would incur in their denial of Him. But in bidding them not be troubled, He placed them as it were on the borderland betwixt hope and fear: so that, if they fell into weakness and suffering in their human frailty, the hope of His clemency might help them to recovery; while the fear of stumbling might urge them to fall but seldom, since they had not yet been endowed with the power never to fail at all, not having as yet been clothed with the power from above, from on high, I mean the grace that comes through the Spirit. He bids them therefore not to be troubled, teaching them at once that it was fitting that those who were prepared for the conflict, and ready to enter on the struggles for the sake of the glory that is on high, should be altogether superior to feelings of cowardice: for an untroubled mind is a great help towards a courageous temper: at the same time, with somewhat obscure and not very distinct intimations, yet certainly, sowing the seed of a germinant hope of forgiveness, if ever it should really happen to them in their human weakness to fall away into cowardice. For a mind that is not yet stablished by the grace that comes from above is timid and easily upset, and very apt to be disturbed. For this reason also surely the very wise Paul prays for certain to whom he is writing, in the words: And the peace of Christ, which passeth all understanding, shall guard your hearts. For this is in reality to be untroubled in heart.

In commanding them not to be troubled, Jesus placed them, as it were, on the threshold between hope and fear. This way, if they fell into weakness and suffering in their human frailty, the hope of his mercy might help them to recover. On the other hand, the fear of stumbling might urge them to fall less often inasmuch as they had not yet been endowed with the power from above, from on high—I mean the grace that comes through the Spirit that always keeps them from failure.

Here, Jesus makes an able soldier out of one who recently was a coward. And while the disciples were suffering with the anxieties of fear, he commands them to cling to the intense power of faith.… Faith is a weapon whose blade is stout and broad; it drives away all cowardice that may spring from the expectation of coming suffering and renders the darts of evildoers utterly void of effect and makes their temptations utterly profitless.

Our Lord speaks in words deliberately chosen, so that whatever he claims for the Father, he signifies in modest language to be appropriate to himself. Take for example the command, "Believe in God, and believe in me." He is identified with God in honor. How, I ask you, can he be separated from his nature? He says, "Believe in me also," just as he said "Believe in God." Do not the words "in me" signify his nature? Separate the two natures, but then you must also separate the two beliefs. If it is life that we should believe in God without Christ, strip Christ of the name and qualities of God. But if perfect life is given to those who believe in God only when they believe in Christ also, let the careful reader ponder the meaning of the saying, "Believe in God, and believe in me also," for these words, uniting faith in him with faith in God, unite his nature to God's. He enjoins first of all the duty of belief in God but adds to it the command that we should believe in himself also, which implies that he is God, since those who believe in God must also believe in him. Yet he excludes the suggestion of a unity contrary to religion, for the exhortation "Believe in God, believe in me also" forbids us to think of him as alone in solitude.

(Hom. lxxiii. 1) Faith too in Me, and in the Father that begat Me, is more powerful than any thing that shall come upon you; and will prevail in spite of all difficulties. He shows His divinity at the same time by discerning their inward feelings: Let not your heart be troubled.

When the apostles heard concerning the chief Peter that he would deny, naturally confusion fell upon them. Therefore the Lord comforts them and calms the confusion of their hearts. For if the chief and fervent Peter would deny three times before the rooster crows, obviously they should expect some great circumstance.

Then, the disciples as if said: "How can we not be troubled, when such difficulties will come upon us?" He answers: "Believe in God, and believe in Me," and all your difficulties will be resolved, and the trouble will be calmed through faith in God and in Me. Therefore He also said to them "let not your heart be troubled," so that by this very thing they would be assured that He sees the state of their heart and knows the hidden trouble, that He is God.

Above (ch 13), our Lord taught his disciples by example, here he consoles them by his words. First, they are encouraged in many ways by what he says; secondly, what he has said is explained (ch 16). Concerning the first, we should note that there were two things which could trouble the disciples. One was near, that Christ would soon be leaving them; the second was in the future, and was the hardships they would undergo. First, Christ consoles them over his leaving; secondly, over their future hardships (ch 15).

He does two things concerning the first: first, he consoles them from their own point of view, as those who will be left; secondly, from his own point of view, as the one leaving (v 27). He does three things about the first: first, he says that he is going to the Father; secondly, he promises them the gift of the Holy Spirit (v 15); thirdly, he promises that he will also be with them (v 18). He does two things about the first: first, he mentions that he is going to the Father; secondly, he brings in the way he would go (v 4). He does three things about the first: first, he expels their anxieties; secondly, he refers to his power (v 1b); thirdly, he adds a promise (v 2a).

In regard to the first, note that the disciples could have been disturbed by what our Lord said about the betrayal of Judas, Peter's denial, and his own going away. Indeed, each of these did trouble them and make them sad: "Thou hast made the land to quake," that is, the hearts of the disciples, "thou hast rent it open" (Ps 60:2). Therefore our Lord, wishing to soothe their sorrow, said: Let not your hearts be troubled.

In Acts (1:1) we read: "Jesus began to do and teach." Yet above (13:21) it says that Jesus "was troubled in spirit." How can he tell his disciples not to be troubled when he himself was troubled? I answer that he did not teach the opposite of what he did. It was stated above that he was troubled in spirit, not that his spirit was troubled. Here he is not forbidding them to be troubled in spirit, but he is forbidding that their hearts, that is, their spirits, be troubled. For there is a troubled state which arises from reason; this is to be praised and is not forbidden: "For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation" (2 Cor 7:10). Yet there is a different grief or troubled state of the reason itself; this is not laudable because it draws the reason from its proper course; this is forbidden: "The just person will not be troubled for the Lord puts his hand under him" (Ps 37:24). For one who always possesses God cannot be disturbed.

Accordingly, our Lord refers to the power of his divinity, saying, you believe in God, believe also in me. Here he presupposes one thing and commands another. He presupposes their faith in God, saying, you believe in God: he had already taught them about this: "For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists" (Heb 11:6). What he commands is that they believe in him, saying, believe also in me. For if you believe in God, and since I am God, then you should believe in me. And this follows whether the word God stands for the divine essence, since the Son is God, or whether it stands for the person of the Father. For no one can believe in the Father unless he believes in the Son: "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father" (5:23).

The fact that he says, believe also in me, indicates that he is truly God; for although we are allowed to believe a human being (homini) or a creature, we ought to believe in God alone (in Deum). Therefore, we must believe in Christ as we believe in God. "We are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" (1 Jn 5:20); "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" (6:29).

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.

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.

"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 defer this debt, which the bounty of our Family head will enable us to repay at a more suitable opportunity.

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."

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."

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 doth 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.

(Tr. lxvii. 2) And as the disciples were afraid for themselves, when Peter, the boldest and most zealous of them, had been told, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied Me thrice, He adds, In My Father's house are many mansions, by way of an assurance to them in their trouble, that they might with confidence and certainty look forward, after all their trials, to dwelling together with Christ in the presence of God. For though one man is bolder, wiser, juster, holier than another, yet no one shall be removed from that house of God, but each receive a mansion suited to his deserts. The penny indeed which the householder paid to the labourers who worked in his vineyard, was the same to all; for life eternal, which this penny signifies, is of the same duration to all. But there may be many mansions, many degrees of dignity, in that life, corresponding to people's deserts.

(Tr. lxvii. 2) And thus God will be all in all; that is, since God is love, love will bring it to pass, that what each has, will be common to all. That which one loves in another is one's own, though one have it not one's self. And then there will be no envy at superior grace, for in all hearts will reign the unity of love.

(Tr. lxvii. 3) But they are rejected by the Christians, who infer from there being many mansions that there is a place outside the kingdom of heaven, where innocent souls, that have departed this life without baptism, and could not there enter into the kingdom of heaven, remain happy. But God forbid, that when every house of every heir of the kingdom is in the kingdom, there should be a part of the regal house itself not in the kingdom. Our Lord does not say, In eternal bliss are many mansions, but they are in My Father's house.

He means evidently that there are already many mansions, and that there is no need of His preparing one.

(Tract. lxviii. 1) But why does He go and prepare a place, if there are many mansions already? Because these are not as yet so prepared as they will be. The same mansions that He hath prepared by predestination, He prepares by operation. They are prepared already in respect of predestination; if they were not, He would have said, I will go and prepare, i. e. predestinate, a place for you; but inasmuch as they are not yet prepared in respect of operation, He says, And if I go and prepare a place for you. And now He is preparing mansions, by preparing occupants for them. Indeed, when He says, In My Father's house are many mansions, what think we the house of God to be but the temple of God, of which the Apostle saith, The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Cor. 3:17) This house of God then is now being built, now being prepared. (c. 3.). But why has He gone away to prepare it, if it is ourselves that He prepares: if He leaves us, how can He prepare us? The meaning is, that, in order that those mansions may be prepared, the just must live by faith: and if thou seest, there is no faith. Let Him go away then, that He be not seen; let Him be hid, that He be believed. Then a place is prepared, if thou live by faith: let faith desire, that desire may enjoy. If thou rightly understandest Him, He never leaves either the place He came from, or that He goes from. He goes, when He withdraws from sight, He comes, when He appears. But except He remain in power, that we may grow in goodness, no place of happiness will be prepared for us.

Scripture enlightens from above by means of divine promises, for its teaching is concerned with things above. Hence the Apostle writes: For we know that if the earthly house in which we dwell be destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made by human hands, eternal in the heavens. And: "In My Father's house there are many mansions," says the Lord. In the Psalms, it is said: The children of men take refuge in the shadow of Your wings. They have their fill of the prime gifts of Your house; from Your delightful stream You give them to drink. For with You is the fountain of life, and in Your light we see light. And in the Apocalypse: For the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them, and will guide them to the fountains of the waters of life. And in a Psalm: The delights at Your right hand forever. And so Scripture offers us the divine promises.

In my Father's house there are many mansions, already prepared, that is, according to eternal election: for in Ephesians 1: "He chose us before the foundation of the world"; Jerome says: "In heaven diverse mansions are prepared for diverse virtues, which not persons receive, but works." Thus they are prepared. If not so, that is, if it were not so: whence another reading of Chrysostom, where it says: If not so, reads: "If indeed not," that is, if they were not prepared through predestination: I would have told you: For I go to prepare a place for you. But it is impossible that I should now prepare: because it is impossible that I should predestine anyone anew, as Augustine says. Therefore I said that "mansions are in the Father's house," already prepared through predestination, but still to be prepared through the merit of faith, which has its greatest merit in absence.

About the higher level—the crags up which the mystics vanish out of my sight—the glaciers and the aiguilles—I have only two things to say. One is that I don't think we are all "called" to that ascent. "If it were so, He would have told us."

About the resurrection of the body. I agree with you that the old picture of the soul reassuming the corpse—perhaps blown to bits or long since usefully dissipated through nature—is absurd. Nor is it what St. Paul's words imply. And I admit that if you ask what I substitute for this, I have only speculations to offer.

The principle behind these speculations is this. We are not, in this doctrine, concerned with matter as such at all: with waves and atoms and all that. What the soul cries out for is the resurrection of the senses. Even in this life matter would be nothing to us if it were not the source of sensations.

Now we already have some feeble and intermittent power of raising dead sensations from their graves. I mean, of course, memory.

You see the way my thought is moving. But don't run away with the idea that when I speak of the resurrection of the body I mean merely that the blessed dead will have excellent memories of their sensuous experiences on earth. I mean it the other way round: that memory as we now know it is a dim foretaste, a mirage even, of a power which the soul, or rather Christ in the soul (he "went to prepare a place for us") will exercise hereafter. It need no longer be intermittent. Above all, it need no longer be private to the soul in which it occurs. I can now communicate to you the vanished fields of my boyhood—they are building-estates today—only imperfectly by words. Perhaps the day is coming when I can take you for a walk through them.

At present we tend to think of the soul as somehow "inside" the body. But the glorified body of the resurrection as I conceive it—the sensuous life raised from its death—will be inside the soul. As God is not in space but space is in God.

Your soul has a curious shape because it is a hollow made to fit a particular swelling in the infinite contours of the divine substance, or a key to unlock one of the doors in the house with many mansions. For it is not humanity in the abstract that is to be saved, but you--you, the individual reader, John Stubbs or Janet Smith. Blessed and fortunate creature, your eyes shall behold Him and not another's. All that you are, sins apart, is destined, if you will let God have His good way, to utter satisfaction. The Brocken spectre "looked to every man like his first love", because she was a cheat. But God will look to every soul like its first love because He is its first love. Your place in heaven will seem to be made for you and you alone, because you were made for it--made for it stitch by stitch as a glove is made for a hand.

In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. He calls the habitation which is in the heavens, His Father's house. In this then, He says, is your habitation, which has been prepared for you by my Father.

Having forcibly enjoined upon them that they ought not to be troubled, and having bidden them rather believe both in God the Father and in Himself, He now tells them plainly as an encouragement to them to shake off their feebleness of mind, that they shall not be excluded from the holy courts, but shall be made to dwell in the mansions above, living their eternal life in the Church of the Firstborn, in the enjoyment of bliss unending. He says moreover that in His Father's house are many mansions, teaching them thereby that heaven is wide enough for all, and that the world He has created needs no enlargement at all to make it capable of containing those who love Him. And it seems likely that in speaking of the many mansions He wishes also to indicate the different grades of honour, implying that each one who desires to live a life of virtue will receive as it were his own peculiar place, and the glory that is suitable to his own individual acts. Therefore if the mansions in God the Father's home had not been many in number, He would have said that He was going on before them, namely to prepare beforehand the habitations of the saints: but knowing that there are many such, already fully prepared and awaiting the arrival of those who love God, He says that He will depart not for this purpose, but for the sake of securing the way to the mansions above, to prepare a passage of safety for you, and to smooth the path that was impassable in old time. For heaven was then utterly inaccessible to mortal man, and no flesh as yet had ever trodden that pure and all-holy realm of the angels; but Christ was the first Who consecrated for us the means of access to Himself, and granted to flesh a way of entrance into heaven; presenting Himself as an offering to God the Father, as it were the firstfruits of them that are asleep and are lying in the tomb, and the first of mankind that ever appeared in heaven. Therefore also it was that the angels in heaven, knowing nothing of the august and stupendous mystery of the Incarnation, were astonished in wonder at His coming, and exclaim almost in perplexity at the strange and unusual event: Who is this that cometh from Edom? that is, from the earth. But the Spirit did not leave the host above uninstructed in the marvellous wisdom of God the Father, but bade them rather open the heavenly gates in honour to the King and Master of all, proclaiming: Lift up the gates, O ye princes, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in. Therefore our Lord Jesus the Christ consecrated for us a new and living way, as Paul says; not having entered into a holy place made with hands, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us. For it is not that He may present Himself before the presence of God the Father that Christ has ascended up on high: for He ever was and is and will be continually in the Father, in the sight of Him Who begat Him, for He it is in Whom the Father ever takes delight: but now He Who of old was the Word with no part or lot in human nature, has ascended in human form that He may appear in heaven in a strange and unwonted manner. And this He has done on our account and for our sakes, in order that He, though found as a man, may still in His absolute power as Son, while yet in human form, obey the command: Sit Thou on My right hand, and so may transfer the glory of adoption through Himself to all the race. For in that He has appeared in human form He is still one of us as He sits at the right hand of God the Father, even though He is far above all creation; and He is also Consubstantial with His Father, in that He has come forth from Him as truly God of God and Light of Light. He has presented Himself therefore as Man to the Father on our behalf, that so He may restore us, who had been removed from the Father's presence by the ancient transgression, again as it were to behold the Father's face. He sits there in His position as Son, that so also we through Him may be called sons and children of God. For this reason also Paul, who insists that he has Christ speaking by his voice, teaches us to regard the events that happened in the life of Christ alone as common to the whole race; saying that God raised us up with Him, and made us to sit with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ. For to Christ, as by nature Son, it belongs as a special prerogative to sit at the Father's side, and the glory of this dignity we can ascribe rightly and truly to Him, and Him alone. But the fact that Christ Who sits there is in all points like unto us, in that He has appeared as Man, while we believe Him to be God of God, seems to confer on us also the privilege of this dignity. For even if we shall not sit at the side of the Father Himself,----for how could the servant ever ascend to equal honour with the master?----yet nevertheless Christ promised the holy disciples that they should sit on thrones. For He says: When the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

"I shall not then," He says, "depart to prepare mansions for you, for many there are already, and to make new habitations for creation is needless; but I go to make ready a place for you on account of the sin that has mastery over you, that so those who are on the earth may be able to be mingled with the holy angels; for else the saintly multitude of those above would never have mingled with those who had been so denied. But now, when I shall have accomplished this work, and united the world below to the world above, and given you a path of access to the city on high, I will return again at the time of the regeneration, and receive you 5 with Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." And this is also in the mind of Paul, when he thus writes in his own letter: For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

It was the Babylon Hotel. It was the perfect symbol of everything that I should like to pull down with my hands if I could. Reared by a detected robber, it is framed to be the fashionable and luxurious home of undetected robbers. In the house of man are many mansions; but there is a class of men who feel normal nowhere except in the Babylon Hotel or in Dartmoor Gaol.

Are there many mansions in God's house, as you have heard, or only one? Of course you will admit that there are many, and not just one. Now, are they all to be filled, or only some, and others not, so that some will be left empty and will have been prepared to no purpose? Of course all will be filled, for nothing can be in vain that has been done by God.

(Super Ezech. Hom. xvi.) The many mansions agree with the one penny, because, though one may rejoice more than another, yet all rejoice with one and the same joy, arising from the vision of their Maker.

(Moral. ult. c. xxiv.) Nor is there any sense of deficiency in consequence of such inequality; for each will feel as much as sufficeth for himself.

And Callistus, who was in the habit of always associating with Zephyrinus, and, as I have previously stated, of paying him hypocritical service, disclosed, by force of contrast, Zephyrinus to be a person able neither to form a judgment of things said, nor discerning the design of Callistus, who was accustomed to converse with Zephyrinus on topics which yielded satisfaction to the latter. Thus, after the death of Zephyrinus, supposing that he had obtained (the position) after which he so eagerly pursued, he excommunicated Sabellius, as not entertaining orthodox opinions. He acted thus from apprehension of me, and imagining that he could in this manner obliterate the charge against him among the churches, as if he did not entertain strange opinions. He was then an impostor and knave, and in process of time hurried away many with him. And having even venom imbedded in his heart, and forming no correct opinion on any subject, and yet withal being ashamed to speak the truth, this Callistus, not only on account of his publicly saying in the way of reproach to us, "Ye are Ditheists," but also on account of his being frequently accused by Sabellius, as one that had transgressed his first faith, devised some such heresy as the following. Callistus alleges that the Logos Himself is Son, and that Himself is Father; and that though denominated by a different title, yet that in reality He is one indivisible spirit. And he maintains that the Father is not one person and the Son another, but that they are one and the same; and that all things are full of the Divine Spirit, both those above and those below. And he affirms that the Spirit, which became incarnate in the virgin, is not different from the Father, but one and the same. And he adds, that this is what has been declared by the Saviour: "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? " For that which is seen, which is man, he considers to be the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in the Son, to be the Father. "For," says (Callistus), "I will not profess belief in two Gods, Father and Son, but in one. For the Father, who subsisted in the Son Himself, after He had taken unto Himself our flesh, raised it to the nature of Deity, by bringing it into union with Himself, and made it one; so that Father and Son must be styled one God, and that this Person being one, cannot be two." And in this way Callistus contends that the Father suffered along with the Son; for he does not wish to assert that the Father suffered, and is one Person, being careful to avoid blasphemy against the Father. (How careful he is!) senseless and knavish fellow, who improvises blasphemies in every direction, only that he may not seem to speak in violation of the truth, and is not abashed at being at one time betrayed into the tenet of Sabellius, whereas at another into the doctrine of Theodotus.

...making in His own person the first-fruits of the resurrection of man; that, as the Head rose from the dead, so also the remaining part of the body-[namely, the body] of every man who is found in life-when the time is fulfilled of that condemnation which existed by reason of disobedience, may arise, blended together and strengthened through means of joints and bands by the increase of God, each of the members having its own proper and fit position in the body. For there are many mansions in the Father's house, inasmuch as there are also many members in the body.

[They say, moreover], that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred-fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold: for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second will dwell in paradise, the last will inhabit the city; and that was on this account the Lord declared, "In My Father's house are many mansions." For all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place; even as His Word says, that a share is allotted to all by the Father, according as each person is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch on which the guests shall recline, having been invited to the wedding. The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, affirm that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; also that they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father...

(Hom. lxxiii. 1) Or thus: Our Lord having said above to Peter, Whither I go, thou canst not follow Me now, but thou shalt follow Me afterwards, that they might not think that this promise was made to Peter only, He says, In My Father's house are many mansions; i. e. You shall be admitted into that place, as well as Peter, for it contains abundance of mansions, which are ever ready to receive you: If it were not so, I would have told you: I go to prepare a place for you.

As the presbyters say, then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour will be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. But that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred-fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city; and that on this account the Lord said, "In my Father's house are many mansions:" for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch in which they shall recline who feast, being invited to the wedding. The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

How will there be many mansions in our Father's house, if not to match the diversity of what each deserves? How will one star also differ from another star in glory, unless in virtue of disparity in their rays?

Owing to the fact that our flesh is undergoing dissolution through its sufferings, we shall be provided with a home in heaven.… Because he had called the flesh a house, he wanted to use the same term elegantly in his comparison of the ultimate reward, promising to the very house that undergoes dissolution through suffering a better house through the resurrection, just as the Lord also promises us many mansions like that of a house in his Father's home.

Because, however, he had called the flesh a house, he wished elegantly to use the same term in his comparison of the ultimate reward; promising to the very house, which undergoes dissolution through suffering, a better house through the resurrection. Just as the Lore also promises us many mansions as of a house in His Father's home; although this may possibly be understood of the domicile of this world, on the dissolution of whose fabric an eternal abode is promised in heaven, inasmuch as the following context, having a manifest reference to the flesh, seems to show that these preceding words have no such reference.

Else how shall we sing thanks to God to eternity, if there shall remain in us no sense and memory of this debt; if we shall be reformed in substance, not in consciousness? Consequently, we who shall be with God shall be together; since we shall all be with the one God-albeit the wages be various, albeit there be "many mansions", in the house of the same Father having laboured for the "one penny " of the self-same hire, that is, of eternal life; in which (eternal life) God will still less separate them whom He has conjoined, than in this lesser life He forbids them to be separated.

With my Father there is such an abundance that he can give everyone the delights of eternal happiness.… He tells us that here since the custom among us, when space is scarce, is to reserve a place to stay in advance due to lack of available rooms.

The Lord said to Peter: "Afterward you will follow Me." Lest the others think that this promise was given to Peter alone and not to them, the Lord says that the same country that receives Peter will also receive you. Therefore, one should not be troubled about the place. For there are many mansions "in My Father's house," that is, under the authority of the Father. By "house," understand authority and dominion.

If there were no mansions, I would have gone and prepared them for you, so that you should not be troubled in either case, whether the mansions are ready or not. For if they were not ready, I would with all diligence have prepared them for you.

And if not, I would have told you: I go to prepare, &c. As if He said; Either way ye should not be troubled, whether places are prepared for you, or not. For, if they are not prepared, I will very quickly prepare them.

Then when he says, in my Father's house are many rooms, he adds the promise that it is through Christ that they will approach and be brought to the Father. Now a promise to others that they will gain entrance to some place involves two things: first, the place must be prepared; next, they have to be brought there. Our Lord makes these two promises here: one concerns the preparation of the place, and the other is about their being brought there. Yet the first is not necessary, for the place has already been prepared; but the second is necessary. Thus he does two things: he says the first promise is not necessary; and then he makes his second promise (v 3). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he indicates that it is not necessary to prepare the place; secondly he shows that he could prepare it if it were necessary (v 2b).

He says, in my Father's house are many rooms. The house of any one is where he dwells, and so the house of God is where God dwells. Now God dwells in his saints: "Yet thou, O Lord, art in the midst of us" (Jer 14:9). In some of them he dwells by faith: "I will live in them and move among them" (2 Cor 6:16); while in others he dwells by perfect happiness: "that God may be everything to every one" (1 Cor 15:28). Accordingly, God has two houses. One is the Church militant, that is, the society of those who believe: "that you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God" (1 Tim 3:15). God dwells in this house by faith. "The dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them" (Rev 21:3). The other is the Church triumphant, that is, the society of the saints in the glory of the Father: "We shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, thy holy temple" (Ps 65:4).

Yet the house of the Father is not only where he dwells, but he himself is the house, for he exists in himself. It is into this house that he gathers us. We see from 2 Corinthians (5:1) that God himself is the house: "We have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." This house is the house of glory, which is God himself: "A glorious throne set on high from the beginning is the place of our sanctification" (Jer 17:12). We remain in this place, in God, with our will and affections by the joys of love: "He who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16). And we remain here with our minds by our knowledge of the truth: "Sanctify them in the truth" (17:17).

In this house, then, that is, in glory, which is God, are many rooms, that is, various participations in happiness. This is because one who knows more will have a greater place. Therefore, the different rooms are the various participations in the knowledge and enjoyment of God.

The question arises here whether one person can be happier than another. It seems not. For happiness is the end; and what is perfect, complete, does not have degrees; therefore, there cannot be different degrees of happiness.

I answer that a thing can be perfect in two ways: absolutely and in a qualified sense. The absolute perfection of happiness is found only in God, for only he knows and loves himself to the extent that he is knowable and lovable (since he knows and loves infinitely his own infinite truth and goodness). From this point of view, the supreme good itself, which is the object and cause of happiness, can not be greater or less. This is because there is only one supreme good, which is God.

But in a qualified sense, that is, considering certain conditions of time, of nature and of grace, one person can be happier than another depending on the possession of this good and the capacity of each. The greater the capacity a person has for this good, the more he shares in it, I mean he participates in it more the better disposed and prepared he is to enjoy it. Now one is disposed for this good in two ways. Happiness consists in two things. The first is the vision of God; and one is disposed for this by purity. And so the more one has a heart which is raised above earthly matters, the more he will see God, and the more perfectly. Secondly, happiness consists in the delight of enjoying God, and one is disposed for this by love. Thus, one who has a more burning love for God will find more delight in the enjoyment of God. We read about the first in Matthew (5:8): "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see."

Another question arises from what Matthew (20:10) says, that every laborer received one denarius. This denarius is nothing but a room in the house of the Father. Therefore, there are not many rooms. I answer that the reward of eternal life is both one and many. It is many based on the various capacities of those who share in it, and from this point of view there are different rooms in the Father's house.

Yet this reward is one, and this for three reasons. First, because there is one object; for it is the same object which all the blessed see and enjoy. Thus, there is one denarius. But it is seen and loved in various degrees: "Then you will delight yourself in the Almighty" (Job 22:26); "In that day the Lord of hosts will be a crown of glory, and a diadem of beauty, to the remnant of his people" (Is 28:5). It is like a spring of water, available to all to take as much as they wish. Then, one who has a larger cup will receive more, and one who has a smaller cup will receive less. Therefore, there is one fountain, considering it in itself, but every one does not receive the same portion. This is the opinion of Gregory, in his Morals XXII. Secondly, this reward is one, according to Augustine, because it is an eternal portion: each one will have an eternal happiness, for the just will go into eternal life; but there are differences in capacity. Thirdly, this reward is one because of charity, which unites everything, and makes the joy of each the joy of the rest, and conversely: "Rejoice with those who rejoice" (Rom 12:15).

The Pelagians erred by misunderstanding this passage. They said that children who die without baptism will be saved in the house of God, but not in the kingdom of God, for we read "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (3:5). Augustine answers this by saying that our Lord said that these rooms are in God's house. Now in a kingdom there are nothing but houses: for a kingdom is made up of cities, and cities of neighborhoods, and neighborhoods of houses. Thus, if rooms are in a house, it is evident that they are in the kingdom.

Then when he says, if it were not so I would have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you, he shows he has the ability to prepare a place for them if necessary. For one could say: it is true that in his Father's house many rooms have been prepared, but if not, he could not prepare them. Our Lord excludes this by saying, if it were not so, that is, if the rooms were not prepared, I would have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you.

Here we should consider what is meant by the phrase, to prepare a place for you. A place is prepared in two ways. In one way, when something is done to the place itself, as when it is cleaned or enlarged: "Enlarge the place of your tent" (Is 54:2). In another way, when someone is given the means to enter it; and so the Psalmist prays: "Be thou to me a rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me" (Ps 71:3), which is like saying: May I always have the means to enter here. With this in mind, the text can be understood in two ways. If this place had some defect or was something created, it would be subject to my power to perfect it, for every creature is subject to the power of the Word: "All things were made through him" (1:3). So, if it had some defect, I would have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you. But this place, in itself, is prepared; for this place is God himself, as was said, in whom is the abundance of all perfections. But perhaps you do not have the means to enter it; and so, if it were not so, that is, if it were not so that you had the means to enter here and were not predestined to this place, I would have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you, for it is in my power to predestine you to this place. For he, with the Father and the Holy Spirit has predestined them to eternal life: "He chose us in him" (Eph 1:4).

He says then, If I go, by the absence of the flesh, I shall come again, by the presence of the Godhead; or, I shall come again to judge the quick and dead. And as He knew that they would ask whither He went, or by what way He went, He adds, And whither I go ye know, i. e. to the Father, and the way ye know, i. e. Myself.

And if I go and prepare a place for you, through your faith, namely, in my absence: whence Augustine says: "Let the Lord Jesus go and prepare a place; let him go, so that he may not be seen; let him be hidden, so that he may be believed. For then is a place prepared, if one lives by faith. Let him who is believed be desired, so that he who is desired may be possessed: the desire of love is the preparation of the dwelling." When I shall have thus prepared in my absence, I come again and will take you to myself, through glory, namely, that where I am, you also may be: above in the twelfth chapter: "If anyone serves me, let him follow me, and where I am, there let my servant also be." He therefore exhorts them to faith in his absence, because he absents himself for this reason, that faith may have merit. So Augustine and the Gloss read it.

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you unto myself that where I am there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. And again to the mother of James and John, who asked that the one of them should sit at His right hand and the other on the left in His kingdom, He answered, saying: It is not mine to give, but for whom it has been prepared by my Father. Those that are worthy, therefore, shall obtain these things before I bestow them whether on your sons or on others that are worthy. But the expression that where I am there ye may be also, shows very remarkably that that place is indissoluble, and has been aforetime prepared, and not that another place is substituted (as those wise men imagine), in which we are to dwell after the resurrection, when this place of the heavens shall have been dissolved. And to speak briefly, the passages in divine scripture are almost innumerable which show that the heaven, into which Christ has entered and into which we also shall enter, is indissoluble.

