Wednesday of the 2nd Sunday of Pascha

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.

(Tr. xvii. c. 13) This announcement enraged them, And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because He had done these things on the sabbath day. A plain bodily work had been done before their eyes, distinct from the healing of the man's body, and which could not have been necessary, even if healing was; viz. the carrying of the bed. Wherefore our Lord openly says, that the sacrament of the Sabbath, the sign of observing one day out of seven, was only a temporary institution, which had attained its fulfilment in Him: But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work: as if He said, Do not suppose that My Father rested on the Sabbath in such a sense, as that from that time forth, He has ceased from working; for He worketh up to this time, though without labour, and so work I. God's resting means only that He made no other creature, after the creation. The Scripture calls it rest, to remind us of the rest we shall enjoy after a life of good works here. And as God only when He had made man in His own image and similitude, and finished all His works, and seen that they were very good, rested on the seventh day: so do thou expect no rest, except thou return to the likeness in which thou wert made, but which thou hast lost by sin; i. e. unless thou doest good works.

(iv. Super Gen. ad litteram [c. xi.]) It may be said then, that the observance of the sabbath was imposed on the Jews, as the shadow of something to come; viz. that spiritual rest, which God, by the figure of His own rest promised to all who should perform good works.

There will be a sabbath of the world, when the six ages, i. e. the six days, as it were, of the world, have passed: then will come that rest which is promised to the saints.

(iv. Gen. ad lit. c. xi.) The mystery of which rest the Lord Jesus Himself scaled by His burial: for He rested in His sepulchre on the sabbath, having on the sixth day finished all His work, inasmuch as He said, It is finished. (c. 19) What wonder then that God, to prefigure the day on which Christ was to rest in the grave, rested one day from His works, afterwards to carry on the work of governing the world. We may consider too that God, when He rested, rested from the work of creation simply, i. e. made no more new kinds of creatures: but that from that time till now, He has been carrying on the government of those creatures. For His power, as respects the government of heaven and earth, and all the things that He had made, did not cease on the seventh day: they would have perished immediately, without His government: because the power of the Creator is that on which the existence of every creature depends. If it ceased to govern, every species of creation would cease to exist: and all nature would go to nothing. For the world is not like a building, which stands after the architect has left it; it could not stand the twinkling of an eye, if God withdrew His governing hand. Therefore when our Lord says, My Father worketh hitherto, he means the continuation of the work; the holding together, and governing of the creation. It might have been different, had He said, Worketh even now. This would not have conveyed the sense of continuing. As it is we find it, Until now; i. e. from the time of the creation downwards.

(Tr. xvii. s. 15) He says then, as it were, to the Jews, Why think ye that I should not work on the sabbath? The sabbath day was instituted as a typed of Me. Ye observe the works of God: by Me all things were made. The Father made light, but He spoke, that it might be made. If He spoke, then He made it by the Word; and I am His Word. My Father worked when He made the world, and He worketh until now, governing the world: and as He made the world by Me, when He made it, so He governs it, by Me, now He governs it.

(de Con. Ev. l. iv. c. x) The words, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, suppose Him to be equal to the Father. This being understood, it followed from the Father's working, that the Son worked: inasmuch as the Father cloth nothing without the Son.

The word still shows [the Son's] eternal existence in the Father as the Word. For it is proper to the Word to do the Father's works and not to be external to him.… He is either seen to be the efficient cause of things that he himself has brought about, or he has no power to cause anything at all.… For none of the things that are brought to be is an efficient cause, but all things were made through the Word who would not have brought anything into being if he himself were numbered among the creatures.… For by the Word, the things that were not have come into existence. And if through him [i.e., the Son] the [Father] creates and makes, [the Son] is not himself of things created and made. Rather, he is the Word of the Creator God and is known, from the Father's works which he himself works, to be "in the Father and the Father in him" … because the Son's essence is proper to the Father, and he is in all points like his Father.

Here he has already indicated that he is equal to God. "My Father," he says, "is working until now, and I too am working." Their literal-minded understanding of the sabbath is disturbed. They imagined that it was because the Lord was tired that he rested, in order to do no more work. They hear, "My Father is working until now," and they are disturbed. But then he adds, "And I too am working," making himself equal to God, and again they are disturbed.

How can both be true when it says that God rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had made, and what he himself through whom they were made says in the gospel, "My Father is working until now; and I myself am working." … The Lord Jesus Christ, who suffered only at the precise time he willed, underlined the mystery of this [Genesis] rest by his burial. It was of course on the day of the Sabbath that he rested in the tomb, and he had the whole of that day as a kind of holy vacation, after he had finished all his works on the sixth day, that is, Preparation Day … when he said, "It is finished; and bowing his head he surrendered his spirit." So why should we be surprised if God wished to point forward to this day on which Christ would rest in the grave, before proceeding from then on to work the unfolding of the ages, in order to verify these other words too, "My Father is working until now?"God can be understood to have rested from establishing different kinds of creatures, because he did not now establish any new kinds any more. But he rested like this in such a way as to continue from then on and up till now to operate the management of the things that were then set in place, not as though at least on that seventh day his power was withheld from the government of heaven and earth and of all the things he had established. If that had been done, they would immediately have collapsed into nothingness. It is the creator's power, after all, and the virtuosity, the skill and tenacity of the almighty, that causes every created thing to subsist. If this tenacious virtuosity ceased for one moment to rule and direct the things that have been created, their various species would at once cease to exist, and every nature would collapse into nothingness. It is not, you see, like a mason building houses; when he has finished he goes away, and his work goes on standing when he has stopped working on it and gone away. No, the world will not be able to go on standing for a single moment if God withdraws from it his controlling hand. Indeed, the very expression employed by the Lord, "My Father is working until now," points to the continuousness of his work by which he holds together and manages the whole of creation. It could, you see, have been understood differently if he had said, "and is now working," where we would not have to take the work as being continuous. But by saying "until now," he forces us to understand it in the other sense as meaning, that is, from the time when he had worked at the original establishment of all things.

"My Father," saith He, "worketh hitherto, and I work." He sent a great commotion among them: the water is troubled by the coming of the Lord, but yet He that troubles is not seen. Yet one great sick one is to be healed by the troubled water, the whole world by the death of the Lord.

Let us see, then, the answer made by the Truth: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Is it false, then, which the Scripture has said, that "God rested from all His works on the seventh day"? And does the Lord Jesus speak contrary to this Scripture ministered by Moses, whilst He Himself says to the Jews, "If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for He wrote of me"? See, then, whether Moses did not mean it to be significant of something that "God rested on the seventh day." For God had not become wearied in doing the work of His own creation, and needed rest as a man. How can He have been wearied, who made by a word? Yet is both that true, that "God rested from His works on the seventh day;" and this also is true that Jesus saith, "My Father worketh hitherto." But who can unfold it in words, man to men, weak to weak, unlearned to them that seek to learn; and if he chance to understand somewhat, unable to bring it forth and unfold it to men, who with difficulty, it may be, receive it, even if what is received can possibly be unfolded? Who, I say, my brethren, can unfold in words how God both works while at rest, and rests while working? I pray you to put this matter off while you are advancing on the way; for this seeing requires the temple of God, requires the holy place. Bear your neighbor, and walk. Ye shall see Him in that place where ye shall not require the words of men.

Perhaps we can more appropriately say this, that in the saying, "God rested on the seventh day," he signified by a great mystery the Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, who spoke and said, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." For the Lord Jesus is, of course, God. For He is the Word of God, and you have heard that "in the beginning was the Word;" and not any word whatsoever, but "the Word was God, and all things were made by Him." He was perhaps signified as about to rest on the seventh day from all His works. For, read the Gospel, and see what great works Jesus wrought. He wrought our salvation on the cross, that all things foretold by the prophets might be fulfilled in Him. He was crowned with thorns; He hung on the tree; said, "I thirst," received vinegar on a sponge, that it might be fulfilled which was said, "And in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." And when all His works were completed, on the sixth day of the week, He bowed His head and gave up the ghost, and on the Sabbath-day He rested in the tomb from all His works. Therefore it is as if He said to the Jews, "Why do ye expect that I should not work on the Sabbath? The Sabbath-day was ordained for you for a sign of me. You observe the works of God: I was there when they were made, by me were they all made; I know them. 'My Father worketh hitherto.' The Father made the light, but He spoke that there should be light; if He spoke, it was by His Word He made it: His Word I was, I am; by me was the world made in those works, by me the world is ruled in these works. My Father worked when He made the world, and hitherto now worketh while He rules the world: therefore by me He made when He made, and by me He rules while He rules." This He said, but to whom? To men deaf, blind, lame, impotent, not acknowledging the physician, and as if in a frenzy they had lost their wits, wishing to slay Him.

You need to be reminded whence this discourse arose, by reason of what precedes this passage, where the Lord had cured a certain man among those who were lying in the five porches of that pool of Solomon, and to whom He had said, "Take up thy bed, and go unto thy house." But this He had done on the Sabbath; and hence the Jews, being troubled, were falsely accusing Him as a destroyer and transgressor of the law. He then said to them, "My Father worketh even until now, and I work." For they, taking the observance of the Sabbath in a carnal sense, fancied that God had, as it were, slept after the labor of framing the world even to this day; and that therefore He had sanctified that day, from which He began to rest as from labor. Now, to our fathers of old there was ordained a sacrament of the Sabbath, which we Christians observe spiritually, in abstaining from every servile work, that is, from every sin (for the Lord saith, "Every one that committeth sin is the servant of sin"), and in having rest in our heart, that is, spiritual tranquillity. And although in this life we strive after this rest, yet not until we have departed this life shall we attain to that perfect rest. But the reason why God is said to have rested is, that He made no creature after all was finished. Moreover, the Scripture called it rest, to admonish us that after good works we shall rest. For thus we have it written in Genesis, "And God made all things very good, and God rested on the seventh day," in order that thou, O man, considering that God Himself is said to have rested after good works, shouldest not expect rest for thyself, until after thou hast wrought good works; and even as God after He made man in His own image and likeness, and in him finished all His works very good, rested on the seventh day, so mayest thou also not expect rest to thyself, except thou return to that likeness in which thou wast made, which likeness thou hast lost by sinning.

For, in reality, God cannot be said to have toiled, who "said, and they were done." If He commanded and some one resisted Him, if He commanded and it was not done, and labored that it might be done, then justly He should be said to have rested after labor. But when in that same book of Genesis we read, "God said, Let there be light, and there was light; God said, Let there be a firmament, and the firmament was made," and all the rest were made immediately at His word: to which also the psalm testifies, saying, "He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created" - how could He require rest after the world was made, as if to enjoy leisure after toil, He who in commanding never toiled? Consequently these sayings are mystical, and are laid down in this wise that we may be looking for rest after this life, provided we have done good works. Accordingly, the Lord, restraining the impudence and refuting the error of the Jews, and showing them that they did not think rightly of God, says to them, when they were offended at His working men's healing on the Sabbath, "My Father worketh until now, and I work:" do not therefore suppose that my Father so rested on the Sabbath, that thenceforth He doth not work; but even as He now worketh, so I also work. But as the Father without toil, so too the Son without toil. God "said, and they were done;" Christ said to the impotent man, "Take up thy bed, and go unto thy house," and it was done.

On the seventh day God rested, not from labor nor from work, since He works even until now, but from the establishment of new species: because He had made all things either in likeness, as those things which are propagated, or in seminal reason, as those things which are brought into being by other modes.

On the left there are three wings inasmuch as there is diffusion into the creature out of a single essence, power and operation. And in this regard, there is a threefold operation, in so far as the one God is the Creator, the Sanctifier and the Retributor: for everything that flows out of Him is in the order of essence or of grace or of glory. The first is before time, the second in time, and the third after all time. There is, however, a creation of souls in the course of time, for "My Father works even until now, and I work."

Here the fifth point is touched upon, namely obstinacy in persecution, which followed upon the Lord's response showing that he was not breaking the Sabbath. On account of which he says: "But Jesus answered them," namely the Jews who were persecuting him: "My Father works even until now," even on the Sabbath, and yet does not break the Sabbath: "and I work," namely by cooperating with the Father even on the Sabbath. If therefore God does not break the Sabbath, neither do I break it: Matthew 12: "The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath"; and because he is Lord, he can work on it without any reproach. From this response the Jews were hardened in malice, by which they ought to have been pacified.

Likewise it is asked concerning what the Lord answered: "My Father works until now, and I work." Against: Genesis 2: "God rested from all the work that He had done": therefore it seems that there is a contradiction. I respond: It must be said that there is the work of the first establishment, and this consists in the creation of those things which pertain to the completion of the universe, and it includes in itself creation, distinction, and adornment: and this was completed in six days. From this work God rested. Another is the work of conservation, and because things cannot be preserved in themselves, since they are by nature apt to be corrupted, this work consists in transmutation and propagation and the creation of souls: and by this work God works and cooperates with cooperating nature. And He speaks here of this work, from which He does not cease on the Sabbath.

For what is the use of wisdom, if it makes not him who can hear it wise? For still the Saviour saves, "and always works, as He sees the Father." For by teaching, one learns more; and in speaking, one is often a hearer along with his audience. For the teacher of him who speaks and of him who hears is one-who waters both the mind and the word. Thus the Lord did not hinder from doing good while keeping the Sabbath; but allowed us to communicate of those divine mysteries, and of that holy light, to those who are able to receive them.

Christ is speaking, as it were, on the sabbath day (for this the word Hitherto must necessarily signify, that the force of the idea may receive its own fitting meaning) but the Jews, who were untutored, and knew not Who the Only-Begotten is by Nature, but attributed to God the Father alone the appointing of the Law through Moses, and asserted that we ought to obey Him Alone; these He attempts to clearly convince, that He works all things together with the Father, and that, having the Nature of Him Who begat Him in Himself, by reason of His not being Other than He, as far as pertains to Sameness of Essence, He will never think ought else than as seemeth good to Him Who begat Him. But as being of the Same Essence He will also will the same things, yea rather being Himself the Living Will and Power of the Father, He worketh all things in all with the Father.

In order then that He might repel the vain murmuring of the Jews and might shame them who were persecuting Him on those grounds whereon they thought good |244 to be angry, as though the honour due to the sabbath were despised. He says, My Father worketh hitherto and I work. For He all but wisheth to signify some such thing as this, If thou believest, O man, that God, having created and compacted all things by His Command and Will ordereth the creation on the sabbath day also, so that the sun riseth, rain-giving fountains are let loose, and fruits spring from the earth, not refusing their increase by reason of the sabbath, the fire works its own work, ministering to the necessities of man unforbidden: confess and know of a surety that the Father worketh God-befitting operations on the sabbath also. Why then (saith He) dost thou uninstructedly accuse Him through Whom He works all things? for God the Father will work in no other way, save through His Power and Wisdom, the Son. Therefore says He, And I work. He shames then with arguments ad absurdum the unbridled mind of His persecutors, showing that they do not so much oppose Himself, as speak against the Father, to Whom Alone they were zealous to ascribe the honour of the Law, not yet knowing the Son Who is of Him and through Him by Nature. For this reason does He call God specially His own Father, leading them most skilfully to this most excellent and precious lesson.

He refers to the charge of violating the sabbath, brought against him. My Father works up to this time, and I work. He means that he had a precedent for claiming the right he did, and that what he did was in reality his Father's doing who acted in the Son. And to quiet the jealousy that had been raised, because by the use of his Father's name he had made himself equal with God, and to assert the excellence of his birth and nature, he says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do."

Their anger was so kindled against him that they wanted to kill him, because he did his works on the sabbath. But let us see also what the Lord answered: "My Father is still working, and I also am working." … He speaks that we may recognize in him the power of the Father's nature employing the nature that has that power to work on the sabbath. The Father works in him while he works. Without doubt, then, Jesus works along with the working of the Father.… We must regard Jesus as referring to that very work of the Father's which he was then doing since it implies the working of the Father at the very time of his words.… If the Father works and the Son works, no union exists between them that merges them into a single person.

"My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." When there was need to make excuse for the Disciples, He brought forward David their fellow-servant, saying, "Have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered?" (Matt. xii. 2.) But when excuse was to be made for Himself, He betook Himself to the Father, showing in two ways His Equality, by calling God His Father peculiarly, and by doing the same things which He did.

"And wherefore did He not mention what took place at Jericho?" Because He wished to raise them up from earth that they might no longer attend to Him as to a man, but as to God, and as to one who ought to legislate: since had He not been The Very Son and of the same Essence, the defense would have been worse than the charge. For if a viceroy who had altered a royal law should, when charged with so doing, excuse himself in this manner, and say, "Yea, for the king also has annulled laws," he would not be able to escape, but would thus increase the weight of the charge. But in this instance, since the dignity is equal, the defense is made perfect on most secure grounds. "From the charges," saith He, "from which ye absolve God, absolve Me also." And therefore He said first, "My Father," that He might persuade them even against their will to allow to Him the same, through reverence of His clearly asserted Sonship.

If any one say, "And how doth the Father 'work,' who ceased on the seventh day from all His works?" let him learn the manner in which He "worketh." What then is the manner of His working? He careth for, He holdeth together all that hath been made. Therefore when thou beholdest the sun rising and the moon running in her path, the lakes, and fountains, and rivers, and rains, the course of nature in the seeds and in our own bodies and those of irrational beings, and all the rest by means of which this universe is made up, then learn the ceaseless working of the Father.

And this one may see more clearly from what He had before said, for "My Father worketh, and I work," is the expression of One declaring Himself equal to God. For in these words He has marked no difference. He said not, "He worketh, and I minister," but, "As He worketh, so work I"; and hath declared absolute Equality.

Now the sentence and ordinance of God respecting the begetting of children is confessedly being fulfilled to this day, the Creator still fashioning man. For this is quite manifest, that God, like a painter, is at this very time working at the world, as the Lord also taught, "My Father worketh hitherto." But when the rivers shall cease to flow and fall into the reservoir of the sea, and the light shall be perfectly separated from the darkness,-for the separation is still going on,-and the dry land shall henceforth cease to bring forth its fruits with creeping things and four-footed beasts, and the predestined number of men shall be fulfilled; then from henceforth shall men abstain from the generation of children. But at present man must cooperate in the forming of the image of God, while the world exists and is still being formed; for it is said, "Increase and multiply."

The apostle certainly, after assigning the planting and watering to art and earth and water, conceded the growth to God alone, where he says, "Neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." For he knew that Wisdom, the first-born of God, the parent and artificer of all things, brings forth everything into the world; whom the ancients called Nature and Providence, because she, with constant provision and care, gives to all things birth and growth. "For," says the Wisdom of God, "my Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Now it is on this account that Solomon called Wisdom the artificer of all things, since God is in no respect poor, but able richly to create, and make, and vary, and increase all things.

Accordingly, let us work out the order we have set down, teaching that Christ was announced as a preacher; as, through Isaiah: "Cry out," he says, "in vigour, and spare not; lift up, as with a trumpet, thy voice, and announce to my commonalty their crimes, and to the house of Jacob their sins. Me from day to day they seek, and to learn my ways they covet, as a people which hath done righteousness, and hath not forsaken the judgment of God," and so forth: that, moreover, He was to do acts of power from the Father: "Behold, our God will deal retributive judgment; Himself will come and save us: then shall the infirm be healed, and the eyes of the blind shall see, and the ears of the deaf shall hear, and the mutes' tongues shall be loosed, and the lame shall leap as an hart," and so on; which works not even you deny that Christ did, inasmuch as you were wont to say that, "on account of the works ye stoned Him not, but because He did them on the Sabbaths."

He says, therefore," My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish His work; " whilst to the Jews He remarks respecting the cure of the impotent man, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." "My Father and I"-these are the Son's words. And it was on this very account that "the Jews sought the more intently to kill Him, not only because He broke the Sabbath, but also because He said that God was His Father, thus making Himself equal with God."

Here he brings up his Father, who always acts according to his will and authority. He too does not abstain from those works on the sabbath that are beneficial to us. Christ, too, knew that any time is suitable for our salvation. He brings up the Father, he says, in order to show us that this same authority is also in him. As the Father always has the authority to do work without being subject to the law—even though he has decreed the law of rest on the sabbath—so the Son has the same privilege. And there is no precept or law that might prevent him from doing whatever he wants.

The Jews accuse Christ of having performed a healing on the Sabbath. But He, as equal to the Father in honor and authority, says: "Just as God and My Father works even on the Sabbath, and you do not accuse Him, so too you should not accuse Me." How then does the Father work until now? Moses says that God rested from all His works (Gen. 2:2). Do you wish to know how God works until now? Look at the universe and learn the works of Providence: the sun rises and sets; look at the sea, the springs, the rivers, the animals, in general at all created things, and you will see that creation does its work, and especially is set in action and motion in an ineffable manner by Providence. Without doubt, Providence does its work on the Sabbath as well. Therefore, just as the Father works and governs creation even on the Sabbath, so I too, His Son, work rightly.

Then (v 17), the second reason for his persecution is given: what he taught. First, we are given the truth he taught; and secondly, the perversity of his persecutors (v 18).

Our Lord taught the truth while justifying his breaking of the Sabbath. Here we should note that our Lord justified both himself and his disciples from breaking the Sabbath. He justified his disciples, since they were men, by comparing them to other men: as the priests who, although they worked in the temple on the Sabbath, did not break the Sabbath; and to David, who, while Ahimelech was priest, took the consecrated bread from the temple on the Sabbath when he was running from Saul (1 Sm 21:1).

Our Lord, who was both God and man, sometimes justified himself in breaking the Sabbath by comparing himself to men, as in Luke (14:5): "Which of you, if his donkey or ox falls into a pit, will not take him out on the Sabbath?" And sometimes he justified himself by comparing himself to God: particularly on this occasion, when he said: My Father works even until now, and so do I. As if to say: Do not think that my Father rested on the Sabbath in such a way that from that time he does not work; rather, just as he is working even now without laboring, so I also am working.

By saying this, Christ eliminated the misunderstanding of the Jews: for in their desire to imitate God, they did not do any work on the Sabbath, as if God entirely ceased from work on that day. In fact, although God rested on the Sabbath from producing new creatures, he is working always and continuously even till now, conserving creatures in existence. Hence it is significant that Moses used the word "rest," after recounting the works of God from which he rested: for this signifies, in its hidden meaning, the spiritual rest which God, by the example of his own rest, promised to the faithful, after they have done their own good works. So we may say that this command was a foreshadowing of something that lay in the future.

He expressly says, works even until now, and not "has worked," to indicate that God's work is continuous. For they might have thought that God is the cause of the world as a craftsman is the cause of a house, i.e., the craftsman is responsible only for the making or coming into existence of the house: in other words, just as the house continues in existence even when the craftsman has ceased working, so the world would exist if God's influence ceased. But according to Augustine, God is the cause of all creatures in such a way as to be the cause of their existing: for if his power were to cease even for a moment, all things in nature would at once cease to be, just as we may say that the air is illuminated only as long as the light of the sun remains in it. The reason for this is that things which depend on a cause only for their coming into existence, are able to exist when that cause ceases; but things that depend on a cause not only for their coming into existence but also to exist, need that cause for their continuous conservation in existence.

Further, in saying that My Father works even until now, he rejects the opinion of those who say that God creates through the instrumentality of secondary causes. This opinion conflicts with Isaiah (26:12): "O Lord, you have accomplished all our works for us." Therefore, just as my Father, who in the beginning created nature, works even until now, by preserving and conserving his creation by the same activity, so do I work, because I am the Word of the Father, through whom he accomplishes all things: "God said: 'Let there be light'" (Gn 1:3). Thus, just as he accomplished the first production of things through the Word, so also their conservation. Consequently, if he works even until now, so do I, because I am the Word of the Father, through whom all things are made and conserved.

The Son, therefore, is both entitled and proved the equal of the Father—a true equality, which both excludes difference of Godhead and discovers, together with the Son, the Father also, to whom the Son is equal. For there is no equality where there is difference, nor again where there is but one person, inasmuch as none is by himself equal to himself. And so, the Evangelist has shown why it is fitting that Christ should call himself the Son of God, that is, make himself equal with God.

Let unbelievers meditate on the fact that, both by nature and sovereignty, the Son is one with the Father and that his power at work is not at cross-purposes with the Father, inasmuch as "whatever the Father does, the Son does as well." For no one can do in the same way the same work that another had done unless he shares in the unity of the same nature, but at the same time also is not inferior in the method of working.

Now the Jews were moved and indignant: justly, indeed, because a man dared to make himself equal with God; but unjustly in this, because in the man they understood not the God. They saw the flesh, the God they knew not; they observed the habitation, of the inhabitant they were ignorant. That flesh was a temple, within it dwelt God. It was not the flesh that Jesus made equal to the Father, it was not the form of a servant that He compared to the Lord; not that which He became for us, but that which He was when He made us. For who Christ is (I speak to Catholics) you know, because you have rightly believed; not Word only, nor flesh only, but the Word was made flesh to dwell among us. I recite again concerning the Word what you know: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God:" here is equality with the Father. But "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." Than this flesh the Father is greater. Thus the Father is both equal and greater; equal to the Word, greater than the flesh; equal to Him by whom He made us, greater than He who was made for us.

What saith He then to them? "Then answered Jesus, and said unto them," being indignant because He made Himself equal with God, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son cannot do anything of Himself, but what He seeth the Father doing." What the Jews answered to these words is not written: and perhaps they said nothing. Certain, however, who wish to be esteemed Christians, are not silent, but from these words somehow conceive certain opinions in contradiction to us, which are not to be despised, both for their and for our sakes. The Arian heretics, namely, while they assert that the Son, who took upon Himself flesh, is less than the Father, not by the flesh, but before taking flesh, and not of the same substance as the Father, take a handle of misrepresentation from these words, and reply to us: "You see that the Lord Jesus, observing the Jews to be moved with indignation at his making himself equal to God the Father, subjoined such words as these, to show that he was not equal with God. For the Jews," say they, "were provoked against Christ, because he made him self equal with God; and Christ, wishing to cure them of this impression, and to show them that the Son is not equal to the Father, that is, to God, saith this, as if he said, Why are ye angry? Why are ye indignant? I am not equal to God, since 'the Son cannot do anything of himself, except what he seeth the Father doing.' Now," say they, "he who 'cannot do anything of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing,' is surely less, not equal."

