Monday of the 5th 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.

Has falsehood indeed found something to say, and should not truth find its fitting reply? Let us hear what they say: let us hear what they hear. "We have one Father," they say, "even God. Then said Jesus unto them, If God were your Father, ye would [doubtless] love me; for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but He sent me." Ye call God Father; recognize me, then, as at least a brother. At the same time He gave a stimulus to the hearts of the intelligent, by touching on that which He has a habit of saying, "I came not of myself: He sent me. I proceeded forth and came from God." Remember what we are wont to say: From Him He came; and from whom He came, with Him He came. The sending of Christ, therefore, is His incarnation. But as respects the proceeding forth of the Word from God, it is an eternal procession. Time holds not Him by whom time was created. Let no one be saying in his heart, Before the Word was, how did God exist? Never say, Before the Word of God was. God was never without the Word, because the Word is abiding, not transient; God, not a sound; by whom the heaven and earth were made, and which passed not away with those things that were made upon the earth. From Him, then, He proceeded forth as God, the equal, the only Son, the Word of the Father; and came to us, for the Word was made flesh that He might dwell among us. His coming indicates His humanity; His abiding, His divinity.

(Tr. xlii. 8) This then is the eternal procession, the proceeding forth of the Word from God: from Him It proceeded as the Word of the Father, and came to us: The Word was made flesh. (c. 1:14) His advent is His humanity: His staying, His divinity. Ye call God your Father; acknowledge Me at least to be a brother.

"Jesus said to them: If God were your father, you would surely love me," as your brother, because the spirit of adoption is the spirit of love; Romans eight: "You have received the spirit of adoption of sons, in which we cry: Abba, Father." "For I proceeded from God," namely as Son by generation; "and I came," into the world through the incarnation, and just as I was begotten by him, so also I was sent; whence: "neither did I come of myself, but he sent me." I did not come by my own authority; Hebrews five: "Christ did not glorify himself to be made high priest"; on the contrary, Jeremiah twenty-three: "They ran, and I was not sending them"; likewise Exodus four: "I beseech you, Lord, send whom you are about to send." And yet you do not love me; and this he proves by asking them.

The Lord does not hereby take away the power of any to be ranked among the sons of God, but shows rather to whom will pertain the boast of it, and that it will be found rather in the saints, and convicts the insulting Jew of being mad. For I (saith He) am sprung the One and True Son by Nature, from God the Father that is; and all are adopted, formed after Me and mounting up unto My Glory, for images are always after their archetypes. How can ye then (He says) at all be numbered among the children of God, who are minded not only not to love Him Who beamed forth from God and transfashions unto His own Form those who believe on Him, but do even dishonour Him, not in one way but in many? and they who receive not the Image of God the Father, how will they be at all formed after Him? Besides it is lawful (He says) not to any chance persons without blame to call God their Father, but those in whom the beauty of piety towards Him shall flash forth,----those I deem and none other will it befit. I have come from Heaven to counsel you things most excellent, and My Word invites you to the being formed after God. But if it be verily your aim and longing to have God as your Father, surely ye would have loved Me your Guide and Teacher on such a path, Who give you the opportunity of likeness to the One and True Son, Who through the Holy Ghost render conformed to Himself those who receive Him. For he (He says) who altogether boasteth of ownness toward God, how would he not love Him That is of God? how (tell me) will he honour the tree who foolishly loatheth the fruit that is its offspring? Either therefore, He saith, make the tree good and his fruit good, or make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt. If therefore the Tree (i. e. God the Father) be Noble and ye know how to draw the Splendour thereof on your own heads, why loved ye not the Fruit that is of Him, believing It to be such as He is? The verse before us therefore hath at once a bitter reproof of the Jews (for it shows them to be liars, for when they essay to call God their Father, they are far away from the virtue that pertains to those who are called to this, because they love not Him Who is of God by Nature) and at the same time it profitably brings in the mention of His own Ineffable Generation, that they might be caught in impiety in this too, calling Him ill-born and bastard. For if the saying, I proceeded forth from God, signifies His Ineffable and Eternal Generation from the Father; adding I am come, [He shews] His appearance in this world with Flesh. And surely one will not say that God the Word then first beamed forth from God the Father, when He became Man (for so it seemed to some of the unholy heretics) but he will rather take it as is meet and will conceive of it piously. For not because He joined the words, (I mean I proceeded forth and I am come) will the Word of the Father be co-eval in time with the Birth of the Flesh, but to each of the things indicated will we keep its proper meaning. For we believe the first Generation of the Word conceived of as from God to be without beginning and above mind; wherefore it hath been set forth first in the words, I proceeded forth from God; the second, i. e., that after the Flesh, for neither have I come of Myself but He sent Me. I was Incarnate as you, that is, I became Man, in the Good Pleasure of God the Father came I in this world to declare to you the things of God and to tell to those who know not, what it is that pleases Him. But ye loved not (He says) Him Who from the Divine counsel was revealed to you as Saviour and Guide. How then will ye any more be called children of God, or how will ye gain the grace of ownness with Him, if ye honour not Him That is of Him? It is likely that the Lord again means something by this and aims by such words also to silence the people of the Jews who are vainly yelping at Him. And what it is that is intended we will briefly say. |645