If there were not many mansions in God the Father's home, he would have said that he was going on before them to prepare beforehand the homes of the saints. But since he already knew that there were many homes already fully prepared and awaiting the arrival of those who love God, he says that he will depart, but not for this purpose. Rather, he leaves in order to secure the way to the mansions above, to prepare a passage of safety for you and to smooth the paths that were formerly impassible. For in times of old, heaven was utterly inaccessible to mortals, and no flesh as yet had ever traveled that pure and all-holy realm of the angels. But Christ was the first who consecrated for us the means of access to himself and granted to flesh a way of entrance into heaven. He did this by presenting himself as an offering to God the Father, the "firstfruits of those who are asleep" and are lying in the tomb, and by presenting himself as the first human being that ever appeared in heaven.… For Christ did not ascend on high in order to present himself before the presence of God the Father. He always was and is and will be continually in the Father, in the sight of him who begat him. For he is the one in whom the Father takes delight. Rather, he who of old was the Word with no part or lot in human nature has now ascended in human form so that he may appear in heaven in a strange and unusual manner. And this he has done on our account and for our sakes in order that he, though "found as a man," may still in his absolute power as Son—while yet in human form—obey the command, "Sit at my right hand," and in this way transfer the glory of adoption through himself to the entire human race. For because he has appeared in human form, he is still one of us as he sits at the right hand of God the Father, even though he is far above all creation. He is also consubstantial with his Father due to the fact that he has come forth from him as truly God of God and Light of Light. He has presented himself therefore as man to the Father on our behalf so that he may restore us again, as it were, to behold the Father's face—we who were removed from the Father's presence by the ancient transgression.…"I shall not then," he says, "depart to prepare mansions for you. There are already enough there. There is no need to make new homes for my creation. But I go to prepare a place for you because of the sin that has mastery over you in order that those of you who are on the earth will be able to be mingled with the holy angels. Otherwise, the holy multitude of those above would never mingle with those [below] who were so defiled. But now, when I shall have accomplished the work of uniting the world below with that above—giving you a way of access to the city on high as well—I will return again at the time of regeneration and 'receive you with myself, so that where I am, there you may be also.' "

(Hom. lxxiii. 1) Having said, Thou canst not follow Me now, that they might not think that they were cut off for ever, He adds: 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: a recommendation to them to place the strongest trust in Him.

If I had gone away to prepare a place for you, then in that case I would not have left you, but would have taken you with Me, so that you also would be where I am. Do you see how much consolation and encouragement is in the words "that you also may be where I am"? Therefore, it is unreasonable for you to be troubled, when you will be with Me.

Our Lord said above: "Where I am going you cannot follow me now" (13:36). And then here, to keep them from believing that they would be absolutely separated from him he adds, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself. This is the second promise, that they will be brought into the kingdom.

This seems to conflict with his earlier statement, for he had said: if it were not so, if places were not already prepared I would have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you. This implies that he is not going to prepare a place for them. Yet here we read: if I go and prepare a place for you, which suggests that he is going to prepare a place for them.

One reply would be that these two sentences can be understood as connected together. Then the meaning would be this: "if it were not so," that is, if places were not prepared by predestination and I had to go to prepare them, "I would have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you." And then again, "if it were not so," I go and prepare a place for you.

According to Augustine, however, these are distinct sentences and are not read together. Our Lord prepared places both by eternal predestination, and by carrying out this predestination. He also prepared these places by his departure. Thus, what our Lord said first, that rooms were prepared, is understood as referring to the first preparation from all eternity. Then when he says, if I go and prepare a place for you, this is understood as referring to the carrying out of the eternal predestination.

Our Lord prepared a place for us by his departure in five ways. First he made room for faith: for since faith concerns things not seen, when the disciples saw Christ in person, they did not need faith for this. Thus he left them, so that the one they had possessed by his bodily presence and saw with their bodily eyes, they could still possess in his spiritual presence and see with the eyes of their mind. This is to possess him by faith. Secondly, his leaving prepared a place by showing them the way to go to that place: "He who opens the breach will go before them" (Mic 2:13). Thirdly, by his prayers for them: "He is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him" (Heb 7:25); "He rides through the heavens to your help" (Deut 33:26). Fourthly, by attracting them to what is above: "Draw me after you" (Song 1:4); "If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above" (Col 3:1). Fifthly, by sending them the Holy Spirit: "As yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (7:39).

The glorification of Christ was completed by his ascension. And so as soon as he ascended, he sent the Holy Spirit to his disciples. He told them ahead of time that he would physically leave them, saying, if I go and prepare a place for you. And then he promised them a spiritual return, saying, I will come again. I will come at the end of the world: "Then Jesus... will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (Acts 1:2). And will take you, glorified in soul and body, to myself: "We shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess 4:17).

Will Christ wait until the end of the world before he takes the spirits of the apostles? It is the opinion of the Greeks that the saints will not go to paradise until the day of judgment. But if this were true, the desire of the Apostle (Phil 1:23) to be with Christ would be futile. Therefore, one should say that immediately after the house where we dwell here is overthrown, our souls are with Christ. And so the statement, I will come again and will take you to myself, can be understood as that spiritual coming with which Christ always visits the Church of the faithful and vivifies each of the faithful at death. Then the meaning is: I will come again, to the Church, spiritually and continuously, and will take you to myself, that is, I will strengthen you in faith and love for me: "My beloved has gone down to his garden, to the beds of spices," that is, to the community of the saints, "to feed in the garden," that is, to delight in their virtues, "and to gather lilies," to draw pure souls to himself when he gives life to the saints at death (Song 6:1).

Then he mentions the fruit of this, saying, that where I am you may be also, that is, so that the members may be with their head; so the disciples may be with their Teacher: "Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together" (Mt 24:28); "Where I am, there shall my servant be also" (12:26).

And where I go, you know. Here the second point is touched upon, namely the way of departure. And lest he should seem to them to be saying something new about his departure, he says that they knew both the way and the destination; therefore he says: And where I go, you know, and the way you know. But some of them did not fully understand; therefore they ask, namely Thomas and Philip.

It is asked concerning this, that the Lord says to the disciples: Where I go, you know, and the way you know: because Thomas immediately asks as one who is ignorant, and says that he does not know. Likewise, Philip asks about the terminus, namely about the Father, and in this shows that he does not know: therefore either the Lord spoke falsely, or they were asking what they already knew.

To this there is a threefold response: in the first way, that the Lord was not speaking about all of them, but about some. But this solution is not fitting, because the Lord in the preceding passages excepted Judas: I do not speak of all of you. In another way it is answered that they knew both the way and the terminus, but not under that aspect under which he was speaking, just as I know Coriscus, but not insofar as he is approaching: and therefore I can, while knowing Coriscus, inquire and doubt about him under the aspect of one approaching. In another way it is said that they knew, but were not attending to it or actually considering it; and therefore Philip was rebuked for his lack of consideration.

"I Myself," He seems to say, "am going on before to make ready for you the path of entrance into the heavens: but if you wish, and if it is the delight of your heart, to rest within those mansions, and if you have devoted all your endeavours to reach the city above and to dwell in the company of the holy spirits, then ye know the way, which is Myself; for assuredly through Me. and none other, will you gain that blessing so marvellous. No other will ever open the heavens to you, or ever smooth for you the ground that none on earth could hitherto ever tread or ever know, except Myself alone." And the saying is true. Therefore surely it was that the prophet Jeremiah, speaking by the Spirit, bade us ever seek this way most diligently, saying: Stand ye in the ways, and ask for the everlasting paths of the Lord, and see what is the good way, and walk therein; and ye shall find sanctification to your souls. For the ways and paths of the Lord are, according to the prophet, the saving precepts of the holy prophets; but if any one devote his mind to them, he will find the Good Way, that is, Christ, through Whom cometh the perfect sanctification to our souls: for we are justified by faith, and are made partakers of the Divine nature by sharing in the gift of the Holy Spirit. Nay, more, Isaiah himself, that prophet of mighty-sounding voice, thus heralded forth to us the coming of Christ, saying: There shall be in that time an undefiled way, and it shall be called a holy way; where by the phrase "in that time" he clearly means to speak of the time of the Incarnation of the Only-begotten: for He has made Himself for us an Undefiled and Holy Way, along which whosoever shall travel will at the appointed season behold the fair brightness of the city of the saints, and the Jerusalem which is free. And again, the inspired Psalmist himself says to us, addressing himself as to God the Father: Teach me, O Lord, in Thy way: for he is desirous to be instructed in the laws that are given by Christ, as one who is not unaware that he will travel onward even to the city above, if led by the Evangelic teaching, journeying straight towards every blessing. And it would not be difficult to bring forward also many other testimonies out of the prophets, from which we might know assuredly that Jesus was called by them the holy "Way"; but I consider that there is |240 no necessity for laying excessive stress on arguments whose effective use is so self-evident. "Ye know therefore," He says, "the way by which you yourselves also may pass to the mansions above;" signifying thereby just this, and nothing else: "There are indeed resting-places in God the Father's home, many and glorious; and I am going on before you to prepare for you a means of access whereby you may in all boldness enter the regions yonder. But be well assured that no man would ever be able to reach those courts save through Me, and Me alone." If therefore any one fall away from the love of Christ, or (giving way to profane babblings and to impure and unnatural suggestions on the part of men whose hearts are set on false slanders) venture to degrade to the condition of slavery His nature so ineffable and incomprehensible, numbering among those born in the world Him Who is the Word begotten of the Father's essence in perfect freedom, or having any like base thoughts; let that man be well assured that he has lost the track of the journey to heaven above, and that he has been "deceived as to the waggon-wheels of his own farm," according to the saying of some one, and will most certainly undergo the penalties that are merited by those who cling to the world below. Therefore also the most wise Paul says of those who in madness have refused to order their lives in the manner of Christ, rushing back to the shadows of the law, that they have been alienated from Christ, and have fallen from grace in their desire to be justified by the law. For even as he who strays from the direct and beaten path will certainly be exposed to the disastrous consequences of his wandering, just so methinks and in the same degree will they who have rejected the righteousness that is in Christ, and have set at nought the teaching of the Evangelic dispensation, never see the city above, and never dwell with the saints. For Christ alone is the Way that can bring them thither.

"I myself," he seems to say, "am going ahead to prepare the path of entry into the heavens." But if you wish, and if it is the delight of your heart to rest within those mansions, and if you have devoted everything to reaching that city above and dwelling in the company of the holy spirits—then "you know the way," which is myself. For assuredly it is through me and no one else that you will ever gain that marvelous blessing. No other will ever open the heavens to you or smooth over the ground that one on earth could ever walk—except myself alone.

(Hom. xxiii. 2) He shows them that He is aware of their curiosity to know His meaning, and thus excites them to put questions to Him.

The Lord sees that it is on their mind to ask and learn where He is going. Therefore He gives them an occasion to ask about this. "You," He says, "know where I am going, and the way you know." And by this He leads them to the question.

Above our Lord consoled his disciples because he was leaving, promising them that they could come to the Father. Now he mentions the way by which they are to approach the Father. But one does not know a way unless he also knows his destination; and so he also considers the destination. First, he mentions the way and its destination as known to them; secondly, he explains this (v 5).

In regard to the first, note that our Lord had said: "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again." The disciples could have asked him where he was going, just like Peter did before: "Lord, where are you going?" (13:36). Our Lord knew this and so said to them, Where I am going you know, and the way you know. For I am going to the Father, whom you know, since I have manifested him to you: "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gave me" (17:9). And I myself am the way through which I go, and you know me: "We have beheld his glory" (1:14). He spoke truly, therefore, when he said, where I am going you know, and the way you know: because they knew the Father through Christ, and they knew Christ by living with him.

Christ is not only God but true God indeed—true God of true God—and I approach the true one inasmuch as he himself is the truth. If, then, we inquire his name, it is "the truth." If we seek to know his natural rank and dignity, he is so truly the very Son of God, that he is indeed God's own Son.

If they say that the Father alone is true God, they cannot deny that God the Son alone is the truth. For Christ is the truth. Is the truth then something inferior to him that is true, seeing that according to the use of terms a person is called true from the word truth, as also wise from wisdom, just from justice? We do not consider it so between the Father and the Son. For there is nothing lacking in the Father, because the Father is full of truth. And the Son, because he is the truth, is equal to him who is true.

Lord Jesus, we do follow you, but we can come only at your bidding. No one can make the ascent without you, for you are our way, our truth, our life, our strength, our confidence, our reward. Be the way that receives us, the truth that strengthens us, the life that invigorates us.

Christ is the true Son, and so when we receive the Spirit, we are made sons. For it says; 'you did not receive the spirit of slavery leading you back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adopted sonship' [Romans 8:15]. But when we are made sons in the Spirit, it is clear that we are called children of God in Christ... And when the Spirit is given to us-the Saviour said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit' [John 20:22]- God [The Father] is in us... But when God is in us, the Son is also in us. For the Lord Himself said: 'I and the Father will come and make our home with him' [John 14:23]. Next, the Son is life-for He said: 'I am the life' (John 14:6)- and so we are said to be given life in the Spirit... But when we are given life in the Spirit, Christ Himself is said to live in us. For it says: 'I am crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.' [Galatians 2:19-20]. - "Letters to Separion On the Spirit, Letter 1, Chapter 19"

Persevere now in walking by faith in the truth, that you may succeed in coming at a definite and due time to the sight of the same truth. For as the apostle says, "While staying here in the body, we are away from the Lord. For we are walking by faith, not by sight." We are led to the direct sight and vision of the Father by Christian faith. That is why the Lord says, "No one comes to the Father except through me."

The one who is himself the Truth and the Word, by whom all things were made, was made flesh so that he might dwell among us. And yet, the apostle still says, "Even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet from now on we know him no more." For Christ, desiring not only to give the possession to those who had completed the journey but also to be himself the way to those who were just setting out, determined to take a fleshly body. This is the source of that expression, "The Lord created me in the beginning of his way." Those who desire to come [to the Father] begin their journey in [the Son]. The apostle, therefore, although still on the way … had already passed over the beginning of the way and had now no further need of it. And yet, everyone who wants to attain to the truth and to rest in eternal life has to start the journey by this way. For Jesus says, "I am the way, and the truth and the life"; that is, by me men and women come. To me they come, in me they rest. For when we come to him, we come to the Father also, because through an equal an equal is known.

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.

(de Verb. Dom. s. liv) As if He said, I am the way, whereby thou wouldest go; I am the truth, whereto thou wouldest go; I am the life, in which thou wouldest abide. The truth and the life every one understands (capit); but not every one hath found the way. Even the philosophers of the world have seen that God is the life eternal, the truth which is the end of all knowledge. And the Word of God, which is truth and life with the Father, by taking upon Him human nature, is made the way. Walk by the Man, and thou wilt arrive at God. For it is better to limp on the right way, than to walk ever so stoutly by the wrong.

(Tr. lxix. 2) They knew then the way, because they knew He was the way. But what need to add, the truth, and the life? Because they were yet to be told whither He went. He went to the truth; He went to the life. He went then to Himself, by Himself. But didst Thou leave Thyself, O Lord, to come to us? (c. 3.). I know that Thou tookest upon Thee the form of a servant; by the flesh Thou camest, remaining where Thou wast; by that Thou returnedst, remaining where Thou hadst come to. If by this then Thou camest, and returnedst, by this Thou wast the way, not only to us, to come to Thee, but also to Thyself to come, and to return again. And when Thou wentest to life, which is Thyself, Thou raisedst that same flesh of Thine from death to life. Christ therefore went to life, when His flesh arose from death to life. And since the Word is life, Christ went to Himself; Christ being both, in one person, i. e. Word-flesh. Again, by the flesh God came to men, the truth to liars; for God is true, but every man a liar. When then He withdrew Himself from men, and lifted up His flesh to that place in which no liar is, the same Christ, by the way, by which He being the Word became flesh, by Himself, i. e. by His flesh, by the same returned to Truth, which is Himself, which truth, even amongst the liars He maintained unto death. Behold I myself, if I make you understand what I say, do in a certain sense go to you, though I do not leave myself. And when I cease speaking, I return to myself, but remain with you, if ye remember what ye have heard. If the image which God hath made can do this, how much more the Image which God hath begotten? Thus He goes by Himself, to Himself and to the Father, and we by Him, to Him and to the Father.

We understand the "way" to be the road to perfection, advancing in order step by step through the words of righteousness and the illumination of knowledge, always yearning for that which lies ahead and straining toward the last mile, until we reach that blessed end, the knowledge of God, with which the Lord blesses those who believe in him. For truly our Lord is a good way, a straight road with no confusing forks or turns, leading us directly to the Father. For "no one comes to the Father," he says, "except through me." Such is our way up to God through his Son.

Christ instituted the seven Sacraments of the law of grace as the mediator of the new testament and the chief lawgiver, in which law he called to the promises eternal, gave directing precepts, and instituted sanctifying Sacraments. By reason of supreme goodness, he set forth beatifying promises; by reason of supreme truth, he gave directing precepts; but by reason of supreme power, he established assisting Sacraments: so that through the Sacraments power might be restored for fulfilling the directing precepts, and through the directive precepts one might arrive at the eternal promises, with the eternal Word, namely Christ the Lord, bringing this about in the evangelical law, insofar as he is the way, the truth, and the life.

No one is wise unless he is taught by God, for "No one comes to the Father but through Me," says the Saviour. No one is taught in matters of faith except through God; and because it comes about through God's voice, it is said: "God called the firmament heaven."

Jesus says to him: I am the way, the truth, and the life. The truth and the life with respect to the destination, because the truth regards the intellect, the life regards the affection. I am the way for those seeking, the truth for those finding, the life for those remaining without death.

I am the way that does not err: Psalm: "They wandered in a pathless waste and not in the way." I am the truth that does not deceive: Psalm: "The Lord is faithful in all his words." The life that does not fail: Luke ten: "Mary has chosen the best part, which shall not be taken from her."

I am the way teaching: Proverbs 4: "I will lead you through the paths of equity, which when you have entered, your steps shall not be straitened, and running you shall have no stumbling block." I am the truth shining; Malachi, the last chapter: "The sun of justice shall arise for you who fear God." The life nourishing: above in the tenth chapter: "If anyone enters through me, he shall be saved: and he shall go in and go out and shall find pastures."

I am the way by example: above in the thirteenth chapter: "I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you also should do." I am the truth in promise: the Psalm: "What proceeds from my lips I shall not make void." I am the life in reward: Romans 6: "The wages of sin is death: but the grace of God is life eternal." And that he is the way, he shows: No one comes to the Father except through me, and through me one assuredly comes.

There is a question about the Lord's response to Thomas: I am the way, the truth, and the life. How is the same one, who goes, the way? How also is he himself the life and the terminus? This seems very unfitting. It must be said that he himself is the one who goes, and through whom one travels, and to whom one arrives: and thus he is the truth, which goes; the way, through which one travels; the life, to which one arrives. And this is on account of the plurality of natures: because as man, he goes; because as God, he is the terminus; because as mediator of God and men, he makes the way.

In this manner it is possible to find in the illumination of mechanical art, whose entire intention is directed toward the production of artifacts. In which we can perceive these three things, namely the generation and incarnation of the Word, the order of living, and the covenant of God and the soul. And this, if we consider the origin, the effect, and the fruit; or thus: the art of working, the quality of the artifact produced, and the usefulness of the fruit derived.

If we consider the origin, we shall see that the artificial product proceeds from the artisan by means of a likeness existing in his mind, through which the artisan conceives before he produces, and then produces as he has planned. Moreover, the artisan produces an exterior work conformed to the interior exemplar as closely as he can; and if he could produce such a product that would love and know him, he would certainly do so; and if that product were to know its maker, this would be by means of the likeness according to which it proceeded from the artisan; and if it had darkened eyes of knowledge, so that it could not raise itself above itself, it would be necessary, in order that it might be led to knowledge of its maker, that the likeness through which the product had been produced should condescend to that nature which could be grasped and known by it.

By this manner understand that from the supreme Artisan no creature proceeded except through the eternal Word, "in whom He disposed all things," and through whom He produced not only creatures having the nature of a vestige, but also of an image, so that they might be assimilated to Him through knowledge and love. And since through sin the rational creature had the eye of contemplation clouded over, it was most fitting that the eternal and invisible should become visible and assume flesh, in order to lead us back to the Father. And this is what is said in John fourteen: No one comes to the Father except through me; and Matthew eleven: No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. And therefore it is said the Word was made flesh. Considering therefore the illumination of mechanical art with respect to the production of the work, we shall behold therein the Word begotten and incarnate, that is, the Divinity and the humanity and the integrity of the whole faith.

The soul, therefore, believing, hoping in, and loving Jesus Christ, who is the Word incarnate, uncreated, and inspired, that is, the way, the truth, and the life: when through faith it believes in Christ as the Word uncreated, which is the Word and splendor of the Father, it recovers spiritual hearing and sight, hearing to receive the words of Christ, sight to consider the splendors of that light. When, however, through hope it sighs to receive the Word inspired, through desire and affection it recovers spiritual smell. When through charity it embraces the Word incarnate, receiving from it delight and passing over into it through ecstatic love, it recovers taste and touch.

These six considerations having therefore been traversed, as if they were the six steps of the throne of the true Solomon, by which one arrives at peace, where the true peaceful one rests in a peaceful mind as in an interior Jerusalem; and as if also the six wings of the Cherub, by which the mind of the true contemplative, filled with the illumination of supernal wisdom, may be borne upward; and as if also the first six days, in which the mind must be exercised, so that it may at last arrive at the sabbath of rest; after our mind has contemplated God outside itself through vestiges and in the vestiges, within itself through the image and in the image, above itself through the similitude of the divine light shining upon us and in that light itself, insofar as is possible according to the state of wayfaring and the exercise of our mind; when at last in the sixth step it has arrived at this point, that it contemplates in the first and highest principle and the mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ, those things whose likenesses can in no way be found in creatures, and which exceed all keenness of the human intellect: it remains that, in contemplating these things, it should transcend and pass beyond not only this sensible world, but also itself; in which passing over, Christ is the way and the door, Christ is the ladder and the vehicle, as it were the mercy seat placed upon the ark of God and the mystery hidden from the ages.

The summit of all Christian perfection revolves around three things, namely around grace, justice, and wisdom, according to which three things Christ is said to be the way, the truth, and the life. For the gift of grace provides the way to the truth of justice, in which consists the exercise of action; the truth of justice leads to the taste of wisdom, in which consists the consolation of contemplation; when these have been perfectly attained, one ascends to the summit of evangelical perfection, which Christ Jesus taught by word and example, who specially professed himself the master of humility, in Matthew 11: Learn from me, etc. For humility is the gateway of wisdom, the foundation of justice, and the dwelling place of grace.

The things He says are very different from what any other teacher has said. Others say, "This is the truth about the universe. This is the way you ought to go," but He says, "I am the Truth, and the Way, and the Life." He says, "No man can reach absolute reality, except through Me. Try to retain your own life and you will be inevitably ruined. Give yourself away and you will be saved."

Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside yourself.

We merely therefore assert here, that philosophy is characterized by investigation into truth and the nature of things (this is the truth of which the Lord Himself said, "I am the truth"); and that, again, the preparatory training for rest in Christ exercises the mind, rouses the intelligence, and begets an inquiring shrewdness, by means of the true philosophy, which the initiated possess, having found it, or rather received it, from the truth itself.

For he who hopes, as he who believes, sees intellectual objects and future things with the mind. If, then, we affirm that aught is just, and affirm it to be good, and we also say that truth is something, yet we have never seen any of such objects with our eyes, but with our mind alone. Now the Word of God says, "I am the truth." The Word is then to be contemplated by the mind.

For whereas in the Gospels, and in the epistles of the apostles, the name of Christ is alleged for the remission of sins; it is not in such a way as that the Son alone, without the Father, or against the Father, can be of advantage to anybody; but that it might be shown to the Jews, who boasted as to their having the Father, that the Father would profit them nothing, unless they believed on the Son whom He had sent. For they who know God the Father the Creator, ought also to know Christ the Son, lest they should flatter and applaud themselves about the Father alone, without the acknowledgment of His Son, who also said, "No man cometh to the Father but by me." But He, the same, sets forth, that it is the knowledge of the two which saves, when He says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Since, therefore, from the preaching and testimony of Christ Himself, the Father who sent must be first known, then afterwards Christ, who was sent, and there cannot be a hope of salvation except by knowing the two together; how, when God the Father is not known, nay, is even blasphemed, can they who among the heretics are said to be baptized in the name of Christ, be judged to have obtained the remission of sins? For the case of the Jews under the apostles was one, but the condition of the Gentiles is another. The former, because they had already gained the most ancient baptism of the law and Moses, were to be baptized also in the name of Jesus Christ, in conformity with what Peter tells them in the Acts of the Apostles, saying, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For this promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Peter makes mention of Jesus Christ, not as though the Father should be omitted, but that the Son also might be joined to the Father.

But if there be among us, most beloved brother, the fear of God, if the maintenance of the faith prevail, if we keep the precepts of Christ, if we guard the incorrupt and inviolate sanctity of His spouse, if the words of the Lord abide in our thoughts and hearts, when he says, "Thinkest thou, when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth" then, because we are God's faithful soldiers, who war for the faith and sincere religion of God, let us keep the camp entrusted to us by God with faithful valour. Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error. On which account, let us forsake the error and follow the truth, knowing that in Esdras also the truth conquers, as it is written: "Truth endureth and grows strong to eternity, and lives and prevails for ever and ever. With her there is no accepting of persons or distinctions; but what is just she does: nor in her judgments is there unrighteousness, but the strength, and the kingdom, and the majesty, and the power of all ages. Blessed be the Lord God of truth!" This truth Christ showed to us in His Gospel, and said, "I am the truth." Wherefore, if we are in Christ, and have Christ in us, if we abide in the truth, and the truth abides in us, let us keep fast those things which are true.

Let us therefore, brethren beloved, pray as God our Teacher has taught us. It is a loving and friendly prayer to beseech God with His own word, to come up to His ears in the prayer of Christ. Let the Father acknowledge the words of His Son when we make our prayer, and let Him also who dwells within in our breast Himself dwell in our voice. And since we have Him as an Advocate with the Father for our sins, let us, when as sinners we petition on behalf of our sins, put forward the words of our Advocate. For since He says, that "whatsoever we shall ask of the Father in His name, He will give us," how much more effectually do we obtain what we ask in Christ's name, if we ask for it in His own prayer!

That it is impossible to attain to God the Father, except by His Son Jesus Christ. In the Gospel: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh to the Father but by me." Also in the same place: "I am the door: by me if any man shall enter in, he shall be saved." Also in the same place: "Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see the things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." Also in the same place: "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life: he that is not obedient in word to the Son hath not life; but the wrath of God shall abide upon him." Also Paul to the Ephesians: "And when He had come, He preached peace to you, to those which are afar off, and peace to those which are near, because through Him we both have access in one Spirit unto the Father." Also to the Romans: "For all have sinned, and fail of the glory of God; but they are justified by His gift and grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus." Also in the Epistle of Peter the apostle: "Christ hath died once for our sins, the just for the unjust, that He might present us to God." Also in the same place: "For in this also was it preached to them that are dead, that they might be raised again." Also in the Epistle of John: "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same also hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath both the Son and the Father."

That it is impossible to attain to the Father but by His Son Jesus Christ. In the Gospel according to John: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Also in the same place: "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved."

Libosus of Vaga said: In the Gospel the Lord says, "I am the truth." He said not," I am the custom." Therefore the truth being manifest, let custom yield to truth; so that, although for the past any one was not in the habit of baptizing heretics in the Church, let him now begin to baptize them.

Christ willed not as yet to tell His disciples in so many words that He was going away to the world above and returning to His Father, although in dark hints and through many impressive sayings He had been referring to the event. But one of His disciples, that one being Thomas, now questions Him directly, and by introducing at the same time a sort of argument, all but forces Him in spite of Himself to tell them plainly both whither it is that He is going, and where the path of His journey lies. For we know not, said he, whither Thou goest: so then, how could we know the way? Christ in His reply evades the excessive curiosity of His disciple, for He does not give the desired answer at all, but treasuring up the question in His all-knowing mind, and rather reserving it for a more convenient moment, He in His kindness unfolds a truth which it was essential for them to learn. He says, therefore: I am the Way, I the Truth, I the Life. Now as to the truth of the Lord's saying in these words concerning Himself, no reasonable person can ever have felt the slightest shadow of doubt; yet I conceive it is needful to examine the question attentively. For how comes it that, whereas in the inspired Scriptures He is spoken of as Light, and Wisdom, and Power, and by many other names, He selects a few only as being of very especial significance for the present occasion, calling Himself the Way, and the Truth, and the Life? For the real force of the words is deep and not easily discernible, as it seems to me; yet still we must not shrink from attempting to discover it. I shall say exactly what occurs to my own mind, commending to those who are wont to speculate more keenly the task of thinking out a higher meaning.

There are then three means whereby we shall reach the Divine courts that are above and enter the Church of the firstborn; namely, by practice in virtue of every kind, by faith in rightness of doctrine, and by hope of life to come. Is there any one else than our Lord Jesus the Christ, who could ever be a leader, a helper, or a means for granting us success in such matters as these? Surely not: do not think it. For He Himself has taught us things that are beyond the Law; He has pointed out to us the way that any one might safely take as leading to a virtue mighty in operation, and to a zealous and unhindered performance of those acts that are after the pattern of Christ. And so He Himself is the Truth, He is the Way; that is, the true boundary of faith, and the exact rule and standard of an unerring conception concerning God. For by a true belief in the Son, namely as begotten of the very essence of God the Father, and as bearing the title of Son in its fullest and truest meaning, and not even in any sense a made or created being, we shall then clothe ourselves in the confidence of a true faith. For he who has received the Son as a Son, has fully confessed a belief also in Him of Whose essence the Son is, and knows and will straightway accept God as the Father. Therefore He is the Truth, He is the Life; for none other will restore to us the life which is within our hopes, namely, that life which is in incorruption, and blessedness, and sanctification: for He it is that raises us up, and will bring us back again from the death we died under the ancient curse, to the state in which we were at the beginning. In Him therefore and through Him, all that is best and all that is precious has already appeared, and will appear for us. And notice again that the meaning connected with these words is very suitable to the idea involved in the previous verses. For while the disciple was still in doubt, and saying: How know we the way? He showed him briefly that since they knew Himself to be the motive cause, the leader, and the prince of the blessings that would bring them to the world above, they would have no further need of knowing the way.

But since He has added hereunto the words: No one cometh unto the Father but by Me, let us give some attention to this point in what we are about to say; first examining the question how one could go to the Father. We approach Him in two ways: either by becoming holy, as far as is possible for humanity, we thus are led to cleave to a holy God, for it is written: Ye shall be holy, for I am holy; or else we arrive, through faith and contemplation, at that knowledge of the Father which is as it were in a mirror darkly, as it is written. But no man would ever be holy and make progress in a life according to the rule of virtue, unless Christ were the guide of his footsteps in everything: and none would ever be united to God the Father save through the mediation of Christ. For He is Mediator between God and men, through Himself and in Himself uniting humanity to God. For since He is born of the essence of God the Father, in that He is the Word, the Effulgence, and the very Image, He is one with the Father, being wholly in the Father, and having the Father in Himself; while in that He has become a man like unto us, He is united to all on the earth in everything except in our sin: and so He has become a sort of border-ground, containing in Himself all that concurs to unity and friendship.

No man therefore will come to the Father, that is, will appear as a partaker of the Divine nature, save through Christ alone. For if He had not become a Mediator by taking human form, our condition could never have advanced to such a height of blessedness; but now, if any one approach the Father in a spirit of faith and reverent knowledge, he will do so, by the help of our Saviour Christ Himself. For even as I said just now, so I will say again, the course of the argument being in no wise different. By accepting the Son truly as Son a man will arrive also at the knowledge of God the Father: for one could not be looked upon as a son, except the father who |244 begat him were fully acknowledged at the same time. The knowledge of the Father is thus necessarily concurrent with belief in the Son, and knowledge of the Son with belief in the Father. And so the Lord says most truly: No man cometh unto the Father but by Me. For the Son is in nature and essence an Image of God the Father, and not (as some have thought) a Being moulded merely into His likeness by attributes specially bestowed, Himself being by nature something essentially different, and being so esteemed.

