4 Midfeast of Pentecost

He is called Simon, son of John, John being his natural father. But mystically, Simon is obedience, John grace, a name well befitting him who was so obedient to God's grace, that he loved our Lord more ardently than any of the others. Such virtue arising from divine gift, not mere human will.

It is Peter, chosen by the Lord himself to feed his flock, who merits three times to hear the words "Feed my little lambs; feed my lambs; feed my sheep." And so, by feeding well the flock of Christ with the food of faith, he effaced the sin of his former fall. For this reason he is admonished three times to feed the flock. He is asked three times whether he loves the Lord in order that he may confess him three times whom he had denied three times before his crucifixion.

O pastors! Imitate that diligent pastor, the chief of the whole flock, who cared so greatly for his flock. He brought near those who were far away. He brought back the wanderers. He visited the sick. He strengthened the weak. He bound up the broken. He guarded those who were well fed. He gave himself up for the sake of the sheep. He chose and instructed excellent leaders, and committed the sheep into their hands and gave them authority over all his flock. For he said to Simon Cephas, "Feed my sheep and my lambs and my ewes." So Simon fed his sheep and fulfilled his calling and handed over the flock to you and departed. And so you also must feed and guide them well. For the pastor who cares for his sheep engages in no other pursuit along with that. He does not make a vineyard, or plant gardens, or fall into the troubles of this world. Never have we seen a pastor who left his sheep in the wilderness and became a merchant, or one who left his flock to wander and became a husbandman. But if he deserts his flock and does these things, he thereby hands over his flock to the wolves.

Christ rose again in the flesh, and Peter rose in the spirit because, when Christ died in his passion, Peter died by his denial. Christ the Lord was raised from the dead, and out of his love he raised Peter. He questioned him about the love he was confessing and entrusted him with his sheep. After all, what benefit could Peter confer on Christ by the mere fact of his loving Christ? If Christ loves you, it is to your advantage, not Christ's. And if you love Christ, it is to your advantage, not Christ's. And yet Christ the Lord wanted to indicate how people ought to show that they love Christ. And he made it plain enough by entrusting him with his sheep. "Do you love me?" "I do." "Feed my sheep." All this once, all this a second time, all this a third time. Peter made no other reply than that he loved him. The Lord asked no other question but whether he loved him. When Peter answered, our Lord did nothing else but entrust his sheep to him.

He is being armed for weightier and greater matters. He is told "Feed my sheep," a task that was certainly going to mean danger for the flesh but glory for the spirit. Just think how much he was going to suffer for the name of Christ by feeding the sheep of Christ! "Feed my sheep, feed my lambs." I mean, if you love me, what present are you going to give me? The prince of pastors made him a pastor so that Peter would feed Christ's sheep, not his own.…"Feed my sheep." Why? Because you love me, because you are devoted to me, I am committing my sheep to you. Feed them, but remember they are mine. Heretical leaders, though, wish to make their own the sheep that are really Christ's. All the same, they are forced … to set the stamp of Christ on them. They may make them their own private flock, but they still have to register them in the Lord's name.

Feed "my" sheep; he did not say "yours," did he? Feed, good servant, the Lord's sheep that bear the Lord's brand. After all, was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Peter and Paul? So feed his sheep, washed in his baptism, sealed in his name, redeemed with his blood. "Feed," he says, "my sheep."

"So when they had dined, He saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs." To the threefold denial there is now appended a threefold confession, that his tongue may not yield a feebler service to love than to fear, and imminent death may not appear to have elicited more from the lips than present life. Let it be the office of love to feed the Lord's flock, if it was the signal of fear to deny the Shepherd. Those who have this purpose in feeding the flock of Christ, that they may have them as their own, and not as Christ's, are convicted of loving themselves, and not Christ, from the desire either of boasting, or wielding power, or acquiring gain, and not from the love of obeying, serving, and pleasing God. Against such, therefore, there stands as a wakeful sentinel this thrice inculcated utterance of Christ, of whom the apostle complains that they seek their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's. For what else mean the words, "Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep," than if it were said, If thou lovest me, think not of feeding thyself, but feed my sheep as mine, and not as thine own; seek my glory in them, and not thine own; my dominion, and not thine; my gain, and not thine; lest thou be found in the fellowship of those who belong to the perilous times, lovers of their own selves, and all else that is joined on to this beginning of evils?

We have it also demonstrated here that love and liking are one and the same thing; for the Lord also in the last question said not Diligis me? but, Amas me? Let us, then, love not ourselves, but Him; and in feeding His sheep, let us be seeking the things which are His, not the things which are our own. For in some inexplicable way, I know not what, every one that loveth himself, and not God, loveth not himself; and whoever loveth God, and not himself, he it is that loveth himself. For he that cannot live by himself will certainly die by loving himself; he therefore loveth not himself who loves himself to his own loss of life. But when He is loved by whom life is preserved, a man by not loving himself only loveth the more, when it is for this reason that he loveth not himself [namely] that he may love Him by whom he lives.

Our Lord asked this, knowing it: He knew that Peter not only loved Him, but loved Him more than all the rest.

While our Lord was being condemned to death, he feared, and denied Him. But by His resurrection Christ implanted love in his heart, and drove away fear. Peter denied, because he feared to die: but when our Lord was risen from the dead, and by His death destroyed death, what should he fear? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee. On this confession of his love, our Lord commends His sheep to him: He saith unto him, Feed My lambs: as if there were no way of Peter's showing his love for Him, but by being a faithful shepherd, under the chief Shepherd.

(Tract. cxxii) Well doth He say to Peter, Lovest thou Me (ἀγαπᾶς diligis), and Peter answer, Amo Te (φελῶ amo), and our Lord replies again, Feed My lambs. Whereby, it appears that amor and dilectio are the same thing: especially as our Lord the third time He speaks does not say, Diligis Me, but Amas Me. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? A third time our Lord asks Peter whether he loves Him. Three confessions are made to answer to the three denials; that the tongue might show as much love as it had fear, and life gained draw out the voice as much as death threatened.

(Tract. cxxiii) They who feed Christ's sheep, as if they were their own, not Christ's, show plainly that they love themselves, not Christ; that they are moved by lust of glory, power, gain, not by the love of obeying, ministering, pleasing God. Let us love therefore, not ourselves, but Him, and in feeding His sheep, seek not our own, but the things which are His. For whoso loveth himself, not God, loveth not himself: man that cannot live of himself, must die by loving himself; and he cannot love himself, who loves himself to his own destruction. Whereas when He by Whom we live is loved, we love ourselves the more, because we do not love ourselves; because we do not love ourselves in order that we may love Him by Whom we live.

(Serm. Pass.) But unfaithful servants arose, who divided Christ's flock, and handed down the division to their successors: and you hear them say, Those sheep are mine, what seekest thou with my sheep, I will not let thee come to my sheep. If we call our sheep ours, as they call them theirs, Christ hath lost His sheep.

When therefore they had dined. It should be noted that during the meal he did not ask about love, because, as is said in Sirach chapter six, "there is a friend who is a companion at table, and he will not remain in the day of necessity." But afterward he asks: Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? Therefore he asks about love, because he does not wish to entrust his flock except to one who loves; therefore about greater love, because he wishes to entrust it to one who loves more. Hence Gregory: "He who does not have charity ought by no means to undertake the office of preaching"; certainly much less the office of prelacy, because, as is said in John chapter ten, "the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep."

He says to him: Yes, Lord. Here is set forth Peter's response, in which he responds that he loves, but not that he loves more, because he did not know the love of the others. Hence Augustine: "That Peter responds, I love you, and did not add more than these: he responded what he knew about himself; for he could not know how much he was loved by another, because he could not see the heart of another." You know that I love you: in this response Peter shows that he does not respond in flattery, but truly. Hence Chrysostom: "He calls as witness him who knows hidden things." So Jeremiah invoked him, in the seventeenth chapter: "I have not desired the day of man, you know."

He says to him. Here is noted after the response the exhortation to action: because "the proof of love is the display of works"; therefore he says: Feed my lambs: in which the wondrous love of Christ for his sheep is expressed, because he showed this above all other things as a sign of his love: and this indeed Peter fulfilled and urged to be fulfilled, 1 Peter 5: "Elders, feed the flock of God which is among you," etc.

It is asked: since the other Apostles stood around, who loved the Lord, why was only Peter questioned about love? There is one response: because the care of the flock was to be specially entrusted to him among the others, therefore he is specially asked about his love. Hence Chrysostom: "Peter was the foremost of the Apostles and the mouth of the disciples and the head of the college"; therefore, passing over and bypassing the others, he speaks to him about such things. — Another reason can also be assigned: because Peter had notably denied him, and therefore seemed not to be worthy to be placed before the other Apostles; therefore the Lord asks, so that he might show his charity excelling above the rest, and might confirm the pastoral office which he had given.

It is asked: since Peter could not answer this question: Do you love me more than these? because he did not know about the others, why does the Lord ask? I respond: It must be said that the Lord asks this in order to show his excellence in the asking and his correction in the answering; hence Augustine: "That Peter loved the Lord more than the others is evidently apparent where, questioning him, he says: Do you love me more than these? Which indeed he knew, and yet he was asking, so that we too might know his love toward the Lord." And Peter's correction is shown in this, that he does not dare to place himself before the others, as above before the passion, when he said: "Even if all shall be scandalized in you, yet not I."

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; " yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her." Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?"

We have been informed by Crementius the sub-deacon, who came to us from you, that the blessed father Cyprian has for a certain reason withdrawn; "in doing which he acted quite rightly, because he is a person of eminence, and because a conflict is impending," which God has allowed in the world, for the sake of cooperating with His servants in their struggle against the adversary, and was, moreover, willing that this conflict should show to angels and to men that the victor shall be crowned, while the vanquished shall in himself receive the doom which has been made manifest to us. Since, moreover, it devolves upon us who appear to be placed on high, in the place of a shepherd, to keep watch over the flock; if we be found neglectful, it will be said to us, as it was said to our predecessors also, who in such wise negligent had been placed in charge, that "we have not sought for that which was lost, and have not corrected the wanderer, and have not bound up that which was broken, but have eaten their milk, and been clothed with their wool; " and then also the Lord Himself, fulfilling what had been written in the law and the prophets, teaches, saying, "I am the good shepherd, who lay down my life for the sheep. But the hireling, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth, and the wolf scatter-eth them." To Simon, too, He speaks thus: "Lovest thou me? He answered, I do love Thee. He saith to him, Feed my sheep." We know that this saying arose out of the very circumstance of his withdrawal, and the rest of the disciples did likewise.

Peter started to reach Jesus before the rest, disdaining, as it appears, to go by boat, because of the incomparable fervour and admirable zeal of his love towards Christ. Therefore He comes first to land, and draws up the net; for he was always an impressionable man, easily excited to enthusiasm both in speech and action. Therefore, also, he first made confession of faith when the Saviour put to them the inquiry in the parts of Caesarea Philippi, saying: Who do men say that I the Son of Man am? And of the other disciples some said Elijah, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. But when Christ put the further question to them: But Who say ye that I am? Peter took the lead, and becoming spokesman for the rest, hastened to reply: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Moreover, when the band of soldiers came, together with the officers of the Jews, to take Jesus away to the rulers, the rest all left Him and fled, but Peter struck off Malchus' ear with a sword. For he thought it right by every means in his power to defend his Master, though the attack that he made was in fact altogether displeasing to Him. As, therefore, he came more impetuously than the rest, Christ puts to him the question whether he loved Him more than they, and repeated it three times; and Peter answers in the affirmative, and confesses his love for Him, saying that Christ Himself was a witness to his state of mind. And, after each confession, he heard Christ telling him in different words to take thought of His sheep, as He calls mankind in the parable.

And I think (for I say that we ought to search out the hidden meaning that is here implied) that these words were not written without a purpose, but the saying is pregnant with meaning, and the sense of the passage contains something more than meets the eye. May not someone reasonably ask, Why is it that Christ only asks Simon, though the other disciples were present? And what is the meaning of the words, Feed My lambs, and the like? We reply, that the inspired Peter had indeed already been elected, together with the other disciples, to be an Apostle of God (for our Lord Jesus Christ Himself named them Apostles, according to the Scripture), but, when the events connected with the plot of the Jews against Him came to pass, his fall came betwixt; for the inspired Peter was seized with uncontrollable fear, and thrice denied the Lord. Christ succours His erring disciple, and elicits by divers questions his thrice-repeated confession, counterbalancing, as it were, his error thereby, and making his recovery as signal as his fall. For a transgression which was verbal, and only in mere words supplied ground of accusation against him, could surely be wiped out in the same fashion as it was committed. He requires him to say whether he loved Him more than the rest. For in truth, as he had enjoyed a greater measure of forgiveness, and received from a more bountiful Hand the remission of his transgression, surely he would be likely to feel greater love than the rest, and requite his Benefactor with the extremity of affection. For although all the holy disciples alike betook themselves to flight, the inhumanity of the Jews inspiring them with a terror that they could not overcome, and the ferocity of the soldiers threatening them with cruel death when they came to take Jesus, still Peter's transgression by his thrice-repeated denial was special and peculiar to him.

Therefore, as he had received a greater measure of forgiveness than the rest, he is asked to tell Christ whether he loved Him more; for, as the Saviour Himself said, he to whom most is forgiven will also love much. Herein, also, is a type given to the. Churches, that they ought thrice to ask for a confession of Christ from those who have chosen to love Him by coming to Him in Holy Baptism. And, by dwelling on this passage, instructors in religion may arrive at the knowledge that they cannot please the Chief Shepherd, that is Christ, unless they take thought for the health of the sheep of His fold, and their continuance in well-being. Such was the inspired Paul, who shared the infirmities of his weak brethren, and called those who through him believed, and chose to gain repute by the glory of their deeds, the boast, and joy, and crown of his apostleship. For he knew that this was the visible fruit of love for Christ. And this, if he reason well and justly, any one may perceive. For if He died for us, surely He must esteem the salvation and life of us all as deserving of all care. And if they who sin against the brethren, and wound their conscience when it is weak, in truth sin against Christ; surely it is true to say, that they are doing the Lord Himself service who take, as it were, by the hand the mind of those who have been admitted to the faith, and who are expected to be called to perfection therein, and are eager to stablish them firmly in the faith, by every help that they can offer. Therefore, by his thrice-repeated confession the thrice-repeated denial of the blessed Peter was done away, and by the saying of our Lord, "Feed my lambs," we must understand a renewal as it were of the apostleship, already given unto him, washing away the disgrace of his fall that came betwixt, and obliterating his faint-heartedness, that arose from human infirmity.

There are indeed many other things which are able to give us boldness towards God, and to show us bright and approved, but that which most of all brings good will from on high, is tender care for our neighbor. Which therefore Christ requireth of Peter. And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, "If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren, and the warm love which thou didst ever manifest, and in which thou didst rejoice, show thou now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for My sheep."

There are indeed many other things which are able to give us boldness towards God, and to show us bright and approved, but that which most of all brings good will from on high, is tender care for our neighbor. Which therefore Christ requireth of Peter.

(Hom. lxxxviii. 1) That which most of all attracts the Divine love is care and love for our neighbour. Our Lord passing by the rest, addresses this command to Peter: he being the chief of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and head of the college. Our Lord remembers no more his sin in denying Him, or brings that as a charge against him, but commits to him at once the superintendence over his brethren. If thou lovest Me, have rule over thy brethren, show forth that love which thou hast evidenced throughout, and that life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, lay down for the sheep. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee.

And our Lord also called the faithful ones of His pastures by names in which simplicity is indicated: "If thou lovest Me", He said to Simon, the chief of His disciples, "feed My sheep, and My lambs, and My ewes." And as He was called symbolically by the word of the prophecy, "lamb", and "sheep", and John also called Him, "The Lamb of God", even so did He call the disciples of His word by the names which indicate simpleness. And He did this that when all believers heard what names were given to them by the Shepherd they might, like sheep, and lambs, and ewes, be incited to abide in all simpleness, and might not go forth from the law of simplicity, and that like these innocent animals, which are led to death, and are brought to slaughter, and are bound for shearing, and are hunted by wild beasts, they might neither cry out nor complain, but remain in quietness and in the innocency of their nature.

Look to me, Peter, on how you offer instruction. Remembering your own fall, sympathize with all. Mindful of that maiden who caused your own downfall, do not be harsh. If conceit attacks you, listen again to the sound of the rooster's crow, And remember the tears with whose streams I washed you, I who alone know what is in your heart. Peter, do you love me? Do what I say, feed my flock, and love those whom I love, Sympathizing with sinners and remembering the compassion I had for you, since I received you after you denied me three times. You have a thief as gatekeeper of paradise to give you courage. Send him those whom you wish. Because of you, Adam turned to me, Crying, "O Creator offer me The robber as gatekeeper, and Cephas as keeper of the keys. You who alone know what is in the heart."

Jesus promoted Peter and placed him as the head of the lambs of his herd and said, "Feed my lambs," that is, all those who believe in me and who, because they were instructed only recently, are weaker. And for this reason, it is necessary that you carry their burden, and protect them, and comfort them in their weakness and nourish them with the grace that was given to you.

Since the dinner had a purpose for Him, He entrusts to Peter the care of the sheep of the whole world, entrusting the care not to anyone else but to him, first, because he was the chosen one from among all and was the mouthpiece of the entire company of the apostles; then in order to show that he must have boldness, since his denial has been atoned for. He does not bring up the denial, does not reproach him for it, but says: "If you love Me, take care of the brethren and prove now that ardent love for Me of which you spoke, saying that you were ready even to die for Me."

The dinner being ended, He commits to Peter the superintendence over the sheep of the world, not to the others: So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me more than these?

Thence is taken the custom of threefold confession in baptism.

There is a difference perhaps between lambs and sheep. The lambs are those just initiated, the sheep are the perfected.

The Evangelist just showed what the Lord did for the disciples in general; here he shows him dealing with his two especially loved disciples: first, what he did for Peter; and how he dealt with John (v 20). He does two things with the first: first, he lays on Peter the pastoral office; secondly, he predicts that he will be martyred (v 18).

He imposes the pastoral office on Peter only after an examination. Thus, those who are to be raised to this office are first examined, "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands" (1 Tim 5:22). Christ examined him three times, and so this part is divided into three parts. In the first part we see our Lord's question (v 15); Peter's answer; and the imposition of the office (v 15). Looking at the first, we can consider three things: the time of the examination; the tenor of the conversation; and on what Peter was examined.

The order of this event is given as When they had finished the meal. This signifies the spiritual meal by which the soul is refreshed with spiritual gifts, even when it is united to the body: "I will come in to him and eat with him" (Rev 3:20). Therefore it is appropriate that one who is raised to this office be already refreshed with this joyous meal. Otherwise, how could he refresh the hungry ones that come to him: "I will feast the soul of the priests with abundance" (Jer 31:14), with that abundance mentioned in Psalm 63 (v 5): "My soul is feasted as with marrow and fat."

The tenor of the conversation is seen when he says, Jesus said to Simon Peter. Three things are given here which are necessary for a prelate. First, obedience, when he says, Simon, which means obedient. A prelate needs to be obedient because one who does not know how to obey superiors does not know how to govern inferiors: "An obedient man will speak of victory" (Prv 21:28). Secondly, a prelate needs knowledge, indicated by Peter, which means understanding. A prelate needs understanding for he is the appointed watchman, and one who is blind is a poor watchman: "His watchmen are blind" (Is 56:10); "Because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me" (Hos 4:6). Thirdly, a prelate needs grace, for he says son of John. Prelates need grace because if they do not have grace they do not have anything: "By the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor 15:10); "And when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship" (Gal 2:9).

The questions are about love; and Jesus asks, Do you love me more than these? This was a suitable question, for Peter had previously fallen, as we saw before, and it was not appropriate that he be preferred to the others until his sin was forgiven ‑ which is only brought about by charity: "Love covers a multitude of sins" (1 Pet 4:8); "Love covers all offenses" (Prv 10:12). So it was fitting that his charity be made known by this questioning, not indeed to him who looks into the depths of our hearts, but to others. So Christ said, but not as one who did not already know, Do you love me more than these? Now we read that "perfect love casts out fear" (1 Jn 4:18). Thus it was that when our Lord was about to die, Peter was afraid and denied him; but the risen Lord restored love and banished his fear. So Peter, who before had denied Christ because he was afraid to die, now, after our Lord has arisen, feared nothing. Why should he be afraid, since he now realized that death had died?

This questioning was also appropriate for the office, since many who assume a pastoral office use it as self‑lovers: "In the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self" (1 Tim 3:1). One who does not love the Lord is not a fit prelate. A fit prelate is one who does not seek his own advantage, but that of Christ's; and he does this through love: "The love of Christ controls us" (2 Cor 5:14). Love also becomes this office because it benefits others: for it is due to the abundance of love that those who love Jesus will at times give up the quiet of their own contemplation to help their neighbor. Although the Apostle said, "I am sure that neither death nor life... will be able to separate us from the love of God" (Rom 8:39), he added, "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren" (Rom 9:3). Thus a prelate should be questioned about his love.

He adds, more than these, for even as the Philosopher says in his Politics, it is the natural order of things that the one who cares for and governs others should be better. Thus he says that just as the soul is to the body that it rules, and reason is to our lower powers, so man is related to the irrational animals. And there ought to be a similar relation between prelates and their subjects. Thus, according to Gregory, the life of a pastor should be such that he is related to his subjects as a shepherd to his sheep. So Christ says, more than these, because the more Peter loves the better he is: "Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen? There is none like him among all the people" (1 Sam 10:24).

But in selecting someone to rule is it always necessary to choose the one who is unconditionally better, even if the laws say that it is enough to choose one who is merely good? To answer this two distinctions must be made. Some things are sufficient according to human judgment which are still not sufficient according to the divine judgment. According to human judgment, if a person cannot be reproached for something, this is sufficient for his election to stand. For it is obvious that it would be difficult to have elections if they could be nullified because someone was found who was better than the one actually chosen. So, according to our human judgment, it is sufficient if an election is honest and a suitable person is chosen.

But, so far as concerns the divine judgment, and our own conscience, it is necessary to choose that person who is better. Now a person can be unconditionally better; and this is the way a holier person is said to be better, for holiness makes one good. Yet such a person might not be better for the Church. For this purpose, that person would be better who is better educated, more competent, more discerning, and chosen more unanimously. But if other things are equal, such as the benefit and welfare of the Church, one would sin if he were to choose a person who was less unconditionally good than another. There has to be a reason for such a choice. This is either the honor of God and the benefit of the Church, or some private motive. If the motive is the honor of God and the benefit to the Church, these goods will be regarded as linked to the one chosen, and will make him the better person, in these respects. If there is some private motive for the choice, such as some carnal love, the expectation of ecclesiastical advancement, or temporal advantage, the election is a fraud and there has been partiality.

Now we see Peter's answer, Yes, Lord; you know that I love you. This is a clear sign that he had retracted his previous denial. And it shows that if the predestined fall, they are always better after they are corrected. Before his denial, Peter thought that he was better than the other apostles, saying, "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away" (Mt 26:33). And when Jesus said to him, "You will deny me three times," Peter went against this and even boasted that "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you" (Mt 26:35). But now, Peter, having been conquered by his own weakness, does not presume to state his love unless it is attested to and confirmed by the Lord. He humbles himself before Christ, saying, You know that I love you: "My witness is in heaven, and he that vouches for me is on high" (Job 16:19). He also humbles himself in respect to the apostles, for he does not say that he loves Jesus more than they do, but simply, I love you. This teaches us not to rank ourselves before others, but others before ourselves: "In humility count others better than yourselves" (Phil 2:3).

We can also notice, as Augustine points out, that when our Lord asks, Do you love (diligis) me, Peter does not answer with the same word, but says I love (amo) you, as if they were the same. And they are the same in reality, but there is some difference in meaning: Love (amor) is a movement of our appetitive power, and if this is regulated by our reason it is the will's act of love, which is called "direction" (dilectio) ‑ because it presupposes an act of election, choice (electio). This is why the brute animals are not said to love (diligere). For if the appetitive movement is not regulated by reason, it is called amor.

After this examination, Christ assigns Peter his office, saying, Feed my lambs, that is, my faithful, which I, the Lamb, call lambs: "Behold, the Lamb of God" (1:29). Thus, one should not be called a Christian who says he is not under the care of that shepherd, that is, Peter: "They shall all have one shepherd" (Ez 37:24); "They shall appoint for themselves one head" (Hos 1:11). It was appropriate that this office be assigned to Peter, the others being passed over, because, according to Chrysostom, he was the extraordinary apostle, the voice of the disciples, and the head of the group.

Peter also restrained himself in this inquiry of our Lord's by answering cautiously, for he remembered earlier on, when Christ's passion was drawing near, he had attributed greater constancy to himself than he possessed.

He says to him again. Here is set forth the second inquiry, in which the procedure is similar, as before. The Lord therefore inquires, as before, about love: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Simon, son of John he is called, because he was the son of John. — And Peter responds: He said to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. Bede: "O how faithful and pure a soul! which does not fear to say to its Creator, before whose eyes all things are naked and open: Lord, you know that I love you." He says to him. Here is set forth the exhortation, as before: Feed my lambs. He repeats the aforesaid exhortation: whence Bede: "This is the sole and true proof of complete love toward God: if you have striven to exercise the care of solicitous labor toward your brothers." Feed, namely by example, as he of whom it is said in the Psalm: "He fed them in the innocence of his heart."

If the faith of the apostle Peter is shaken by his Lord's passion, it is so that with bitter weeping he may hear the soothing words "Feed my sheep."

When then having been asked once and again, he called Him to witness who knoweth the secrets of the heart, and then was asked even a third time, he was troubled, fearing a repetition of what had happened before, (for then, having been strong in assertion, he was afterwards convicted,) and therefore he again betaketh himself to Him. For the saying, "Thou knowest all things," meaneth, "things present, and things to come." Seest thou how he had become better and more sober, being no more self-willed, or contradicting? For on this account he was troubled, "lest perchance I think that I love, and love not, as before when I thought and affirmed much, yet I was convicted at last." But Jesus asketh him the third time, and the third time giveth him the same injunction, to show at what a price He setteth the care of His own sheep, and that this especially is a sign of love towards Him.

And our Lord also called the faithful ones of His pastures by names in which simplicity is indicated: "If thou lovest Me", He said to Simon, the chief of His disciples, "feed My sheep, and My lambs, and My ewes." And as He was called symbolically by the word of the prophecy, "lamb", and "sheep", and John also called Him, "The Lamb of God", even so did He call the disciples of His word by the names which indicate simpleness. And He did this that when all believers heard what names were given to them by the Shepherd they might, like sheep, and lambs, and ewes, be incited to abide in all simpleness, and might not go forth from the law of simplicity, and that like these innocent animals, which are led to death, and are brought to slaughter, and are bound for shearing, and are hunted by wild beasts, they might neither cry out nor complain, but remain in quietness and in the innocency of their nature.

A second time he said to him, "Tend my Sheep," that is, Simon, tend the men who are mature in faith and possessing proven wisdom, who obey you in the prescribed degrees of the church, in the apostolate, in the priesthood, and in the pastoral office.

Now we have the second examination. In order to avoid a lot of repetition, note that Christ says three times, Feed my lambs, because Peter ought to feed them three ways. First, they are to be fed by being taught: "And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding" (Jer 3:15). Secondly, they are to be fed by example: "Set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity" (1 Tim 4:12); "Upon the mountain heights of Israel," that is, in the excellence of great men, "shall be their pasture" (Ez 34:14). Thirdly, they are to be fed by being offered temporal help: "Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?" (Ez 34:2).

To feed the sheep is to support the believers in Christ from falling from the faith, to provide earthly sustenance for those under us, to preach and exemplify withal our preaching by our lives, to resist adversaries, to correct wanderers.

(de Verb. Dom. serm. 50) He was grieved because he was asked so often by Him Who knew what He asked, and gave the answer. He replies therefore from his inmost heart; Thou knowest that I love Thee.

(Tract. cxxiv) He says no more, He only replies what he knew himself; he knew he loved Him; whether any else loved Him he could not tell, as he could not see into another's heart: (non occ.). Jesus saith unto him, Feed My sheep; as if to say, Be it the office of love to feed the Lord's flock, as it was the resolution of fear to deny the Shepherd.

What [Christ] said to [Peter] at this point, "Feed my sheep," was surely the same thing that he had said to him more clearly before his passion, "But I have asked on your behalf that your faith may not fail you, and once you have recovered, strengthen your brothers." To feed Christ's sheep is to strengthen those who believe in Christ, lest their faith fail them, and to devote oneself ceaselessly [to seeing to it] that they may make greater and greater progress in their faith. However, we must look carefully at the fact that his feeding of the Lord's flock is not to be carried out with one single approach but should rather be multifaceted. A director must diligently see to it that earthly necessities are not lacking to his subjects and also be careful in providing them with examples of virtues along with words of preaching.… When those who are under his care may perhaps themselves have fallen into error, he as a righteous person should, according to the word of the psalmist, "accuse them mercifully and rebuke them," but he should not soothe their hearts with the oil of harmful approval. This too is one of the obligations of a pious shepherd.