In this distorted and depraved rule of his own heart, let the heretic hear us, not as yet chiding, but still as it were inquiring, and let him explain to us what he thinks. For, I suppose, whoever thou art (for we may regard him as here present in person), thou dost hold with us, that "in the beginning was the Word." I do hold it, saith he. And that "the Word was with God"? This too, saith he, I hold. Proceed then, and hold the stronger saying that follows, that "the Word was God." Even this, says he, I hold: but yet, this, God the greater; that, God the less. Now this somehow smells of the pagan: I thought I was speaking with a Christian. If there is God the greater, and God the less, then we worship two Gods, not one God. Why, saith he; dost not thou, too, affirm two Gods, equal the one to the other? This I do not assert: for I understand this equality as implying therein also undivided love; and if undivided love, then perfect unity. For if the love that God put in men doth make of many hearts of men one heart, and doth make many souls of men into one soul, as it is written of them that believed and mutually loved one another, in the Acts of the Apostles, "They had one soul and one heart toward God:" if, therefore, my soul and thy soul become one soul, when we think the same thing and love one another, how much more must God the Father and God the Son be one God in the fountain of love!

But to these words, by which thy heart is disturbed, bend thy thought, and reflect with me on that which we were seeking out concerning the Word. We already hold that "the Word was God:" I join to this another thing, that, having said, "This was in the beginning with God," the evangelist immediately subjoined, "All things were made by Him." Now will I urge thee by questioning, now will I move thee against thyself, and sue thee against thyself: only keep this in memory concerning the Word, that "the Word was God, and all things were made by Him." Hear now the words by which thou wast moved to assert that the Son is less, forsooth, because He said, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing." Just so, saith he. Explain to me this a little: This is, I presume, how thou thinkest: that the Father doeth certain things, and the Son observes how the Father doeth, that He may also Himself be able to do those things which He seeth the Father doing. Thou hast set up two artisans, as it were: the Father and the Son just like master and learner, like as artisan fathers are wont to teach their sons their craft. Behold, I come down to thy carnal sense: for the moment I think as thou doest: let us see if this our conception finds an issue in harmony with the things which we have just now alike spoken and alike hold regarding the Word, that "the Word was God," and that "all things were made by Him." Suppose, then, the Father, as an artisan, doing certain works, and the Son as a learner, who "cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing:" He keenly watches, in a manner, the Father's hands, that, as He seeth Him fashioning aught, so He may Himself in like manner fashion something similar by His own works. But the Father here doeth all those things that He doeth, and wishes the Son to give heed to Him, and to do the like also Himself; by whom doeth the Father? Come! now is the time for thee to stand to thy former opinion, which thou didst recite with me, and didst hold with me; that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and all things were made by Him." But thou, after holding with me, that all things were made by the Word, dost again, with thy carnal wit and childish fancy, imagine with thyself God making something, and the Word giving heed; so that when God has made, the Word also may make the like. Now, what does God make without the Word? For if He doeth aught, then were not all things made by the Word; thou hast given up the position which thou didst hold. But if all things were made by the Word, correct what thou didst understand amiss. The Father made, and made only by the Word: in what way does the Word give heed to see the Father making without the Word, what the Word may do in like manner? Whatever the Father hath made, He made it by the Word; else is it false that "all things were made by Him." But it is true that "all things were made by Him." Perhaps this did not seem enough for thee? Well, "and without Him was nothing made."

Withdraw, then, from this wisdom of the flesh, and let us inquire in what manner it is said, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing." Let us inquire, if we are worthy to apprehend. For I confess it is a great thing, and altogether difficult; to see the Father doing through the Son: not the Father and the Son doing each His particular works, but the Father doing every work whatsoever by the Son, so that not any works are done by the Father without the Son, or by the Son without the Father, because "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." These truths being most firmly established in the foundation of faith, what now is the nature of this "seeing"? Thou seekest, as I suppose, to know the Son doing: seek first to know the Son seeing. For what, in fact, saith He? "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing." Note what He said, "but what He seeth the Father doing." The seeing comes first, the doing follows: He seeth in order to do. As for thee, why seekest thou at present to know how He doeth, whilst thou understandest not as yet how He seeth? Why runnest thou to that which comes later, leaving that which comes first? He declares Himself as seeing and doing, not doing and seeing; because "He cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing." Wilt thou that I explain to thee how He doeth? Do thou explain to me how He seeth. If thou canst not explain this, neither can I that. If thou art not yet competent to understand this, neither am I to understand that. Wherefore let each of us seek, each knock, that each may merit to receive. Why dost thou, as if thou wert learned, unjustly blame me who am unlearned? I in respect of the doing, thou in respect of the seeing, being both unlearned, let us inquire of the Master, not childishly wrangle in His school. We have already, however, learned together that "all things were made by Him." Therefore it is manifest that it is not a different kind of works that the Father doeth, that, seeing them, the Son may do other works like them; but the very same doeth the Father by the Son, because all things were made by the Word.

Yet the Lord also has not left us to chance, since, in that He said, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing," He meant us to understand that the Father doeth, not some works which the Son may see, and the Son doeth other works after He has seen the Father doing; but that both the Father and Son do the very same works. For He goes on to say, "For what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son in like manner." Not after the Father hath done works, doeth the Son other works in like manner; but, "whatever He doeth, these also the Son doeth in like manner." If these the Son doeth which the Father doeth, then it is by the Son that the Father doeth: if by the Son the Father doeth what He doeth, then the Father doeth not some, the Son others; but the works of the Father and of the Son are the same works. And how doeth the Son also the same? Both "the same," and "in like manner." In case you should think them the same, but in a different manner, the "same," saith He, and "in like manner." And how could they be the same and not in like manner? Take an example, which I presume is not too big for you: when we write letters they are first formed by our heart, then by our hand. Certainly: why otherwise have you all agreed, but because you perceived it to be so? It is as I have said, it is manifest to us all. The letters are made first by our heart, then by our body; the hand serves, the heart commands; both the heart and the hand make the same letters. Dost think the heart doeth some letters, the hand some others? The same indeed doeth the hand, but not in like manner: our heart forms them intelligibly, but our hand visibly. See how the same things are made, but not in like manner. Hence it was not enough for the Lord to say, "What things soever the Father doeth, these also the Son doeth;" He must add, "and in like manner." For what if thou shouldst understand this just as thou understandest whatever thy heart doeth, this also thy hand doeth, but in a different manner? Here, however, he added, "These also the Son doeth in like manner." If He both doeth these, and in like manner doeth, then awake; let the Jew be crushed, let the Christian believe, let the heretic be convinced: The Son is equal to the Father.

The words of our Lord Jesus Christ, especially those recorded by the Evangelist John, who not without cause leaned on the Lord's bosom, that he might drink in the secrets of that higher wisdom, and by evangelizing give forth again what by loving he had drunk in, are so secret and profound of understanding, that they trouble all who are perverse of heart, and exercise all who are in heart upright. Wherefore, beloved, give heed to these few words that have been read. Let us see if in any wise we can, by His own gift and help who has willed His words to be recited to us, which at that time were heard and committed to writing that they might now be read, what He means in what ye have now heard Him say: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing: for what things soever the Father doeth, these same the Son also doeth in like manner."

But the catholic faith has it, that the works of the Father and of the Son are not separable. This is what I wish, if possible, to speak to you, beloved; but, according to those words of the Lord, "he that is able to receive it, let him receive it." But he that is not able to receive it, let him not charge it on me, but on his own dullness; and let him turn to Him that opens the heart, that He may pour in what He freely giveth. And, lastly, if any one may not have understood, because I have not declared it as I ought to have declared it, let him excuse the weakness of man, and supplicate the divine goodness. For we have within a Master, Christ. Whatever ye are not able to receive through your ear and my mouth, turn ye in your heart to Him who both teacheth me what to speak, and distributeth to you in what measure He deigns. He who knows what to give, and to whom to give, will help him that seeketh, and open to him that knocketh. And if so be that He give not, let no one call himself forsaken. For it may be that He delays to give something, but He leaves none hungry. If, indeed, He give not at the hour, He is exercising the seeker, He is not scorning the suitor.

The catholic faith, confirmed by the Spirit of God in His saints, has this against all heretical perverseness, that the works of the Father and of the Son are inseparable. What is this that I have said? As the Father and the Son are inseparable, so also the works of the Father and of the Son are inseparable. How are the Father and the Son inseparable, since Himself said, "I and the Father are one"? Because the Father and the Son are not two Gods, but one God, the Word and He whose the Word is, One and the Only One, Father and Son bound together by charity, One God, and the Spirit of Charity also one, so that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is made the Trinity. Therefore, not only of the Father and Son, but also of the Holy Spirit; as there is equality and inseparability of persons, so also the works are inseparable. I will tell you yet more plainly what is meant by "the works are inseparable." The catholic faith does not say that God the Father made something, and the Son made some other thing; but what the Father made, that also the Son made, that also the Holy Spirit made. For all things were made by the Word; when "He spoke and they were done," it is by the Word they were done, by Christ they were done. For "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: all things were made by Him." If all things were made by Him, "God said, Let there be light, and there was light;" in the Word He made, by the Word He made.

Behold, then, we have now heard the Gospel, where He answered the Jews who were indignant "that He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." For so it is written in the foregoing paragraph. When, therefore, the Son of God, the Truth, made answer to their erring indignation, saith He, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing;" as if He said, "Why are ye offended because I have said that God is my Father, and that I make myself equal with God? I am equal in that wise that He begat me; I am equal in that wise that He is not from me, but I from Him." For this is implied in these words: "The Son cannot do anything of Himself, but what He seeth the Father doing." That is, whatever the Son hath to do, the doing it He hath of the Father. Why of the Father hath He the doing it? Because of the Father He hath it that He is Son. Why hath He it of the Father to be Son? Because of the Father He hath it that He is able, of the Father that He is. For, to the Son, both to be able and to be is the self-same thing.

With man, to be and to be able are different things. For sometimes the man is, and yet cannot what he wills; sometimes, again, the man is in such wise, that he can what he wills; therefore his being and his being able are different things. For if man's esse and posse were the same thing, then he could when he would. But with God it is not so, that His substance to be is one thing, and His power to be able another thing; but whatever is His, and whatever He is, is consubstantial with Him, because He is God: it is not so that in one way He is, in another way is able; He has the esse and the posse together, because He has to will and to do together. Since, then, the power of the Son is of the Father, therefore also the substance of the Son is of the Father; and since the substance of the Son is of the Father, therefore the power of the Son is of the Father. In the Son, power and substance are not different: the power is the self-same that the substance is; the substance to be, the power to be able. Accordingly, because the Son is of the Father, He said, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything." Because He is not Son from Himself, therefore He is not able from Himself.

He appears to have made Himself as it were less, when He said, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing." Hereupon heretical vanity lifts the neck; theirs, indeed, who say that the Son is less than the Father, of less authority, of less majesty, of less possibility, not understanding the mystery of Christ's words. But attend, beloved, and see how they are confounded in their carnal intellect by the words of Christ. And this is what I said a little before, that the word of God troubles all perverse hearts, just as it exercises pious hearts, especially that spoken by the Evangelist John. For they are deep words that are spoken by him, not random words, nor such as may be easily understood. So, a heretic, if he happen to hear these words, immediately rises and says to us, "Lo, the Son is less than the Father; hear the words of the Son, who says, 'The Son cannot do anything of Himself, but what He seeth the Father doing.'" Wait; as it is written, "Be meek to hear the word, that thou mayest understand."

We know in the Gospel that the Son walked upon the sea; when saw He the Father walk upon the sea? Here now the heretic is disconcerted. Lay aside, then, thy understanding of the words, and let us examine them together. What do we then? We have heard the words of the Lord: "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing." The Son walked upon the sea, the Father never walked upon the sea. Yet certainly "the Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing."

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

We have got clear of this question. Mark ye that rightly we say the works of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit are inseparable. But as thou understandest it, lo, God made the light, and the Son saw the Father making light, according to thy carnal understanding, who wilt have it that He is less, because He said, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing." God the Father made light; what other light did the Son make? God the Father made the firmament, the heaven between waters and waters; and the Son saw Him, according to thy dull and sluggish understanding. Well, since the Son saw the Father making the firmament, and also said, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing," then show me the other firmament made by the Son. Hast thou lost the foundation? But they that are "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone," are brought into a state of peace in Christ; nor do they strive and wander in heresy. Therefore we understand that the light was made by God the Father, but through the Son; that the firmament was made by God the Father, but through the Son. For "all things were made through Him, and without Him was nothing made." Cast out thine understanding, which ought not to be called understanding, but evidently foolishness. God the Father made the world; what other world did the Son make? Show me the Son's world. Whose is this world in which we are? Tell us, by whom made? If thou sayest, "By the Son, not by the Father," then thou hast erred from the Father; if thou sayest, "By the Father, not by the Son," the Gospel answers thee thus, "And the world was made by (through) Him, and the world knew Him not." Acknowledge Him, then, by whom the world was made, and be not among those who knew not Him that made the world.

Wherefore the works of the Father and of the Son are inseparable. Moreover, this, "The Son cannot do anything of Himself," would mean the same thing as if He were to say, "The Son is not from Himself." For if He is a Son, He was begotten; if begotten, He is from Him of whom He is begotten. Nevertheless, the Father begat Him equal to Himself. Nor was aught wanting to Him that begat; He who begat a co-eternal required not time to beget: who produced the Word of Himself, required not a mother to beget by; the Father begetting did not precede the Son in age, so that He should beget a Son younger than Himself. But perhaps some one may say, that after many ages God begat a Son in His old age. Even as the Father is without age, so the Son is without growth; neither has the one grown old nor the other increased, but equal begat equal, eternal begat eternal. How, says some one, has eternal begat eternal? As a temporary flame generates a temporary light. The generating flame is coeval with the light which it generates: the generating flame does not precede in time the generated light; but from the moment the flame begins, from that moment the light begins. Show me flame without light, and I show thee God the Father without Son. Accordingly, "the Son cannot do anything of Himself, but what He seeth the Father doing," implies, that for the Son to see and to be begotten of the Father, is the same thing. His seeing and His substance are not different; nor are His power and substance different. All that He is, He is of the Father; all that He can is of the Father; because what He can and what He is is one thing, and all of the Father.

Moreover, He goes on in His own words, and troubles those that understand the matter amiss, in order to recall the erring to a right apprehension of it. After He had said, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing;" lest a carnal understanding of the matter should by chance creep in and turn the mind aside, and a man should imagine as it were two mechanics, one a master, the other a learner, attentively observing the master while making, say a chest, so that, as the master made the chest, the learner should make another chest according to the appearance which he looked upon while the master wrought; lest, I say, the carnal mind should frame to itself any such twofold notion in the case of the divine unity, going on, He saith, "For what things soever the Father doeth, these same also the Son doeth in like manner." It is not, the Father doeth some, the Son others like them, but the same in like manner. For He saith not, What things soever the Father doeth, the Son also doeth others the like; but saith He, "What things soever the Father doeth, these same also the Son doeth in like manner." What things the Father doeth, these also the Son doeth: the Father made the world, the Son made the world, the Holy Ghost made the world. If three Gods, then three worlds; if one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, then one world was made by the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost. Consequently the Son doeth those things which also the Father doeth, and doeth not in a different manner; He both doeth these, and doeth them in like manner.

After He had said, "these doeth," why did He add, "in like manner doeth"? Lest another distorted understanding or error should spring up in the mind. Thou seest, for instance, a man's work: in man there is mind and body; the mind rules the body, but there is a great difference between body and mind: the body is visible, the mind is invisible: there is a great difference between the power and virtue of the mind and that of any kind of body whatever, be it even a heavenly body. Still the mind rules its own body, and the body doeth; and what the mind appears to do, this the body doeth also. Thus the body appears to do this same thing that the mind doeth, but not "in like manner." How doeth this same, but not in like manner? The mind frames a word in itself; it commands the tongue, and the tongue produces the word which the mind framed: the mind made, and the tongue made; the lord of the body made, and the servant made; but that the servant might make, it received of its lord what to make, and made while the lord commanded. The same thing was made by both, but was it in like manner? How not in like manner? says some one. See, the word that my mind formed, remains in me; that which my tongue made, passed through the smitten air, and is not. When thou hast said a word in thy mind, and uttered it by thy tongue, return to thy mind, and see that the word which thou hast made is there still. Has it remained on thy tongue, just as it has in thy mind? What was uttered by the tongue, the tongue made by sounding, the mind made by thinking; but what the tongue uttered has passed away, what the mind thought remains. Therefore the body made that which the mind made, but not in like manner. For the mind, indeed, made that which the mind may hold, but the tongue made what sounds and strikes the ear through the air. Dost thou chase the syllables, and cause them to remain? Well, not in such manner the Father and the Son; but "these same doeth," and "in like manner doeth."

If God made heaven that remains, this heaven that remains the Son made. If God the Father made man that is mortal, the same man that is mortal the Son made. What things soever the Father made that endure, these things that endure made also the Son, because in like manner He made; and what things soever the Father made that are temporal, these same things that are temporal made also the Son, because He made not only the same, but also in like manner made. For the Father made by the Son, since by the Word the Father made all things.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing; for what things soever He has done, these also the Son doeth in like manner." Yes, the heaven, the earth, the sea; the things that are in heaven, on the earth, and in the sea; the visible and invisible, the animals on the land, the plants in the fields, the creatures that swim in the waters, that fly in the air, that shine in heaven; besides all these, angels, virtues, thrones, dominations, principalities, powers; "all were made by Him." Did God make all these, and show them when made to the Son, that He also should make another world full of all these? Certainly not. But, on the contrary, what does He say? "For what things soever He has made, these," not others, but "these also the Son doeth," not differently, "but in like manner."

"The Son," saith He, "cannot do anything of Himself, but what He sees the Father doing." This is true: hold this fast, while at the same time ye do not let slip what ye have gotten in the beginning of the Gospel, that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and especially that "all things were made by Him." Join this that ye have now heard to that hearing, and let both agree together in your hearts. Thus, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, except what He seeth the Father doing," is yet in such wise that what the Father doeth, He doeth only by the Son, because the Son is His Word: and, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; also, "All things were made by Him." For what things soever He doeth, the Son also doeth in like manner; not other things, but these and not in a different, but in like manner.

What then, beloved, are we going to explain that which we have asked, how the Word seeth, how the Father is seen by the Word, what the seeing of the Word is? I am not so bold, so rash, as to promise to explain this, for myself or for you: however I estimate your measure, still I know my own. Therefore, if you please, not to delay it longer, let us run over the passage, and see how carnal hearts are troubled by the words of the Lord; to this end troubled, that they may not continue in that which they hold. Let this be wrested from them, as some toy is wrested from children, with which they amuse themselves to their hurt, that, as persons of larger growth, they may have more profitable things planted in them, and may be able to make progress, instead of crawling on the earth Arise, seek, sigh, pant with desire, and knock at what is shut. But if we do not yet desire, not yet earnestly seek, not yet sigh, we shall only be throwing pearls to all indiscriminately, or finding pearls ourselves, regardless of what kind. Wherefore, beloved, I would move a longing desire in your heart. Good character leads to right understanding: the kind of life leads to another kind of life. One kind of life is earthly, another is heavenly: there is a life of beasts, another of men, and another of angels. The life of beasts is excited with earthly pleasures, seeks earthly pleasures alone, and grovels after them with immoderate desire: the life of angels is alone heavenly; the life of men is midway between that of angels and of beasts. If man lives after the flesh, he is on a level with the beasts; if he lives after the Spirit, he joins in the fellowship of angels. When thou livest after the Spirit, examine even in the angelic life whether thou be small or well-grown. For if thou art still a little one, the angels say to thee, "Grow: we feed on bread; thou art nourished with milk, with the milk of faith that thou mayest come to the meat of sight." But if there be still a longing for filthy pleasures, if the thoughts be still of deceit, if lies are not avoided, if perjuries be heaped on lies, shall a heart so foul dare to say, "Explain to me how the Word sees"; even if I be able to do so, even if I myself now see? And further, though not perhaps of this character myself, and I am nevertheless far from this vision, how must that man be weighed down with earthly desires, who is not yet rapt with this desire from above! There is a wide difference between loathing and desiring; and again, between desiring and enjoying. If thou livest as do the beasts, thou loathest: the angels have full enjoyment. If, on the other hand, thou livest not as the beast, thou hast no longer loathing: something thou desirest, and dost not receive: thou hast, by the very desire, begun the life of the angels. May it grow in thee, and be perfected in thee; and mayest thou receive this, not of me, but of Him who made both me and thee!

(Tr. xvii. s. 16) The Jews however did not understand from our Lord that He was the Son of God, but only that He was equal with God; though Christ gave this as the result of His being the Son of God. It is from not seeing this, while they saw at the same time that equality was asserted, that they charged Him with making Himself equal with God: the truth being, that He did not make Himself equal, but the Father had begotten Him equal.

(Tr. xviii. 3, 5) Some who would be thought Christians, the Arian heretics, who say that the very Son of God who took our flesh upon Him, was inferior to the Father, take advantage of these words to throw discredit upon our doctrine, and say, You see that when our Lord perceived the Jews to be indignant, because He seemed to make Himself equal with God, He gave such an answer as showed that He was not equal. For they say, he who can do nothing but what he sees the Father do is not equal but inferior to the Father. But if there is a greater God, and a less God, (the Word being God,) we worship two Gods, and not onee.

(Tr. xx. 4) As if He said: Why are ye offended that I called God My Father, and that I make Myself equal with God? I am equal, but equal in such a sense as is consistent with His having begotten Me; with My being from Him, not Him from Me. With the Son, being and power are one and the same thing. The Substance of the Son then being of the Father, the power of the Son is of the Father also: and as the Son is not of Himself, so He can not of Himself. The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do.— (xxi. 4). His seeing and His being born of the Father are the same. His vision is not distinct from His Substance, but the whole together is of the Father.

(ii. de Tr. c. 3) If we understand this subordination of the Son to arise from the human nature, it will follow that the Father walked first upon the water, and did all the other things which the Son did in the flesh, in order that the Son might do them. Who can be so insane as to think thisd?

(Tr. xx. s. 6) Yet that walking of the flesh upon the sea was done by the Father through the Son. For when the flesh walked, and the Divinity of the Son guided, the Father was not absent, as the Son Himself saith below, The Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works. (c. 14) (s. 9). He guards however against the carnal interpretation of the words, The Son can do nothing of Himself. (v. 19) As if the case were like that of two artificers, master and disciple, one of whom made a chest, and the other made another like it, by adding, For whatsoever things he doeth, these doeth the Son likewise.He does not say, Whatsoever the Father doeth, the Son does other things like them, but the very same things. The Father made the world, the Son made the world, the Holy Ghost made the world. If the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one, it follows that one and the same world was made by the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost. Thus it is the very same thing that the Son doeth. He adds likewise, to prevent another error arising. For the body seems to do the same things with the mind, but it does not do them in a like way, inasmuch as the body is subject, the soul governing, the body visible, the soul invisible. When a slave does a thing at the command of his master, the same thing is done by both; but is it in a like way? Now in the Father and Son there is not this difference; they do the same things, and in a like way. Father and Son act with the same power; so that the Son is equal to the Father.

(contra Serm. Arianorum, c. 9. [xiv.]) This is not a sign of failing in Him, but of His abiding in His birth from the Father. And it is as high an attribute of the Almighty that He does not change, as it is that He does not die. The Son could do what He had not seen the Father doing, if He could do what the Father does not do through Him; i. e. if He could sin: a supposition inconsistent with the immutably good nature which was begotten from the Father. That He cannot do; this then is to be understood of Him, not in the sense of deficiency, but of power.

Above, the miraculous healing and its calumniation were described: here begins the third part of the chapter, in which the refutation of the calumniation is treated. For the Lord refutes the Jews who calumniate Him concerning the work of healing: and this by showing His omnipotent power in working. And this part is divided into two, because first His power is shown and declared in general: second, in particular. The power of the Son of God is therefore declared and manifested in this order. First, the origin of power is noted: second, the magnitude of power: third, the declaration of the magnitude: fourth, the reason for the declaration.

First, therefore, the origin of the power of the Son of God is noted. For the Son of God says that He does not have the power of working from Himself, but from the Father. Therefore He says: "Jesus therefore answered and said to them," namely to the Jews who were persecuting and calumniating Him: "Amen, amen, I say to you," that is, truly and with certainty, the Son "cannot do anything of Himself." For just as He does not have being from Himself, but from the Father, so neither does He have working from Himself, but from the Father: below in chapter eight: "Of Myself I do nothing." "Except what He has seen the Father doing," that is, He can do only that which He received from the powerful Father, so that He might be able: below in chapter eight: "The things that I have seen with My Father, these I speak." And thus, whatever He can do, He can do from the Father, and He can do nothing else except what He received from the Father, so that He might be able.

Here the second point is touched upon, namely the greatness of power, in that although the Son receives power from the Father, nevertheless He has as great power as the Father. Therefore He says: "For whatsoever:" I rightly said that the Son does "what He sees the Father doing"; "for whatsoever things He does, these the Son also does likewise: likewise," uniformly and harmoniously: "likewise," because equally powerfully. Whence in Colossians 1 it is said of the Son: "All things were created through Him and in Him"; because, as is said above in chapter 1, "without Him was made nothing." And the reason for the indivision in work is the indivision in essence and in love.

The inquiry concerns what He says: "The Son cannot do anything of Himself." To the contrary: He who can act of himself is more powerful than he who acts from another; but the Father can act of Himself, the Son from another; therefore the Father is more powerful than the Son. If you say: The greatness of power consists in virtue, not in the mode of having, and to have from oneself denotes only the mode of having, not the virtue, and thus it does not follow that the Father is more powerful than the Son: it is objected that what is had from oneself is had in a nobler mode than what is had from another; therefore if the Father has power from Himself, He has it in a nobler mode than the Son, who has it from another. The response to this is that to have from another is in two modes: by participation, namely, or by emanation alone. To have from another by participation is a less noble mode, for the mode of participation is not equal to the mode of having by essence. In the other mode, to have from another is only by emanation, such that he who emanates has it by essence, just as he who gives; and this posits no ignobility whatsoever, but rather complete equality. For to have from the Father is as much a mark of nobility in the Son as to beget is in the Father.