There are three means by which we shall reach the divine courts that are above and enter the church of the firstborn: by practicing every kind of virtue; by faith in right doctrine; by hope of the life to come. Is there anyone other than our Lord Jesus the Christ who could ever be a leader, a helper or a means for granting us success in these kinds of things? Surely not! Do not even entertain such an idea! For he himself has taught us things beyond the Law. He has pointed out to us the way that anyone might safely take that would lead to a life of incredible virtue and to a highly motivated and unhindered performance of those actions that follow the pattern of Christ. And so he himself is the truth, he is the way, that is, the true boundary of faith and the exact rule and standard of an unerring conception concerning God. For by a true belief in the Son, namely, as begotten of the very essence of God the Father and as bearing the title of Son in its fullest and truest meaning—and not even in any sense a made or created being—we shall then clothe ourselves in the confidence of a true faith. For one who has received the Son as a Son has fully confessed a belief also in him of whose essence the Son is, and that person knows and will immediately accept God as the Father. Therefore he is the truth, he is the life, for no one else will restore to us the life that is within our hopes, namely, that life that is in incorruption, blessedness and sanctification. For it is he that raises us up and who will bring us back again from the death we died under the ancient curse to the state in which we were at the beginning.

We approach the Father in two ways: either by becoming holy, as far as is possible for humanity … or else we arrive, through faith and contemplation, at that knowledge of the Father which is as it were "in a mirror darkly." But no one would ever be holy and make progress in a life according to the rule of virtue unless Christ were the guide of his footsteps in everything. And no one would ever be united to God the Father except through the mediation of Christ, for he is the mediator between God and humanity, through himself and in himself uniting humanity to God.… No one, therefore, will come to the Father, that is, will appear as a partaker of the divine nature, except through Christ alone. For if he had not become a mediator by taking human form, our condition could never have advanced to such a height of blessedness. But now, if anyone approaches the Father in a spirit of faith and reverent knowledge, he will do so by the help of our Savior Christ himself.

Christ is the head of the Church. And they, therefore, are the wise who walk in His way; for He Himself has said, "I am the way." On this account, then, it becomes the wise man always to keep the eyes of his mind directed toward Christ Himself, in order that he may do nothing out of measure, neither being lifted up in heart in the time of prosperity, nor becoming negligent in the day of adversity: "for His judgments are a great deep," as you will learn more exactly from what is to follow.

(4) Don't say, "There is no true creed; for each creed believes itself right and the others wrong." Probably one of the creeds is right and the others are wrong. Diversity does show that most of the views must be wrong. It does not by the faintest logic show that they all must be wrong. I suppose there is no subject on which opinions differ with more desperate sincerity than about which horse will win the Derby. These are certainly solemn convictions; men risk ruin for them. The man who puts his shirt on Potosi must believe in that animal, and each of the other men putting their last garments upon other quadrupeds must believe in them quite as sincerely. They are all serious, and most of them are wrong. But one of them is right. One of the faiths is justified; one of the horses does win; not always even the dark horse which might stand for Agnosticism, but often the obvious and popular horse of Orthodoxy. Democracy has its occasional victories; and even the Favourite has been known to come in first. But the point here is that something comes in first. That there were many beliefs does not destroy the fact that there was one well-founded belief. I believe (merely upon authority) that the world is round. That there may be tribes who believe it to be triangular or oblong does not alter the fact that it is certainly some shape, and therefore not any other shape. Therefore I repeat, with the wail of imprecation, don't say that the variety of creeds prevents you from accepting any creed. It is an unintelligent remark.

[Eunomius] speaks of God as "without beginning, eternally without end, alone." Once more "understand, you simple ones," as Solomon says, "his subtlety," in case you might be deceived and fall headlong into the denial of the Godhead of the only-begotten Son. Whatever is devoid of death or decay is that which is without end. That, likewise, is called everlasting that does not exist only for a time. That, therefore, which is neither everlasting nor without end is surely seen in the nature that is perishable and mortal. And so, the one who predicates "unendingness" of the one and only God and does not include the Son in the assertion of "unendingness" and "eternity" maintains by such a proposition that he whom he thus contrasts with the eternal and unending is perishable and temporary. But we, even when we are told that God "alone has immortality," understand by "immortality" the Son. For life is immortality, and the Lord is that life who said, "I am the Life."

This blind man is rightly described as sitting beside the road and being a beggar; for the Truth himself says: "I am the way." Therefore whoever does not know the brightness of eternal light is blind; but if he already believes in the Redeemer, he sits beside the way; if, however, he already believes but neglects to ask that he might receive eternal light, and ceases from prayers, the blind man indeed sits beside the way but does not beg at all. But if he has both believed and recognized the blindness of his heart, and asks that he might receive the light of truth, the blind man sits beside the way and begs.

He who is the way does not lead us into by-paths or trackless wastes. He who is the truth does not mock us with lies. He who is the life does not betray us into delusions, which are death. He himself has chosen these winning names to indicate the methods that he has appointed for our salvation. As the way, he will guide us to the truth. As the truth, he will establish us in the life. And therefore it is all-important for us to know what the mysterious mode is that he reveals for attaining this life. "No one comes to the Father except through me." The way to the Father is through the Son.

Except through him there is no approach to the Father. But there is also no approach to him unless the Father draws us. Understanding him to be the Son of God, we recognize in him the true nature of the Father. And so, when we learn to know the Son, God the Father calls us. When we believe the Son, God the Father receives us. For our recognition and knowledge of the Father is in the Son who shows us in himself God the Father. The Father draws us by his fatherly love, if we are devout, into a mutual bond with his Son.

(vii. de Trin) For He who is the way doth not lead us into devious courses out of the way; nor does He who is the truth deceive us by falsehoods; nor does He who is the life leave us in the darkness of death.

And then hear what follows: "Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not." And surely ye have been darkened in the eyes of your soul with a darkness utter and everlasting. For now that the true light has arisen, ye wander as in the night, and stumble on places with no roads, and fall headlong, as having forsaken the way that saith, "I am the way." Furthermore, hear this yet more serious word: "And their back do thou bend always; "that means, in order that they may be slaves to the nations, not four hundred and thirty years as in Egypt, nor seventy as in Babylon, but bend them to servitude, he says, "always." In fine, then, how dost thou indulge vain hopes, expecting to be delivered from the misery which holdeth thee? For that is somewhat strange. And not unjustly has he imprecated this blindness of eyes upon thee. But because thou didst cover the eyes of Christ, (and ) thus thou didst beat Him, for this reason, too, bend thou thy back for servitude always. And whereas thou didst pour out His blood in indignation, hear what thy recompense shall be: "Pour out Thine indignation upon them, and let Thy wrathful anger take hold of them; "and, "Let their habitation be desolate," to wit, their celebrated temple.

For, says [the Scripture], "Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord." Now the way is unerring, namely, Jesus Christ. For, says He, "I am the way and the life." And this way leads to the Father. For "no man," says He, "cometh to the Father but by Me." Blessed, then, are ye who are God-bearers, spirit-bearers, temple-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ, being "a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people," on whose account I rejoice exceedingly, and have had the privilege, by this Epistle, of conversing with "the saints which are at Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus." I rejoice, therefore, over you, that ye do not give heed to vanity, and love nothing according to the flesh, but according to God.

The priests indeed, and the ministers of the word, are good; but the High Priest is better, to whom the holy of holies has been committed, and who alone has been entrusted with the secrets of God. The ministering powers of God are good. The Comforter is holy, and the Word is holy, the Son of the Father, by whom He made all things, and exercises a providence over them all. This is the Way which leads to the Father, the Rock, the Defence, the Key, the Shepherd, the Sacrifice, the Door of knowledge, through which have entered Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and all the company of the prophets, and these pillars of the world, the apostles, and the spouse of Christ, on whose account He poured out His own blood, as her marriage portion, that He might redeem her. All these things tend towards the unity of the one and only true God. But the Gospel possesses something transcendent [above the former dispensation], viz. the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, His passion, and the resurrection itself. For those things which the prophets announced, saying, "Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation of the Gentiles," have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying, ] "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." All then are good together, the law, the prophets, the apostles, the whole company [of others] that have believed through them: only if we love one another.

He is therefore one and the same God, who called Abraham and gave him the promise. But He is the Creator, who does also through Christ prepare lights in the world, [namely] those who believe from among the Gentiles. And He says, "Ye are the light of the world;" that is, as the stars of heaven. Him, therefore, I have rightly shown to be known by no man, unless by the Son, and to whomsoever the Son shall reveal Him. But the Son reveals the Father to all to whom He wills that He should be known; and neither without the goodwill of the Father nor without the agency of the Son, can any man know God. Wherefore did the Lord say to His disciples, "I am the way, the truth, and the life and no man cometh unto the Father but by Me. If ye had known Me, ye would have known My Father also: and from henceforth ye have both known Him, and have seen Him." From these words it is evident, that He is known by the Son, that is, by the Word.

Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scrip-rural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him. As also David says, prophesying His birth from a virgin, and the resurrection from the dead, "Truth has sprung out of the earth." The apostles, likewise, being disciples of the truth, are above all falsehood; for a lie has no fellowship with the truth, just as darkness has none with light, but the presence of the one shuts out that of the other. Our Lord, therefore, being the truth, did not speak lies...

But when this name of six letters was manifested (the person bearing it clothing Himself in flesh, that He might come under the apprehension of man's senses, and having in Himself these six and twenty-four letters), then, becoming acquainted with Him, they ceased from their ignorance, and passed from death unto life, this name serving as their guide to the Father of truth. For the Father of all had resolved to put an end to ignorance, and to destroy death. But this abolishing of ignorance was just the knowledge of Him.

(Hom. lxxiii. 2) For if, He says, ye have Me for your guide to the Father, ye shall certainly come to Him. Nor can ye come by any other way. (c. 6:44) Whereas He had said above, No man can come to Me, except the Father draw him, now He says, No man cometh unto the Father but by Me, thus equalling Himself to the Father. The next words explain, Whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

The cross of Christ, which was set up for the salvation of mortals, is both a sacrament and an example: a sacrament whereby the divine power takes effect, an example whereby one's devotion is excited. For to those who are rescued from the prisoner's yoke, redemption further procures the power of following the way of the cross by imitation. For if the world's wisdom so prides itself in its error that everyone follows the opinions and habits and whole manner of life of him whom he has chosen as his leader, how shall we share in the name of Christ except by being inseparably united to him who is, as he himself asserted, "the way, the truth and the life"—the way, that is, of holy living, the truth of divine doctrine and the life of eternal happiness.

This is wisdom, and this is the mystery of the Supreme God. God willed that He should be acknowledged and worshipped through Him.

"I am the way," he says, so that the power of demons may not prevail in impeding those coming to the way through the Way, to God through God. It is not possible to attain to God except through God.

He himself has said, "I am the life." What the soul is to the body is what Christ is to the soul. Without the soul, the body does not live. The soul does not live without Christ. As soon as the soul leaves the body, stench, corruption, rottenness, the worm, ashes, horror and everything that is loathsome to the sight take its place. When God leaves, immediately the stench of faithlessness, the corruption of sin, the rottenness of the vices, the worm of guilt, the ashes of vanities and the horror of infidelity enter the soul, and there comes to pass in the living tomb of the body the death of the soul now buried.

Now the mystery of this "sign" was in various ways predicted; (a "sign") in which the foundation of life was forelaid for mankind; (a "sign") in which the Jews were not to believe: just as Moses beforetime kept on announcing in Exodus, saying, "Ye shall be ejected from the land into which ye shall enter; and in those nations ye shall not be able to rest: and there shall be instabilityof the print of thy foot: and God shall give thee a wearying heart, and a pining soul, and failing eyes, that they see not: and thy life shall hang on the tree before thine eyes; and thou shalt not trust thy life.

Wherefore? Because "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world" and, "I am the way: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me; " and, "No man can come to me, except the Father draw him; " and, "All things are delivered unto me by the Father; " and, "As the Father quickeneth (the dead), so also doth the Son; " and again, "If ye had known me, ye would have known the Father also.

Having found "the truth," repent of errors; repent of having loved what God loves not: even we ourselves do not permit our slave-lads not to hate the things which are offensive to us; for the principle of voluntary obedience consists in similarity of minds.

For these, for the most part, are the sources whence, from some ignorance or simplicity, custom finds its beginning; and then it is successionally confirmed into an usage, and thus is maintained in opposition to truth. But our Lord Christ has surnamed Himself Truth, not Custom.

Therefore Christ, wishing to show that following Him is easy and pleasant for them, declares where He is going and what the way is. He goes to the Father, and the "way" is He Himself – Christ. If the way am I, then through Me you will undoubtedly ascend to the Father. I am not only the way, but "also the truth"; therefore you must be vigilant, because by Me you will not be deceived. I am also "the life"; therefore, even if you die, death will not prevent you from coming to the Father. So be watchful, for everyone comes to the Father through Me. And since it is in My power to bring you to the Father, you will undoubtedly come to Him. For it is impossible to arrive there by any other way than through Me.

And you, perhaps, may understand from this as well that the Son is equal to the One who begot Him. For in another place He says that the Father brings people to Him: "No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him" (John 6:44). But here He says that He brings people to the Father. Therefore, the power of the Father and the Son is equal, for their action is also one.

So when you walk by the path of action, then Christ becomes the way for you, and when you engage in contemplation, He becomes the truth for you. But since many, walking by the path of action and engaging in contemplation, still did not obtain life — either because, performing virtue out of vainglory, they received their reward here, or because in their dogmatic opinions they strayed from the right path — therefore to the way and truth, that is, to action and contemplation, life is added. For this reason we too must walk and theologize, striving for the glory that lives forever, and not for the perishing glory that comes from men.

When thou art engaged in the practical, He is made thy way; when in the contemplative, He is made thy truth. And to the active and the contemplative is joined life: for we should both act and contemplate with reference to the world to come.

Then when he says, Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life, the question is answered. Our Lord was to answer about two things: first, about the way and its destination; secondly, about their knowledge of both (v 7). He does two things about the first: first, he states what the way is; secondly, he gives its destination (v 6b).

The way, as has been said, is Christ himself; so he says, I am the way. This is indeed true, for it is through him that we have access to the Father, as stated in Romans (5:2). This answer could also settle the uncertainty of the faltering disciple.

Because this way is not separated from its destination but united to it, he adds, and the truth, and the life. So Christ is at once both the way and the destination. He is the way by reason of his human nature, and the destination because of his divinity. Therefore, as human, he says, I am the way; as God, he adds, and the truth, and the life. These last two appropriately indicate the destination of the way. For the destination of this way is the end of human desire. Now human beings especially desire two things: first, a knowledge of the truth, and this is characteristic of them; secondly, that they continue to exist, and this is common to all things. In fact, Christ is the way to arrive at the knowledge of the truth, while still being the truth itself: "Teach me thy way O Lord, that I may walk in thy truth" (Ps 85:11). Christ is also the way to arrive at life, while still being life itself: "Thou couldst show me the path of life" (Ps 16:11). And so he indicated the destination or end of this way as truth and life. These two were already applied to Christ: first, he is life: "In him was life" (1:4); then, he is truth, because "the life is the light of men" (1:4), and light is truth.

Note that both truth and life belong properly and essentially (per se) to Christ. Truth belongs essentially to him because he is the Word. Now truth is the conformity of a thing to the intellect, and this results when the intellect conceives the thing as it is. Therefore, the truth of our intellect belongs to our word, which is its conception. Yet although our word is true, it is not truth itself, since it is not true of itself but because it is conformed to the thing conceived. And so the truth of the divine intellect belongs to the Word of God. But because the Word of God is true of itself (since it is not measured by things, but things are true in the measure that they are similar to the Word) the Word of God is truth itself. And because no one can know the truth unless he adheres to the truth, it is necessary that anyone who desires to know the truth adhere to this Word.

Life also belongs properly to Christ: for everything which has some activity from itself is said to be living, while non-living things do not have motion from themselves. Among the activities of life the chief are the intellectual activities. Thus, the intellect itself is said to be living, and its activities are a certain kind of life. Now in God the activity of understanding and the intellect itself are the same. Thus it is clear that the Son, who is the Word of the intellect of the Father, is his own life.

This is the reason why Christ referred to himself as the way, united to its destination: because he is the destination, containing in himself whatever can be desired, that is, existing truth and life.

If then, you ask which way to go, accept Christ, for he is the way: "This is the way, walk in it" (Is 30:21). And Augustine says: "Walk like this human being and you will come to God. It is better to limp along on the way than to walk briskly off the way." For one who limps on the way, even though he makes just a little progress, is approaching his destination; but if one walks off the way, the faster he goes the further he gets from his destination.

If you ask where to go, cling to Christ, for he is the truth which we desire to reach: "My mouth will utter truth" (Prv 8:7). If you ask where to remain, remain in Christ because he is the life: "He who finds me finds life and shall have salvation from the Lord" (Prv 8:35). Therefore, cling to Christ if you wish to be secure, for you cannot get off the road because he is the way. And so those who hold on to him are not walking off the road but on the right road: "I have taught you the way of wisdom" (Prv 4:11). But some are just the opposite: "They did not find the way of truth to dwell in" (Ps 107:4).

Again, those who hold on to Christ cannot be deceived, because he is the truth and teaches all truth: "For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth" (18:37). Further, they cannot be troubled, because he is the life and the giver of life: "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (10:10).

Augustine says that when our Lord said I am the way, and the truth, and the life, he was saying in effect: How do you want to go? I am the way. Where do you want to go? I am the truth. Where do you want to remain? I am the life. As Hilary says: he who is the way does not lead us off the right path; he who is the truth does not deceive us with falsehoods; and he who is the life does not abandon us to death.

Here is another interpretation. In human beings, holiness involves three things: action, contemplation, and one's intention. These are brought to perfection by Christ. Christ is the way for those in the active life; he is the truth for those who stand firm in the contemplative life. And he directs the intention of both those in the active and contemplative life to life, eternal life. For he teaches us to go and preach for the sake of the age to come. So, the Lord is our way by which we go to him, and through him to the Father.

But when he, who is the way, goes to the Father, is he the way for himself? As Augustine says, he is the way, and the one who goes by the way, and the destination of the way. Thus he goes to himself through himself. He, as having human nature, is the way. Thus, he came through his flesh, yet remained where he was; and he went through his flesh, without leaving where he had come from.

Also, through the flesh he returned to himself, the truth and the life. For God had come, through his flesh, to us, the truth to liars, the life to mortals: "God is truthful, and every human is a liar" (Rom 3:4). And when he left us, and took his flesh up to that place where there are no liars, this very Word who was made flesh returned, through his flesh, to the truth, which is himself. For example: when I speak to others, my mind goes out to them, yet it does not leave me; and when I am silent, in a certain sense I return to myself, yet still remain with those to whom I spoke. And so Christ, who is our way, became the way even for himself, this is, for his flesh, to go to the truth and the life.

Then when he says, no one comes to the Father, but by me, he answers what was asked about the destination of the way. The way, which is Christ, leads to the Father. Yet, because the Father and the Son are one, this way leads also to himself. And so Christ says that he is the terminus of the way.

Note that the Apostle says: "For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him?" (1 Cor 2:11), that is, provided one does not choose to reveal his own thoughts. A person reveals what is hidden within by his words, and it is only by the words of a person that we can know what is hidden within. Now "no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:11), therefore, no one can acquire a knowledge of the Father except by his Word, which is his Son: "No one knows the Father except the Son" (Mt 11:27). And just like one of us who wants to be known by others by revealing to them the words in his heart, clothes these words with letters or sounds, so God, wanting to be known by us, takes his Word, conceived from eternity, and clothes it with flesh in time. And so no one can arrive at a knowledge of the Father except through the Son. Thus he says: "I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved" (10:9).

Note, with Chrysostom, that our Lord had said: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (6:44). But here he says: no one comes to the Father, but by me. This indicates that the Son is equal to the Father.

It is now clear what the way is, it is Christ; what the destination is, it is the Father.

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."

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 he who 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 Father also." 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.

If you had known me, you would certainly have known my Father also; because, as is said above in the tenth chapter, "I and the Father are one"; Matthew 11: "No one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal him." And from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him: you shall know him, namely in the coming of the Holy Spirit: below in the sixteenth chapter: "When that Spirit of truth shall come, he will teach you all truth." That word of Jeremiah 31 shall be verified in you: "I will give my law in their inward parts, and in their hearts I will write it."

And from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him.

Wonderful, it seems to me, is the gracious intention and the unspeakably profound purpose that underlies this saying also. For after having just said: If ye had known Me, ye would have known My Father also, and seeming thus to reproach His disciples for their ignorance of truths so essential, He immediately passes on to comfort them with the assurance: From henceforth ye know Him and have seen Him. For since they were destined to become rulers of the Churches throughout the world, in obedience to the Saviour's commission: Go ye and make disciples of all nations, for this reason above all others, as I think, He first utters a most useful truth of universal reference to all time, that whosoever knoweth the Son will most assuredly also know God the Father of Whom the Son is begotten; and then in His kindness He goes on to testify that His disciples possess this knowledge: not speaking at all by way of compliment, for He could never utter aught but truth, but inasmuch as they really knew Him and had most fully acknowledged Him. For that they knew and had believed that the Lord was really Son of God can by no means be a matter of doubt to right-minded persons. For how came it that Nathaniel the Israelite, when he heard Christ say: Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee, immediately put forth his full confession of faith, saying: Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel? Moreover, when the sea was marvellously and supernaturally calmed, how was it that those who were in the ship worshipped Him, saying: Truly Thou art the Son of God? Will any one maintain that this saying was uttered by men who did not know that He was God and begotten of God the Father? Surely such an one would give a most convincing proof of his want of intelligence. When, in the district of Caesarea Philippi, they were asked by Christ Himself: Who do men say that I the Son of Man am? did not they first of all give the opinions of others? Some, they say, think Thou art Elijah, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. But Who they themselves said that He was, they shrank not from telling Him plainly, all speaking by the mouth of their chief, and that was Peter, affirming positively: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Yet when Christ says: If ye had known Me, ye would have known My Father also, do not suppose that the saying is uttered entirely for the sake of the disciples: it is rather a general declaration laid down for all, the holy disciples being taken as representatives of all mankind.

Notice carefully then how clearly we shall find that they have not been ignorant that He is God and the Son of God; but when He spoke of Himself as "the Way" of God, then they did not understand what seemed to be spoken enigmatically: and this will comprise the full extent of any charge of ignorance that can be brought against them. For this reason surely, having briefly refuted the idea of their inability to understand what was told them indirectly, and then grounded on this a declaration affecting all men, teaching plainly that whosoever knows not the Son will also lose his knowledge of the Father; He then most justly testifies to the disciples' knowledge of Him, inasmuch as they had already made open confession of their faith: and this He does in the words: From henceforth ye know Him and have seen Him. And He uses the word "henceforth," not with reference to that hour or that day on which He was uttering His teaching on these matters: but He uses the word in order to contrast with the days of the old and first dispensation the new and recently-arisen season of His own presence, whereby the knowledge of the Father as seen through the Son has been made clearer for all men throughout the world. Therefore also in the Book of Psalms, as speaking to God the Father, He says: The knowledge of Thee has been greatly magnified by Me. For having seen the Son excelling in deeds incredibly marvellous, and with God-befitting authority easily accomplishing His own good pleasure, we have been led on thereby to accept in reverent admiration the knowledge of the Father, believing it to be no other than the knowledge of the Son Who came forth from Him. From henceforth, therefore, ye know Him and have seen Him. For through the Son we have been led, as I said just now, to know Who the Father is, and not only have we known, but we have also beheld or seen. For knowledge indicates that mental contemplation at which one may very well arrive concerning the Divine and ineffable nature that is above all, and through all, and in all. But to have seen the Truth signifies the fulfilment of our knowledge by the vision of the miraculous works. For we have not simply known the bare fact that the Father is in His nature Life; nor have we had within ourselves the knowledge of the matter ideally and theoretically only: we have seen the truth carried out by the Son, in giving life to the dead, and restoring to existence those who had seen corruption. We have not simply known the fact that the God and Father of all is in His nature Life, and has the whole creation in subjection beneath His feet; and that He rules in sovereign authority over all things made by Him, so that, as it is written: All His works shake and tremble at Him, we have seen evidence of the truth in the action of the Son, when, in rebuking the sea and the winds, He said with all authority, Peace, be still.

Since therefore He was intending to say that "you have not only known, but have even seen the Father," He considered it essential to prefix the word "henceforth;" and why so? The reason was this: the law of Moses declared to the children of Israel, The Lord thy God is one Lord, and never offered the doctrine concerning the Son to the men of old time; it was content with driving them away from the worship of many gods and calling them to adore One, and One only: but our Lord Jesus the Christ by His Incarnation made known to us the Father through Himself by many signs and mighty works, and has shown that the nature of the Godhead which we believe to be contained in the Holy Trinity is in truth One. And so He does well to say "henceforth," on account of the imperfection of knowledge possessed by those who walk after the law, and order their lives in that system. And we must note well that in saying that He Himself and not the Father has been seen, He in no way denies the real and individual existence of the God and Father from Whom He is; nor does He even say that He Himself is the Father, inasmuch as He claims to have come to represent the Father's Person. But since He is Consubstantial with the Father, He says that His Father is seen in His Person; just as if an ordinary man's son, wishing to indicate plainly the nature of his father, were to point to himself and say to any chance inquirer in the matter: "In me thou hast seen my father." Here again, however, the Godhead will entirely transcend the power of the example to illustrate.

If ye had known Me, ye would have known My Father also.

Some may perchance say and think that the Son is here speaking of His own accord, and at His own suggestion. But it is not so. For He never uttered anything in an uncalled-for, or merely casual way; though He does occasionally repeat Himself in a most instructive manner, especially because of the utter inability of some to follow His teaching. But in the present instance His words are most profitable to us in connection with what He had said just before. For when Thomas questioned Him, asking: "Whither wilt Thou depart; or how can we know the way, if we know not whither Thou wilt go?" He thereupon answered him most effectively in the words: I am the Way, and the Life, and the Truth; and again: No man cometh unto the Father but by Me; thereby showing that if any one willed to know the way which would lead to eternal life, he would strive with all diligence to know Christ. But since it was likely that some, who had been trained in Jewish rather than in Evangelic doctrine, might suppose that a confession of faith in and a knowledge of One Person only out of all was sufficient for a right belief, and that it was needless to learn the doctrine concerning the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity; Christ seems to absolutely exclude those who hold this opinion from a true knowledge concerning God, unless they would also accept Himself. For it is through the Son that we must draw near to God the Father. For in a manner analogous to our acceptance of the Offspring, we shall arrive at our belief in the Parent also. For it is utterly impossible to doubt that a belief in the sonship of Son, as begotten of the essence of the Father, will certainly lead to a knowledge of the Father.

According then to the simpler and more obvious interpretation, He must be supposed to have spoken with this meaning: but if any one believes that He is employing subtle ideas so as to penetrate to the very root of the whole matter, he will find once more that the Son is teaching truth. The Divine Nature, indeed, is utterly incomprehensible by any human intellect; and to claim for oneself to have fully discovered Who and What in very essence the Creator of the universe is, would involve a display of absolute folly. Still, it is not impossible for us, though in a shadowy and uncertain manner, to obtain some kind of knowledge by holding up as a mirror to our mind's eye the catalogue of Divine attributes which are inherent by nature in the Son. For from a knowledge of what Christ is in Himself, and of the works He has wrought when He became Incarnate as well as before His Incarnation, one might afterwards ascend by analogous reasoning to a contemplation of the Father Who begat Him. Behold, I pray thee, the glory and the power that were His: gaze on His authority, that extended without hindrance over all. Tell me, is there anything conceivable or inconceivable that He does not appear to have achieved with perfect success at His own free will, both before and since His Incarnation? Nay, more, He Who showed Himself to us so mighty by the evidence of His works, says expressly: I and the Father are One, and: He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. We must therefore, in reliance on what we have just quoted, pass onward from the Likeness to the Archetype, and from the Very Image to the full realisation of Him Whom the Very Image represents. We do not say, as some of the heterodox would have us say, that the Son is fashioned after the Father's likeness by means of certain attributes bestowed upon Him from without; nor even would we admit, as some in error suppose, that He is styled the Image of God the Father as possessing His glory, His power, and His wisdom, although being Himself really of a different nature: these are the foolish babblings of the heretics, sheer nonsense delicately veiled, or rather absolute impiety, designed according to their unholy and ungodly object to overthrow and destroy the doctrine of the Son's Consubstantiality with the Father. But Christ is a Son in very truth, begotten ineffably and incomprehensibly of the essence of God the Father, and as such is the Very Image and Likeness and Effulgence of Him, bearing innate within Himself the proper characteristics of His Father's essence, and possessing in all their beauty the attributes that are naturally the Father's. For we will not imitate the heretics in their extravagant madness, and degrade our own minds to such a depth of foolishness as to say that Christ in any respect differs from a Being Who is in very nature God, or to deny that He is begotten of the essence of God the Father, and so refuse to attribute to Him the glory of God; neither would we allow that any nature which was created and brought into existence out of nothing could ever, without undergoing change, be endowed with the Divine power and wisdom, or ever be such as the Divine and ineffable nature of God the Father may be imagined to be. For else, what distinction could any longer exist between the Creator and the creature; or what could intervene or sever, that is to say, between the thing made and Him Who made it, in regard to identity and essence? For if a creature possesses glory and power and wisdom exactly to the same degree as God the Father, I should be utterly unable to say, and I conceive the heretics would be in the same perplexity, wherein God's superiority can possibly consist, or how He can be greater than we or than His creature. Therefore we maintain that the Son is in no wise fashioned so as to resemble the Father by the addition of attributes from without, nor is He like a representation in a picture, adorned by us with merely ideal colours which gloss over and falsely indicate the royal dignity; but He is truly the Very Image and Likeness of His Father, displaying to us the Father's nature in clearest light by the graces that are His own by nature. And this is why Christ pronounces it impossible for any to have fully known the Father without first knowing Himself, that is, the Son.

How can knowledge of him be knowledge of the Father? For the apostles see him wearing the aspect of that human nature that belongs to him. But God is not encumbered with body and flesh and is unrecognizable by those who dwell in our weak and fleshly body. The answer is given by the Lord, who asserts that under the flesh that, in a mystery, he had taken, his Father's nature dwells within him.… He makes a distinction between the time of seeing and the time of knowing. He says that from this time onward they shall know him whom they had already seen and so shall possess, from the time of this revelation onward, the knowledge of that nature on which, in him, they had gazed for so long.

It was not the carnal body that he had received by birth from the Virgin that could manifest to them the image and likeness of God. The human aspect that he wore could be no aid toward the mental vision of the incorporeal God. But God was recognized in Christ by those who recognized Christ as the Son on the evidence of the powers of his divine nature. And a recognition of God the Son produces a recognition of God the Father. For the Son is in such a sense the image as to be one in kind with the Father and yet in a way that indicates that the Father is his origin.

(vii. de Trin) Or thus: When it is said that the Son is the way to the Father, is it meant that He is so by His teaching, or by His nature? We shall be able to see from what follows: If ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also. In His incarnation asserting His Divinity, He maintained a certain order of sight and knowledge: separating the time of seeing from that of knowing. For Him, who He saith must be known, He speaks of as already seen: that henceforward they might from this revelation have knowledge of the Divine Nature which they had all along seen in Him.

And again, the Lord replied to Philip, who wished to behold the Father, "Have I been so long a time with you, and yet thou hast not known Me, Philip? He that sees Me, sees also the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? For I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; and henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him." To these men, therefore, did the Lord bear witness, that in Himself they had both known and seen the Father (and the Father is truth). To allege, then, that these men did not know the truth, is to act the part of false witnesses, and of those who have been alienated from the doctrine of Christ. For why did the Lord send the twelve apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, if these men did not know the truth? How also did the seventy preach, unless they had themselves previously known the truth of what was preached? Or how could Peter have been in ignorance, to whom the Lord gave testimony, that flesh and blood had not revealed to him, but the Father, who is in heaven? Just, then, as "Paul [was] an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father," [so with the rest;] the Son indeed leading them to the Father, but the Father revealing to them the Son.