He says to him a third time. Here is set forth the third inquiry in the same order as before, namely question, response, exhortation. The Lord therefore asks about the same thing: Simon, son of John, do you love me? From this text it is clear that to love is taken in a good sense, as to love. — And Peter was saddened. Here is noted Peter's response: but nevertheless he responded with sadness, because, as Chrysostom says, he feared lest it should happen to him as it happened when he said: "I will lay down my life for you"; and therefore he was saddened, because he said to him a third time: Do you love me? But nevertheless he did not despair; rather, he responded confidently and said to him: whence he adds to his response: Lord, you know all things, as God; you know that I love you, you know even better than I. For he knew that he was the one who said in Jeremiah 17: "I am the Lord who searches hearts and reins," that is, thoughts and affections. He says to him: Feed my sheep. Here is noted the exhortation: and by sheep are understood the more perfect subjects. It should be noted that the Lord commands to feed the sheep, not to shear them, not to devour them, because the pastor is not commanded by the love of Christ to feed himself, but the sheep; Ezekiel 34: "Woe to the shepherds of Israel who fed themselves! Are not the sheep fed by the shepherds? You ate the milk and covered yourselves with the wool."

It is asked: why does the Lord ask so many times: Peter, do you love me? Augustine responds: "He asks three times for this reason, so that a threefold confession might be rendered for the threefold denial, lest the tongue serve love less than it served fear." Another reason is given: because he was asking for the purpose of commending his flock; and because he wished to commend the flock three times, therefore he asks three times about love.

It is asked: why does he say to him three times: Feed? And it is answered that the sheep of Christ ought to be fed in three ways, namely by word, by example, and by temporal support; hence Bede: "The solicitude of the pastoral office requires that the ruler of the Church diligently provide lest temporal supports be lacking to the people, and show them examples of virtue, and zealously bestow upon them the word of preaching."

It is asked: why does he say twice that lambs are to be fed and once sheep? I respond that by lambs are understood those who are imperfect and tender in faith, and these need more ample pasture, that is, more solicitous care; but by sheep, the more mature, who are able to govern themselves, and these do not need such great care.

In the last chapter of John: Feed my sheep, was said to Peter: but the sheep of Christ are all who walk by the way of salvation: therefore Peter was set as prelate over all such: therefore one was the shepherd of all the sheep of Christ according to the foundation of the Church: therefore also according to its progress and consummation, one must be obeyed by all.

Bernard, treating the aforementioned words, in the second book to Eugene says thus: "You are the one to whom the keys have been handed over, to whom the sheep have been entrusted. There are indeed other doorkeepers of heaven and shepherds of flocks: but you so much more gloriously, inasmuch as you have more distinctly than the rest inherited both names. They have flocks assigned to them, each one his own; to you alone all have been entrusted, one flock to one shepherd. Not only of sheep, but also of shepherds, you alone are the pastor of all. How shall I prove this, you ask? From the word of the Lord: If you love me, Peter, feed my sheep. Which sheep? The peoples of this or that city, or region, or kingdom? My sheep, he says. To whom is it not plain that he did not designate some, but assigned all? Nothing is excepted where nothing is distinguished." And afterwards: "Your privilege stands unshaken, both in the keys and in the sheep entrusted to you, namely the sign of the singular pontificate of Peter, through which he undertook to govern not one ship, as each of the others his own, but the world itself."

We have been informed by Crementius the sub-deacon, who came to us from you, that the blessed father Cyprian has for a certain reason withdrawn; "in doing which he acted quite rightly, because he is a person of eminence, and because a conflict is impending," which God has allowed in the world, for the sake of cooperating with His servants in their struggle against the adversary, and was, moreover, willing that this conflict should show to angels and to men that the victor shall be crowned, while the vanquished shall in himself receive the doom which has been made manifest to us. Since, moreover, it devolves upon us who appear to be placed on high, in the place of a shepherd, to keep watch over the flock; if we be found neglectful, it will be said to us, as it was said to our predecessors also, who in such wise negligent had been placed in charge, that "we have not sought for that which was lost, and have not corrected the wanderer, and have not bound up that which was broken, but have eaten their milk, and been clothed with their wool; " and then also the Lord Himself, fulfilling what had been written in the law and the prophets, teaches, saying, "I am the good shepherd, who lay down my life for the sheep. But the hireling, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth, and the wolf scatter-eth them." To Simon, too, He speaks thus: "Lovest thou me? He answered, I do love Thee. He saith to him, Feed my sheep." We know that this saying arose out of the very circumstance of his withdrawal, and the rest of the disciples did likewise.

Here is a type given to the churches in that they ought to ask for a threefold confession of Christ from those who have chosen to love him by coming to him in holy baptism. And, by dwelling on this passage, instructors in religion may arrive at the knowledge that they cannot please the chief shepherd, that is, Christ, unless they take thought for the health of the sheep of his fold and their continual well-being.… Surely it is true to say that they are doing the Lord himself service who take, as it were, by the hand the mind of those who have been admitted to the faith and who are expected to be called to maturity in this faith. They are, in fact, eager to establish them firmly in the faith by every help that they can offer. Therefore, by his thrice-repeated confession the thrice-repeated denial of the blessed Peter was done away with. And, by the saying of our Lord, "Feed my lambs," we must understand a renewal as it were of the apostleship already given to him, washing away the disgrace of his fall that came in the intervening period and obliterating his faintheartedness that arose from human infirmity.

It appears from these words that, if one who is able refuses to feed the sheep of almighty God, he shows that he does not love the chief Shepherd. For if, in order to accomplish the good of all, the Only Begotten of the Father came forth from the concealment of the Father into our midst, what shall we say if we prefer our privacy over the good of our neighbors? And so, rest is to be desired by us with all our heart. And yet for the advantage of many it should sometimes be laid aside. For, as we ought with full desire to fly from occupation, so, if there should be a lack of anyone available to preach, we need to put a willing shoulder under the burden of occupation. And this we are taught by the conduct of two prophets [Jeremiah and Isaiah], one of whom attempted to shun the office of preaching, while the other desired it.

I myself am convinced by the Petrine claims, nor looking around the world does there seem much doubt which (if Christianity is true) is the True Church, the temple of the Spirit* dying but living, corrupt but holy, self-reforming and rearising. But for me that Church of which the Pope is the acknowledged head on earth has as chief claim that it is the one that has (and still does) ever defended the Blessed Sacrament, and given it most honour, and put it (as Christ plainly intended) in the prime place. 'Feed my sheep' was His last charge to St Peter; and since His words are always first to be understood literally, I suppose them to refer primarily to the Bread of Life. It was against this that the W. European revolt (or Reformation) was really launched – 'the blasphemous fable of the Mass' – and faith/works a mere red herring. I suppose the greatest reform of our time was that carried out by St Pius X surpassing anything, however needed, that the Council will achieve. I wonder what state the Church would now be but for it.

* Not that one should forget the wise words of Charles Williams, that it is our duty to tend the accredited and established altar, though the Holy Spirit may send the fire down somewhere else. God cannot be limited (even by his own Foundations) – of which St Paul is the first & prime example – and may use any channel for His grace. Even to love Our Lord, and certainly to call him Lord, and God, is a grace, and may bring more grace. Nonetheless, speaking institutionally and not of individual souls the channel must eventually run back into the ordained course, or run into the sands and perish. Besides the Sun there may be moonlight (even bright enough to read by); but if the Sun were removed there would be no Moon to see. What would Christianity now be if the Roman Church has in fact been destroyed?

(Hom. lxxxviii) A third time He asks the same question, and gives the same command; to show of what importance He esteems the superintendence of His own sheep, and how He regards it as the greatest proof of love to Him.

(Hom. lxxxviii) The question asked for the third time disturbed him: Peter was grieved because He said unto him the third time, Lovest thou Me? He was afraid perhaps of receiving a reproof again for professing to love more than he did. So he appeals to Christ Himself: And he said unto Him, Lord, Thou knowest all things, i. e. the secrets of the heart, present and to come.

And our Lord also called the faithful ones of His pastures by names in which simplicity is indicated: "If thou lovest Me", He said to Simon, the chief of His disciples, "feed My sheep, and My lambs, and My ewes." And as He was called symbolically by the word of the prophecy, "lamb", and "sheep", and John also called Him, "The Lamb of God", even so did He call the disciples of His word by the names which indicate simpleness. And He did this that when all believers heard what names were given to them by the Shepherd they might, like sheep, and lambs, and ewes, be incited to abide in all simpleness, and might not go forth from the law of simplicity, and that like these innocent animals, which are led to death, and are brought to slaughter, and are bound for shearing, and are hunted by wild beasts, they might neither cry out nor complain, but remain in quietness and in the innocency of their nature.

The Savior does not say to him, fast, or keep watch for me. But, since the pastoral care of souls is more worthy and more useful to the community, he entrusts him with this. I, he says, need nothing: feed my sheep, and return to me the love with which I loved you, because I will take your care for them as care devoted to me.

He asks him three times, partly to show that He cares so much for the faithful and loves His own sheep so much that the care of His sheep serves as a sign of love for Him Himself; and partly by the threefold questioning and confession He heals the threefold denial, and corrects with words the fall that occurred in words. From this arose the custom of requiring a threefold confession from those desiring to be baptized. After the first and second question, Peter calls as witness Him who knows hearts; he no longer trusts in himself, does not answer hastily, but each time adds: "You know." When Peter was asked a third time, he became troubled, wondering whether he was mistaken in thinking that he loved, when perhaps in reality he did not love, because before he too had thought highly of himself and his own strength, yet the outcome proved him wrong. And now he feared the same thing. Therefore he answers with reverence: "Lord! You know all things, both the present and the future; You know that now I love You, as it seems to me, but whether my love will endure for the time to come, this You know, and I do not vouch for myself." Another person, perhaps, will find a distinction between the terms "lambs" and "sheep," between the words "feed" and "tend." By "lambs," perhaps, are meant beginners, and by "sheep" – those more perfect. Therefore, whoever loves Christ must have care for both the lambs and the sheep, must "feed" the lambs, that is, exercise over them a simpler oversight, and "tend" the sheep, which points to a higher guidance. Sometimes, however, even the most perfect are in need of tender care, and the overseers of the sheep must nourish them. "To tend" expresses a stricter oversight, while "to feed" – a more tender one. What then shall we render to the Lord, who so loved us that He made the care of His sheep the sign of love for Himself?

The third time Christ says to him, Feed my sheep. This is because there are three types of people in the Church: beginners, those who have made some progress, and the perfect. The first two types are the lambs, since they are still imperfect. The others, since they are perfect, are called sheep: "The mountains," that is, the perfect, "skipped like rams," and "the hills," the others, "like lambs" (Ps 114:4). And so all prelates ought to guard their charges as Christ's sheep and not their own. But alas! As Augustine says in his Easter Sermon: "We witness the appearance of certain unfaithful servants who have abandoned Christ's flock and by their thefts have made gold their flock. You hear them say, 'These are my sheep. What do you want with my sheep? I will not let you come to my sheep.' But if we say 'my sheep,' and others talk about their sheep, then Christ has lost his own sheep."

Note also that just as Peter was assigned his office three times, so he was examined three times. This was because he had denied Christ three times. As Augustine says: "A threefold profession was required so that Peter's tongue might show as much love as it had shown of fear, and that life gained would wrest more words than the threat of death." Another reason for this was because Peter was obligated to love Christ for three things. First, because his sin was forgiven, for the one who is forgiven more loves the more (cf. Lk 7:43). Secondly, because he was promised a great honor: "On this rock I will build my Church" (Mt 16:18). Thirdly, because of the office entrusted to him, as right here, when Christ entrusts the care of the Church to him, Feed. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart," so that you will direct your entire intention to God, "and with all your soul," so that your entire will might rest in God through love, "and with all your might," so that the performance of all your actions will serve God.

Peter became sad because asked three times. As was seen, he was rebuked by our Lord before the passion when he so quickly asserted that he loved him. Now, seeing that he is questioned so many times about his love, he is afraid he will be rebuked again and becomes sad. Thus he says, Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you. He is saying in effect: I do love you; at least I think I do. But you know all things, and perhaps you know of something else that will happen. And so the final commitment of the Church is given to the humbled Peter. According to one of the Greek doctors, this is also the reason why catechumens are questioned three times during their baptism.

And as he [Peter] went forth of the city, he saw the Lord entering into Rome. And when he saw him, he said: Lord, whither goest thou thus (or here)? And the Lord said unto him: I go into Rome to be crucified. And Peter said unto him: Lord, art thou (being) crucified again? He said unto him: Yea, Peter, I am (being) crucified again. And Peter came to himself: and having beheld the Lord ascending up into heaven, he returned to Rome, rejoicing, and glorifying the Lord, for that he said: I am being crucified: the which was about to befall Peter.

He went up therefore again unto the brethren, and told them that which had been seen by him: and they lamented in soul, weeping and saying: We beseech thee, Peter, take thought for us that are young. And Peter said unto them: If it be the Lord's will, it cometh to pass, even if we will it not; but for you, the Lord is able to stablish you in his faith, and will found you therein and make you spread abroad, whom he himself hath planted, that ye also may plant others through him. But I, so long as the Lord will that I be in the flesh, resist not; and again if he take me to him I rejoice and am glad.

And while Peter thus spake, and all the brethren wept, behold four soldiers took him and led him unto Agrippa. And he in his madness (disease) commanded him to be crucified on an accusation of godlessness.

The whole multitude of the brethren therefore ran together, both of rich and poor, orphans and widows, weak and strong, desiring to see and to rescue Peter, while the people shouted with one voice, and would not be silenced: What wrong hath Peter done, O Agrippa? Wherein hath he hurt thee? tell the Romans! And others said: We fear lest if this man die, his Lord destroy us all.

And Peter when he came unto the place stilled the people and said: Ye men that are soldiers of Christ! ye men that hope in Christ! remember the signs and wonders which ye have seen wrought through me, remember the compassion of God, how many cures he hath wrought for you. Wait for him that cometh and shall reward every man according to his doings. And now be ye not bitter against Agrippa; for he is the minister of his father's working. And this cometh to pass at all events, for the Lord hath manifested unto me that which befalleth. But why delay I and draw not near unto the cross?

And having approached and standing by the cross he began to say: O name of the cross, thou hidden mystery! O grace ineffable that is pronounced in the name of the cross! O nature of man, that cannot be separated from God! O love (friendship) unspeakable and inseparable, that cannot be shown forth by unclean lips! I seize thee now, I that am at the end of my delivery hence (or, of my coming hither). I will declare thee, what thou art: I will not keep silence of the mystery of the cross which of old was shut and hidden from my soul. Let not the cross be unto you which hope in Christ, this which appeareth: for it is another thing, different from that which appeareth, even this passion which is according to that of Christ. And now above all, because ye that can hear are able to hear it of me, that am at the last and final hour of my life, hearken: Separate your souls from every thing that is of the senses, from every thing that appeareth, and does not exist in truth. Blind these eyes of yours, close these ears of yours, put away your doings that are seen; and ye shall perceive that which concerneth Christ, and the whole mystery of your salvation: and let thus much be said unto you that hear, as if it had not been spoken. But now it is time for thee, Peter, to deliver up thy body unto them that take it. Receive it then, ye unto whom it belongeth. I beseech you the executioners, crucify me thus, with the head downward and not otherwise: and the reason wherefore, I will tell unto them that hear.

And when they had hanged him up after the manner he desired, he began again to say: Ye men unto whom it belongeth to hear, hearken to that which I shall declare unto you at this especial time as I hang here. Learn ye the mystery of all nature, and the beginning of all things, what it was. For the first man, whose race I bear in mine appearance (or, of the race of whom I bear the likeness), fell (was borne) head downwards, and showed forth a manner of birth such as was not heretofore: for it was dead, having no motion. He, then, being pulled down -who also cast his first state down upon the earth- established this whole disposition of all things, being hanged up an image of the creation (Gk. vocation) wherein he made the things of the right hand into left hand and the left hand into right hand, and changed about all the marks of their nature, so that he thought those things that were not fair to be fair, and those that were in truth evil, to be good. Concerning which the Lord saith in a mystery: Unless ye make the things of the right hand as those of the left, and those of the left as those of the right, and those that are above as those below, and those that are behind as those that are before, ye shall not have knowedge of the kingdom.

This thought, therefore, have I declared unto you; and the figure wherein ye now see me hanging is the representation of that man that first came unto birth. Ye therefore, my beloved, and ye that hear me and that shall hear, ought to cease from your former error and return back again. For it is right to mount upon the cross of Christ, who is the word stretched out, the one and only, of whom the spirit saith: For what else is Christ, but the word, the sound of God? So that the word is the upright beam whereon I am crucified. And the sound is that which crosseth it, the nature of man. And the nail which holdeth the cross-tree unto the upright in the midst thereof is the conversion and repentance of man.

Now whereas thou hast made known and revealed these things unto me, O word of life, called now by me wood (or, word called now by me the tree of life), I give thee thanks, not with these lips that are nailed unto the cross, nor with this tongue by which truth and falsehood issue forth, nor with this word which cometh forth by means of art whose nature is material, but with that voice do I give thee thanks, O King, which is perceived (understood) in silence, which is not heard openly, which proceedeth not forth by organs of the body, which goeth not into ears of flesh, which is not heard of corruptible substance, which existeth not in the world, neither is sent forth upon earth, nor written in books, which is owned by one and not by another: but with this, O Jesu Christ, do I give thee thanks, with the silence of a voice, wherewith the spirit that is in me loveth thee, speaketh unto thee, seeth thee, and beseecheth thee. Thou art perceived of the spirit only, thou art unto me father, thou my mother, thou my brother, thou my friend, thou my bondsman, thou my steward: thou art the All and the All is in thee: and thou Art, and there is nought else that is save thee only.

Unto him therefore do ye also, brethren, flee, and if ye learn that in him alone ye exist, ye shall obtain those things whereof he saith unto you: 'which neither eye hath seen nor ear heard, neither have they entered into the heart of man.' We ask, therefore, for that which thou hast promised to give unto us, O thou undefiled Jesu. We praise thee, we give thee thanks, and confess to thee, glorifying thee, even we men that are yet without strength, for thou art God alone, and none other: to whom be glory now and unto all ages. Amen.

And when the multitude that stood by pronounced the Amen with a great sound, together with the Amen Peter gave up his spirit unto the Lord.

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

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shall be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wilt not. And this spake He, signifying by what death he should glorify God." "Thou shall stretch forth thy hands," He said; in other words, thou shall be crucified. But that thou mayest come to this, "another shall gird thee, and carry thee," not whither thou wouldest, but "whither thou wouldest not." He told him first what would happen, and then how it should come to pass. For it was not after being crucified, but when actually about to be crucified, that he was carried whither he would not; for after being crucified he went his way, not whither he would not, but rather whither he would. And though when set free from the body he wished to be with Christ, yet, were it only possible, he had a desire for eternal life apart from the grievousness of death, to which grievous experience he was unwillingly carried, but from it [when all was over] he was willingly carried away; unwillingly he came to it, but willingly he conquered it, and left this feeling of infirmity behind that makes every one unwilling to die,-a feeling so permanently natural, that even old age itself was unable to set the blessed Peter free from its influence, even as it was said unto him, "When thou shalt be old," thou shall be led "whither thou wouldest not."

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

(Tract. cxxiii. 5) That is, shalt be crucified. And to come to this end, Another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. First He said what would come to pass, secondly, how it would come to pass. For it was not when crucified, but when about to be crucified, that he was led whither he would not. He wished to be released from the body, and be with Christ; but, if it were possible, he wished to attain to eternal life without the pains of death: to which he went against his will, but conquered by the force of his will, and triumphing over the human feeling, so natural a one, that even old age could not deprive Peter of it. But whatever be the pain of death, it ought to be conquered by the strength of love for Him, Who being our life, voluntarily also underwent death for us. For if there is no pain in death, or very little, the glory of martyrdom would not be great.

(Tract. cxxiii) He who denied and loved, died in perfect love for Him, for Whom he had promised to die with wrong haste. It was necessary that Christ should first die for Peter's salvation, and then Peter die for Christ's Gospel.

After Peter's confirmation in love was made, here follows his invitation to the consummation of love. Now the consummation of love is that a man lay down his life for Christ: therefore here follows an invitation to imitate the passion.

Peter is therefore certified by the Lord concerning the manner of his death, namely through passion and the cross: and to make it certain, he says: Amen, amen I say to you: and this is the passion, that in his old age he would be crucified for Christ: whence he says: When you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished, that is, you followed your own will: Sirach 18: "Son, do not go after your concupiscences, and turn away from your own will." But when you have grown old, you will stretch out your hands, namely on the cross; and another will gird you, "namely with bonds," as Nero, and will lead you where you do not wish, "that is, to death"; because, as is said in Second Corinthians 5, "we do not wish to be unclothed, but to be further clothed." And the reason for this is given in Ephesians 5: "Because no one ever hated his own flesh." Peter was bound with chains: Acts 12: "Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains."

It is asked about what he says: Another will gird you and lead you where you do not wish. It seems from this that the passion of Peter was involuntary: therefore it was not meritorious. I respond: The will is twofold: of reason and of nature. He suffered willingly by the will of reason, but unwillingly by the will of nature or of sensuality. Nor is this surprising, because it was so in the Head; whence Matthew twenty-six: Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will. Whence Augustine: "Peter came unwilling to death, willing he conquered death, and he left behind this disposition of weakness, by which no one wishes to die, so deeply natural that not even old age could take it away from blessed Peter."

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.

With great kindness and tenderness our Lord Jesus Christ testifies to the fervour of the love which His disciple bore unto Him, and the high honour of his piety and endurance, tried to the uttermost. For He tells him clearly what would be the issue of his apostleship, and what would be the end of his life. For He foretold unto him, that one would take him to a place whither he would not go; that is, in which his persecutors, or those who condemned him to the penalty of death, had fixed the cross. He says, that the place of his crucifixion would be a place whither Peter would not go. For no one of the Saints suffers death of his own free choice. But though death be bitter, and though it come upon them sorely against their will, yet do they who yearn for the glory that God gives disdain earthly life. Therefore Christ foretold, that the blessed Peter would be taken to a place to die in, sore displeasing and hateful unto him. But he would never have attained to so glorious a death, nor have been crucified for Christ, had he not followed His injunction to take charge of the sheep of His fold, and, having the power of the love of Christ firmly rooted in his heart, called to obedience those who have been ensnared into error by the wiles of the devil. For they who ventured on this crime, and slew the blessed Peter, had no other accusation to charge him withal, save only his zeal in Christ's service. We may see then hereby, that our Lord Jesus Christ well, and of necessity, foretold Peter's end, that by the doom that he was destined to suffer he might in a manner put the seal of truth upon the words he spake unto Him: Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee. For that he met his death at all on account of preaching the Gospel was surely a plain and incontrovertible proof of affection, and showed that he was in no way lacking in perfect love towards Christ. Christ, then, adds to what He had said, the words "Follow Me," which bear the signification they so commonly have of following Him as a disciple, and also hinting darkly, as I think, at something else; or meaning, Tread in the track of the perils through which I have passed, and walk in the same path, by deed and word succouring the souls of those who are called, and hesitate not to encounter death itself upon the cross, which, Christ says, will be your lot when you reach old age; not suffering Peter to be alarmed before the time, but deferring for a long season the approach of the king of terrors.

Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way.

St. Peter was crucified upside down as a huge inhuman joke; but his human seriousness survived the inhuman joke, because, in whatever posture, he had died for his faith. The modern martyr of the Pankhurst type courts the absurdity without making the suffering strong enough to eclipse the absurdity. She is like a St. Peter who should deliberately stand on his head for ten seconds and then expect to be canonised for it.

Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion — the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia — pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord.

And having spoken to him concerning the love towards Himself, He foretelleth to him the martyrdom which he should undergo, showing that He said not to Him what he said as distrusting, but as greatly trusting him; wishing besides to point out a proof of love towards Him, and to instruct us in what manner especially we ought to love Him.

And yet this he did will, and desired; on which account also He hath revealed it to him. For since Peter had continually said, "I will lay down my life for Thee", and, "Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee": He hath given him back his desire. What then is the, "Whither thou willest not"? He speaketh of natural feeling, and the necessity of the flesh, and that the soul is unwillingly torn away from the body. So that even though the will were firm, yet still even then nature would be found in fault. For no one lays aside the body without feeling, God, as I said before, having suitably ordained this, that violent deaths might not be many. For if, as things are, the devil has been able to effect this, and has led ten thousand to precipices and pits; had not the soul felt such a desire for the body, the many would have rushed to this under any common discouragement. The, "whither thou willest not," is then the expression of one signifying natural feeling.

But how after having said, "When thou wast young," doth He again say, "When thou art old"? For this is the expression of one declaring that he was not then young; (nor was he; nor yet old, but a man of middle age.) Wherefore then did He recall to his memory his former life? Signifying, that this is the nature of what belongeth to Him. In things of this life the young man is useful, the old useless; "but in Mine," He saith, "not so; but when old age hath come on, then is excellence brighter, then is manliness more illustrious, being nothing hindered by the time of life." This He said not to terrify, but to rouse Him; for He knew his love, and that he long had yearned for this blessing. At the same time He declareth the kind of death. For since Peter ever desired to be in the dangers which were for His sake, "Be of good cheer," He saith, "I will so satisfy thy desire, that, what thou sufferedst not when young, thou must suffer when thou art old."

Then the Evangelist, to rouse the hearer, has added, "This spake He, signifying by what death he should glorify God." He said not, "Should die," but, "Should glorify God," that thou mayest learn, that to suffer for Christ, is glory and honor to the sufferer.

"And when He had spoken this, He saith, Follow Me." Here again He alludeth to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, "How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?" I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.

For 'most excellent Theophilus' Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence - as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter

(super. Matt.) It is not easy to find any ready to pass at once from this life; and so he says to Peter, When thou art old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hand.

Thus Peter, the first of the apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome.

We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross.

Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's!

And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record, the archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem. We read the lives of the Cæsars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, [John 21:18] when he is made fast to the cross.

The Lord, having spoken to Peter about love for Himself, also foretells to him the martyrdom that he will endure. He says this in order to show that if He asks him about love, He asks not out of distrust toward him, but out of confidence that he loves, for how can he not love who will even be martyred for Him? He asked in order to more fully reveal the love of Peter himself and to teach all others that if we desire to love Him, we must prove our love for Him through care for the brethren. How then does He foretell his martyrdom? Listen. "When you were young, you girded yourself," and so forth. "Since," He says, "you love Me and have more than once promised to lay down your life for Me in times of danger, be at peace; I will fulfill your desire, so that what you did not suffer in your youth, you will suffer in your old age." He reminds him of his former life in order to show that the spiritual and the carnal stand in inverse relation. In worldly affairs the young man is useful, while the one who has grown old is useless; in spiritual affairs, on the contrary, the struggle is more glorious when old age has come. He says this with the aim of stirring up his love and inflaming him for martyrdom. He also hints to him that he too will be crucified. For the words "you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you" indicate nothing other than being stretched out on the cross and being bound. By the words "when you were young" and again "but when you grow old," he shows that Peter at that time was neither young nor old, but a man in his prime. Why did the Lord tell him that "another will gird you and lead you where you do not wish"? Although Peter desired martyrdom, and desired it ardently, the Lord's words point to the sympathy of our nature for life and to the fact that the soul is reluctant to part from the body. For God so arranged it, and arranged it for our benefit, so that we would not kill ourselves. Therefore no one, even if he be a saint, puts off the body without feeling.

Above, our Lord entrusted the office of shepherd to Peter. Now he foretells his martyrdom. This was pertinent because a good shepherd should lay down his life for his sheep (10:11). It was not granted to the young Peter to lay down his life for Christ; but rather to the old Peter to lay down his life for his sheep. This is what Christ foretold to him. Christ first tells of Peter's past life; then he predicts the end of his future life (v 18). Thirdly, the Evangelist explains our Lord's words (v 19).

Peter's past life showed certain shortcomings, for as a young man he was too presumptuous and self‑willed. But this is characteristic of the young, as the Philosopher says in his Rhetoric. Thus we read in Ecclesiastes (11:9) a kind of reproach: "Rejoice, O young man, in your youth, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth; walk in the ways of your heart and the sight of your eyes." Our Lord refers to this trait of Peter and says, When you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would. He says, you girded yourself, that is, you restrained yourself from certain unlawful and superfluous things, but walked where you would, not allowing yourself to be kept in check by anyone. That is why you always wanted to be in danger for my sake. But it was not granted to you that you suffer for me when young, but when you are old I will fulfill your desire because you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you. What a wondrous prediction! It gives both the time and the suffering. From the time these words were spoken until Peter's death, about thirty‑seven years went by. We can see from this that Peter was quite old.