Likewise, the inquiry concerns what He says, that the Son can do nothing except what He has seen the Father doing; and again, that the Father shows the Son whatever He does. Therefore, if by nature something exists before it is seen, the Father operates first, and afterwards the Son operates according to His operation as to an exemplar. Likewise, if the Father can do absolutely nothing without the Son operating, how does He say that the Son operates as He sees the Father operating? I respond: It must be said that the same thing is said when it is said: the Father shows to the Son, and: the Son sees the Father working; the only difference is with respect to the terms. It must be understood, however, that these words are transferred from creatures to God. Now the word showing implies a twofold property, and likewise the word seeing. One, namely, is the emanation of knowledge: because I see you working in this way, knowledge of working is left in me; the other is the exemplarity of antecedence: thus your operation and demonstration precedes my knowledge as an exemplar. I say therefore that by reason of the first condition it is transferred to the divine, namely by reason of emanation, but not by reason of antecedence. Hence, for the Father to show to the Son does not mean that the Father knows before the Son, but that the Father gives to the Son; likewise, for the Son to see the Father working does not mean that the Father works before, but that the Son has from the Father.

There is a question about what he says: "Whatever the Father does, these things the Son likewise does." To the contrary: the Father generates the Son: therefore the Son generates the Son. If you say that to generate does not denote an operation but a relation: it is objected that to send the Son denotes an operation: therefore if whatever operation the Father does, the Son also does: if the Father sends the Son: therefore the Son also does. Likewise, if the Trinity is entirely undivided in substance and operation: since manifestation and appearance come about through operation, how can the Trinity appear or manifest itself determinately in any one of its hypostases? It seems in no way possible. For understanding these matters, it must be known that certain words said of God denote a pure relation, such as to generate; certain denote a pure action, such as to create; certain denote action and relation, such as to send; certain denote action and signification, such as to appear. I say therefore that when it is said: "Whatever the Father does," it is understood with respect to operation, which is common and essential. If therefore a word signifying merely action is inferred, the inference is good; but if merely relation, the inference is entirely sophistical through a figure of speech. But if a word signifying action and relation: even though the inference would hold by reason of action, it fails by reason of the relation included therein, such as to send and to become incarnate. Similarly concerning a word implying action and signification, it fails by reason of signification. For as Augustine says, even though every action and appearance is from the three, nevertheless one specially signifies the Father, another the Son. An example is found in the name intelligence, which is produced by the operation of three powers, namely memory, intelligence, and will, and yet signifies one of them. So it is also in the matter at hand, and thus it is clear.

This accords exactly with Christ's own account of His miracles: "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do." The doctrine, as I understand it, is something like this:

There is an activity of God displayed throughout creation, a wholesale activity let us say which men refuse to recognize. The miracles done by God incarnate, living as a man in Palestine, perform the very same things as this wholesale activity, but at a different speed and on a smaller scale. One of their chief purposes is that men, having seen a thing done by personal power on the small scale, may recognize, when they see the same thing done on the large scale, that the power behind it is also personal – is indeed the very same person who lived among us two thousand years ago. The miracles in fact are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see. Of that larger script part is already visible, part is still unsolved. In other words, some of the miracles do locally what God has already done universally: others do locally what He has not yet done, but will do. In that sense, and from our human point of view, some are reminders and others prophecies.

God creates the vine and teaches it to draw up water by its roots and, with the aid of the sun, to turn water into a juice which will ferment and take on certain qualities. Thus every year, from Noah's time till ours, God turns water into wine. That, men fail to see. Either like the Pagans they refer the process to some finite spirit, Bacchus or Dionysus: or else, like the moderns, they attribute real and ultimate causality to the chemical and other material phenomena which are all that our senses can discover in it. But when Christ at Cana makes water into wine, the mask is off. The miracle has only half its effect if it only convinces us that Christ is God: it will have its full effect if whenever we see a vineyard or drink a glass of wine we remember that here works He who sat at a wedding party in Cana. Every year God makes a little corn into much corn: the seed is sown and there is an increase, and men, according to the fashion of their age, say "It is Ceres, it is Adonis, it is the Corn-King," or else "It is the laws of Nature." The close-up, the translation, of this annual wonder is the feeding of the five thousand. Bread is not made there of nothing. Bread is not made of stones, as the Devil once suggested to Our Lord in vain. A little bread is made into much bread. The Son will do nothing but what He sees the Father do. There is, so to speak, a family style. The miracles of healing fall into the same pattern. This is sometimes obscured for us by the somewhat magical view we tend to take of ordinary medicine. The doctors themselves do not take this view. The magic is not in the medicine but in the patient's body. What the doctor does is to stimulate Nature's functions in the body, or to remove hindrances. In a sense, though we speak for convenience of healing a cut, every cut heals itself; no dressing will make skin grow over a cut on a corpse. That same mysterious energy which we call gravitational when it steers the planets and biochemical when it heals a body is the efficient cause of all recoveries, and if God exists, that energy, directly or indirectly, is His. All who are cured are cured by Him, the healer within. But once He did it visibly, a Man meeting a man. Where He does not work within us in this mode, the organism dies. Hence Christ's one miracle of destruction is also in harmony with God's wholesale activity. His bodily hand held out in symbolic wrath blasted a single fig tree; but no tree died that year in Palestine, or any year, or in any land, or even ever will, save because He has done something, or (more likely) ceased to do something, to it.

When He fed the thousands He multiplied fish as well as bread. Look in every bay and almost every river. This swarming, pulsating fecundity shows He is still at work. The ancients had a god called Genius – the god of animal and human fertility, the presiding spirit of gynecology, embryology, or the marriage bed – the "genial bed" as they called it after its god Genius. As the miracles of wine and bread and healing showed who Bacchus really was, who Ceres, who Apollo, and that all were one, so this miraculous multiplication of fish reveals the real Genius. And with that we stand at the threshold of the miracle which for some reason most offends modern ears. I can understand the man who denies the miraculous altogether; but what is one to make of the people who admit some miracles but deny the Virgin Birth? Is it that for all their lip service to the laws of Nature there is only one law of Nature that they really believe? Or is it that they see in this miracle a slur upon sexual intercourse which is rapidly becoming the one thing venerated in a world without veneration? No miracle is in fact more significant. What happens in ordinary generation? What is a father's function in the act of begetting? A microscopic particle of matter from his body fertilizes the female: and with that microscopic particle passes, it may be, the color of his hair and his great grandfather's hanging lip, and the human form in all its complexity of bones, liver, sinews, heart, and limbs, and pre-human form which the embryo will recapitulate in the womb. Behind every spermatozoon lies the whole history of the universe: locked within it is no small part of the world's future. That is God's normal way of making a man – a process that takes centuries, beginning with the creation of matter itself, and narrowing to one second and one particle at the moment of begetting. And once again men will mistake the sense impressions which this creative act throws off for the act itself or else refer it to some infinite being such as Genius. Once, therefore, God does it directly, instantaneously; without a spermatozoon, without the millenniums of organic history behind the spermatozoon. There was of course another reason. This time He was creating not simply a man, but the man who was to be Himself: the only true Man. The process which leads to the spermatozoon has carried down with it through the centuries much undesirable silt; the life which reaches us by that normal route is tainted. To avoid that taint, to give humanity a fresh start, he once short-circuited the process. There is a vulgar anti-God paper which some anonymous donor sends me every week. In it recently I saw the taunt that we Christians believe in a God who committed adultery with the wife of a Jewish carpenter. The answer to that is that if you describe the action of God in fertilizing Mary as "adultery" then, in that sense, God would have committed adultery with every woman who ever had a baby. For what He did once without a human father, He does always even when He uses a human father as His instrument. For the human father in ordinary generation is only a carrier, sometimes an unwilling carrier, always the last in a long line of carriers, of life that comes from the supreme life. Thus the filth that our poor, muddled, sincere, resentful enemies fling at the Holy One, either does not stick, or, sticking, turns into glory.

So much for the miracles which do small and quick what we have already seen in the large letters of God's universal activity.

CHAPTER VI. That the Son is not inferior to the Father either in power or in operation for any work but is Equal in Might and Consubstantial with Him, as of Him and that by Nature.

What we have spoken of above, this again He interprets in another way, from all quarters snaring the hearers unto finding of the truth. For the word which was not received at first, by reason of the weakness of them that could not understand, He re-forms in another way, and going through the same thoughts introduceth it manifoldly. For this too is the work of the virtue that befits a teacher, namely not to make his word rapid and speeding beyond the knowledge of the pupils, but carefully wrought and diversely fashioned and that by frequent change of expression strips off the difficulties in the things under consideration. Mingling then human with Divine, and forming one discourse of both, He as it were gently sinks the honour befitting the Only-Begotten, and raises the nature of man; as being at once Lord and reckoned among servants, He says, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these doeth also the Son likewise. For in that He is able to do without distinction the works of God the Father and to work alike with Him That begat Him, He testifieth the identity of His Essence. For things which have the same nature with one another, will work alike: but those whose mode of being is diverse, their mode of working too will be in all respects not the same. Therefore as Very God of Very God the Father, He says that He can do these things equally with Him; but that He may appear not only Equal in Power to the Father, but likeminded in all things, and having in all things the Will One with Him, He saith that He can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do.

Just as though He should say distinctly to those who aro trying to persecute Him for healing a man on the Sabbath day, Ye deem the honour of the Sabbath broken, but I would not have done this, had I not seen My Father do the like; for He worketh for the good order of the world on the Sabbath too, even though through Me. It is then impossible (saith He) that I, the Son of Him by Nature, should not wholly in all things work and will the works of the Father, not as though I received from without by being taught the exemplar of action, or were called by a deliberate motion to will the same with the Father, but by the laws of Uncreated Nature I mount up to Equal Counsel and Action with God the Father. For the being able to do nothing of Himself, is excellently well defined herein. And thus I deem that piously minded we ought to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, as it is written.

But perchance the opposer of the truth will disbelieve, and will make what is said the food so to say of his own ill counsel saying: "If the Son were Equal to the Father, attributing to Him no Preeminence as of necessity, by reason of the inferiority of His Own Nature, what induced Him so unconcealedly to say, that He could do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do? For clearly (saith he) does He herein confess that He can do nothing at all of Himself, as knowing Him that is the Better and superior to Himself. But do thou again refute our argument."

What then is to be said to these things by us? Bold unto blasphemy is the enemy of Christ and drunken with folly he perceives it not. For one must, most excellent sir, test accurately the force of what has been said, and not dash offhand to reasonings springing from unlearning. For to what kind of equality with the Father dost thou deem it right to bring down the Son, by reason of His saying that He can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do? Is it as not having Equality in Power that He says these things, although from the very passage under consideration one may see that the Son is Equal in Power with the Father, rather than inferior in God-befitting Might? For plainly He does not say, The Son can do nothing of Himself, except He receive Power of the Father (for this would be the part of one really weak) but, but what He seeth the Father do. But that by the sense of seeing, we are not usually called to be powerfnl, but to look at something, I suppose no one will dispute. The Son then in saying that He looketh on the works of His Father doth not show Himself impotent, but rather a zealous Imitator, or Beholder: and how, shall be more accurately spoken of in what follows. But that through His exact and likest working, I mean in all things, He is shown to have Equality in Power, Himself will clearly teach below, adding as of His Father, for what things soever He doeth, these (saith He) doeth also the Son likewise. How then is He inferior, Who is Eminent in equal workings with God the Father? for will the offspring of fire work ought different from fire, any change being seen in its work? how could it be so? How then will the Son work in like manner with the Father, if by reason of having inferiority He come short of equal Might with Him?

And these things were taken from the words at present under comment. But let us consider, going through other considerations also, whether the Nature of the Son admits any law of inferiority to that of the Father. Let the consideration of Power also be before us. Do they confess that the Son is God of God by Nature and verily and of the actual Essence of the Father; or do they say indeed that He is God, but blasphemously add, that He is |249 outside of the Essence of the Father? If then they say that He is not of the Essence of the Father, He will neither be God by Nature, nor Very Son. For that which is not of God by nature, neither ought it at all to be conceived of as by nature God, nor yet Son if it be not begotten of the Essence of the Father, but they are bringing in privily to us some bastard and new god. If they do not say this, blushing at the absurdity that is in their own doctrines, but will grant that the Only-Begotten is truly of the Father, and is God by Nature and Verily: how will He be inferior to the Father, or how powerless to ought, and this not accuse the Essence of Him Who begat Him? For if it be possible that He Who is by Nature God should at all be impotent, what is to hinder the Father from being in the same case, if the Divine and Ineffable Nature once has the power of being so, and is already so manifested in the Son, according to their account? Hence then neither will the Divinity be Impassible, nor will It remain in sameness and Bliss wholly Unchangeable. But who (tell me) will endure them that hold such opinions? Who when the Scripture crieth aloud that the Son is the Lord of Hosts, will not shudder to say, that He must needs be strengthened, and is imperfect in that which of right is His alone with the Father and Holy Ghost?

But our opponent will say again, "We say, that the Father surpasses the Son in this. For the One is the First Beginner of works, as having Perfection both in Power and in the knowledge of all things: but the Son becomes first a spectator then a worker by receiving into Himself the imitation of the Father's working, in order that through the similarity of works, He too might be thought to be God. For this He teacheth us, saying that He can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do."

What art thou saying, thou all-daring? doth the Son receive into Himself the types of the Father's Working, that thereby He may be thought to be God? By learning then will He be God, not by Nature. As in us is (it may |250 be) knowledge and art, so is in Him the Dignity, and He is rather an Artificer of the works of Deity than Very God: yet is He (I suppose) altogether other than the art that is in Him, though it be God-befitting. Him then that has passed forth of the boundaries of the Godhead, and has his glory in the art alone, how do angels in Heaven worship Him, we too worship without blame, albeit the Holy Scripture admonisheth us that we ought not to serve any apart from Him Who is truly God? for it says, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve. Yet the holy multitude of Angels in particular erred not from what is befitting, but they worship the Son and serve Him with us, acknowledging Him to be God by Nature, and not by learning, as those babbling say: for they perceive not (it seems) into how great absurdities they will thence fall. For in the first place the Son will admit change and variation as from the less to the greater, albeit Himself saith through the Prophet, Behold, behold I am, and change not. The Psalmist too will surely lie in the spirit, crying out to the Son, But Thou art the Same. For He awaiteth, as those say, the Father's working at something, as a Guide and Teacher, that He may see and imitate. Then how will not such an one appear to mount up from ignorance of certain things unto knowledge thereof, and to turn from worse to better, if we reckon that knowledge of any thing-good is better than not knowing it?

Next, what additional absurdity is herein beheld? Let them tell us who introduce God as an Instructer rather than a Father, Doth the Son await the sight of His Father's works in ignorance of them, or having most perfect knowledge of them? If then they say that He awaits though He knows them, they clearly show that He is doing something very superfluous, and the Father practising a most idle thing: for the One, as though ignorant looks at what He knows perfectly, the Other attempts to teach One Who knows: and to whom is it not evident, that such things incur the charge of the extremest absurdity? But perchance they will not say this; but will go over to the opposite alternative. For they will affirm that He awaiteth of necessity the Father working in order to learn by seeing. How then doth He know all things before they were? or how will He be true saying of Himself, Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Shall ought be hidden from Me? But how is it not absurd and unlearned to believe that the Spirit searcheth and knoweth the deep things of God, and to suppose that the Giver of the Spirit is in ignorance of the works of the Father and of His own Spirit, so as to come short in knowledge? For will not the Son at length lose His being Wisdom, if He be wholly ignorant and receive by learning? for He will be a recipient of wisdom, rather than Wisdom Itself by Nature. For wisdom is that which maketh wise, not that which is formed to become wise, just as light too is that which enlighteneth, not that which is formed to receive light. Therefore is He again other than the wisdom which is in Him, and in the first place He is not Simple, but compounded of two: next besides this, He will also lose the being God, I mean God by Nature and Essentially. For the Divine Nature endureth not the being taught by any at all, nor the duplication of composition, seeing It hath as Its Proper Good the being both Simple and All-Perfection. And if the Son be not God by Nature, how doth He both work and do things befitting God Alone? will they say that it suffices for Him unto God-befitting Power, only to see the Father working, and by the mere sight does He attain to being by Nature God, and to being able to do such things as He That showeth Him doth? There is therefore nothing to hinder, but that many others too should be manifested to us as gods, if the Father be willing to show them too the mode of His works, and the excellence of the Father's Essence will consist in learning something over and above. For He that was taught (as those say) is found to have mounted up to the dignity of the God-head by Nature, saying, I and My Father are One, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.

Let them weigh then how great a crowd of blasphemies is heaped up by them, from their choosing so to think, and let them think truly of the Son as it is written. For neither by contemplation of what is performed by the Father, nor yet by having Him as antecedent to Himself in actions, is the Son a Doer or Wonder-worker, and by reason hereof God: but because a certain law of Nature carries Him to the Exact Likeness of Him who begat Him, even though it shine forth and is manifested through the unceasing likeness of Their Works. But setting before us again, if you please, the verse, and testing it with more diligent scrutiny, let us consider accurately, what is the force of the words and let us now see how we must think with piety.

Thou seest how through the exact likeness too in the works, He showeth Himself like in all things to the Father, that thereby He may be shown to be Heir of His Essence also. For in that He must of necessity and incontrovertibly be conceived of as being God by Nature, Who hath Equal working with God the Father, the Saviour says thus. But let no one be offended, when He says economical, that He can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do. For in that He was now arrayed in the form of the servant and made Man by being united to flesh, He did not make His discourse free, nor altogether let loose unto God-befitting boldness, but used rather at times by an economy such discourse as befits alike God and Man. For He was really both in the same.

And this is one true word, but I think one ought again to explain what is before us in another way too, and to apply more keenly to the accurate meaning of the passage. The Son (it says) can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do. The word cannot, or impossibility, is predicated of certain things, or is applied to certain of things that are. For this being predicated we say is not indicative at all of necessity, nor of weakness; but often denotes the stability of natures and the immoveable condition of essences, in respect of what each thing mentioned either is or has been, and of what it can effect by nature and without change. But let our argument, if you please go through demonstration also. When for instance a man says that he cannot carry a piece of wood, immeasurable c perhaps and heavy, he predicates his innate weakness: but when another says, I being by nature a reasonable man, and born of a father by nature reasonable, cannot do anything my own and of myself, which I do not see belonging to the nature of my parent; the words "I cannot" express the stability of essence, and its inability to change into any thing but what it is. For (says he) I cannot of myself be not a reasonable creature, strengthened by increases accruing to me by nature: for I do not see the power of doing this in the nature of my father. In this way then you may hear Christ saying, The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do. For do not (saith He) blame the works of the Son: for He beholding, as in His Proper Thoughts or Natural Motions, the Essence of Him That begat Him; what things He seeth That Nature befittingly work, these He doeth and none other, not being able to suffer ought contrary to His Nature, by reason of His being of It. Thus, the Nature of the Father hath the Will to compassionate: the Son seeing this inherent therein, is Compassionate as being of Him by Nature, not being able to be Other than what It is. For He hath of the Father, as Essence, so the good things too of the Essence, simply that is and uncompound as God, therefore He wisely subjoins to the former words, For what things soever He doeth, these doeth also the Son likewise: in these words collecting, so to say, the whole meaning of His being able to do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do. But by considering the cause why the Son says these things, you will apply your mind more accurately to the things spoken by us.

When then He on the sabbath day was compassionating the paralytic, the Jews began trying to persecute Him: but Christ shames them, showing that Grod the Father hath mercy on the sabbath day. For He did not think He ought to hinder what things were tending to our salvation. And indeed He said at the beginning, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. But when they of their great ill-counsel showed that they were vexed at these things, He subjoins again The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these doeth also the Son likewise. For since (saith He) the Father refuseth not to have mercy on the sabbath day, I, seeing that He is altogether full of compassion, am therefore Myself too wholly compassionate, not able to cut out anew in Myself the Essence of My Father, through not appearing and being such as He is by Nature. For I wholly work what is His, as being of Him.

But the saying that the Father is antecedent in the work, is not free from the deepest unlearning. For how should He ever of Himself and alone begin, Who has the Son as the operative Power for all things, Eternally with Him, the Exponent of His Will as to ought and of His motion to operation in respect of ought. But if they uninstructedly assert that He awaits the Separate Operation of the Father for each several work, in order to imitate equally, let them show us that the Father wrought anything separately and of Himself, or what paralytic He having first healed, hath given the deed as a pattern to His Son.

Jesus, as it were, gently lowers the honor befitting the Only Begotten while at the same time raising the nature of humanity, being at once Lord and also considered among servants. He says that the Son can do nothing of himself but what he sees the Father do. For whatever works the Father does the Son does as well. Since he is able to accomplish the works of God the Father and to work in concert with the One who begot him, he reveals the identity of his essence. For things that have the same nature with one another will work alike. But for those who do not share a common nature, their mode of working will not be the same. Therefore as true God of true God the Father, he says that he can do those things equally with him. But, so that he may appear not only equal in power to the Father, but like-minded in all things and sharing one will with the Father, Jesus says that he can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do.

When … a person says that he cannot carry an enormously heavy piece of wood he establishes his innate weakness. But another says (being by nature a reasonable person and born of a father of a reasonable nature), "I cannot do anything on my own that would contradict the nature of my parent." The words "I cannot" express the stability of essence and its inability to be anything it is not.… This is how you should hear Christ saying, "The Son can do nothing of himself but what he sees the Father do."

(vii. de Trin. c. 17) He refers to the charge of violating the sabbath, brought against Him. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work; meaning that He had a precedent for claiming the right He did; and that what He did was in reality His Father's doing, who acted in the Son. And to quiet the jealousy which had been raised, because by the use of His Father's name He had made Himself equal with God, and to assert the excellency of His birth and nature, He says, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do.

(vii. de Tr. c. 17.) Lest then that assertion of His equality, which must belong to Him, as by Name and Nature the Son, might throw doubt upon His Nativityf, He says that the Son can do nothing of Himself.

(vii. de Tr. c. 17) That the wholesome order of our confession, i. e. that we believe in the Father and the Son, might remain, He shows the nature of His birth; viz. that He derived the power of acting not from an accession of strength supplied for each work, but by His own knowledge in the first instance. And this knowledge He derived not from any particular visible precedents, as if what the Father had done, the Son could do afterwards; but that the Son being born of the Father, and consequently conscious of the Father's virtue and nature within Him, could do nothing but what He saw the Father do: as he here testifies; God does not see by bodily organs, but by the virtue of His nature.

(vii. de Tr. c. 18) Or thus; All things and the same, He says, to show the virtue of His nature, its being the same with God's. That is the same nature, which can do all the same things. And as the Son does all the same things in a like way, the likeness of the works excludes the notion of the worker existing aloneg. Thus we come to a true idea of the Nativity, as our faith receives it: the likeness of the works bearing witness to the Nativity, their sameness to the Nature.

(vii. de Trin. c. 19) It must not be supposed that the Only Begotten God needed such showing on account of ignorance. For the showing here is only the doctrine of the nativityh; the self-existing Son, from the self-existing Father.

(vii. de Trin. c. 19) Nor did the heavenly discourse lack the caution, to guard against our inferring from these words any difference in the nature of the Son and the Father. For He says that the works of the Father were shown to Him, not that strength was supplied Him for the doing of them, in order to teach that this showing is substantially nothing else than His birth; for that simultaneously with the Son Himself is born the Son's knowledge of the works the Father will do through Him.

"But," saith some one, "to remove this very thought Christ has added, 'The Son can do nothing of Himself.'" Man! He doth the contrary. He saith this not to take away, but to confirm, His Equality. But attend carefully, for this is no common question. The expression "of Himself" is found in many places of Scripture, with reference both to Christ and to the Holy Ghost, and we must learn the force of the expression, that we may not fall into the greatest errors; for if one take it separately by itself in the way in which it is obvious to take it, consider how great an absurdity will follow. He said not that He could do some things of Himself and that others He could not, but universally, "The Son can do nothing of Himself."

What then meaneth, "Can do nothing of Himself"? That He can do nothing in opposition to the Father, nothing alien from, nothing strange to Him, which is especially the assertion of One declaring an Equality and entire agreement.

But wherefore said He not, that "He doeth nothing contrary," instead of, "He cannot do"? It was that from this again He might show the invariableness and exactness of the Equality, for the expression imputes not weakness to Him, but even shows His great power; since in another place Paul saith of the Father, "That by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie" (Heb. vi. 18): and again, "If we deny Him - He abideth faithful," for "He cannot deny Himself." (2 Tim. ii. 12, 2 Tim. ii. 13.) And in truth this expression, "impossible," is not declaratory of weakness, but power, power unspeakable. For what He saith is of this kind, that "that Essence admitteth not such things as these." For just as when we also say, "it is impossible for God to do wrong," we do not impute to Him any weakness, but confess in Him an unutterable power; so when He also saith, "I can of Mine own Self do nothing" (v. 30), His meaning is, that "it is impossible, nature admits not, that I should do anything contrary to the Father."

"For what things soever the Father doeth these also doeth the Son likewise." Seest thou how He hath taken away your assertion by the root, and confirmed what is said by us? since, if Christ doeth nothing of Himself, neither will the Father do anything of Himself, if so be that Christ doeth all things in like manner to Him. If this be not the case, another strange conclusion will follow. For He said not, that "whatsoever things He saw the Father do, He did," but, "except He see the Father doing anything, He doeth it not"; extending His words to all time; now He will, according to you, be continually learning the same things. Seest thou how exalted is the idea, and that the very humility of the expression compelleth even the most shameless and unwilling to avoid groveling thoughts, and such as are unsuited to His dignity? For who so wretched and miserable as to assert, that the Son learneth day by day what He must do? and how can that be true, "Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail"? or that other, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made"; if the Father doeth certain things, and the Son seeth and imitateth Him? Seest thou that from what was asserted above, and from what was said afterwards, proof is given of His independent Power? and if He bringeth forward some expressions in lowly manner, marvel not, for since they persecuted Him when they had heard His exalted sayings, and deemed Him to be an enemy of God, sinking a little in expression alone, He again leadeth His discourse up to the sublimer doctrines, then in turn to the lower, varying His teaching that it might be easy of acceptance even to the indisposed.