For no one can know the Father, unless through the Word of God, that is, unless by the Son revealing [Him]; neither can he have knowledge of the Son, unless through the good pleasure of the Father. But the Son performs the good pleasure of the Father; for the Father sends, and the Son is sent, and comes. And His Word knows that His Father is, as far as regards us, invisible and infinite; and since He cannot be declared [by any one else], He does Himself declare Him to us; and, on the other hand, it is the Father alone who knows His own Word. And both these truths has our Lord declared. Wherefore the Son reveals the knowledge of the Father through His own manifestation. For the manifestation of the Son is the knowledge of the Father; for all things are manifested through the Word. In order, therefore, that we might know that the Son who came is He who imparts to those believing on Him a knowledge of the Father, He said to His disciples: "No man knoweth the Son but the Father, nor the Father but the Son, and those to whomsoever the Son shall reveal Him;" thus setting Himself forth and the Father as He [really] is, that we may not receive any other Father, except Him who is revealed by the Son.

(Hom. lxxiii. 2) If ye had known Me, He says, ye should have known My Father also; i. e. If ye had known My substance and dignity, ye would have known the Father's. They did know Him, but not as they ought to do. Nor was it till afterwards, when the Spirit came, that they were fully enlightened. On this account He adds, And from henceforth ye know Him, know Him, that is, spiritually. And have seen Him, i. e. by Me; meaning that he who had seen Him, had seen the Father. They saw Him, however, not in His pure substance, but clothed in flesh.

Wherefore? Because "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world" and, "I am the way: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me; " and, "No man can come to me, except the Father draw him; " and, "All things are delivered unto me by the Father; " and, "As the Father quickeneth (the dead), so also doth the Son; " and again, "If ye had known me, ye would have known the Father also." For in all these passages He had shown Himself to be the Father's Commissioner, through whose agency even the Father could be seen in His works, and heard in His words, and recognised in the Son's administration of the Father's words and deeds.

Above He said that you "know" where I am going, and you know the Way, that is, Me; but here He says that "if" you "knew" Me, you would know My Father also. How can this be?

There is no contradiction in His words. For they knew the Father, but not as they ought to have known Him; they knew Him as God, but as Father they did not yet know Him. Only later did the Spirit, having descended upon them, impart to them perfect knowledge. Thus, His words have this meaning: "If you had known My essence and dignity, you would have known also the essence and dignity of the Father. And from now on you have begun to know Him through My mediation, and have seen Him, that is, perceived Him with your mind, insofar as it is possible. Since you acknowledge Me as Lord and Teacher, then undoubtedly concerning Me, insofar as it is attainable for you, you have received sufficient knowledge also of the Father, for you have not yet received perfect knowledge."

And in another sense. The words "if you had known Me, you would have known My Father also" do not express that they do not know Him, but have this meaning: "I told you that you know where I am going, that is, to the Father, and you know this Way, that is, Me. Thomas said to Me: 'We do not know where You are going' and so forth, nor do we know this way. I said to Thomas: 'I am the Way, and no one comes to the Father except through Me.' Therefore, if you had known Me, you would have known My Father also. But you do know Me, and consequently you know My Father also. For from now on you know Him and have seen Him, having seen Me."

Then when he says, If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also, he shows that the disciples knew both where he was going and the way. First, he shows this; secondly he resolves a coming difficulty. He does two things about the first: first, he shows that knowledge of the Son is also knowledge of the Father; secondly, he states the disciples' knowledge of the Father (v 7b).

He had said: I have said that I am the way, and that you know the way, that is, me. Therefore, you also know where I am going, because you cannot know me without knowing the Father. This is what he says: If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also.

Yet he had said to the Jews before: "If you knew me, you would perhaps know my Father also" (8:19). Why does he say here, "without doubt," while before he said "perhaps"? It seems that before he had some doubts about what he says here.

We should answer that in the first instance he was speaking to the Jews, whom he was reprimanding. And so he added "perhaps" not because he had any doubts, but as a rebuke to them. But here he is speaking to his disciples, whom he is teaching. Thus, he simply states the truth to them: If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also. This is like saying: If you knew my grace and dignity, you would without doubt also know that of the Father. For there is no better way to know something than through its word or image, and the Son is the Word of the Father: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God" (1:1); "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (1:14). The Son is also the image of the Father: "He is the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15); "He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature" (Heb 1:3). Therefore, the Father is known in the Son as in his Word and proper image.

Note that to the extent that something approaches to a likeness of the Word of the Father, to that extent the Father is known in it, and to that extent it is in the image of the Father. Now since every created word is some likeness of that Word, and some likeness, though imperfect, of the divinity is found in every thing, either as an image or a trace, it follows that what God is cannot be known perfectly through any creature or by any thought or concept of a created intellect. It is the Word alone, the only-begotten Word, which is a perfect word and the perfect image of the Father, that knows and comprehends the Father.

Therefore, according to Hilary, this statement can be put in another context. Our Lord said: "no one comes to the Father, but by me." If you ask Arius how one goes to the Father through the Son, he answers that it is by recalling what the Son taught, because the Son taught us about the Father: "Father... I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me" (17:6). But our Lord rejected this by saying: If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also. This is like saying: Arius, or anyone else can indeed speak about the Father, but no human being is such that by knowing him the Father is known. This is true of the Son alone, who has the same nature as the Father.

Next, our Lord shows the knowledge the disciples had of the Father. Our Lord had already told the disciples that they knew the Father when he said, "Where I am going you know." Yet Thomas denied this: "we do not know where you are going." Thus our Lord shows here that in a certain way they did know the Father, so that his statement was true; and in another sense they did not know the Father, so that what Thomas said was true. To do this, he mentions a twofold knowledge of the Father: one which will be in the future, and the other which was in the past.

He says, henceforth you shall know him. And he says, henceforth, because knowledge of the Father is of two kinds. One is perfect, and is by an immediate vision of him, and this will be in our homeland: "When he appears we shall be like him" (1 Jn 3:2). The other is imperfect, and is by reflections and is obscure; and we have this by faith: "For now we see in a mirror dimly" (1 Cor 3:2). Thus, this phrase can be understood of each kind of knowledge. Henceforth you shall know him, with perfect knowledge in your homeland: "I shall tell you plainly of the Father" (16:25). This is like saying: It is true that you do not know him with perfect knowledge, but from henceforth you shall know him, after the mystery of my passion has been accomplished. Or, in the other way, henceforth, after my resurrection and ascension and after I have sent the Holy Spirit, you shall know him, with the perfect knowledge of faith, for when the Spirit, the Paraclete, comes, "he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (14:26). So you are speaking the truth when you say that you do not know him with perfect knowledge.

And I am speaking the truth, because you have seen him: "Afterward he was seen on earth and conversed with men" (Bar 3:37). They saw Christ in the flesh he had taken on, in which the Word existed, and in the Word they saw the Father. Thus they saw the Father in him: "He who sent me is with me" (8:29).

Note that the Father was not in the flesh in such a way that it was joined to him to constitute one person, but he was in the incarnate Word because they had one and the same nature, and the Father was seen in the incarnate Christ: "We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (1:14).

Or how is He unlike to the substance of the Father, who is the perfect image and brightness of the Father, and who says, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father?" And how, if the Son is the Word or Wisdom and Reason of God, was there a time when He was not? It is all one as if they said, that there was a time when God was without reason and wisdom.

By means of this image the Lord showed Philip the Father. Yes, he who looks on the Son sees, in portrait, the Father. Notice what kind of portrait is spoken of. It is truth, righteousness, the power of God. It is not silent, for it is the Word. It is not insensible, for it is Wisdom. It is not vain and foolish, for it is power. It is not soulless, for it is the life. It is not dead, for it is the resurrection.

In the church, I know of only one image, that is, the image of the unseen God. God has said about this image, "Let us make man [humankind] in our image." Of this image it is written that Christ is the "effulgence of the glory and impress of his hypostasis." In that image, I perceive the Father as the Lord Jesus himself has said, "The one who has seen me has seen the Father." For this image is not separated from the Father, which indeed has taught me the unity of the Trinity, saying, "I and the Father are one," and again, "All things whatever the Father has are mine." [In this image, also perceive] the Holy Spirit, seeing that the Spirit is Christ's and has received of Christ, as it is written, "He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you."

"He who has seen me has seen the Father"; this does not mean that he has seen the image and the form of the divine nature, since the divine nature is simple, not composed of various parts. Goodness of will is a current in the stream of the divine essence, and thus is perceived to be the same in the Father and the Son.

The bride has no doubt that if he will reveal himself to anybody, it will be to her. Therefore, she dares to ask for this kiss, actually for that Spirit in whom both the Father and the Son will reveal themselves to her. For it is not possible that one of these could be known without the other. That is why Christ said: "To have seen me is to have seen the Father;" and John in his turn: "No one who has the Father can deny the Son, and to acknowledge the Son is to have the Father as well." From these declarations it is clearly evident that the Father cannot be known apart from the Son, nor the Son apart from the Father.

Jesus says to him: I have been with you so long a time, and you have not known me? As if to say: when you ask about the Father, you ask about me, whom you ought to know. Therefore he says: Philip, he who sees me sees also my Father. How do you say: Show us the Father? He sees with the eye of faith, according to which Abraham, Genesis 18, is said to have "seen three and adored one." And that he ought so to believe, he shows, because they are one.

There is a question about the response he gives to Philip: I have been with you for so long a time, and you have not known me? It seems from this that Philip had not yet believed in Christ. But then how was it said above to him that he was clean, since no one is clean except through faith? If you say that he did believe: how then, since he says that the Father and the Son are of one essence, was he seeking to see the Father? It seems that he believed something contrary to the faith. To this it must be said that Philip believed in him and believed him equal to the Father and one in substance; he believed this habitually. But because at that time he heard the Son speaking distinctly about the Father, he wanted and sought to see him distinctly: which he would not have sought if he had considered the unity of essence. Therefore from such a surreptitious movement he sinned venially, and therefore he is rebuked by the Lord.

What does he mean when he says: He who sees me sees the Father also? For the Son was made visible, but the Father remained invisible. If you say that he speaks according to the Divinity, this amounts to nothing, because no one has ever seen God, neither the Father nor the Son, because if the Son, then also the Father. I respond: It must be said that he speaks of the vision of the Divinity, not of the humanity. But this is in two ways, namely through faith, as we see now through a mirror in an enigma; and through direct appearance. And he speaks here of the vision through faith: because no one perfectly believes in the Son without also believing in the Father.

His view of Jesus as a 'window' seems wholly orthodox ('he that hath seen me hath seen the Father').

How sayest thou then, show us the Father?

"Thou mightest, Philip," He would say, "have beheld the glory of the Father in Me, and from what I am have perceived the nature of My Parent: for I have appeared in My true character as a Very and Exact Image and as a Perfect Likeness of His essence, bearing engraved on Myself the entire nature of God the Father. What additional manner of Divine vision other than this couldst thou ask for, at least if thou wouldst display thy ability to estimate things in true proportion; or tell Me what kind of contemplation thou dost require? Dost thou really suppose that a better and fuller manifestation was granted to the men of former times, when I came down on Mount Sinai in a vision of fire?" For this above all else was the greatest and most usual boast of the Jews.

This we may in all probability suppose to have been the meaning of Christ's answer. We must now, I conceive, feel it our duty to state in all boldness that the manifestation of the miracles of our Saviour Christ was a better guide to the knowledge of God the Father than the vision that appeared on Mount Sinai. For thus thou wilt see that Philip, when the true Image was before his eyes, was in no way constrained to ask for that other sight of God the Father which on Mount Sinai was granted to those of former time. For there the Lord descended, as it is written, in a form of fire, while the Israelites were looking on. But no one could, I think, thereby be made to advance to a right conception concerning God, or to ascend with one bound to a fitting comprehension of the Godhead. For how by means of fire as an image could we be led to realise the existence of God the Father as the Archetype [thereby shadowed forth]? For God is naturally good, and moreover is a Creator, calling previously non-existent things into being, bringing together the universe into consistence, and quickening all things: He is also Wisdom and Power, kind, compassionate, and merciful. And none of these attributes belong to fire. For no one would suppose, at least if he were gifted with sense, that fire was kind and compassionate to men; nor would any one soberly maintain that it was a creative influence, endowed with wisdom and the power of bestowing life. If this be so, tell me how any one could possibly from a vision of fire gather any ideas concerning the true nature of the Godhead. Or how could one behold in a mirror darkly any of those attributes that are inherent in it? What then, one may say, was the ground or reason that induced God to declare Himself in the form of fire on Mount Sinai? We shall answer that as the children of Israel were, at that moment above all others in their career, beginning their education in the way of godliness, and were about to draw up the law which was to be observed as a strict rule to govern their own lives; it was most especially needful that God should appear as a Chastiser and a Terrible One to them, so that transgressors might be able to realise that they had to do with a Fire. Therefore surely it was that the great Moses also in speaking to the children of Israel said: Our God is a consuming Fire. And we should not at all be inclined to say that it was in order to exhibit to us the nature of God that the very wise writer thus compared Him to fire, but that he bestowed this title on God from the fact that, owing to His excessive hatred of wickedness, God shrinks not from wasting and consuming, like an all-devouring fire, those who despise Him. Therefore it is not in consequence of what He is in His nature that God makes Himself known in a vision of fire: but it was found to conduce to the profit of those who listened, that He should be thus named, and that He should have then appeared as fire. Let us pass now to that true and most exact vision of the Father granted to us in the Son. For we shall see Him to be an Image of the One Who begat Him, if we gaze intently with the eye of our minds on the extraordinary powers that are displayed in Him. Goodness belongs naturally to God the Father, and the same we shall find in the Son. For surely He is good, Who endured so great humiliation for our sakes, coming into the world to save sinners, and laying down His life for them. Similarly the Father is powerful, and so it is with the Son. For what power could be greater than that which commanded even the elements themselves, rebuking the sea and the winds, and transforming the nature of substances at His will; bidding the leper be cleansed, and giving sight to the blind: and all with God-befitting authority? The Father is in His nature Life: the Son also is equally Life, quickening those who have been turned to corruption, overthrowing the power of death, and thereby raising the dead to life. Rightly then does he say to Philip: He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. "For whereas," He would say, "thou mightest in Me and through Me behold very clearly My Father, what other manner of Divine vision dost thou ask for, when thou hast received a far better one than that vouchsafed to the men of former time, and hast met with a most true Likeness of the Father, namely Mine own Self?"

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.

In an unexpected way He convicts the disciple of ignorance. For the less easily discernible portions of the meanings implied, in the apprehension of which our mental faculties are necessarily put to a more subtle test, will certainly, although possibly not in any short period yet still in a longer extension of time, be grasped by those who are desirous to learn, and will explain themselves most clearly; and those whose minds are not hardened and whose knowledge is unobstructed, may at once be expected to perceive such meanings and accept them with perfect ease. "What is it therefore," He seems to say," that hinders you, O Philip, from arriving at perfection of knowledge of Myself? Tell Me. For although so long a time has elapsed since I have been with you as to suffice for a perfect knowledge of all that it was needful for thee to learn, nevertheless thou art still in doubt, or rather art convicted of absolute ignorance, as to Who I am by nature, and whence I come; and yet thou findest Me to be the Creator of all that is more especially admired in thy sight. How was it that thou didst not know that he who hath seen Me hath seen the Father? Thou supposest that the Jews of old saw the Divine Nature on Mount Sinai, and heard it speaking in delivering the laws that govern men's conduct; but not yet hast thou realised that through Me and in Me thou hast seen the Father. For he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father." And to show my hearers that it is no corporeal contemplation that Christ here indicates, needs I think not many words. For no thoughtful person would ever maintain that the Divine Nature can be made an object of corporeal vision; nay, no one could endure to behold with the eyes of the body that which is now apprehended dimly as in a mirror: for we see darkly, and I believe that even the man who boasts of the very highest knowledge has but a faint idea concerning God.

But this also we must say to the enemies of the truth, who are profuse in their railings against us, or rather against the very essence of the Only-begotten. For if it is untrue that the Son is of the very essence of God the Father, so as to be by generation That which He is, namely in His nature and in very truth God; and if He is made illustrious by the mere addition to Himself of features that were not originally His own, so that He shines as it were by reflected light from glories bestowed upon Him, and not by His own natural lustre, while appearing all the while as a true Likeness of the Father and an unchanging Image of God; then surely in the first place He could not be in His nature a Son, or even in any true sense an Offspring, but He must be either a created object like unto ourselves, or some other being standing in a similar relation: and this much being admitted and accepted as true, we shall then, it seems, have established this consequence also, that the Father could never be really and naturally a Father, but only so in will and in semblance, just as He is reckoned a Father of us also. And what will be the natural sequence of this? We shall still necessarily have to acknowledge a Trinity: only no longer do we express any belief whatever in the Holy Trinity, but rather in three utterly distinct Persons, each having nothing essentially in common with any other, each one of those named receding as it were into the special peculiarity of His own nature, each totally separate from the other. For the weightiness of the subject forces us to speak even more firmly still on the point. And if we allow that this is true, and confess that it follows as we have said, and admit that the Son is utterly different from the essence of God the Father, surely then Christ will be speaking falsely in the words: He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. For since the Father is from the beginning in His nature God, how could the Son, although not being (according to the view of these heretics) in His nature God, show forth the Father in Himself? For how shall we behold the Uncreated in the created? And in one who once was not (according to their theory), how could any man possibly behold Him Who was from all eternity? For let not any of these blasphemers tell me, in his sophistical declamations against the power of truth, that because Christ is endued with the glory of God and His power and wisdom and good and omnipotence, so that He can bring into being things that never before existed, therefore He is also an Image of Him: but first let such an one prove whether Christ does not display Himself as in His nature God, and that so irrefutably that there is nothing which impairs the universal and absolute resemblance of the Image to the Archetype. And if he hesitates in perplexity and is unwilling to prove this, we will in the next place ask him to tell us what explanation will allow of one who (according to their accursed notions) is not in His nature God, being enabled to fulfil the works that belong to the Godhead: for this is what they mean by saying that He bears the Image of the Father. For if the Son, without possessing as His own a power sufficient for the purpose, borrows the power from the Father, and is by Him supplied with wisdom and might, so as to be able to perform actions which we shall allow to be beyond the power of any nature save that of the Father alone; then in so doing He will be falsely representing the Image and the Likeness. And if we refuse to admit that He (being of the nature we have just been describing) is guilty of falsehood, and accept the truth of His words, we shall then find ourselves convicted of wronging the glory of God the Father in a manner that I will now explain. We are constrained to admit one of two things: either He falsely represents the Image of God the Father, in that He possesses not in Himself the might sufficing for His acts, but is supplied therewith from another, whereas it is not so with the Archetype; or else, if it is true as He says that in Him the Father is seen by us, and that there is really nothing whatever that disfigures or obscures or perverts His perfect similarity, it is absolutely necessary, willingly or unwillingly, to admit that the Father Himself holds His power as something received from another. For in this way He willed to display to us Himself in the Image of His own nature and of His glory.

"Is it possible then," one might go on to say to these heretics, "that you do not perceive whither your theory, when once it quits the safe path, will lead you on, and into what an abyss of error it will plunge those who have held such views?" "But," say they, "surely it is possible that the Son, although a created being, may yet fulfil the works whereof by His nature He is capable, and so advance the glory of God the Father?" Now what suggestion can appear more impious than this? If this be as they say, there can no longer be any superiority or any higher dignity by which God excels His creatures, if even one of them is to be invested with the glory and power of the Godhead. For let no one be so excessively deranged in mind as to suppose that he is imagining and uttering a marvellous and magnificent compliment concerning the Son in thinking or saying that "He is a creature, but not as one of the creatures." Let him be well assured that he is thus in no small degree disparaging His glory. For the question is not whether His nature is specially superior beyond all other creatures, but whether He is at all a created being. For how could He avoid the consequences of being a creature, even though He were the noblest of all creatures? And if the glory of the Son is disparaged by saying that He was brought into existence, why do they vainly advance (to heal as it were His offended dignity) the statement that He was created in the highest of all possible ranks? It follows therefore that we shall offer insult to the essence of God the Father if we bestow such power on the Son, supposing the Son (according to their ignorant and unskilful reasoning) is Himself a created being. And we shall not tolerate them when they tell us that the Son performs the acts of the Godhead, though Himself in His nature a creature, so as to glorify God the Father. If they can prove as much from the Divine Scripture, let them bring forward their citations, and let them observe the sayings of the holy writers in all sincerity: but if these are inventions of their own brains, and if they have themselves manufactured their arguments in this matter, we shall salute them with the words: Woe to those who prophesy after their own heart! For we shall allow that the Father ever is desirous of whatsoever He knows will maintain in integrity His Divine glory and preserve the absolute truth of the declarations made concerning Himself. And so we shall now bid farewell to the ignorant suggestions of those heretics and pass on to the real truth concerning Christ, believing that He is in truth begotten as Son of the essence of God the Father, and that He is in His nature God of God. For thus He speaks in perfect truth, in that He is both the Very Image and the Likeness of God the Father, when He says: He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.

I ask whether he is the visible likeness of the invisible God and whether the infinite God can also be presented to view under the likeness of a finite form. For a likeness must necessarily repeat the form of that of which it is the likeness. Let those, however, who want there to be a nature of a different sort in the Son determine what sort of likeness of the invisible God they wish the Son to be. Is it a bodily likeness exposed to the gaze and moving from place to place with human gait and motion? No, rather let them remember that according to the Gospels and the prophets both Christ is a Spirit and God is a Spirit. If they confine this Christ the spirit within the bounds of shape and body, such a corporeal Christ will not be the likeness of the invisible God, nor will a finite limitation represent that which is infinite.

He rebukes the apostle for defective knowledge of himself. For previously he had said that when he was known the Father was known also. But what did they mean when he complained that for so long they had not known him? It means this: that if they had known him, they must have recognized in him the Godhead that belongs to his Father's nature. For his works were the peculiar works of God.

(vii. de Trin) He reproves the ignorance of Philip in this respect. For whereas his actions had been strictly divine, such as walking on the water, commanding the winds, remitting sins, raising the dead, He complained that in His assumed humanity, the Divine nature was not discerned. Accordingly to Philip's request, to be shown the Father, Our Lord answers, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.

(vii. de Trin) He does not mean the sight of the bodily eye: for His fleshly part, born of the Virgin, doth not avail towards contemplating the form and image of God in Him; but the Son of God being known with the understanding, it follows that the Father is known also, forasmuch as He is the image of God, not differing from but expressing His Author. For our Lord's expressions do not speak of one person solitary and without relationship, but teach us His birth. The Father also excludes the supposition of a single solitary person, and leaves us no other doctrine but that the Father is seen in the Son, by the incommunicable likeness of birth.

When Philip said to Christ, "Show us the Father," He replied, "Have I been so long time with you, and hast thou not known Me, Philip?" And yet there are some who even after these words separate the Father from the Son. What proximity dost thou require closer than this? Indeed from this very saying some have fallen into the malady of Sabellius. But let us, leaving both these and those as involved in directly opposite error, consider the exact meaning of the words. "Have I been so long time with you, and hast thou not known Me, Philip?" He saith. What then? replieth Philip, "Art thou the Father after whom I enquire?" "No," He saith. On this account He said not, "hast thou not known Him," but, "hast thou not known Me," declaring nothing else but this, that the Son is no other than what the Father is, yet continuing to be a Son.

What saith Christ? Very reprovingly He saith, "Have I been so long time with you, and hast thou not known Me, Philip?" He said not, "hast thou not seen," but, "hast thou not known Me." "Why," Philip might say, "do I wish to learn concerning Thee? At present I seek to see Thy Father, and Thou sayest unto me, hast thou not known Me?" What connection then hath this with the question? Surely a very close one; for if He is that which the Father is, yet continuing a Son, with reason He showeth in Himself Him who begat Him. Then to distinguish the Persons He saith, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father," lest any one should assert that the same is Father, the same Son. For had He been the Father, He would not have said, "He that hath seen Me hath seen Him." Why then did He not reply, "thou askest things impossible, and not allowed to man; to Me alone is this possible"? Because Philip had said, "it sufficeth us," as though knowing Christ, He showeth that he had not even seen Him. For assuredly he would have known the Father, had he been able to know the Son. Wherefore He saith, "He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father." "If any one hath seen Me, he shall also behold Him." What He saith is of this kind: "It is not possible to see either Me or Him." For Philip sought the knowledge which is by sight, and since he thought that he had so seen Christ, he desired in like manner to see the Father; but Jesus showeth him that he had not even seen Himself.

And if any one here call knowledge, sight, I do not contradict him, for, "he that hath known Me," saith Christ, "hath known the Father." Yet He did not say this, but desiring to establish the Consubstantiality, declared, "he that knoweth My Essence, knoweth that of the Father also." "And what is this?" saith some one; "for he who is acquainted with creation knoweth also God." Yet all are acquainted with creation, and have seen it, but all do not know God. Besides, let us consider what Philip seeks to see. Is it the wisdom of the Father? Is it His goodness? Not so, but the very whatever God is, the very Essence. To this therefore Christ answereth, "He that hath seen Me." Now he that hath seen the creation, hath not also seen the Essence of God. "If any one hath seen Me, he hath seen the Father," He saith. Now had He been of a different Essence, He would not have spoken thus. But to make use of a grosser argument, no man that knows not what gold is, can discern the substance of gold in silver. For one nature is not shown by another.

Wherefore He rightly rebuked him, saying, "Am I so long with you?" Hast thou enjoyed such teaching, hast thou seen miracles wrought with authority, and all belonging to the Godhead, which the Father alone worketh, sins forgiven, secrets published, death retreating, a creation wrought from earth, and hast thou not known Me? Because He was clothed with flesh, therefore He said, "Hast thou not known Me?"

Thou hast seen the Father; seek not to see more; for in Him thou hast seen Me. If thou hast seen Me, be not over-curious; for thou hast also in Me known Him.

For God the Father none ever saw, and lived. And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"-that is, the people's-"face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped thy notice, since my name is upon him.

For as in the Old Testament Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than, "I am God, and beside me there is no God ; " so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the Lord's answer to Philip, "I and my Father are one; " and, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me." They would have the entire revelation of both Testaments yield to these three passages, whereas the only proper course is to understand the few statements in the light of the many.

This, then, being the case, it was not the Father whom, after His lengthened intercourse with them, they were ignorant of, but it was the Son; and accordingly the Lord, while upbraiding Philip for not knowing Himself who was the object of their ignorance, wished Himself to be acknowledged indeed as that Being whom He had reproached them for being ignorant of after so long a time-in a word, as the Son. And now it may be seen in what sense it was said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," -even in the same in which it was said in a previous passage, "I and my Father are one.

So, he says, was not such a long time sufficient to teach you about my Father and me? And yet you still are looking to see him. If you had known me, you would have known the Father through me and would have not thought that he can be seen with bodily eyes. Since the expression "you still do not know me" seemed not to fit in with the words "show us the Father," he clearly explains this by saying, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?' " There is no difference, he says, so that whoever sees me sees the Father himself. There is a perfect similarity between us two that shows the Father himself in me. Very aptly he adds, "How can you say?" as he confirms through his open amazement the words said above. How can you ask me, he says, to show you the Father, if not for the fact that you ignore me completely? Therefore what I said is true, "You neither know my Father nor me. If you had known me, you would have known him too," because the perfect likeness would have shown him.

So, teaching Philip that God cannot be seen bodily, Christ says: "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip?" Look. He did not say "you have not seen," but "you have not known," in order to lead Philip away from an earthly way of thinking, from the desire to see the Father bodily. For concerning God, one speaks of knowing, not of seeing bodily.

Then He adds: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." The words have this meaning: "Philip! You desire to see the Father with the bodily eye and think that you have already seen Me. But I say to you that if you had seen Me, you would have seen Him also. But since you have not yet seen Him, neither have you seen Me as one ought to look upon Me: you have seen Me bodily, since I also have a body, but the Divine essence you have not seen; therefore you cannot see bodily the essence of the Father either. Neither Me nor the Father is it possible to see bodily. For he who has seen Me has seen the Father also. However, many think that they see Me, yet do not see the Father. Therefore they see Me not according to the Divine nature, but according to the human."

You may also understand it more clearly thus: "I am consubstantial with the Father." Therefore, whoever has seen Me, that is, known Me, has known the Father. For when the essence and nature are one, the knowledge is also one.

Let Arius be put to shame, hearing that he who has seen the Son, that is, he who has known the Divinity of the Son, has known the Father, that is, the Divinity of the Father. Let Sabellius also be put to shame, who says: "There is one essence and one person of the Father and the Son." For behold, the Lord distinguishes the Hypostases, and shows one Person in the Father and another in the Son. For in the words "he who has seen Me" He indicates His own Person, then in the words "has seen the Father" – another Person. But if He and the Father were one Person, He would have said nothing of the sort, but to Philip's request – "show us the Father" – He would have answered that I have no Father, but I am both the Father and the Son. And it would be utterly unreasonable to hear the Son saying "I go to My Father" and "I am in the Father," and many other things of this kind, and not to understand that the Person of the Son is one and the Person of the Father is another, and not to confuse them.

Therefore the Lord reproaches this disciple that he has followed Him for so long, has seen the signs and works of the Divinity, yet still has not recognized Him as God, so as to know the Father through Him as well. "But now," He says, "from the fact that you desire to see the Father bodily, it is revealed that you believe neither that I am God, nor that He is God."

Now the confusion is cleared up. First, we see it resolved; secondly, this is explained further (v 10). As to the first, our Lord chides Philip for his slowness; secondly, he states the truth, Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father also; thirdly, Christ objects to the very request, how can you say, Show us the Father.

He says, Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He is saying in effect: you should know me, considering how long I have been living with you and talking with you. And if you had known me, you would without doubt have known the Father also. Therefore, since you do not know the Father, you indicate that you do not know me. And you can be chided for your slowness: "Are you also still without understanding?" (Mt 15:16); "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again" (Heb 5:12).

This gives rise to a question, for before, our Lord told the disciples that they knew him, when he said, "and the way you know" (v 4), while here he seems to say the opposite, "If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also" (v 7).

Augustine answers this by saying that among the disciples there were some who knew Christ as the Word of God. One of these was Peter, when he said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:16). There were others who did not truly know him, and Philip was one of these. It is to the first group that our Lord says, "Where I am going you know, and the way you know" (v 4); it is to the second group that he says, "If you had known me, you would without doubt have known the Father also."

Here is another explanation. Christ could be known in a twofold way. He could be known in his human nature, and every one knew him this way. With this in mind he says, "Where I am going you know, and the way you know." He could also be known as being of a divine nature, but they did not yet perfectly know him in this way. In reference to this, he says, "If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also." This is clear from the fact that he adds, Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father also. He is saying in effect: If you knew me, you would know the Father; and then you would not be saying, show us the Father, because you would have already seen him by seeing me: "If you knew me, you would perhaps know my Father also" (8:19).

Sabellius made this statement the basis of his error. He asked what could be the meaning of he who has seen me has seen the Father also, except that the Father and the Son are the same?

Hilary answers this by saying if this were so, our Lord would have said, "he who has seen me has seen the Father," without adding the "also." But because he adds the "also," saying, has seen the Father also, he shows there is a distinction. Augustine says that we use the same way of speaking when we talk about two people who are alike. We say that if you saw one you saw the other. Now the most perfect likeness of the Father is in the Son. Therefore he says, he who has seen me has seen the Father also. In fact, there is a greater likeness in the Son than there is among mere human beings, because in them there can never be a likeness based on the very same numerical form or quality, but only a likeness in species. In the Son, however, there is the same numerical nature as in the Father. Thus, when seeing the Son, the Father is better seen than when seeing some mere human another mere human is seen, no matter how much alike they are.

Note that this statement excludes the error of Arius on two points. First, it rejects his denial of consubstantiality. For it is impossible to see the uncreated substance by seeing some created substance, just as by knowing a substance of one genus, one cannot know a substance of another genus. It is evident, therefore, that the Son is not a created substance, but is consubstantial with the Father. Otherwise, one who sees the Son would not see the Father.