According to Chrysostom, he says, when you are old, because human affairs are different than divine affairs: in human affairs the young are useful, and the old are not of much use; but in divine matters virtue is not taken away by old age, rather it sometimes becomes even stronger: "My old age is exalted in abundant mercy" (Ps 92:10); "As the days of your youth, so shall your old age be" (Deut 33:25). But this is to be understood only of those who have practiced virtue in their youth, as Cicero says. For those who have passed their youth in idleness will become of little or no value when old. This also teaches us that we rarely find rulers and teachers who are useful to the Church dying young, as Origen remarks in his explanation of Matthew (25:19): "Now after a long time the master of those servants came." He gives Paul as an example. In Acts (7:58) Paul is seen as "a young man," but in Philemon (1:9) he is "an old man." The reason for this is that people of this caliber are so rare, that when they are found, the Lord preserves them to a ripe old age.

He mentions the way he will suffer when he says, you will stretch out your hands, for Peter was crucified. Yet he was crucified using ropes, not nails, so he would not die so quickly. This is the girding spoken of by Christ.

Three things can be considered in the sufferings of the saints. First, there is a natural affection: there is such a natural love between the soul and the body that the soul never desires to be separated from the body, nor the body from the soul: "For while we are still in this tent, we sigh with anxiety; not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed" (2 Cor 5:4); "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death" (Mt 26:38). This is why Christ says, where you do not wish to go, that is, by the impulse of nature, which is so rooted in nature that even old age could not destroy it in Peter. Yet, the desire due to grace weakens this: "My desire is to depart and be with Christ" (Phil 1:23); "We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:8). Secondly, the intentions of the persecutors and the saints are different, and carry you where you do not wish to go. Thirdly, we see that we should be prepared to suffer, but not to kill ourselves. Thus Christ says, you will stretch out your hands. This clearly was the case with Peter: for when the people wanted to rebel against Nero and deliver Peter, he forbade it: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example" (1 Pet 2:21).

The words another will gird you rightly come before and carry you, the thought being that another will gird you because he will carry you where you do not wish to go. Lest one think this statement was lightly written, it was written after the death of Peter. Peter was killed during Nero's lifetime; and John wrote this Gospel after he returned from the exile to which he had been banished during the reign of Domitian, there being several other emperors between Nero and Domitian.

Peter accomplished later on by the grace of God what he had previously been unable to do by self-reliance. You see, after the Lord had entrusted him with his, not Peter's sheep, to feed them, not for himself but for the Lord, he told him about his future martyrdom, which he had forfeited the first time because he had been in much too much of a hurry. "When you are older," he said, "someone else will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go. He said this, though, to signify by what death he was going to glorify the Lord." It came about that Peter arrived at his martyrdom, having washed away his denial with his tears. What had been promised him by the Savior could not be taken away from him by the tempter.

He said, "Follow me," but not in the same way as when he had previously called the disciples. Then too, certainly, he said, "Follow me." But then it was to school he was summoning them; now it is to the prize giving.

Why is it said to Peter, "Follow me," and not to the others who were likewise present? Surely the disciples followed Him also as their Master. But if it is to be understood only in reference to his suffering, was Peter the only one that suffered for the truth of Christianity? Was there not present there amongst those seven, another son of Zebedee, the brother of John, who, after His ascension, is plainly recorded to have been slain by Herod? But some one may say that, as James was not crucified, it was properly enough said to Peter, "Follow me," inasmuch as he underwent not only death, but, like Christ, even the death of the cross.

It is no unimportant question why the Lord, when He manifested Himself for the third time to the disciples, said unto the Apostle Peter, "Follow me;" but of the Apostle John, "Thus I wish him to remain till I come, what is that to thee?" When the Lord, then, had announced beforehand to Peter by what death he was to glorify God, "He saith unto him, Follow me. Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; who also leaned on His breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that shall betray Thee? Peter, therefore, seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what [of] this man? Jesus saith unto him, Thus do I wish him to remain till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me."

There are two states of life, therefore, preached and commended to herself from heaven, that are known to the Church, whereof the one is in faith, the other in sight; one in the temporal sojourn in a foreign land, the other in the eternity of the [heavenly] abode; one in labor, the other in repose; one on the way, the other in the fatherland; one in active work, the other in the wages of contemplation; one declines from evil and makes for good, the other has no evil to decline from, and has great good to enjoy; the one fights with a foe, the other reigns without a foe; the one is brave in the midst of adversities, the other has no experience of adversity; the one is bridling its carnal lusts, the other has full scope for spiritual delights; the one is anxious with the care of conquering, the other secure in the peace of victory; the one is helped in temptations, the other, free from all temptations, rejoices in the Helper Himself; the one is occupied in relieving the indigent, the other is there, where no indigence is found; the one pardons the sins of others, that its own may be pardoned to itself, the other neither has anything to pardon nor does aught for which pardon has to be asked; the one is scourged with evils that it may not be elated with good things, the other is free from all evil by such a fullness of grace that, without any temptation to pride, it may cleave to that which is supremely good; the one discerneth both good and evil, the other has only that which is good presented to view: therefore the one is good, but miserable as yet; the other, better and blessed. This one was signified by the Apostle Peter, that other by John.

The whole of the one is passed here to the end of this world, and there finds its termination, the other is deferred for its completion till after the end of this world, but has no end in the world to come. Hence it is said to the latter, "Follow me;" but of the former, "Thus I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." For what means this last? So far as my wisdom goes, so far as I comprehend, what is it but this, Follow thou me by imitating me in the endurance of temporal evils; let him remain till I come to restore everlasting good? And this may be expressed more clearly in this way: Let perfected action, informed by the example of my passion, follow me; but let contemplation only begun remain [so] till I come, to be perfected when I come. For the godly plenitude of patience, reaching forward even unto death, followeth Christ; but the fullness of knowledge tarrieth till Christ come, to be manifested then.

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

(Tract. cxxiii) He who denied and loved, died in perfect love for Him, for Whom he had promised to die with wrong haste. It was necessary that Christ should first die for Peter's salvation, and then Peter die for Christ's Gospel.

(Tract. cxxiv) Our Lord having foretold to Peter by what death he should glorify God, bids him follow Him. And when He had spoken this, He saith unto him, Follow Me. Why does He say, Follow Me, to Peter, and not to the others who were present, who as disciples were following their Master? Or if we understand it of his martyrdom, was Peter the only one who died for the Christian truth? Was not James put to death by Herod? Some one will say that James was not crucified, and that this was fitly addressed to Peter, because he not only died, but suffered the death of the cross, as Christ did.

Now this, namely that you will stretch out your hands, he said, signifying by what death he would glorify God: because by the death of the cross, which, although before Christ it was to be held in contempt, afterwards became glorious: and by this Peter was made glorious. Whence Augustine says: "That denier, both lifted up by presumption, cast down by denying, afterwards purged by weeping, proved by confessing, was crowned by suffering." By this Peter glorified the Lord, just as Paul said in Philippians 1: "Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death." And because the passion is not good unless it is voluntary: therefore he exhorts Peter to suffer voluntarily: and for this reason he says: And when he had said this, he says to him, that is, to Peter: Follow me, come voluntarily to the passion of the cross, according to what Peter himself says in First Peter 2: "Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you might follow his steps." Concerning this following or imitation, the Lord said to Peter above in chapter thirteen: "Where I go, you cannot come now; but you shall follow afterwards."

It is asked about what he says: Signifying by what death he would glorify God, because above in chapter five: I do not receive glory from men; therefore, since Peter was a man, he did not glorify God. I respond: It must be said that although God is not glorified in himself, he is nevertheless glorified to us in his Saints who suffer for his glory, because through this it becomes known to us how much must be suffered for the love of God by the example of the Saints.

It is asked about the fact that the Lord specially says to Peter: You, follow me; because if it is understood by way of perfection, many others followed; if by way of passion, likewise; if by the kind of death, Andrew also followed. And it is answered here according to some that you does not indicate distinction absolutely there, but only in respect to John, about whom the discourse was. Or it must be said that you indicates there more significance than distinction: for since Peter was the head of the Church and the chief prelate, just as he excelled in prelacy, so also he ought to excel in imitation.

The Lord did not hand over his little flock to its pastor until he had received genuine pledges. He received the threefold [confession] that [Simon] had professed as trustworthy pledges for the three [denials]. Therefore, when his Master said [to him], "Do you love me?" our Lord was wanting to receive from him his true love so that, after having given the pledge of his love, [Simon] might receive [Jesus'] sheep as a flock. When [the Lord] saw that his mouth was confessing and that his tears were a seal, he gave him the reward reserved for pastors, namely, death, since this is the crown of victory of the pastors and their shepherds. [The Lord] was not able to give Simon the allotted portion of death until he had received from him [the pledge of] his love. For in the same way our Lord would not have given his life for his little flock if it had not been on account of his love for it.

[Nero] publicly announced himself as the first among God's chief enemies and so was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: "But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church." And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans in the following words: "You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in the same way in Italy and suffered martyrdom at the same time." I have quoted these things in order that the truth of the history might be still more confirmed.

If equanimity be the contention, you have Lycurgus choosing death by self-starvation, because the Lacons had made some emendation of his laws: the Christian, even when he is condemned, gives thanks. If the comparison be made in regard to trustworthiness, Anaxagoras denied the deposit of his enemies: the Christian is noted for his fidelity even among those who are not of his religion.

The Evangelist, according to his custom, adds in explanation of the words: "This he said, signifying by what death Peter would glorify God." Jesus said to Peter "you will stretch out your hands" and so forth, signifying that he would suffer martyrdom for Him. He calls Peter's death the glory of God, because suffering for Him unto death is truly the glory of God. For if the soul is not fully convinced that He is the true God, then a man will not die for Him. And therefore the death of the saints is a confirmation of the glory of God. The Lord entrusted to Peter the care of all believers. For if James received the throne in Jerusalem, Peter received it in the whole world. After this the Lord says to him: "Follow Me," showing His care for him and His great affection toward him. By "following," understand here both diligence in all deeds and words. For those follow Him who walk in the footsteps of His life and imitate His uprightness in all things. Perhaps He commands Peter to follow Him physically as well, showing, as I said, His special affection for him. For we make those who are close to us our followers.

Peter hearing that he was to suffer death for Christ, asks whether John was to die: Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on His breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth Thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

i. e. Shall he not die?

Or let him say, Christ did not deny that John was to die, for whatever is born dies; but said, I will that he tarry till I come, i. e. to live to the end of the world, and then he shall suffer martyrdom for Me. And therefore they confess that he still lives, but will be killed by Antichrist, and will preach Christ's name with Elias. But if his sepulchre be objected, then they say that he entered in alive, and went out of it afterwards.

When our Lord says to Peter, Follow Me, He confers upon him the superintendence over all the faithful, and at the same time bids him imitate Him in every thing, word and work. He shows too His affection for Peter; for those who are most dear to us, we bid follow us.

Some have understood, Till I come, to mean, Till I come to punish the Jews who have crucified Me, and strike them with the Roman rod. For they say that this Apostle lived up to the time of Vespasian, who took Jerusalem, and dwelt near when it was taken. Or, Till I come, i. e. till I give him the commission to preach, for to you I commit now the pontificate of the world: and in this follow Me, but let him remain till I come and call him, as I do thee now.

John mentions this as something in the future, saying, This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God, for the death of the saints gives glory to Christ: "Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death" (Phil 1:20); "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief... yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God" (1 Pet 4:15). Indeed, the greatness of the Lord is shown by the fact that the saints brave death for his truth and faith.

After the Evangelist showed what our Lord had in mind for Peter, he now tells about John. First, we see the commendation of the disciple, John; secondly, his gospel is commended (v 25). In regard to the first, we see the occasion for John's commendation; and then the commendation itself, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

The occasion for John's commendation was Christ's invitation to Peter to follow him. And after he said this to him, that is, after Christ told Peter about his office and martyrdom, he said to him, Jesus said to Peter, Follow me. For Augustine, this means follow me in martyrdom, by suffering for me; for it is not enough just to suffer in some way, but this must be done by following Christ, that is, by suffering for his sake: "Blessed are you when men hate you... on account of the Son of man" (Lk 6:22); "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21).

Many others who were present would also suffer for Christ, especially James, who was the first to be killed: "He killed James the brother of John with the sword" (Acts 12:2). Why then does Christ say to Peter in particular, Follow me? The reason, according to Augustine, was that Peter not only suffered death for Christ, but also followed Christ even in the kind of death, that is, death by the cross: "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Mt 16:24). Or, according to Chrysostom, in saying Follow me, Christ means in your office as prelate, leader. He was saying in effect: As I have the care of the Church, received from my Father ‑ "Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage" (Ps 2:8) ‑ so will you be, in my place, over the whole Church.

But after Christ's ascension, why did James hold first place in Jerusalem? We can say that James had a special jurisdiction over that place, but Peter had the universal authority over the whole Church of believers.

The Lord either said what he said to Peter about his martyrdom, or he said it about the gospel of John. As regards the martyrdom and this "Follow me," [he means] suffer for me, suffer what I did. Because Christ was crucified, Peter too was crucified … while John experienced none of this. That is what is meant by, "It is thus that I wish him to remain." Let him fall asleep without wounds, without torment, and wait for me. You, Peter, "Follow me," suffer what I did. That's one way these words can be explained.…As regards the Gospel of John, though, this is what I think is meant: that Peter wrote about the Lord, others too wrote; but their writing was more concerned with the Lord's humanity.… But while there is something about the divinity of Christ in Peter's letters, in John's gospel it is very much to the fore.… He soared above the clouds and soared above the stars, soared above the angels, soared above every creature and arrived at the Word through which all things were made.

"Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple dieth not: yet Jesus said not unto him, He dieth not; but, Thus do I wish him to remain till I come, what is that to thee?" You see the great extent in this Gospel of a question which, by its depth, must exercise in no ordinary way the mind of the inquirer. For why is it said to Peter, "Follow me," and not to the others who were likewise present? Who can readily believe that anything else was meant than what the brethren who lived at the time believed, namely, that that disciple was not to die, but to abide in this life till Jesus came? But John himself removed such an idea, by giving a flat contradiction to the report that the Lord had said so. For why should he add, "Jesus saith not, He dieth not," save to prevent what was false from taking hold of the hearts of men?

(Tract. cxxiv.) Or perhaps he will allow that John still lies in his sepulchre at Ephesus, but asleep, not dead; and will give us a proof, that the soil over his grave is moist and watery, owing to his respiration. But why should our Lord grant it as a great privilege to the disciple whom He loved, that he should sleep this long time in the body, when he released Peter rent the burden of the flesh by a glorious martyrdom, and gave him what Paul had longed for, when he said, I have a desire to depart and be with Christ? If there really takes place at John's grave that which report says, it is either done to commend his precious death, since that had not martyrdom to commend it, or for some other cause not known to us. Yet the question remains, Why did our Lord say of one who was about to die, I will that he tarry till I come? It may be asked too why our Lord loved John the most, when Peter loved our Lord the most? I might easily reply, that the one who loved Christ the more, was the better man, and the one whom Christ loved the more, the more blessed; only this would not be a defence of our Lord's justice. This important question then I will endeavour to answer. The Church acknowledges two modes of life, as divinely revealed, that by faith, and that by sight. The one is represented by the Apostle Peter, in respect of the primacy of his Apostleship; the other by John: wherefore to the one it is said, Follow Me, i. e. imitate Me in enduring temporal sufferings; of the other it is said, I will that he tarry till I come: as if to say, Do thou follow Me, by the endurance of temporal sufferings, let him remain till I come to give everlasting bliss; or to open out the meaning more, Let action be perfected by following the example of My Passion, but let contemplation wait inchoate till at My coming it be completed: wait, not simply remain, continue, but wait for its completion at Christ's coming. Now in this life of action it is true, the more we love Christ, the more we are freed from sin; but He does not love us as we are, He frees us from sin, that we may not always remain as we are, but He loves us heretofore rather, because hereafter we shall not have that which displeases Him, and which He frees us from. So then let Peter love Him, that we may be freed from this mortality; let John be loved by Him, that we may be preserved in that immortality. John loved less than Peter, because, as he represented that life in which we are much more loved, our Lord said, I will that he remain (i. e. wait) till I come; seeing that that greater love we have not yet, but wait till we have it at His coming. And this intermediate state is represented by Peter who loves, but is loved less, for Christ loves us in our misery less than in our blessedness: and we again love the contemplation of truth such as it will be then, less in our present state, because as yet we neither know nor have it. But let none separate those illustrious Apostles; that which Peter represented, and that which John represented, both were sometime to be.

(Tract. cxxiv) Jesus saith unto him, What is that to thee? and He then repeats, Follow thou Me, as if John would not follow Him, because he wished to remain till He came; Then went this saying abroad among the disciples, that that disciple should not die. Was it not a natural inference of the disciple's? But John himself does away with such a notion: Yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? But if any so will, let him contradict, and say that what John says is true, viz. that our Lord did not say that that disciple should not die, but that nevertheless this was signified by using such words as John records.

Jesus says to him. Here thirdly Peter is assured that John would not suffer, through the Lord's response, in which he reveals the truth, to satisfy the question, and rebukes curiosity, to correct the one asking. He reveals the truth when he says: Jesus says to him: Thus I wish him to remain until I come: Bede: "Thus, that is, to await the last day without the violence of persecution": he responds to the one asking. When he says: What is it to you? Follow me, he rebukes him for the curiosity of the question: whence Chrysostom: "What is it to you, if I wish him to remain thus? Attend to the things that are your own, and be solicitous about these": Sirach 3: "Do not be curious about his many works, but think always on those things which he has commanded you"; and therefore he repeats: Follow me, as if to say: think about this and be solicitous about this.

It is asked about what he says: Thus I will him to remain until I come. Therefore it seems that at least until the Lord's coming his soul has not been separated from his body: for after that, nothing is established from the text: therefore it seems that John has not yet died: and as evidence for this is the fact that his body is not found. I respond: It must be said that besides the first interpretation of the disciples, which they made, which the Evangelist himself refutes — namely that he would not die — there are three other interpretations. One is that he has not died, but will die at the coming of the Lord: but for now he is in slumber beneath the earth, and therefore his body is not to be found. — But this position is improbable: because it is not to be believed that the Lord would defer for so long showing his glory to the disciple whom he loved, which glory the Apostle desired, in Philippians 1: I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ. Another opinion is that the Lord assumed him in body and soul, and in that assumption he died and rose again. — Even if this opinion cannot be so easily disproved, nevertheless, because it lacks authority, it is dismissed with the same ease with which it is proved. The third opinion says that John died, and asserts nothing about his body, because nothing certain is found. But what was said: Thus I will him to remain until I come, that is, "to await the last day not of the age, but of his own death, when I myself coming shall receive him into the dwelling of eternal blessedness."

The inspired Evangelist points to himself obscurely, but still sufficiently to indicate who is meant. For he it was who was the beloved disciple, and who leaned upon Christ's Breast at the last Supper, and asked who it was that should betray Him. Peter, then, observing him, longed for information, and sought to know in what perils he would be involved in the time to come, and in what way his life would end. But the question seemed unseemly, and it appeared to savour rather of a meddlesome and inquisitive spirit, that, after having learnt what was to happen unto himself, he should seek to know the future fate of others. For this cause, then, I think the Lord makes no direct reply to his question or inquiry, but, diverting the aim of the questioner, does not say that John will not die, but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? That is to say, Thou hast heard, O Peter, the things concerning thyself, what need is there for thee to ask questions about others, and to seek to fathom out of season the knowledge of the Divine decrees. For if he never die at all, He says, what consolation will this be to thy heart? The man who is wise and prudent, then, if he is doomed to die, will not trouble himself as to whether another will be saved alive or not; for it will be enough for him to suffer his own doom, and he will receive no comfort at all from the misfortune or good cheer of another. The passage is fraught with some such meaning as this. Peter's speech here seems to imply that the blessed Peter anxiously desired to know what was destined to be John's fate, as he would have considered it a consolation in his own sufferings if John were surely fated to, die by torture, either of the same or of some other kind. And do not be amazed at this, but rather take the following thought into consideration. It is common to us, however profitless it be, to like at times not to be seen to be the only ones who are suffering, or who are destined to undergo some dreadful fate, but to prefer to hear that others have either suffered it already or are expected to suffer it in the future.

Antony was confused as he meditated upon the depths of God's judgements, and he asked God, 'Lord, how is it that some die young and others grow old and sick? Why are there some poor and some rich? Why are there those who are bad and rich and oppress the good poor?' He heard a voice saying to him, 'Antony, worry about yourself; these other matters are up to God, and it will not do you any good to know them.'

I will that he tarry, i. e. I will not that he suffer martyrdom, but wait for the quiet dissolution of the flesh, when I shall come and receive him into eternal blessedness.

Since he spake from strong affection, and wishing not to be torn away from him, Christ, to show that however much he might love, he could not go beyond His love, saith, "If I will that he tarry - what is that to thee?" By these words teaching us not to be impatient, nor curious beyond what seemeth good to Him. For because Peter was ever hot, and springing forward to enquiries such as this, to cut short his warmth, and to teach him not to enquire farther, He saith this.

However, inasmuch as they were now going to have the care of the world committed to them, and could not remain together without injury to their charge, our Lord says, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? as if to say, Attend to the work committed to thee, and do it: if I will that he abide here, what is that to thee?

Knowing that Peter cared about John and did not wish to be separated from him, the Lord, in order to put an end to their untimely union and attachment to one another, says: "You have been entrusted with a task; carry it out and follow Me, as I lead you out to preach and place the whole world in your hands. But if I wish him to remain here, in the vicinity of Galilee, and do not wish to send him together with you, what is that to you?" The words "till I come" some understood thus: until I come upon the Jews who crucified Me, to punish them by means of the Romans and destroy their city. For they say that this apostle (John) remained in the highland regions almost until the reign of Vespasian, preaching and dwelling there, and before the capture of Jerusalem he withdrew from there. So then, since a great task was being entrusted to them — the preaching of the Gospel — they no longer needed to be together with one another, but to go separately, one to some people, and the other to others.

Christ's answer is given, So it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Notice that the Greek text does not have "So" but If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Yet the difference is not too important, for whatever the expression, the meaning understood by the apostles from the beginning was that John was not going to die. So it is my will that he remain until I come, was for them the same as saying, John will not die until I come.

But this interpretation is rejected by what follows: yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, So it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?

Those who defend the first interpretation, claim that John added this not to exclude the first interpretation but to show that our Lord did not convey that meaning by these words, but only by the words, So it is my will that he remain. This is the reason they say that John has not yet died.

There are various opinions about John's burial. All say that it is true that he was buried in a tomb which still exists. But some say he entered his tomb while still alive, and then left it by divine power, transported to the region of Enoch and Elias, and he is being kept there until the end of the world. According to this, the meaning is: So it is my will that he remain alive until the end of the world; and then, under the Antichrist, he will be martyred along with those other two. For it is not right that he should not die, for whatever is born dies: "It is appointed for men to die once" (Heb 9:27).

Others say he entered his tomb at Ephesus alive, and he remains there still alive, but sleeping, until the Lord comes. They base their theory on the fact that the soil there moves up and down in rhythm with John's breathing. Augustine rejects this by saying that it is not as good to be alive and sleeping as to be alive and blessed. Why then would Christ reward the disciple he loved above the others with a long sleep and deprive him of that great good for the sake of which the apostle wanted to be dissolved and to be with Christ (Phil 1:23). Thus, we should not believe this. Rather, we should say that he died and arose with his body indicated by the fact that his body cannot be found ‑ and remains happy with Christ, as Christ invited him: "He who testifies to these things says, Surely I am coming soon" (Rev 22:20).

Augustine explains this passage mystically. Then the word remain means "continue on," or "persist," as in "Remain in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high" (Lk 24:49). Consequently, our Lord is saying about John, that is, about the contemplative life, So it is my will that he remain, that is, continue on, until I come, either at the end of the world, or at the death of any contemplative; for the contemplative life although begun here is not completed here. It remains incomplete and continues on till Christ comes to complete it: "Then they were... told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren should be complete" (Rev 6:11); "Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her" (Lk 10:42); "Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor" (Prv 3:16). Meanwhile, the active life, completed and vivified by the example of Christ's passion, follows him by suffering for him.

Chrysostom understands it this way: So it is my will that he remain, that is, to remain in Judea, and to preach on this earth; and I want you, Peter, to follow me by having a concern for the entire world, and by suffering for me; and John is to remain until I come, to destroy the Jewish nation. What is that to you? means "These things are for me to decide." For we do see from history that John did not leave Judea until Vespasian came to Judea and took Jerusalem; then John set out for Asia.

Then there is the interpretation of Jerome: Follow me! Peter, by your martyrdom; and so, now speaking about John, it is my will that he remain, without the sufferings of martyrdom and death, until I come, to call him to myself ‑ "I will come again and take you to myself" (14:3) ‑ what is that, this privilege, to you? And so in the stories about blessed John it is said that when he was ninety years old our Lord Jesus Christ appeared to him and invited him to his banquet.

There is, then, nothing for us to fear in death, nothing for us to mourn, whether life, which was received from nature be rendered up to it again, or whether it is sacrificed to some duty that claims it, and this will be either an act of religion or the exercise of some virtue. And no one ever wished to remain as at present. This has been supposed to have been promised to John, but it is not the truth. We hold fast to the words and deduce the meaning from them. He himself in his own writing denies that there was a promise that he should not die, that no one from that instance might yield to an empty hope. But if to wish for this would be an extravagant hope, how much more extravagant would it be to grieve without rule for what has happened according to rule!

This saying therefore went out among the brethren. Here fourthly the understanding of the believers is corrected, that John would simply not die: whence he says: That that disciple does not die, against that verse of the Psalm: "Who is the man that shall live and not see death." And Jesus did not say. Here the correction of that saying is set forth, because Jesus did not say this, namely that he does not die; he did not say: He does not die, because, as is said in Ecclesiastes 9, "there is no one who lives forever": but: Thus I wish him to remain until I come: what is it to you? This is to be read and expounded in a qualified sense, as above.

"Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not that he shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" "Do not thou on any account suppose," He saith, "that I order your matters after a single rule." And this He did to withdraw them from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together; for assuredly this would have been a great loss to the world. Wherefore He saith unto him, "Thou hast had a work entrusted to thee, look to it, accomplish it, labor and struggle. What if I will that he tarry here? Look thou to and care for thine own matters."

And observe, I pray thee, here also the absence of pride in the Evangelist; for having mentioned the opinion of the disciples, he corrects it, as though they had not comprehended what Jesus meant. "Jesus said not," he tells us, "that he shall not die, but, If I will that he tarry."

John underwent death, although concerning him there had prevailed an unfounded expectation that he would remain alive until the coming of the Lord.

Even John underwent death, although concerning him there had prevailed an ungrounded expectation that he would remain alive until the coming of the Lord. Heresies, indeed, for the most pan spring hurriedly into existence, from examples furnished by ourselves: they procure their defensive armour from the very place which they attack.

Peter turned to the secret decision of providence and saw from a distance the disciple John, son of thunder, who followed slowly, admiring the great and sublime promise made by our Lord to Peter.… Since John lived long, that is, seventy-three years after the ascension of the Lord to the time of Trajan, and died after all the other apostles in peace and serenity by natural death, the Lord alludes to this by saying, If I want him to live long enough so that he may remain until my return, you do not need to investigate this. Only pay attention to what is yours, that is, take care of your work and follow me.

Look, please, at the modesty of the evangelist, with what care he corrects the mistaken understanding of many who did not comprehend what the Lord said about him, but thought that he would not die. This was not the case; the Lord did not say that he would not die, but that he would not preach at the same time as Peter, but would remain after him. "Until I come," that is, until I wish to bring him out to preach as well. I am now sending you out to care for the whole world, and you follow Me, but let him remain here until I come again and bring him out too, just as I did you. Some understand it this way: Peter, having heard that he would die for Christ, said, "What about John? Will he not also die?" Christ did not deny this, for everyone who is born will also die, but said, "If I want him to remain, that is, to live until the end of the world and then become a martyr for Me." Hence they also say that he is alive and will be put to death by the Antichrist, when together with Elijah he will preach Christ. If they point to his tomb, what of it? He entered it alive and was then translated, like Enoch and Elijah. So, the Evangelist refutes the false opinion of those who thought that this disciple would not die, but would be immortal: for it is an outright lie that a man could be immortal. Although Enoch and Elijah did not die, nevertheless they are mortal. So too he, although he has not died, will die. Therefore the understanding of the words "will not die" in the sense that he would be immortal, is false. Others assert that he died, and they understand the words "if I want him to remain" in the way we explained above. We have presented all opinions so that none would be unknown to the curious. In our opinion, the words "that he remain until I come" are better understood not as referring to life, but to separation from Peter, as the illustrious and golden-mouthed John understood it.

Then the Evangelist shows how the disciples understood these words of our Lord. They thought that John would not die. The saying spread abroad among the brethren, the disciples ‑ "Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" (Ps 133:1) ‑ that this disciple, John, was not to die. But he corrects this error, saying, Yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die: "Are you also still without understanding?" (Mt 15:16). The rest has been explained.