It was the Son, therefore, who was always seen, and the Son who always conversed with men, and the Son who has always worked by the authority and will of the Father; because "the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do" -"do" that is, in His mind and thought.

For as the Father hath eternal life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have eternal life in Himself; and He hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man" -that is, according to the flesh, even as He is also the Son of God through His Spirit.

Now, if he had wanted to signify a diminution of his strength and power, he should have said, "But only what the Father orders" or "what [the Father] gives him the power to do." But now he added, "but only what he sees the Father doing," which indicates similarity. Actually, if he does only what he sees the Father doing, he evidently possesses a perfect similarity with the Father in his action. And this would be impossible if he did not have the same power.

The Word, therefore, came down, not as he is in himself, but by becoming flesh—not the form of God but the form of a slave. This, then, is the one who said that he could do nothing on his own, because lack of power is a sign of weakness. For as darkness is to light and death is to life, in the same way weakness is opposed to power. And yet Christ is God's power. Power is usually not powerless, for, if power were weak, what would have power? When the Word proclaims that he can do nothing, therefore, he is clearly not attributing lack of power to the divinity of the only begotten One but is testifying that the lack of power is due to the weakness of our nature. And the flesh is weak, as Scripture says: "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

The Son cannot do anything of Himself, because He has nothing foreign or different from the Father, but is like the Father in all things, and does not have a different essence so as to have a different power, and consequently a different activity, but since He has the same Essence, He also has the same Power. Therefore the Son also does the same things and cannot do anything other than what the Father does, for He does not have a different power, lesser or greater than the Father's, but the Father and the Son have one Essence, one power, one activity. "So," you will say, "but does the Father become like a teacher of the Son, showing Him how He must act? For the Son does nothing unless He sees the Father doing it." So I ask Arius and Eunomius, who say this: "How does the Father teach the Son, by wisdom or not?" Without doubt, by wisdom. And who is the Wisdom of God? Is it not the Son? Yes, without doubt. Therefore, the Son teaches Himself. What folly on your part! You entrust the Son to the Father as if He were some child to be instructed. But I, in agreement with the wisdom of God, affirm that if the Father knows anything, He knows it not without the Son, for His Wisdom is He; if the Father can do anything, He can do it not without the Son, for His Power is He. That this is true, listen: "What the Father does, the Son does likewise." If the Father has authority and power, so does the Son; therefore, the Son is not less than the Father.

Here we have Christ's teaching on his life-giving power. First, his teaching is presented. Secondly, it is confirmed (v 31). Two things are done with the first. First, Christ's teaching on his life-giving power in general is given. Secondly, it is presented in particular (v 20b). As to the first, three things are done. First, the origin of this power is mentioned. Secondly, the greatness of this power, at (v 19b). Thirdly, the reason for each is given (v 20).

We should point out, with respect to the first, that the Arians use what Christ said here, the Son cannot do anything of himself, to support their error that the Son is less than the Father. As the Evangelist said, the Jews persecuted Christ for making himself equal to God. But the Arians say that when our Lord saw that this disturbed the Jews, he tried to correct this by stating that he was not equal to the Father, saying, Amen, amen, I say to you, the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing. As if to say: Do not interpret what I said, "My Father works even until now, and so do I, as meaning that I work as though I am equal to the Father. for I cannot do anything of myself. Therefore, they say, because the Son can do only what he sees the Father doing, he is less than the Father. But this interpretation is false and erroneous. For if the Son were not equal to the Father, then the Son would not be the same as the Father; and this is contrary to: "I and the Father are one" (below 10:30). For equality is considered with respect to greatness, which in divine realities is the essence itself. Hence, if the Son were not equal to the Father, he would be different from him in essence.

To get the true meaning of Christ's statement, we should know that in those matters which seem to imply inferiority in the Son, it could be said, as some do, that they apply to Christ according to the nature he assumed; as when he said: "The Father is greater than I" (below 14:28). According to this, they would say that our Lord's statement, the Son cannot do anything of himself, should be understood of the Son in his assumed nature. However, this does not stand up, because then one would be forced to say that whatever the Son of God did in his assumed nature, the Father had done before him. For example, that the Father had walked upon the water as Christ did: otherwise, he would not have said, but only what he sees the Father doing.

And if we say that whatever Christ did in his flesh, God the Father also did in so far as the Father works in him, as said below (14:10): "The Father, who lives in me, he accomplishes the works," then Christ would be saying that the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing in him, i.e., in the Son. But this cannot stand either, because Christ's next statement, For whatever the Father, does, the Son does likewise, could not, in this interpretation, be applied to him, i.e., to Christ. For the Son, in his assumed nature, never created the world, as the Father did. Consequently, what we read here must not be understood as pertaining to Christ's assumed nature.

According to Augustine, however, there is another way of understanding statements which seem to, but do not, imply inferriority in the Son: namely, by referring them to the origin of the Son coming or begotten from the Father. For although the Son is equal to the Father in all things, he receives all these things from the Father in an eternal begetting. But the Father gets these from no one, for he is unbegotten. According to this explanation, the continuity of thought is the following: Why are you offended because I said that God is my Father, and because I made myself equal to the Father? Amen, amen, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself. As if to say: I am equal to the Father, but in such a way as to be from him, and not he from me; and whatever I may do, is in me from the Father.

According to this interpretation, mention is made of the power of the Son when he says, can, and of his activity when he says, do. Both can be understood here, so that, first of all, the derivation of the Son's power from the Father is shown, and secondly, the conformity of the Son's activity to that of the Father.

As to the first, Hilary explains it this way: Shortly above our Lord said that he is equal to the Father. Some heretics, basing themselves on certain scriptural texts which assert the unity and equality of the Son to the Father, claim that the Son is unbegotten. For example, the Sabellians, who say that the Son is identical in person with the Father. Therefore, so you do not understand this teaching in this way, he says, the Son cannot do anything of himself, for the Son's power is identical with his nature. Therefore the Son has his power from the same source as he has his being (esse); but he has his being (esse) from the Father: "I came forth from the Father, and I have come into the world" (Jn 16:28). He also has his nature from the Father, because he is God from God; therefore, it is from him that the Son has his power (posse).

So his statement, the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing, is the same as saying: The Son, just as he does not have his being (esse) except from the Father, so he cannot do anything except from the Father. For in natural things, a thing receives its power to act from the very thing from which it receives its being: for example, fire receives its power to ascend from the very thing from which it receives its form and being. Further, in saying, the Son cannot do anything of himself, no inequality is implied, because this refers to a relation; while equality and inequality refer to quantity.

Someone might misunderstand his saying, but only what he sees the Father doing, and take it to mean that the Son works or acts in the way he sees the Father acting, i.e., that the Father acts first, and when the Son sees this, then the Son begins to act. It would be like two carpenters, a master and his apprentice, with the apprentice making a cabinet in the way he saw the master do. But this is not true for the Word, for it was said above (1:3): "All things were made through him." Therefore, the Father did not make something in such a way that the Son saw him doing it and so learned from it.

But this is said so that the communication of paternity to the Son might be designated in terms of begetting or generation, which is fittingly described by the verb sees, because knowledge is conveyed to us by another through seeing and hearing. For we receive our knowledge from things through seeing. and we receive knowledge from words through hearing, Now the Son is not other than Wisdom, as we read: "I came forth out of the mouth of the Most High, the first-born before all creatures" (Sir 24:5). Accordingly, the derivation of the Son from the Father is nothing other than the derivation of divine Wisdom. And so, because the act of seeing indicates the derivation of knowledge and wisdom from another, it is proper for the generation of the Son from the Father to be indicated by an act of seeing; so that for the Son to see the Father doing something is nothing other than to proceed by an intellectual procession from the acting Father.

Another possible explanation of this is given by Hilary. For him, the word sees eliminates all imperfection from the generation of the Son or Word. For in physical generation, what is generated changes little by little in the course of time from what is imperfect to what is perfect, for such a thing is not perfect when it is first generated. But this is not so in eternal generation, since this is the generation of what is perfect from what is perfect. And so he says, but only what he sees the Father doing. For since the act of seeing is the act of a perfect thing, it is plain that the Son was begotten as perfect at once, as seeing at once, and not as coming to perfection over a course of time.

Apropos of the second point, Chrysostom explains it as showing the conformity of the Father to the Son in operation. So that the sense is: I say that it is lawful for me to work on the Sabbath, because my Father, too, continues to work, and I cannot do anything opposed to him: and this is because the Son cannot do anything of himself. For one does something of himself when he does not conform himself to another in his actions. But whoever is from another sins, if he is opposed to him: "Whoever speaks on his own, seeks his own glory" (below 7:18). Therefore, whoever exists from another, but acts of himself, sins. Now the Son is from the Father; thus, if he acts of himself, he sins; and this is impossible. So by saying, the Son cannot do anything of himself, he means nothing more than that the Son cannot sin. As if to say: You are persecuting me unjustly for breaking the Sabbath, because I cannot sin, since I do not act in a way opposed to my Father.

Augustine makes use of both of these explanations, that of Hilary and the one given by Chrysostom, but in different places.

Then when he says, For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise, he affirms the greatness of Christ's power. He excludes three things in the power of Christ: limitation, difference, and imperfection.

First, limitation is excluded. Since there are diverse agents in the world, and the first universal agent has power over all other agents, but the other agents, which are from him, have a limited power in proportion to their rank in the order of causality, some might think that since the Son is not of himself, that he must have a power limited to certain existents, rather than a universal power over all, as the Father has. And so to exclude this he says, whatever the Father does, i.e., to all the things to which the Father's power extends, the Son's power also extends: "All things were made through him" (above 1:3).

Secondly, difference is excluded. For sometimes a thing that exists from another is able to do whatever that from which it exists does. And yet the things the former does are not the same as those done by that from which it is. For example, if one fire which exists from another can do whatever that other does, i.e., cause combustion, the act of causing combustion would be specifically the same in each, even though one fire ignites certain things and the other fire ignites different things. And so that you do not think that the Son's activity is different from the activity of the Father in this way, he says, whatever the Father does, the Son does, i.e., not different things, but the very same.

Thirdly, imperfection is excluded. Sometimes one and the same thing comes from two agents: from one as the principal and perfect agent, and from the other as an instrumental and imperfect agent. But it does not come in the same way, because the principal agent acts in a different way from the instrumental agent: for the instrumental agent acts imperfectly, and in virtue of the other. And so that no one thinks that this is the way the Son does whatever the Father does, he says that whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise, i.e., with the same power by which the Father acts, the Son also acts; because the same power and the same perfection are in the Father and the Son: "I was with him, forming all things" (Prv 8:30).

"For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doeth." Here is that "showeth." "Showeth," as it were, to whom? Of course, as to one that sees. We return to that which we cannot explain, how the Word seeth. Behold, man was made by the Word; but man has eyes, ears, hands, divers members in the body: he is able by the eyes to see, by the ears to hear, by the hands to work; the members are diverse, their offices diverse. One member cannot do the office of another; yet, by reason of the unity of the body, the eye sees both for itself and for the ear, and the ear hears for itself and for the eye. Are we to suppose that something like this holds good in the Word, seeing all things are by Him; and Scripture has said in the psalm, "Understand, ye brutish among the people; and ye fools, at length be wise. He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? And He that formed the eye, shall He not see?" Hence, if the Word is He that formed the eye, for all things are by the Word; if the Word is He that planted the ear, for all things are by the Word: we cannot say the Word doth not hear, the Word doth not see; lest the psalm reprove us, and say, "Fools, at length be wise." Therefore, if the Word heareth and seeth, if the Son heareth and seeth, are we yet to search for eyes and ears in Him in separate places? Does He by one part hear, by another see; and cannot His ear do what His eye doth; and cannot His eye do what His ear can? Or is He not all sight, all hearing? Perhaps yes; nay, not perhaps, but truly yes; whilst, however, that seeing of His, and that hearing of His, is in a way far other than it is with us. Both to see and to hear exist together in the Word: seeing and hearing are not diverse things in Him; but hearing is sight, and sight is hearing.

And we, who see in one way, and hear in another way, how know we this? We return perhaps to ourselves, if we are not the trangressors to whom it is said, "Return, O trangressors, to your heart." Return to your heart: why go from yourselves, and perish from yourselves? Why go the ways of solitude? You go astray by wandering: return ye. Whither? To the Lord. It is quickly done: first return to thine own heart; thou hast wandered abroad an exile from thyself; thou knowest not thyself, and yet thou art asking by whom thou wast made! Return, return to thy heart, lift thyself away from the body: thy body is thy place of abode; thy heart perceives even by thy body. But thy body is not what thy heart is; leave even thy body, return to thy heart. In thy body thou didst find eyes in one place, ears in another place: dost thou find this in thy heart? Or hast thou not ears in thy heart? Else of what did the Lord say, "Whoso hath ears to hear, let him hear?" Or hast thou not eyes in thy heart? Else of what saith the apostle, "The eyes of your heart being enlightened?" Return to thy heart; see there what, it may be, thou canst perceive of God, for in it is the image of God. In the inner man dwelleth Christ, in the inner man art thou renewed after the image of God, in His own image recognize its Author. See how all the senses of the body bring intelligence to the heart within of what they have perceived abroad; see how many ministers the one commander within has and what it can do by itself even without these ministers. The eyes report to the heart things black and white; the ears report to the same heart pleasant and harsh sounds; to the same heart the nostrils announce sweet odors and stenches; to the same heart the taste announces things bitter and sweet; to the same heart the touch announces things smooth and rough; and the heart declares to itself things just and unjust. Thy heart sees and hears and judges all other things perceived by the senses; and, what the senses do not aspire to, discerns things just and unjust, things evil and good. Show me the eyes, ears, nostrils, of thy heart. Diverse are the things that are referred to thy heart, yet are there not diverse members there. In thy flesh, thou hearest in one place, seest in another; in thy heart, where thou seest, there thou hearest. If this be the image, how much more mightily He whose the image is! Therefore the Son both heareth and seeth; the Son is both the hearing itself and the seeing: to hear is to Him the same thing as "to be;" and to see is to Him the same thing as "to be." To see is not the same thing to thee as to be: for if thou lose thy sight, thou canst be; and if thou lose thy hearing, thou canst be.

Do we think we have knocked? Is there raised up within us something whereby we may even slightly conjecture whence light may come to us? It is my opinion, brethren, that when we speak of these things, and meditate upon them, we are exercising ourselves. And when we are exercising ourselves, and are as it were bent back again by our own weight to our customary thoughts, we are like weak-eyed persons, when they are brought forth to see the light, if perchance they had no sight at all before, and begin in some sort to recover their sight by the assiduous care of physicians. And when the physician would test the progress of recovery, he tries to show them something which they sought to see, but could not while they were blind. And while the eyesight is now somewhat recovered, they are brought forth to the light; and as they see it, are beaten back in a manner by the very glare; and they answer the physician, as he points out the object, This moment I did see, but now I cannot. What then does the physician? He brings them back to their usual ways, and applies the eye-salve to nourish the longing for seeing that which was seen only for a moment, so that by the very longing he may cure more completely; and if any stinging salves are applied for the recovery of soundness, let the patient bear it bravely, and, inflamed with love of the light, say to himself, When will it be that with strong eyes I shall see what with sore and weak eyes I could not? He urges the physician, and begs him to heal him. Therefore, brethren, if, it may be, something like this has taken place in your hearts, if somehow you have raised your heart to see the Word, and, beaten back by its light, you have fallen back to your wonted ways; pray the Physician to apply sharp salves, the precepts of righteousness. There is that which thou mayest see, but not that whereby thou canst see. Thou didst not believe me before that there is that which thou mayest see: thou art now, as by the guidance of reason, brought to it: thou hast drawn near, strained thine eyes to see it, throbbed, and shrunk back. Thou knowest for certain that there is what thou mayest see, but that thou art not yet meet to see it. Therefore be healed. What are the eye-salves? Do not lie, do not swear falsely, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not defraud. But thou art used to these, and it is with some pain thou art drawn away from old habits: this is what bites, but yet heals. For I tell thee freely, by fear of myself and of thee, if thou give up the healing, and scorn to become meet to enjoy this light, by weakness of thine eyes, thou wilt love darkness; and by loving darkness, wilt remain in darkness; and by remaining in darkness, wilt be cast even into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. If the love of light has effected nothing in thee, let the fear of pain effect something.

He had said, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing." We, however, understood it not that the Father doeth something separately, which when the Son seeth, Himself also doeth something of the same kind, after seeing His Father's work; but when He said, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything, but what He seeth the Father doing," we understood it that the Son is wholly of the Father-that His whole substance and His whole power are of the Father that begat Him. But just now, when He had said that He doeth in like manner these things which the Father doeth, that we may not understand it to mean that the Father doeth some, the Son others, but that the Son with like power doeth the very same which the Father doeth, whilst the Father doeth through the Son, He went on, and said what we have heard read to-day: "For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doeth." Again mortal thought is disturbed. The Father showeth to the Son what things Himself doeth; therefore, saith some one, the Father doeth separately, that the Son may be able to see what He doeth. Again, there occur to human thought, as it were, two artificers-as, for instance, a carpenter teaching his son his own art, and showing him whatever he doeth, that the son also may be able to do it. "Showeth Him," saith He, "all things that Himself doeth." Is it therefore so, that whilst He doeth, the Son doeth not, that He may be able to see the Father do? Yet, certainly, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." Hence we see how the Father showeth the Son what He doeth, since the Father doeth nothing but what He doeth through the Son.

What hath the Father made? He made the world. Hath He shown the world, when made, to the Son in such wise, that the Son also should make something like it? Then let us see the world which the Son made. Nevertheless, both "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made," and also "the world was made by Him." If the world was made by Him, and all things were made by Him, and the Father doeth nothing save by the Son, where doth the Father show to the Son what He doeth, if it be not in the Son Himself, through whom He doeth? In what place can the work of the Father be shown to the Son, as though He were doing and sitting outside, and the Son attentively watching the Father's hand how it maketh? Where is that inseparable Trinity? Where the Word, of which it is said that the same is "the power and the wisdom of God"? Where that which the Scripture saith of the same wisdom: "For it is the brightness of the eternal light"? Where what was said of it again: "It powerfully reaches from the end even to the end, and ordereth all things sweetly"? Whatever the Father doeth, He doeth through the Son: through His wisdom and his power He doeth; not from without doth He show to the Son what He may see, but in the Son Himself He showeth Him what He doeth.

What seeth the Father, or rather, what doth the Son see in the Father, that Himself also may do? Perhaps I may be able to speak it, but show me the man who can comprehend it; or perhaps I may be able to think and not speak it; or perhaps I may not be able even to think it. For that divinity excels us, as God excels men, as the immortal excels a mortal, as the eternal excels the temporal. May He inspire and endow us, and out of that fountain of life deign to bedew and to drop somewhat on our thirst, that we may not be parched in this wilderness! Let us say to Him, Lord, to whom we have learnt to say Father. We make bold to say this, because Himself willed it; if only we so live that He may not say to us, "If I am a Father, where is mine honor? if I am Lord, where is my fear?"

How much soever then we may understand, and how much soever we may see, we shall not see as the Son seeth, even when we shall be made equal with the angels. For we are something even when we do not see; but what are we when we do not see, other than persons not seeing? And that we may see, we turn to Him whom we may see, and there is formed in us a seeing which was not before, although we were in being. For a man is when not seeing; and the same, when he doth see, is called a man seeing. For him, then, to see is not the same thing as to be a man; for if it were, he would not be man when not seeing. But since he is man when not seeing, and seeks to see what he sees not, he is one who seeks, and who turns to see; and when he has well turned and has seen, he becomes a man seeing, who was before a man not seeing. Consequently, to see is to him a thing that comes and goes; it comes to him when he turns to, and leaves him when he turns away. Is it thus with the Son? Far be it from us to think so. It was never so that He was Son, not seeing, and afterwards was made to see; but to see the Father is to Him the same thing as to be Son.

The Father, then, showeth a thing which He doeth to the Son, in such wise that the Son seeth all things in the Father, and is all things in the Father. For by seeing He was begotten; and by being begotten He seeth. Not, however, that at any time He was not begotten, and afterwards was begotten; nor that at any time He saw not, and afterwards saw. But in what consists His seeing, in the same consists His being, in the same His being begotten, in the same His continuing, in the same His unchanging, in the same His abiding without beginning and without end. Let us not therefore take it in a carnal sense that the Father sitteth and doeth a work, and showeth it to the Son; and the Son seeth the work that the Father doeth, and doeth another work in another place, or out of other materials. For "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." The Son is the Word of the Father. The Father said nothing which He did not say in the Son. For by speaking in the Son what He was about to do through the Son, He begat the Son through whom He made all things.

"For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doeth." To that which He said above, "except what He seeth the Father doing," seems to belong this also, "He showeth Him all things that Himself doeth." But if the Father doth show what He doeth, and the Son cannot do except the Father hath shown, and if the Father cannot show unless He hath done, it will follow that it is not through the Son that the Father doeth all things; moreover, if we hold it fixed and unshaken, that the Father doeth all by the Son, then He shows the Son before He doeth. For if the Father doth show to the Son after He has done, that the Son may do the things shown, which being shown were already done, then doubtless something there is that the Father doeth without the Son. But the Father doeth not anything without the Son, because the Son of God is God's Word, and all things were made by Him. It remains, then, that possibly what the Father is about to do, He shows as about to be done, that it may be done by the Son. For if the Son doeth those things which the Father showeth as already done, surely it is not by the Son that the Father hath done the things which He thus showeth. For they could not be shown to the Son unless they were first done, and the Son would not be able to do them unless they were first shown; therefore were they made without the Son. But yet it is a true thing, "All things were made by Him"; therefore they were shown before they were made.

"And greater works than these," saith He, "will He show Him, that ye may marvel." "Greater than these." Greater than which? The answer readily occurs: than the cures of bodily diseases which ye have just heard: For the whole occasion of this discourse arose about the man who was thirty and eight years in infirmity, and was healed by the word of Christ; and in respect of this cure, the Lord could say, "Greater works than these He will show Him, that ye may marvel." For there are greater, and the Father will show them to the Son. It is not "hath shown," as of a thing past, but "will show," of a thing future; or, is about to show. Again a difficult question arises: Why, then, is there something with the Father that has not yet been shown to the Son? Is there something with the Father that was still hid from the Son when He spoke these words? For surely, if it be "will show," that is to say, "is about to show," then He has not yet shown; and He is about to show to the Son at the same time as to these persons, since it follows, "that ye may marvel." And this is a thing hard to see, how the Eternal Father doth show something, as it were in time, to the coeternal Son, who knoweth all things that are with the Father.

(Tr. xxi. s. 2) Having said that He did the same things that the Father did, and in a like way, He adds, For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doeth. And showeth Him all things that Himself doeth: this has a reference to the words above; But what He seeth the Father do. But again, our human ideas are perplexed, and one may say, So then the Father first does something, that the Son may see what He does; just as an artificer teaches his son his art, and shows him what he makes, that he may be able to make the same after him. On this supposition, when the Father does a thing, the Son does not do it; in that the Son is beholding what His Father doeth. But we hold it as a fixed and incontrovertible truth, that the Father makes all things through the Son, and therefore He must show them to the Son, before He makes them. And where does the Father show the Son what He makes, except in the Son Himself, by whom He makes them? For if the Father makes a thing for a pattern, and the Son attends to the workmanship as it goes on, where is the indivisibility of the Trinity? The Father therefore does not show the Son what He doeth by doing it, but by showing doeth it, through the Son. The Son seeth, and the Father showeth, before a thing is made, and from the showing of the Father, and the seeing of the Son, that is made which is made; made by the Father, through the Son. But thou wilt say, I show my Son what I wish him to make, and he makes it, and I make it through him. True; but before thou doest any thing, thou shewest it to thy son, that he may do it for thy example, and thou by him; but thou speakest to thy son words which are not thyself; whereas the Son Himself is the Word of the Father; and could He speak by the Word to the Word? Or, because the Son was the great Word, were lesser words to pass between the Father and the Son, or a certain sound and temporary creation, as it were, to go out of the mouth of the Father, and strike the ear of the Son? Put away these bodily notions, and if thou art simple, see the truth in simplicity. If thou canst not comprehend what God is, comprehend at least what He is not. Thou wilt have advanced no little way, if thou thinkest nothing that is untrue of God. See what I am saying exemplified in thine own mind. Thou hast memory, and thought, thy memory showeth to thy thought Carthage: before thou perceivest what is in her, she showeth it to thought, which is turned toward her: the memory then hath shown, the thought hath perceived, and no words have passed between them, no outward sign been used. But whatever is in thy memory, thou receivest from without: that which the Father showeth to the Son, He doth not receive from without; the whole goes on within; there being no creature existing without, but what the Father hath made by the Son. And the Father maketh by showing, in that He maketh by the Son who sees. The Father's showing begets the Son's seeing, as the Father begets the Son? showing begets seeing, not seeing shewing. But it would be more correct, and more spiritual, not to view the Father as distinct from His showing, or the Son from His seeing.

(Tr. xxi) For to see the Father is to see His Son. The Father so shows all His works to the Son, that the Son sees them from the Fatheri. For the birth of the Son is in His seeing: He sees from the same source, from which He is, and is born, and remains.

(Tr. xxi. s. 5) But now from Him whom we called coeternal with the Father, who saw the Father, and existed in that He saw, we return to the things of time, And He will show him greater works than these. But if He will show him, i. e. is about to show him, He hath not yet shown him: and when He does show him, others also will see; (Tr. xix). for it follows, That ye may believe. It is difficult to see what the eternal Father can show in time to the coeternal Son, Who knows all that exists within the Father's mind. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. To raise the dead was a greater work than to heal the sick. But this is explained by consideriug that He Who a little before spoke as God, now begins to speak as man. As man, and therefore living in time, He will be shown greater works in time. Bodies will rise again by the human dispensation by which the Son of God assumed manhood in time; but souls by virtue of the eternity of the Divine Substance. For which reason it was said before that the Father loved the Son, and showed Him what things soever He did. For the Father shows the Son that souls are raised up; for they are raised up by the Father and the Son, even as they cannot live, except God give them life. (Tr. xxi). Or the Father is about to show this to us, not to Him; according to what follows, That ye may believe. This being the reason why the Father would show Him greater things than these. But why did He not say, shall show you, instead of the Son? Because we are members of the Son, and He, as it were, learns in His members, even as He suffers in us. For as He says, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me: (Matt. 25:40) so, if we ask Him, how He, the Teacher of all things, learns, He replies, When one of the least of My brethren learns, I learn.

Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflection of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son. "For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things," so that "all things that the Father has" belong to the Son, not gradually accruing to him little by little, but are rather with him all together and at once.

He says that "the Son can do nothing of his own accord." Where is the source of his perfect wisdom? "The Father … has himself given me his command of what to say and what to speak." Through all these words he guides us to the knowledge of the Father; he directs our amazement at everything he has made so that we may know the Father through him. The work of the Father is not separate or distinct from the work of the Son. Whatever the Son "sees the Father doing … that the Son does likewise." The Father enjoys our awe at everything which proceeds from the glory of the Only Begotten. He rejoices both in his Son who accomplishes such deeds and in the deeds themselves, and he exults in being known as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, "for whom and through whom all things exist."

"For the Father loves the Son." I rightly said that the Son can do all things which the Father also does: "For the Father loves the Son." Therefore He supremely loves, because supremely one: below in chapter 10: "I and the Father are One": and because supremely one, therefore He communicates all things to the Son: therefore He adds: "And He shows Him all things that He Himself does: He shows all things," that is, He communicates the power of every operation. And the reason for this communication is unity and love: above in chapter 3: "The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand."

"And greater things than these" etc. Here the third point is touched upon, namely the declaration of the greatness of power, which is made through the greatness of the works which the Lord was going to show the Jews through the Son. Therefore He says: "And greater things than these," supply: which have been shown to you, "He will show Him works," that is, through Him He will show you, "that you may marvel," at the greatness: below in chapter 10: "Many good works I have shown you." And what these works are, He shows: namely the raising of the dead.

There is a question about what he says: the Father shows all things to the Son because He loves the Son. To show to the Son is to generate the Son, as Augustine says. Therefore either to love is taken there notionally or essentially. If notionally, the statement is false, because common spiration is not the reason for emanating through generation, since generation is prior according to the order of understanding. If essentially, it is still false, because the essence is not the reason for emanation nor for relation: for then the Son would generate. I respond: It must be said that when it is stated, the Father shows all things to the Son, I note that He shows, and I note that He shows all things. I say therefore that the reason for showing all things is love, not as the reason for showing simply, but as the reason for showing all things. Love is taken essentially and signifies the supreme unity of the Father with the Son: and because there is supreme unity in essence, therefore there is complete indivision in operation: and therefore it is necessary that the Son cooperates with the Father in all things. Therefore He rightly says: "He shows all things," because He supremely loves.

And greater works than these will He show Him, that YE may marvel.

Above the blessed Evangelist says, The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus, because He was not only breaking the sabbath, but saying also that God was His Father, making Himself Equal with God. He therefore put down the accusation respecting the sabbath, by showing that the Father Himself worked on the sabbath day, and expending many words thereupon: and endeavours to teach them that He is in Equality with the Father, even when made Man for our sakes (for this was what the argument yet lacked), and therefore does He say And greater works than these will He show Him that YE may marvel. And what again does He will to show us hereby?

The paralytic (it says) has been healed, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. And marvellous indeed the Power of Him That healed him, God-befitting exceedingly the Authority. This so great Wonderworker, no one (I suppose) in his senses would blame for saying that He is God, and since He is Son, Equal in all things to Him That begat Him. But since ye (He says) imagining things most wicked and foolish, are offended because of this mortal Body, ye must needs learn that My Authority and Power stop not here: for ye shall be, even though ye will it not, spectators of greater wonders, to wit of the resurrection of the dead, and yet more shall ye be astonished, seeing Power and Glory befitting God, in Me Whom now ye charge with blasphemy and are not ashamed to persecute, for merely saying, I am the Son of God.

But how God the Father shows His Works to the Son, we have already said at much length.

For the Father loveth the Son

Those who were heedlessly blaspheming against Him by reason of the sabbath, Christ convicts of being foolishly exasperated to empty anger, making most clear proof of the matter by saying that He is loved by His Father. For if the Father wholly loveth the Son, it is plain that He loves Him not as grieving Him, but rather as gladdening Him in what He does and works. Vainly then do they persecute Him Who refuseth not to show mercy on the sabbath, and hereby again are they found opposing the decrees of God the Father. For they think they ought to hate Him Whom He loves, but it is altogether (I suppose) manifest, that He would never have loved Him if He had gone contrary to the Will of His Father, and been accustomed to do of Himself and Alone whatsoever Himself willed. But since He justly loves, He approves, it is plain, and agrees to the breaking of the sabbath, and shows that it has nothing in respect of which God the Lord of the Law might reasonably be angry.

For if the Father loves the Son completely, it is plain that the Son loves his Father, not in a way that would disappoint him but in a way that would bring his Father joy in what his Son does and works. And so it is pointless for them to persecute him when he refuses not to show mercy on the sabbath.… The Father would never have loved him if he had gone contrary to the will of his Father as if he were accustomed to doing things on his own and doing whatever he wanted by himself.

The Father again shows the Son what he himself does, not as though setting before him things depicted on a tablet or teaching him as though ignorant (for he knows all things as God). Rather, the Father depicts himself wholly in the nature of his Son and shows in his Son his own natural properties in order that from these properties he [the Father] has and shows, the Son may know what and who his Father is that begat him by nature. Therefore Christ says that "no one knows who the Son is but the Father, or who the Father is, but the Son." For the accurate knowledge of each is in both, not by learning but by nature.

"The Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doeth; and He will show Him greater works than these." Seest thou how great is the humility of this? And with reason; for what I said before, what I shall not cease to say, I will now repeat, that when He uttereth anything low or humbly, He putteth it in excess, that the very poverty of the expression may persuade even the indisposed to receive the notions with pious understanding.

What then is His meaning? It was because He had strengthened the paralytic, and was about to raise the dead, that He thus spake, all but saying, "Wonder ye that I have strengthened the paralyzed? Ye shall see greater things than these." But He spake not thus, but proceeded somehow in a humbler strain, in order that He might soothe their madness. And that thou mayest learn that "shall show" is not used absolutely, listen again to what followeth.

He said that "greater works than these"—evidently greater than the healing of the paralyzed man—had to be shown by him so that they would be astonished. Here he alludes to the general resurrection and to those things that he will do when he appears [again] to stand in judgment of all things. When he does this, there will be no denying his dignity. At that time, they will be astonished—and for good reason—learning who he [truly] was and what role he has been given. Undoubtedly, after seeing that, they will agree concerning the nature dwelling in him.

If it is said in a lowly manner "shows Him all things" and "will show Him greater things than these," one should not marvel at this; for He is speaking with people who are crying out against Him and consumed with envy. If He had not everywhere combined the lowly with the lofty, what would they not have done, when they rise up even while He speaks in a lowly manner for the most part? What does this mean: "will show greater things than these"? Having strengthened the paralytic, He intends to raise the dead; therefore He also says: "If you marvel that I healed the paralytic, you will see greater things than this." That He used the humble expression "will show" intentionally, in order to soften their foolishness, listen to what follows next.

Then when he says, For the Father loves the Son, he gives the reason for each, i.e., for the origin of the Son's power and for its greatness. This reason is the love of the Father, who loves the Son. Thus he says, For the Father loves the Son.

In order to understand how the Father's love for the Son is the reason for the origin or communication of the Son's power, we should point out that a thing is loved in two ways. For since the good alone is loveable, a good can be related to love in two ways: as the cause of love, or as caused by love. Now in us, the good causes love: for the cause of our loving something is its goodness, the goodness in it. Therefore, it is not good because we love it, but rather we love it because it is good. Accordingly, in us, love is caused by what is good. But it is different with God, because God's love itself is the cause of the goodness in the things that are loved. For it is because God loves us that we are good, since to love is nothing else than to will a good to someone. Thus, since God's will is the cause of things, for "whatever he willed he made" (Ps 113:3), it is clear that God's love is the cause of the goodness in things. Hence Denis says in The Divine Names (c. 4) that the divine love did not allow itself to be without issue. So, if we wish to consider the origin of the Son, let us see whether the love with which the Father loves the Son, is the principle of his origin, so that he proceeds from it.

In divine realities, love is taken in two ways: essentially, so far as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit love; and notionally or personally, so far as the Holy Spirit proceeds as Love. But in neither of these ways of taking love can it be the principle of origin of the Son. For if is is taken essentially, it implies an act of the will; and if that were the sense in which it is the principle of origin of the Son, it would follow that the Father generated the Son, not by nature, but by will—and this is false. Again, love is not understood notionally, as pertaining to the Holy Spirit. For it would then follow that the Holy Spirit would be the principle of the Son—which is also false. Indeed, no heretic ever went so far as to say this. For although love, notionally taken, is the principle of all the gifts given to us by God, it is nevertheless not the principle of the Son; rather it proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Consequently, we must say that this explanation is not taken from love as from a principle (ex principio), but as from a sign (ex signo). For since likeness is a cause of love (for every animal loves its like), wherever a perfect likeness of God is found, there also is found a perfect love of God. But the perfect likeness of the Father is in the Son, as is said: "He is the image of the invisible God" (1:15); and "He is the brightness of the Father's glory, and the image of his substance" (Heb 1:3). Therefore, the Son is loved perfectly by the Father, and because the Father perfectly loves the Son, this is a sign that the Father has shown him everything and has communicated to him his very own [the Father's] power and nature. And it is of this love that we read above (3:5): "The Father loves the Son, and has put everything into his hands"; and, "This is my beloved Son" (Mt 3:17).

With respect to what follows, and shows him everything that he does, we should point out that someone can show another his works in two ways: either by sight, as an artisan shows his apprentice the things he has made, or by hearing, as when he verbally instructs him. In whatever of these ways shows is understood, there can follow something which is not appropriate, that is, something that is not present when the Father shows things to the Son. For if we say the Father shows things to the Son by sight, then it follows, as with humans, that the Father first does something which he then shows to the Son; and that he does this by himself, without the Son. But the Father does not show the Son things which he did before, for the Son himself says: "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his ways, before he made anything" (Prv 8:22). Nor does the Father show the Son things he has done without the Son, for the Father does all things through the Son: "All things were made through him" (above 1:3). If shows is understood as a kind of hearing, two things seem to follow. For the one who teaches by word first points out something to the one who is ignorant; again, the word is something intermediate between the one showing and the one being shown. But it is in neither of these ways that the Father shows things to the Son: for he does not do so to one who is ignorant, since the Son is the Wisdom of the Father: "Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24); nor does the Father use some intermediate word, because the Son himself is the Word of the Father: "The Word was with God" (above 1:1).

Therefore, it is said that the Father shows all that he does to the Son, inasmuch as he gives the Son a knowledge of all of his works. For it is in this way that a master is said to show something to his disciple, inasmuch as he gives him a knowledge of the things he makes. Hence, according to Augustine, for the Father to show anything to the Son is nothing more than for the Father to beget or generate the Son. And for the Son to see what the Father does is nothing more than for the Son to receive his being (esse) and nature from the Father.

Nevertheless, this showing can be considered similar to seeing insofar as the Son is the brightness of the paternal vision, as we read in Hebrews (1:3): for the Father, seeing and understanding himself, conceives the Son, who is the concept of this vision. Again, it can be considered similar to hearing insofar as the Son proceeds from the Father as the Word. As if to say: The Father shows him everything, insofar as he generates him as the brightness and concept of his own wisdom, and as the Word. Thus the words, The Father shows, refer to what was said before: the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing. And the word, everything, refers to, For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.

755 Having pointed out the power of the Son in general, he now shows it in more detail. First, the Lord discloses his life-giving power. Secondly, he clarifies what seemed obscure in what was said before (v 26). As to the first he does two things. First, he shows that the Son has life-giving power. Secondly, he teaches how life is received from the Son (v 24). Concerning the first he does three things. First, he presents the life-giving power of the Son. Secondly, he gives a reason for what he says (v 22). Thirdly, he shows the effect of this (v 23). With respect to the first he does two things. First, he sets forth this life-giving power in general. Secondly, he expands on it (v 21).

756 He says, to the first, Indeed, he will show even greater works than these. As if to say: You are astonished and affected by the power of the Son in his healing of the sick man, but the Father will show even greater works than these, as in raising the dead, such that you will be amazed.

757 This passage gives rise to two difficulties. First, about his saying, he will show. For the earlier statement that the Father shows everything to the Son (5:20) refers to his eternal generation. How, then, can he say here, he will show, if the Son is coeternal with him and eternity does not allow of a future? The second difficulty is over, such that you will be amazed. For if he intends to show something to amaze the Jews, then he will be showing it to the Son at the same time as to them; for they could not be amazed unless they saw it. And yet the Son saw all things from eternity with the Father.

758 We must say that this is explained in three ways. The first way is given by Augustine, and in it this future showing is referred to the disciples. For it is Christ's custom that now and then he says that what happens to his members happens to himself, as in Matthew (25:40): "As long as you did it to one of the least of my brethren, you did it to me." And then the meaning is this: You saw the Son do something great in healing the sick man, and you were amazed; but the Father will show him even greater works than these, in his members, that is, the disciples: "He will do greater things than these," as we read below (14:12). He then says, such that you will be amazed, for the miracles of the disciples so amazed the Jews that a great many of them were converted to the faith, as we see in the Acts.

759 The second explanation, also by Augustine, refers this showing to Christ according to his assumed nature. For in Christ there is both a divine nature and a human nature, and in each he has life-giving power from the Father, although not in the same way. According to his divinity he has the power to give life to souls; but according to his assumed nature, he gives life to bodies. Hence Augustine says: "The Word gives life to souls; but the Word made flesh gives life to bodies." For the resurrection of Christ and the mysteries which Christ fulfilled in his flesh are the cause of the future resurrection of bodies: "God, who is rich in mercy, has brought us to life in Christ" (Eph 2:5); "If it is preached that Christ rose from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor 15:12). The first life-giving power he has from eternity; and he indicated this when he said: "The Father shows him everything that he does" (above 4:20), all of which he shows to his flesh.

The other life-giving power he has in time, and concerning this he says: he will show him even greater works than these, i.e., his power will be shown by the fact that he will do greater works, by raising the dead. He will raise some of the dead here: as Lazarus, the young girl, and the mother's only son; and finally he will raise all on the day of judgment.

760 A third explanation refers this showing to Christ in his divine nature, according to the custom of Scripture in saying that a thing is beginning to take place when it is beginning to be known. For example: "All power has been given to me, in heaven and on earth" (Mt 28:18); for although Christ had the complete fulness of power from eternity (because "whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise"), he still speaks of this power as being given to him after the resurrection, not because he was then receiving it for the first time, but because it was through the glory of the resurrection that it became most known. In this interpretation, then, he says that power is given to him insofar as he exercises it in some work. As if to say: he will show him even greater works than these, i.e., he will show by his works what has been given to him. And this will come about when you are amazed, i.e., when the one who seems to you to be a mere man is revealed to be a person of divine power and as God.

We could also take the word show as referring to an act of seeing, as was explained above [750].

"And greater works than these will He show Him, that ye may marvel." Here again we are embarrassed. And who is there that may worthily investigate this so great a secret? But now, in that He has deigned to speak to us, Himself opens it. For He would not speak what He would not have us understand; and as He has deigned to speak, without doubt He has excited attention: for does He forsake any whom He has roused to give attentive hearing? We have said that it is not in a temporal sense that the Son knoweth,-that the knowledge of the Son is not one thing, and the Son Himself another; nor one thing His seeing, Himself another; but that the seeing itself is the Son, and the knowledge as well as the wisdom of the Father is the Son; and that that wisdom and seeing is eternal and co-eternal with Him from whom it is; that it is not something that varies by time, nor something produced that was not in being, nor something that vanishes away which did exist.

"As the Father raiseth the dead, and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom He will." Clearly these are greater. Very much greater is it that a dead man should rise, than that a sick man should recover: these are greater. But when is the Father about to show these to the Son? Does the Son not know them? And He who was speaking, did He not know how to raise the dead? Had He yet to learn how to raise the dead to life-He, I say, by whom all things were made? He who caused that we should live, when we were not in being, had He yet to learn how we might be raised to life again? What, then, do His words mean?

Let us rejoice, then, and give thanks that we are made not only Christians, but Christ. Do ye understand, brethren, and apprehend the grace of God upon us? Marvel, be glad, we are made Christ. For if He is the head, we are the members: the whole man is He and we. This is what the Apostle Paul saith: "That we be no longer babes, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine." But above he had said, "Until we all come together into the unity of faith, and to the knowledge of the Son of God, to the perfect man, to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ." The fullness of Christ, then, is head and members. Head and members, what is that? Christ and the Church. We should indeed be arrogating this to ourselves proudly, if He did not Himself deign to promise it, who saith by the same apostle, "But ye are the body of Christ, and members."

And who are these dead whom the Father and the Son quicken? Are they the same of whom we have spoken-Lazarus, or that widow's son, or the ruler of the synagogue's daughter? For we know that these were raised by Christ the Lord. It is some other thing that He means to signify to us,-namely, the resurrection of the dead, which we all look for; not that resurrection which certain have had, that the rest might believe. For Lazarus rose to die again; we shall rise again to live for ever. Is it the Father that effects such a resurrection, or the Son? Nay verily, the Father in the Son. Consequently the Son, and the Father in the Son. Whence do we prove that He speaks of this resurrection? When He had said, "As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom He will." Lest we should understand here that resurrection which He performs for a miracle, not for eternal life, He proceeded, saying, "For the Father judgeth not any man, but all judgment hath He given to the Son." What is this? He was speaking of the resurrection of the dead, that "as the Father raiseth the dead, and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom He will;" and immediately thereupon added as a reason, concerning the judgment, saying, "for the Father judgeth not any man, but all judgment hath He given to the Son." Why said He this, but to indicate that He had spoken of that resurrection of the dead which will take place in the judgment?

Also Lazarus, who rose again, was raised both by the Father and by the Son, in the gift and grace of the Holy Spirit; and that wonderful work the Trinity performed. Let us not, therefore, understand this, "As the Father raiseth the dead, and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom He will," in such wise as to suppose that some are raised and quickened by the Father, others by the Son; but that the Son raiseth and quickeneth the very same whom the Father raiseth and quickeneth; because "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." And to show that He has, though given by the Father, equal power, therefore He saith, "So also the Son quickeneth whom He will," that He might therein show His will; and lest any should say, "The Father raiseth the dead by the Son, but the Father as being powerful, and as having power, the Son as by another's power, as a servant does something, as an angel," He indicated His power when He saith, "So also the Son quickeneth whom He will." It is not so that the Father willeth other than the Son; but as the Father and the Son have one substance, so also one will.

But what are the greater works? For perhaps this is easy to understand. "For as the Father," saith He, "raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will." To raise the dead, then, are greater works than to heal the sick. But "as the Father raiseth the dead, and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom He will." Hence, the Father some, the Son others? But all things are by Him: therefore the Son the same persons as the Father doth; since the Son doeth not other things and in a different manner, but "these" and in "like manner." Thus clearly it must be understood, and thus held. But keep in memory that "the Son quickeneth whom He will." Here, too, know not only the power of the Son, but also the will. Both the Son quickeneth whom He will, and also the Father quickeneth whom He will - the Son the same persons as the Father; and hence the power of the Father and of the Son is the same, and also the will is the same.

What follows then? "For the Father judgeth not any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son, that all men may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father:" this He subjoined, as rendering a reason of the foregoing sentence. A great question comes before us; give it your earnest attention. The Son quickeneth whom He will, the Father quickeneth whom He will; the Son raiseth the dead, just as the Father raiseth the dead. And further, "the Father judgeth not any man." If the dead must be raised in the judgment, how can it be said that the Father raiseth the dead, if He judgeth not any man, since "He hath given all judgment to the Son"? But in that judgment the dead are raised; some rise to life, others to punishment. If the Son doeth all this, but the Father not, inasmuch as "He judgeth not any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son," it will appear contrary to what has been said, viz., "As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom He will." Consequently the Father and the Son raise together; if they raise together, they quicken together: hence they judge together.

(Tr. xxi. s. 5) But now from Him whom we called coeternal with the Father, who saw the Father, and existed in that He saw, we return to the things of time, And He will show him greater works than these. But if He will show him, i. e. is about to show him, He hath not yet shown him: and when He does show him, others also will see; (Tr. xix). for it follows, That ye may believe. It is difficult to see what the eternal Father can show in time to the coeternal Son, Who knows all that exists within the Father's mind. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. To raise the dead was a greater work than to heal the sick. But this is explained by consideriug that He Who a little before spoke as God, now begins to speak as man. As man, and therefore living in time, He will be shown greater works in time. Bodies will rise again by the human dispensation by which the Son of God assumed manhood in time; but souls by virtue of the eternity of the Divine Substance. For which reason it was said before that the Father loved the Son, and showed Him what things soever He did. For the Father shows the Son that souls are raised up; for they are raised up by the Father and the Son, even as they cannot live, except God give them life. (Tr. xxi). Or the Father is about to show this to us, not to Him; according to what follows, That ye may believe. This being the reason why the Father would show Him greater things than these. But why did He not say, shall show you, instead of the Son? Because we are members of the Son, and He, as it were, learns in His members, even as He suffers in us. For as He says, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me: (Matt. 25:40) so, if we ask Him, how He, the Teacher of all things, learns, He replies, When one of the least of My brethren learns, I learn.

(Tr. xxi. s. 5, 6) Having said that the Father would show the Son greater works than these, He proceeds to describe these greater works: For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. These are plainly greater works, for it is more of a miracle that a dead man should rise again, than that a sick man should recover. We must not understand from the words, that some are raised by the Father, others by the Son; but that the Son raises to life the same whom the Father raiseth. And to guard against any one saying, The Father raises the dead by the Son, the former by His own power, the latter, like an instrument, by another power, He asserts distinctly the power of the Son: The Son quickeneth whom he will. Observe here not only the power of the Son, but also His will. Father and Son have the same power and will. The Father willeth nothing distinct from the Son; but both have the same will, even as they have the same substance.

(Tr. xxi. s. 11.) But who are these dead, whom the Father and Son raise to life? He alludes to the general resurrection which is to be; not to the resurrection of those few, who were raised to life, that the rest might believe; as Lazarus, who rose again, to die afterwards. Having said then, For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, to prevent our taking the words to refer to the dead whom He raised up for the sake of the miracle, and not to the resurrection to life eternal, He adds, For the Father judgeth no man; thus showing that He spoke of that resurrection of the dead which would take place at the judgment. (Tr. xxiii. s. 13). Or the words, As the Father raiseth up the dead, &c.refer to the resurrection of the soul; For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, to the resurrection of the body. For the resurrection of the soul takes place by the substance of the Father and the Sonk, and therefore it is the work of the Father and the Son together: but the resurrection of the body takes place by a dispensation of the Son's humanity, which is a temporal dispensation, and not coeternal with the Father. (Tr. xxi. s. 12.). But see how the Word of Christ leads the mind in different directions, not allowing it any carnal resting place; but by variety of motion exercising it, by exercise purifying it, by purifying enlarging its capacity, and after enlarging filling it. He said just before that the Father showed what things soever He did to the Son. So I saw, as it were, the Father working, and the Son waiting: now again I see the Son working, the Father resting.

"For as the Father raises the dead and gives life," through omnipotent power: so "the Son also gives life to whom He wills," through power equal to Him: below in chapter 11 is found the raising of Lazarus in body, and concerning the raising in soul it is said: "I am the resurrection and the life: he who believes in Me, even if he has died, shall live." An example of bodily raising is found likewise in Luke 7.

See again in these words clear proof of his equality. For how can he be inferior in anything if he works equally in the reviving of the dead? Or how can he be of another nature and alien to the Father when he is radiant with the same properties? For the power of resurrection, which is alike in both the Father and the Son, is a property of the divine essence. But it is not as though the Father separately and of himself resurrects some, and the Son separately and apart from the Father resurrects others. For since the Son has in himself by nature the Father, the Father does everything and works all things through the Son. But since the Father has the power of resurrection in his own nature, as also does the Son, the Son attributes the power of resurrecting the dead as though accruing to each separately.

(de Trin. vii. c. 19) For to will is the free power of a nature, which by the act of choice, resteth in the blessedness of perfect excellence.

"For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will." Yet "can do nothing of Himself" is opposed to "whom He will": since if He quickeneth "whom He will," He can do something "of Himself," (for to "will" implies power,) but if He "can do nothing of Himself," then He cannot "quicken whom He will." For the expression, "as the Father raiseth up," showeth unvarying resemblance in Power, and "whom He will," Equality of Authority. Seest thou therefore that "cannot do anything of Himself" is the expression of One not taking away His (own) authority, but declaring the unvarying resemblance of His Power and Will (to those of the Father)?

In this sense also understand the words, "shall show to Him"; for in another place He saith, "I will raise him up at the last Day." (c. vi. 40.) And again, to show that He doth it not by receiving an inward power from above, He saith, "I am the Resurrection and the Life." (c. xi. 25.) Then that thou mayest not assert that He raiseth what dead He will and quickeneth them, but that He doth not other things in such manner, He anticipateth and preventeth every objection of the kind by saying, "What things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise," thus declaring that He doeth all things which the Father doeth, and as the Father doeth them; whether thou speakest of the raising of the dead, or the fashioning of bodies, or the remission of sins, or any other matter whatever, He worketh in like manner to Him who begat Him.

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

Then He says: "As the Father raises the dead, so the Son also gives life to whom He wills." Thus, the Son raises "as the Father." By this He shows the indifference of power, and by the words "whom He wills" — the equality of authority. The Arians set all this against the glory of the Son, but we, the Orthodox, understand it in favor of it.

761 Now he explains in more detail the life-giving power of the Son by indicating those greater works which the Father will show the Son (v 21). Here we should point out that in the Old Testament the divine power is particularly emphasized by the fact that God is the author of life: "The Lord kills, and brings to life" (1 Sm 2:6); "I will kill, and bring to life again" (Dt 32:39). Now just as the Father has this power, so also does the Son; hence he says, For just as the Father raises the dead and grants life, so the Son grants life to those to whom he wishes. As if to say: These are those greater works that the Father will show the Son, that is, he will give life to the dead. Such works are obviously greater, for it is greater to raise the dead than for a sick man to become well. Thus the Son grants life to those to whom he wishes, i.e., by giving initial life to the living, and by raising the dead.