The other error excluded is their interpretation of 1 Timothy (1:17), "To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God," as meaning that only the Father is invisible, but the Son was often seen in his nature. But if this were so, it would follow that the Father was also frequently seen, because one who sees the Son sees the Father also. So since the Father is invisible as to his nature, it is impossible that the Father was seen in his nature.

Someone might question why our Lord chided Philip for asking to see the Father after he had seen the Son, since when one sees a picture he should not be rebuked for wanting to see the thing pictured.

Chrysostom answers this by saying that after hearing about knowing and seeing the Father, Philip wanted to see the Father with his bodily eyes, just as he thought he had seen the Son. This is what our Lord reproved, pointing out to him that he did not even see the Son in his nature with his bodily eyes.

Augustine says that our Lord did not disapprove of the request, but of the attitude behind it. Philip said, Show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied. This was like saying: We know you, but that is not enough. Thus he believed that there was complete sufficiency in knowing the Father, but not in knowing the Son. He seemed to think that the Son was inferior to the Father. This is what our Lord reproved, showing that there is the same sufficiency in knowing the Son as there is in knowing the Father, saying, he who has seen me has seen the Father also.

How, also, can He be changeable and mutable, who says indeed by Himself: "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me," and, "I and My Father are one;" and by the prophet, "I am the Lord, I change not?" For even though one saying may refer to the Father Himself, yet it would now be more aptly spoken of the Word, because when He became man, He changed not; but, as says the apostle, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and for ever."

For the Son is the envoy of God the Father in accordance with nature. And so he says … "I am in the Father and the Father is in me." For the Father is understood through this to be in the Son, because their substance is one. For where there is unity, there is no differentiation. And they are interchangeable, because both their appearance and likeness are the same, with the consequence that he who sees the Son is said to have seen the Father too. As the Lord himself says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father too." Therefore it is correct to say, God was in Christ.

Let us proceed then to consider the attributes of the Father, and we shall come to know whether this Image is really his. The Father is eternal, immortal, powerful, light, King, Sovereign, God, Lord, Creator and Maker. These attributes must be in the Image to make it true that whoever "has seen" the Son "has seen the Father." If the Son is not all this, but, as the Arians consider, he is originate and not eternal, this is not a true image of the Father, unless indeed they give up shame and go on to say that the title of image, given to the Son, is not a token of a similar essence, but his name only.

The Father was not born of the Virgin, and yet this birth of the Son from the Virgin was the work of both Father and Son. The Father did not suffer on the cross, and yet the passion of the Son was the work of both Father and Son. The Father did not rise again from the dead, and yet the resurrection of the Son was the work of both Father and Son. You have the persons quite distinct, and their working inseparable. So let us never say that the Father worked anything without the Son, the Son anything without the Father. Or perhaps you are worried about the miracles Jesus did, in case perhaps he did some that the Father did not do? Then what about "But the Father abiding in me does his works"?

So then, with all these ways of speaking we still have to understand that the activities of the divine three are inseparable, so that when an activity is attributed to the Father he is not taken to engage in it without the Son and the Holy Spirit. And when it is an activity of the Son, it is not without the Son and the Holy Spirit. And when it is an activity of the Son, it is not without the Father and the Son. That being the case, those who have the right faith, or better still the right understanding as far as they can, know well enough that the reason it is said about the Father, "He does the works," is that the works have their origin in the one from whom the co-working persons have their very existence. The Son, you see, is born of him, and the Holy Spirit proceeds primarily from him of whom the Son is born, being the Spirit common to them both.

Behold how the catholic faith gets clear of this question. The Son walked upon the sea, planted the feet of flesh on the waves: the flesh walked, and the divinity directed. But when the flesh was walking and the divinity directing, was the Father absent? If absent, how doth the Son Himself say, "but the Father abiding in me, Himself doeth the works"? If the Father, abiding in the Son, Himself doeth His works, then that walking upon the sea was made by the Father, and through the Son. Accordingly, that walking is an inseparable work of Father and Son. I see both acting in it. Neither the Father forsook the Son, nor the Son left the Father. Thus, whatever the Son doeth, He doeth not without the Father; because whatever the Father doeth, He doeth not without the Son.

The Lord saith, "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 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.

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.

Listen if you will know what the kiss of the mouth is: "The Father and I are one;" and again: "I am in the Father and the Father is in me." This is a kiss from mouth to mouth, beyond the claim of any creature. It is a kiss of love and of peace, but of the love which is beyond all knowledge and that peace which is so much greater than we can understand. The truth is that the things that no eye has seen, and no ear has heard, things beyond the mind of man, were revealed to Paul by God through his Spirit, that is, through him who is the kiss of his mouth. That the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son signifies the kiss of the mouth.

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? as one: as if to say: this you ought to believe. And he manifests this through his work: The words that I speak to you, I do not speak of myself: but the Father who abides in me, he does the works, and thus, if the operation is one, the substance also is one: above in the fifth chapter: "Whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner"; and in the eighth chapter: "Of myself I do nothing."

There is a question about what he says: I am in the Father, and the Father is in me. To the contrary: Then it is argued from this: therefore the Father is in the Father. It is also asked: why is this proposition not accepted: The Father is in the Father? I respond: It must be said that this preposition in, because it is a preposition, implies distinction; but because it is this preposition, it implies unity of essence; therefore it is conceded that the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. But it does not follow that the Father is in the Father; rather, there is here a fallacy of accident, just as in this case: I am similar to you, and you to me; therefore I am similar to myself — a fallacy of accident, because similarity implies both agreement and distinction.

The words that I speak, I speak not from Myself: but the Father abiding in Me Himself doeth the works.

"If," He would say, "My Father had spoken anything to you, He would have used words no other than these which I now speak. For so great is the equality in essence between Myself and Him, that My words are His words, and whatsoever I do may be believed to be His actions: for abiding in Me, by reason of the exact equivalence in essence, He Himself doeth the works." For since the Godhead is One, in the Father, in the Son, and in the Spirit, every word that cometh from the Father comes always through the Son by the Spirit: and every work or miracle is through the Son by the Spirit, and yet is considered as coming from the Father. For the Son is not apart from the essence of the Father, nor indeed is the Holy Ghost; but the Son, being in the Father, and having the Father again in Himself, claims that the Father is the doer of the works. For the nature of the Father is mighty in operation, and shines out clearly in the Son.

And one might add to this another meaning that is involved, suggested clearly by the principles that underlie the Incarnation. He says: I speak not of Myself, meaning "not in severance from or in lack of accordance with God the Father." For since He appeared to those who saw Him in human form, He refers His words back to the Divine nature, as speaking in the Person of the Father; and the same with His actions: and He almost seems to say: "Let not this human form deprive Me of that reverent estimation which is due and befitting to Me, and do not suppose that My words are those of a mere man or of one like unto yourselves, but believe them to be in very truth Divine, and such as befit the Father equally with Myself. And He it is Who works, abiding in Me: for I am in Him, and He is in Me. Think not therefore that a mighty and extraordinary privilege was granted to the men of former days, in that they saw God in a vision of fire, and heard His voice speaking unto them. For ye have in reality seen the Father through Me and in Me; since I have appeared among you, being in My nature God, and have come visibly, according to the words of the Psalmist. And be well assured that in hearing My words, ye heard the words of the Father; and ye have been spectators of His works, and of the might that is in Him. For by Me He speaks, as by His own Word; and in Me He carries out and achieves His wondrous works, as though by His own Power."

And so I suppose that no reasonable theory would ever separate Him Who is the Word of the Father and the mighty Power of His essence, from the essence of the Father. Eather would every one freely confess that the Word ever was from the beginning in His nature contained in the Father's essence, every one at least who is anything but distraught in mental perplexity.

Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in Me?

"I indeed, O Philip," He would say, "in depicting in Myself the nature of My Father, am the Image of His essence, moulded as that implies after His likeness, not (as might be supposed) by the bestowal of glories that once were not Mine, nor even by the reflected brilliancy of Divine endowments that once were unfamiliar but have been granted from without: but rather in My own nature are contained the qualities peculiar to My Father; and whatsoever He may be, that in very truth am I, in regard to sameness in essence. To this thou wilt surely reply: for it seems thou didst not go on to realise that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. And yet the force of my words shall constrain thee henceforth, even in spite of thyself, to acknowledge thy assent to this. Therefore, whatsoever I say is spoken as the words of the Father; and whatsoever I do, is done by the Father also." And Christ says this, not as one making use of the words of another, nor even as speaking in the office and capacity of a prophet to interpret the commands that came from the Father above: for the prophets ever spake, not their own words, but the words which they received by inspiration from God. Again, He attributes to His Father the successful performance of His miracles, not implying that He works His wonders by a power not His own, as did for instance those Apostles who said to the people: "Give not heed to us, as though by our own power or godliness we had healed the sick man." For the saints are wont to use no power of their own in working their miracles, but rather the power of God: for they appear as ministers and servants, showing forth the words and also the works of God. But since the Son is Consubstantial with the Father, differing from Him in no respect except as to distinct personality, He says that His own words are those of the Father, since the Father could in no wise make use of words differing from those of the Son. And further, thou wilt understand the same to be signified in the majesty of His works. For since the Father could never by any possibility carry into effect any work without the Son's knowledge and co-operation, Christ attributes His works to His Father. For consider Him as saying more clearly this: "I am in all respects like to Him Who begat Me, and an Image of His essence; not merely adorned with the outward appearance of a glory that is not Mine, but, owing to the identity of essence, containing within Myself My Father in all His fulness."

The Lord speaks the truth who says, "I am in the Father and the Father in me"—plainly, the one in his entirety is in the other in his entirety. The Father does not have an overwhelming presence in the Son. The Son is not deficient in the Father. And the Lord also says that the Son should be honored. And, "The one who has seen me has seen the Father," and, "No one fully knows the Father except the Son." In all of this, there is no hint … of any variation in glory or of essence or anything else between the Father and the Son.

The words of the Lord, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me," confuse many minds, and this is only natural since the powers of human reason cannot provide them with any intelligible meaning. It seems impossible that one object should be both within and without another, or that—since it is laid down that the beings of whom we are treating, although they do not dwell apart, retain their separate existence and condition—these beings can reciprocally contain one another so that one should permanently envelope and be permanently enveloped by the other whom yet he envelopes. This is a problem that human wisdom will never solve, nor will human research ever find an analogy for this condition of divine existence. But God can be what human beings cannot understand.

In no other words than these that the Son has used can the fact be stated that Father and Son, being alike in nature, are inseparable. The Son, who is the way and the truth and the life, is not deceiving us by some theatrical transformation of names and aspects when he, while wearing manhood, styles himself the Son of God. He is not falsely concealing the fact that he is God the Father. He is not a single person who hides his features under a mask so that we might imagine that two are present. He is not a solitary being, now posing as his own Son, and then again calling himself the Father, adorning the one unchanging nature with varying names.… It is the height of impiety to believe that Father and Son are two gods. It is sacrilege to assert that Father and Son are singularly God. It is blasphemy to deny the unity, consisting in sameness of kind, of God from God.

That the Father dwells in the Son proves that the Father is not isolated and alone. That the Father works through the Son proves that the Son is not an alien or a stranger. There cannot be one person only, for he speaks not of himself. And, conversely, they cannot be separate and divided when the one speaks through the voice of the other. These words are the revelation of the mystery of their unity.

(vii. de Trin) For what excuse was there for ignorance of the Father, or what necessity to show Him, when the Father was seen in the Son by His essential nature, while by the identity of unity, the Begotten and the Begetter are one: Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in Me?

(vii. de Trin) But the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, not by a conjunction of two harmonizing essences, nor by a nature grafted into a more capacious substance as in material bodies, in which it is impossible that what is within can be made external to that which contains it; but by the birth of a nature which is life from life; forasmuch as from God nothing but God can be born.

(v. de Trin) The unchangeable God follows, so to speak, His own nature, by begetting unchangeable God. Nor does the perfect birth of unchangeable God from unchangeable God forsake His own nature. We understand then here the nature of God subsisting in Him, since God is in God, nor besides Him who is God, can any other be God.

(vii. de Trin) Wherein He neither desires Himself to be the Son, nor hides the existence of His Father's power in Him. In that He speaks, it is Himself that speaks in His own person; in that He speaks not of Himself, He witnesseth His nativity, that He is God from God.

"Believest thou not that I am in the Father?" That is, "I am seen in that Essence."

"The words that I speak, I speak not of Myself," Seest thou the exceeding nearness, and the proof of the one Essence?

"The Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works." How, beginning with words, doth He come to works? for that which naturally followed was, that He should say, "the Father speaketh the words." But He putteth two things here, both concerning doctrine and miracles. Or it may have been because the words also were works. How then doeth He them? In another place He saith, "If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not." How then saith He here that the Father doeth them? To show this same thing, that there is no interval between the Father and the Son. What He saith is this: "The Father would not act in one way, and I in another." Indeed in another place both He and the Father work; "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work"; showing in the first passage the unvaryingness of the works, in the second the identity. And if the obvious meaning of the words denotes humility, marvel not; for after having first said, "Believest thou not?" He then spake thus, showing that He so modeled His words to bring him to the faith; for He walked in their hearts.

Neither then may we divide into three Godheads the wonderful and divine Monad; nor disparage with the name of "work" the dignity and exceeding majesty of the Lord; but we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and hold that to the God of the universe the Word is united. For "I," says He, "and the Father are one;" and, "I in the Father and the Father in Me." For thus both the Divine Triad, and the holy preaching of the Monarchy, will be preserved.

If, indeed, He meant the Father to be understood as the same with the Son, by saying, "He who seeth me seeth the Father," how is it that He adds immediately afterwards, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? " He ought rather to have said: "Believest thou not that I am the Father? "With what view else did He so emphatically dwell on this point, if it Were not to clear up that which He wished men to understand-namely, that He was the Son? And then, again, by saying, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me," He laid the greater stress on His question on this very account, that He should not, because He had said, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father," be supposed to be the Father; because He had never wished Himself to be so regarded, having always professed Himself to be the Son, and to have come from the Father.

And yet He omitted not to explain how the Father was in the Son and the Son in the Father. "The words," says He, "which I speak unto you, are not mine," because indeed they were the Father's words; "but the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works.

Among all the words said so far, especially here, he clearly shows that he talks about their likeness. Indeed, in the same way, by turning the speech to the Father and him, he reveals the perfect likeness of their nature, so that, as the Father lives in him, and he in the Father, a perfect likeness can be shown in each of them. Then he proves and confirms his words by saying, "The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own." If you do not believe, he says, in these words, know that so perfect is the conformity of nature, ideas, and virtue that there is no difference in the words either. Whatever I say is in common, and do not only speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me does his works. It would have been opportune to add, "My Father speaks through the words: I do not speak." But he had said above, "The words that I say," and here, "The Father does his works," in order to show that the nature is common, the words are common and the works are common as well. From this it is evident that through the words, "I do not speak on my own," he does not signify an inferior state, but a perfect communion and an inseparable union. And this appears especially from the context.

The Son is in the Father, since He exists in His essence, and again the Father is in the essence of the Son, just as a king is present in his image, and the image in the king. For the features of the image and the king are the same. And that My essence and the Father's are one, this is clear. For "the words that I speak, I speak not from Myself," that is, I speak them no differently, but as the Father would say, so I also speak; because I have nothing of My own, nothing separate from the Father, but all things are common; for the essence is one, though the persons are different.

But to the Father belong not only the words that I speak, but also the deeds, the Divine deeds. If the deeds are God's, and the Father and I are God, then the deeds belong to one Essence, so that if I act, the Father acts, and if the Father acts, I act.

Then when he says, How can you say, Show us the Father? he shows his disapproval of the request, and of the basis of the request. He is displeased with the request because the Father is seen in the Son. Philip could have said what we read in Job: "I, who have spoken so unthoughtfully, what can I reply? I will put my hand over my mouth" (39:34). He disapproves of the root of the request when he says, Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? This is like saying: You want to possess the Father, believing that you will have sufficiency in him. But if you believe that, Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? For if you believed the latter, you would expect to find in me all the sufficiency which is in the Father.

He says, I am in the Father and the Father in me, because they are one in essence. This was spoken of before: "I and the Father are one" (10:30).

We should note that in the divinity essence is not related to person as it is in human beings. Among human beings, the essence of Socrates is not Socrates, because Socrates is a composite. But in the divinity, essence is the same with the person in reality, and so the essence of the Father is the Father, and the essence of one Son is the Son. Therefore, wherever the essence of the Father is, there the Father is; and wherever the essence of the Son is, there the Son is. Now the essence of the Father is in the Son, and the essence of the Son is in the Father. Therefore, the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son. This is how Hilary explains it.

Now our Lord clarifies his answer: first by the works he does himself; secondly, by the works he will do by the disciples (v 12). So he first mentions the works he does himself; secondly, he infers a tenet of the faith (v 11).

The belief that Christ was God could be known from two things: from his teaching and from his miracles. Our Lord mentions these. "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin" (15:24). Referring to his teaching he says, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin" (15:22). We also read: "No man ever spoke like this man!" (7:46). The blind man, referring to his works, said: "Never since the world began has it been heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind" (9:32). Our Lord shows his divinity by these two things. Referring to his teaching, he says, The words that I say to you, by the instrument of my human nature, I do not speak of myself, but from him who is in me, that is, the Father: "I declare to the world what I have heard from him," the Father (8:26). The Father, therefore, who speaks in me, is in me. Now whatever a human being says must come from the first Word. And this first Word, the Word of God, is from the Father. Therefore, all the words we speak must be from God. So when anyone speaks words he has from the Father, the Father is in him. Referring to his works, he says, the Father who dwells in me does the works, because no one could do the works that I do: "The Son can do nothing of himself" (5:19).

Chrysostom wonders how Christ can start by referring to his words, and then bring in his works, for Christ says, the words that I say to you... but the Father does the works. There are two answers to this. Chrysostom says that Christ was referring to his teaching the first time, and then referring to his miracles. For Augustine, our Lord is referring to his words as his works: "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" (6:29). So when the Lord says, the Father does the works, we should understand that these works are words.

Two heresies were based on the above texts. When our Lord said, I am in the Father, Sabellius understood this to mean that the Father and the Son are the same. And from the statement, I do not speak of myself, Arius inferred that the Son is inferior to the Father. Yet these very texts refute these heresies. For if the Father and Son were the same, as Sabellius speculated, the Son would not have said, The words that I say to you I do not speak of myself. And if the Son were inferior to the Father, as Arius blasphemed, he would not have said, the Father who dwells in me does the works.

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.

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? Simply, without persuasion, as right faith believes.

Otherwise, believe because of the works themselves; above in the tenth chapter: "If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me." Whence Augustine says: "If we were separated, we could in no way work inseparably." And thus it has been explained where he had said he was going to go, because he was not going to the Father as to someone outside himself, but he wished to make them believe that he was equal to the Father. And indeed the disciples already knew this, because they believed him to be true God, and thus equal to the Father in all things: otherwise he would not be true God.

Or else believe for the very works' sake.

In these words He distinctly says that He could never have worked out and achieved those miracles which were characteristic of the Divine nature alone, if He had not been Himself essentially of that nature. And see on what sure grounds and also with what truth He makes this declaration. He does not claim credence for His words alone, although He knew no deceit, so much as for His actions. And why this is so I will tell you. There would be nothing to prevent any man, however mad and however foolish, from falsely using God-befitting words and speeches, and uttering such expressions in a most reckless manner: but who could ever display a God-befitting power of action? And to whom of created beings will the Father grant that glory which is especially His own? Do we not always say that the power of doing all things and the possession of an all-supreme might is the glory of God alone, attaching to no other being, at least to no one ever numbered among the creatures of God? Therefore it is that Christ, wishing to give a proof of His Divinity resting on cogent and unquestionable arguments, urged them to believe the evidence of His actual works that He was in the Father, and that the Father again was in Him: that is, that he bears in His own substance the nature of the Father, as being His very own Offspring and most truly His Fruit, and appearing in natural relation to Him as Son to Father. But while the Church of Christ, in perfect confidence in the rightness of her teaching, holds in this form her doctrine concerning the Only-begotten, on the other hand the ungodly heretics have attempted to seduce to a different belief those who follow after and attend to their pernicious teachings. For the miserable creatures are furious in their outcries against Christ, and consider one another not to provoke unto godliness, but to the end that each one may appear more godless than another, and may utter something yet more unseemly. For since they drink the wine of Sodom and gather the bitter clusters of Gomorrah, because they receive not from the Divine Spirit their knowledge concerning Him, nor yet by revelation from the Father, but from the dragon himself; they can conceive in their minds nothing that is sound and right, but they utter sayings which bring to absolute wretchedness the souls of those who hear them, hurling them down to Hades and the abyss below. They venture moreover to publish these opinions in books, thus stereotyping their own wickedness for all time. It ought to have been sufficient for us to have said just so much on the present passage as would have been likely to benefit those who may chance to read it, by way of establishing in absolute accuracy the true conception concerning the Son, without making any allusion whatever to the heretical writings. But as it is in no way improbable that some persons of feeble intelligence may, on chancing to meet with their miserable sayings, be carried away by them; I considered it necessary to put an end to the harm that might result from their foolish talk, by exposing the utter weakness of the slanders they wish to raise in their vehement attack on the Son, or rather, for that is the truer way of putting the case, on the whole Divine nature.

I happened then to meet with a pamphlet of our opponents, and on investigating what they had to say on the text now before us, I found, in the course of reading it, these words used after certain others: "The Son therefore being essentially encompassed by the Father, has within Himself the Father, and it is the Father Who utters the words and accomplishes the miracles. This is the interpretation of His words: The things that I speak unto you, I speak not from Myself; but the Father abiding in Me, He doeth the works"

Such are the exact expressions of the author's quibbling jugglery. Now since it is my duty to mention this view, which is opposed to the language of Scripture, and which may very well perplex an inexperienced mind, I make this assertion. As to their phrase, that "the Son is essentially encompassed by the Father," I do not in the least understand what in the world it means, or what it signifies,----I speak the truth, as I feel it my duty to do,----so great is the obscurity of the expression. The real sense of the words seems ashamed of itself, and inclined to veil itself in overmuch dimness, not daring to explain itself openly and clearly. For even as he that doeth ill hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest he should be improved, according to the Saviour's word; even so every argument with an ill tendency is wont to move through dark ideas, and will not go towards the light of plain speaking, lest the meanness of its inherent unsoundness should be reproved. What then may we suppose to be the meaning of the Son's being "essentially encompassed by the Father?" For I will spare no pains to discover reasonings which may sift in |268 every possible way the real import of that which is here so dimly expressed, and which perhaps shrinks from being understood lest it may then reveal the folly of its author. If then the meaning be this, that the Son, appearing in the essence of the Father as Consubstantial with Him, displays also in His own Person the Father brilliantly shining in the nature of His Offspring, we also will assent to the truth of the statement: still, the use of the word "encompass" would perchance do more than a slight injustice in its application to the Son. But if this be not the meaning,----and surely it cannot be, for never would it be admitted that the Son is begotten of the essence of the Father by one who has vomited such blasphemy against Him, insisting that like some finite body the nature of the Son is enclosed within that of the Father,----certainly such an one will be convicted of evident blasphemy, and will be shown to be full of the most excessive madness. For while admitting in words that the Son is God, they endeavour most illogically to invest Him with properties peculiar to [created] bodies. For the being parted off by a boundary line and separated by a definitely conceived measure, the starting from a fixed origin and ceasing at a fixed limit, all this surely implies existence conditioned by place and size and fashion and form. And these are surely attributes of [created] bodies. Shall we not then in this way be thinking of Him Who is above us as though He were on a level with us as one of ourselves? Would He not then be a brother to the rest of creation, having henceforth nothing in Himself by way of superiority to it, inasmuch as this theory has come to speak of His existence as merely finite? And, being so, at least according to the foolish supposition of our opponents, why did He vainly reproach us in the words: Ye are from beneath; I am from above, and again: Ye are of this world; I am not of this world? For in saying that He Himself is "from above," He does not simply mean that He came from heaven: else, how would He excel the holy angels, since we shall find that they also are "from above," if we interpret the meaning in a merely local sense? But He signifies that He is the Offspring of that essence which is from above, and which is more excellent than all else in the universe. How then after this can He be speaking the truth, if He possesses the peculiar attributes of [created] bodies in common with all creation, and is "encompassed" by the Father, even as those things that are brought into existence out of nothing? For of course we are ready to agree that no created thing can be situated outside of the Father. And the inspired Psalmist also, speaking surely by the Spirit deep truths and hidden mysteries, says that the Son is all-pervading, attesting thereby His incorporeal and illimitable nature, and that as God He is confined to no one locality. For his words are: Whither can I go from Thy Spirit, and whither can I fly from Thy Presence? If I ascend into heaven, Thou art there; if I descend into Hades, Thou art present: if I take my wings in the morning, and go unto the uttermost parts of the sea, even there also Thy hand shall guide me, and Thy right hand shall hold me. But these heretics, in utter recklessness ranging their own opinions in antagonism to the words of the Spirit, subject the Only-begotten to limitations and boundaries, although they ought to have understood the matter from the cogent and instructive reasoning of this Scripture. For if He has filled the heavens and the uttermost parts of the earth, and therefore also the regions of Hades, is it not excessively unreasonable to apply to Him the word "encompassed," without reflecting that if His Presence, that is, if the Spirit----for the Psalmist calls the Spirit the Presence of the Son----fills all things, it is inconceivable that Christ Himself should be "encompassed" within any boundary, even though it be in the substance of God the Father? Nay, it will be no less outrageous to limit within a confined space that which is incorporeal than to include in a measure that which exists in no finite form. For to say that He is "essentially encompassed by God the Father" is surely nought else than to imply that His essence is finite, exactly like any individual thing of the works that were made by Him: and these we shall safely and truly allow to be capable of being "encompassed ": for they are [created] bodies, even though perchance not all such as ours.

But besides, there is this also to be thought of. If we maintain that it is necessary that whatever is enfolded by anything lies entirely within the limits of that which is said to "encompass" it, will it not certainly follow that we should think of that which is "encompassed" as something less than that which "encompasses" it, and should speak of it as limited thereby, and as it were enclosed within the compass of that which is greater than itself? What sayest thou now, my friend? Here we have Christ presenting Himself before us as a Likeness of God the Father, and plainly saying: He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, and again straightway adding: I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me. Let us assume then that He means, as you would understand Him to say, that "although I am the Very Image and Likeness of My Father, yet I am essentially encompassed by Him." Surely it is acknowledged by all men that He would have us hold just such ideas concerning the Father as we would conceive concerning Himself also. Therefore it would follow that the Father also is subject to limitation, for He is in the Son: and let the heretic search if he will and find out who or what is greater than the Father; I should deem it impious to express or even to conceive such an idea. The Son can never be a Likeness of the Father in one way and not so in another. For if He has in Himself anything at all that would alter or interfere with His resemblance in all points, He would be, as a consequence of that, a partial and not a perfect Likeness. But where could you show us the Holy Scripture teaching such a doctrine as this? For most certainly we are not going to be led astray by your words so as to reject the plain truth of the Sacred statements. And I wonder how it is they did not shrink in dismay from adding to their former arguments the following: "Just as Paul had Christ speaking in him and effecting the mighty deeds, exactly in the same way also the Son had the Father speaking in Him and working the miracles; wherefore He says: Believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me: or else believe Me for the very works' sake." After this, who will any longer allow the name of Christian to one who holds such views and thinks such thoughts concerning Christ? For behold how very evidently he maintains that Christ is no longer truly God: recklessly He invests Him with the limitations properly characteristic of creatures, proclaiming Him to be a sort of God-bearer, or one who participates in God, rather than One begotten God of God. To put it briefly, his aim is throughout the utter severance of Christ, in every way and in every respect, from the essence of God the Father; and to cut Him off altogether from that intimate relationship in nature and essence which He has with God His own Father.

Now what could be conceived to surpass such views as these in the immense amazement they are calculated to excite? How could one refrain from shedding in torrents uncontrollable tears of love over men so utterly abandoned to ungodliness, as though they were already dead and perished? One might say, and that very appropriately: Who will give to my head water, and to mine eyes a fountain of tears, and I will weep for this people day and night? For over those who have chosen to think such thoughts as these, one might fitly shed innumerable tears. But since it is by means of the doctrines of the truth that I conceive we ought to refute their slanders, for the sake of that which is profitable to simple folk, come now, and let us answer them by saying that we have been very jealous for the Lord. For assuredly, my friends, the inspired Paul or any other among the saints, while they had in themselves Christ tabernacled in their hearts by the Spirit, very easily did such things as seemed good unto God, and appeared as workers of miraculous deeds. It is an established fact therefore, and one that thou wouldst thyself admit to be true, that being really human in nature, and different in essence from the Holy Spirit of Christ that dwelt within them, they were fearers of God, and were glorious by reason of the grace bestowed on them by Christ. And thou wilt altogether agree with us in saying that they were at one time destitute of this gift, and were called thereunto when it seemed good to God, Who directs all things well, that thus it should be. It was then not impossible that, by some untoward action, or deed not well done, the blessed Paul, or any other of those similarly favoured, should after being joined unto God be capable of losing again the grace given to him, and being thrust back again to return to the humiliation whence he had arisen. For that which is wholly adventitious and from without may easily be spurned away, and is capable of being taken back even as it was given. Now then, my good sir: for my question is coming back to thee: if it is true, according to thy ignorant notions and most impious imagination, that even as Christ was speaking and working wonders in Paul, so one must admit that the Father is in the Son; what manner of doubt can there be that He must be in no sense whatever in His nature God, but rather something different from the Father indwelling in Him, the Father being God in very truth? For thus it was that Christ was in Paul. So then, [according to you,] the Only-begotten is a sort of instrument or implement [in the hand of the Father], cunningly devised to set forth His glory, in no wise differing from a flute or a lyre, giving utterance to whatsoever the mouth of the player might breathe into it or the touch of his finger call forth in rhythmic melody. And He will be acceptable to the Father as an assistance in the performance of His wonders, as one might conceive of a saw or an axe in the hands of a skilful carpenter. And then what can be more paradoxical than this? For if He is by nature as those heretics say, He must be altogether alien from God the Father; whereas in our opinion He is by nature God, and none other than God. But if the Son is severed from the essence of the Father, as far at least as pertains to His being in nature God, surely we are correct in inferring that the Son Who sits at the Father's right hand is placed in the same rank with the created world, and reckoned among the results of God's workmanship, and regarded in the light of a mechanical instrument, and looked upon henceforth as a servant to ourselves rather than as a master; or indeed that He is in strict truth not actually a Son at all. For never could one regard or accept in the light of a Son a being who was placed in the rank of a mere instrument. The Father, it would appear, has begotten an instrument to show forth His wisdom and skill, and is deemed to have generated something quite different from that which He is Himself. How could this possibly happen? Surely it is the height of folly to conceive such a notion. If therefore thou refusest to surrender that opinion concerning the Son which regards Him as an instrument or a servant, and if thou art unwilling to acknowledge Him as at all in truth a Son, and deniest His ineffable generation from the essence of God the Father; thou wilt be doing injustice to the glory even of the Father Himself: for then the Father will cease to be Father in veritable reality; for how could one who had not begotten a son of his own essence be at all in his nature a father? It would follow that the Holy Trinity is altogether falsely named, if neither the Father is truly Father, nor the Son in His nature Son. And the logical sequence to this view will be blasphemy against the Holy Ghost as well.