Doctrine that is of God, then, is one thing; doctrine that is human is another. So when the Jews, regarding him as man, called into question his teaching and said, "How does this man have such learning when he has never been taught?" Jesus answered and said, "My teaching is not mine." For in teaching without elegance of letters, he seems to teach not as [a] man but rather as God who, instead of learning his doctrine, originated it. For he has found and devised the entire way of discipline, as we have read above, inasmuch as of the Son of God it has been said, "This is our God; no other can be compared with him. He has uncovered the whole way of knowledge and shown it to his servant Jacob and to Israel, whom he loved. Only then did [Wisdom] appear on earth and live among human beings." How, then, could he, as divine, not have his own doctrine—he who has found the entire way of discipline before he was even seen on earth?

How then did the Lord answer those that were marvelling how He knew letters which He had not learned? "My doctrine," saith He, "is not mine, but His that sent me." This is the first profundity. For He seems as if in a few words He had spoken contraries. For He says not, This doctrine is not mine; but, "My doctrine is not mine." If not Thine, how Thine? If Thine, how not Thine? For Thou sayest both: both, "my doctrine;" and, "not mine." For if He had said, This doctrine is not mine, there would have been no question. But now, brethren, in the first place, consider well the question, and so in due order expect the solution. For he who sees not the question proposed, how can he understand what is expounded? The subject of inquiry, then, is that which He says, "My, not mine" this appears to be contrary; how "my," how "not mine"? If we carefully look at what the holy evangelist himself says in the beginning of his Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" thence hangs the solution of this question. What then is the doctrine of the Father, but the Father's Word? Therefore, Christ Himself is the doctrine of the Father, if He is the Word of the Father. But since the Word cannot be of none, but of some one, He said both "His doctrine," namely, Himself, and also, "not His own," because He is the Word of the Father. For what is so much "Thine" as Thyself? And what so much not Thine as Thyself, if that Thou art is of another?

The Word then is God; and it is also the Word of a stable, unchangeable doctrine, not such as can be sounded by syllables and fleeting, but abiding with the Father, to which abiding doctrine let us be converted, being admonished by the transitory sounds of the voice. For that which is transitory does not so admonish us as to call us to transitory things. We are admonished to love God. All this that I have said were syllables; they smote through the air to reach your sense of hearing, and by sounding passed away: that, however, which I advise you ought not so to pass away, because He whom I exhort you to love passes not away; and when you, exhorted in transient syllables, shall have been converted, you shall not pass away, but shall abide with Him who is abiding. There is therefore in the doctrine this great matter, this deep and eternal thing which is permanent: whither all things that pass away in time call us, when they mean well and are not falsely put forward. For, in fact, all the signs which we produce by sounds do signify something which is not sound. For God is not the two short syllables "Deus," and it is not the two short syllables that we worship, and it is not the two short syllables that we adore, nor is it to the two short syllables that we desire to come-two syllables which almost cease to sound before they have begun to sound; nor in sounding them is there room for the second until the first has passed away. There remains, then, something great which is called "God," although the sound does not remain when we say the word "God." Thus direct your thoughts to the doctrine of Christ, and ye shall arrive at the Word of God; and when you have arrived at the Word of God, consider this, "The Word was God," and you will see that it was said truly, "my doctrine:" consider also whose the Word is, and you will see that it was rightly said, "is not mine."

Therefore, to speak briefly, beloved, it seems to me that the Lord Jesus Christ said, "My doctrine is not mine," meaning the same thing as if He said, "I am not from myself." For although we say and believe that the Son is equal to the Father, and that there is not any diversity of nature and substance in them, that there has not intervened any interval of time between Him that begets and Him that is begotten, nevertheless we say these things, while keeping and guarding this, that the one is the Father, the other the Son. But Father He is not if He have not a Son, and Son He is not if He have not a Father: but yet the Son is God from the Father; and the Father is God, but not from the Son. The Father of the Son, not God from the Son: but the other is Son of the Father, and God from the Father. For the Lord Christ is called Light from Light. The Light then which is not from Light, and the equal Light which is not from Light, are together one Light not two Lights.

If we have understood this, thanks be to God; but if any has not sufficiently understood, man has done as far as he could: as for the rest, let him see whence he may hope to understand. As laborers outside, we can plant and water; but it is of God to give the increase. "My doctrine," saith He, "is not mine, but His that sent me." Let him who says he has not yet understood hear counsel. For since it was a great and profound matter that had been spoken, the Lord Christ Himself did certainly see that all would not understand this so profound a matter, and He gave counsel in the sequel. Dost thou wish to understand? Believe. For God has said by the prophet: "Except ye believe, ye shall not understand." To the same purpose what the Lord here also added as He went on "If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from myself." What is the meaning of this, "If any man be willing to do His will"? But I had said, if any man believe; and I gave this counsel: If thou hast not understood, said I, believe. For understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand; since, "except ye believe, ye shall not understand." Therefore when I would counsel the obedience of believing toward the possibility of understanding, and say that our Lord Jesus Christ has added this very thing in the following sentence, we find Him to have said, "If any man be willing to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." What is "he shall know"? It is the same thing as "he shall understand." But what is "If any man be willing to do His will"? It is the same thing as to believe. All men indeed perceive that "shall know" is the same thing as "shall understand:" but that the saying, "If any man be willing to do His will," refers to believing, all do not perceive; to perceive this more accurately, we need the Lord Himself for expounder, to show us whether the doing of the Father's will does in reality refer to believing. But who does not know that this is to do the will of God, to work the work of God; that is, to work that work which is pleasing to Him? But the Lord Himself says openly in another place: "This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent." "That ye believe on Him," not, that ye believe Him. But if ye believe on Him, ye believe Him; yet he that believes Him does not necessarily believe on Him. For even the devils believed Him, but they did not believe on Him. Again, moreover, of His apostles we can say, we believe Paul; but not, we believe on Paul: we believe Peter; but not, we believe on Peter. For, "to him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted unto him for righteousness." What then is "to believe on Him"? By believing to love Him, by believing to esteem highly, by believing to go into Him and to be incorporated in His members. It is faith itself then that God exacts from us: and He finds not that which He exacts, unless He has bestowed what He may find. What faith, but that which the apostle has most amply defined in another place, saying, "Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by love?" Not any faith of what kind soever, but "faith that worketh by love:" let this faith be in thee, and thou shalt understand concerning the doctrine. What indeed shalt thou understand? That "this doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me;" that is, thou shalt understand that Christ the Son of God, who is the doctrine of the Father, is not from Himself, but is the Son of the Father.

This sentence overthrows the Sabellian heresy. The Sabellians have dared to affirm that the Son is the very same as He who is also the Father: that the names are two, but the reality one. If the names were two and reality one, it would not be said, "My doctrine is not mine." Anyhow, if Thy doctrine is not Thine, O Lord, whose is it, unless there be another whose it is? The Sabellians understand not what Thou saidst; for they see not the trinity, but follow the error of their own heart. Let us worshippers of the trinity and unity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and one God, understand concerning Christ's doctrine, how it is not His. And He said that He spoke not from Himself for this reason, because Christ is the Son of the Father, and the Father is the Father of Christ; and the Son is from God the Father, God, but God the Father is God not from God the Son.

(Tract. xxix. s. 3) Mine is not mine, appears a contradiction; why did He not say, This doctrine is not Mine? Because the doctrine of the Father being the Word of the Father, and Christ Himself being that Word, Christ Himself is the doctrine of the Father. And therefore He calls the doctrine both His own, and the Father's. A word must be a word of some one's. What is so much Thine as Thou, and what is so much not Thine as Thou, if what Thou art, Thou art of another. His saying then, My doctrine is not Mine own, seems briefly to express the truth, that He is not from Himself; it refutes the Sabellian heresy, which dares to assert that the Son is the same as the Father, there being only two names for one thing.

(de Trin. i. c. xi) Or thus: In one sense He calls it His, in another sense not His; according to the form of the Godhead His, according to the form of the servant not His.

(Tract. xxix. s. 6) Should any one however not understand this, let him hear the advice which immediately follows from our Lord: If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself. What meaneth this, If any man will do His will? To do His will is to believe on Him, as He Himself says, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent. (c. 6:29) And who does not know, that to work the work of God, is to do His will? To know is to understand. Do not then seek to understand in order to believe, but believe in order to understand, for, Except ye believe, ye shall not understand. (Is. 7:9. Vulg.)

"Jesus answered them." Christ's response, by which he satisfies their amazement, showing that he does not have knowledge through acquisition, as other men have, but from his origin. On account of which he says: "My doctrine," namely that which I teach, "is not mine," that is, not from me, or for my glory, or acquired by me, "but his who sent me," that is, from the Father, who sent me. For all things which the Son has, he receives from the Father: above in chapter five: "I cannot do anything of myself," and so neither can I teach anything.

It is asked concerning what he says: "My teaching is not my own:" Because thus it is removed from himself, and therefore it seems false. Likewise, how does this satisfy the Jews? Because similarly I could say the same thing, that my teaching is not from me but from God, since "all wisdom is from the Lord God."

Chrysostom responds that he says his teaching was not devised by himself, but is from the Father; whence the sense is: my teaching, namely that which I teach, is not my own, but is from the Father.

And in this he answers their question, by sending them to the Father, and calms their fury through humility; whence the teaching was his own, because he is wisdom itself by essence; but he said it was not his own, because he received it from another.

But why did he not simply say: I am wisdom itself, but rather humbled himself? Chrysostom assigns five reasons: the first, to show that he is from another and is the Son, not unbegotten. The second, to show that he is not contrary to God, as the Antichrist will be, who "will exalt himself above all that is called God." Third, to show that he is a true man. Fourth, on account of the weakness of the hearers. Fifth, to teach humility, according to that passage in Romans 11: "Be not highminded."

Otherwise it is answered that this contradiction is resolved according to the rule of Augustine, by looking to the twofold nature, so that the sense is: my doctrine according to the Divinity is not mine according to the humanity. That is called "ours" which has been acquired by us, and thus it satisfies the question.

In the third way, emphasis is placed on that which is "mine;" "mine" signifies the freedom of possessing and the principle of producing, as "my field, my book," which I made. But this can be said in two ways: either absolutely or distinctively, just as both "of me" and "to me." Speaking absolutely, therefore, that doctrine was Christ's, who freely possessed it, and from him it flowed forth to the hearers. But it was not distinctively Christ's alone, because this same doctrine was also the Father's, and also this same doctrine was from the Father.

Or I answer otherwise: there is a threefold "mine": "mine" according to nature or origin, "mine" according to the divine nature or the human, "mine" absolutely or distinctively.

For of the prophets it is said, "We have all received of His fulness," that is, of Christ's. So that the prophets are not thieves. "And my doctrine is not Mine," saith the Lord, "but the Father's which sent me." And of those who steal He says: "But he that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory." Such are the Greeks, "lovers of their own selves, and boasters." Scripture, when it speaks of these as wise, does not brand those who are really wise, but those who are wise in appearance.

We shall find that indeed true that is written by one of the wise men, The Spirit of the Lord hath filled the world, and the ear of hearing heareth all things. But to those who of utter folly, yea rather of blasphemy, suppose that ought they utter will escape the Divine Mind, the Godlike Psalmist says, Understand, ye brutish among the people, and ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, heareth He not? for how could it possibly happen that He should not surely hear all things, who implanteth the sense of hearing into them that were made by Him?

See therefore in this too again that the Lord is by Nature God. For the secret whispers of the Jews in the crowd He is not ignorant of; He receives them into His Ears in God-befitting way, albeit from fear of the rulers they say nothing openly concerning Him. And when on one occasion certain of those who had rushed together into the temple, marvelled and were reasoning (as is like) or gently saying one to another, How knoweth This Man letters not having learned? needs does He again show Himself Equal to God the Father Who learneth nothing at all, but hath the knowledge of all things by Nature and without learning, because He surpasseth all understanding and soareth above all wisdom that is in things that are. It was then possible for Him from other things too, to show and to assure His hearers, that whatsoever things are in the Father, these also are in Him, by reason of Identity of Nature: which thing also He used to do in other things also, from being able to do the same things and having like Operation unto all things, mounting up unto Equal Dignity: for what things soever the Father doeth, these (He saith) doth the Son too likewise, and again, For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, so the Son too quickeneth whom He will.

But here it was (I suppose) seasonable and most suitable, to make a demonstration of the most necessary points. For His discourse about wisdom and learning without letters was made with those who had been considering these things. It behoved Him then to show that this existed in Him, just as in the Father. What then is the mode of proof? From His having Equality of wisdom with Him, even though according to true and wise reasoning, He most surely is Himself Wisdom and of God the Father, to Whom in all things like, He says He teaches the same things with Him, without any distinction. For either on account of the exact likeness of His doctrine to that of the Father, does He say that it is the Father's, or because He is Himself the Wisdom of the Father, through Which He speaketh and ordereth all things, does He say that the doctrine too is His: yet something else besides doth He dispense, contributing not slightly to the salvation of His pupils. For since they seeing a Man, on account of the flesh which was of earth received not the word as being of God, and therefore seemed to be sick of a plausible unbelief, profitably doth He attribute the teaching to God the Father, yet saying what was true, and from fear of their being fighters against God, if they held out any longer against the decrees from above, persuading them to receive His words.

But we must know that by His saying again that He was sent, He does not show that He is second in Dignity to the Father. For we must not imagine a mission befitting a servant, even though because clad in servant's form He might rightly say even this of Himself. But He was sent as Word from Mind, as the Sun's radiance from itself. For these I suppose are processions from those things in which they are, from their appearing to issue forth, yet exist they naturally and immovably in those things whence they are. For we ought not, because word issues forth from mind, and radiance from the sun, therefore at all to suppose that the things which produced are left of those which have gone forth of them, but rather we shall see both those in these, and these again existing in the former. For mind will never be word-less, nor yet word again without the mind fashioned therein. Analogously to this, shall we conceive of the other also.

Jesus says that his teaching belongs to God the Father either because Jesus' teaching is exactly like that of God the Father or because Jesus himself is the wisdom of the Father, through which the Father speaks and orders all things.

"My doctrine is not Mine." Again He answereth to their secret thoughts, referring them to the Father, and so desiring to stop their mouths.

But how is the doctrine His and not His? For He said not, "This doctrine is not Mine"; but having first said, "it is Mine," and having claimed it as His own, He then added, "it is not Mine." How then can the same thing be both "His" and not "His"? It is "His," because He spake it not as one who had been taught; and it is "not His," because it was the doctrine of the Father. How then saith He, "All that is the Father's is Mine, and Mine His"? (c. xvii. 10.) "For if because the doctrine is the Father's, it is not thine, that other assertion is false, for according to that it ought to be thine." But the "is not Mine," affords a strong proof that His doctrine and the Father's are one; as if He had said, "It hath nothing different, as though it were another's. For though My Person be different, yet so do I speak and do as not to be supposed to speak or do anything contrary to the Father, but rather the very same things that the Father saith and doeth."

Although it would have been better for them to conclude from this that there was nothing merely human in Him, since they did not wish to acknowledge this, He Himself answers them and teaches that His teaching is from the Father and God. "Nothing is Mine," He says. "Of Myself, contrary to God, I say nothing, but what belongs to the Father, that is what I speak."

Having been told of the place and opportunity which Christ had to reveal the origin of his spiritual teaching, we now see the origin of this teaching. First, he shows them that God is the source of this spiritual teaching; secondly, he invites them to accept it (v 37). As to the first, he does two things. First, he shows the origin of this teaching; secondly, the origin of the one teaching it (v 25). He does two things about the first. First, he shows the origin of this teaching; secondly, he answers an objection (v 19). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows the origin of this teaching; secondly, he proves that it comes from God (v 17).

He says, Jesus answered and said. As if to say: You are wondering where I gained my knowledge; but I say, My doctrine is not mine. If he had said: "The doctrine that I am presenting to you is not mine," there would be no problem. But he says: My doctrine is not mine; and this seems to be a contradiction. However, this can be explained, for this statement can be understood in several ways. Our Lord's doctrine can in some sense be called his own, and in some sense not his own. First, we can understand Christ as the Son of God. Then, since the doctrine of anyone is nothing else than his word, and the Son of God is the Word of God, it follows that the doctrine of the Father is the Son himself. But this same Word belongs to himself through an identity of substance. "What does belong to you, if not you yourself?" However, he does not belong to himself through his origin. As Augustine says: "If you do not belong to yourself (because you are from another), what does?" This seems to be the meaning, expressed in summary fashion, of: My doctrine is not mine. As if to say: I am not of myself. This refutes the Sabellian heresy, which dared to say that the Son is the Father.

Or, we could understand it as meaning that My doctrine, which I proclaim with created words, is not mine, but his who sent me, i.e., it is the Father's; that is, my doctrine is not mine as from myself, but it is from the Father: because the Son has even his knowledge from the Father through an eternal generation. "All things have been given to me by my Father" (Mt 11:27).

Secondly, we can understand Christ as the Son of Man. Then he is saying: My doctrine, which I have in my created soul, and which my lips proclaim, is not mine, i.e., it is not mine as from myself, but from God: because every truth, by whomever spoken, is from the Holy Spirit.

Thus, as Augustine says in The Trinity (Bk 1), our Lord called this doctrine his own from one point of view, and not his own from another point of view. According to his form of God, it was his own; but according to his form of a servant, it was not his own. This is an example for us, that we should realize that all our knowledge is from God, and thank him for it: "What do you have which you have not been given? And if you have been given it, why do you glory as if you have not been given it?" (1 Cor 4:7).

And because this response was not manifest except to those who hear rightly — and these are those who hear in order to act — for this reason he says: "If anyone wills to do his will," namely of God the Father, "he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God, or whether I speak of myself;" because otherwise he cannot truly know either me or my doctrine. Therefore it is said in 1 John 2: "He who says that he knows God and does not keep his commandments is a liar." And thus it is commendable from its origin, and it is also commendable from its end, in this, that in teaching he does not seek his own glory.

You discount them in order to think more accurately. But you can't think at all — and therefore, of course, can't think accurately — if you have nothing to think about. A physiologist, for example, can study pain and find out that it 'is' (whatever is means) such and such neural events. But the word pain would have no meaning for him unless he had 'been inside' by actually suffering. If he had never looked along pain he simply wouldn't know what he was looking at. The very subject for his inquiries from outside exists for him only because he has, at least once, been inside.

This case is not likely to occur, because every man has felt pain. But it is perfectly easy to go on all your life giving explanations of religion, love, morality, honour, and the like, without having been inside any of them. And if you do that, you are simply playing with counters. You go on explaining a thing without knowing what it is. That is why a great deal of contemporary thought is, strictly speaking, thought about nothing — all the apparatus of thought busily working in a vacuum.

One speaks in one way of the truth, in another way the truth interprets itself. The guessing at truth is one thing, and truth itself is another. Resemblance is one thing, the thing itself is another. And the one results from learning and practice, the other from power and faith. For the teaching of piety is a gift, but faith is grace. "For by doing the will of God we know the will of God." "Open, then," says the Scripture, "the gates of righteousness; and I will enter in, and confess to the Lord." But the paths to righteousness (since God saves in many ways, for He is good) are many and various, and lead to the Lord's way and gate. And if you ask the royal and true entrance, you will hear, "This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter in by it." While there are many gates open, that in righteousness is in Christ, by which all the blessed enter, and direct their steps in the sanctity of knowledge.

We ought uncritically and without all doubt to receive the words of the Truth, and to believe that a thing once said, cannot be otherwise than as it was declared to be. But He permits not His saying to be without proof, on account of the unbelievers, but introduces a most evident and exceeding clear solution, tempering with much skill the fashion of His words. And what the skill is, what the order of the economy, we will again say. They were seeking to kill Him on account of the paralytic, him (I mean) that was healed on the sabbath day. Gently then does He alike scare them from their dreadful purpose against Him, and clearly does He convict those who are travailing with their blood-thirsty purpose against Him, that they were choosing to fulfil their own lust rather than the will of the Law-giver. For then (saith He) shall ye know perfectly of My doctrine, that it is of God the Father, when ye shall choose to follow His Will rather than your own. But the Will of the Law-giver and of God, is to abstain wholly from murder. Then, then (He saith) shall ye, not holden beforehand by unjust hatred, nor thrust forth in brutish guise to no seasonable anger, know clearly, whether the word of My teaching is of God, or whether I am speaking of Myself. Having therefore interwoven reproof with profit, He with justice accuses them, for that they unreasonably mock at what He teaches, though God the Father consenteth and co-willeth, or what also is true, co-teacheth and co-interpreteth. But He puts Of Myself, for, Privately and wholly severed from being after the Co-Will and Purpose of the Father. And I do not suppose any person of sound mind will think that He accuses His own words of being spurious, but says that they will never be otherwise than in accordance with the Will of God the Father. For He speaks by His own Word and Wisdom, His Own Offspring; but That speaks not at all diversely from Himself, for how could It?

He tells them, You will fully know that "my doctrine" comes from God the Father when you choose to follow his will rather than your own.… He justly accuses them because they unreasonably mock what he teaches, even though God the Father consents and agrees with what he is teaching, and (what is also true) even co-teaches and co-interprets [with Jesus] … No person of sound mind would ever think that Jesus here casts aspersions on his own words. Rather, he is saying that his words will never be anything other than in agreement with the will of God the Father. For the Father speaks by his own Word and Wisdom and offspring. But that [offspring] in no way speaks differently from the [Father]. How could it?

"If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself." What He saith is this, "Cast out from yourselves the malice and wrath and envy and hatred which has without cause been conceived against Me, then there is nothing to hinder you from knowing that My words are indeed the words of God. For at present these things cast a darkness over you, and destroy the light of right judgment, while if ye remove them this shall no longer be your case." Yet He spake not (plainly) thus, (for so He would have confounded them exceedingly,) but implied it all by saying, "He that doeth His will shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God, or whether I speak of Myself"; that is, "whether I speak anything different and strange and contrary to God." For, "of Myself" is always put with this meaning, that "I say nothing except what seemeth good to Him, but all that the Father willeth, I will also."

"If any man do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." What meaneth, "If any man do His will?" "If any man be a lover of the life which is according to virtue, he shall know the power of the sayings." "If any man will give heed to the prophecies, to see whether I speak according to them or not."

Having said that My teaching is not Mine, that is, not contrary to God, but the teaching of My Father, He says that whoever does the will of God, that is, whoever makes himself at home with virtue and is not a slave to envy and is not darkened by groundless hatred against Me, that person will know the power of My words — whether I speak from the Father, or something foreign and contrary to Him. He who does the will of God is the one who delves into the Scriptures and the prophets. Such a person can learn concerning the Lord's teaching that it is from God. For the prophets portray the Lord not as an opponent of God who speaks of Himself, but as One who speaks and does all such things as are pleasing to God.

Then he proves that his doctrine is from God. And he does this in two ways: first, from the judgment of those who correctly understand such matters; and secondly, from his own intention (v 18).

With respect to the first, we should note that when there is a question whether someone is performing well in some art, this is decided by one who has experience in that art; just as the question whether someone is speaking French well should be decided by one who is well versed in the French language. With this in mind, our Lord is saying: The question whether my doctrine is from God must be decided by one who has experience in divine matters, for such a person can judge correctly about these things. "The sensual man does not perceive those things that pertain to the Spirit of God. The spiritual man judges all things" (1 Cor 2:14). Accordingly, he is saying: Because you are alienated from God, you do not know whether a doctrine is from God. If anyone wants to do his will, that is, the will of God, he can know whether this doctrine is from God, or whether I am speaking on my own (a meipso). Indeed, one who is speaking what is false is speaking on his own, because "When he lies, he speaks on his own," as we read below (8:44).

Chrysostom explains this text in another way. The will of God is our peace, our love, and our humility; thus Matthew (5:9) says: "Happy are the peacemakers, because they will be called sons of God." But the love of controversy often distorts a person's mind to such an extent that he thinks that what is really true is false. Thus, when we abandon the spirit of controversy, we possess more surely the certitude of truth. "Answer, I entreat you, without contention, and judge, speaking what is just" (Jb 6:29). So our Lord is saying: If anyone wishes to judge my doctrine correctly, let him do the will of God, i.e., abandon the anger, the envy and the hatred which he has for me without reason. Then, nothing will prevent him from knowing whether this doctrine is from God, or whether I am speaking on my own, i.e., whether I am speaking the words of God.

Augustine explains it this way. It is the will of God that we know his works, just as it is the will of a head of a household that his servants do his works. The work of God is that we believe in him whom he has sent: "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he sent" (above 6:29). Thus he says: If anyone wants to do his will, that is, God's will, which is to believe in me, he will know whether this doctrine is from God: "If you do not believe, you will not understand," as that other version of Isaiah (7:9) says.

"He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory:" This will be he who is called Antichrist, "exalting himself," as the apostle says, "above all that is called God, and that is worshipped." The Lord, declaring that this same it is that will seek his own glory, not the glory of the Father, says to the Jews: "I am come in my Father's name, and ye have not received me; another will come in his own name, him ye will receive." He intimated that they would receive Antichrist, who will seek the glory of his own name, puffed up, not solid; and therefore not stable, but assuredly ruinous. But our Lord Jesus Christ has shown us a great example of humility: for doubtless He is equal with the Father, for "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" yea, doubtless, He Himself said, and most truly said, "Am I so long time with you, and ye have not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Yea, doubtless, Himself said, and most truly said, "I and the Father are one." If, therefore, He is one with the Father, equal to the Father, God from God, God with God, coeternal, immortal, alike unchangeable, alike without time, alike Creator and disposer of times; and yet because He came in time, and took the form of a servant, and in condition was found as a man, He seeks the glory of the Father, not His own; what oughtest thou to do, O man, who, when thou doest anything good, seekest thy own glory; but when thou doest anything ill, dost meditate calumny against God? Consider thyself: thou art a creature, acknowledge thy Creator: thou art a servant, despise not thy Lord: thou art adopted, not for thy own merits; seek His glory from whom thou hast this grace, that thou art a man adopted; His, whose glory He sought who is from Him, the Only-begotten. "But He that seeketh His glory that sent Him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him." In Antichrist, however, there is unrighteousness, and he is not true; because he will seek his own glory, not His by whom he was sent: for, indeed, he was not sent, but only permitted to come. Let us all, therefore, that belong to the body of Christ, seek not our own glory, that we be not led into the snares of Antichrist. But if Christ sought His glory that sent Him, how much more ought we to seek the glory of Him who made us?

(Tract. xxix. s. 8) He who seeketh his own glory is Antichrist. But our Lord set us an example of humility, in that being found in fashion as a man, He sought His Father's glory, not His own. Thou, when thou doest good, takest glory to thyself, when thou doest evil, upbraidest God.

"He who speaks of himself seeks his own glory;" but he who seeks his own glory is a liar, because he usurps what belongs to another: Isaiah 48: "I will not give my glory to another"; but I in teaching do not seek my own glory, but I seek the glory of him who sent me; therefore my doctrine is true. For this reason he says: "But he who seeks the glory of him who sent him, he is true, and there is no injustice in him." Christ sought the glory of his Divinity, not of his humanity, because to him all glory is due: 1 Timothy 1: "To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory," etc. "He is just and true," because conversely, to usurp another's honor for oneself is falsehood and injustice. So the Antichrist will usurp, of whom it is said in 2 Thessalonians 2: "He will be exalted and lifted up above all that is called God."

He giveth this evident proof that He doth not labour for His Own glory by His teaching, that He does not use any strange words and foreign to the law (for this were to speak of Himself), but that He is exhorting them rather to be obedient to the former oracles, while He removes only the unprofitable and gross shadow of the letter, and transforms it persuasively unto the spiritual sense, which already lay hid in types. What then He says in the Gospel according unto Matthew, I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil; this again He indirectly intimates here. For the Gospel polity hath but the transformation of the letter into the truth, and having transfashioned the Mosaic type unto what is more fitting, hath the knowledge of the worship in spirit. Christ therefore speaketh and not of Himself, that is, nothing diverse from the things already foretold. For He doth not put away Moses, nor doth He teach us to reject the instruction of the law, but over what had been shadowed out in type, as it were some brighter tint to overlay the Truth. Very skilfully acquiring the good will of the Jews, does He offer the honour and glory to God the Father. For since the Jews knowing not the Word that had appeared from God the Father, were supposing that the Law had been given by the Father only, with reason did He affirm that He was glorified by the keeping of the Law, and endured the contrary if it were not kept as it ought. But even though the Son is partaker of the glory of the Father, and through Him had God the Father spoken to Moses, He yet assents to their opinions economically. But in that He speaks nothing of Himself that does not agree with the law, He confesses that not surely His own glory is it that He is zealous to build up, but that due to the Law.