We should not think that some are raised up by the Father and others by the Son. Rather, the same ones who are raised and vivified by the Father, are raised and vivified by the Son also: because just as the Father does all things through the Son, who is his power, so he also gives life to all through the Son, who is life, as he says below: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (14:6).

The Father does not raise up and give life through the Son as through an instrument, because then the Son would not have freedom of power. And so to exclude this he says, the Son grants life to those to whom he wishes, i.e., it lies in the freedom of his power to grant life to whom he wills. For the Son does not will anything different than the Father wills: for just as they are one substance, so they have one will; hence Matthew (20:15) says: "Is it not lawful for me to do as I will?"

He has given [judgment to the Son], that is to say, not out of largess but in the act of generation. See, then, how unwilling God was that you should dishonor his Son—even to the point that he gave him to be your judge.

But there is fear that the judge may be more severe. Consider who the judge is. Indeed, the Father has given all judgment to Christ. Therefore, can that very one condemn you, whom he redeemed from death, for whom he offered himself, and whose life he knows to be the reward of his own death?

How can it be said, "The Father judges no one"? For since the Father has begotten the Son equal to himself, the Father does indeed judge with the Son. Therefore Jesus must have meant that in the judgment, it is not the form of God but the form of the Son of man that will appear. Not that the Father, who has committed all judgment to the Son, will not judge, because the Son identifies him as "one who seeks and judges." But … it is as if it was said: No one will see the Father in the judgment of the living and the dead, but everyone will see the Son, because he is also the Son of man so that he can be seen even by the ungodly.

"For," saith He, "the Father judgeth no man, but all judgment hath He given to the Son." A little before we were thinking that the Father doeth something which the Son doeth not, when He said, "The Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doeth;" as though the Father were doing, and the Son were seeing. In this way there was creeping in upon our mind a carnal conception, as if the Father did what the Son did not; but that the Son was looking on while the Father showed what He was doing. Then, as the Father was doing what the Son did not, just now we see the Son doing what the Father doeth not. How He turns us about, and keeps our mind busy! He leads us hither and thither, will not allow us to remain in one place of the flesh, that by changing He may exercise us, by exercising He may cleanse us, by cleansing He may render us capable of receiving, and may fill us when made capable.

By all means there is a sense, a true and strong sense, if somehow we can grasp it, in which "the Father judgeth not any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son." For this is said because none will appear to men in the judgment but the Son. The Father will be hidden, the Son will be manifest. In what will the Son be manifest? In the form in which He ascended. For in the form of God He was hidden with the Father; in the form of a servant, manifest to men. Not therefore "the Father judgeth any man, but all judgment hath He given to the Son:" only the manifest judgment, in which manifest judgment the Son will judge, since the same will appear to them that are to be judged.

The Scripture shows us more clearly that it is the Son that will appear. On the fortieth day after His resurrection He ascended into heaven, while His disciples were looking on; and they hear the angelic voice: "Men of Galilee," saith it, "why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same that is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him going into heaven." In what manner did they see Him go? In the flesh, which they touched, which they handled, the wounds even of which they proved by touching; in that body in which He went in and out with them for forty days, manifesting Himself to them in truth, not in falsity; not a phantom, or shadow, or ghost, but, as Himself said, not deceiving them, "Handle and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." That body is now indeed worthy of a heavenly habitation, not being subject to death, nor mutable by the lapse of ages.

(de Trin. c. 29. [xiii.]) For this, viz. that the Father hath given all judgment unto the Son, does not mean that He begat the Son with this attribute, as is meant in the words, So hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself. For if so, it would not be said, The Father judgeth no man, because, in that the Father begat the Son equal, He judgeth with the Son. What is meant is, that in the judgment, not the form of God but the form of the Son of man will appear; not because He will not judge Who hath given all judgment to the Son; since the Son says of Him below, There is one that seeketh and judgeth, (c. 8.) but the Father judgeth no man; i. e. no one will see Him in the judgment, but all will see the Son, because He is the Son of man, even the ungodly who will look on Him Whom they pierced. (Zech. 12)

"For neither does the Father judge anyone." Here the fourth point is touched upon, namely the reason for declaring His power: why, that is, God declares His power in the Son and through the Son. To show that He is equal to Himself and equally to be honored: and therefore He grants judgment to the Son. On account of which He says: "For neither the Father": I rightly said that "He will show greater works than these, that you may marvel," because also for this reason He grants judgment. Therefore He says: "For neither does the Father judge anyone," namely by appearing in judgment, "but has given all judgment to the Son": Acts 10: "He is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead." And the reason for this is rendered as the honoring of the Son.

It is further asked whether it belongs to the Son alone to judge. That it does, seems clear from the text: "The Father has given all judgment to the Son"; and Acts 10: "He it is who was appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead"; and 1 Corinthians 4: "He who judges me is the Lord": therefore if he alone is our Lord, it belongs to him alone to judge. To the contrary: 1 Corinthians 11: "If we judged ourselves, we would certainly not be judged": therefore it belongs to us to judge ourselves. Likewise, regarding others, Matthew 19: "You shall sit upon twelve thrones" etc. was said to the Apostles: likewise, 1 Corinthians 6: "Do you not know that we shall judge angels?"

To this it must be said that in judgment there is examination, there is approbation, and there is also the passing of sentence or determination. The first act, namely of examination, pertains to all, and on account of this the Apostle says that they ought to prove themselves, that is, to examine themselves. The second, namely of approbation or reprobation, pertains to the perfect, because they will approve and reprove, and by comparison with them the wicked will be reproved: but this not in the present, but in the future: hence the Apostle says that such judgment in the present time is before the time: 1 Corinthians 4: "Do not judge before the time." The third act, namely of determination, belongs to the Son alone, because he himself will promulgate the sentence. No one exercises this act except by usurpation and rashly: hence the Lord forbids it in Matthew 7: "Do not judge"; and the Apostle in Romans 14: "Who are you to judge another's servant?" I say therefore that when he says that the Father has given all judgment to the Son, this is understood of the judgment of determination, not of examination or approbation.

O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments, and unsearchable His ways! From which it is gathered that those things which pertain to divine wisdom are more comprehensible than the divine judgments; but in John 5 it is said that the Father has given all judgment to the Son, because He is the Son of man; from which it is gathered that the soul of Christ comprehends the divine judgments: therefore if those are less comprehensible than the others, much more strongly does He comprehend all the others.

To that which is objected, that the soul of Christ comprehends all the divine judgments: it can be said that those things are said of the assumed man on account of the communication of idioms; or certainly they are said of those things which are, were, and will be, which indeed can be comprehended by the soul of Christ; but it is not true with respect to all things that the divine wisdom understands, since it knows infinite things, as is clear from what has been determined above.

That the Father judgeth nothing, but the Son; and that the Father is not glorified by him by whom the Son is not glorified. In the Gospel according to John: "The Father judgeth nothing, but hath given all judgment unto the Son, that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who hath sent Him." Also in the seventy-first Psalm: "O God, give the king Thy judgment, and Thy righteousness to the king's son, to judge Thy people in righteousness." Also in Genesis: "And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur, and fire from heaven from the Lord."

CHAPTER VII. That nought of God-befitting Dignities or Excellences is in the Son, by participation, or from without.

He introduceth another God-befitting and marvellous thing, in many ways persuading them that He is God by Nature and Verily. For to what other would it befit to judge the world, save Him Alone Who is God over all. Whom too the Divine Scriptures call to this, saying in one place, Arise, O God, judge the earth, in another again, For God is the Judge, He putteth down one and setteth up another. But He says that judgment has been given Him by the Father, not as being without authority hereto, but economically as Man, teaching that all things are more suitably referred to the Divine Nature, whereto Himself too being not external, in that He is Word and God, hath inherently authority over all; but in that He is made Man, to whom it is said, What hast thou that thou didst not receive, He fittingly acknowledges that He received it.

To these things again one of our opponents will say, "Lo, the Son evidently declares that He hath received judgement of the Father; but He receives (it is plain) aa not having. How then will not He That gives with Authority be greater and of Superior Nature to Him Who must needs receive?"

What then do we say to these things? Our prearranged argument has been, I think, not unskilfully managed, introducing a consideration specially befitting the time, to wit of the Incarnation, and most accordant with the economy of the Flesh, when He was called a servant, when He humbled Himself, made in our likeness. But since it seemeth good to thee haughtily to despise the simpler doctrines, and to make more critical examination of them, come then, opposing thy objections, let us first say, Not altogether, nor of necessity, sir, doth he that is said to give anything, impart it to the recipient as though he had it not, nor yet is the giver always greater than the receiver. For what wilt thou do, when thou seest the holy Psalmist saying in the Spirit, Give glory to God? Shall we consider that God is in need of glory, or that we who are commanded to offer Him this, are on this account greater than the Creator? But not even thou wilt dare to say this, who shunnest not the fear of blasphemies. For full of glory is the Godhead, even though It receive it not from us. For He who receives as honour, what He hath of Own, will never bo thought inferior to those who offer Him glory as a gift. One may often see that he who has received anything is not inferior to the giver, and that the Father is not therefore of Superior Nature to His offspring, because He hath committed to Him all judgment.

Next we must consider this too. To judge or to give judgment, are rather operations and acts conceived as properties of essences than themselves truly essences. For we in giving judgment do something, being in ourselves what we are. But if we grant that judging or giving judgment is of the nature of an essence, how must we not needs grant, even against our wills, that some cannot exist at all, except as judges, and that their being wholly ceases together with the termination of the judgment? But so to think, is most absurd. Judgment then is an operation, and nothing else. What then hath the Father committed to the Son? No accession from His Own Nature, in committing all judgment to Him, but rather an operation in respect of them that are judged. How then will He herein be greater, or of Superior Nature, by having added anything which was not in the Son Who saith, All things that the Father hath are Mine?

How then He must be conceived of as giving, hear now.

As God the Father, having the Power to create, createth all things through the Son, as through His own Power and Might: so having the Power too to judge, He will work this too through the Son, as His Own Righteousness. As though it were said that fire too yielded up burning to the operation that is of itself by nature, the fact taking this direction: so piously interpreting, Hath committed, shall we escape the snare of the devil. But if they persist in shamelessly asserting that glory is added to Him of the Father, through His being manifested Judge of the earth, let them teach us, how He is any longer to be considered Lord of glory, Who in the last times was crowned with the honours hereunto pertaining.

The statement that all judgment is given to the Son teaches both his birth and his Sonship. Only a nature that is altogether one with the Father's could possess all things. And a Son can possess nothing except as a gift. But all judgment has been given to him since he gives life to whomever he will. Now we cannot suppose that judgment is taken away from the Father, although he does not exercise it. For the Son's whole power of judgment proceeds from the Father's since it is a gift from him.

(de Trin vii. c. 20) Having said that the Son quickeneth whom He will, in order that we might not lose sight of the nativity, and think that He stood upon the ground of His own unborn power, He immediately adds, For the Father judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment unto the Son. In that all judgment is given to Him, both His nature, and His nativity are shewn; because only a self-existent nature can possess all things, and nativity cannot have any thing, except what is given it.

(vii. de Trin. c. 20) All judgment is given to Him, because He quickens whom He will. Nor can the judgment be looked on as taken away from the Father, inasmuch as the cause of His not judging is, that the judgment of the Son is His. For all judgment is given from the Father. And the reason for which He gives it, appears immediately after: That all men may honour the Son even as they honour the Father.

"Shall we then," saith some one, "also call Him Father?" Away with the thought. He useth the word "Son" that we may honor Him still remaining a Son, as we honor the Father; but he who calleth Him "Father" doth not honor the Son as the Father, but has confounded the whole. Moreover as men are not so much brought to by being benefited as by being punished, on this account He hath spoken thus terribly, that even fear may draw them to honor Him. And when He saith "all," His meaning is this, that He hath power to punish and to honor, and doeth either as He will. The expression "hath given," is used that thou mayest not suppose Him not to have been Begotten, and so think that there are two Fathers. For all that the Father is, this the Son is also, Begotten, and remaining a Son. And that thou mayest learn that "hath given" is the same as "hath begotten," hear this very thing declared by another place. "As," saith Christ, "the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself." "What then? Did he first beget and then give Him life? For he who giveth, giveth to something which is. Was He then begotten without life?" Not even the devils could imagine this, for it is very foolish as well as impious. As then "hath given life" is "hath begotten Him who is Life," so, "hath given judgment" is "hath begotten Him who shall be Judge."

That thou mayest not when thou hearest that He hath the Father for His cause imagine any difference of essence or inferiority of honor, He cometh to judge thee, by this proving His Equality. For He who hath authority to punish and to honor whom He will, hath the same Power with the Father. Since, if this be not the case, if having been begotten He afterwards received the honor, how came it that He was afterwards thus honored, by what mode of advancement reached He so far as to receive and be appointed to this dignity? Are ye not ashamed thus impudently to apply to that Pure Nature which admitteth of no addition these carnal and mean imaginations?

But in what manner and with what commands He was sent by God to the earth, the Spirit of God declared through the prophet, teaching us that when He had faithfully and uniformly fulfilled the will of His supreme Father, He should receive judgment and an everlasting dominion. If, He says, Thou wilt walk in my ways, and keep my precepts, then Thou shalt judge my house.

The Father has given judgment to the Son even from the very beginning. For when he speaks of all power and all judgment and says that all things were made by him and all things have been delivered into his hand, he allows no exception [in respect] of time, because they would not be all things unless they were the things of all time. It is the Son, therefore, who has been from the beginning administering judgment, throwing down the haughty tower and dividing the tongues, punishing the whole world by the violence of waters, raining upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone, as the Lord from the Lord.

"The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son" -from the very beginning even.

Christ, having performed many signs, proved that He is able to bestow blessings. But since He did not persuade or draw them to a worthy veneration of Himself, He says that the Father has given all judgment to the Son, so that the fear of judgment might incline them to render Him honor. For we humans, especially the most foolish among us, are usually taught what is needful more by fear than by kindness. The words "The Father has given judgment to the Son" should be understood to mean that He begat Him as Judge, just as you hear that He gave Him life, and you understand that He begat Him as Living. Since the Father is the cause of the Son's being, it is said that everything the Son has, He received from the Father, as having it from Him by nature. Thus, He also has judgment from the Father in the same way as the Father Himself has it.

762 Then when he says, The Father himself judges no one, he gives the reason for what was said above, and indicates his own power. It should be remarked that there are two expositions for the present passages: one is given by Augustine, and the other by Hilary and Chrysostom.

Augustine's explanation is this. The Lord had said that just as the Father raises the dead, so also does the Son. But so that we do not think that this refers only to those miracles the Son performs in raising the dead to this life, and not to the Son's raising to eternal life, he leads them to the deeper consideration of the resurrection to occur at the future judgment. Thus he refers explicitly to the judgment, saying, The Father himself judges no one.

Another explanation by Augustine, in which the same meaning is maintained, is that the earlier statement, just as the Father raises the dead and grants life, so the Son, should be referred to the resurrection of souls, which the Son causes inasmuch as he is the Word; but the text, The Father himself judges no one, should be referred to the resurrection of bodies, which the Son causes inasmuch as he is the Word made flesh. For the resurrection of souls is accomplished through the person of the Father and of the Son; and for this reason he mentions the Father and Son together, saying, just as the Father raises the dead... so the Son. But the resurrection of bodies is accomplished through the humanity of the Son, according to which he is not coeternal with the Father. Consequently, he attributes judgment solely to the Son.

763 Note the wonderful variety of expressions. The Father is first presented as acting and the Son as resting, when it says: "the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing" (5:19); but here, on the contrary, the Son is presented as acting and the Father as resting: The Father himself judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son. We can see from this that he is speaking from different points of view at different times. At first, he was speaking of an action which belongs to the Father and the Son; thus he says that "the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing"; but here he is speaking of an action by which the Son, as man, judges, and the Father does not: thus he says that the Father has given all judgment to the Son. For the Father will not appear at the judgment because, in accord with what is just, God cannot appear in his divine nature before all who are to be judged: for since our happiness consists in the vision of God, if the wicked were to see God in his own nature, they would be enjoying happiness. Therefore, only the Son will appear, who alone has an assumed nature. Therefore, he alone will judge who alone will appear to all. Yet he will judge with the authority of the Father: "He is the one appointed by God to be the judge of the living and of the dead" (Acts 10:42); and in the Psalm (71:1) we read: "O Lord, give your judgment to the king."

768 Hilary and Chrysostom give a more literal explanation, but it is only slightly different. They explain it this way. Our Lord said above, the Son grants life to those to whom he wishes. Now whoever does anything according to the free decision of his will acts because of his own judgment. But it was stated above that "whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise" (5:19). Therefore, the Son enjoys a free decision of his own will in all things, since he acts because of his own judgment. Thus he immediately mentions judgment, saying that the Father himself judges no one, i.e., without or apart from the Son. Our Lord used this way of speaking below (12:47): "I do not judge him," i.e., I alone, "but the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day." But he has given all judgment to the Son, as he has given all things to him. For as he has given him life and begotten him as living, so he has given him all judgment, i.e., begotten him as judge: "I judge only as I hear it" (below 5:30), i.e., just as I have being (esse) from the Father, so also judgment. The reason for this is that the Son is nothing other than the conception of the paternal wisdom, as was said. But each one judges by the concept of his wisdom. Hence, just as the Father does all things through the Son, so he judges all things through him. And the fruit of this is that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father, i.e., that they may render to him the cult of "latria" as they do the Father. The rest does not change.

769 Hilary calls our attention to the remarkable relationship of the passages so that the errors concerning eternal generation can be refuted. Two heresies have arisen concerning this eternal generation. One was that of Arius, who said that the Son is less than the Father; and this is contrary to their equality and unity. The other was that of Sabellius, who said that that there is no distinction of persons in the divinity; and this is contrary to their origin.

So, whenever he mentions the unity and equality [of the Father and Son], he immediately also adds their distinction as persons according to origin, and conversely. Thus, because he mentions the origin of the persons when he says, "the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing" (5:19), then, so we do not think this involves inequality, he at once adds: "for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise." Conversely, when he states their equality by saying: For just as the Father raises the dead and grants life, so the Son grants life to those to whom he wishes, then, so that we do not deny that the Son has an origin and is begotten, he adds, the Father himself judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son. Similarly, when he mentions the equality of the persons by saying, so that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father, he immediately adds something about a "mission," which indicates an origin, saying: Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him, but not in such a way that involves a separation. Christ mentions such mission below (8:29) in saying: "He who sent me is with me, and he has not left me alone."

And immediately, then, after the judgment mentioned, all which the Father, not judging any man, hath given to the Son, what shall be? What follows? "That all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." The Jews honor the Father, despise the Son. For the Son was seen as a servant, the Father was honored as God. But the Son will appear equal with the Father, that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. This we have, therefore, now in faith. Let not the Jew say, "I honor the Father; what have I to do with the Son?" Let him be answered, "He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father. Thou liest every way; thou blasphemest the Son, and dost wrong to the Father. For the Father sent the Son, and thou despisest Him whom the Father sent. How canst thou honor the sender, who blasphemest the sent?"

Behold, says some one, the Son has been sent; and the Father is greater, because He sent. Withdraw from the flesh; the old man suggests oldness in time. Let the ancient, the perpetual, the eternal, to thee the new, call off thy understanding from time to this. Is the Son less because He is said to have been sent? I hear of a sending, not a separation. But yet, saith he, among men we see that he who sends is greater than he who is sent. Be it so; but human affairs deceive a man; divine things purge him. Do not regard things human, in which the sender appears greater, the sent less. Notwithstanding, things human themselves bear testimony against thee. Just as, for example, if a man wishes to ask a woman to wife, and, not being able to do this in person, sends a friend to ask for him. And there are many cases in which the greater is chosen to be sent by the less. Why, then, wouldst thou now raise a captious objection, because the one has sent, the other is sent? The sun sends out a ray, but does not separate it; the moon sends out her sheen, but does not separate it; a lamp sheds light, but does not separate it: I see there a sending forth, not a separation.

Consider how different it is in the case of things human, from which you wish to deduce examples for things divine. A man that sends remains himself behind, while only the man that is sent goes forward. Does the man who sends go with him whom he sends? Yet the Father, who sent the Son, has not departed from the Son. Hear the Lord Himself saying, "Behold, the hour is coming, when every one shall depart to his own, and ye will leave me alone; but I am not alone, because the Father is with me." How has He, with whom He came, sent Him? How has He, from whom He has not departed, sent Him? In another place He said, "The Father abiding in me doeth the works." Behold, the Father is in Him, works in Him. The Father sending has not departed from the Son sent, because the sent and the sender are one.

"Whoso honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent Him." This is a truth, and is plain. Since, then, "all judgment hath He given to the Son," as He said above, "that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father," what if there be those who honor the Father and honor not the Son? It cannot be, saith He: "Whoso honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent Him." One cannot therefore say, I honored the Father, because I knew not the Son. If thou didst not yet honor the Son, neither didst thou honor the Father. For what is honoring the Father, unless it be in that He hath a Son? It is one thing when thou art taught to honor God in that He is God; but another thing when thou art taught to honor Him in that He is Father. When thou art taught to honor Him in that He is God, it is as the Creator, as the Almighty, as the Spirit supreme, eternal, invisible, unchangeable, that thou art led to think of Him; but when thou art taught to honor Him in that He is Father, it is the same thing as to honor the Son; because Father cannot be said if there be not a Son, as neither can Son if there be not a Father.

But lest, it may be, thou honorest the Father indeed as greater, but the Son as less, as thou mayest say to me, "I do honor the Father, for I know that He has a Son; nor do I err in the name Father, for I do not understand Father without Son, and yet the Son also I honor as the less," the Son Himself sets thee right, and recalls thee, saying, "that all may honor the Son," not in a lower degree, but "as they honor the Father." Therefore, "whoso honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent Him." "I," sayest thou, "wish to give greater honor to the Father, less to the Son." Therein thou takest away honor from the Father, wherein thou givest less to the Son. For, being thus minded, it must really seem to thee that the Father either would not or could not beget a Son equal to Himself: if He would not, He lacked the will; if He could not, He lacked the ability. Dost thou not therefore see that, being thus minded, wherein thou wouldst give greater honor to the Father, therein thou art reproachful to the Father? Wherefore, so honor the Son as thou honorest the Father, if thou wouldest honor both the Father and the Son.

(xxi. s. 13) First indeed, the Son appeared as a servant, and the Father was honoured as God. But the Son will be seen to be equal to the Father, that all men may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. 1But what if persons are found, who honour the Father, and do not honour the Son? It cannot be: He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him. It is one thing to acknowledge God, as God; and another to acknowledge Him as the Father. When thou acknowledgest God the Creator, thou acknowledgest an almighty, supreme, eternal, invisible, immutable Spirit. When thou acknowledgest the Father, thou dost in reality acknowledge the Son; for He could not be the Father, had He not the Son. But if thou honour the Father as greater, the Son as less, so far as thou givest less honour to the Son, thou takest away from the honour of the Father. For thou in reality thinkest that the Father could not or would not beget the Son equal to Himself; which if He would not do, He was envious, if He could not, He was weak. (Tr. xxiii. s. 13). Or, That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father; has a reference to the resurrection of souls, which is the work of the Son, as well as of the Father. But the resurrection of the body is meant in what comes after: He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that sent Him. Here is no as; the man Christ is honoured, but not as the Father Who sent Him, since with respect to His manhood He Himself saith, My Father is greater than I. (Tr. xxi. s. 17). But some one will say, if the Son is sent by the Father, He is inferior to the Father. Leave thy fleshly actions, and understand a mission, not a separation. Human things deceive, divine things make clear; although even human things give testimony against thee, e. g. if a man offers marriage to a woman, and cannot obtain her by himself, he sends a friend, greater than himself, to urge his suit for him. But see the difference in human things. A man does not go with him whom he sends; but the Father Who sent the Son, never ceased to be with the Son; as we read, I am not alone, but the Father is with Me. (c. 16)

(iv. de Trin. c. 28. [xx.]) It is not, however, as being born of the Father, that the Son is said to be sent, but from His appearing in this world, as the Word made flesh; as He says, I went forth from the Father, and am come into the world: (John 16:28) or from His being received into our minds individually, as we readl, Send her, that she may be with me, and may labour with me.

"That all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father." On this, Proverbs seven: "My son, honor the Lord, and you shall prevail; fear no stranger besides Him." The Son of God is to be honored and feared by reason of His judicial power, because "He can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna," Matthew ten. And the reason why the Father wills the Son to be honored: because the honor of the Son is the Father's; therefore He says: "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent Him": below in chapter eight: "I honor My Father, and you have dishonored Me." Augustine: "If the Son were believed to be less than the Father, the Father would be dishonored, because either as envious He would not have willed to beget an equal, or as weak He could not have done so."

It is impossible for anyone to be saved who does not love and honor him who is to be supremely loved and honored: but the Son and the Holy Spirit are to be supremely loved and honored, just as the Father, according to that which is said in John five: He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him: therefore no one can be saved who does not love and honor the Son and the Holy Spirit, just as the Father. But no one loves and honors unless he in some way knows and believes.

CHAPTER VIII. That the Son being God and of God by Nature, and the Exact Image of Him Who begat Him, hath equal honour and glory with Him.

A cause and reason of the things already enumerated, is now evident, viz., that the Son ought to be honoured in Equality and likeness with the Father. For recapitulating a little, and carried back to a recollection of the preceding, you will view accurately the force of the passage. He said then that God was His Father, making Himself Equal with God; then again He began showing that He was of Equal strength and skill, saying, For what things soever He doeth, these doeth also the Son likewise. That He is both Life and Life-giving by Nature, as is He too Who begat Him, He showed plainly, adding, For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, so the Son too quick-eneth whom He will. But that He will be also Judge of all, the Father in all things co-approving and consenting, He declared, saying, For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. What then is the cause of these things? what induced the Only-Begotten to say all this? That all men (He saith) should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. For if He hath all things whatever the Father hath, as far as appertains to God-befitting Dignity, how is it not fitting that He to Whom nothing is lacking to Identity of essence should be crowned with equal honours with Him? What then do they say to this too who pervert all equity, as saith the Prophet Isaiah? |262

"If (he says) by reason of its being said, That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father, ye suppose that one ought to magnify the Son with equal honours with the Father, ye know not that ye are stepping far away from the truth. For the word As does not altogether introduce equality of acts, in respect of those things it is affixed to, but often marks out a kind of likeness, just as (he says) the Saviour counsels, saying, Be ye therefore merciful as your Father also which is in Heaven is merciful. Shall we then be as merciful as the Father, on account of the as? And again Christ says to His Father of His disciples: Thou hast loved them, AS Thou hast loved Me. But we will not grant that the disciples are loved just as the Son, on account of the as. Why then dost thou multiply words, and distort what is said into blasphemy, though it introduces no obligation on the hearers to honour the Son in equal measure with the Father?"