It would therefore follow in this case that we have been grossly deceived: our faith is a falsehood: the Holy Scripture is coining a lie when it calls God by the name of the Father. And if the Son is not in His nature God, as having been begotten of God the Father, we have been led astray, and together with us the citizens of the world above have erred also, even the undefiled multitude of the holy angels, when they joined us in glorifying and adoring the Son as One Who is in His nature God; being led on in some mysterious manner to sing the praise of one who (if we speak after the manner of the heretics' accursed folly) is a God-bearing vessel, the work of God's hands. And if the Father ever willed to withdraw from His relationship to the Son and His indwelling in Him, the Son would then be in no respect different from others who have fallen away from their original sovereignty, with nothing to distinguish Him, no trace within His nature of the Father Who begat Him; but rather one like ourselves in all things, who had only been strengthened by the Divine grace, and indeed honoured with the title of sonship, in the same degree as ourselves. Tell me then, why does He not Himself acknowledge His natural relationship to us? Why is it written: We perish for ever, whereas Thou abidest for ever? And why are we "servants" and He "Lord "? For even if we are called the sons of God, yet by acknowledging none the less our own proper nature we do not disgrace the honour done to us: but tell me the reason why----if He is like unto us and not at all superior to His creatures, inasmuch as He is not in nature God (for this is their ignorant opinion)----He does not confess His community with us in being a servant? Eather we find Him investing Himself with the honour and glory that peculiarly befit and are specially ascribed to the Divine nature, and saying to the holy disciples: Ye call Me Lord and Master, and ye say well; for so I am. This is the Saviour's saying: but our illustrious expositors, who introduce these doctrines attacking His Divinity, accept his words and affirmation asserting that He was truly called Lord, and yet thrust Him away from His natural lordship, because they are unwilling to confess Him as in His nature God of God; though they are not bold enough to bring against Him the worst of all the charges that their accursed blasphemy implies.

For that He wills not to be reckoned among those who hold the rank of servants, or even in the category of created objects, but rather that He ever looks to the freedom inherent in Himself by nature, even at the time when He was made in the form of a servant----all this thou wilt learn in the following manner. He had arrived at Capernaum, as we read in the Gospels: the collectors of the legal tribute-money came to Peter, and said: Doth not your Master pay the half-shekel? And when Christ heard of this, it is right that we should notice the question He addressed to Peter: The kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons or from strangers? And after Peter had wisely and sensibly acknowledged that it was a stranger to the kingdom, as regards birth and kinship as it is reckoned among us, who would be compelled to submit to ordinances and taxation; Christ forthwith brought forward His claim that a God-befitting nature was truly existent in Himself, by adding the words: Therefore the sons are free. Whereas if He had been a fellow-servant, and not a Son truly begotten of the essence of the Father, with no intimate natural relationship to the Father; why is it that, after implying that all besides are subject to the tribute, inasmuch as their nature is foreign to that of Him Who of right receives the tribute, and they are only in the rank of servants, He has claimed freedom for Himself alone? For it is by an inaccurate use of terms that attributes, which mainly and truly are befitting to the Godhead alone, are ascribed to us; whereas in Him they are in very truth inherent. And so if any one were to investigate accurately the nature of things created, he would perceive that to that nature the title as well as the fact of slavery most appropriately belongs; whereas if any like ourselves have been decorated with the glorious name of freedom, an honour that is due to God alone is attributed to them only by an inexact use of language.

Now here again is another question I should be very glad to ask them. Will they allow to Paul the epithet; of God-bearer, seeing that Christ dwells in him through the Holy Spirit, or will they be silly enough to deny this? For if they shall say that he is not in truth a God-bearer, this will be sufficient I think to persuade all men for the future to reject the nonsense they talk, and to hate them utterly, as men who shrink from saying no absurd thing. And if, avoiding this, they shall turn to the duty of saying the truth, and confess him to be truly a God-bearer, because that Christ dwells in him, will they not be convicted of very impiously saying that the Son is alien from the essence of God the Father? For Paul is no longer a God-bearer, if the Son is not in His nature God. But sometimes they blush, and say----for they are also characterised by recklessness and perverseness in argument----that the Son is truly God, yet not in His nature begotten of God. And there is no manner of doubt that any man whatever will exclaim against them on this point too; for how could one who is not in his nature begotten of God be God? Further, we add this. You say that the Son is in His nature God: how then could He Who is in His nature God be a God-bearer or a partaker of God? For no one could ever be a partaker of himself. For to what end will God dwell in God, as though in something different? For if the recipient is in nature just the same as the indweller may be conceived to be, what henceforth becomes of the need of the participation? And if in the same way that Christ dwelt in Paul, the Father also dwelt in Him, will not Christ be a God-bearer in the same way as Paul? And He will not in any other sense possess the quality of being in His nature God, through His having the need of a greater one, namely, the indwelling God. Then again this noble friend of ours goes further in his clever inventions, and by many proofs (as he seems to think them) he attempts to talk people round to his peculiar doctrine. For I think it is worth while to go through all his words in detail, and to make a direct investigation of the impious plot that he has laid, in order that he may be clearly convicted of numbering the Only-begotten among things created. And the wretched man, having buried his impiety towards Christ beneath a heap of cleverly devised conceits, confesses Him to be God, and yet, excluding Him from the Divinity that is truly and naturally His, imagines that he will elude the observation of those who are looking for the real truth.

Accordingly he writes thus: "But even as we, while we are said to be in Him, have our substance in no way mingled with His; in the same way also the Son, while He is in the Father, has His essence entirely different from the Uncreated One."

What lamentable audacity! What extravagant language, and how full of folly, or rather of all perversity and madness! Professing themselves to be wise they in reality became fools; and holding these views concerning the Only-begotten, they denied the Master that bought them, as it is written. For if they say that the Word of God is a man and one like ourselves, there remains nothing that prevents them from saying that He is in God in the same way that we are: but if they believe Him to be God, and have learnt to worship Him as being so by nature, why do they not rather ascribe to Him existence in a God-befitting way in His own Father, and also the possession of the Father in Himself? For this I think would be more fitting for those who are really lovers of God to think and say. And if we find them still cherishing their shamelessness undaunted, and persisting in the words they have uttered,----saying that the Father is in the Son in the same manner as may be the case with any one of us, who have been created out of nothing and formed out of the earth by Him,----why is it not permissible for those who wish to do so, to say henceforth with impunity: He that hath seen me hath seen the Father, and: I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? But I think that in this way any one would be condemned, and very properly, on a charge of the most utter folly possible. For not only is it absurd, but such a thing was never said by any of the saints in the inspired Scripture. On the other hand, they all concede to Him Who is in His nature Lord and God, the Only-begotten, an incomparable excellence above all good men; yea, verily, they proclaim aloud and say: Who among the sons of God shall be likened unto the Lord? How then is the Only-begotten any longer like us, if (according to the language of the saints) no one is His equal or His peer? Whereas if He is in God in just the same way that we are, we shall in consequence be compelled to say that the 3ompany of the saints are untruthful, and to ascribe to Him Who is in His nature Son nothing extraordinary which might distinguish Him as of a different rank from those who are sons only by adoption. Away with the loathsome idea, man! For we will not be so persuaded; God forbid! On the contrary, following the opinions of the holy fathers, we believe that we shall be well-pleasing unto God.

But seeing that they brought forward, as a proof of what they think and say, that well-known saying of Paul, that in God we live, and move, and have our being, arguing that when the Son is said to be in the Father the expression lacks precision, being adopted from our everyday life; come and let us subject their statement to the requisite investigation, and so convict them of deliberately misrepresenting the mind of the holy Apostle and most foolishly perverting to their own views what was said in absolute truth. For when the blessed Paul was at Athens and saw the inhabitants abjectly devoted to polytheistic error, although the people in that city were reputed wise, he attempted to lead them back from their ancient delusion, seeking (by argumentative exhortations to true piety) skilfully to convince them of the necessity for the future of knowing one God and one only, Who bestows on those that have been made by Him the power of moving and living and having their being. For the Creator of all, being in His nature Life, implants life in all, infusing into them by an ineffable process the power of His own Individuality. For in no other way was it possible that things which had received their allotted birth out of nothing should preserve their capability of existence: for surely each would have returned to its own nature, I mean back again to non-existence, unless, by the help of its relationship to the Self-Existent One, it had overcome the weakness of its own condition at birth. Therefore the inspired Paul very rightly and properly said, by way of showing that God is the life of the universe, that in Him we live, and move, and have our being: not at all meaning what the heretics invented for themselves, in corrupting (to suit their own peculiar theories) the true signification of the Holy Scriptures; but rather saying exactly what was true, and also highly profitable for those who were just being trained up to a knowledge of God. And, if it is needful to put it even more plainly, he has never wished to imply that we, who are in our nature men, are yet contained in the essence of the Father, and appear as existing in Him; but rather that we live and move and have our being in God, that is, our life consists in Him.

For notice that Paul did not say simply and unreservedly, "We are in God," and nothing more. This was on account of thy ignorance, my good friend, and most naturally so. But he employed different expressions, by way of interpreting the exact meaning of his words. After beginning with the statement: "We live," he added thereto the further idea: "We move" and thirdly he brought in the phrase: "We have our being;" presenting this also, so as to supplement the meaning of the previous words. And I think that the correct argument we shall use concerning this matter will very probably put to shame the ungodly heretic: but if he insists in his opposition, and drags round the words "in God" to the meaning which pleases himself and no one else, we will set |280 forth the common use of the inspired Scripture. Scripture is wont occasionally to use the words "in God" in the sense of "by God." For let that man tell us what is the meaning of a certain Psalmist's declaration, when he says: "In God" let us do valiantly; and again, addressing God: "In Thee" will we push down our enemies. For surely no one will suppose that the Psalmist means this, that he promises to accomplish something valiantly "in the essence of God," nor even that "in that essence" we shall discover our own enemies and push them down: but he uses the words "in God" in the sense of"by [the help of] God," and again, "in Thee" in the sense of "by Thee." And why also did the blessed Paul say in his letter to the Corinthians: I thank my God concerning you all for the grace which was given you "in Christ Jesus," and again: But of Him are ye "in Christ Jesus," Who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption? For will any one reasonably maintain that the Spirit-bearer says that the grace which was bestowed on the Corinthians from above was given "in the actual essence of Christ," or to quote the authority of Paul in support of heterodoxy? Surely such a one would be evidently talking nonsense. Why therefore, setting aside the ordinary usage of terms in the Sacred Scriptures, and misrepresenting the intention of the blessed Paul, dost thou say that we are "in God," that is, "in the essence of the Father," because thou hearest him say to those in Athens, that in Him we live, and move, and have our being?

"Yes," says the defender of the pernicious opinions, "but if it seems to thee right and proper that the words 'in God' should bear and be acknowledged to bear the sense of ' by God,' why dost thou make so much needless ado? And why dost thou bring against us charges of blasphemy when we maintain that the Son was made ' by the Father'? For behold, He Himself says: I am 'in the Father,' in the sense of 'by the Father,' at least according to thy explanation, Sir, and |281 according to the common usage, which thou hast just laid before us in thy quotations from the Sacred Scriptures."

But I say that it is necessary to defend myself again in reply to this, and lay bare their mischievous intentions and pernicious notions. For I am astonished that, after hearing gladly that it is a usage of the Sacred Scripture to use the words "in God" as equivalent to "by God," and after approving and accepting the phrase merely for the sake of being able to say something against the glory of the Only-begotten, they have by no means become conscious of the fact that they will again be convicted of talking as foolishly as before, although they claim to be wise and acute. For if our opponents were the only ones entrusted with the duty of defending from time to time the usage of the inspired Scripture in reference to the essence of the Only-begotten, and of saying that He was made by the Father, because of this, that He says He is "in God," and we have allowed that "in God" is to be understood in the sense of "by God;" then it might have seemed at least probable that their mischievous intention rested on grounds not altogether unreasonable. But if in truth there is nothing which can prevent us also, in our eagerness to refute by a reductio ad absurdum the unsoundness of the sentiments they hold, from carrying on the force of the meaning implied so as to make it refer to the Father Himself, and from saying plainly that since Christ also adds this: The Father is "in Me," we must understand it in the sense of "by Me," so that as a consequence the Father Himself also will be a creature; surely then they, having relied on arguments so very foolish, will be universally condemned as guilty of unmitigated folly. For just as the Son says that He Himself is "in" the Father, so also He said that the Father, is "in" Him: and if they wish the words "in the Father" to be understood in the sense of "by the Father," what is there that prevents us from saying that the words "in the Son" shall be understood in the sense of "by the Son "? But we will not suffer ourselves again to be drawn down with them into such an abyss of folly. For neither will we say that the Son is made by the Father, nor indeed that He from Whom are all things, namely God the Father, was brought into existence by the Son; but rather, referring the usage of the inspired Scripture in due proportion to each occasion or person or circumstance, we shall thus weave together our theory so as to make it on all essential points faultless and indisputable. For with regard to those who out of nothing have been created into being, and have been brought into existence by God, surely it would be most fitting that we should regard them and speak of them as being "in God" in the sense of "by God:" but with regard to Him Who is in His nature Son and Lord, and God and Creator of the universe, this signification could not be specially or truly suitable. The real truth is that He is naturally in the Father, and in Him from the beginning, and has Him in Himself, by reason of His showing Himself to possess identity of essence, and because He is subject to no power that can sever between Them, and divide Them into a diversity of nature.

And perhaps it might seem to minds more open to conviction that this matter has been sufficiently discussed, as indeed I think myself: yet our opponent will by no means assent to this; but he will meet us again with the objection, dishing up again the argument introduced by him at the first, that the Father is in the Son in the same manner, as we are in Him.

"What then," we might say, judiciously rebuking the unsoundness and childishness of his thoughts and words, "dost thou say that the Son is in the Father even as we are in Him? Be it so. What limit to our natural capacity then," we shall reply, "is there, that prevents us from using expressions with respect to ourselves as exalted as any of those which Christ is seen to have used? For He Himself, seeing that He is in the Father and has the Father in Himself, inasmuch as He is thereby both an Exact Likeness and Very Image of Him, uses the expressions: He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father: I and the Father are One. But with regard to ourselves, tell me, if we are in Him and if we have Him in ourselves exactly in the same way that Christ Himself is in the Father and the Father in Him, why do we not extend our necks as much as we can, and, holding our heads high above those around us, say with boldness: "I am in Christ and Christ in me: He that hath seen me hath seen Christ: I and Christ are one "? Then what would come next? No one, I think, would any longer have any just cause for alarm, or any sufficient ground for hesitation, to prevent his speaking as follows, daring henceforth to say concerning the Father Himself: "I and the Father are one." For if the Father is one with the Son, surely such a man, having become an exact image of the Exact Image, namely of the Son, will share henceforth in all the Son's relations to the Father Himself. Who therefore will ever descend to such a depth of madness as to dare to say: "He who hath seen me hath seen Christ: I and Christ are one"? For if thou attributest to the Son the being in the Father and the having the Father in Himself in some non-essential manner and not in His nature, and supposest that we in like manner are in Christ and Christ in us; in the first place the Son will be on the same footing as ourselves, and in the next place there is nothing that prevents us at our pleasure from passing by the Son Himself as though He were an obstacle in our way, and rushing straight on to the Father Himself, and claiming that we are so exactly assimilated to Him that nothing can be found which distinguishes us from Him. For the being said to be one with anything would naturally bear this meaning. Do ye not then see into what a depth of folly and at the same time of impiety their minds have sunk, and of what absurd arguments the wild attack upon us has consisted? What their excuse is therefore for saying and upholding such things, and for buoying themselves up on such rotten arguments, I will now again tell. Their one endeavour is to show that the Son is altogether alien and altogether foreign to the essence of the Father. For we shall know that we are speaking the truth in saying this, by reference to the words that follow after and are closely connected with the heretic's previous blasphemies. For he proceeds thus: "But even as we, while we are in Him, have our substance in no way mingled with His; in the same way also the Son, while He is in the Father, has His essence entirely different from the Unbegotten God." What sayest thou, O infatuated one? Hast thou made thy blasphemy against the Son in such plain language? Will any one therefore venture to say that we are trying to heap upon the heads of the God-opposers groundless and false accusations'? For see clearly, they attribute to Him no superiority whatever over those who have been made of earth and have been by Him brought into existence. And although I can scarcely endure the things which the wretched men have dared to say, I will endeavour to prove this, as being in accordance with the scope of Divine Scripture, namely, that since they deny the Son they deny at the same time the Father also, and thenceforth are without God and without hope in this world, as it is written. And to prove that we are right in saying this, the God-beloved John will come forward as a trustworthy witness on our side, for he wrote thus: He that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also. And surely the Spirit-bearer speaketh very rightly, not failing to make his statement conform fittingly to his argument. For because he knows that [God the Father] is essentially in His nature what He is said to be, namely a Father, and that not merely in name but rather in reality, he consequently says that the One is necessarily denied when the Other is denied. For concurrently in some way or other with One Who is really in His nature a Father and is so conceived of, there must always be the knowledge and manifestation of the Offspring that proceedeth from Him; and One Who has been in very truth begotten involves the Personal existence of Another capable by nature of begetting. For no sooner do we recognise a man as a father than we understand him to have begotten offspring, and we can by no means consider the idea of an offspring without implying that some father has begotten it. Thus by either term the other conception is produced in the minds of those who hear it, and so any one who denies that God is truly a Father makes out the generation of the Son to be altogether impossible, and similarly any one who does not confess the Son to be an Offspring must by implication lose all knowledge of the Father. When therefore, as from a sling, he hurls at us his unholy arguments, and maintains that the Son has His essence quite distinct from that of the Unbegotten God, why does He not openly deny that the Son is really a Son? And if there is not a Son, the Father Himself can no longer be conceived of as truly a Father. For whose Father will He be, if He has not begotten any Offspring? What we say is, that the Son is quite distinct from the Person, but not from the essence, of the Father; not being alien from Him in His nature, as forsooth these God-opposers think, but being possessed of His own Person and His own distinct subsistence, inasmuch as He is Son and not Father. But, if we understand our own mind rightly, we would not ourselves say, nor would we assent to any of the brethren who say, that He is distinct from the Father in regard to essence. For how can distinction exist in that one thing, with reference to which each individual has some special characteristic? For Peter is Peter, and not Paul, and Paul is not Peter; yet they remain without distinction in their nature. For both possess one kind of nature, and the individuals who are associated in a uniformity of nature have that same kind without any difference at all. |286

For what reason are we saying such things as this? We confess that our object is to show that those who hold such blasphemous opinions rob the Son of the Godhead which is His by nature, when they (as we have already explained) ascribe to Him nothing more than a non-essential relationship to God the Father. Else why do they put forward ourselves in illustration of their argument, and say: "Even as we have our substance in no way mingled with His, while we are in Him; so also He Himself has His essence entirely different from God, although He is said to be in Him "? Is not their craftiness patent to all men? Will not any one be right in saying that the man who vomited forth such an abominable statement as this must surely be one of the "mockers" announced beforehand by the Spirit? For what does Jude, the disciple of the Saviour, write to us in his epistle? But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they said to you, that in the last time there shall come mockers, walking after their own ungodly lusts. These are they who make separations, sensual, having not the Spirit. For no man whatsoever, who speaks in the Holy Spirit, will say anything against the glory of the Only-begotten. For I maintain that this is just the same as saying: Jesus is anathema. On the other hand, sensual and worthless men, and those whose hearts are devoid of the Holy Spirit, make separations between the Father and the Son; asserting that the latter is as essentially and completely severed from the former as are created things and each of the works made by Him, and believing Him to be in the Father only in the same way that we are in Him.

And that they who have dared to write such things have thereby reached the furthest verge of folly, let us if you please proceed to show in another way, as is quite possible, from the Divine Scripture; and let us hasten to prove to our hearers that we are in the Son in one way, whereas the Son is in His own Father in another way. For one person is not a likeness of another's substance when he conforms himself to that other by the exercise of a virtuous will, nor is he on that account said to be in the other; but when he is in natural identity with the other, and possesses one essence with him. And let the most wise John be called in as a witness for us on this point, since he says: Yea, and our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. How then, pray, do they say, and in what manner do they think fit to assert, that we have fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ? For if we are considered to be in Them, as having our own essence commingled with the Divine nature, that is, with the Father and the Son, and if the expression "fellowship" does not rather refer to the similarity of our wills; how can we have it with the Father and with the Son, when (according to these heretics) the Father and the Son are not Consubstantial? For in that case we must hold opinions worthy of ridicule, and say that we have cleft our own nature asunder into two parts, and given one half to the Father and the other to ourselves and to the Son, and thus we consider ourselves to be in Them. Or else we must reject such absurdity of statement, and say that by doing our best to make our own disposition brightly radiant through the exercise of a virtuous will and through conformity to the Divine and ineffable beauty, we obtain for ourselves the grace of fellowship with Them. But shall we therefore say that the Son is in the Father after a similar manner to this, and that He only possesses a non-essential and artificially-added fellowship with the One Who begat Him? And yet, if so, why in the world does He wish, through the similarity and indeed identity of their works, to lead our mind to feel the necessity of believing without any hesitation that He is Himself in the Father, and that He again has also the Father in Himself? For is it not seen by every one to be perfectly evident and true that, wishing the brilliancy of His deeds to be investigated by us, He shows Himself equal in strength to |288 His own Father, as if the severance as regards essence and the difference as to nature no longer maintained their position; since both Himself and the Father glorify themselves by similar achievements"?

For observe how we who constantly strive after conformity with God do (so to say) render ourselves worthy of fellowship with Him, not in such ways as these, but in certain other ways. For when we show pity to one another, are ardently devoted to works of love, and practise all that is truly respectable in our ordinary life, even then we can hardly venture to pronounce ourselves "in God." And John is our witness, saying: Hereby know we that we are in Him: he that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also to walk even as He walked; and again: As for you, he says, let that abide in you which ye heard from the beginning. For if that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father. And what he means by "that which ye heard from the beginning," which he bids to remain in us in order that we may be in God, he himself will make no less clear to us when he says: For this is the command which ye heard from the beginning, that ye should love one another. Thou hearest how we are in God, namely, by practising love one towards another, and striving to the utmost of our power to walk in the footsteps of our Saviour, imitating His virtue. When I say virtue, I do not mean such as was shown by Him in being able to create heaven, and make angels, and set fast the earth, and spread out the sea; nor that which He exhibited when, in His ineffable and simple majesty, by a word He lulled the violence of the winds, and raised up the dead, and graciously bestowed sight on the blind, and with great authority bade the leper be cleansed: but rather that virtue which may be suitable to the capacities of our humanity. We shall find Him, as indeed Paul says, reviled by the unholy Jews, yet not reviling again; instead of that, we see Him suffering, yet not threatening, but rather committing Himself to Him that judgeth righteously. Again, we shall find Him saying: Learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

So then, when we strive by such conduct as this to imitate Christ Who is our guide unto all virtue, we are said to abide both in the Father and in Him, obtaining this distinction as a reward and compensation for the worthiness of our life. But the Son does not wish us to estimate in this way the brilliance that is inherent in Him: He bids us direct our natural shrewdness of attention to the magnificence of His miracles, and infer from thence the exact resemblance which He has to His own Father; so that henceforth we may believe that, as they are Consubstantial, it is thus that He has in Himself the One Who begat Him, and that He Himself is also in the Father. Or let our opponents come forward and teach, that when the Son is conceived of as being in the Father, He too in common with ourselves has this distinction as a reward, and as a fair payment for conducting His life according to the law of the Gospel. But I suppose that even this appears to them nothing dreadful: for to men by whom no form of talking is unpractised, what expression, however extravagant and monstrous, seems unfit for use? It is possible therefore that they will say even this, that the Son is in the Father and again has also the Father in Himself on this account, namely, because He fashions Himself like to the Father by practising the virtues that are also attainable by us. And we would reply, "Why then, honoured Sirs, when Philip said: Lord, show us the Father, did not the Christ put forward all the holy Apostles as a likeness and accurate representation of Him Whom they meant, and say, 'Have we [all] been so long time with one another, and dost thou not know the Father?" Whereas He does not associate with Himself a single one of the others, but comparing Himself alone to the Father alone, He passes over our attributes as small matters altogether; and not willing that the Divine essence should be thought accurately imaged in human attributes, He has reserved to Himself alone the perfection of resemblance. For He says: He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. Then to these words He straightway added: Believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me. For seeing that He possesses resemblance in the most absolute exactness, He must as a necessary consequence possess in Himself the Father, and be possessed (so to speak) by the Father. For think of something of the same kind, and accept it as an illustration of the words we are considering. If, for instance, any one were by chance to bring into our presence the son of Abraham or of any other man, and then were to question him as to the nature of his parent, desiring to learn precisely who and what kind of person the parent was; would not the youth employ reasonable language if he were to point to his own nature and say, "He that hath seen me hath seen my father: I am in my father, and my father is in me?" Then as a proof of his speaking the truth, would it not be fitting that he should draw attention to the identity with his father exhibited in his human doings and his physical peculiarities, and say: "Believe me for the very works' sake, seeing that I have all the qualities and can perform all the actions which pertain to human nature?" Indeed I think every one will say and will justly allow, both that he speaks the truth and that (in alleging the identity) he puts forward an accurate indication of the relationship involved in their particular actions. Why then do not they, who pervert such things as are right, persuade their own disciples to travel on the straight path of reasoning, instead of thrusting them off from the well-trodden king's highway, and taking an untrodden and rugged route, both deceiving themselves and destroying those who feel it their duty to follow them? We, however, not taking their road, will keep along the direct path; and, giving credit to the Sacred Scriptures, we believe that the Son, Who is in His nature begotten of God the Father, is of equal strength and Consubstantial with the Father, and essentially His Image; and therefore that He is in the Father, and the Father in Him.

Believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me

CHAPTER I. That by reason of the identity of Their nature, the Son is in the Father, and the Father again is in the Son.

He now admits plainly, or rather enjoins on the disciples henceforth, that it is fitting that we should be no otherwise minded than as the Word of Truth Himself may desire. For He is Consubstantial with His Father, nothing whatever intervening or in any way separating One from the Other into a diversity of nature. He is One with Him, so that the Son's nature appears in the essence of the Father, and in the essence of the Offspring appears conspicuously that of God the Father; just as one might see happen in the case of human relations. For we are in no way different in our nature from our offspring, nor are we sundered from them in an alienation of nature, although we are distinguished by a difference of outward personality; in illustration of which, let any man who has looked upon the son begotten by himself consider the history of the blessed Abraham. But in the case of men the difference is often very considerable, each one tending definitely, in a way, towards a retirement and withdrawal of himself into a peculiar line of life and manners, without feeling personally bound up in the other; although their unity of essence may be certain and evident to all. But in the case of God, Who is ever in perfect accordance with His nature, thou wilt believe it to be otherwise. The Father indeed is in individual personality Father and not Son; and again similarly He Who cometh forth from the Father is Son and not Father; and the Spirit is peculiarly Spirit. But since the Holy Trinity is united and joined together into a oneness of Godhead, there is among us One God alone: and it would be impossible to attribute to each one of the Persons here indicated the habit of secession from the others, and neither will ever withdraw into absolute separation; but we believe that each Person is in very substance exactly what we have here entitled Him. We consider that the Son, being of the Father, that is, of His essence, proceeded forth from Him in a manner ineffable, and yet abides in Him. Likewise also concerning the Holy Spirit: He proceeds in very truth from God as He is by nature, and yet is in no wise severed from His essence; but rather proceeds forth from Him, still abiding ever in Him, and is supplied to the saints through Christ; for all things come through the Son by the Holy Spirit. Such is the true and upright teaching that the wisdom of the holy fathers has taught us: thus we have been trained also by the Holy Scriptures themselves to speak and to think. And the Lord would cheer us onward to accept this unreviled faith, when he says: Believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.

In these words Christ distinctly says that he could never have worked and accomplished those miracles that are unique to the divine nature if he, himself, had not been essentially of the same divine nature.… [Only heretics] whose hearts are devoid of the Holy Spirit make separations between the Father and the Son and assert that the Son is essentially and completely severed from the Father in the way that created things and divine works are separate from God the Father.

His power belonged to his nature, and his working was the exercise of that power. In the exercise of that power, then, they might recognize in him the unity with the Father's nature. To the extent that anyone recognized him to be God in the power of his nature, that person would come to know God the Father who was present in that mighty nature. The Son, who is equal with the Father, showed by his works that the Father could be seen in him so that when we perceived in the Son a nature like the Father's in its power, we might know that in Father and Son there is no distinction of nature.

(vii. de Trin) That the Father dwells in the Son, shows that He is not single, or solitary; that the Father works by the Son, shows that He is not different or alien. As He is not solitary who doth not speak from Himself, so neither is He alien and separable who speaketh by Him. Having shown then that the Father spoke and worked in Him, He formally states this union: Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me: that they might not think that the Father worketh and speaketh in the Son as by a mere agent or instrument, not by the unity of nature implied in His Divine birth.

And such or so important a dispensation He did not bring about by means of the creations of others, but by His own; neither by those things which were created out of ignorance and defect, but by those which had their substance from the wisdom and power of His Father. For He was neither unrighteous, so that He should covet the property of another; nor needy, that He could not by His own means impart life to His own, and make use of His own creation for the salvation of man. For indeed the creation could not have sustained Him [on the cross], if He had sent forth [simply by commission] what was the fruit of ignorance and defect. Now we have repeatedly shown that the incarnate Word of God was suspended upon a tree, and even the very heretics do acknowledge that He was crucified. How, then, could the fruit of ignorance and defect sustain Him who contains the knowledge of all things, and is true and perfect? Or how could that creation which was concealed from the Father, and far removed from Him, have sustained His Word? And if this world were made by the angels (it matters not whether we suppose their ignorance or their cognizance of the Supreme God), when the Lord declared, "For I am in the Father, and the Father in Me," how could this workmanship of the angels have borne to be burdened at once with the Father and the Son? How, again, could that creation which is beyond the Pleroma have contained Him who contains the entire Pleroma? Inasmuch, then, as all these things are impossible and incapable of proof, that preaching of the Church is alone true [which proclaims] that His own creation bare Him, which subsists by the power, the skill, and the wisdom of God; which is sustained, indeed, after an invisible manner by the Father, but, on the contrary, after a visible manner it bore His Word: and this is the true [Word].

"Believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me." "Ye ought not, when ye hear of 'Father' and 'Son,' to seek anything else to the establishing of the relationship as to Essence, but if this is not sufficient to prove to you the Condignity and Consubstantiality, ye may learn it even from the works." Had the, "he that hath seen Me, hath seen My Father," been used with respect to works, He would not afterwards have said, "Or else believe Me for the very works' sake." And then to show that He is not only able to do these things, but also other much greater than these, He putteth them with excess. For He saith not, "I can do greater things than these," but, what was much more wonderful, "I can give to others also to do greater things than these."

"For what man knoweth the things which be in God, but the Spirit which is in Him? " But the Word was formed by the Spirit, and (if I may so express myself) the Spirit is the body of the Word. The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, "I am in the Father; " and is always with God, according to what is written, "And the Word was with God; " and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since "I and the Father are one.

If, indeed, He meant the Father to be understood as the same with the Son, by saying, "He who seeth me seeth the Father," how is it that He adds immediately afterwards, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? " He ought rather to have said: "Believest thou not that I am the Father? "With what view else did He so emphatically dwell on this point, if it Were not to clear up that which He wished men to understand-namely, that He was the Son? And then, again, by saying, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me," He laid the greater stress on His question on this very account, that He should not, because He had said, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father," be supposed to be the Father; because He had never wished Himself to be so regarded, having always professed Himself to be the Son, and to have come from the Father.

"Believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me," that is, you who hear of the Father and the Son should not seek any other proof of Their kinship in essence. But if this is not sufficient for you as proof of consubstantiality and co-equal honor, and that the Father is present in My essence and I in the essence of the Father, then at least believe Me on account of the works, for the works are God's.