Many among the Jews esteeming no whit the Divine Fear, but admiring and accepting only honours from men, and overcome by base lucre, dared to prophesy, speaking out of their own heart and not out of the Mouth of the Lord, as it is written. And verily the Lord of all Himself chid them saying, I sent not the prophets, I spake not to them yet they prophesied; yea, He threatened to do dread things to them crying out, Woe unto them that prophesy out of their their own heart and see nothing at all. Such an one was that Shemaiah who to the words of Jeremiah opposed his own lie and having taken the yokes of wood and shattered them, said, Thus saith the Lord, I will shatter the yoke of the king of Babylon. Since then when our Saviour Christ says, But now ye seek to kill Me a man who have told you the truth which I heard of God, the Jews began to murmur, and not knowing Who He is in truth, to imagine that He is some false prophet and to be therefore hardened, so as to even dare to revile Him, and so angrily desire to kill Him as even to press on to do it:----profitably does He again terrify them, saying that He came not of Himself as was the wont of them who prophesy falsely, but was sent by God, that by the same He both putting aside the reputation of being a false prophet and teaching that they will incur no slight doom, who not only dishonour Him that has been sent by God the Father, but also dare to devise murder against Him, might cut short their unbridled daring.

This then for what is before us. But it is probable that the heretic will make what has been said the food of his innate impiety. He will haply accuse the Essence of the Only-Begotten and will deem that it is in lower case than the Father's because of His saying that He had been sent by Him. But let such an one consider the mode of the economy but now spoken, and remember Paul crying aloud of the Son, Who being in the Form of God thought it not robbery to be Equal with God, but emptied Himself taking servant's form, made in the likeness of men and found in fashion as a man He humbled Himself made obedient unto death. But if He hath of His own will humbled Himself, the Father, that is, consenting and Co-willing it, what accusal will He have, going through the whole mode of the Economy unto its consummation, in any reasonable way? But if because of His saying that He has been sent, you deem that the Son lies in lower case than the Father, how (tell me) doth He That is in lower case, according to thy unlearning, work in all exactitude the things of God? For where does the lesser show itself in Him who possesses perfectly all that belongs to His own Progenitor and the fullest God-befitting Authority? Therefore He will not be conceived of as less on account of being sent, but being God of God by Nature and verily, since Himself is the Wisdom and Power of the Father, He is sent to us as from the sun the light which is spread abroad from it, in order that He might make wise that which lacks wisdom, and that thus at length that which was weak might be lifted up through Him and strengthened unto the knowledge of God the Father and recovered unto all virtue. For all things most fair beamed on the human race through only Christ. There is therefore nothing at all of servile kind in Christ, but it belongs only to the form of the flesh: but God-befitting is His Authority and Power even all, even though the language meetly conformed to the measure of lowliness take human fashion.

The Son of God here was not condemning the devout confidence of those who combine their confession that he is true God, the Son of God, with their own claim to be God's children. What he is condemning here is the rash presumption of the Jews in claiming God for their Father when they did not love the Son: "If God were your Father, you would surely love me; for I proceeded from God." … His proceeding is obviously different from his coming, for the two are mentioned side by side in this passage: "For I proceeded and came from God." In order to elucidate the difference between "I proceeded from God" and "I came," he further explains, "I did not come on my own, but he sent me." These words tell us that he is not the source of his own existence. They also tell us that he has proceeded forth a second time from God [in the incarnation] when he was sent by him. But when our Lord says that those who called God their Father ought to love him because he has proceeded from God, there he means that his being born of God was the reason why he should be loved. This proceeding carries back our thoughts to the incorporeal birth, for their claim that God was their Father was supposed to be evident in their loving Christ who was begotten from God. For when the Son says, "Whoever hates me hates my Father as well," this my is an assertion of his relationship to the Father that no one else has.… No one can worship the Father except those who love the Son. For the one and only reason that he gives for loving the Son is his origin from the Father, not by his advent [i.e. his incarnation] but by his birth [i.e., his eternal generation]. And love for the Father is only possible for those who believe that the Son is from him.