What then is our answer to these things? With bitter words do the fighters against God bay at us, but without are dogs, as Paul saith, without are evil workers, without the right faith are the concision. For we are sons of the truth and children of the light. Therefore we will glorify the Only-Begotten together with God the Father, not with any difference, but in equality of honour and glory, as God of God, and Light of Light, and Life of Life. And overmuch enquiry into what is to be received as faith, is not without hazard: nevertheless we must test the force of the As, lest our opponents be overwise in their own conceits. When therefore As is applied to things unlike in their nature, it does not wholly introduce absolute equality, but rather likeness and resemblance, as ye yourselves acknowledged above; but when it is applied to things in all respects like to one another, it shows equality in all things and similitude and whatever else is found to have the same force with these. Just as if I say, Bright is the sun in Heaven, bright too is silver which is of the earth, yet is the nature of the things mentioned diverse. Let |263 any of the rich, of the earth, be supposed to say to his household servants, Let the silver shine as the sun. In this case we very justly say that earthly matter attains not to equal brightness with the sun, but to a certain likeness and resemblance, although the word As be used of it. But let Peter and John (suppose) of the holy disciples be brought forward, who both in respect of nature and of piety towards God, fail not of an accurate likeness one to another, let the As be applied, some one saying of them, as here, Let John be honoured by all, even as Peter, will the As here be powerless, so that equal honour ought not to be paid to both? But I do not suppose that any one will say such a thing: for he will see that there is nothing to prevent it.

According to this analogy of idea, when the As is applied to the Father and the Son, why should we shrink from crowning Both with equal honours? For He having considered before, as God, things to come, and having carefully viewed the envious opposition of thine unlearning hath brought in the As, not bare and bereft of the aid befitting it, but having strengthened it beforehand with convenient proofs, and shown afore that He is God by Nature (for He made God His Father): having again fore-shewn that He is both God the Creator and of a truth Life, and having before introduced Himself, altogether glorying (so to say) in the Attributes of God the Father,----He afterwards seasonably subjoins That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father too. Then what objection still appears, what is there to hinder, that He, in Whom are Essentially the Properties and excellencies of the Father, should attain to an equal degree of honour? for we shall be found honouring the very Nature of God the Father, full well beaming forth in the Son. Wherefore He proceeds, He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which sent Him. For the charge of dishonouring the Son, and the force of blasphemy against Him, will mount up unto none other more truly than the Father Himself, Who put forth the Son as it were from the |264 Fount of His Own Nature, even though He be seen throughout the whole Holy Scriptures as everlastingly with Him.

"Yea (saith the opponent) let the charge from dishonouring the Son go to whatsoever you please, or rather let it reach even unto God the Father Himself. For He will be angry, and that with reason, yet not wholly so, as though His Very Nature were insulted in the Son, according to our just now carefully finished argument, but since He is His Image and Impress, formed most excellently after His Divine and Ineffable Essence, He is with reason angry, and will wholly transfer the wrong to Himself. For it were indeed most absurd, that he who insulted the Divine Impresses, should not surely pay the penalty of his sin against the Archetype. Just as he who has in-suited the images of earthly kings, is punished as having indeed transgressed against the ruler himself. And in like manner shall we find it decreed by God in respect of ourselves also: for Whoso (saith He) sheddeth man's blood, for his blood shall he be poured forth: because in the Image of God He made man. Seest thou then hereby very clearly (saith he) that if the Image be wronged, and not altogether the Divine Nature, God the Father deems it right to be angry? In this way then let that which is said by Christ be conceived of and adapted, He that honoureth not the Son, neither doth he honour the Father."

Shall then the Only Begotten be classed with us as external to the Essence of the Father? how then will He yet be God by Nature, if He altogether slip out of the bounds of the Godhead, situate in some nature of his own and of other sort than that wherein the Father is? and we do wrong, it seems, in bringing into one count of Godhead, the order of the Holy Trinity. We ought, we ought at length to worship the Father as God, to impart some glory of Their Own to the Son and the Spirit, severing them as it were into different natures, and defining severally to Each the mode of His Existence. Yet do the Divine Scriptures |265 declare unto us One God, classing with the Father the Son and the Spirit, so that through Their Essential and exact sameness the Holy Trinity is brought unto one count of Godhead. The Only-Begotten is not then alien from the Nature of Him who begat Him, but neither will He be a whit conceived of as Son in truth, if He beamed not forth from the Essence of the Father (for this and no other is the definition and mode of true son ship in all) but if there be no Son, God's being Father will be wholly taken away too. How then will Paul be true in saying of Him, Of Whom every family in Heaven and earth is named? For if He have not begotten of Himself in God-befitting manner the Son, how shall the beginning of Fatherhood be in Him, going through in imitation to those who are in Heaven and earth? But God is in truth Father: the Only-Begotten therefore is by Nature Son, and is of a surety within the bounds of the Divinity. For God will be begotten of God even as man (for example) of man, and the Nature of God the Father, Which transcends all things, will not err by bearing fruit not befitting It.

But since some blasphemously and foolishly say, that it is not the Nature of God the Father That is insulted in the Son, when He does not receive due honour from any, but that He is angry reasonably and rightly, at His Own Image being dishonoured in Him; we must ask them in what sense they would have the Son be and be called the Image of the Father. Yea rather let us forestalling their account, determine beforehand the Nature of the Image, according to legitimate reasoning: for so will the result of our enquiries be clear and more distinct. Therefore one and the first mode of image is that of sameness of nature in properties exactly alike, as Abel of Adam, or Isaac of Abraham: the second again is that consisting in likeness of impress, and accurate impression of form, as the King's delineation in wood, or made in any other way, most excellently and skilfully, as respects him. Another image again is taken in respect of habits and manners, and conversation and inclination to either good or bad, as for instance |266 it may be said that the well-doer is like Paul, him that is not so like Cain (for the being equally good or bad, works likeness with either, and with reason confers it) Another form of image is, that of dignity and honour and glory and excellence, as when one for instance succeeds another in a command, and does all things with the authority which belongs to and becomes him. An image in another sense, is in respect of any either quality or quantity of a thing, and its outline and proportion: for we must speak briefly.

Let then the most critical investigators of the Divine Image teach us, whether they think one ought to attribute to the Only-Begotten the Essential and Natural Likeness, and thus say that the Only-Begotten Word proceeding from the Father is an Image of Him in the same sense as Abel is of Adam, who retained in himself the whole nature of his parent, and bore the count of human nature all-complete? or will they be vexed at this, compelled to confess the Son truly God of God by Nature, and turning aside according to their custom to fight against the truth, advance to the second kind of image, which is conceived to exist in mere form, impress and outline? But I suppose they will shrink from saying this. For no one, even if he be a very prater, will suppose that the Godhead can be estimated in respect of size, or circumscribed by outline, or meted by impress, or that the Unembodied will wholly undergo what belongs to bodies. Do they say then that He is conformed to Him in respect of manners and habits and will, and are they not ashamed to dress Him in this image? for how is He yet to be conceived of as God by Nature, Who has Likeness to Him in will only, but has another Being separately of Himself? For they will surely acknowledge that He subsists. Then what is there in Him more than in the creature? For shall we not believe that the angels themselves hasten to perform the Divine Will, who are by nature other than God? But what, when this is conceived of as belonging to us too? for does not the Only-Begotten teach us foolishly to jump at things above our nature, and to aim at impossibilities, saying, Be ye merciful, as your Father also which is in Heaven is merciful? For this were undoubtedly to say that we ought to gain the likeness of the Father by identity of will. And Paul too was an imitator of Christ, of the (as they babbling say) Image of the Father in will only. But they will shift their ground (I suppose) from these miserable conceptions, and as though thinking something greater and better, will surely say this, "The Only-Begotten is the Image of God the Father, in respect of identity of will, in respect of God-befitting Dignity and Glory and Power, in respect of Operation in creation and working miracles, in respect of reigning and ruling over all, in respect of judging and being worshipped by angels and men and in short by all creation. By all these He showing us the Father in Himself, says that He is not of His Person, but is the Impress of His Person." Therefore as we said just now, the Son is none of these by nature, but is altogether separate from all of them according at least to your most foolish reasoning, and is neither Very God, nor Son, nor King, nor Lord, nor Creator, nor Mighty, nor in respect of His own "Will is He by Nature Good: but in boasts solely and only of what is God-befitting is He seen. And as is the application of tints to paintings on tablets, beautifying them by the variety to the eye, but having nothing true: so as to the Son too, the beauty of the Excellencies of God the Father decks Him around with bare names only, but is as it were applied from without like certain tints: yea rather the Divine Nature is outlined in Him, and appears in bare type.

Next, how will ye not be shown to be fighting outright with all the holy Scriptures, that ye may with justice hear, Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, YE are always resisting the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do YE too, for when do they not call the Son Very God, or when do they bear Him forth from the Essence of His Father? which of them has dared to say that He is by Nature neither Creator nor King nor Almighty nor to be worshipped? For the Divine Psalmist says as to the Only-Begotten Himself, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever: Thomas again the most wise disciple in like wise calls Him God alike and Lord. He is called Almighty and Creator by every voice of saint, and as having not according to you the Dignity from without, but as being by Nature what He is said to be, and therefore is He worshipped both by the holy Angels and by us, albeit the Divine Scripture says that we ought to worship none other, save the Lord God Alone.

If then they hold that the God-befitting Dignity in Him is acquired and given, and think that they ought to worship such an one, let them know that they are worshipping the creature rather than the Creator, and making out to themselves a new and fresh God, rather than acknowledging Him Who is really so by Nature. But if while they say that the Son is external to the Essence of God the Father, they yet acknowledge Him to be Son and Very God and King and Lord and Creator, and to have Essentially in Himself the Properties and Excellencies of the Father, let them see whither there is risk that the end of those who thus think will be. For nothing at all will be found of sure faith in the Divine Nature, since the nature of things originate also is now capable of being whatever It is conceived to be. For it has been proved according to the most feeble reasoning of our opponents, that the Only-Begotten not being of the Divine Nature, hath yet truly in Himself Its Excellencies. Who will not shudder at the mere hearing the blasphemy of the doctrines? For all things are now overturned, when the Nature That is above all things descendeth so as to be classed with things originate, and the creation itself contrary to reason springs up to the measure above it, and not designed for it.

Therefore let us swimming away from the absurdity of such doctrines, as from a ship sinking in the sea, hasten to he Truth, as to a secure and unruffled haven, and let us ackowledge the Son to be the Image of God the Father, not plaistered over so to say with perishable honours, nor adorned merely with God-befitting titles, but Essentially Exact according to the likeness of His Father, and unalterably being by Nature That which He That begat Him is conceived to be, to wit Very God of God in truth, Almighty, Creator, Glorified, Good, to be worshipped, and whatever may be added to the things enumerated as befitting God. For then showing Him to be Like in all things to God the Father, we shall also show Him true, in saying that if any will not honour the Son, neither doth he honour the Father Which hath sent Him: for as to this our enquiry and the test of the things just now investigated had its origin.

[Our opponents] say that the word as does not altogether always introduce equality of acts in those things to which it is affixed but often marks out a kind of likeness, as in, "Be merciful as your Father in heaven is merciful." Does this, they say, imply that we are just as merciful as the Father because of the word as?… What then is our answer to this?… When "as" is applied to things unlike in their nature, it does not wholly introduce absolute equality but rather likeness and resemblance. But when it is applied to things in all respects alike, it shows equality in all things and similitude. So, for instance when speaking of the brightness of the sun in heaven and the brightness of silver here on earth, their natures are diverse.… In this case, we rightly say that earthly matter cannot attain to equal brightness with the sun but only to a certain likeness and resemblance, even though the word as is used. But take the example of the holy disciples Peter and John, who, both in respect to nature and piety toward God, do not fail as accurate likenesses of one another. And then say, "Let John be honored by all, even as Peter." Is the "as" here powerless so that equal honor should not be paid to both?… According to this analogy then, when the "as" is applied to the Father and the Son, why should we shrink from crowning both with equal honors?

It is only things of the same nature that are equal in honor. Equality of honor denotes that there is no separation between the honored. But the demand for equality of honor is combined with the revelation of Christ's birth. Since the Son is to be honored as the Father, and since they do not seek the Son's honor, even though he is the only God, he is not excluded from the honor of the only God. For his honor is one and the same as that of God.… He who does not seek the honor of the only God does not seek the honor of Christ also. Accordingly the honor of Christ is inseparable from the honor of God.

(vii. de Trin. c. 21) The conclusion then stands good against all the fury of heretical minds. He is the Son, because He does nothing of Himself: He is God, because, whatsoever things the Father doeth, He doeth the same; They are one, because They are equal in honour: He is not the Father, because He is sent.

"He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which hath sent Him." Seest thou how the honor of the Son is connected with that of the Father? "What of that?" saith one. "We see the same in the case of the Apostles; 'He,' saith Christ, 'who receiveth you receiveth Me.'" But in that place He speaketh so, because He maketh the concerns of His servants His own; here, because the Essence and the Glory is One with that of the Father. Therefore it is not said of the Apostles "that they may honor," but rightly He saith, "He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father." For where there are two kings, if one is insulted the other is insulted also, and especially when he that is insulted is a son. He is insulted even when one of his soldiers is maltreated; not in the same way as in this case, but as it were in the person of another, while here it is as it were in his own. Wherefore He beforehand said, "That they should honor the Son even as they honor the Father," in order that when He should say, "He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father," thou mightest understand that the honor is the same. For He saith not merely, "he that honoreth not the Son," but "he that honoreth Him not so as I have said" "honoreth not the Father."

He who has not acknowledged the Son is unable to acknowledge the Father. This is wisdom, and this is the mystery of the supreme God. God willed that he should be acknowledged and worshiped through him. On this account he sent the prophets beforehand to announce his coming so that when the things that had been foretold were fulfilled in him, then he might be believed by people to be both the Son of God and God. Nor, however, must the opinion be entertained that there are two gods, for the Father and the Son are one.

To this Simon replied: "From the words of your master I shall refute you, because even he introduces to all men a certain God who was known. For although both Adam knew the God who was his creator, and the maker of the world; and Enoch knew him, inasmuch as he was translated by him; and Noah, since he was ordered by him to construct the ark; and although Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses, and all, even every people and all nations, know the maker of the world, and confess him to be a God, yet your Jesus, who appeared long after the patriarchs, says: 'No one knows the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any one the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son has been pleased to reveal Him.' Thus, therefore, even your Jesus confesses that there is another God, incomprehensible and unknown to all."

Then Peter says: "You do not perceive that you are making statements in opposition to yourself. For if our Jesus also knows Him whom you call the unknown God, then He is not known by you alone. Yea, if our Jesus knows Him, then Moses also, who prophesied that Jesus should come, assuredly could not himself be ignorant of Him. For he was a prophet; and he who prophesied of the Son doubtless knew the Father. For if it is in the option of the Son to reveal the Father to whom He will, then the Son, who has been with the Father from the beginning, and through all generations, as He revealed the Father to Moses, so also to the other prophets; but if this be so, it is evident that the Father has not been unknown to any of them. But how could the Father be revealed to you, who do not believe in the Son, since the Father is known to none except him to whom the Son is pleased to reveal Him? But the Son reveals the Father to those who honour the Son as they honour the Father." [John 5:23]

So that we, hearing that the Father is the cause of the Son, would not begin to understand that He produced Him as He did the creatures, and thereby introduce a diminishment of honor, for this reason He says that between the Father and the Son there is no difference. For he who has the power to punish and reward as he wishes has power equal to the Father; therefore He must also be honored just as the Father: "that," He says, "all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father." Since the Arians think to honor the Son as a creature, it turns out that they honor the Father as a creature as well. For they either do not honor Him at all, and therefore must be ranked with the Jews, or, if they honor Him as a creature, and He must be honored as the Father is, then they are decisively convicted of honoring the Father as a creature as well. And otherwise, judging by the addition, how do those who do not honor the Son honor the Father? For He adds: "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father either," that is, who does not honor Him in the same way as the Father. If anyone says that He is a creature, the most excellent of all creatures, and thinks that such honor is falsely and vainly attributed to Him (as the Son), that person decidedly dishonors the Father who sent Him.

764 Then when he says, so that all men may honor the Son, he gives the effect which results from the power of the Son. First, he gives the effect. Secondly, he excludes an objection (v 23b).

765 He says that the Father has given all judgment to the Son, according to his human nature, because in the incarnation the Son emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, under which form he was dishonored by men, as is said below (8:49): "I honor my Father, and you have dishonored me." Therefore, judgment was given to the Son in his assumed nature in order that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father. For on that day "they will see the Son of Man coming with great power and glory" (Lk 21:27); "They fell on their faces and worshipped, saying: 'Blessing and glory, and wisdom and thanks, and honor, power and strength, to our God'" (Rv 7:11).

766 Someone might say: I am willing to honor the Father, but do not care about the Son. This cannot be, because Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. For it is one thing to honor God precisely as God, and another to honor the Father. For someone may well honor God as the omnipotent and immutable Creator without honoring the Son. But no one can honor God as Father without honoring the Son; for he cannot be called Father if he does not have a Son. But if you dishonor the Son by diminishing his power, this also dishonors the Father; because where you give less to the Son, you are taking away from the power of the Father.

767 Another explanation, given by Augustine, is this. A twofold honor is due to Christ. One, according to his divinity, in regard to which he is owed an honor equal to that given the Father; and with respect to this he says, that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father. Another honor is due the Son according to his humanity, but not one equal to that given the Father; and with respect to this he says, Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Thus in the first case he significantly used "as"; but now, the second time, he does not say "as," but states absolutely that the Son should be honored: "He who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me," as we read in Luke (10:16).

Because humans love to live on this earth, life has been promised to them; and because they greatly fear dying, eternal life has been promised to them. What do you love? Living. You will have this. What do you fear? Dying. You will not suffer this. This appeared to suffice for human frailty, so that it might be said: You will have eternal life. The human mind grasps this, in one way or another, from what it does, it grasps what is to come. But how much does it grasp from this small portion of what it does? Because it lives and does not want to die; it loves eternal life, wants to live forever, never to die. But even those who will be tortured in punishments want to die, and cannot. Therefore, it is not great to live long or to live always; but it is great to live blessedly.

Let us love eternal life, and from that, let us understand how much we should labor for eternal life, when we see people, lovers of the present, temporal, and transient life, laboring for it in such a way that, when the fear of death comes, they do whatever they can not to remove, but to delay death. How much man labors when death is imminent, fleeing, hiding, giving whatever he has, and redeeming himself, laboring, enduring torments and troubles, employing doctors, and whatever else man can do? You see that, having exhausted his labors and resources, whatever he can do so that he may live a little longer, he can do; but that he may live forever, he cannot. If therefore with so much labor, effort, expenses, insistence, vigilance, and care it is done so that he may live a little longer, how should it be done so that he may live forever? And if those are called prudent who in every way act to delay death and live a few days, lest they lose a few days, how foolish are those who live in such a way that they lose the eternal day?

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whoso heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but is passed," not is passing now, but is already passed, "from death into life." And mark this, "Whoso heareth my word, and" - He says not, believeth me, but - "believeth Him that sent me." Let him hear the word of the Son, that he may believe the Father. Why heareth Thy word, and yet believeth another? When we hear any one's word, is it not him that utters the word we believe? is it not to him who speaks we lend our faith? What, then, did He mean, saying, "Whoso heareth my word, and believeth Him that sent me," if it be not this, because "His word is in me"? And what is "heareth my word," but "heareth me"? So, too, "believeth Him that sent me," because, believing Him, he believeth His word; but again, believing His word, he believeth me, because I am the Word of the Father. There is therefore peace in the Scriptures, and all things duly disposed, and in no way clashing. Cast away, then, contention from thy heart; understand the harmony of the Scriptures. Dost thou think that the Truth should speak things contrary to itself?

"Whoso heareth my word, and believeth Him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death unto life." You remember what we laid down above, that "as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom He will." He is beginning already to reveal Himself; and behold, even now, the dead are rising. For "whoso heareth my word, and believeth Him that sent me, hath eternal life, and will not come into judgment." Prove that he has risen again. "But is passed," saith He "from death unto life." He that is passed from death unto life, has surely without any doubt risen again. For he could not pass from death to life, unless he were first in death and not in life; but when he will have passed, he will be in life, and not in death. He was therefore dead, and is alive again; he was lost, but is found. Hence a resurrection does take place now, and men pass from a death to a life; from the death of infidelity to the life of faith; from the death of falsehood to the life of truth; from the death of iniquity to the life of righteousness. There is, therefore, that which is a resurrection of the dead.

"Whoso heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath eternal life." Surely we are all striving after eternal life: and He saith, "Whoso heareth my word, and believeth Him that sent me, hath eternal life." Then, would He have us hear His word, and yet would He not have us understand it? Since, if in hearing and believing is eternal life, much more in understanding. But the action of piety is faith, the fruit of faith understanding, that we may come to eternal life, when there will be no reading of Gospel to us; but after all pages of reading and the voice of reader and preacher have been removed out of the way, He, who has at this time dispensed to us the gospel, will Himself appear to all that are His, now present with Him with purged heart and in an immortal body never more to die, cleansing and enlightening them, now living and seeing how that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God."

"Whoso heareth my words," saith He, "and believeth Him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life." Where, when do we come from death to life, that we come not into judgment? In this life there is a passing from death to life; in this life, which is not yet life, there is a passing hence from death unto life. What is that passing? "Whoso heareth my words," He said, "and believeth Him that sent me." Observing these, thou believest and passest. And does a man pass while standing? Evidently; for in body he stands in mind he passes. Where was he, whence he should pass, and whither does he pass? He passes from death to life. Look at a man standing, in whom all that is here said may happen. He stands, he hears, perhaps he did not believe, by hearing he believes: a little before he did not believe, just now he believes; he has made a passage, as it were, from the region of unbelief to the region of faith, by motion of the heart, not of the body, by a motion into the better; because they who again abandon faith move into the worse.

The Lord our God then reveals it, and by His Scriptures puts us in mind how it may be understood when judgment is spoken of. I exhort you, therefore, to give attention. Sometimes judgment means punishment, sometimes it means discrimination. According to that mode of speech in which judgment means discrimination, "we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ that" a man "may there receive what things he has done in the body, whether it be good or ill." For this same is a discrimination, to distribute good things to the good, evil things to the evil. For if judgment were always to be taken in a bad sense, the psalm would not say, "Judge me, O God." Perhaps some one is surprised when he hears one say, "Judge me, O God." For man is wont to say, "Forgive me, O God;" "Spare me, O God." Who is it that says, "Judge me, O God"? Sometimes in the psalm this very verse even is placed in the pause, to be given out by the reader and responded by the people. Does it not perhaps strike some man's heart so much that he is afraid to sing and to say to God, "Judge me, O God"? And yet the people sing it with confidence, and do not imagine that they wish an evil thing in that which they have learned from the divine word; even if they do not well understand it, they believe that what they sing is something good. And yet even the psalm itself has not left a man without an insight into the meaning of it. For, going on, it shows in the words that follow what kind of judgment it spoke of; that it is not one of condemnation, but of discrimination. For saith it, "Judge me, O God." What means "Judge me, O God, and discern my cause from an unholy nation"? According to this judgment of discerning, then, "we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ." But again, according to the judgment of condemnation, "Whoso heareth my words," saith He, "and believeth Him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into judgment, but makes a passage from death to life." What is "shall not come into judgment?" Shall not come into condemnation.

(Tr. xxii. s. 2) If in hearing and believing is eternal life, how much more in understanding? But the step to our piety is faith, the fruit of faith, understanding. It is not, Believeth on Me, but on Him that sent Me. Why is one to hear His word, and believe another? Is it not that He means to say, His word is in Me? And what is, Heareth My word, but heareth Me? And it is, Believeth on Him that sent Me; as to say, He that believeth on Him, believeth on His Word, i. e. on Me, because I am the Word of the Father.

(Tr. xxii. s. 4. et sq.) But who is this favoured Person? Will there be any one better than the Apostle Paul, who says, We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ? (1 Cor. 6) Now judgment sometimes means punishment, sometimes trial. In the sense of trial, we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ: in the sense of condemnation we read, some shall not come into judgment; i. e. shall not be condemned. It follows, but is passed from death into life: not, is now passing, but hath passed from the death of unbelief, into the life of faith, from the death of sin, unto the life of righteousness. Or, it is so said perhaps, to prevent our supposing that faith would save us from bodily death, that penalty which we must pay for Adam's transgression. He, in whom we all then were, heard the divine sentence, Thou shall surely die; (Gen. 2) nor can we evade it. But when we have suffered the death of the old man, we shall receive the life of the new, and by death make a passage to life. But to what life? (Tr. xix.). To life everlasting: the dead shall rise again at the end of the world, and enter into everlasting life. (Tr. xxii.). For this life does not deserve the name of life; only that life is true which is eternal.

(de Verb. Dom. Serm. lxiv) We see the lovers of this present transitory life so intent on its welfare, that when in danger of death, they will take any means to delay its approach, though they can not hope to drive it off altogether. If so much care and labour then is spent on gaining a little additional length of life, how ought we to strive after life eternal? And if they are thought wise, who endeavour in every way to put off death, though they can live but a few days longer; how foolish are they who so live, as to lose the eternal day?

The Lord declared His power in general: here He begins to declare it in particular, descending to the power of giving life and to the power of judging. The power of giving life regards the kindness of mercy: the power of judging regards the severity of justice. Therefore He describes the power of giving life in this order: first, whom He gives life to; second, how He gives life; third, by what power He gives life. And the first regards the object, the second regards the act, and the third regards the power. In these three consists the perfect knowledge of a power, namely in power, operation, and object.