Besides this, this too must be observed. For indirectly and darkly, He finds fault with the Jews who are falling into those very things which they ignorantly blame, and are accustomed to snatch at glory for themselves rather than God the Lord of all: and how, I will tell. For they falling away from the commandments of the law, were borne each to what liketh him, teaching, as it is written, for doctrines the commandments of men. For this again well does Christ convict them as transgressors, and as sinning against the |481 very Law-giver, in that they persuaded their hearers not to live after His ordinances, but rather to give heed to their doctrines. Therefore, albeit Christ says still indefinitely and absolutely, He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory, He is reproving the disease of the madness of the Pharisees, in that through their chusing to speak rather their own words, they are stealing the glory of the Lawgiver, and transferring to themselves the things due to God, they thence shun not at length to seek to kill Him. On which account specially convicts He them of transgressing, excusing themselves duly under the pretence that: they were zealous to keep the law, and thereby honour God the Father.

But he that seeketh (saith He) His Glory That sent Him, This one is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him. As he who doth not seek rather the honour of God but his own, is not true, but most exceedingly unjust: for he is not true, seeing he slandereth the Law, and bringeth in his own will in its place; most unjust too, in that he thrusteth aside the righteous judgment of the Lawgiver, and putteth his own above his Lord's. Righteous then and true is Christ, obnoxious to none of the aforesaid charges.

The fact that Jesus does not teach anything foreign to the law is clear proof that he does not labor for his own glory through his teaching, for if he did, he would speak of himself. Rather, he is exhorting them to be obedient to the former prophecies while he removes only the unprofitable and coarse shadow of the letter and transforms it persuasively into the spiritual sense, which already lay hidden in types. Here, Christ intimates what he says in the Gospel according to Matthew, "I came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it."

"He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory." That is, "He that desireth to establish any doctrine of his own, desireth to do so only that he himself may enjoy the glory. Now if I desire not to enjoy glory, wherefore should I desire to establish any doctrine of My own? He that speaketh of himself, that is, who speaketh anything peculiar or different from others, speaketh on this account, that he may establish his own glory; but if I seek the glory of Him that sent Me, wherefore should I choose to teach other things?" Seest thou that there was a cause wherefore He said there too that He "did nothing of Himself"? (c. v. 19, and viii. 28.) What was it? It was that they might believe that He desired not the honor of the many. Therefore when His words are lowly, "I seek," He saith, "the glory of the Father," everywhere desiring to persuade them that He Himself loveth not glory.

Now there are many reasons for His using lowly words, as that He might not be deemed unbegotten, or opposed to God, His being clothed with flesh, the infirmity of His hearers, that He might teach men to be modest, and to speak no great thing of themselves: while for speaking lofty words one could only find one reason, the greatness of His Nature. And if when He said, "Before Abraham was, I am" (c. viii. 58), they were offended, what would have been their case if they had continually heard high expressions?

If, he says, I wanted to avert you from God and draw you to me, it would have been evident that I was teaching you a doctrine contrary to God. But since I lead you to him through my words, it is clear and evident that these words that are said to you are just and that those who want to reprove them as sinful words have no reason to do so.

Then He adds another argument as well, namely: he who speaks of himself, that is, wishes to introduce his own teaching, does this for no other reason than to acquire glory for himself through it. But I do not desire to acquire glory for Myself, but seek the glory of Him who sent Me. Why then would I teach that which is foreign to Him? Therefore, I am true, and there is no unrighteousness in Me, that is, I do not appropriate to Myself the glory belonging to another, which would be unjust. Thus My teaching possesses both truth and righteousness. It does not proceed from ambition, so as to be false and unjust. For the ambitious man both lies, saying of himself things that exceed his worth, and commits unrighteousness, appropriating to himself glory that is another's and in no way belongs to him. But the Lord seeks glory for the Father and ascribes nothing to Himself. Clearly, He is true and righteous. We have said many times already, and will say now, that when the Lord says something humble about Himself, one should not think that He speaks this way because He is supposedly lower than the Father by His Nature, but He speaks this way so that He would not be considered an opponent of God, out of condescension to the weakness of His listeners, because He was clothed in flesh, and in order to teach us humility, so that we would not say anything great about ourselves. But when the Lord speaks lofty things and about His own glory, then we must believe that He speaks so exaltedly about Himself because of the greatness of His Nature, for He is equal to the Father in Essence.

As if He said, I speak the truth, because My doctrine containeth the truth: there is no unrighteousness in Me, because I usurp not another's glory.

Then when he says, Whoever speaks on his own seeks his own glory, he proves the same thing from his intention. And he presents two intentions through which we can recognize the two sources of a doctrine. Some are said to speak on their own, and others not on their own. Now whoever strives to speak the truth does not speak on his own. All our knowledge of the truth is from another: either from instruction, as from a teacher; or from revelation, as from God; or by a process of discovery, as from things themselves, for "the invisible things of God are clearly known by the things that have been made" (Rom 1:20). Consequently, in whatever way a person acquires his knowledge, he does not acquire it on his own. That person speaks on his own who takes what he says neither from things themselves, nor from any human teaching, but from his own heart: "They proclaim a vision taken out of their own hearts" (Jer 23:16); "Woe to those foolish prophets who prophesy out of their own hearts" (Ez 13:3). Accordingly, when a person devises a doctrine on his own he does it for the sake of human glory: for, as we see from Chrysostom, a person who wishes to present his own private doctrine does so for no other purpose than to acquire glory. And this is what our Lord says, proving that his doctrine is from God: Whoever speaks on his own, about a certain knowledge of the truth, which is really from another, seeks his own glory. It is for this reason, and because of pride, that various heresies and false opinions have arisen. And this is a characteristic of the antichrist "who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or is worshipped" (2 Thes 2:4).

But the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him, as I do—"I do not seek my own glory" (below 8:50)—is truthful, and there is no injustice in him. I am truthful because my doctrine contains the truth; there is no injustice in me because I do not appropriate the glory of another. As Augustine says: "He gave us a magnificent example of humility when, in the form of a man, he sought the glory of the Father, and not his own. O man, you should do the same! When you do something good, you seek your glory; when you do something evil, you insult God." It is obvious that he was not looking for his own glory, because if he had not been an enemy of the chief priests, he would not have been persecuted by them. So Christ, and everyone who is looking for the glory of God, has knowledge in his intellect, "Master, we know that you are truthful" (Mt 22:16): thus he says, he is truthful. And he has the correct intention in his will: thus he says, and there is no injustice in him. For a person is unjust when he takes for himself what belongs to another; but glory is proper to God alone; therefore, he who seeks glory for himself is unjust.

The passage of the holy Gospel of which we have before discoursed to you, beloved, is followed by that of to-day, which has just now been read. Both the disciples and the Jews heard the Lord speaking; both men of truth and liars heard the Truth speaking; both friends and enemies heard Charity speaking; both good men and bad men heard the Good speaking. They heard, but He discerned; He saw and foresaw whom His discourse profited and would profit. Among those who were then, He saw; among us who were to be, He foresaw. Let us therefore hear the Gospel, just as if we were listening to the Lord Himself present: nor let us say, O happy they who were able to see Him! because there were many of them who saw, and also killed Him; and there are many among us who have not seen Him, and yet have believed. For the precious truth that sounded forth from the mouth of the Lord was both written for our sakes, and preserved for our sakes, and recited for our sakes, and will be recited also for the sake of our prosperity, even until the end of the world. The Lord is above; but the Lord, the Truth, is also here. For the body of the Lord, in which He rose again from the dead, can be only in one place; but His truth is everywhere diffused. Let us then hear the Lord, and let us also speak that which He shall have granted to us concerning His own words.

"Did not Moses," saith He, "give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law? Why do ye seek to kill me?" For ye seek to kill me just for this reason, that none of you doeth the law; for if ye did do the law, ye would recognize Christ in its very letters, and ye would not kill Him when present with you.

Or He means to say, that if they kept the law, they would see Him pointed to in every part of it, and would not seek to kill Him, when He came.

The Lord rebukes them for the hidden malice of their heart, because they wished to kill him — against the commandment of the Law; for this reason he says: "Did not Moses give you the Law?" which you are bound to observe by your own promise, according to that passage in Exodus 24: "All things that the Lord has commanded us, we will do." "And none of you keeps the Law?" The Psalm says: "They have all turned aside, they have together become unprofitable: there is none who does good, no, not even one"; because already in your heart you have transgressed it; which he shows by revealing the malice of the heart.

By many devices cometh about the discourse of the Saviour to one aim. For having in the preceding, indirectly blamed (as was meet) the Pharisees who supposed that they ought not to obey the commands from above, but to introduce their own opinions, and were zealous rather to gain honour from those under them, and did not offer it to the Lord of all, but diverted it to their own persons, that thence they were daring to transgress more freely:----He again, in other and severest wise, prepares for them open at length and unveiled reproof. For He being condemned for breach of the sabbath, and enduring the most unjust accusation of lawlessness for this, convicted them not of individually transgressing the law, but that the whole nation of the Jews had made the law of Moses of no account. For tell Me (He saith) ye who condemn the man who is zealous to show mercy on the sabbath day, who have passed foullest censure upon those who do well, and freely condemn the compassionate, hath not the commandment not to murder been delivered you by Moses, whom ye admire? did ye not hear him say, The innocent and righteous slay thou not? why then do ye grieve even your own Moses, by so readily transgressing the Law that was appointed through him? An argument and clear proof of this, is that ye persecute Me who have done no wrong, and are unjustly eager to slay Him who can never be accused of that whereby He should suffer this.

Very pointed then is the Saviour's discourse and most severely herein does He attack the mad folly of the Jews, and show that they who fall as it were with unbridled course unto condemning Him for His transgression of the sabbath, show themselves transgressors, and chusers of murder, and for this cause alone fall into the worst of all sins. He all but cries aloud, The paralytic who had fallen into a bitter and incurable complaint, and who was spent with weakness at length intolerable, I have healed on the sabbath day: but for My well-doing, I am condemned as though I had been taken in the worst of crimes, and for this ye determined murder against Me. What manner of punishment then (He says) shall be devised for you commensurate with such monstrous deeds? for lo, yourselves too are transgressing the law; but the mode of your transgressions, is not of like nature with the charges against Me. For not as well-doers, like Me, are ye persuaded to do this, but with a view to murder, which is worse than all transgression. How then is Moses with you in these things, on whose account I, though a Preserver, am condemned? did not he appoint you the law concerning this? do not ye again, while trampling on My Word, ignore its transgression, by devising murder unjustly? Such things then might Christ well say to the ungodly Pharisees. But He abstracts the Law for the present from His Own Person, although He is Himself the Lawgiver, and attributes it as it were to |483 the Father Alone, by Him specially shaming into silence the shameless Jews, among whom He was considered greater than He. For, as we have often said, they did not yet acknowledge that He is God by Nature, nor did they yet know the deep mystery of the economy with Flesh, but admired rather the glory of Moses.

"Did not Moses give you the Law? and yet none of you keepeth the Law? Why go ye about to kill Me?" The Jews brought against Him two accusations; one, that He broke the Sabbath; the other, that He called God His Father, making Himself equal with God. And that this was no imagination of theirs, but His own declared judgment, and that He spake not as do the many, but in a special and peculiar sense, is clear from this circumstance. Many often called God their Father; as "Have we not all one Father, hath not one God created us?" (Mal. ii. 10), but not for that was the people equal to God, on which account the hearers were not offended. As then when the Jews said, "This man is not from God," He often healed them, and made defense for the violation of the Sabbath; so now had the sense they assigned to His words been according to their imagination, not according to His intention, He would have corrected them, and said, "Why suppose ye Me equal to God? I am not equal"; yet He said nothing of the kind, but, on the contrary, declared by what followed, that He is equal. For, "As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, so also the Son" (c. v. 21); and "That all may honor the Son as they honor the Father"; and "The works which He doeth, the same doeth the Son likewise;" all these go to establish His equality. Again, concerning the Law He saith, "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets." (Matt. v. 17.) Thus He knoweth how to remove evil suspicions which are in their minds; but in this place He not only doth not remove, but even confirmeth their suspicion of His equality. On which account also, when they said in another place, "Thou makest thyself God," He did not remove their suspicion, but even confirmed it, saying, "That ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins, He saith to the sick of the palsy, Take up thy bed, and walk." (Matt. ix. 6.) This then He first aimed at, to make Himself equal with God, showing that He was not God's adversary, but that He said the same and taught the same with Him...

"The Law saith, Thou shalt not kill; but ye kill, and yet accuse Me as transgressing the Law." But wherefore saith He, "None of you"? Because they all sought to kill Him. "And if," He saith, "I even have broken the Law, it was in saving a man, but ye transgress it for evil. And if My action was even a transgression, yet it was in order to save, and I ought not to be judged by you who transgress in the greatest matters. For your conduct is a subverting of the whole Law." Then also He presseth it farther, although He had said many things to them before, but at that former time He spake after a loftier manner, and more suitably to His own dignity, while now He speaketh more humbly. Wherefore? Because He would not continually irritate them. At present their anger had become intense, and they went on to murder. And therefore He continueth to check them in these two ways, by reproving their evil daring, and saying, "Why go ye about to kill Me?" and by modestly calling Himself, "A Man that hath told you the truth" (c. viii. 40), and by showing that murderers in heart are not worthy to judge others.

If, he says, you really defend the law of Moses, prove to me that you actually preserve it, and tell me why you want to kill me: this is contrary to the law more than any other violation.

Apparently, the present words of the Lord have no connection with what was said before; but when we look more closely, they are in close connection. He is accused of violating the Sabbath and transgressing the law. He counters this by saying that rather "they are the transgressors of the law." The law says: "thou shalt not kill" (Exod. 20:13), yet you seek to kill Me. Therefore, you are the transgressors of the law, not I. So then, you allow yourselves to commit injustice, yet you accuse Me of transgressing the law because I healed a man on the Sabbath. The Lord said "none of you acts according to the law," because all those with whom He was speaking sought to kill Him.

Then he answers an objection. For someone could tell Christ that his doctrine was not from God because he broke the sabbath, according to, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the sabbath" (below 9:16). This is what he intends to answer; and he does three things. First, he clears himself, by arguing from the actions of those who are accusing him; secondly, we see their vicious reply (v 20); and thirdly, he vindicates himself with a reasonable explanation (v 21).

He says: Even granting, as you say, that my doctrine is not from God because I do not keep the law, breaking the sabbath, nevertheless, you do not have any reason to accuse me since you do the same thing. Thus he says: Did not Moses give you the law? i.e., did he not give it to your people? And yet none of you obey the law. "You received the law through the angels, and have not kept it" (Acts 7:53). This is why Peter says: "A yoke, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (Acts 15:10). Therefore, if you do not keep the law, why do you want to kill me for not keeping it? You are not doing this because of the law, but out of hatred. If you were acting out of devotion for the law, you would keep it yourselves. "Let us lie in wait for the just man, because he is unfavorable to us, and against our works, and he reproaches us for breaking the law" (Wis 2:12); and a little further on we read: "Let us condemn him to a most shameful death" (Wis 2:20).

Or, it could be explained this way: You do not keep the law that Moses gave you; and this is obvious from the fact that you want to kill me, which is against the law: "You shall not kill" (Ex 20:13). Another explanation, following Augustine, is: You do not keep the law because I myself am included in the law: "If you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me as well, for it was about me that he wrote" (above 5:46). But you want to kill me.

But the Lord, manifestly not disturbed, but calm in His truth, rendered not evil for evil nor railing for railing; although, if He were to say to these men, You have a devil, He would certainly be saying what was true. For they would not have said such things to the Truth, unless the falsehood of the devil had instigated them. What then did He answer? Let us calmly hear, and drink in the serene word: "I have done one work, and ye all marvel." As if He said, What if ye were to see all my works? For they were His works which they saw in the world, and yet they saw not Him who made them all: He did one thing, and they were disturbed because he made a man whole on the Sabbath-day. As if, indeed, when any sick man recovered his health on the Sabbath-day, it had been any other that made such a man whole than He who offended them, because He made one man whole on the Sabbath-day. For who else has made others whole than He who is health itself,-He who gives even to the beasts that health which He gave to this man? For it was bodily health. The health of the flesh is repaired, and the flesh dies; and when it is repaired, death is only put off, not taken away. However, even that same health, brethren, is from the Lord, through whomsoever it may be given: by whose care and ministry soever it may be imparted, it is given by Him from whom all health is, to whom it is said in the psalm, "O Lord, Thou wilt save men and beasts; as Thou hast multiplied Thy mercy, O God." For because Thou art God Thy multiplied mercy reaches even to the safety of human flesh, reaches even to the safety of dumb animals; but Thou who givest health of flesh common to men and beasts, is there no health which Thou reservest for men? There is certainly another which is not only not common to men and beasts, but to men themselves is not common to good and bad. In a word, when he had there spoken of this health which men and cattle receive in common, because of that health which men, but only the good, ought to hope for, he added as he went on: "But the sons of men shall put their trust under the cover of Thy wings. They shall be fully satisfied with the fatness of Thy house; and Thou shalt give them drink from the torrent of Thy pleasure. For with Thee is the fountain of life; and in Thy light shall they see light." This is the health which belongs to good men, those whom he called "sons of men;" whilst he had said above, "O Lord, Thou shall save men and beasts." How then? Were not those men sons of men, that after he had said men, he should go on and say, But the sons of men: as if men and sons of men meant different things? Yet I do not believe that the Holy Spirit had said this without some indication of distinction. The term men refers to the first Adam, sons of men to Christ. Perhaps, indeed, men relate to the first man; but sons of men relate to the Son of man.

(Tr. xxx. s. 3) As if He said, What if ye saw all My works? For all that they saw going on in the world was of His working, but they saw not Him Who made all things. But He did one thing, made a man whole on the sabbath day, and they were in commotion: as if, when any one of them recovered from a disease on the sabbath, he who made him whole were any other than He, who had offended them by making one man whole on the sabbath.

Wherein He left us an example to take it patiently, whenever wrong censures are passed upon us, and not answer them by asserting the truth, though able to do so, but rather by some wholesome advice to the persons; as doth our Lord: Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.

"Jesus answered and said to them: I did one work, and you all marvel." This work was the healing of the paralytic; they marveled at what he had done and were indignant that it was on the Sabbath; above in chapter 5: "The Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the Sabbath," as though he were breaking the Law. Therefore the Lord shows that he did not break the Law, through an argument from the greater, and he makes such an argument: if circumcision, which is not from the Law but from the Fathers, does not break the Sabbath, because it is a noble work, therefore, since the healing of the whole man is a nobler work, much less will it break it.

We will read the verse, as a question, with a comma, and a full stop. But we will not be ignorant of the subtle meaning of the word, replete with a most wise economy. For observe how on relating to the Jews His Loving-kindness to the impotent man, He does not say unguardedly, I have healed the man on the sabbath day, and do ye therefore marvel? but more cautiously and far more heedfully, He says, One work I did, soothing the unseasonable anger of the multitude; for it was not unlikely, that they, cut by the transgression against the sabbath, would even now attempt to stone Jesus. For indiscreet of counsel, according to the Greek poets, and prone to anger is ever the multitude, both applying gentlest accord to whatsoever it is minded to, and easily excited like a bull unto intolerable daring, it is caught more apt than it ought in daring undertakings to dreadful ends. Having therefore put away all boast for their profit's sake, He makes use of the gentlest words and with exceeding moderation He says, One work I did, and do ye all marvel? On account of this one work (He says) although it was wrought for the salvation and life of the prostrate, do ye condemn the mighty Worker thereof, as though for offences truly heinous, and looking only to the honour of the Sabbath, accord not wonder to the miracle? (for this indeed would have been more fitting) but because the commandment of the law has been broken according to your foolish imagination, for no slight or worthless reasons, but for the salvation and life of a man, ye are unreasonably angry, when ye ought rather to praise Him Who is clad with so great and God-befitting power. Untutored then by these things also are the people of the Jews proved to be, expending undue astonishment upon the man that was healed, and not rather offering it to Christ Who miraculously preserveth.

But we must know, that He, in addressing them of Israel and saying, One work I did, and do ye all marvel? again indirectly reproves and makes known something of this kind. For on account of this one (according to you) offence of Mine (He says) ye marvel at My purpose, as though I were bold to thrust aside the Lawgiver: then how deem ye that God feels towards you, who not once merely offend against the Law, but make nothing of transgressing it, in matters for which ye judge others?

The meaning of, "Ye marvel" (Matt. xii. 5) is, "Ye are confused," "are troubled." For if the Law was to be lasting, circumcision would not have been more authoritative than it. And He said not, "I have done a thing greater than circumcision," but abundantly refuteth them...

"I have done one work, and ye all marvel." Observe how He argueth, where it is necessary to defend Himself, and make His defense a charge against them. For with respect to that which had been wrought, He introduceth not the Person of the Father, but His own: "I have done one work." He would show, that not to have done it would have been to break the Law, and that there are many things more authoritative than the Law, and that "Moses" endured to receive a command against the Law, and more authoritative than the Law. For "circumcision" is more authoritative than the Sabbath, and yet circumcision is not of the Law, but of "the fathers." "But I," He saith, "have done that which is more authoritative and better than circumcision." Then He mentioneth not the command of the Law; for instance, that the Priests profane the Sabbath, as He had said already, but speaketh more largely.

That the Jews rise up against the Lord in vain, He proves by the following reasoning. I performed one deed on the Sabbath, healed the paralytic, and because of this all of you marvel, that is, you are troubled, you raise an alarm.

Then when he says, I performed one work, and you are all amazed, our Lord, at peace in his own truth, answers them, and justifies himself with a reasonable explanation. First, he recalls the incident that is troubling them; secondly, he shows that this should not bother them (v 22); and thirdly, he shows the way to a judgment that is just (v 24).

Jesus answered them: I performed one work, and you are all amazed. He does not trade one insult for another, nor rebuff it, because "When he was derided, he did not deride in return" (1 Pt 2:23). He rather recalls for them his cure of the paralytic, which was the cause of their amazement. But their amazement was not one of devotion, as in "Your heart will be amazed and expanded" (Is 60:5), but a kind of agitation and disturbance, as in "Those who see it will be afflicted with terrible fear, and will be amazed" (Wis 5:2). So, if you are amazed over one of my works, i.e., if you are disturbed and troubled, what would you do if you saw all of my works? For, as Augustine says, his works were those which they saw in the world: even all the sick are healed by him. "He sent his word, and healed them" (Ps 106:20); "It was neither a herb nor a poultice that healed them, but your word, O Lord, which heals all" (Wis 16:12). Thus, the reason why you are disturbed is that you have seen only one of my works, and not all of them.

Circumcision was given for three reasons; first, as a sign of Abraham's great faith; secondly, to distinguish the Jews from other nations; thirdly, that the receiving of it on the organ of virility, might admonish us to observe chastity both of body and mind. And circumcision then possessed the same virtue that baptism does now; only that the gate was not yet open. Our Lord concludes: If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at Me because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

"I have done one work, and ye all marvel." And immediately He subjoined: "Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision." It was well done that ye received circumcision from Moses. "Not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers;" since it was Abraham that first received circumcision from the Lord. "And ye circumcise on the Sabbath-day." Moses has convicted you: ye have received in the law to circumcise on the eighth day; ye have received in the law to cease from labor on the seventh day; if the eighth day from the child's birth fall on the seventh day of the week, what will ye do? Will ye abstain from work to keep the Sabbath, or will ye circumcise to fulfill the sacrament of the eighth day? But I know, saith He, what ye do. "Ye circumcise a man." Why? Because circumcision relates to what is a kind of seal of salvation, and men ought not to abstain from the work of salvation on the Sabbath-day. Therefore be ye not "angry with me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath-day." "If," saith He, "a man on the Sabbath-day receiveth circumcision that the law should not be broken" (for it was something saving that was ordained by Moses in that ordinance of circumcision), why are ye angry at me for working a healing on the Sabbath-day?

Perhaps, indeed, that circumcision pointed to the Lord Himself, at whom they were indignant, because He worked cures and healing. For circumcision was commanded to be applied on the eighth day: and what is circumcision but the spoiling of the flesh? This circumcision, then, signified the removal of carnal lusts from the heart. Therefore not without cause was it given, and ordered to be made in that member; since by that member the creature of mortal kind is procreated. By one man came death, just as by one man the resurrection of the dead; and by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin. Therefore every man is born with a foreskin, because every man is born with the vice of propagation; and God cleanses not, either from the vice with which we are born, or from the vices which we add thereto by ill living, except by the stony knife, the Lord Christ. For Christ was the Rock. Now they used to circumcise with stone knives, and by the name of rock they prefigured Christ; and yet when He was present with them they did not acknowledge Him, but besides, they sought to kill Him. But why on the eighth day, unless because after the seventh day of the week the Lord rose again on the Lord's day? Therefore Christ's resurrection, which happened on the third day indeed of His passion, but on the eighth day in the days of the week, that same resurrection it is that doth circumcise us. Hear of those that were circumcised with the real stone, while the apostle admonishes them: "If then ye be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting on the right hand of God; set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." He speaks to the circumcised: Christ has risen; He has taken away from you carnal desires, evil lusts, the superfluity with which you were born, and that far worse which you had added thereto by ill living; being circumcised by the Rock, why do you still set your affections on the earth? And finally, for that "Moses gave you the law, and ye circumcise a man on the Sabbath-day," understand that by this is signified the good work which I have done, in that I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath-day; because he was cured that he might be whole in body, and also he believed that he might be whole in soul.

(Tr. xxx. s. 4) As if He said, Ye have done well to receive circumcision from Moses, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers; for Abraham first received circumcision from the Lord. And ye circumcise on the sabbath. Moses has convicted you: ye received a law to circumcise on the eighth day; and ye received a law to rest on the seventh day. If the eighth day after a child is born happen to be the sabbath, ye circumcise the child; because circumcision appertaineth to, is a kind of sign of, salvation; and men ought not to rest from the work of salvation on the sabbath.

(Tr. xxx. 5) Circumcision also was perhaps a type of our Lord Himself. For what is circumcision but a robbing of the flesh, to signify the robbing the heart of its carnal lusts. And therefore it was not without reason that it was applied to that member by which the mortal creature is propagated: for by one man sin entered into the world. (Rom. 5:12) And therefore every one is born with the foreskin, because every one is born with the fault of his propagation. (vite propagenis) And God does not change us either from the corruption of our birth, or from that we have contracted ourselves by a bad life, except by Christ: and therefore they circumcised with knives of stone, to prefigure Christ, who is the stone; and on the eighth day, because our Lord's resurrection took place on the day after the seventh day; which resurrection circumcises us, i. e. destroys our carnal appetites. Regard this, saith our Lord, as a type of My good work in making a man every whit whole on the sabbath day: for he was healed, that he might be whole in body, and he believed, that he might be whole in mind. Ye are forbidden indeed to do servile work on the sabbath; but is it a servile work to heal on the sabbath? Ye eat and drink on the sabbath, because it is necessary for your health: which shows that works of healing are by no means to be omitted on the sabbath.

"Therefore Moses gave you circumcision, not because it is from Moses, but from the Fathers," that is, not because it was first commanded to him, but to Abraham; Genesis 17: "Every male among you shall be circumcised." "And on the Sabbath you circumcise a man," on account of that which is written in the same place: "An infant of eight days shall be circumcised"; and yet you do not believe you are breaking the Law, but keeping it. From this he argues through an argument from the greater, because it seems more likely that circumcision would break it than perfect healing.

But it is asked here whether circumcision ought to be performed on the Sabbath. And that it should, the Lord seems to say here. And the reason is that it had to be done on the eighth day. But to the contrary: The precept concerning the Sabbath was the greatest among all precepts of the Law and the most frequently repeated; therefore a lesser precept ought to yield to a greater one. Therefore they ought to have refrained from circumcising on the Sabbath.

I respond: It must be said that the precept concerning the Sabbath is great and did not oppose circumcision, because it did not prohibit a work of salvation but of servitude; whence on the Sabbath the Law was expounded, because teaching is a salvific work; and therefore it did not yield to circumcision, but both precepts ran together simultaneously.

It is asked: why was circumcision given before the Law? It must be said that one principal cause of the giving of circumcision was the distinction of the people from whom Christ was to be born from the nations; and because Abraham was first called, to whom the promise was made, therefore it began from him. There are also other causes for the giving of circumcision, why it was given to the people of God rather than another sign: It is a sign of Abraham's faith, a merit of obedience, it distinguishes the people, it heals against original sin, it signifies the eighth day of the resurrection, it teaches chastity.