(vi. de Trin. c. 30) It was not that the Son of God condemned the assumption of so religious a name; that is, condemned them for professing to be the sons of God, and calling God their Father; but that He blamed the rash presumption of the Jews in claiming God for their Father, when they did not love the Son. For I proceeded forth, and came from God. To proceed forth, is not the same with to come. When our Lord says that those who called God their Father, ought to love Him, because He came forth from God, He means that His being born of God was the reason why He should be loved: the proceeding forth, having reference to His incorporeal birth. Their claim to be the sons of God, was to be made good by their loving Christ, Who was begotten from God. For a true worshipper of God the Father must love the Son, as being from Godf. And he only can love the Father, who believes that the Son is from Him.

(lib. v. ibid.) In what follows, He teaches that His origin is not in Himself; Neither came I of Myself, but He sent Me.

"What sayest thou? Ye have God for your Father, and do ye blame Christ for asserting this?" Seest thou that He said that God was His Father in a special manner? When therefore He had cast them out of their relationship to Abraham, having nothing to reply, they dare a greater thing, and betake themselves to God. But from this honor also He expelleth them, saying, "If God were your Father, ye would love Me; for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do ye not understand My speech? Even because ye cannot hear My word."

"Why do ye not understand My speech?" Since they were always doubting, saying, "What is it that he saith, 'Whither I go ye cannot come'?" therefore He telleth them, "Ye do not understand My speech," "because ye have not the word of God. And this cometh to you, because that your understanding is groveling, and because what is Mine is far too great for you." But what if they could not understand? Not to be able here means not to be willing; for "ye have trained yourselves to be mean, to imagine nothing great." Because they said that they persecuted Him as being themselves zealous for God on this account He everywhere striveth to show that to persecute Him is the act of those who hate God, but that, on the contrary, to love Him is the act of those who know God.

If, then, the [conditional] proposition is true, "If God were your father, you would love me," it is clear that the [conditional] contrary to this is also true: If you do not love me, God is not your Father. God is not the Father, therefore, of those who do not love Jesus. And there was a time when Paul did not love Jesus. There was a time, then, when God was not Paul's Father. Paul, therefore, was not a son of God by nature, but later he became a son of God.

Now, at what other time does God become one's father than at the time one keeps his commandments? It is because of these commandments that one who was not formerly a son of the father in heaven becomes his son, when the Father leads the one who becomes his son to regeneration, and is called "Father."

But when one compares the condition that resulted from having taken up the form of a servant after he had emptied himself with that former condition of the Son, you will understand how the Son has proceeded from God and has come to us, and [how he] has come out, as it were, of the one who sent him, even if, in another manner, the Father has not left him alone but is with him, and is in the Son just as also the Son is in the Father. For unless you understand that the Son is in the Father in a different way than he was before he proceeded from God, it will seem contradictory that he has both proceeded from God and, after he has proceeded from God, is still in God.

I think these words were spoken because there were some who came without being sent by the Father. Jeremiah teaches of such people who promise some teaching or prophecy, where it is written, "I did not send these prophets, yet they ran."

Since He excluded them from kinship with Abraham, they rose even higher, calling God their Father. He reproached them as murderers, but they, defending themselves, say that they are avenging God, and for this reason they form a counsel against Him. Therefore the Lord, showing that they are not championing God's cause, but by their very design wish to kill Him, and are not children of God, as they supposed, but rather opponents of God, says: "If God were your Father, you would love Me." For I came down from God into the world, that is, I appeared in the flesh. I am not an opponent of God. I came from Him. Therefore, by rising up against Me, you are enemies of God.

Next (v 42), our Lord refutes their opinion: first we see the sign of being a child of God; secondly, the reason for this sign is given (v 42); and thirdly, we see that the Jews lack this sign (v 43).