First, therefore, he determines whom he vivifies, namely with the life of the soul, since not all, but believers. These are those who hear the word of God and, having heard, believe; therefore he says: "Amen, amen I say to you," that is, truly: "That he who hears my word," disposing himself to faith, because, Romans 10, "faith comes from hearing"; "and believes in him who sent me," consenting to what has been heard: below, chapter 12: "He who believes in me does not believe in me, but in him who sent me"; he indeed "has eternal life": above, chapter 3: "He who believes in the Son of God has eternal life" — eternal life, not punishment. Whence he also adds: "And does not come into judgment," into the judgment of death, namely: "but passes from death to life; from death," that is, from the present life, which is death, he passes to eternal life without the judgment of condemnation; above, chapter 3: "He who believes in him is not judged." But the present life is called death, because, as is said in Romans 8, "the body is dead on account of sin." From this death the just pass to life, for whom to die temporally is to pass over: below, chapter 13, concerning Christ the head: "Knowing that his hour had come to pass from this world to the Father." Concerning this the just glory in the Psalm: "And let all who hope in you rejoice: they shall exult forever, and you shall dwell in them. And all who love your name shall glory in you, for you shall bless the just."

Salvation, accordingly, is the following of Christ: "For that which is in Him is life." "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My words, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into condemnation, but hath passed from death to life." Thus believing alone, and regeneration, is perfection in life; for God is never weak. For as His will is work, and this is named the world; so also His counsel is the salvation of men, and this has been called the church. He knows, therefore, whom He has called, and whom He has saved; and at one and the same time He called and saved them.

Having now proved sufficiently by the foregoing, that the miserable Jews sin not against the Son only, by daring to find fault with the things which He says or does among them in His teaching, but do also ignorantly transgress against the Father Himself, and having as far as pertains to the force of what has been said, wrapped about their over-confidence with fear, and persuaded them to live more religiously in hope of things to come, He at length snares them to obedience. And not unskilfully again did He frame His speech to this end. For since He knew that the Jews were still diseased, and yet offended concerning Him, He again brings back their faith to the Person of God the Father, not as excluding Himself, but as honoured in the Father too by reason of Identity of Essence. For He affirms that they who believe shall not only be partakers of eternal life, but also shall escape the peril of the condemnation, being justified, that is: holding forth fear mixed with hope. For thus could He make His discourse more efficacious and more demonstrative to the hearers.

Having said that the Son quickeneth whom He will, He next shows that we attain to life through the Son: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life.

(vii. de Trin. c. 21) The conclusion then stands good against all the fury of heretical minds. He is the Son, because He does nothing of Himself: He is God, because, whatsoever things the Father doeth, He doeth the same; They are one, because They are equal in honour: He is not the Father, because He is sent.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life."

Seest thou how continually He putteth the same thing to cure that feeling of suspicion, both in this place and in what follows by fear and by promises of blessings removing their jealousy of Him, and then again condescending greatly in words? For He said not, "he that heareth My words, and believeth on Me," since they would have certainly deemed that to be pride, and a superfluous pomp of words; because, if after a very long time, and ten thousand miracles, they suspected this when He spake after this manner, much more would they have done so then. It was on this account that at that later period they said to Him, "Abraham is dead, and the prophets are dead, how sayest Thou, If a man keep My saying, he shall never taste of death?" In order therefore that they may not here also become furious, see what He saith, "He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life." This had no small effect in making His discourse acceptable, when they learned that those who hear Him believe in the Father also; for after having received this with readiness, they would more easily receive the rest. So that the very speaking in a humble manner contributed and led the way to higher things; for after saying, "hath everlasting life," He addeth, "And cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death unto life."

By these two things He maketh His discourse acceptable; first, because it is the Father who is believed on, and then, because the believer enjoyeth many blessings. And the "cometh not into judgment" meaneth, "is not punished," for He speaketh not of death "here," but of death eternal, as also of the other "life" which is deathless.

In a like sense He had previously said: "He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life." Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.

Actually, he tells what the benefit is for those who honor or believe in him.… The one who obeys, he says, my words and believes is made a participant in eternal life. Such a person will not only avoid the judgment, that is, the tribulations of judgment, but will even be held in honor, and certainly honor will be attributed to him by the judge himself.

He said "the One who sent" so that they would not become hardened, as we said above. For He, as has been said, wonderfully combines His teaching: sometimes He gives lofty testimony about Himself, as was fitting, and sometimes humble testimony, because of the raging of the hostile Jews. For if, after His resurrection from the dead, after His ascension into heaven, after the manifestation of His power through the apostles, Arius and Eunomius rose up against His glory and reduced Him to a creature, then what would the Jews of His own time, seeing Him walking in the flesh, eating and drinking with tax collectors and harlots as one of many, not have done if He had spoken only lofty things about Himself and had not also added what was lowly? Therefore He also adds: "He who hears My words and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life." Thus, by the fact that those who hear His words will believe in God, He calms their minds. For He did not say "whoever believes in Me," but "in Him who sent Me." Whoever believes in Him does not come to judgment, that is, to torment, but lives with eternal life, not subject to spiritual and eternal death, although he will not escape bodily and temporal death.

770 Above, our Lord showed that he had life-giving power; here he shows how someone can share in this life coming from him. First, he tells how one can share in this life through him. Secondly, he predicts its fulfillment (v 25).

771 With respect to the first, we should point out that there are four grades of life. One is found in plants, which take nourishment, grow, reproduce, and are reproduced. Another is in animals which only sense. Another in living things that move, that is, the perfect animals. Finally, there is another form of life which is present in those who understand. Now among those grades of life that exist, it is impossible that the foremost life be that found in plants, or in those with sensation, or even in those with motion. For the first and foremost life must be that which is per se, not that which is participated. This can be none other than intellectual life, for the other three forms are common to a corporal and spiritual creature [as man]. Indeed, a body that lives is not life itself, but one participating in life. Hence intellectual life is the first and foremost life, which is the spiritual life, that is immediately received from the first principle of life, whence it is called the life of wisdom. For this reason in the Scriptures life is attributed to wisdom: "He who finds me finds life, and has salvation from the Lord" (Prv 8:35). Therefore we share life from Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, insofar as our soul receives wisdom from him.

Now this intellectual life is made perfect by the true knowledge of divine Wisdom, which is eternal life: "This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" (below 17:3). But no one can arrive at any wisdom except by faith. Hence it is that in the sciences, no one acquires wisdom unless he first believes what is said by his teacher. Therefore, if we wish to acquire this life of wisdom, we must believe through faith the things that are proposed to us by it. "He who comes to God must believe that he is and rewards those who seek him" (Heb 11:6); "If you do not believe, you will not understand," as we read in another version of Isaiah (28:16).

772 Thus, our Lord fittingly shows that the way of obtaining life is through faith, saying, whoever hears my voice and believes in him who sent me, possesses eternal life. First, he mentions the merit of faith. Secondly, the reward of faith, eternal life.

773 Concerning the merit of faith, he first indicates how faith is brought to us; and secondly, the foundation of faith, that on which it rests.

Faith comes to us through the words of men: "Faith comes through hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17). But faith does not rest on man's word, but on God himself: "Abram believed God, who counted this as his justification" (Gn 15:6); "You who fear the Lord, believe in him" (Sir 2:8). Thus we are lead to believe through the words of men, not in the man himself who speaks, but in God, whose words he speaks: "When you heard the word we brought you as God's word, you did not receive it as the word of men, but, as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thes 2:13). Our Lord mentions these two things. First, how faith is brought to us, when he says, whoever hears my voice [literally, word], which leads to faith. Secondly, he mentions that on which faith rests, saying, and believes in him who sent me, i.e., not in me, but in him in virtue of whom I speak.

This text can apply to Christ, as man, insofar as it is through Christ's human words that men were converted to the faith. And it can apply to Christ, as God, insofar as Christ is the Word of God. For since Christ is the Word of God, it is clear that those who heard Christ were hearing the Word of God, and as a consequence, were believing in God. And this is what he says: whoever hears my word, i.e., me, the Word of God, and believes in him, i.e., the Father, whose Word I am.

774 Then when he says, possesses eternal life, he mentions the reward of faith, and states three things we will possess in the state of glory; but they are mentioned in reverse order. First, there will be the resurrection from the dead. Secondly, we will have freedom from the future judgment. Thirdly, we will enjoy everlasting life, for as we read in Matthew (c 25), the just will enter into everlasting life. He mentions these three as belonging to the reward of faith; and the third was mentioned first since it is desired more than the others.

775 So he says, whoever believes, i.e., through faith, possesses eternal life, which consists in the full vision of God. And it is fitting that one who believes on account of God certain things that he does not see, should be brought to the full vision of these things: "These things are written that you may believe... and that believing you may have life in his name" (below 20:31).

776 He mentions the second when he says, and he will not encounter judgment. But the Apostle says something which contradicts this: "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ" (2 Cor 5:10), even the apostles. Therefore, even one who does believe will encounter judgment. I answer that there are two kinds of judgment. One is a judgment of condemnation, and no one encounters that judgment if he believes in God with a faith that is united with love [a "formed faith"]. We read about this judgment: "Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for no living man is just in your sight"; and it was said above (3:18): "Whoever believes is not judged." There is also a judgment of separation and examination; and, as the Apostle says, all must present themselves before the tribunal of Christ for this judgment. Of this judgment we read: "Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from those people who are not holy" (Ps 42:1).

777 Thirdly, he mentions a reward when he says, but has passed from death to life, or "will pass," as another version says. This statement can be explained in two ways. First, it can refer to the resurrection of the soul. In this case the obvious meaning is that he is saying: Through faith we attain not only to eternal life and freedom from judgment, but also to the forgiveness of our sins as well. Hence he says, but has passed, from unbelief to belief, from injustice to justice: "We know that we have passed from death to life" (1 Jn 3:14).

Secondly, this statement can be explained as referring to the resurrection of the body. Then it is an elaboration of the phrase, possesses eternal life. For some might think from what was said, that whoever believes in God will never die, but live forever. But this is impossible, because all men must pay the debt incurred by the first sin, according to: "Where is the man who lives, and will not see death?" (Ps 88:49). Consequently, we should not think that one who believes has eternal life in such a way as never to die; rather, he will pass from this life, through death, to life, i.e., through the death of the body he will be revived to eternal life.

Or, "will pass," might refer to the cause [of one's resurrection] for when a person believes, he already has the merit for a glorious resurrection: "Your dead will live, your slain will rise" (Is 26:19). And then, once released from the death of the old man, we will receive the life of the new man, that is, Christ.

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

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

(Tr. cxix. 1) This truly is that hour of the which Jesus, when about to change the water into wine, said, Mother, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. Then, about to act divinely, He repelled the mother of His humanity, of His infirmity, as if He knew her not: now, suffering humanly, He commends with human affection her of whom He was made man. Here is a moral lesson. The good Teacher shows us by His example how that pious sons should take care of their parents. The cross of the sufferer, is the chair of the Master.

Beyond the others, Jesus loved the one who, being a virgin when chosen by him, remained forever a virgin. Now stories handed down say the [Christ] called [John] from his marriage ceremony when he wished to marry, and on that account he granted the more desirable sweetness of his own love to one whom he had withdrawn from fleshly pleasures. Accordingly, when [Christ] was about to die on the cross, he commended his mother to [John], so that virgin might watch over virgin, and when he himself ascended to heaven after his death and resurrection, a son would not be lacking to his mother, whose chaste life would be protected by his chaste services.

By the disciple whom Jesus loved, the Evangelist means himself; not that the others were not loved, but he was loved more intimately on account of his estate of chastity; for a Virgin our Lord called him, and a Virgin he ever remained.

Another reading is, Accepit eam discipulus in suam, his own mother some understand, but to his own care seems better.

When Christ suffered on the cross, then the blessed Virgin was present, accepting and consenting to the divine will. And it pleased her that the price of her womb should be offered on the cross for us. "When Jesus therefore saw his mother and the disciple standing, whom he loved, he said to his mother: Woman, behold your son," namely, who will be handed over as the price of redemption of the human race: as if he were saying: it is necessary for you to be without me, and for me to be without you; and you yourself, as a holy woman, conceived him, and as a devout woman, you offer him; may it please you, O Virgin, that I redeem the human race and appease God.

When Jesus therefore had seen. Here the second point is noted, namely the Lord's solicitude toward his Mother, in this, that he looked upon her and considered to whom he might commend her: whence he says: When Jesus therefore had seen his Mother: when he had seen, as one who was solicitous: First Timothy chapter five: "If anyone does not have care of his own and especially of those of his household," etc. And Chrysostom says: "Here the Lord shows great love toward his Mother and commends her to the disciple, teaching us to exercise all diligence toward those who begot us, even unto our last breath." Exodus chapter twenty: "Honor your father and your mother," etc. What he commanded, he fulfilled. And the disciple standing there, whom he loved: and therefore he was able to commend her to him intimately. John was standing there, he had not withdrawn: whence he was one of those to whom it is said in Luke chapter twenty-two: "You are they who have continued with me in my trials."

He says to his Mother. Here the third point is noted, namely the loving commendation; whence he says: Woman, behold, your son: as if to say: trust in him as in a son.

He took thought for His mother, paying no heed to His own bitter agony, for His sufferings affected Him not. He gave her into the charge of the beloved disciple (this was John, the writer of this book), and bade him take her home, and regard her as a mother; and enjoined His own mother to regard him as none other than her true son----by his tenderness, that is, and affection, fulfilling and stepping into the place of Him, Who was her Son by nature.

But as some misguided men have thought that Christ, when He thus spake, gave way to mere fleshly affection ----away with such folly! to fall into so stupid an error is only worthy of a madman----what good purpose, then, did Christ hereby fulfil? First, we reply, that He wished to confirm the command on which the Law lays so much stress. For what saith the Mosaic ordinance? Honour thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee. His commandment unto us did not cease with exhorting us to perform this duty, but threatened us with the extreme penalty of the Law, if we chose to disregard it, and has put sin against our parents after the flesh on a par with sin against God. For the Law which ordered that the blasphemer should undergo the sentence of death, saying: Let him that blasphemeth the Name of the Lord be put to death, also subjected to the same penalty the man who employs his licentious and unruly tongue against his parents: He that curseth father or mother shall surely be put to death. As, then, the Lawgiver hath ordained that we should pay such honour to our parents, surely it was right that the commandment thus proclaimed should be confirmed by the approval of the Saviour; and as the perfect form of every excellence and virtue through Him first came into the world, why should not this virtue be put on the same footing as the rest? For, surely, honour to parents is a very precious kind of virtue. And how could we learn that we ought not to lightly regard love toward them, even when we are overwhelmed by a flood of intolerable calamities, save by the example of Christ first of all, and through Him? For best of all, surely, is he who is mindful of the holy commandments, and is not diverted from the pursuit of duty in stormy and troublous times, and not in peace and quietness alone.

Besides, also, was not the Lord, I say, right to take thought for His mother, when she had fallen on a rock of offence, and when her mind was in a turmoil of perplexity? For, as He was truly God, and looked into the motions of the heart, and knew its secrets, how could He fail to know the thoughts about His crucifixion, which were then throwing her into sore distress? Knowing, then, what was passing in her heart, He commended her to the disciple, the best of guides, who was able to explain fully and adequately the profound mystery. For wise and learned in the things of God was he who received and took her away gladly, to fulfil all the Saviour's Will concerning her.

And yet some very depraved men take from this the basis of their view that there were many brothers of our Lord as a point of tradition. If there had been sons of Mary who were not rather produced from a previous marriage of Joseph's, Mary never would have been transferred to the apostle John as his mother at the time of the Passion, nor would the Lord have said to them both, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother," [John 19:26-27] unless perhaps he was leaving his disciple's filial love in order to comfort her who was left behind.

"These things the soldiers did." But He on the Cross, committeth His mother to the disciple, teaching us even to our last breath to show every care for our parents. When indeed she unseasonably troubled Him, He said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (c. ii. 4.) And, "Who is My mother?" (Matt. xii. 48.) But here He showeth much loving affection, and committeth her to the disciple whom He loved. Again John conceals himself, in modesty; for had he desired to boast, he would have also put in the cause for which he was loved, since probably it was some great and wonderful one. But wherefore doth He converse on nothing else with John, nor comfort him when desponding? Because it was no time for comforting by words; besides, it was no little thing for him to be honored with such honor, and to receive the reward of steadfastness. But do thou consider, I pray, how even on the cross He did everything without being troubled, speaking with the disciple concerning His mother, fulfilling prophecies, holding forth good hopes to the thief. Yet before He was crucified He appeareth sweating, agonized, fearing. What then can this mean? Nothing difficult, nothing doubtful. There indeed the weakness of nature had been shown, here was being shown the excess of Power. Besides, by these two things He teacheth us, even if before things terrible we be troubled, not on that account to shrink from things terrible, but when we have embarked in the contest to deem all things possible and easy. Let us then not tremble at death. Our soul hath by nature the love of life, but it lies with us either to loose the bands of nature, and make this desire weak; or else to tighten them, and make the desire more tyrannous.

And He, having committed His mother to John, said, "Behold thy Son." O the honor! with what honor did He honor the disciple! when He Himself was now departing, He committed her to the disciple to take care of. For since it was likely that, being His mother, she would grieve, and require protection, He with reason entrusted her to the beloved. To him He saith, "Behold thy mother." This He said, knitting them together in charity; which the disciple understanding, took her to his own home. "But why made He no mention of any other woman, although another stood there?" To teach us to pay more than ordinary respect to our mothers. For as when parents oppose us on spiritual matters, we must not even own them, so when they do not hinder us, we ought to pay them all becoming respect, and to prefer them before others, because they begat us, because they bred us up, because they bare for us ten thousand terrible things. And by these words He silenceth the shamelessness of Marcion; for if He were not born according to the flesh, nor had a mother, wherefore taketh He such forethought for her alone?

The Gospels are the firstfruits of all the Scriptures. But the firstfruits of the Gospels is the Gospel according to John whose meaning no one can understand who has not leaned on Jesus' breast or received Mary from Jesus to be his mother also. But whoever wants to become another "John" must also become such as John was. In other words, he must be shown to be Jesus, so to speak. For Mary had no son except Jesus (in accordance with those who hold a sound opinion of her). But Jesus says to his mother, "Behold your son," and not, "Behold, this man also is your son." If this is so, then Jesus has in effect said, "Behold, this is Jesus whom you bore" [when he presents John to her]. For indeed, everyone who has been perfected "no longer lives, but Christ lives in him." And, since "Christ lives" in him [i.e., John], it is said of him to Mary, "Behold your son," the Christ.

Now this speech is like unto the words, "Who is My mother?" and unto that which He said to John, "Behold thy mother!" and again He said to Mary, "Behold thy son!" And it is moreover like unto another speech which Jesus spake unto them when they sought to take Him with them to the feast as they were going up to Jerusalem, when He separated Himself from them, saying, "Go ye up to the feast, but I will not go up to the feast." For He said, "I will not go up as one who is subject unto the law." And in that He said, "I will not go up," He shewed two things; that He was subject neither unto parents, nor unto the law.

What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, "when they were alone, He used to expound" all things which were obscure, telling them that "to them it was given to know those mysteries," which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? " Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father's voice moreover, from heaven? Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because "by three witnesses must every word be established.

He cares for His Mother, teaching us to show every care for our parents until our last breath. And notice, while other women are present here, He is concerned for His Mother alone. For parents who hinder the work of worshipping God should not be heeded, but those who do not hinder must be cared for in every way. And so He, since He Himself was departing from life, and it was natural for His Mother to grieve and seek protection, entrusts the care of Her to the disciple. The Evangelist conceals his name out of modesty. For if he had wished to boast, he would have presented the reason for which he was loved, and it was probably something great and wonderful. Ah! How He honored the disciple, making him His brother. So good is it to remain with Christ in His suffering, for it leads to brotherhood with Him. Behold how on the Cross He does everything without disturbance: He cares for His Mother, fulfills the prophecies, opens paradise to the thief, whereas before the crucifixion He experiences anguish of soul and exudes sweat. It is clear that the latter belongs to human nature, while the former belongs to the power of the Godhead. Let Marcion and all the rest be put to shame, who babbled that the Lord appeared to the world as a phantom. For if He was not born and did not have a Mother, then why does He show such great care for Her?

2439 The Evangelist now mentions Christ's concern for his mother (v 26). But first we see his solicitude for the welfare of his disciple, whom he entrusted to his mother; then we see his concern for his mother, whom he gave into the keeping of his disciple.

2440 As to the first he says, When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, Woman, behold, your son! He is saying: Up to now I have taken care for you and watched over you. Now, you take care for my disciple. This shows the eminence of John.

Before, when the Mother of Jesus said, "They have no wine," (2:3), he replied, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come," that is, the hour of my passion, when I will suffer by means of what I have received from you. But when that hour comes I will acknowledge you. And now that the hour has come, he does acknowledge his mother. Yet I do not have the power to work miracles through what I have received from you, but rather through what I have from the generation of the Father, that is, insofar as I am God.

2441 As Augustine says, Christ hanging on the cross is like a teacher in his teaching chair. He is teaching us to help our parents in their needs, and to take care of them: "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex 20:12); "If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8).

Why is the contrary found in Luke? "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (Lk 14:26). I answer that when our Lord commands us to hate our parents and ourselves, he is commanding us to love them, their own individual nature and our own individual nature, and to hate moral evil and what turns our natures away from God. This means that we must aid our parents, love and reverence them as these human beings, but hate their moral vices and what in them turns us away from God.

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

(Tr. cxix. 2) He does this to provide as it were another son for His mother in his place; And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own. Unto his own what? Was not John one of those who said, Lo, we have left all, and followed Thee? (Mat. 19:27) He took her then to his own, i. e. not to his farm, for he had none, but to his care, for of this he was master.

When Christ suffered on the cross, the blessed Virgin was present, accepting and consenting to the divine will. And it pleased her that the price of her womb should be offered on the cross for us. He said to his mother: "Woman, behold your son," as if he were saying: it is necessary for you to be without me, and for me to be without you; and you yourself, as a holy woman, conceived him, and as a devout woman, you offer him; may it please you, O Virgin, that I redeem the human race and appease God. And lest she be left desolate, he said to the disciple: "Behold, your mother"; he gave a virgin man to the Virgin.

Then he says to the disciple: Behold, your mother: as if to say: guard her as a mother. And from that hour the disciple took her into his own. Here is noted the acceptance of the commendation; into his own, that is, as his mother, he received her, so that he might honor, guard, and keep her, as a son does a mother. But Augustine reads that text as: into his own things, so that it is an accusative plural: and he asks: How into his own things, when he had no possessions of his own? And he answers: into his own, namely duties, services, and acts of kindness, not into possessions, which he did not have.

It is asked why the Lord thus commended his Mother, when above in chapter two he had responded so harshly: What is it to me and to you, woman? Augustine responds, and it is found in the Gloss: "Because then, about to perform divine works, he repelled his Mother as though unknown; now he showed that the hour had come which he then foretold, in which, about to die, he acknowledges her from whom he had been born as a mortal, and suffering human things, with human affection he commends her to a human, and by his example teaches that care should be rendered to parents by devoted children." The reason, moreover, why he commends her to John, on the part of the Lord is touched upon in the text, because he especially loved him; but on his own part it is passed over in silence; and the Saints say that it was "so that a virgin might guard the Virgin."

Christ here wanted to confirm the commandment that is clearly emphasized in the Law: "Honor your father and mother that it may be well with you." … Honoring one's parents is surely a very precious virtue. And how else would we learn the importance of that love—even when we are overwhelmed by a flood of intolerable calamities—except by this primary example that Christ offers us? It is one thing to be mindful of the holy commandments in times of peace and quietness and quite another to fulfill your duty during the storms and troubles of life.

The virgin mother, when wine was lacking, wanted Jesus to do a miracle. She was at once answered, "Woman, what have I to do with you?" as if to say plainly, The fact that I can do a miracle comes to me from my Father, not my mother. For it was from the nature of his Father that he could do miracles but from the nature of his mother that he could die. When he was on the cross, then, in dying he acknowledged his mother whom he commended to the disciple, saying, "Behold your mother." And so, when he says, "Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour is not yet come," he is in effect saying, In the miracle, which I did not from your nature, I do not acknowledge you. When the hour of death shall come, however, I shall acknowledge you as my mother, since it is from you that I can die.

For we judge people's virtue not by their sex but by their character, and we hold those to be worthy of the highest glory who have renounced both rank and wealth. It was for this reason that Jesus loved the Evangelist John more than the other disciples. For John was of noble birth and known to the high priest, yet he was so little intimidated by the plotting of the Jews that he introduced Peter into his court and was the only one of the apostles bold enough to take his stand before the cross. For it was he who took the Savior's parent to his own home. It was the virgin son who received the virgin mother as a legacy from the Lord.

Therefore, when the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was hanging on the tree fastened by the nails of the cross for the life of the whole world, he saw about the cross his mother standing, and John the Evangelist, whom he peculiarly loved above the rest of the apostles because he alone of them was a virgin in the body. He gave him, therefore, the charge of holy Mary, saying to him, "Behold your mother!" And he said to her, "Behold your son!" From that hour the holy mother of God remained especially in the care of John, as long as she lived. And when the apostles had divided the world by lot for preaching, she settled in the house of his parents near Mount Olivet.

So this disciple took Mary to his own home, for the Pure One was entrusted to the pure one. See how the female sex is steadfast in troubles, while the men all abandoned the Lord. Truly He came who strengthens the weak and accepts the lowly.

2442 As to the second, he says, Behold, your mother! so that John will care for her as much as a son cares for his mother; and Mary is to love John as a mother loves her son.

2443 The Evangelist shows the obedience of the disciple when he says, and from that hour the disciple took her to his own. For Bede, this should read as his own (in suam); and so the meaning is, the disciple, John, took her, the mother of Jesus, as his own, mother. But according to Augustine, and agreeing with the Greek text, we should read it as to his own (in qua), not to his own home, for John was one of those who said, "We have left everything and followed you" (Mt 19:27); Rather, the disciple took Mary to his own guardianship, to eagerly and respectfully care for her.