Of deep meaning is the word, and hard to be reached the purpose of the text, but it will be manifest through the grace of Him That illuminateth. Defeating then by many words the uninstructedness of the Jews, and manifoldly teaching them that they ought not to go off to unseasonable wrath on account of the breach of the sabbath, by reason the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath day: but having at length attained no good effect by reason of the ill-counsel of the hearers, He passes on to another mode of economy, and endeavours to show clearly that the hierophant Moses himself, the minister of the Law, brake the Law of the sabbath on account of the circumcision, which had extended from the custom of the fathers even unto his own times, that he too might with reason be shown to be an observer of the custom of the fathers, and since God works on the sabbath, therefore He revealing Himself too as a worker holds that it is in no wise a transgression of the sabbath, by reason of His being ever like minded with the Father. Wherefore He also said, My Father worketh hitherto and I work. In order then (He saith) that ye, beholding Me working on the sabbath day, may not marvel as at some strange and most monstrous thing, Moses hath given you circumcision on the sabbath, and he was beforehand in breaking the Law respecting it. And why? He did not think he should be doing right, in dishonouring the Law given to the Fathers, and their custom, on account of the sabbath day. Therefore a man is circumcised on the sabbath day too. But if Moses considered that he ought to honour the custom of the fathers, and made that superior to the honour of the sabbath, why are ye vainly troubled at Me, and marvel at Me, as though I were one of those wont heedlessly to transgress the Law, out of contempt for the Law? albeit (He says) I work equally with the Father, and ever agree with Him in every purpose: and since He works on the Sabbath day, well do I refuse to be idle thereon. He says that Moses gave them, circumcision, although it was not of him according to what has been just said, but of the fathers, because the ordinance of circumcision was given to the fathers, but its rites were more definitely and clearly ordered by Moses. For our forefather Abraham was circumcised, but not on the eighth day, nor was a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons offered for him, in accordance with the rites of Moses.

Many sources in Scripture tell us that we should do no work on the sabbath. We are to rest as it were and quit doing all those tasks that invite sweat and labor. For he says in Exodus, "Six years you shall sow your land and gather in the fruit, but in the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie still." … Now, it is not the land—which does not even know what work is—that he releases; nor is it to the land that he gives this law. It was given to those who possessed the land. He gave rest to the land so that they would not work on it. In this and many other ways he pointed toward our feast with Christ, a feast in which those who have lived in divine fear will hurry toward that perfect and complete liberty that is in holiness and will run to that most wealthy grace of the Spirit. This is clear in the commands themselves of Moses. It is written, "If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you." We, who were originally slaves to sin, had, after a fashion, sold ourselves to the devil by taking pleasure in evil. But now, being justified in Christ through faith, we shall mount up to the true and holy keeping of the sabbath, clothed with the liberty that comes through grace and glorified with the good things of God.

It is clear therefore, that He loosed and vivified those who believe in Him as Abraham did, doing nothing contrary to the law when He healed upon the Sabbath-day. For the law did not prohibit men from being healed upon the Sabbaths; [on the contrary,] it even circumcised them upon that day, and gave command that the offices should be performed by the priests for the people; yea, it did not disallow the healing even of dumb animals. Both at Siloam and on frequent subsequent occasions, did He perform cures upon the Sabbath; and for this reason many used to resort to Him on the Sabbath-days. For the law commanded them to abstain from every servile work, that is, from all grasping after wealth which is procured by trading and by other worldly business; but it exhorted them to attend to the exercises of the soul, which consist in reflection, and to addresses of a beneficial kind for their neighbours' benefit. And therefore the Lord reproved those who unjustly blamed Him for having healed upon the Sabbath-days. For He did not make void, but fulfilled the law, by performing the offices of the high priest, propitiating God for men, and cleansing the lepers, healing the sick, and Himself suffering death, that exiled man might go forth from condemnation, and might return without fear to his own inheritance.

For if the Law was to be lasting, circumcision would not have been more authoritative than it.

"Seest thou that the Law is most established when a man breaketh it? Seest thou that the breaking of the Sabbath is the keeping of the Law? that if the Sabbath were not broken, the Law must needs have been broken? so that I also have established the Law." He said not, "Ye are wroth with Me because I have wrought a thing which is greater than circumcision," but having merely mentioned what had been done, He left it to them to judge, whether entire health was not a more necessary thing than circumcision. "The Law," He saith, "is broken, that a man may receive a sign which contributeth nothing to health; are ye vexed and indignant at its being broken, that one might be freed from so grievous a disease?"

For, tell me, did God wish the priests to sin when they offer the sacrifices on the Sabbaths? or those to sin, who are circumcised and do circumcise on the Sabbaths; since He commands that on the eighth day-even though it happen to be a Sabbath-those who are born shall be always circumcised? or could not the infants be operated upon one day previous or one day subsequent to the Sabbath, if He knew that it is a sinful act upon the Sabbaths? Or why did He not teach those-who are called righteous and pleasing to Him, who lived before Moses and Abraham, who were not circumcised in their foreskin, and observed no Sabbaths-to keep these institutions?

Jesus then employs a very convincing argument: Moses, he says, established circumcision and the sabbath and ordered that men were to be circumcised on the sabbath. But Moses established the sabbath out of convenience. Indeed, at that time nobody observed it.… He also established circumcision needlessly because it had been already established by the patriarchs. But he established this rule [about circumcision] too, in order to teach that this observance [of the sabbath] does not exist when there are cases of necessity and that sometimes it must be broken. If the sabbath can be broken for circumcision, because Moses ordered it so—and this is not considered to be a violation of the law—why then do you think the fact that a man was healed on the sabbath is a violation of the law? And, he added, making them ashamed: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." If a transgressor of the law is one who performs something on the sabbath, the first one to be blamed should be Moses. But if Moses is not considered to be a transgressor of the law, my action is the more excellent and I am even more above reproach.

Meanwhile Moses himself, this lawgiver, broke the Sabbath when he commanded that every soul (person) be circumcised on the eighth day (Lev. 12:3). Although circumcision was not from Moses, but from the fathers, nevertheless it, being not from Moses, violated the law concerning the Sabbath given by Moses. For it often happened that the eighth day, on which it was necessary to be circumcised, fell on a Sabbath.

Then he shows that there is no reason why they should be disturbed. First, he recalls the command given to them by Moses; secondly, he states their customary behavior; and thirdly, he presents an argument based on the first two.

The command of Moses was about circumcision; so he says: Therefore, i.e., to signify my works, Moses gave you circumcision. For circumcision was given as a sign, as we read, "it will be a sign of the covenant between me and you" (Gn 17:11). For it signified Christ. This is the reason why it was always done on the genital organ, because Christ was to descend, in his human nature, from Abraham; and Christ is the one who spiritually circumcises us, i.e., both in mind and body. Or, it was done to the genital organ because it was given in opposition to original sin.

We do not find it explicitly stated that Moses gave circumcision, unless in Exodus (12:44): "Every slave who is bought shall be circumcised." And although Moses did tell them to circumcise, he was not the one who established this practice, because he was not the first one to receive the command to circumcise; this was Abraham, as we see from Genesis (17:10).

Now it was the custom among the Jews to circumcise on the sabbath. And this is what he says: you circumcise on the sabbath day. They did this because Abraham was told that a boy should be circumcised on the eighth day: "He circumcised him on the eighth day, as God had commanded him" (Gn 21:4). On the other hand, they were told by Moses not to do any work on the sabbath. But it sometimes happened that the eighth day was a sabbath. And so, in circumcising a boy on that day, they were breaking a command of Moses for a command of the patriarchs.

On the fifth day the land and water brought forth their progenies. On the sixth day the things that were wanting were created; and thus God raised up man from the soil, as lord of all the things which He created upon the earth and the water. Yet He created angels and archangels before He created man, placing spiritual beings before earthly ones. For light was made before sky and the earth. This sixth day is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. For He perfected Adam, whom He made after His image and likeness. But for this reason He completed His works before He created angels and fashioned man, lest perchance they should falsely assert that they had been His helpers. On this day also. on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God, or a fast. On the seventh day He rested from all His works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord's day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that "His soul hateth; " which Sabbath He in His body abolished, although, nevertheless, He had formerly Himself commanded Moses that circumcision should not pass over the eighth day, which day very frequently happens on the Sabbath, as we read written in the Gospel. Moses, foreseeing the hardness of that people, on the Sabbath raised up his hands, therefore, and thus figuratively fastened himself to a cross. And in the battle they were sought for by the foreigners on the Sabbath-day, that they might be taken captive, and, as if by the very strictness of the law, might be fashioned to the avoidance of its teaching.

"If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the Law of Moses may not be broken: are you indignant at me, because I made a whole man well on the Sabbath?" As if to say: since it is lawful and does not break the Sabbath, your indignation is not just, because, according to that passage in Romans 10, "they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge."

It is asked concerning the Lord's argument that circumcision did not break the Sabbath, much less did the healing of the paralytic. This argument seems to have no force: Because circumcision was commanded and could not be deferred, but the healing could have been done on another day. Furthermore, circumcision was a spiritual work insofar as it cleansed from original sin; but that healing was a corporeal work, because the illness was corporeal.

I respond: It must be said that the Law of Moses did not command circumcision but presupposed it as from a more worthy source; whence it is said in Exodus twelve: "If any stranger wishes to pass over into your colony, he shall be circumcised." But the Sabbath was commanded in the Law and did not take away circumcision, which was from the Fathers; therefore much less did it take away healing from God, even though it was not commanded.

To the other objection it must be said that the healing of that paralytic was not only corporeal but also spiritual; whence it was said to him: "Sin no more henceforth." And therefore it is said in the text: "I have made a whole man well," namely interiorly and exteriorly; even granting that it was only exteriorly in the body, nevertheless it was still a work of piety, and certainly the Law regarded works of piety as spiritual. Whence on the Sabbath it was permitted to give alms. For if it was permitted to water a donkey, how much more to give alms, and especially to heal the sick.

CHAPTER VI. A dissertation upon the rest of the Sabbath, manifoldly showing of what it is significant.

The verse is unintelligible to the many and not very clear as to its subdivisions; we will therefore speak of that first. We will therefore read it bit by bit, changing the structure of the verse; for thus you will clearly understand the meaning. If then (He says) a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, are ye angry at Me, that the law of Moses should not be broken, because I made a whole man well on the sabbath day? For a man does not receive circumcision on the sabbath day, that the Law of Moses be not broken: for it is broken when the sabbath is made void by circumcision. For as we taught before, yea rather as the Saviour Himself said, circumcision is not of Moses but of the fathers. So that by reason of the circumcision from the fathers, the Law of Moses is broken, I mean that respecting the sabbath. Therefore we must connect the words, that the Law of Moses should not be broken, to our Saviour's words: for He says, are ye angry at Me, that the Law of Moses should not be broken, because I made a whole man well on the sabbath day? The case of the sub-division then has been now herein settled, we must go to the interpretation of the things signified too, even though they are exceedingly hard to understand. Circumcision, then (He says) is a way of taking care for a man, and it surpasses the ordinance itself of the sabbath. For it was of necessity that the suffering should be made whole. What then is |488 the hindrance, or how will the ordinance of the sabbath reasonably stand in the way of healing the whole body, since it permits already without blame its breach by a partial and slight healing? for a man is circumcised and healed of the wound without blame on the Sabbath day. Vainly then (He says) are ye indignant, to the Worker of the better things objecting the transgression of the Law, when the law is not grieved at being put aside by Moses for a petty circumcision. By these things is enwoven an argument, persuading them to agree that they ought not vainly to be annoyed, since Moses had already been a type thereof, whom they foolishly thought they ought to take the part of, and making no account of his law, were being hurried off to the duty of committing murder.

But since our discourse, which was upon the mention of the sabbath, hath flowed into that of the circumcision, I think that not less profit than is due will accrue to the true searcher after wisdom, through his clearly beholding, what the seventh day rest means, what again is signified by the circumcision on the eighth day, and by his learning in addition, why circumcision is received on the sabbath itself, not enduring to keep the legal-rest: rightly examining each point, as well as I can, I will endeavour to make it clear. The first consideration will be that of the seventh day, or sabbath, and its rest. For so will the enquiry into what follows be most convenient. Therefore let us enquire into the first appointed law on this subject, how and in what manner it arose.

For when God brought Israel out of the bondage in Egypt unto their original and ancient freedom, by the hand of the all-wise Moses, and having miraculously brought them through the midst of the sea, with foot somehow dry and unwetted, commanded them to hasten on unto the land of promise, at length, accustoming them of necessity to purify themselves beforehand and cleanse themselves, He called them to an assembly in mount Sinai: and having descended upon it in the likeness of fire, He gave them decrees unto salvation, saying, I am the LORD thy God, Which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods but Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any image nor any likeness that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth, thou shalt not worship them nor serve them, for I am the LORD thy God, a jealous God. For it was fitting, it was fitting thence to commence the ordinance of what was profitable, and first to fore-initiate with the doctrines of Divine knowledge, them who had once given themselves to the service and obedience of God. For knowledge of God is the root of all virtue, and the foundation of piety is faith. Having therefore revealed Himself, and as it were made Himself manifest by saying, I am the LORD thy God, and having first wrought in them faith by knowledge, and having wholly interdicted the making of an image and the worship of falsely-called gods, He shows that their transgression will not be unpunished, and sets before them the punishment of turning aside, crying, Thou shalt not take the Name of the LORD thy God in vain, that is, thou shalt not put about a vain idol the Divine and most dread Name: for the LORD (He says) will not hold him guiltless that taketh His Name in vain. Having then said that he shall be guilty of no slight transgression, who shall please to worship another, and to enrol himself under a false god, and having threatened them accordingly, as people newly brought to the faith and having a feebler understanding, He adds in order, and as it were establishes a second law, saying, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy: six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work. Then profitably showing Whom they will imitate in so doing, He says, For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth and the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the seventh day and hallowed it.

What then (will a man say) did the ordinance of the Sabbath purport? Or why, after the threatening against transgressions was a second and similar Law straightway introduced? To this we say, that it was right not only to threaten trangressors that they should undergo dreadful sufferings, nor by fear alone to stablish Israel unto piety (for the service of fear is of a more slavish sort) but to show of what they will be partakers and to what end they will come, who are firmly fixed in love to Him. He defines therefore, and gives them as in type the promise of the future good things. For the law hath a shadow of the good things to come, as it is written, and its form is shown to be an exercise preparatory to the truth. For He commands them to rest on the last day of the week, that is, the sabbath, and to cease from all work, and give it over, and to practise rest thereon, signifying thereby the rest and enjoyment that should be to the saints at the completion of ages, when they having ended their life in the world, and having cleansed away the sweat of their good works, they who are in Christ shall live the life without toil and free from all weariness, according to that which is spoken concerning them by the mouth of the prophet: for they shall forget their former tribulation, and it shall not come into their heart, but everlasting joy shall be upon their head, for upon their head praise, and joy shall take hold on them, sorrow and grief and sighing are fled away. They too imitating the Creator who ceased and all but rested from the toils of creation, will cease from their labours in this life, attaining unto the delight to be given by Christ at the end of ages. And to this end I think that the appointed rest on the sabbath tends.

But note how the Law-giver says negatively, Thou shalt not worship any other gods, but on giving the kindred commandment about the sabbath which follows it, He says, Remember, and why? Because the time for not worshipping other gods was now gone by (for therefore He immediately commanded them to be diligent about this) but by means of memory it was possible to behold things to come, and to see aforehand in thought what was already limned in types. We must moreover notice this too. For when He had well enforced our position with regard to our faith, He straightway adds the memorial of the promise at the end of ages, and then ordains the remaining laws, Honour thy father and thy mother, thou shalt not kill, and so on: that we may not think we are justified by works, nor look for the ungrudged bounteousness of God as the fruit of our own toils, but that we shall have it of faith. Therefore before the laws of godly conversation, grace hath straightway entered in as the next neighbour to our faith of the good things in hope.

The sabbath rest then signifies the life of the saints in rest and holiness, when they, having at length put off all that is troublous, and ceased from every toil, shall delight in the good things from God. And verily the blessed Paul, when he discoursed to us of these things, and most excellently essayed to enquire into the mode of the rest of the people, saith thus, And to whom sware He that they should not enter into His rest, but to them that believed not? And we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. For since certain were supposing that that was the land of rest, whereinto they came that came forth out of Egypt, albeit that is taken as a type of the one which shall be given to the saints by Christ, which David called the land of the living, the most wise Paul endeavours to show, that that which was then given for an inheritance to the children of Israel by the command of Joshua was a type of that which is looked for. For that these things are taken as a type of the truth, he diligently proves, bringing an argument demonstrative of what has been said. For he saith thus, Seeing therefore it remaineth that some enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief, He again limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To-day, after so long a time: as it is foresaid To-day if ye will hear His Voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation; for if Jesus had given them rest, then would He not afterward have spoken of another day. Seest thou how diligently he overthrew the apparent objection? For one striving with Jewish arguments might straightway have said, "What then art thou saying most excellent Sir? hath not Joshua brought the people into the land of promise? did they not rest and keep sabbath in it?" "yea." (he saith) "but in type and imitation of the true." For if in these things only the grace of God and the measure of His Promise is marked out, and in them have been fulfilled to Israel their hopes, and the letter of the law signifies nothing else besides, how, as though Joshua had not given them rest, is again another period of rest marked out by blessed David although he was so long after? Wisely then and very skilfully does he, after having shown that the historical incidents are a type and image of spiritual things, reveal the still concealed and hidden interpretation of the sabbath, adding. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God; for he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His. How then will it not be hence at length clearly confessed, that the mind of the saints knows that the resting from toils, i. e., those of our labours, is the sabbath-keeping, when the bright band of the saints shall delight in their good deeds before wrought in this life, after the likeness of the Creator of all things, Who rested and rejoiced on the seventh day, as Wisdom saith in the book of Proverbs, I was she in Whom He delighted: daily rejoiced I before Him at every-time, when He was rejoicing on having completed the earth, and was rejoicing in the sons of men? Therefore (for I will return again to the original subject, and will recapitulate the bent of the whole discourse), the rest of the sabbath denotes the toilless life of the saints. For without toil shall all good things be given at that time to the saints by God, nor shall we then work sin the foundation of ills, because it shall perish root and branch from us, together with him |494 who was wont to sow it in us, according as it is said, No lion shall be there, nor shall ought of evil beasts go up thereon, but a pure way shall be there, and it shall be called, An holy way. Yea, and the mind of the saints will retain all good things without toil. Therefore he too who gathered sticks on the sabbath day died by stoning, as having wronged the truth in the type. For after having ceased, and arrived at that rest, we shall never go forth of that habit both admirable and illustrious in virtues, as they did from their tent, nor shall we any more collect sin, which is the food and mother of fire, as did that man the wood, through his exceeding senselessness, not understanding the types which point to the truth. Therefore also with senseless stones, as himself taken in much senselessness, was he stoned by the avengers, having the character of his manners inscribed in his punishment. That we shall not then commit any abominable sin, is therefore manifest, nor yet shall we by sweat attain what is profitable; and this again we shall see shown as it were darkly in the books of Moses. For God showered down the Manna like dew upon the sons of Israel in the wilderness, and gave them angels' bread, as it is written, and then He appointed a law too respecting it by the all wise Moses. For thus did- he make proclamation, Eat to-day: for to-day is a sabbath unto the Lord, ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather, but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none. For he hints that before the completion of the ages it is convenient that we collect with toil that which profiteth and nourisheth us unto everlasting life, as they traversing the wide wilderness, gathered together from all quarters manna for their food; but on the seventh, that is, in the final end, the time for collecting what is profitable is gone by, and we shall delight ourselves in the things already provided, according as it is said by the Psalmist, Thou shalt eat the fruit of thy toils.

God the Lawgiver then, not taking pleasure in the shadows, but looking beforehand to the very image of the things, issued proclamation that we ought not to labour on the sabbath. But certain men having despised the Law given them about this, and not shrinking from fool-hardily offending the Lord of all, determined that they ought to go out to gather manna even on the sabbath, and not in counsels only was their daring endeavour, but in very deed they accomplished what seemed them good. The Law-giver therefore for this again finds fault with them, and says, How long chuse ye not to keep My commandments and My law? See, for that the LORD gave you this day for a Sabbath, therefore He hath given you on the sixth day the bread of two days, abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. Seest thou how He forming beforehand for us life free from all sweat and toil, in the typical rest, enjoins them to do nothing at all on the sabbath? For He does not permit them to. gather, and enjoins them besides, not to leave their house and go anywhither, nor to go forth from their own place. And what again He wills us to learn by this, we will set forth, bringing forward a kindred and similar command. The blessed Prophet Jeremiah spake then to the Jews on this wise, Thus saith the LORD, Keep your souls, and bear no burden on the sabbath day, and go not forth of the gates of Jerusalem, neither carry forth burdens out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work: hallow the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers. And what thence? Urging as aforesaid to a watchful habit, he bids us keep our own soul, for thus will oar duty of hastening unto the hoped-for Sabbath-keeping be easily accomplished. But how many good things shall be revealed to those who possess this, He beautifully makes known by the introduction of the other things. For He does not suffer any to be laden with a burden, since no one at that time will take up the heavy burden of sin. For it is the time of holiness, when our old sin having departed to utter destruction, the soul of each is renewed to a habit of virtue unwavering. Yea and He does not suffer them to go forth of the gates of Jerusalem. For according to the true and orthodox doctrine the glorious choir of the saints shall dwell securely in the heavenly Jerusalem, and shall not go forth of the holy city, but rather shall be therein for ever, held fast by the Divine power so as never to be able to run away from the good things once for all given them. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, according to S. Paul. But in saying again, Ye shall not go forth every man from his place, He seems to imply this most clearly. For many in truth are the mansions with God the Father according to the Saviour's word (and of this was the holy tabernacle in all glory fulfilling the type, which had ten chambers) and to each shall be given according to his deserts and proportionately to his good deeds, his abode. But they that are wholly in possession of their tabernacles there, they shall dwell there for ever, and will never come to fall from the things allotted to them by the Divine free gift. And a true witness hereof shall be introduced by us. For the Prophet Isaiah having clearly stated these things, speaketh thus, Thine eyes shall see Jerusalem, a wealthy city, tabernacles that shall not be shaken nor shall be removed for ever: for in saying that the tabernacles in the wealthy city shall not be shaken, he shows the immutability of the abode and habitation therein. Yea, he says moreover, and Neither do ye any work thereon, but hallow ye the sabbath day. As we have already often said, the time of rest and refreshment belongs to both, and it is wholly kept holy as a feast to Christ.

Again that we ought to do no work on the sabbath day, but to rest as it were and cease from every thing that inviteth to sweat and toil, we shall know from other sources also. For He says in Exodus, Six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof, but the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still. And in Leviticus, When ye come into the land which I give you, the land which I give you shall keep a sabbath unto the LORD. Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof, but in the seventh year shall be a rest unto the land, a sabbath to the LORD. For it is not the land which is insensible to toil that He releases, nor yet to it doth He in reality give this law, but He brought it about to those who possessed it, that they should not toil, through His giving a release to the land. For in many ways did He point out our feast in Christ, in which they who have lived in the Divine fear shall hasten unto the perfect and complete liberty which is in holiness, and to the most wealthy grace of the Spirit. And this again we shall know from the Mosaic commands themselves. For it runs thus, When thy brother, an Hebrew man or an Hebrew woman, is sold unto thee, six years shall he serve thee, in the seventh year a release. For we who were of old slaves to sin, and by taking pleasure in evil had in some sort sold ourselves to the devil, being justified in Christ through faith, shall mount up to the true and holy sabbath-keeping, clothed with the liberty which is through grace, and glorified with the good things from God.

CHAPTER VII. A dissertation upon the circumcision on the eighth day, manifoldly showing of what it is significant.

Having now sufficiently (as I think) and according to the power of my understanding, unfolded the purpose of the sabbath, we will transfer the labour of investigation to circumcision which is akin thereto, resolving from all quarters to hunt out as befits, what is of use. For it were most absurd and not free from the extremest ridicule, that one should not gladly give all toil in exchange for the knowledge of these things. What then was by it also typically expressed to them of old, we considering the subject spiritually will set forth according to the measure of the gift of the God of all Who maketh dark things manifest, and openeth to us hidden and invisible treasures. For they who have already attained unto habit undefective, and have their understanding maturer, may both conceive and utter things far superior to these, but WE will set before our hearers what comes into our mind, though it seem to come far short of what is fitting, not sinning against brotherly love by fear of seeming inferior to any, but rather knowing the scripture, Give occasion to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser; teach a just man, and he will receive yet more. The first law then respecting circumcision was ordained, when God said to Abraham, THOU shalt keep My covenant and thy seed after thee in their, generations; and this is My covenant, which I will covenant, between you and Me and thy seed after thee in their generations: every man child among you shall be circumcised, and ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin: and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt Me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child. But when He had appointed the law as to this, and had decreed that they should surely circumcise the flesh of their foreskin, He shows that the transgression of the law will not be without harm, showing that it is the type of a most essential mystery: for He subjoins as follows, And My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant: and the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day 14 that soul shall be cut off from his seed; he hath scattered My covenant. The Divine Paul then affirmed that circumcision had been given to the patriarch as a sign and a seal of the faith which he had in uncircumcision. For it was his aim (it seems) and zealous endeavour to show that the calling and righteousness which are through faith surpass and are elder than every command of the law. For thus hardly did he shame them of Israel, and persuade them not to esteem the righteousness of faith a transgression of the law, but rather a return to that which was from the beginning and before all law; yet is he, seasonably bringing round the force of his subject to what is immediately profitable and of use for the present time, found to know of another kind of circumcision. For wishing to unteach the Jews their delight in glorying in the flesh, he writes again, For not he is a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh, but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God. Does he not hereby persuade them to change at length to other thoughts respecting this, and would not have them look on circumcision, as merely the gift of the seal to our forefather of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised, but conceive of it as something greater and spiritual?

We must then investigate and examine not remissly what the circumcision in the spirit is, of what that which is accomplished in the flesh is a symbol, and why, not on any day indifferently, as it might happen, but only on the eighth, man is circumcised. It is then obvious to every man, that since our aim is intent to be united to God through Christ the Mediator, therefore it surely befits those who mount up by faith to intimate nearness with the all-holy Lord, to first purify and sanctify themselves in every way. We will take as a most excellent image of this kind of thing, that which was spoken by God to the holy Moses, Go down protest unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes and he ready against the third day; for the third day the LORD will come down upon the mount Sinai. In that they were to sanctify themselves beforehand, He would have them attend to fitness of habits; in that they were to wash their clothes, He points to purity of the body itself. For the body is as it were the garment and array of the soul.

Since then (for I will go up to the first and most necessary beginning of the subject) they who are hastening to an intimate nearness to the holy God must surely first purify themselves, according to what is said by Him, Holy shall ye be, for I am holy, He ordained a symbol of sanctification to them of old through the circumcision in the flesh, and how, we will say. On examining into the nature of things among us, we shall find pleasure taking the lead of all sin: and some hot lust ever preceding in its working, invites us to transgression, and first taking captive the prudence of the understanding, thus at length persuades us to come by a most smooth way unto the attainment of the things desired. And the disciple of Christ shows that what we have said on these matters is true, for thus proclaims he, Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man, but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then lust when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin, and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Seest thou then how in lusts toward anything the birth of evil is first formed, and the seed of sin is first conceived in forbidden pleasure? God the Lawgiver then commands the circumcising steel to be applied to that part of the body, wherein and whence is the birth of pleasures, that thou mayest learn, as it were darkly, that it is impossible |501 for us ever to appear pure, unless, by receiving the most sharp working of the Divine Word in our heart, and admitting into our mind the sword of the Spirit, we drive away lusts after all the basest things, never doing after our own wills, even though they pretend to have the sweetest enjoyment, but persuaded only to love and do the Will of God. Seeing that the truer circumcision brings unto us such power, well may it be said to those who are accustomed to glory in the flesh only, Circumcise yourselves to God, and circumcise the hardness of your heart, men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. For he that is circumcised in the flesh, is circumcised to the flesh only, but he that hath received the circumcision in the Spirit, through faith to Christward, is circumcised to God only and truly.

But we receive the circumcision in the Spirit which bringeth us up to an intimate nearness to God, on the eighth day, that is the day of the resurrection of the Saviour, taking this as a sign that the circumcision of the Spirit is the giver of Life, and agreeing in some sort through the thing itself, that we shall live with Christ, according to what is said by Paul, For ye died, and your life hath been hidden with Christ in God: when Christ shall appear, your life, then shall YE also appear with Him in glory. For will not one say (and that with truth) that one dies to the world, by refusing the world's pleasures for God's sake? Such an one did the Divine Paul too manifest himself to us, saying, God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of Christ, by Whom the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world: for made partakers of Him through the Spirit, which circumciseth without hands all. the impurity that is in us, we become dead to the world, and live a most excellent life to God. Therefore circumcision is on the eighth day by reason of the resurrection of Christ, and not before the eighth; for not before the Resurrection was the gift of the Spirit, but after it, or at the very time of the resurrection, when He breathed on His disciples also, saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. To the Jews then the circumcision by the knife was more fitting, for they were yet slaves and under the avenging law (and the iron is the symbol of punishment), but to us as free and spiritual belongs the purification through the Spirit, banishing all pollution from our souls, and bringing in perfection in the brightness of godliness through faith.

For that through the truer and spiritual circumcision, is accomplished the boast of perfection in godliness, we shall perceive, by considering what is written respecting the Patriarch Abraham. It is written then of our forefather Abraham, that his years were ninety and nine in number, and then did God serviceably ordain him circumcision, making this too as it were an evident sign, that circumcision is as it were a vestibule and approach to perfection in virtue, or rather clearly signifying that no one will ever arrive at this, who has not the purification which is shadowed forth by circumcision. For the number 100 is the symbol of perfection. Circumcision then precedes perfection. For it when it precedes easily brings us to that. But not to these things are limited the benefits of circumcision, I mean of circumcision in the Spirit, but we shall find that it too belongs to those only who are free in Christ. But wholly free (I think) in Christ, is the man who hath shaken off the bondage of the devil and the yoke of sin, and hath broken asunder their bonds, as it is written, and hath bound upon him the glorious and untyrannical boast of righteousness, I mean the righteousness which is in faith of Christ.