With respect to the first it should be noted that above he had said that the sign of being a child according to the flesh was in the exterior actions that a person performs; but here he places the sign of being a child of God in one's interior affections. For we become children of God by sharing in the Holy Spirit: "you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship" (Rom 8:15). Now the Holy Spirit is the cause of our loving God, because "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom 5:5). Therefore, the special sign of being a child of God is love: "Be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love" (Eph 5:1). Therefore he says, If God were your Father, you would love me: "The innocent and the right in heart," who are the children of God, "have clung to me" (Ps 24:21).

Then (v 42) he gives the reason for this sign. First, he states the truth; secondly, he rejects an error (v 42b).

The truth he asserts is that he proceeded and came forth from God. It should be noted that all friendship is based on union, and so brothers love one another inasmuch as they take their origin from the same parents. Thus our Lord says: you say that you are the children of God; but if this were so, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God. Therefore, any one who does not love me is not a child of God.

I say I proceeded from God from eternity as the Only Begotten, of the substance of the Father: "From the womb before the daystar I begot you" (Ps 109:4); "In the beginning was the Word" (1:1). And I came forth as the Word made flesh, sent by God through incarnation. "I came from the Father," from eternity, as the Word, "and have come into the world" when I was made flesh in time (16:28).

He rejects an error when he says, I came not of my own accord. And first, he rejects the error of Sabellius, who said that Christ did not have his origin from another, for he said that the Father and the Son were the same in person. In regard to this he says, I came not of my own accord, i.e., according to Hilary, I came, not existing of myself, but in a way as sent by another, that is, the Father. Thus he adds, but he sent me: "God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4). Secondly, he rejects an error of the Jews who said that Christ was not sent by God, but was a false prophet, of whom we read in Jeremiah (23:21): "I did not send the prophets, yet they ran." And in regard to this he says, according to Origen, I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Indeed, this is what Moses prayed for: "O, my Lord, send, I pray, whom you will send" (Ex 4:13).

"Why," He says, "do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word." And so they could not understand, because they could not hear. And whence could they not hear, but just because they refused to be set right by believing?

(Tr. xlii. 9) And they could not hear, because they would not believe, and amend their lives.

"Why," he says, "do you not recognize my speech?" namely by believing in me. The reason for this was hatred, "because you cannot hear my word," on account of hatred and envy; Wisdom two: "He is grievous to us to behold."

What we have oftentimes said we say again for profit to the readers: for there is no harm in our discourse going very frequently through what may profit. It is the custom then of our Saviour Christ not altogether to accept from those who disbelieve Him, the word that boiled up from their tongue, but to look rather on the hearts and reins, and to make His replies to the thoughts that were yet revolving in the depth of their hearts. For man who knows not the thoughts that are in another, will needs admit the uttered word, but God not so; for He knowing all things, takes the thought for the voice. When then the Lord said to the Jews that He had come not of Himself, like them who of their own mind and not of the Divine Spirit advance to prophesy, but that He was sent by God, they again imagine, or reason among themselves, or secretly whispering one to another said, Many Prophets have spoken the things of God and brought words from the Spirit unto us, but we find nought among them of such sort as is in this man's words. For He bears us wholly away from the worship after the Law and removes us to some other polity and introduces to us a strange transition of life. Dissonant therefore manifestly and irreconcileable is His Discourse with that of those of old. Since He beheld them thinking (as is likely) these things, shewing that He is by Nature God and knoweth the counsels of the hearts, He takes hold of it and says, Why do ye not understand My Speech? because ye cannot hear My Word. I am not ignorant (He says) that ye cannot comprehend My Speech, or doctrine; but I will tell you the reason and will clearly set before you what is the hindrance. Ye cannot hear My Word. He says, ye cannot, convicting them of impotence unto perfect good, because of their being fore-mastered by their passions. For the love of pleasure unnerves the mind, and the unbridled tendency towards evil yet weakening the sinew of the heart, renders it feeble and most spiritless to the power of performing any virtue. Being therefore fore-weakened by tendencies to vice and tyrannized by your own passions ye cannot, He says, hear My Word. For right are the ways of the Lord, as it is written, and the just shall walk in them, but the transgressors shall become impotent in them. Akin to this will you find that too which was in another place said to the Pharisees, How can ye believe which receive honour one of another and seek not the honour that, cometh from the only God? for verily in this their not being able to believe shews the voluntary weakness of their understanding or that their mind has been before overcome of vainglory. And we find again that that is true of the Jews which has been spoken by the voice of Paul, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. Since therefore they were natural, they deemed that He was foolishness Who was inviting them to be saved, and was teaching them the path of an excellent conversation, and directing them full well unto the power of pleasing God who delighteth in virtue, to whom be all honour, glory, might, for ever and ever. Amen.