Since our belief in the Trinity is shown by the above two statements, our Lord concludes to this belief, saying, Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? It was explained above how this is to be understood. In Greek, the text reads: Believe, that is, believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father in me. Or, it is surprising that you do not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me. Note that before our Lord was speaking only to Philip (v 8-10a), but from the point where he says, the words that I say to you (v 10b), he is speaking to all the apostles together. But if what I say to you is not enough to show my consubstantiality, then at least believe me for the sake of the works themselves: "The works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness" (5:36); "Even though you do not believe me, believe the works" (10:38).

Hence also, when the Lord was asked, after enumerating the miracles of his power, he immediately responded about the humility of his death, saying: "The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise, the poor have the gospel preached to them, and blessed is he who is not scandalized in me." Seeing so many signs and such great powers, no one could be scandalized, but only marvel.

(Ver. 4, 5.) And Jesus answered and said to them, 'Go and tell John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up.' John had asked through his disciples: 'Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?' Jesus shows the signs, not responding to what had been asked, but to the stumbling block of the messengers: 'Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up.' And what is no less important about these things,

The poor are evangelized. Either the poor in spirit, or certainly the poor in wealth (or works), so that there is no distinction in preaching between the noble and the lowly, the rich and the needy. These things confirm the strictness of the teacher, the truth of the instructor, that all are equal before him who can be saved. And what he says:

This last is no less than the first. And understand it as if it had been said, Even the poor; that so between noble and mean, rich and poor, there may be no difference in preaching. This approves the strictness of the master, this the truth of the teacher, that in His sight every one who can be saved is equal.

But Christ knowing the purpose of John, did not say, I am He; for this would again have offended the hearers, although this was what it naturally followed for Him to say, but He leaves them to learn it from His acts. For it saith, "when these were come to Him, then He cured many." And yet what congruity was there, that being asked, "Art thou He," He should say nothing to that, but should presently cure them that were sick; unless it had been His mind to establish this which I have mentioned? Because they of course would account the testimony of His deeds surer, and more above suspicion than that of His words.

Knowing therefore, as being God, the mind with which John had sent them, He straightway cured blind, lame, and many others; not to teach him (for how should He him that was convinced), but these that were doubting: and having healed them, He saith, "Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see; the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, and the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached unto them." And he added, "And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me;" implying that He knows even their unuttered thoughts. For if He had said, "I am He," both this would have offended them, as I have already said; and they would have thought, even if they had not spoken, much as the Jews said to Him, "Thou bearest record of Thyself." Wherefore He saith not this Himself, but leaves them to learn all from the miracles, freeing what He taught from suspicion, and making it plainer. Wherefore also He covertly added His reproof of them. That is, because they were "offended in Him," He by setting forth their case and leaving it to their own conscience alone, and by calling no witness of this His accusation, but only themselves that knew it all, did thus also draw them the more unto Himself, in saying, "Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me." For indeed His secret meaning was of them when He said this.

He did not say, "Declare unto John that I am He that cometh." But knowing that John had sent his disciples to see the miracles, He said, "Tell John what you see, and certainly he will use that opportunity to bear witness more fully to you concerning Me." By the words "the poor have the good tidings" understand either those preaching the Gospel, that is, the apostles, who were poor fishermen and despised as common lowly people, or those listening to the Gospel and hearing of the eternal good things.

And Jesus answered them. Here Christ's answer is given. John and many disciples, as John says (c. 4). Therefore, there was a dispute among them, because they saw Christ's works and preferred him to John. But seeing John's abstinence, they prefer him to Christ. Hence, first he proposes the question; secondly, he commends John (v. 10).

In regard to the first he answers in terms of his coming and Passion. The time will come, when God will suffer and many will be scandalized, because "to the Jews a scandal" (1 Cor 1:23). Hence he answers when this will be. According to Chrysostom he wants to show that he whom the prophets had foretold has come. Hence three things were promised by the prophets: sometimes the coming of God, by some the coming of a new teacher, by some the coming of sanctification and redemption. How shall we say then that he will come? And he answers in the same way Isaiah (35:4) answers: "Behold God will come and save us." Hence you will see those miracles. Go and tell John what you hear in the teachings and see in the miracles. Again, a teacher was promised: "Be glad, O sons of Zion..., because he has given you a teacher of justice" (Jl 2:22).

The blind see..., and this literally. Then if you ask when he will come: "The spirit of the Lord is upon me; he has sent me to preach to the meek" (Is 61:1), and this is signified when he says the poor have the Gospel preached to them, i.e., poverty will be blessed. Hence above (5:3); "Blessed are the poor in spirit..." and Luke (4:18): "The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor." Again, someone holy will come to sanctify sinners; hence Isaiah (8:13): "The Lord of hosts, him you shall regard as holy."

But if we speak in the moral sense, the entire process of man's sanctification is signified. For the sinner first suffers blindness, when the reason is darkened: "Like the untimely birth that never sees the sun" (Ps 58:8); "Bring forth the people who are blind but have eyes" (Is 43:8). He is said to be lame, when the mind is drawn to various things, as it says in 1 Kings (18:21): "How long will you go limping with two different opinions?" Likewise, he becomes ulcerous in treachery and leprous, because then he cannot be recalled and infects others. After that he becomes deaf, because chastening is not heard. Then he dies: "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead" (Eph 5:14). All these the Lord heals. The last are the poor in spirit, so that no health remains in them: "My loins are filled with burning, and there is not health in my flesh" (Ps 38:7). These, too, the Lord heals and they rise to a certain mental soundness, in which is true peace: "Great peace have those who love your law; nothing can make them stumble" (Ps 119:165).

But the mind of unbelievers suffered grave scandal in him when they saw him dying even after so many miracles. Hence Paul also says: "But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a scandal, but to the Gentiles foolishness." For it seemed foolish to men that the author of life should die for mankind; and from this, man took scandal against him, from which he ought rather to have become more indebted. For God is to be honored by men all the more worthily, the more he undertook even unworthy things for mankind. What therefore does it mean to say: "Blessed is he who is not scandalized in me," except to signify openly the abjection and humility of his death? As if he were plainly saying: I indeed do wondrous things, but I do not disdain to suffer humble things. Therefore, since I follow you in dying, men must take great care not to despise in me the death, while they venerate the signs.

(Hom. in Ev. vi. 1.) Otherwise; The mind of unbelievers was greatly offended concerning Christ, because after many miracles done, they saw Him at length put to death; whence Paul speaks, We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block. (1 Cor. 1:23.) What then does that mean, Blessed is he who shall not be offended in me, but a direct allusion to the humiliation of His death; as much as to say, I do indeed wonderful works, but do not disdain to suffer humble things. Because then I follow you in death, men must be careful not to despise in Me My death, while they reverence My wonderful works.

And when the Lord had shown forth all of himself in miraculous works, in giving sight to the blind, the power of walking to the lame, cleansing to the lepers, hearing to the deaf, voices to the mute, life to the dead and preaching to the poor, he said, "Blessed is the one who takes no offense at me." Now, had anything really been done through Christ that would cause John to take offense? Not in the least. For John himself also spent his time in his own teaching and work. However, one ought to look to a higher meaning that is both powerful and fitting. What does it mean that the poor have good news preached to them? Poor people are those who have abandoned their lives, who have taken up his cross and followed, who have been made humble in spirit. For such the kingdom of heaven is prepared. Because all experiences of this kind come together in the Lord and because his cross was to be a source of offense to many, he declared that people are blessed if their faith is not threatened by a cross or death or burial.

This saying, that they were blessed from whom there should be no offence in Him, showed them what it was that John had provided against in sending them. For John, through fear of this very thing, had sent his disciples that they might hear Christ.

(Ver. 6.) And blessed is he who is not scandalized in me. He strikes down the messengers, as will be shown in the following.

And blessed is he who shall not be offended in me, is directed against the messengers; they were offended in Him. But He not publishing their doubts, and leaving it to their conscience alone, thus privately introduced a refutation of them.

And to show John's disciples that the thoughts they were thinking did not escape His notice, He said, "Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in Me," for they had many doubts about Him.

Hence to some was promised sanctification, and after they were sanctified, others would be scandalized; therefore, he says, Blessed is he who is not scandalized in me. Hence it says, "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate, in order to sanctify the people through his own blood" (Heb 13:12). Therefore, he shows the signs of his coming. But if we speak in the moral sense, the entire process of man's sanctification is signified. For the sinner first suffers blindness, when the reason is darkened: "Like the untimely birth that never sees the sun" (Ps 58:8); "Bring forth the people who are blind but have eyes" (Is 43:8). He is said to be lame, when the mind is drawn to various things, as it says in 1 Kings (18:21): "How long will you go limping with two different opinions?" Likewise, he becomes ulcerous in treachery and leprous, because then he cannot be recalled and infects others. After that he becomes deaf, because chastening is not heard. Then he dies: "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead" (Eph 5:14). All these the Lord heals. The last are the poor in spirit, so that no health remains in them: "My loins are filled with burning, and there is not health in my flesh" (Ps 38:7). These, too, the Lord heals and they rise to a certain mental soundness, in which is true peace: "Great peace have those who love your law; nothing can make them stumble" (Ps 119:165).

And perhaps the two disciples sent are the two people; those of the Jews, and those of the Gentiles who believed.

But after John's disciples were dismissed, let us hear what He says to the crowds about the same John: "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed shaken by the wind?" This He clearly brought forth not by affirming, but by denying. For a reed, as soon as a breeze touches it, bends to the other side. And what is signified by the reed but a carnal mind? Which, as soon as it is touched by favor or detraction, immediately inclines to either side. For if a breeze of favor blows from human lips, it rejoices, is lifted up, and bends itself entirely, as it were, toward grace. But if from the same place whence the breeze of praise was coming, a wind of detraction bursts forth, it immediately inclines him, as it were, to the other side, toward the violence of fury. But John was not a reed shaken by the wind, because neither did flattery make him gentle, nor did anyone's detraction make him harsh with anger. Neither did prosperity know how to lift him up, nor adversity to cast him down. Therefore John was not a reed shaken by the wind, whom no change of circumstances bent from the uprightness of his position. Let us learn therefore, dearest brothers, not to be a reed shaken by the wind; let us make firm our mind placed amid the breezes of tongues, let the posture of our mind stand unbending. Let no detraction provoke us to anger, and let no favor incline us to the relaxation of useless grace. Let not prosperity lift us up, nor adversity disturb us, so that we who are fixed in the solidity of faith may in no way be moved by the changeableness of passing things.

(Hom. in Ev. vi. 2.) This He proposes, not to assert, but to deny. For if but a breath of air touch a reed, it bends it one way or other; a type of the carnal mind, which leans to either side, according as the breath of praise or detraction reaches it. A reed shaken by the wind John was not, for no variety of circumstance bent him from his uprightness...

Therefore that this might not lead them to think of John as though he were offended concerning Christ, it continues, When they had gone away, Jesus began to speak to the multitudes concerning John.

(Verse 7.) But as they were departing, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Look, those who wear soft clothing are in the palaces of kings. If a harsh judgment had been pronounced against John, as many believe, then why is he now being praised so highly? But because the surrounding crowd did not know the mystery of the question, and thought that John doubted about Christ, whom he had pointed out with his finger, so that they would understand that John was not asking for himself, but for his disciples: Why, he said, do you go out into the desert? Is it perhaps to see a man resembling a reed that is carried by every wind, and to have doubts about the one he had previously proclaimed? Or is it possible that he is compelled by the stings of envy against me, and his preaching seeks empty glory, so that he may seek profits from it? Why does he desire riches, so that he may abound in feasts? He feeds on locusts and wild honey. Does he dress in soft clothing? The covering of his body is made of camel hair. Such food and clothing are received in the prison's lodging, and the preaching of truth has such a dwelling. But those who are flatterers and pursue gains, seeking wealth, and abound in pleasures, and dress in soft clothing, they are in the houses of kings. From which it is shown that a strict and austere life and preaching should avoid the courts of kings, and decline the palaces of soft people.

Was it for this ye went out into the desert to see a man like unto a reed, and carried about by every wind, so that in lightness of mind he doubts concerning Him whom once he preached? Or it may be he is roused against Me by the sting of envy, and he seeks empty honour by his preaching, that he may thereof make gain. Why should he covet wealth? that he may have dainty fare? But his food is locusts and wild honey. That he may wear soft raiment? But his clothing is camel's hair. This is that He adds, But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment?

Mystically; The desert is that which is deserted of the Holy Spirit, where there is no habitation of God; in the reed is signified a man who in outward show lives a pious life, but lacks all real fruit within himself, fair outside, within hollow, moved with every breath of wind, that is, with every impulse of unclean spirits, having no firmness to remain still, devoid of the marrow of the soul.

For the matter indeed of John's disciples had been ordered well, and they were gone away assured by the miracles which had just been performed; but there was need after that of remedy as regarded the people. For although they could not suspect anything of the kind of their own master, the common people might from the inquiry of John's disciples form many strange suspicions, not knowing the mind with which he sent his disciples. And it was natural for them to reason with themselves, and say, "He that bore such abundant witness, hath he now changed his persuasion, and doth he doubt whether this or another be He that should come? Can it be, that in dissension with Jesus he saith this? that the prison hath made him more timid? that his former words were spoken vainly, and at random?" It being then natural for them to suspect many such things, see how He corrects their weakness, and removes these their suspicions. For "as they departed, He began to say to the multitudes." Why, "as they departed?" That He might not seem to be flattering the man.

And in correcting the people, He doth not publish their suspicion, but adds only the solution of the thoughts that were mentally disturbing them: signifying that He knew the secrets of all men. For He saith not, as unto the Jews, "Wherefore think ye evil?" Because if they had it in their minds, not of wickedness did they so reason, but of ignorance on the points that had been spoken of. Wherefore neither doth He discourse unto them in the way of rebuke, but merely sets right their understanding, and defends John, and signifies that he is not fallen away from his former opinion, neither is he changed, not being at all a man easily swayed and fickle, but steadfast and sure, and far from being such as to betray the things committed unto him.

And in establishing this, He employs not at first his own sentence, but their former testimony, pointing out how they bare record of his firmness, not by their words only, but also by their deeds.

Wherefore He saith, "What went ye out into the wilderness to see?" as though He had said, Wherefore did ye leave your cities, and your houses, and come together all of you into the wilderness? To see a pitiful and flexible kind of person? Nay, this were out of all reason, this is not what is indicated by that earnestness, and the concourse of all men unto the wilderness. So much people and so many cities would not have poured themselves out with so great zeal towards the wilderness and the river Jordan at that time, had ye not expected to see some great and marvellous one, one firmer than any rock. Yea, it was not "a reed" surely, that "ye went out to see shaken by the wind:" for the flexible and such as are lightly brought round, and now say one thing, now another, and stand firm in nothing, are most like that.

Now His meaning is like this: He was not of himself a waverer; and this ye yourselves showed by your earnestness. Much less could any one say this, that he was indeed firm, but having made himself a slave to luxury, he afterwards became languid. For among men, some are such as they are of themselves, others become so; for instance, one man is passionate by nature, and another from having fallen into a long illness gets this infirmity. Again, some men are flexible and fickle by nature, while others become so by being slaves to luxury, and by living effeminately. "But John," saith He, "neither was such a character by nature, for neither was it a reed that ye went out to see; nor by giving himself to luxury did he lose the advantage he possessed." For that he did not make himself a slave to luxury, his garb shows, and the wilderness, and the prison. Since, had he been minded to wear soft raiment, he would not have lived in the wilderness, nor in the prison, but in the king's courts: it being in his power, merely by keeping silence, to have enjoyed honor without limit. For since Herod so reverenced him, even when he had rebuked him, and was in chains, much more would he have courted him, had he held his peace. You see, he had indeed given proof of his firmness and fortitude; and how could he justly incur suspicions of that kind?

Then lest they should say, "But what if at that time indeed he were such an one, but now is changed?" He added also what follows; his garments, his prison, and together with these the prophecy.

(in loc.) They had not gone out at this time into the desert to see John, for he was not now in the desert, but in prison; but He speaks of the past time while John was yet in the desert, and the people flocked to him.

Perhaps the multitudes heard John's question and were scandalized that even John himself might be unsure of Christ and had so quickly changed his opinion, although he had previously borne witness to Him. Christ allays this suspicion, then, by saying, John is not a reed, that is, one who changes easily. For if he were, why would you have gone out to him in the wilderness? You indeed would not have gone out to see a reed, a changeable man, but you went out to see a great and steadfast man. To be sure, he is still now what you thought him to be then.

As they went away. Here he satisfies the crowd's doubts. Although the crowds had heard John's witness to Christ, they now seemed to hesitate. For they could have three things in their heart, because a person changes his mind for three reasons: either on account of fickleness of mind, or for the sake of some profit, or on account of the human spirit's passing from ignorance of the truth to knowing it: "For God knows that the thoughts of men are vain" (Ps 94:11). Therefore, he first excludes fickleness from them; secondly, the desire for profit (v. 8); thirdly, he shows that he has prophetic truth (v. 9).

He says, therefore, As they went away. The Lord teaches us with remarkable tact, as he never wished to praise John in the presence of his disciples or anyone in his own presence: "Let another praise you and not your own mouth; a stranger and not your own lips" (Pr 27:2). Because if the one praised is good, he is embarrassed; if he is evil, he is flattered. Jesus began to preach to the crowds: "What did you go out into the desert to see? Did you go to see a reed?" No, but you went out to see a resolute man. For a reed is easily moved; hence a mind that changes quickly is regarded as a wind: "So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro with every wind" (Eph 4:14).

(Doctr. Christ. iii. 12.) In all such things we blame not the use of the things, but the lust of those that use them. For whoever uses the good things in his reach more sparingly than are the habits of those with whom he lives, is either temperate or superstitious. Whoever again uses them in a measure exceeding the practice of the good among whom he lives, either has some meaning therein, or else is dissolute.

But still more is added about the description of him: "But what did you go out into the desert to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Behold, those who are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings." For John is described as having been clothed in woven camel's hair. And what does it mean to say, "Behold, those who are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings," except to demonstrate by a clear statement that those who flee from enduring hardships for God do not serve the heavenly King but an earthly one, but rather, devoted only to external things, they seek the softness and pleasure of the present life? Therefore let no one think that there is no sin in the extravagance and pursuit of clothing, because if this were not a fault, the Lord would in no way have praised John for the roughness of his garment. If this were not a fault, the apostle Peter would never have restrained women through his epistle from the desire for costly garments, saying: "Not in costly apparel." Consider, therefore, what a fault it is for men also to desire that from which the pastor of the Church took care to prohibit even women.

Although what is said about John not being clothed in soft garments can also be understood in another way through its symbolic meaning. For he was not clothed in soft garments because he did not nurture the life of sinners with flatteries, but rebuked them with the force of harsh denunciation, saying: "Brood of vipers, who has shown you how to flee from the wrath to come?" Hence it is also said through Solomon: "The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails driven deep." For the words of the wise are compared to nails and goads because they do not know how to caress the faults of sinners, but to pierce them.

(Hom. in Ev. vi. 3.) Let no one suppose that there is nothing sinful in luxury and rich dress; if pursuit of such things had been blameless, the Lord would not have thus commended John for the coarseness of his raiment, nor would Peter have checked the desire of fine clothes in women as he does, Not in costly raiment. (1 Pet. 3:3)

(ubi. sup.) Also John was not clothed in soft raiment, that is, he did not encourage sinners in their sinful life by speaking smooth things, but rebuked them with sharpness and rigour, saying, Generation of vipers, &c. (Mat. 3:7)

If the Lord had intended a higher meaning unfavorable to John, as many imagine that he did, in saying "Blessed is the one who takes no offense at me," why does he now speak about John with highest praise? Because the crowd that was present did not know the inner purpose of John's question. They thought John doubted Christ, although he himself had prophesied about him. Now the crowd learns that John asked not on his own behalf but on that of his disciples. "Why did you go out into the wilderness?" To see a man like a reed who is blown about by every wind, a man so irresolute that he cannot make up his mind about what he himself previously predicted? Or else, perhaps he is pricked by the goad of his envy for me, and his preaching runs after an empty fame, and he covets the money he may get by it? But why should this man desire wealth for abundance of feasting? He feeds on locusts and wild honey. Or wealth to wear soft clothes? His clothes are made of camel's hair. But people who are flatterers, and run after money, and covet wealth, and overflow with luxury and wear soft clothes—such people live in the palaces of kings. Thus it is shown that the austere way of life and the strict preaching must avoid the halls of kings and turn away from the palaces of the luxurious.

(Verse 8.) But what did you go out to see, a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. In him, John is greater than the other prophets, because while they had predicted someone who was to come, he pointed to the one who has already come, saying: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. And because to the privilege of being a prophet, John added the reward of baptizing his Lord, it follows that he increased in merits, fulfilling the testimony of Malachi, in which even an angel is prophesied (Mal. II). However, here the term 'angel' cannot be understood as referring to John by nature, but rather by the dignity of his office, that is, as a messenger who announced the coming of the Lord.

This teaches that an austere life and strict preaching ought to shun kings' courts and the palaces of the rich and luxurious.

Mystically; By the garment wherewith his body is clothed is his mind shown, that it is lost in luxury and self-indulgence. The kings are the fallen angels; they are they who are powerful in this life, and the lords of this world. Thus, They that are clothed in soft raiment are in kings' houses; that is, those whose bodies are enervated and destroyed by luxury, it is clear are possessed by dæmons.

That Lord walked in humility and obscurity, with no definite home: for "the Son of man," said He, "hath not where to lay His head; " unadorned in dress, for else He had not said, "Behold, they who are clad in soft raiment are in kings' houses: " in short, inglorious in countenance and aspect, just as Isaiah withal had fore-announced. If, also, He exercised no right of power even over His own followers, to whom He discharged menial ministry; if, in short, though conscious of His own kingdom, He shrank back from being made a king, He in the fullest manner gave His own an example for turning coldly from all the pride and garb, as well of dignity as of power.

Denying them any basis for saying that John later became soft by giving himself over to luxury, He says, This cannot be; that his clothing is made of hair shows that he is an enemy of luxury. For if he were wearing soft clothing and living in kings' houses, if he so desired luxury he would not be in prison. So then, learn that it does not befit a true Christian to wear luxurious clothing.

Likewise, he is not inconstant as seeking profit. Why then did you go out? For all riches pertain to some bodily use, such as food or clothing. And it is evident that neither of these had any influence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that he says this for any advantage: Why then did you go out? To see a man clothed in soft raiment? But why does he make no mention of food? Because there was no question on that point. But he was clothed in camel's hair. Hence those who wear soft raiment are not in the desert but in kings' houses. Chrysostom explains it another way: Some are lightheaded by nature, others from pleasure, as Hosea (4:11) says: "Fornication and wine and intoxication take away understanding." He removes the first by what he said above; the second, when he says, wear soft garments; therefore, he is not inconstant from the pleasures of life.

But here a question can be raised about being clothed in pleasures: Is it a sin? If not, it should not have been charged against that rich man, who dressed in purple and fine linen every day (Lk 16:19). Augustine says that such things are not to be considered, but the intention of the user; for one should be dressed after the custom of those among whom he lives. Therefore, the custom needs further clarification. Hence some dress more sparingly, some more ornately; and both ways require a distinction. If more sparingly, then it is either for a good intention, and this is good, or is for vainglory, and this is evil. If more ornately, it is on account of pride, and this is evil; or for a symbol, as a bishop or priest, and this is good. Mystically, by men who wear soft garments are signified flatterers; for he is dressed in soft garments who is mollified by complimentary words, as proud men seek glory from words: "If a ruler listens to the words of a lie, all his officials will be wicked" (Pr 29:12).

But what went you out into the desert to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet. For the office of a prophet is to foretell things to come, not also to show them. John therefore is more than a prophet, because the one whom he had prophesied by going before, he also pointed out by showing. But since he is denied to be a reed shaken by the wind, since he is said not to be clothed in soft garments, since the name of prophet is declared to be inadequate for him, let us now hear what may worthily be said of him.

(Hom. in Ev. vi. 5.) The office of a prophet is to foretel things to come, not to show them present. John therefore is more than a prophet, because Him whom he had foretold by going before Him, the same he showed as present by pointing Him out.

In this he is also greater than the other prophets, that to his prophetic privilege is added the reward of the Baptist that he should baptize his Lord.

When therefore as well by the place, as by his garments, and by their concourse unto Him, He had delineated his character, He proceeds to bring in the prophet. For having said, "Why went ye out? To see a prophet? Yea I say unto you, and more than a prophet;" He goes on, "For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way before Thee." Having before set down the testimony of the Jews, He then applies that of the prophets; or rather, He puts in the first place the sentence of the Jews, which must have been a very strong demonstration, the witness being borne by his enemies; secondly, the man's life; thirdly, His own judgment; fourthly, the prophet; by all means stopping their mouths.

Then having said, that he is greater than a prophet, He signifies also in what he is greater. And in what is he greater? In being near Him that was come. For, "I send," saith He, "my messenger before Thy face;" that is, nigh Thee. For as with kings, they who ride near the chariot, these are more illustrious than the rest, just so John also appears in his course near the advent itself. See how He signified John's excellency by this also; and not even here doth He stop, but adds afterwards His own suffrage as well.

Having described his habits of life from his dwelling-place, his dress, and the concourse of men to hear him, He now brings in that he is also a prophet, But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.

Turning now to the law, which is properly ours-that is, to the Gospel-by what kind of examples are we met, until we come to definite dogmas? Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: one modest, in Zechariah the priest; one absolute, in John the forerunner: one appeasing God; one preaching Christ: one proclaiming a perfect priest; one exhibiting "more than a prophet," -him, namely, who has not only preached or personally pointed out, but even baptized Christ.

John was more than a prophet because the other prophets only foretold Christ, while he was an eyewitness, indeed a great thing. And the others prophesied after their birth, while he, still in his mother's womb, recognized Christ and leapt.

But they might say: He is inconstant and speaks from a human spirit; therefore, he removes this: But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Hence he bears witness that he did not speak from a spirit that was human but prophetic. So he shows that he is a prophet and more than a prophet. For he was a prophet, as it says in Luke (1:76): "And you, child, shall be called a prophet of the Most High." Likewise, he raised him above the prophets, saying, I tell you, and more than a prophet. He said this for three reasons:

First, because the office of a prophet is to foretell the future; but he manifested not only the future but also things present, saying: "Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29). Secondly, he is not only called a prophet but the Baptizer, as above (c. 3); and the precursor, as in Luke (1:76): "You will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways." Thirdly, as to his manner: for he acted more miraculously than a prophet, because he prophesied from his mother's womb; the others did not, as it says in Luke (1:44): "For behold, when the voice of your greeting sounded on my ears, the infant in my womb leapt for joy."

(interlin.) That is, shall open the hearts of Thy hearers by preaching repentance and baptizing.

There follows: This is he of whom it is written: Behold, I send my angel before your face, who will prepare your way before you. For what is called angelus in Greek is called nuntius (messenger) in Latin. Rightly therefore he who is sent to announce the heavenly judge is called an angel, that he may preserve in his name the dignity which he fulfills in his work. It is indeed a lofty name, but his life is not inferior to his name.

Beloved brothers, let us not say it to our judgment, since all who are designated by the name of priest are called angels, as the prophet attests when he says: "The lips of the priest guard knowledge, and they seek the law from his mouth, because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts." But you too, if you wish, can merit the loftiness of this name. For each one of you, insofar as he is able, insofar as he has received the grace of heavenly inspiration, if he calls back his neighbor from wickedness, if he takes care to exhort him to do good, if he proclaims the eternal kingdom or punishment to one who errs, when he bestows the words of holy proclamation, he surely becomes an angel. And let no one say: "I am not sufficient to admonish, I am not fit to exhort." Offer what you can, lest what you received and kept badly be demanded of you in torments. For he who studied to hide his talent rather than to spend it had received no more than one talent. And we know that in the tabernacle of God not only bowls but also, by the Lord's command, cups were made. By bowls, indeed, abundant teaching is designated; by cups, however, small and limited knowledge. One person, full of the teaching of truth, intoxicates the minds of his hearers. By what he says, therefore, he surely offers a bowl. Another cannot fully express what he perceives, but because he proclaims it in some way, he surely offers a taste through a cup. Therefore, placed in God's tabernacle, that is, in the holy Church, if you cannot minister bowls through the wisdom of teaching, give to your neighbors cups of a good word insofar as you are able according to divine generosity. Insofar as you perceive yourselves to have progressed, draw others along with you; desire to have companions on the way to God. If any of you, brothers, goes to the forum or perhaps to the baths, he invites someone he sees to be idle to come with him. Let that same earthly activity of yours be fitting for you, and if you are heading toward God, take care not to come to him alone. For thus it is written: "Let him who hears say: Come"; so that he who has already received in his heart the voice of heavenly love may also give forth to his neighbors the voice of exhortation. And perhaps he does not have bread to offer alms to the needy; but he who has a tongue has something greater to give. For it is more to restore with the food of the word a mind that will live forever than to satisfy with earthly bread the belly of flesh that will die. Therefore, brothers, do not withhold from your neighbors the alms of the word. I admonish you together with myself that we refrain from idle speech, that we avoid speaking uselessly. Insofar as we are able to restrain our tongue, let not words flow away into the wind, since the Judge says: "Every idle word that men have spoken, they will render an account of it on the day of judgment." An idle word is one that lacks either the usefulness of righteousness or the reason of just necessity. Therefore turn idle conversations to the pursuit of edification: consider how swiftly the times of this life flee away; attend to how strictly the Judge comes. Place him before the eyes of your heart; make him known to the minds of your neighbors; so that insofar as your strength allows, if you do not neglect to proclaim him, you may be worthy to be called angels by him along with John.

(ubi sup.) For the Greek word Angel, is in Latin Nuntius, 'a messenger.' He therefore who came to bear a heavenly message is rightly called an Angel, that he may preserve in his title the dignity which he performs in his office.

John is greater than the other prophets for this reason: the other prophets predicted to John that someone was to come, but John pointed out with his finger that he had indeed come, saying, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world." And he reached not only the rank of a prophet but even to that of Baptist, by baptizing his Lord. This heightened his significance. He thereby fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi in which an angel is foretold. John belonged to the order of the angels not by nature but by the importance of his task. It means he was the messenger who would announce the coming of the Lord.

To add to this great worthiness of John, He brings a passage from Malachias, in which he is spoken of as an Angel. (Mal. 3:1)) We must suppose that John is here called an Angel, not as partaking the Angelic nature, but from the dignity of his office as a forerunner of the Lord.

Then he shows in what respect He is greater, saying, This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my angel before thy face.

He shows wherein it is that John is greater than the Prophets, namely, in that he is nigh unto Christ, as he says, I send before thy face, that is, near Thee, as those that walk next to the king's chariot are more illustrious than others, so likewise is John because of his nearness to Christ.

Also the other Prophets were sent to announce Christ's coming, but John to prepare His way, as it follows, who shall make ready thy way before thee;

For Joshua was to introduce the people into the land of promise, not Moses. Now He called him an "angel," on account of the magnitude of the mighty deeds which he was to achieve (which mighty deeds Joshua the son of Nun did, and you yourselves read), and on account of his office of prophet announcing (to wit) the divine will; just as withal the Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a future "angel," through the prophet: "Behold, I send mine angel before Thy"-that is, Christ's-"face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee." Nor is it a novel practice to the Holy Spirit to call those "angels" whom God has appointed as ministers of His power.

John was called an angel, both because of his angelic and almost immaterial way of life, and because he announced and proclaimed Christ. He prepared Christ's way by witnessing concerning Him and by baptizing unto repentance, for after repentance comes the forgiveness of sins, which Christ gives. Christ said these things after John's disciples had left so that He would not appear to be flattering him. The prophecy mentioned is of the prophet Malachi (Malachi 3:1).