But that we shall find circumcision on the eighth day befitting the free, but by no means those who are slaves, we on traversing the holy and Divine Scripture, shall in nowise doubt. Ishmael then, the son born to the patriarch of the handmaid Hagar, was circumcised, but not on the eighth day, but rather in his thirteenth year: for so is it written, that Abraham circumcised Ishmael his son at thirteen years old, in order that the Divine word may show us that the son of Jerusalem which is in bondage, that is Israel, hath fallen both from the eighth and from the twelfth. For it falleth from the eighth, as not choosing to receive the saving preaching of the Resurrection, which took place on the eighth day, that is the Gospel of Christ, whereby there is no doubt that we aided unto faith, are circumcised in spirit. But it falleth again from the twelfth too, as it were in figure thrusting away by their unbelief the holy choir of the Apostles, and desiring to abide entirely without taste and experience of their doctrine. Herein then is the servant, but Isaac the free son of the free is circumcised on the eighth day. For the free children of the free, I mean Jerusalem which is above, are enriched receiving the eighth, that is the Resurrection of Christ, and the circumcision in spirit which freeth them from all sin, and releaseth them from death, because from sin too, whence and on account whereof is death, and transbringeth them unto the Life of Christ.

But that in addition to what we have already said, both undoing of death and the overthrow of corruption, are found through the circumcision in the spirit, we shall easily see, by studying the book called Exodus. For the blessed Moses was sent by divine command to Pharaoh the tyrant of the Egyptians, to tell him that it behoved him to let Israel go from that great bondage. And indeed he was setting out, to meet with those things we spoke of, but it came to pass (it says) by the way in the inn, that the angel met him and sought to kill him: and Zipporah took a sharp stone and circumcised the foreskin of her son, and said, The blood of the circumcision of my son hath stayed, and he departed from him, because she said, The blood of the circumcision of my son hath stayed. Here listen to me carefully. The so-called angel seeks to lay hands upon and to slay Moses, but hardly withdraws from him and departs, shamed by the circumcision of the child, which Zipporah performing with a stone, says that she has accomplished what is necessary. For scaring away the destroyer of Moses, she cries out, The blood of the circumcision of my son hath stayed. But unless some mystical meaning were hidden in these words, what mind (tell me) would be assured, that the hierophant Moses was saved by the circumcision of his son, and that the destroyer making an onset like a wild beast desisted from his onslaught at the appearance of blood, and drew back and turned away? Then (for I will come to this point first) the benefit or glory of his own circumcision did not suffice the blessed Moses unto salvation. For I think I ought rather to speak thus. The might of the circumcision which is after the law, will not overthrow death which cometh indifferently to every one, evil and good. But the circumcision in the Spirit of the new people, that is, of those who have believed in Christ, most excellently performed by Zipporah, that is the Church, both scares it against its will, and puts it to flight when raging.

How then, may some one with great reason say, is Israel too preserved in the spiritual circumcision of the new people, though he hath no share of it? To this we say, that as far as concerns Israel's not choosing to receive the Resurrection of our Saviour Christ, death would have reigned even for ever; but since they which believed received it, the grace of the Resurrection on their accounts passed into the whole nature, extended in some sort to the whole through the circumcision in the Spirit, even though a considerable difference of resurrection be seen in the one and the other. For they who thrust from them belief in Christ, and by their unbelief insult the Giver of life, will gain power from the Resurrection merely to live again (for they will live again unto doom, not having loved Christ who justifieth), but they who are admirers of the Resurrection of the Saviour, and true keepers of the commandments, shall go forth of that land wherein they are, unto the resurrection of life, as it is written. The people then which is circumcised in spirit will transmit his own good even unto the unbelieving. For his of right is the grace of the Resurrection, but he will transmit it unto the rest also, God desiring of His skill to preserve the whole nature. For as Paul saith, as WE in times past disbelieved the mercy of Israel, that through their obedience 15 we may gain the grace through Christ, so they too have now disbelieved our mercy that they too again may obtain mercy, our Saviour Christ transmitting to them also through our faith, the benefit of the Resurrection. For the things which are due to them that believe, are more suitably given to the whole nature. Therefore the Divine Apostle Paul also revealing to us the mystery concerning the Resurrection that shall be says that Christ will rise the First fruits, for verily He also was first raised from the dead, but afterwards (he says) that they are Christ's at His coming. For he says that they who were intimately connected with Him by faith must be raised before all the rest, showing that the resurrection is strictly and properly due to them above all, even though it have reached the whole nature, God being pleased of His Goodness (that is) and Loving-kindness wholly to abolish death.

But observe how not with iron does Zipporah circumcise the child (for the iron is an avenger, and beseems them that are under the law which punisheth) but with a stone, as it is written, understood as a type of Christ. For the indestructibility and stability in all respects of the Nature of the Only-Begotten is hereby signified. Wherefore God the Father in the holy Prophets called Christ an adamant too, saying, Behold, I am setting an adamant in the midst of My people Israel. The adamant signifies to us as in a figure, that the Divine and Ineffable Nature of the Word can never yield to those which oppose it. Thus the Divine Joshua too after Moses' leadership and death being called to the command, purified the children of Israel with a Divinely appointed stone, and since he was to withstand the hand of the enemy, right well was he commanded to arm them first in some sort by circumcision, knowing that no otherwise would they who were on the very verge of fighting be above falling and superior to death.

And thus it is written concerning him, And the Lord said unto Joshua, Make thee knives of rock, of the sharp rock, and sit down, circumcise the children of Israel. And Joshua made him knives of flints, and circumcised the children of Israel. For herein the name rock signifies to us as it were the fixed and indestructible Word of God, the expression sharp points out the power of subtilely penetrating into things, and its keenest energy, since Paul too, who was nourished up in the holy and Divine writings, calls the Divine Word quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword, and says that it pierces even to the parting of soul and spirit. But the Word so subtle and piercing entering our hearts through His own Spirit frees them from all uncleanness, and circumcising in an expressible manner the things in respect whereof we are full of the deepest abominations, it renders us both holy and undefiled. For see herein most translucent the image of the truth. For Jesus is he who circumciseth, and they who undergo it of him, are every fresh young child, as it is written, who this day knoweth not good or evil. For they who came forth out of Egypt had the Divine wrath as the wages of their unbelief, and manifold punishment overtook them in the desert, it having been with reason determined by the all-holy God that He would not bring them into the land which He sware to their fathers. But they who came after them being free from the charges of unbelief, fulfilled the type of the new people, so as even to receive the circumcision in the spirit through Christ, the old and first people, that is, Israel, having gone to perdition, as we have just said. Nevertheless the noble and new people are circumcised, under the command of Joshua, the other side Jordan, as it is written. For the considerations that spring from the truth are thus; we shall never receive the circumcision through the Spirit in the heart, as long as we have not yet been brought over the mystic Jordan, but are still on yon side of the holy waters. But when all the people were circumcised by command of Joshua, straightway the Lawgiver makes known the utility of the thing, and says to the holy Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Wherein then shall we grant that Israel received benefit from circumcision or what reproach do we say was rolled away? Their bondage, their exposure from weakness to be tyrannized over, and yet more their hard labours, in clay and brick. Seest thou from how great evils the might of the circumcision in spirit delivers? For it delivers the soul of man out of the hand of the devil, renders it free and let go from the sin which tyrannizes in us, and maketh it superior to all the arrogance of wicked devils. Yea it frees from both clay and brick, for no longer does it suffer one denied with the pleasures of the flesh, nor that he be intermingled with the toils of earth, but frees both from death and corruption: nor are these all the benefits which arise from circumcision, but it also renders us partakers of the Divine Nature through the participation of our Saviour Christ.

For the compiler of the book adds to what has been said, And the children of Israel kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month and did eat of the corn of the land bread unleavened and new. For no otherwise may one partake of the Very Lamb That taketh away the sin of the world, nor yet find the unleavened and new food of the Gospel preachings, unless one have first passed the mystic Jordan, received the circumcision from the Living Word, and rubbed off after some sort, as it were a spot on the soul, the reproach of Egypt, in the manner we have just expounded.

For that God loatheth, as fall of reproach and all uncleanness, him that is not yet circumcised, not as holding in abomination the flesh which He disdained not to create, but [as hating] him that is yet (so to say) in full vigour and complete, as respects pleasures in evil, by reason of his having lost nothing, we shall know when we find Him saying to holy Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the Passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof but every man's servant that is bought for money, thou shall circumcise him, and then shall he eat thereof. For He wholly excludes the stranger, thereby signifying him who is not yet joined to Christ through faith: but him that is in bondage to sin, and is in some sort sold to the devil, He very seasonably commands to be first circumcised, and purified, and then to taste the most holy Flesh. For we being pure purely shall we partake of Christ, according to that which is orderly proclaimed in our churches, Holy things to the holy. For in truth it were just and meet, since our Saviour Christ died for us, and cleansed us not with the purifications of the Law but with His Own Blood, that we too should offer to Him our own life and as a just debt pay that we live no more to ourselves, but repay as it were the complete consecration unto holiness of our own souls. For that the Precious Blood and Death of Christ Who died for all, both saved us from all evil, and was the Giver of the spiritual circumcision, whereby we gain that we are joined to God Who is over all, in this too shall we see. For thus it is written in respect of him who was captain after Moses, I mean Joshua the son of Nun, And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the LORD, died, being an hundred and ten years old. And they buried him in the border of his inheritance: there they buried with him, in the sepulchre wherein they buried him, the knives of flints wherewith he circumcised the children of Israel. For the blessed Joshua died and was buried, and profitably were the knives affixed to the sepulchre, which ministered to the type of circumcision, that we again might understand by this that the grace of circumcision in spirit the wooer for us of all heavenly goods, is bound up in the death of our Saviour Christ.

We will then understand that the circumcision on the eighth day, taking it in no Jewish sense, is the purification through the Spirit, in faith and the Resurrection of Christ, the casting away of all sin, the destruction of death and corruption, the bestower of holiness and ownness with Christ, the image of freedom, the way and door to close friendship with God.

Abundance then of spiritual considerations then having been now contributed by us from all parts to these things, and the two chapters divided as was meet, and we having concluded for each the discussion suiting it: it remains and is due to say, why the spiritual circumcision prevails over even the honour of the sabbath. For circumcision is to be received even on the sabbath day, unheeding the Law of not working thereon. Since then the rest on the seventh day signifies freedom and rest from all wickedness, and cessation from sin, and circumcision in spirit means nothing different from these, as it were in another way (for I think that the being freed from superfluous lusts, and overmuch pleasure, clearly results in rest from evil), we shall find not only that circumcision in no way breaks the law respecting the sabbath, but even aids it and all but coincides in one and the same language with it, openly proclaiming that one ought to rest and to desist from evil: so that they both are the same, I mean both circumcision and the rest of the sabbath (as one will most rightly deem), according to the concurrence of both in one aim. For we will not adhere to the gross type of the history, but will rather spiritually go to the oracles of the Spirit. Unblameably therefore will the profit of circumcision on the sabbath too be brought in, since as the Saviour saith, The priests in the temple profane the sabbath by ministering thereon and not ceasing from their ordinary occupations, and are blameless, as the Judge Himself hath testified to them, with greatest reason. For what time is there wherein we ought to desist from works of holiness, and those wherein the Deity delighteth? at what time is it not hurtful to slacken zeal in piety? The rest then on the sabbath day hath a most praiseworthy ceasing and staying from wickedness only and from abominable sin, but by no means hinders us from taking pleasure in holy deeds, and whatsoever any one supposes will be of profit to his own soul, this too it enjoins him unblamed to take all pains rightly to perform. This same profitableness you may see introduced also in the force of circumcision. For in cutting away pleasure in the direction of evil, is perceived a birth of resting from sin, and a beginning of worship in spirit and most holy conversation; and the difference between them is slight, nevertheless a needful one. For in that He does not command both to be observed on the seventh day, nor yet on the eighth; the plan of each gives us to understand that there is a distinction. And this too has a meaning, and no inelegant one, as seems to me. For resting from wickedness is not yet the utter casting off also of wickedness. For ofttimes our passions are quiet within us, yet are not wholly cast out of our mind, but are by sober reasoning, as it were with a bridle, forcibly brought to the rest which is uncongenial to them, yea and give way even against their will to the toils of discipline also. But shaking off one's passions, as far as a man can do, is I suppose a wholly different thing and far greater than resting from passion.

Having thus arranged our arguments on these matters, we must finally consider, that we shall not attain unto the casting away of our passions or stumblings arising from pleasure, which is the meaning of circumcision, unless we first cease from sin which goes forth into action, and hold as it were in rest the motions of our mind which run unto transgression. For by using some step of this kind, we shall easily attain what is yet greater and higher, I mean the total casting off of our passions. But the rest from passion, seems to lie in some degree in our own power (for we shall cease from evil, by giving the force of our wills to what is better), but to be released from our passions is surely not in our own power, but is verily the fitting work of Christ who suffered for us, that He might remodel all to newness of life. Therefore meetly did circumcision obtain the eighth day, introducing the renewing (so to say) time of the Resurrection, while the rest had the seventh day, its neighbour and a little behind. For rest for a season and at will, falls and comes a little short of the entire cutting off of the passions.

And He said not, "I have done a thing greater than circumcision," but abundantly refuteth them by saying, "If a man receive circumcision." "Seest thou that the Law is most established when a man breaketh it? Seest thou that the breaking of the Sabbath is the keeping of the Law? that if the Sabbath were not broken, the Law must needs have been broken? so that I also have established the Law." He said not, "Ye are wroth with Me because I have wrought a thing which is greater than circumcision," but having merely mentioned what had been done, He left it to them to judge, whether entire health was not a more necessary thing than circumcision. "The Law," He saith, "is broken, that a man may receive a sign which contributeth nothing to health; are ye vexed and indignant at its being broken, that one might be freed from so grievous a disease?"

He said not, "Ye are wroth with Me because I have wrought a thing which is greater than circumcision," but having merely mentioned what had been done, He left it to them to judge, whether entire health was not a more necessary thing than circumcision. "The Law," He saith, "is broken, that a man may receive a sign which contributeth nothing to health; are ye vexed and indignant at its being broken, that one might be freed from so grievous a disease?"

"Judge not according to appearance."

What is, "according to appearance"? "Do not, since Moses hath the greatest honor among you, give your decision according to your estimation of persons, but according to the nature of things; for this is to judge rightly. Wherefore hath no one of you reproved Moses? Wherefore hath no one disobeyed him when he ordereth that the Sabbath be broken by a commandment introduced from without into the Law? He alloweth a commandment to be of more authority than his own Law; a commandment not introduced by the Law, but from without, which is especially wonderful; while ye who are not lawgivers are beyond measure jealous for the Law, and defend it. Yet Moses, who ordereth that the Law be broken by a commandment which is not of the Law, is more worthy of confidence than you." By saying then, (I have made) "a whole man (healthy)," He showeth that circumcision also was "partial" health. And what was the health procured by circumcision? "Every soul," It saith, "that is not circumcised, shall be utterly destroyed." (Gen. xvii. 14.) "But I have raised up a man not partially afflicted, but wholly undone." "Judge not," therefore, "according to appearance."

(Hom. xlix. 3) He does not say, however, I have done a greater work than circumcision; but only states the matter of fact, and leaves the judgment to them, saying, Judge not according to the appearance, but Judge righteous judgment: as if to say, Do not, because Moses has a greater name with you than I, decide by degree of personal eminence; but decide by the nature of the thing itself, for this is to judge righteously. No one however has blamed Moses for making the sabbath give place to the commandment of circumcision, which was not derived from the law, but from another source. Moses then commands the law to be broken to give effect to a commandment not of the law: and he is more worthy of credit than you.

Therefore for circumcision the sabbath was itself broken by Moses, and the sabbath day in no way prevents a man from being circumcised; even if the eighth day falls on a sabbath, the law of sabbath rest is set aside so that the law of circumcision may not be broken. If this is so, then why are you indignant and angry at Me for healing a whole man on the sabbath? On the sabbath, circumcision, which causes pain, is not forbidden; yet you reproach Me for freeing a man from disease and making him well.

Our Lord is arguing from those facts when he says: If a man receives circumcision on the sabbath day, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you indignant with me because I healed a whole man on the sabbath?

We should note here that three things make this argument effective: two of these are explicit, and the other implied. First, although the command given to Abraham [about circumcision] was the first to be given, it was not canceled by the command given to Moses concerning observing the sabbath. "I say that the covenant, confirmed by God, is not canceled by the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later" (Gal 3:17). And so Christ is arguing from this: Although when dealing with human laws, the later ones cancel the earlier laws, in the case of divine laws, the earlier ones have greater authority. And so the command given to Moses about observing the sabbath does not cancel the command which was given to Abraham concerning circumcision. Therefore, much less does it interfere with me, who am only doing what was decided by God before the creation of the world, for the salvation of mankind; and this salvation was symbolized by the sabbath.

Another point is that the Jews were commanded not to work on the sabbath; yet they did do things that were related to the salvation of the individual. So Christ is saying: If you people, who were commanded not to work on the sabbath, circumcise on that day (and this concerns the salvation of the individual, and thus it was done to an individual organ) and you do this so that the law of Moses may not be broken (from which it is clear that those things that pertain to salvation should not be omitted on the sabbath), it follows with greater reason that a man should do on that day those things that pertain to the salvation of everyone. Therefore, you should not be indignant with me because I healed a whole man on the sabbath.

The third point is that each command was a symbol: for "all these things happened to them in symbol" (1 Cor 10:11). Thus, if one symbol, i.e., the command to observe the sabbath, does not cancel the other symbol, i.e., the command to circumcise, much less does it cancel the truth. For circumcision symbolized our Lord, as Augustine says.

Finally, he says, a whole man, because, since God's works are perfect, the man was cured so as to be healthy in body, and he believed so as to be healthy in soul.

But it is the duty of the bishop to judge rightly, as it is written, "Judge righteous judgment;" and elsewhere, "Why do ye not even of yourselves judge what is right?" Be ye therefore as skilful dealers in money: for as these reject bad money, but take to themselves what is current, in the same manner it is the bishop's duty to retain the unblameable, but either to heal, or, if they be past cure, to cast off those that are blameworthy, so as not to be hasty in cutting off, nor to believe all accusations; for it sometimes happens that some, either through passion or envy, do insist on a false accusation against a brother, as did the two elders in the case of Susanna in Babylon, and the Egyptian woman in the case of Joseph. Do thou therefore, as a man of God, not rashly receive such accusations, lest thou take away the innocent and slay the righteous; for he that will receive such accusations is the author of anger rather than of peace.

"Judge not according to personal appearance, but judge righteous judgment." What is this? Just now, you who by the law of Moses circumcise on the Sabbath-day are not angry with Moses; and because I made a man whole on the Sabbath-day you are angry with me. You judge by the person; give heed to the truth. I do not prefer myself to Moses, says the Lord, who was also the Lord of Moses. So consider us as you would two men, as both men; judge between us, but judge a true judgment; do not condemn him by honoring me, but honor me by understanding him. For this He said to them in another place: "If ye believed Moses ye would certainly believe me also, for he wrote of me." But in this place He willed not to say this, Himself and Moses being as it were placed before these men for judgment. Because of Moses' law you circumcise, even when it happens to be the Sabbath-day, and will ye not that I should show the beneficence of healing during the Sabbath? For the Lord of circumcision and the Lord of the Sabbath is the same who is the Author of health; and they are servile works that ye are forbidden to do on the Sabbath; if ye really understand what servile works are, ye sin not. For he that committeth sin is the servant of sin. Is it a servile work to heal a man on the Sabbath-day? Ye do eat and drink (to infer somewhat from the admonition of our Lord Jesus Christ, and from His words); at any rate, why do ye eat and drink on the Sabbath, but because that what ye do pertains to health? By this ye show that the works of health are not in any wise to be omitted on the Sabbath. Therefore "do not judge by person, but judge righteous judgment." Consider me as ye would a man; consider Moses as a man: if ye will judge according to the truth, ye will condemn neither Moses nor me; and when ye know the truth ye will know me, because I am the Truth.

It requires great labor in this world, brethren, to get clear of the vice which the Lord has noted in this place, so as not to judge by appearance, but to keep right judgment. The Lord, indeed, admonished the Jews, but He warned us also; them He convicted, us He instructed; them He reproved, us He encouraged. Let us not imagine that this was not said to us, simply because we were not there at that time. It was written, it is read; when it was recited we heard it; but we heard it as said to the Jews; let us not place ourselves behind ourselves and watch Him reproving enemies, while we ourselves do that which the truth may reprove in us. The Jews indeed judged by appearance, but for that reason they belong not to the New Testament, they have not the kingdom of heaven in Christ, nor are joined to the society of the holy angels; they sought earthly things of the Lord; for a land of promise, victory over enemies, fruitfulness of child-bearing, increase of children, abundance of fruit,-all which things were indeed promised to them by God, the True and the Good, promised to them, however, as unto carnal men,-all these things made for them the Old Testament. What is the Old Testament? The inheritance, as it were, belonging to the old man. We have been renewed, have been made a new man, because He who is the new man has come. What is so new as to be born of a virgin? Therefore, because there was not in Him what instruction might renew, because He had no sin, there was given Him a new origin of birth. In Him a new birth, in us a new man. What is a new man? A man renewed from oldness. Renewed unto what? Unto desiring heavenly things, unto longing for things eternal, unto earnestly seeking the country which is above and fears no foe, where we do not lose a friend nor fear an enemy; where we live with good affection, without any want; where no longer any advances, because none fails; where no man is born, because no man dies; where there is no hungering nor thirsting; where immortality is fullness, and truth our aliment. Having these promises, and pertaining to the New Testament, and being made heirs of a new inheritance, and co-heirs of the Lord Himself, we have a far different hope from theirs: let us not judge by appearance, but hold right judgment.

Who is he that judges not according to the person? He that loves equally. Equal love causes that persons be not accepted. It is not when we honor men in diverse measure according to their degrees that we ought to fear lest we are accepting persons. For where we judge between two, and at times between relations, sometimes it happens that judgment has to be made between father and son; the father complains of a bad son, or the son complains of a harsh father; we regard the honor which is due to the father from the son; we do not make the son equal to the father in honor, but we give him preference if he has a good cause: let us regard the son on an equality with the father in the truth, and thus shall we bestow the honor due, so that equity destroy not merit. Thus we profit by the words of the Lord, and that we may profit, we are assisted by His grace.

(Tr. xxx. s. 7) What our Lord here tells us to avoid, in judging by the person, is very difficult in this world not to do. His admonition to the Jews is an admonition to us as well; for every sentence which our Lord uttered, was written for us, and is preserved to us, and is read for our profit. Our Lord is above; but our Lord, as the truth, is here as well. The body with which He rose can be only in one place, but His truth is diffused every where. Who then is he who judges not by the person? He who loves all alike. For it is not the paying men different degrees of honour according to their situation, that will make us chargeable with accepting persons. There may be a case to decide between father and son: we should not put the son on an equality with the father in point of honour; but, in respect of truth, if he have the better cause, we should give him the preference; and so give to each their due, that justice do not destroy desertd.

"Do not judge according to appearance," accepting the human face. Concerning the good judge, Isaiah eleven: "He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes, nor reprove according to the hearing of the ears." "But judge a just judgment," according to merits, not according to the appearance of persons. Augustine: "He does not judge with partiality who loves equally." And because they loved unequally, because they cared more about external things, therefore they judged unjustly; whence it is said in Matthew twenty-three: You Pharisees "cleanse what is on the outside"; and they justified themselves before men: Luke sixteen: "You are they who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts."

The Law (He says) which ye are so zealous to take the part of, and for the sake of which ye were kindled even unto fierce wrath, openly cries aloud, Ye shall not respect persons in judgment, for the judgment is God's. Ye then who condemn Me as a transgressor on account of the sabbath, and decide that it is most fitting to be angry at this, do ye care for the honour of the Law, take shame at the message, Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. For if ye put Moses forth from transgression, and rightly consider that he has no portion of condemnation for this, albeit he breaketh the ordinance of the sabbath on account of circumcision [which is] of the fathers, do ye free from blame the Son too Who ever agreeth with the mind of the Father, and approveth His will, and whatsoever things He doeth, these likewise is He too wont to do. But if ye condemn the Son only, and do not condemn Moses, although he is involved (He saith) in equal blame to that wherein ye suppose that I too am involved on account of the sabbath, how will ye not be found to be trampling on the Divine Law, and be taken insulting the decrees from above, out of respect to some corrupting the command to judge righteousness, and rendering superior to the Divine commands him to whom ye transgressing pay reverence from respect of persons?

Let the wise hearer observe again the wondrous skill of our Saviour Christ. When accused of the breach of one Law, He convicts them as transgressors by very many arguments, all but uttering the Gospel words. And why lookest thou at the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? An evil thing then is it to condemn others. For wherein a man judgeth another, he condemneth himself, as it is written. Wherefore by the Saviour too Himself was it said, Judge not and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned. And this we say in respect of ourselves: for Christ will never become a transgressor by changing His own Laws to whatsoever He will, and overlaying with the fair beauty of truth the shadows of the Law: that at length, the things enjoined in a more carnal sense to them of old, may be changed into a spiritual interpretation.

It is sometimes made an objection, for instance, to a juror that he has formed some prima-facie opinion upon a case: if he can be forced under sharp questioning to admit that he has formed such an opinion, he is regarded as manifestly unfit to conduct the inquiry. Surely this is unsound. ... We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end. We say that the juryman is not a juryman because he has brought in a verdict. We say that the judge is not a judge because he gives judgment. We say that the sincere believer has no right to vote, simply because he has voted.

"Judge not according to appearance." What is, "according to appearance"? "Do not, since Moses hath the greatest honor among you, give your decision according to your estimation of persons, but according to the nature of things; for this is to judge rightly. Wherefore hath no one of you reproved Moses? Wherefore hath no one disobeyed him when he ordereth that the Sabbath be broken by a commandment introduced from without into the Law? He alloweth a commandment to be of more authority than his own Law; a commandment not introduced by the Law, but from without, which is especially wonderful; while ye who are not lawgivers are beyond measure jealous for the Law, and defend it. Yet Moses, who ordereth that the Law be broken by a commandment which is not of the Law, is more worthy of confidence than you." By saying then, (I have made) "a whole man (healthy)," He showeth that circumcision also was "partial" health. And what was the health procured by circumcision? "Every soul," It saith, "that is not circumcised, shall be utterly destroyed." (Gen. xvii. 14.) "But I have raised up a man not partially afflicted, but wholly undone." "Judge not," therefore, "according to appearance."

"Do not judge by appearances," that is, judge righteously and impartially. Moses, who violates the Sabbath through circumcision, you free from blame; but Me, who violated the Sabbath through a good deed to a man, you condemn. To free Moses from blame, out of respect for his dignity, and to condemn Me, Who in appearance am without glory — this is obvious partiality.

Then when he says, Judge not by the appearances, but with a just judgment, he guides them to a fair consideration of himself, so that they do not judge him according to appearances, but give a judgment which is just. There are two ways in which one is said to judge according to appearances. First, a judge may reach his decision relying on the allegations: "Men see the things that are evident" (1 Kgs 15:7). But this way can lead to error; thus he says, Judge not by the appearances, i.e., by what is immediately evident, but examine the matter diligently: "I diligently investigated the stranger's cause" (Jb 29:16); "He will not judge by appearances" (Is 11:3). In the second way, Judge not by the appearances, i.e., do not show partiality or favoritism in your judgment: for all judges are forbidden to do this. "You will not show favoritism when judging a person who is poor" (Ex 23:6); "You have shown partiality in your judgment" (Mal 2:9). To show partiality in a judgment is not to give a judgment that is just because of love, or deference, or fear, or the status of a person, which things have nothing to do with the case. So he says: Judge not by the appearances, but with a just judgment, as if to say: Just because Moses is more honored among you than I am, you should not base your decision on our reputations, but on the nature of the facts: because the things I am doing are greater than what Moses did.

But it should be noted, according to Augustine, that one who loves all equally does not judge with partiality. For when we honor men differently according to their rank, we must beware of showing partiality.

The Lord introduces two opinions about himself: (1) that they know where he comes from, since his mother is Mary; and (2) that he has something they do not know, since he is and has come from God. Therefore, he would not be a presumptuous person or a self-appointed teacher but had rather arrived at his teaching because God the Father sent him. Moreover, God who had sent him was not known to them because they kept themselves as far apart as possible from the God of true knowledge inasmuch as they revolted from his purpose and deeds. It is quite reasonable that he would know the Father, since he himself was with him. One knows one's relatives and household best.

Hear, therefore, the word of the Lord, brethren; see how He confirmed to them both what they said, "We know this man whence he is," and also what they said, "When Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence He is. Then cried Christ in the temple, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but He that sent me is true, whom ye know not." That is to say, ye both know me, and ye know me not; ye both know whence I am, and ye know not whence I am. Ye know whence I am: Jesus of Nazareth, whose parents also ye knew. For in this case, the birth of the Virgin alone was hidden, to whom, however, her husband was witness; for the same was able faithfully to declare this, who was also able as a husband to be jealous. Therefore, this birth of the Virgin excepted, they knew all that in Jesus pertains to man: His face was known, His country was known, His family was known; where He was born was to be known by inquiry. Rightly then did He say, "Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am," according to the flesh and form of man which He bore; but according to His divinity, "And I am not come of myself, but He that sent me is true, whom ye know not;" but yet that ye may know Him, believe on Him whom He has sent, and ye will know Him. For, "No man has seen God at any time, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him:" and, "None knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

He confutes these objectors concerning Christ's generation, showing his twofold generation: temporal, which they knew, and eternal, which he himself knew. On account of the temporal he says: "Jesus therefore cried out, teaching in the temple," so as to astonish those who were murmuring; whence Proverbs 1: "Wisdom cries aloud outside, she utters her voice in the streets"; because he teaches openly and freely; Isaiah 58: "Cry aloud, do not cease, lift up your voice like a trumpet." "And saying: You both know me and know whence I am," according to his temporal generation; whence Matthew 13: "His mother is called Mary"; and they knew this, that he was a man and that he was born of Mary; this was said according to his temporal generation. But as regards his eternal generation, he says that he is from another, whom they do not know; on account of which he says: "And I have not come of myself," in which is noted the procession from the Father; "but he is true who sent me," because he is God; for God is truthful, but every man is a liar, according to that saying of the Psalm, "Every man is a liar"; Numbers 23: "God is not as a man, that he should lie." "Whom you do not know;" above in chapter 5: "The Father who sent me has borne witness concerning me; you have neither heard his voice nor seen his form."

It is asked concerning what he says: "Jesus cried out," etc.; because it is said in Isaiah 42: "He will not cry out, and his voice will not be heard outside."

I respond: There is the cry of impatience and contention, and of this Isaiah understands; and there is the cry of affectionate preaching, and so it is taken here.

It is also asked concerning what he says: "You know me." To the contrary: Below in chapter eight: "If you knew me, you would know my Father also;" therefore they did not know him.

I respond: There was a twofold knowledge of Christ: one through exterior sense, such as that he was a man and born in such a town and from such a parent — this they knew; the other through interior revelation, which concerned the invisible Divinity; and by this indeed they did not know him; and concerning this it is said in John chapter eight.

Jesus therefore cried teaching in the temple and saying, Ye both know Me and know whence I am.

As the men of Jerusalem were gently whispering those things one to another (for they durst not speak openly for fear of the Jews, as it is written) Christ again in God-befitting way receives knowledge of the things spoken. But since He was considering that it were fit to profit those men, He immediately shows the God-befitting Energy that is in Him, and clearly reveals to them that He has knowledge of all things. For He lifts up His cry on high, albeit before time not used to do so, and convicts them again of not having any certain understanding of the Divinely-inspired Scripture, and makes what is secret and has scarcely passed the mouth the basis of His Discourse. Next from those very things from which they foolishly supposed that they ought not to believe Him does He persuade them outright that they ought to believe: such is the pregnant meaning of what He says. Ye marvel (He says) and that most justly, that Power truly God-befitting is in Me, easily taming the purpose of the Jews, murderous though it be: for they seek to kill Me, as ye have truly and accurately remarked, and are putting forth all their diligence to that end. But (He says) when I should be fleeing, and getting Me as far off as possible from those who think it right to kill Me, I caring not a whit for their mad folly, on the contrary speak boldly and convict those who break the Law by not choosing to judge just judgment, and I suffer nothing at all. For they who of old were fierce forbear against their will, and this not the fruit of their own free choice, but the effect of My Authority. For I do not suffer them, although madly raging, and whetted unto inhuman wrath, to dare before the time their murderous purpose towards Me. At these things then (He saith) ye have been most reasonably astonished, and say that the rulers know of a truth that I am the Christ. And ye, following out suitable reasoning herein, turning away to the oracles of Divine Scripture, when ye ought rather to have been benefited therefrom, confirmed in your conception of Me, on the contrary ye were offended. For from your merely knowing whence I am, and of whom I am born, ye have decided (He saith) that I am not the Christ. Know therefore, that ye both know Me and know whence I am, that is the Divinely-inspired Scripture has given you both to know Me and whence I am. And not because ye know (may be) that I am of Nazareth or Bethlehem, and that I am born of a woman, ought ye therefore to admit the disease of unbelief; but from those things that are spoken of Me, and because of My Birth after the Flesh, ought ye the rather to advance to the apprehension of the Mysteries respecting Me, and |520 not to turn aside merely at a single voice of a Prophet, who is telling My Ineffable Generation from God the Father.

And of Myself I am not come, but He is true That sent Me.

Under the guise of defence He finds fault with the Jews who were insulting through long unbelief. With no slight skill then He composing His Discourse, by every means contrives not to seem to excite His hearers by any occasion to reasonable displeasure, but veiling His words in obscurity, He beguiles their excess of anger and draws off the edge of their passion. Why then (He says) do they, when I have often explained and openly cried out that I am sent by God the Father, still disbelieve, and because they know His Birth after the Flesh, say that He is not He Who was fore-heralded by the Law and fore-declared by the holy Prophets, and well nigh meet Him with the words: Thou utterest lies O Sir, coming to us, according to Thine Own Will, and dost Thou not blush feigning the Name of the Father? Repelling therefore this accusation of theirs as to this too, He mingles reproof with His defence, and most excellently says, Of Myself I am not come, but Se is True That sent Me. For it is your custom (He saith) O ye who dare all things with ease, and advance heedlessly to all, even the most heinous actions, sometimes to prophesy falsely, and though God hath not sent you, to say that ye are sent by God. But I am not like you, nor yet will I imitate your well-practised villany. I am not come of Myself, nor Mine Own messenger, like you, but I am come from Heaven: True is He That sent Me, not like your lie-loving sender, the devil, whose spirit ye receiving are bold too to prophesy falsely. True then is He That sent Me, but he that stirred you up to invent words from God, is not true. For he is a liar, and the father of liars. But that we shall find the Jews accustomed to prophesy lies, we shall see without any trouble from the words of the Prophets. For most plainly doth the Lord of all say of them, I sent not the prophets, yet they ran, I spake not to them, and they prophesied. And again in Jeremiah, The prophets prophesy lies in My Name, I sent them not and spake not to them and commanded them not; for visions and divinations and prophecies of their own heart do they prophesy unto you. The arrogant Jew then is reproved for this that he fastened upon Christ his own boldness against God, i. e., false prophecy. For the utter disbelief in Him Who cries that He is sent from God, even the Father, what else is it save openly to cry out, Thou prophesiest falsely, imitating our practices against ourselves?

No one knows the Father; the Son often assures us of this. The reason why he says that no one knows him but himself is because he is from the Father. Is it, I ask, as the result of an act of creation or of a genuine birth that he is from him? If it is an act of creation, then all created things are from God. How then is it that none of them know the Father, when the Son says that the reason why he has this knowledge is that he is from him? If he is created, not born, we shall observe in him a resemblance to other beings who are from God. Since all, on this supposition, are from God, why is he not as ignorant of the Father as the others are? But if this knowledge of the Father is peculiar to him who is from the Father, must not this circumstance also be peculiar to him, that is, that he is from the Father? That is, must he not be the true Son born from the nature of God? For the reason why he alone knows God is because he alone is from God. You observe, then, a knowledge that is peculiar to himself, resulting from a birth that also is peculiar to himself. You recognize that it is not by an act of creative power but through a true birth that he is from the Father. And you realize that this is why he alone knows the Father who is unknown to all other beings that are from him.

(de Trin. ult. med.) Every man, ever born in the flesh, is in a certain sense from God. How then could He say that they were ignorant who He was, and whence He wasa? Because our Lord is here referring to His own peculiar birth from God, which they were ignorant of, because they did not know that He was the Son of God. His very saying then that they did not know whence He was, was telling them whence He was. If they did not know whence He was, He could not be from nothing; for then there would be no whence to be ignorant of. He must therefore be from God. And then not knowing whence He is, was the reason that they did not know who He is. He does not know the Son who does not know His birth from the Father.

"Ye both know Me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me is true, whom ye know not." And again, "If ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also." How then saith He, that they both "know Him," and "whence He is," and then, "that they neither know Him, nor the Father"? He doth not contradict, (away with the thought,) but is very consistent with Himself. For He speaketh of a different kind of knowledge, when He saith, "ye know not"; as when He saith, "The sons of Eli were wicked sons, they knew not the Lord"; and again, "Israel doth not know Me." So also Paul saith, "They profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him." It is therefore possible, "knowing," "not to know." This then is what He saith: "If ye know Me, ye know that I am the Son of God." For the "whence I am" doth not here denote place. As is clear from what followeth, "I am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me is true, whom ye know not," referring here to the ignorance shown by their works.

"I know Him," He saith, "for I am from Him, and He hath sent Me." Seest thou how He continually seeketh to prove the, "I am not come of Myself," and, "He that sent Me is true," striving not to be thought an enemy of God? And observe how great is the profit of the humility of His words.

Since they were saying that they knew Him, where He was from, with no other purpose than to show that He was from the earth and the son of a carpenter, He therefore leads them up to heaven, saying: "You both know Me, and you know where I am from," that is, although out of your malice you conceal it, yet you know that I am from heaven. For if My Father is from there, it is evident that I Myself am also from there and that I was sent by the One Who is true. For the True One would not wish to send a deceiver and a liar. But you do not know the One Who sent Me, you do not acknowledge Him by your deeds. For even in knowledge there can be ignorance, as the Apostle Paul says: "They profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him." (Titus 1:16) And you, Jews, do not know My Father because of your evil deeds and your exceedingly evil intention.

Then he shows his origin. First, he shows in what sense his origin is known, and in what sense it is not known; in the second place, he shows how we can acquire a knowledge of his origin (v 29). He does two things about the first. First, he shows what they knew about his origin; secondly, what they did not know about it (v 28b).

They did know the origin of Jesus; and so he says of Jesus that he cried out. Now a cry comes from some great emotion. Sometimes it indicates the upheaval of a soul in interior distress; and in this sense it does not apply to Christ: "He will not cry out" (Is 42:2); "The words of the wise are heard in silence" (Ecc 9:17). Sometimes it implies great devotion, as in, "In my trouble I cried to the Lord" (Ps 119:1). And sometimes, along with this, it signifies that what is to be said is important, as in, "The Seraphim cried to each other and said: 'Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of hosts'" (Is 6:3); and in, "Does not wisdom cry out?" (Prv 8:1). This is the way preachers are encouraged to cry out: "Cry out, do not stop! Raise your voice like a trumpet" (Is 58:1). This is the way Christ cried out here, teaching in the temple.

And he said: You do indeed know me, according to appearances, and you know where I come from, that is, as to my bodily existence: "After this he was seen on earth" (Bar 3:38). For they knew that he was born from Mary in Bethlehem, and brought up in Nazareth; but they did not know about the virgin birth, and that he had been conceived through the Holy Spirit, as Augustine says. With the exception of the virgin birth, they knew everything about Jesus that pertained to his humanity.

They did not know his hidden origin; and so he says: And I have not come of my own accord. First, he gives his origin; and secondly, he shows that it is hidden from them.

His origin is from the Father, from eternity. And so he says: I have not come of my own accord, as if to say: Before I came into the world through my humanity, I existed according to my divinity: "Before Abraham came to be, I am" (below 8:58). For he could not have come unless he already was. And although I have come, I have not come of my own accord, because the Son is not of himself, but from the Father. "I came from the Father and have come into the world" (below 16:28). Indeed, his origin was foretold by the Father, who promised to send him: "I beg you, O Lord, send him whom you are going to send" (Ex 4:13); "I will send them a Savior and a defender, to free them" (Is 19:20). And so he says: the one who sent me is truthful, as if to say: I have not come from another but from him who promised and kept his promise, as he is truthful: "God is truthful" (Rom 3:4). Consequently, he teaches me to speak the truth, because I have been sent by one who is truthful. But they do not know this, because they do not know him who sent me; and so he says: whom you do not know.

But since every man, although born in a bodily condition, is from God, it seems that Christ could say that he is from God; and consequently, that they do know where he comes from. I answer, according to Hilary, that the Son is from God in a different way than others: for he is from God in such a way that he is also God; and so God is his consubstantial principle. But others are from God, but in such a way that they are not from him. Thus, it is not known where the Son is from because the nature from which he is, is not known. But where men are from is not unknown: for if something exists from nothing, where it is from cannot be unknown.

Lastly, when He had said, "But He that sent me is true, whom ye know not," in order to show them whence they might know that which they did not know, He subjoined, "I know Him." Therefore seek from me to know Him. But why is it that I know Him? "Because I am from Him, and He sent me." Gloriously has He shown both. "I am from Him," said He; because the Son is from the Father, and whatever the Son is, He is of Him whose Son He is. Hence we say that the Lord Jesus is God of God: we do not say that the Father is God of God, but simply God: and we say that the Lord Jesus is Light of Light; we do not say that the Father is Light of Light, but simply Light. Accordingly, to this belongs that which He said "I am from Him." But as to my being seen of you in the flesh, "He sent me." When thou hearest "He sent me," do not understand a difference of nature to be meant, but the authority of Him that begets.

(Tr. xxxi. 4) Lastly, to show whence they could get to know Him (who had sent Him), He adds, I know Him: so if you would know Him, enquire of Me. No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him. And if I should say, I know Him not, I should be a liar like unto you. (c. 8:55)

(Tr. xxxi. 4) I am from Him, He says, i. e. as the Son from the Father: but that you see Me in the flesh is because He hath sent Me. Wherein understand not a difference of nature, but the authority of a father.

"But I know him, and if I should say that I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar;" you who lie saying that you are ignorant of his temporal birth; but I do not lie so as to say that I do not know his eternal generation. "For I know him, because I am from him, and he sent me;" as the Son knows the Father; Matthew 11: "No one knows the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal him." "I know him," through manifest knowledge; above in chapter 1: "No one has seen God" etc. "I am from him," through generation; below in chapter 16: "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world." "And he sent me," through the incarnation; Isaiah 61: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me" etc.

Ye have just said (He saith) When Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence He is. But since ye insist that ye hold this your opinion rightly, as being the truth, I agree to your words herein. For True is He of Whom I am, the Father, but He is not known of you. Since then (He says) ye search into the Mystery respecting Me in a manner most unadvised, but as is pleasing to yourselves, and from knowing Who and whence I am after the Flesh, dismiss from yourselves the duty of believing, do ye for this sole cause receive the faith, when ye find that ye understand not whence I am: for I am of the Father, Whom YE know not, since ye know not Him That is of Him, in Whom Alone the Father is to be seen. For he that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father, and he that knoweth the Son is not ignorant of Him that begat. All their quibbling therefore being by this taken from them, they are again taken in their malice, finding no longer any excuse for their unbelief, who have thrust away the knowledge through their own stubbornness, that that may be found true which is written, Ye see often and ye kept not, your ears opened and ye heard not. But since He was occupied upon the words of the Jews, that when Christ cometh no man knoweth whence He is, withdrawing Himself of necessity, as God, from the company of things originate, and from all else to whom the title no man may reasonably be applied, showing that He is Other by Nature, He says that He is not as they are, ignorant of His Own Father, but affirmed that He knows in all exactness both Himself and Him. For He is God of God the Father, possessed of a certain wondrous and strange knowledge of these things, as befitteth Himself Alone. For not in like manner as we know, in the same doth the Son know the Father. For the nature of things originate attaineth to the sight of God by conception only, and not overpassing the bounds which befit it, doth even against its will yield to the Divine Nature, the being veiled in ineffable words. But the Only Begotten of God the Father, vieweth Whole in Himself Him That begat Him, and pourtraying the Essence of the Father in His Own Nature, knoweth Him, in a way impossible to tell: for unutterable are the things of God.

Every person is born in the flesh; yet does not universal consciousness make every person spring from God? How then can Christ assert that either he or the source of his being is unknown? He can do so only by assigning his immediate parentage to the ultimate author of existence. And, when he has done this, he can demonstrate their ignorance of God by their ignorance of the fact that he is the Son of God.… Now he who came is not the author of his own being; but he who sent him is true whom the blasphemers do not know. He it was who sent him; and they do not know that he was the sender. Thus the sent one is from the sender; from him whom they do not know as his author. The reason why they do not know who Christ is, is that they do not know from whom he is. None can confess the Son who deny that he was born; none can understand that he was born who has formed the opinion that Jesus is from nothing. And indeed Jesus is so far from being made out of nothing that the heretics cannot tell from where he is.

[Jesus says this] to debar heresy from the violent assumption that his being from God dates from the time of his advent. The gospel revelation of the mystery proceeds in a logical sequence. First he is born, then he is sent. Similarly, in the previous declaration, we were told of ignorance, first as to who he is and then as to from where he is. For the words "I am from him, and he sent me" contain two separate statements, as also do the words "You know me, and you know where I am from."

(vi. de Trin. ultra med.) I ask however, does the being from Him express a work of creation, or a birth by generation? If a work of creation, then every thing which is created is from Him. And how then does not all creation know the Father, if the Son knows Him, because He is from Him? But if the knowledge of the Father is peculiar to Him, as being from Him, then the being from Him is peculiar to Him also; i. e. the being the true Son of God by nature. So you have then a peculiar knowledge springing from a peculiar generation. To prevent however any heresy applying the being from Him, to the time of His advent, He adds, And He hath sent Me: thus preserving the order of the Gospel sacrament; first announcing Himself born, and then sent.

"I know Him," for knowing Him, neither evil intention nor deeds contrary to Him hinder Me. "Because I am from Him," that is, from Him, not from another essence, not foreign to Him. "And He sent Me." Here two natures in Christ are clearly indicated: by the words "I am from Him" – the divine Nature, and by the words "and He sent Me" – the human. For the Son of God is called an Envoy, as well as a Servant of God, according to His humanity.

Then when he says, I know him, he teaches us how to know him from whom he is. For if a thing is to be learned, it must be learned from one who knows it. But only the Son knows the Father. And so he says: If you wish to know him who sent me, you must acquire this knowledge from me, because I alone know him. First, he shows that he knows him; secondly, he shows the perfection of his knowledge; and thirdly, the nature of his knowledge.

He shows that he knows him when he says, I know him. Now it is true that "All men see him" (Jb 36:25), but they do not see him in the same way, for in this life we see him through the intermediary of creatures: "The invisible things of God are clearly known through the things that have been made" (Rom 1:20). Thus we read: "Now we see in a mirror, in an obscure manner" (1 Cor 13:12). But the angels and the blessed in heaven see him through his essence: "Their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven" (Mt 18:10); "We shall see him as he is" (1 Jn 3:2). The Son of God, on the other hand, sees him in a more excellent way than all, that is, with a comprehensive or all-inclusive vision: "No one has ever seen God," i.e., in a comprehensive way; "it is the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has made him known" (above 1:18); "No one knows the Father but the Son" (Mt 11:27). It is of this vision that he is speaking of here, when he says: I know him, with a comprehensive knowledge.

He shows the perfection of his knowledge when he says: And if I were to say that I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar. This is mentioned for two reasons. Intellectual creatures do know God, though from a distance and imperfectly, for "All men see him, from a distance" (Jb 36:25). For divine truth transcends all our knowledge: "God is greater than our hearts" (1 Jn 3:20). Therefore, whoever knows God can say without lying: "I do not know him," because he does not know him to the full extent that he is knowable. But the Son knows God the Father most perfectly, just as he knows himself most perfectly. Thus he cannot say: I do not know him.

Again, because our knowledge of God, especially that which comes through grace, can be lost—"They forgot God, who saved them" (Ps 105:21)—men can say, I do not know him, as long as they are in this present life: because no one knows whether he deserves love or hatred. The Son, on the other hand, has a knowledge of the Father that cannot be lost; so he cannot say: I do not know him.

We should understand, I would be like you, as a reverse likeness. For they would not be lying if they said they did not know God; but they would be if they said that they did know him, since they did not know him. But if Christ said that he did not know him, he would be lying, since he did know him. So the meaning of this statement is this: If I were to say that I do not know him, then since I really do know him, I would be like you, a liar, who say that you know him, although you do not.

Could not Christ have said: I do not know him? It seems he could, since he could have moved his lips and said the words. And so he could have lied. I reply that Christ did say this and still was not lying. We should explain it this way: If he were to say, I do not know him, declaratively, meaning, "I believe in my heart what I profess by my lips," then he would have been a liar. Now to say as the truth what is false comes from two defects: from a defect of knowledge in the intellect; and Christ could not have this since he is the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:30); or it could come from a defect of right will in the affections; and this could not be in Christ either since he is the power of God, according to the same text. Thus he could not say the words I do not know him, declaratively. Yet this entire conditional statement is not false, although both its parts are impossible.

The reason for this singular and perfect knowledge of Christ is given when he says: I do know him, because I am from him, and he sent me. Now all knowledge comes about through some likeness, since nothing is known except insofar as there is a likeness of the known in the knower. But whatever proceeds from something has a likeness to that from which it proceeds; and so, all who truly know have a varied knowledge of God according to the different degrees of their procession from him. The rational soul has a knowledge of God insofar as it participates in a likeness to him in a more imperfect way than other intellectual creatures. An angel, because it has a more explicit likeness to God, being a stamp of resemblance, knows God more clearly. But the Son has the most perfect likeness to the Father, since he has the same essence and power as he does; and so he knows him most perfectly, as was said. And so he says: But I do know him, that is, to the extent that he is knowable. And the reason for this is because I am from him, having the same essence with him through consubstantiality. Thus, just as he knows himself perfectly through his essence, so I do know him perfectly through the same essence. And so that we do not understand these words as referring to his being sent into this world, he at once adds, and he sent me. Consequently, the statement, I am from him, refers to his eternal generation, through which he is consubstantial with the Father. But then when he says, and he sent me, he is saying that the Father is the author of the incarnation: "God sent his Son, made from a woman, made under the law" (Gal 4:4). Now just as the Son has a perfect knowledge of the Father because he is from the Father, so because the soul of Christ is united to the Word in a unique way, it has a unique and more excellent knowledge of God than other creatures, although it does not comprehend him. And so Christ can say, according to his human nature: I know him in a more excellent way than other creatures do, but without comprehending him.

The Lord said to them that a prophet is without honor in his own country, because he was to be despised in Judea until the final fate of the cross. And since God's power is only with those who are faithful, he abstained from all works of divine power while he was there, because of their unbelief.

Further, He makes this answer, that a Prophet is without honour in his own country, because it was in Judæa that He was to be condemned to the sentence of the cross; and forasmuch as the power of God is for the faithful alone, He here abstained from works of divine power because of their unbelief; whence it follows, And he did not there many mighty works because of their unbelief.

(Verse 57.) But Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country and in his own house. It is almost natural for citizens to envy each other. For they do not consider a man's present deeds, but they remember his fragile infancy, as if they themselves had not also passed through the same stages of age to mature adulthood.

For it is almost natural for citizens to be jealous towards one another; for they do not look to the present works of the man, but remember the frailties of his childhood; as if they themselves had not passed through the very same stages of age to their maturity.

What then saith Christ unto them? "A prophet," saith He, "is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house: and He did not," it is said, "many mighty works, because of their unbelief." But Luke saith, "And He did not there many miracles." And yet it was to be expected He should have done them. For if the feeling of wonder towards Him was gaining ground (for indeed even there He was marvelled at), wherefore did He not do them? Because He looked not to the display of Himself, but to their profit. Therefore when this succeeded not, He overlooked what concerned Himself, in order not to aggravate their punishment.

And yet see after how long a time He came to them, and after how great a display of miracles: but not even so did they endure it, but were inflamed again with envy.

Wherefore then did He yet do a few miracles? That they might not say, "Physician, heal thyself." That they might not say, "He is a foe and an enemy to us, and overlooks His own;" that they might not say, "If miracles had been wrought, we also should have believed." Therefore He both wrought them, and stayed: the one, that He might fulfill His own part; the other, that He might not condemn them the more.

And consider thou the power of His words, herein at least, that possessed as they were by envy, they did yet admire. And as with regard to His works, they do not find fault with what is done, but feign causes which have no existence, saying, "In Beelzebub He casteth out the devils;" even so here too, they find no fault with the teaching, but take refuge in the meanness of His race.

But mark thou, I pray thee, the Master's gentleness, how He reviles them not, but with great mildness saith, "A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country." And neither here did He stop, but added, "And in his own house." To me it appears, that with covert reference to His very own brethren, He made this addition.

But in Luke He puts examples also of this, saying, that neither did Elias come unto His own, but to the stranger widow; neither by Eliseus was any other leper healed, but the stranger Naaman; and Israelites neither received benefit, nor conferred benefit, but the foreigners. And these things He saith, signifying in every instance their evil disposition, and that in His case nothing new is taking place.

Observe Christ's mercifulness; He is evil spoken of, yet He answers with mildness; Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and in his own house.

We must inquire whether the expression has the same force when applied universally to every prophet. Does it mean that every one of the prophets was dishonored only in his own country? Or does it mean that every one who was dishonored was dishonored in his country? Or does it mean that because of the expression being singular, these things were said about only one? If these words are spoken about only one, then these things that have been said make sense insofar as they refer to what is written about the Savior. But if the point is generalized to indicate all prophets, then it is harder to defend historically. For Elijah did not suffer dishonor in Tishbeth of Gilead, nor Elisha in Abetmeholah, nor Samuel in Ramathaim, nor Jeremiah in Anathoth. But, figuratively interpreted, this saying is absolutely true. For we must think of Judea as their country and that famous Israel as their kindred, and perhaps of the body as the house. All suffered dishonor in Judea from the Israel that is according to the flesh while they were yet in the body. As it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, "Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute, who declared beforehand the coming of the righteous One?" And Paul says similar things in the first epistle to the Thessalonians: "For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all people."

He calls Himself a Prophet, as Moses also declares, when he says, A Prophet shall God raise up unto you of your brethren. (Deut. 18:18.) And it should be known, that not Christ only, who is the Head of all the Prophets, but Jeremiah, Daniel, and the other lesser Prophets, had more honour and regard among strangers than among their own citizens.

See how Christ did not insult them, but said meekly, "A prophet is not without honour." For it is our human habit to despise those who are familiar, and to give a friendly welcome strangers. He added "and in his own house" because even His brothers who were of the same house bore Him ill-will. "He did not many mighty works there" because of their unbelief, sparing them further punishment lest they remain unbelieving even after the miracles which He might have done there. "He did not many mighty works," but He did perform a few, that they might not have excuse to say later, "If He had done something, we would have believed." You, O reader, understand this: to this day Jesus is without honor in His own country, that is, among the Jews. But we who are foreigners give Him honor.

The Nazarenes also took offense at Jesus, perhaps themselves saying that He was casting out demons by Beelzebub.

But it should be noted that wonder sometimes has its proper effect, namely, the glorification of God, as above at 3:5, but sometimes it has the effect of scandal: hence he says, and they were scandalized in him. But what is the reason that wonder sometimes brings forth glory, sometimes scandal? The reason is that some interpret what they hear in a worse sense, and therefore such persons are necessarily scandalized. In the Epistle of Jude, 10: whatever things they do not know, they blaspheme. But some who are well disposed always interpret in a better sense. Of the first kind were these; therefore he rebukes them; and first by word; secondly, by deed, when he says: but Jesus said to them: a prophet is not without honor except in his own country. The Lord calls himself a prophet: and no wonder, because Moses also called him a prophet, Deut 18:15: the Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet of your nation and of your brethren, etc. And it can be said that a prophet is one who says something that is above human understanding through revelation; and thus Jesus is called a prophet, because his mind was illuminated by the angels and by God. Or one can be called a prophet from the word meaning "from afar," and phanos, which means illumination: and thus Jesus cannot be called a prophet: if there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, etc. So the text has it. But if there be a prophet, let him speak in riddles: thus Christ was not a prophet, because he said what he truly knew; Sir 34:9: he who has learned many things will declare understanding. Among the prophets of the Old Testament we do not find any who was honored by his own people, but rather by strangers, as we read of Jeremiah, who was captured by his own, but when the city was taken, was freed by strangers: so also was it with Christ, who was honored by strangers and despised by his own. And what is the reason why no one is honored in his own country? One reason is that when he is in his own country, many who know his weaknesses always bring his weaknesses to mind: for this comes from the malice of men, that they think more of weaknesses than of perfections. Another can be assigned, because the Philosopher says that the populace is often led astray in reasoning, because they believe that those who are equal in some respect are equal in all respects. Hence when someone is in his own country, since they see him equal to themselves in some respect, whether in family or in other things, they believe that he cannot be greater; therefore he rightly says a prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.