This is he of whom it is written. Here he proves John's excellence: first, by a text; secondly, from his special privileges (v. 11). He says, therefore: I have said that he is more than a prophet, concerning whom Malachi (3:1) speaks: Behold, I sent my messenger [angel], who shall prepare your way before you... In this text John's outstanding qualities are mentioned: first, because he calls him an angel. For an angel is higher than a prophet, because as a priest is midway between a prophet and the people, so a prophet between angels and priests. But the angel is between God and prophets; hence Zechariah (1:9) says: "The angel who spoke in me." Angel is the name of an office, not of a nature; hence John is called an angel from his office. For there is a difference between an angel and a prophet, because the angels see openly; hence it says below (18:10): "I say to you, that their angels always behold the face of my Father in heaven." Angels always see God's face, but the prophets do not. Hence, as angels always see the face of the Father, so John saw Christ in a special way; and because it was a special way, he says my. He also says, before my face. When a king goes somewhere, many people precede him; but the more familiar ones go before his face. So John is considered more honorable, because he was sent before his face; for the nearer one is, the more honorable he is. Finally, he prepared the way, because he baptized; hence, he says, who shall prepare your way before you.

(Cont. Adv. Leg. et Proph. ii. 5.) The heretic argues from this verse to prove, that since John did not belong to the kingdom of heaven, therefore much less did the other Prophets of that people, than whom John is greater. But these words of the Lord may be understood in two ways. Either the kingdom of heaven is something which we have not yet received, that, namely, of, which He speaks, Come, ye blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom, (Mat. 25:34) because they in it are Angels, therefore the least among them is greater than a righteous man who has a corruptible body. Or if we must understand the kingdom of heaven of the Church, whose children are all the righteous men from the beginning of the world until now, then the Lord speaks this of Himself, who was after John in the time of His birth, but greater in respect of His divine nature and supreme power. According then to the first interpretation it will be pointed, He who is least in the kingdom of heaven, is greater than he; according to the second, He who is less than he, is in the kingdom of heaven greater than he.

"Yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Now, many would like to interpret this with reference to the Savior, as meaning that the one lesser in age is the greater in worth. However, let us interpret it simply to mean that every saint who is already with God is greater than anyone who remains expectant, as yet in the battle. For it is one thing to possess the crown of victory, another to be still fighting in the ranks. Some conclude that the very newest angel who serves God in heaven is greater than any one, even the best, who dwells on the earth still in expectation.

(Verse 11) Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. For it does not immediately follow that if others are not greater than him, he is greater than others; but that he has equality with the other saints.

But whoever is lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than him. Many want to understand this about the Savior, that whoever is lesser in time is greater in dignity. But let us understand simply: that every saint, who is already with God, is greater than him who still stands in battle. For it is one thing to possess the crown of victory, another to still fight in the battle. Some want to receive the last angel in heaven ministering to the Lord as better than any first man who dwells on earth.

He is then set before all those that are born in wedlock, and not before Him who was born of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit; yet these words, there has not arisen a greater than John the Baptist, do not imply that John is to be set above the Prophets and Patriarchs and all others, but only makes him equal to the rest; for it does not follow that because others are not greater than him, that therefore he is greater than others.

We understand it simply, that every saint who is already with the Lord is greater than he who yet stands in the battle; for it is one thing to have gained the crown of victory, another to be yet fighting in the field.

"Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women, there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist."

Now what He said is like this: "woman hath not borne a greater than this man." And His very sentence is indeed sufficient; but if thou art minded to learn from facts also, consider his table, his manner of life, the height of his soul. For he so lived as though he were in heaven: and having got above the necessities of nature, he travelled as it were a new way, spending all his time in hymns and prayers, and holding intercourse with none among men, but with God alone continually. For he did not so much as see any of his fellow-servants, neither was he seen by any one of them; he fed not on milk, he enjoyed not the comfort of bed, or roof, or market, or any other of the things of men; and yet he was at once mild and earnest. Hear, for example, how considerately he reasons with his own disciples, courageously with the people of the Jews, how openly with the king. For this cause He said also, "There hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist."

But lest the exceeding greatness of His praises should produce a sort of extravagant feeling, the Jews honoring John above Christ; mark how He corrects this also. For as the things which edified His own disciples did harm to the multitudes, they supposing Him an easy kind of person; so again the remedies employed for the multitudes might have proved more mischievous, they deriving from Christ's words a more reverential opinion of John than of Himself.

Wherefore this also, in an unsuspected way, He corrects by saying, "He that is less, in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than he." Less in age, and according to the opinion of the multitude, since they even called Him "a gluttonous man and a winebibber;" and, "Is not this the carpenter's son?" and on every occasion they used to make light of Him.

"What then?" it may be said, "is it by comparison that He is greater than John?" Far from it. For neither when John saith, "He is mightier than I," doth he say it as comparing them; nor Paul, when remembering Moses he writes, "For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses," doth he so write by way of comparison; and He Himself too, in saying, "Behold, a greater than Solomon is here," speaks not as making a comparison.

Or if we should even grant that this was said by Him in the way of comparison, this was done in condescension, because of the weakness of the hearers. For the men really had their gaze very much fixed upon John; and then he was rendered the more illustrious both by his imprisonment, and by his plainness of speech to the king; and it was a great point for the present, that even so much should be received among the multitude. And so too, the Old Testament uses in the same way to correct the souls of the erring, by putting together in a way of comparison things that cannot be compared; as when it saith, "Among the gods there is none like unto Thee, O Lord:" and again, "There is no god like our God."

And moreover His saying, "There hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John," suited one contrasting John with Himself, and thus tacitly excepting Himself. For though He too were born of a woman, yet not as John, for He was not a mere man, neither was He born in like manner as a man, but by a strange and wondrous kind of birth.

The kingdom of heaven is Jesus the Christ himself, who exhorts all people to repentance and draws them to himself by love.

And who of all the ancients, who were accounted worthy of the sublime and wonderful gift, was like unto John the Baptist? According to the testimony, which Christ spake concerning him, "He was the greatest of all the Prophets"; and again He said, "Verily I say unto you, among those born of women there is none greater than John the Baptist." Now let us understand and see how and what was the rule and conduct of life of this marvellous man who arrived at such greatness as this, and why he was accounted worthy of all this gift, and with what increase and with how great labours, and after what asceticism, and for how long a time he lived a solitary life away from human intercourse; and when we have seen and have understood these matters of his life, let us consider the greatness of the things which were unto him, and let us understand first of all the things which concern the will, and afterwards the things which concern grace, for until the will shewed its fruits the Spirit gave not its gift. Observe then the life of this marvellous man, who from the time of his childhood was set apart from dwelling in the world, and from intercourse with the children of men; and he was not first of all denied and polluted, and afterwards cleansed and purified, but his youth passed in purity before it arrived at the motions of nature which distinguish between good and evil things. And he was brought up in the wilderness, and he had not in him any worldly care whatsoever; and he did not taste by experience the wickedness of the children of men, and then cast it away, neither was he first moved by lusts and by passions, and afterwards came to peace of the thoughts by the labours of his freewill.

But seeing that righteousness has so great deepness that none can be perfect therein but God only, I suppose that all the saints tried by the keenness of the divine judgment, rank in a fixed order, some lower, some before other. Whence we understand that He that hath none greater than Himself, is greater than all.

As much as to say; What need to recount one by one the praises of John the Baptist; I say verily unto you, Among them that are born of women, &c. He says women, not virgins. If the same word mulier, which denotes a married person, is any where in the Gospels applied to Mary, it should be known that the translator has there used 'mulier' for 'femina;' as in that, Woman, behold thy son! (John 19:26)

As for the fact, then, that "others were not baptized"-they, however, were not companions of Christ, but enemies of the faith, doctors of the law and Pharisees. From which fact is gathered an additional suggestion, that, since the opposers of the Lord refused to be baptized, they who followed the Lord were baptized, and were not like-minded with their own rivals: especially when, if there were any one to whom they clave, the Lord had exalted John above him (by the testimony) saying," Among them who are born of women there is none greater than John the Baptist."

If John is being judged against other people according to being born from a woman, he will be found to be the greatest of them all. He alone was filled with the Holy Spirit inside his mother's womb, so that he "leaped," and his mother prophesied because she partook in this as well. But if John is judged in relation to those who are to partake of the Spirit in the kingdom of heaven, Jesus says, he will be found to be least. Thus Jesus says that John by no means partakes of such great grace as those who will be reborn into immortality after Jesus' resurrection from the dead and that John will experience physical death. At that time, however, the Spirit's abundance toward people will be so great that no one who has partaken of even the least part of it can afterward fall into death.

He declares this with certainty, that there is no one greater than John. But by saying "born of women" He excludes Himself, for Christ was born of a virgin, not of a woman, that is, one who is married. "Notwithstanding, He that is younger is greater than he in the kingdom of heaven." Since He has extolled the praises of John, lest they think that John is greater than He says here more clearly, I am the younger in age and the lesser in your opinion, yet I am greater than he in the kingdom of heaven, that is, in regards to spiritual and heavenly good things. For here I appear less than he, both because his birth preceded Mine and because he appears great to you, but there in the kingdom of heaven I am greater.

Amen, I say to you. Above the Lord commended John on the authority of a prophet [Malachi]; now he intends to commend him in his own words and explains the prophet's text. He does three things: first, he commends him as to the difference of every order and state; secondly, as to the difference between the Law and the Gospel (v. 12); thirdly, as to the difference between the present age and the future (v. 14).

First, he shows that he is outstanding among those on earth; secondly, he shows him lesser among the angels (v. 11b).

He says, therefore: it has been stated that John is an angel, and to put it briefly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. He was speaking in a proper sense, when he said, has arisen, because all are born children of wrath (Eph 2:3). Therefore, whoever can attain to the state of grace arises. Hence among those born of women. And he speaks precisely, in order that Christ be excluded from this generality, because "woman" suggests defilement, but "female", sex. Hence if son of woman is found anywhere, as in John (19:26): "Woman, behold your son," in that case it denotes sex, not defilement. But how can he say, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater? Is he for this reason greater than all? Jerome says that it does not follow: If a greater has not arisen, therefore he is greater. But Chrysostom says that he is greater than all. Therefore, according to the first explanation, I say that the argument would be valid among angels, where there is order, i.e., that the one than whom none is greater is the greatest; but among men it is not true, because among men there is no order according to nature but only according to grace. Again, if he is said to be greater than all the patriarchs of the Old Testament, it is not incongruous, because he is greater and more outstanding who has been called to a greater office. For Abraham is great among the patriarchs by reason of his faith; but Moses as to the office of prophet, as it says in Deuteronomy (34:10): "There has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses." They had all been the Lord's precursors, but none was as great or more favored. Therefore he was raised to a greater office: "He will be great before the Lord" (Lk 1:15).

Yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Taking their stand from these words, some have found occasion for calumny; for they want to damn all the fathers of the Old Testament. For if he is greater than the others, it follows that the others are not among those to be saved, because by the kingdom of heaven the present Church is designated. Therefore, if John was not a member of the present Church, he was not among the number of the elect; nor, consequently, were the others.

But this opinion is erroneous, because it is evident that what the Lord says is in praise of John. However, this expression can be explained in three ways: first, so that by kingdom of heaven the order of the blessed is understood and whoever is least among them is greater than one on the way. Therefore the Lord calls the present state a childhood: "When I became a man, I put away the things of a child" (1 Cor 13:11); hence those on the way are called children. And this is true, if one is speaking of the actually greater; for one who has attained is actually greater. But it is otherwise with the virtually greater: for one small herb may be greater in efficacy but smaller in size than others.

It is explained in another way so that the present Church is designated by the kingdom of heaven. Then the lesser is not taken universally but in relation to time: "He that comes after me was made before me" (Jn 1:15). Hence, he that is lesser is greater than he.

It can also be explained a third way. For someone is called greater in two ways: either as to merit, and thus many patriarchs are greater than certain persons in the New Testament, as Augustine says that John's celibacy is not preferred to Abraham's marriage; or by comparing one state to another, as virgins outrank the married, although not every virgin is better than each married person. Hence John's greatness lies on a boundary, because he is greater than wayfarers but less than those who have attained, so that he holds a middle place.

From the days of John the Baptist the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force; meaning that as many as do violence to themselves, and live righteously, and are not guided by their own notions, but have faith in God, all obtain that kingdom.

A hermit was living in a cave in the Thebaid with one well-tested disciple. It was usual for him to teach the disciple during the evening and show him how the soul should progress, and after the address he used to pray and send him away to sleep. Some devout laymen who knew of the hermit's ascetic life happened to visit him. He gave them counsel and they went away. Then he sat down after the evening prayers as usual to instruct the brother. But while he was talking, sleep overcame him. The brother waited for the hermit to wake and end with the usual prayer. But he went on sleeping and the brother went on sitting for a long time and in the end the disciple felt he must go and sleep though he was uneasy about it. So he pulled himself together, and resisted the temptation, and went back to sit by the hermit. A second time he was forced away by the longing for sleep, but he sat down again. This happened seven times, and still he went on resisting it. In the middle of the night the hermit woke up, and found him sitting nearby and said, 'Haven't you gone away yet?' He said, 'No, you did not send me away, abba.' The hermit said, 'Why did you not wake me up?' He answered, 'I did not dare to nudge you for fear of upsetting you.' They both got up and began to say the morning prayers. After that the hermit sent his disciple away. When the hermit was sitting alone, he was shown a vision of a glorious place, with a throne in it, and on the throne seven crowns. He asked the angel who showed him the vision, 'Whose crowns are those?' and he replied, 'They are the crowns of your disciple. God had given him this place and throne because of his goodness and tonight he has been granted these seven crowns.' The hermit was amazed and called his disciple to him with wonder and said, 'Tell me what you did all night.' He answered, 'Alas, abba, I did nothing.' The hermit could see that he was being humble and concealing something, and said, 'Look here, I can't rest until you tell me what you did and thought last night.' But the brother was not aware that he had done anything and could not say a word. Then at last he said to the hermit, 'Indeed, abba, I did nothing, except that seven times I was driven by wandering thoughts to go away and sleep; but you had not sent me away as you usually do, so I did not go.' Then the hermit at once understood that every time he resisted the temptation, God bestowed a crown on him. To the disciple he said nothing, thinking it best for his soul, but he told other directors of souls, to teach us how God can bestow crowns upon us even for resisting little temptations. It is good that a man discipline his whole self for God's sake. As it is written, 'The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by storm' (Matt. 11:12).

(non occ.) That what He had last said should not lead any to suppose that John was an alien from the kingdom of heaven, He corrects this by adding, From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

But because John admonishes us to great works, saying: "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance." And again: "He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise"; now it is clearly given to understand what Truth means when it says: "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent seize it." These words of the heavenly pronouncement must be thoroughly examined by us. For it must be asked how the kingdom of heaven can suffer violence. For who inflicts violence upon heaven? And again it must be asked, if the kingdom of heaven can suffer violence, why it endured that same violence from the days of John the Baptist, and not also before. But since the law says: "If anyone does this or that, let him die the death," it is clear to all who read that it struck all sinners with the punishment of its severity, but did not lead them back to life through repentance. But when John the Baptist, preceding the grace of the Redeemer, preaches repentance, so that the sinner who is dead from guilt may live through conversion, surely from the days of John the Baptist the kingdom of heaven suffers violence. But what is the kingdom of heaven, if not the place of the just? For the rewards of the heavenly homeland are owed only to the just, so that the humble, the chaste, the meek, and the merciful may arrive at the joys above. But when someone swollen with pride, or defiled by a sin of the flesh, or inflamed by anger, or impious through cruelty, returns to repentance after his faults and receives eternal life, the sinner enters, as it were, into a place not his own. Therefore from the days of John the Baptist the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent seize it, because he who proclaimed repentance to sinners—what else did he teach but that violence should be done to the kingdom of heaven?

(Hom. in Ev. xx. 14.) By the kingdom of heaven is meant the heavenly throne, whither when sinners defiled with any evil deed return in penitence, and amend themselves, they enter as sinners into the place of another, and take by violence the kingdom of heaven.

As the nature of things demands, the more powerful exert violence, and the weaker are those on whom violence is exerted. We need to consider what is being attacked and what is suffering violence.

The Lord had remarked upon the unbelief of the disciples of John. [Matt. 11:3] He had understood also the opinion of the crowd concerning John's pronouncement. [Matt. 16:14] For he realized the immense danger produced by the scandal of the cross to one's faith. [Matt. 16:22-23] He commanded the apostles to go preferably to the lost sheep of Israel; [Matt. 10:6] it was necessary that they be established in the Kingdom and be preserved in the family, the line of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. Yet all this preaching [to Israel] brought about effect to publicans and sinners. [Matt. 9:11-13] It is from these that believers now come; from these now come apostles; from these now the Kingdom of heaven comes.

John, however, was not believed by the people; the works of Christ did not win authority; the cross was going to become a scandal. Now prophecy is ceased; now the Law is fulfilled; now all preaching is concluded; now the spirit of Elijah is sent ahead in the voice of John. [Matt. 11:14] Christ is preached to some and acknowledged by others; he is born in some and loved by others. His own people spew him out, while strangers receive him; his closest [friends] attack him, while his enemies embrace him. Those who are adopted seek his heritage, while his family rejects him. The children repudiate the Covenant, while the servants acknowledge it. [Rom. 11:7-12] And so it is that the Kingdom of heaven suffers violence. Those who seek to attack it do so because the glory pledged to Israel by the patriarchs, announced by the prophets, and offered by Christ, is now appropriated and seized by the faith of the pagans.

Otherwise; The Lord bade His Apostles go to the lost sheep of Israel, but all their preaching conveyed profit to the publicans and sinners. Therefore the kingdom suffers violence, and the violent take it by force, for the glory of Israel, due to the Fathers, foretold by the Prophets, offered by Christ, is entered and held by force by the might of the Gentiles.

(V.12) But from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

Because John the Baptist was the first who preached repentance to the people, saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand: rightly therefore from that day forth it may be said, that the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For great indeed is the violence, when we who are born of earth, seek an abode in heaven, and obtain by excellence what we have not by nature.

"And from the days of John the Baptist," saith He, "until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."

And what sort of connexion may this have with what was said before? Much, assuredly, and in full accordance therewith. Yea, by this topic also He proceeds to urge and press them into the faith of Himself; and at the same time likewise, He is speaking in agreement with what had been before said by John. "For if all things are fulfilled even down to John, I am He that should come."

"For all the prophets," saith He, "and the law prophesied until John."

For the prophets would not have ceased, unless I were come. Expect therefore nothing further, neither wait for any one else. For that I am He is manifest both from the prophets ceasing, and from those that every day "take by force" the faith that is in me. For so manifest is it and certain, that many even take it by force. Why, who hath so taken it? tell me. All who approach it with earnestness of mind.

Is it wonder if it knows how to extort the rains of heaven -(prayer) which was once able to procure its fires? Prayer is alone that which vanquishes God.

It would seem that this does not follow the train of thought, but it does. Consider this: Christ, by saying of Himself that He is greater than John, strongly urges them to believe in Him, showing that many are by force acquiring the kingdom of heaven, that is, faith in Him. And there is need of great force, for in order to leave father and mother and to despise one's own life, how much force is needed?

From the days of John the Baptist until now... Here he is commended on the basis of the distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament, so that John's excellence is marked by the fact that he is the beginning of the New Testament and the end of the Old Testament. Thus he said: "He that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he," which refers to the fact that he is the beginning of the New Testament; but from the days of John the Baptist, i.e., of his preaching, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence.

This is explained in three ways.

First, it is known that in cases of ravishment there is violence and a struggle. Hence it is required that a sinner, if he is able to reach the kingdom of heaven, must climb to spiritual things and struggle a great deal. It is explained in another way. It is known that rapine, properly speaking, means that something is taken by force contrary to the will of the owner. The preaching of salvation was made to the Jews and then to everyone through Christ: "I have not been sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt 15:24). And although he was sent to them, they did not receive him; yet those to whom he was not sent seized it. Hence he says above: "Many shall come from the east and from the west, and shall recline with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom will be cast into the outer darkness" (Mt 8:12). And below (21:43): "The kingdom of heaven will be taken from you and given to a people producing the fruits of it." Therefore, they have taken it by violence. And this is Hilary's explanation. The third explanation is this: What is taken by violence is snatched quickly; hence Job: "As a torrent which rushes quickly into the valleys": and this is on account of the speed of its movement. And because preaching had so moved men's hearts, the motion seemed swift; therefore, he says, it suffers violence, because they tend toward the kingdom after the manner of someone in a hurry. Hence the Gospel began with him and he is its end.

This should not exclude the prophets who came after John the Baptist, for we read in the Acts of the Apostles that Agabus and Philip's four young unmarried daughters uttered prophecies. But insofar as the law and prophets of the Scriptures looked toward the future, they prophesied about our Lord. So when it is written, "All the prophets and the law up to the time of John have prophesied," the time of Christ is made known as those previous voices had said it would come. Then John showed he had come.

(Verse 13) For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. Not that they exclude the prophets after John. For we read in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 11:21) that Agabus and the four virgin daughters of Philip prophesied. But what the Law and the prophets, whose writings we read, prophesied, they prophesied about the Lord. Therefore, when it is said, 'All the prophets and the Law prophesied until John,' it indicates the time of Christ, so that John, who they said would come, would show that he has come.

Not that He cuts off all Prophets after John; for we read in the Acts of the Apostles that Agabus prophesied, and also four virgins daughters of Philip; but He means that the Law and the Prophets whom we have written, whatever they have prophesied, they have prophesied of the Lord. That He says, Prophesied until John, shows that this was now the time of Christ's coming; and that whom they had foretold should come, Him John showed to be already come.

"The days of John" and of Jesus are understood not in reference to time but in reference to the state of the soul of the hearer of the divine Scripture. And the word now marks out clearly the days of Jesus, which the psalm points to in this way: "In his days righteousness shall arise, and there will be an abundance of peace till the time when he is taken away." One who has been previously taught comes to the beginning of Jesus' discourses and still makes progress in introductory things by way of that road that appears to be rugged and steep. One thereby "takes by force" the kingdom of heaven, which "suffers violence." The expression "suffers violence" is not to be taken in an active sense but a passive, as if to say "it has been taken." But if the perfect Word, when he receives someone who was awaiting freedom under the law and prophetic schoolmasters and housekeepers, bestows on such a one his father's inheritance freely, then fittingly it is said that "all the prophets and the law prophesied until John."

In short, if this is not so, let the Jews exhibit, subsequently to Christ, any volumes of prophets, visible miracles wrought by any angels, (such as those) which in bygone days the patriarchs saw until the advent of Christ, who is now come; since which event "sealed is vision and prophecy," that is, confirmed. And justly does the evangelist write, "The law and the prophets (were) until John" the Baptist.

And thus, the former gifts of grace being withdrawn, "the law and the prophets were until John," and the fishpool of Bethsaida until the advent of Christ: thereafter it ceased curatively to remove from Israel infirmities of health; since, as the result of their perseverance in their frenzy, the name of the Lord was through them blasphemed, as it is written: "On your account the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles: " for it is from them that the infamy (attached to that name) began, and (was propagated during) the interval from Tiberius to Vespasian.

Yet I must necessarily prescribe you a law, not to stretch out your hand after the old things, not to look backwards: for "the old things are passed away," according to Isaiah; and "a renewing hath been renewed," according to Jeremiah; and "forgetful of former things, we are reaching forward," according to the apostle; and "the law and the prophets (were) until John," according to the Lord.

At all events, in the Gospel they think that those days were definitely appointed for fasts in which "the Bridegroom was taken away; " and that these are now the only legitimate days for Christian fasts, the legal and prophetical antiquities having been abolished: for wherever it suits their wishes, they recognise what is the meaning of" the Law and the prophets until John." Accordingly, (they think) that, with regard to the future, fasting was to be indifferently observed, by the New Discipline, of choice, not of command, according to the times and needs of each individual: that this, withal, had been the observance of the apostles, imposing (as they did) no other yoke of definite fasts to be observed by all generally, nor similarly of Stations either, which (they think) have withal days of their own (the fourth and sixth days of the week), but yet take a wide range according to individual judgment, neither subject to the law of a given precept, nor (to be protracted) beyond the last hour of the day, since even prayers the ninth hour generally concludes, after Peter's example, which is recorded in the Acts.

This, too, follows the same train of thought. For He is saying, I am He that cometh, for all the prophets have been fulfilled. They would not have been fulfilled if I had not come. Therefore, await nothing further.

Hence Christ says: For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John, because all the prophets were for the sake of Christ and began to be fulfilled from the time of John's preaching. Hence Luke (24:44): "Everything written about me must be fulfilled." And this until John. Does this mean that there were no prophets after John? Do we not read below (23:34): "Behold, I sent you prophets, wise men and scribes"? The answer is that a prophet is sent for two purposes: to strengthen faith and to correct morals: "Where there is no prophecy the people cast off restraint" (Pr 29:18). To strengthen faith, as it says in 1 Peter (1:10): "The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them." Hence prophecy served those two things: faith has now been established, because Christ's promises have been accomplished. But for the correction of morals, prophecy has never ceased nor will ever cease. Therefore John is outstanding, because he is between the Old and the New Law; hence he was sent before his face, as though at the same time as Christ.

He called John Elijah because of Elijah's power and spirit. And since this statement of Jesus was obscure, he left the understanding of it for those capable of perceiving its meaning. But the angel Gabriel also said this about John: "And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah," showing that he was the same as Elijah, even if, as a visible human being, he was other than Elijah.

As the Lord said to the Jews, and if ye are willing, receive it of John the Baptist: This is Elijah who was to come.

So John the Baptist is called Elijah, not in accordance with foolish philosophers and certain heretics who introduce the topic of metempsychosis (transmigration of souls) but because, according to other evidence of the gospel, he came in the spirit and goodness of Elijah and had either the same grace or power of the Holy Spirit. The austerity of their life and firm resolve were equally strong in Elijah and in John. Both lived in the desert. The former girded himself with a belt of skins, and the latter had a similar belt. The former was forced to flee because he accused Ahab and Jezebel of the sin of impiety in their lives. John was beheaded because he accused Herod and Herodias of unlawful marriage. There are those who think therefore that John is called Elijah because, just as Elijah would lead the way in the second coming of our Savior (according to Malachi) and would announce that the Judge was coming, so John acted at the first coming and because each was a messenger either of the first or second coming of our Lord.

(Verse 14, 15.) And if you want to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. This which was said, if you want to receive it, he is Elijah, signifies a mystical understanding and requires intelligence, as the following words of the Lord demonstrate, saying: He who has ears to hear, let him hear. For if the meaning were clear and the sentiment evident, why would it be necessary for us to be prepared for its understanding? Therefore, John is called Elijah, not according to foolish philosophers and certain heretics, who introduce reincarnation, but because, as another testimony of the Gospel states, he came in the spirit and power of Elijah, he had the same grace or measure of the Holy Spirit. But the austerity of life and the firmness of mind of Elijah and John are equal. For Elijah lived in the desert, and so did John: Elijah wore a leather belt, and so did John. Elijah, because he accused King Ahab and Jezebel of impiety, was forced to flee (3 Kings 19); John, because he accused Herod and Herodias of unlawful marriage, was beheaded. There are those who think that John is called Elijah because just as Elijah is said to precede the second coming of the Savior according to Malachi, and announce the coming Judge, so did John in the first coming; and both are messengers of either the first coming of the Lord, or the second.

John then is said to be Elias, not according to the foolish philosophers, and certain heretics who bring forward their metempsychosis, or passing of the soul from one body to another; but because (as it is in another passage of the Gospel) he came in the spirit and power of Elias, and had the same grace and measure of the Holy Spirit. But in austerity of life, and fortitude of spirit, Elias and John were alike; they both dwelt in the desert, both were girded with a girdle of skins; because he reproved Ahab and Jezebel for their wickedness, Elias was compelled to fly; because he condemned the unlawful union of Herod and Herodias, John is beheaded.

That He says, This is Elias, is figurative, and needs to be explained, as what follows, shews; He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Then He states also another infallible sign, saying, "If ye will receive it, he is Elias, which was for to come." For "I will send you," it is said, "Elias the Tishbite, who shall turn the heart of the father to the children." This man then is Elias, if ye attend exactly, saith He. For "I will send," saith He, "my messenger before Thy face."

And well hath He said, "If ye will receive it," to show the absence of force. For I do not constrain, saith He. And this He said, as requiring a candid mind, and showing that John is Elias, and Elias John. For both of them received one ministry, and both of them became forerunners. Wherefore neither did He simply say, "This is Elias," but, "If ye are willing to receive it, this is he," that is, if with a candid mind ye give heed to what is going on. And He did not stop even at this, but to the words, "This is Elias, which was for to come," He added, to show that understanding is needed, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Now He used so many dark sayings, to stir them up to inquiry. And if not even so were they awakened, much more, had all been plain and clear. For this surely no man could say, that they dared not ask Him, and that He was difficult of approach. For they that were asking him questions, and tempting Him about common matters, and whose mouths were stopped a thousand times, yet they did not withdraw from Him; how should they but have inquired of Him, and besought Him touching the indispensable things, had they indeed been desirous to learn? For if concerning the matters of the law they asked, "Which is the first commandment," and all such questions, although there was of course no need of His telling them that; how should they but ask the meaning of what He Himself said, for which also He was bound to give account in His answers? And especially when it was He Himself that was encouraging and drawing them on to do this. For by saying, "The violent take it by force," He stirs them up to earnestness of mind; and by saying, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear," He doth just the same thing.

As much as to say, Whoso has ears of the heart to hear, that is, to understand, let him understand; for He did not say that John was Elias in person, but in the Spirit.

I apprehend that heretics of this school seize with especial avidity the example of Elias, whom they assume to have been so reproduced in John (the Baptist) as to make our Lord's statement sponsor for their theory of transmigration, when He said, "Elias is come already, and they knew him not; " and again, in another passage, "And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come." Well, then, was it really in a Pythagorean sense that the Jews approached John with the inquiry, "Art thou Elias? " and not rather in the sense of the divine prediction, "Behold, I will send you Elijah" the Tisbite? The fact, however, is, that their metempsychosis, or transmigration theory, signifies the recall of the soul which had died long before, and its return to some other body.

Jesus is in effect saying: Just as Elijah will come toward the end of this present age preaching about my imminent appearance from heaven, in the same way this one has spread the good news of my coming, bringing an end to the old things. My coming is something new, a type of the state of things that is about to occur.

If you are willing, He says, to accept it, that is, if you judge the matter with a good disposition of mind, and not spitefully, he is the one whom the prophet Malachi called Elijah who was to come (Malachi 4:5. "And, behold, I will send to you Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes"). For both the Forerunner and Elijah have the same ministry. The one was the Forerunner of the first coming, while Elijah will be the forerunner of the second coming. Then, showing that it is an enigma that John is Elijah, and requires wisdom to understand it, He says:

And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. Here he shows John's greatness as far as the distinction between present and future is concerned. For Elijah was the Lord's precursor; hence Malachi (4:5): "Behold, I will send you Elijah, the prophet...," and John is Elijah. But what is the Lord saying? For when John was asked if he was Elijah, he said that he was not. But this refutes a heresy which posited transmigration of souls, namely, that the soul went from one body and entered another body; therefore Elijah's soul had entered John, so they said. But this opinion is false, because he denied that he was Elijah. But Christ said that John was Elijah on account of three similarities: first, because, as one angel is said to be similar to another angel, because they are equal in office, so Elijah and John were equal in office, because both were precursors: "He will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways" (Lk 1:76). Also as to manner of life, because he led an austere life (1 Kg 19:6). Again, as to persecution, because as he was persecuted by Jezebel, so John by Herod. Hence if you are willing to accept it in the sense in which it should be taken, he is Elijah.

Thus urging them to ask and to learn.

And so that they might understand that he was speaking in a mystical way, he adds, he who has ears to hear, let him hear, i.e., he that has ears spiritually, let him hear and understand.