First then, we must acquire the ability to hear the divine word so that subsequently we may also be able to know the whole teaching of Jesus. For it is possible that, though one previously could not hear Jesus' word, he attains the ability to hear it, because one cannot hear until his hearing is healed by the Word who says to the deaf, "Be opened."

(tom. xx. 18. [Nic.]) First then, that virtue must be sought after, which hears the divine word; that by degrees we may be strong enough to embrace the whole teaching of Jesus. For so long as a man has not had his hearing restored by the Word, which says to the deaf ear, Be opened: (Mark 7:34) so long he cannot hear.

(tom. xx.) And this seems to be the same mistake, as if one said, that an eye which saw right was different in kind from an eye which saw wrong. For just as in these there is no difference of kind, only one of them for some reason sees wrong; so, in the other case, whether a man receives a doctrine, or whether he does not, he is of the same nature.

Why do you not understand My speech, do not comprehend and do not grasp what I am saying? Without doubt, for no other reason than that you cannot hear My word, that is, you do not want to. For "cannot" is used in place of "do not want to." As long as envy and murderous intent dwell in you, how can you listen to what I am saying?

He shows that they lack this sign when he says, Why do you not understand what I say? For as was stated above, to love Christ is the sign of being a child of God; but they did not love Christ; therefore it is obvious that they did not have this sign. That they do not love Christ is shown by the effect of love: for the effect of loving someone is that the lover joyfully hears the words of the beloved; thus we read: "Let me hear your voice, for your voice is sweet" (Song 2:14). And again, "My companions are listening for your voice; let me hear it" (Song 8:13). Therefore, because they did not love Christ, it seemed tedious to them even to hear his voice: "This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?" (6:60); "The very sight of him is a burden to us" (Wis 2:15).

It sometimes happens that a person is not glad to hear the words of another because he cannot weigh them and for that reason does not understand them, and so he contradicts them: "Answer, I beseech you, without contention—and you shall not find iniquity on my tongue" (Job 6:29). Therefore he says, Why do you not understand what I say? You question what I mean, as "Where I am going, you cannot come" (8:21). I say that you do not understand because you cannot bear to hear my word, i.e., your heart is so hardened against me that you do not even want to hear me.

Our Lord being the truth, and the Son of the true God, spoke the truth; but the Jews, being the sons of the devil, were averse to the truth; and this is why our Lord says, Because I tell you the truth, ye believe not.

Do not admit less evidence to convict any one than that of three witnesses, and those of known and established reputation; inquire whether they do not accuse out of ill-will or envy: for there are many that delight in mischief, forward in discourse, slanderous, haters of the brethren, making it their business to scatter the sheep of Christ; whose affirmation if thou admittest without nice scanning the same, thou wilt disperse thy flock, and betray it to be devoured by wolves, that is, by demons and wicked men, or rather not men, but wild beasts in the shape of men—by the heathen, by the Jews, and by the atheistic heretics. For those destroying wolves soon address themselves to any one that is cast out of the Church, and esteem him as a lamb delivered for them to devour, reckoning his destruction their own gain. For he that is "their father, the devil, is a murderer." He also who is separated unjustly by thy want of care in judging will be overwhelmed with sorrow, and be disconsolate, and so will either wander over to the heathen, or be entangled in heresies, and so will be altogether estranged from the Church and from hope in God, and will be entangled in impiety, whereby thou wilt be guilty of his perdition: for it is not fair to be too hasty in casting out an offender, but slow in receiving him when he returns; to be forward in cutting off, but unmerciful when he is sorrowful, and ought to be healed.

Someone may object that the words of the Lord about the devil [here] … are to be understood as if he was not only a murderer from the beginning of the human race when human beings, whom he could kill by his deceit, were made; but also that he did not abide in the truth from the time of his own creation and was accordingly never blessed with the holy angels. Instead he refused to submit to his Creator and proudly exulted as if in a private lordship of his own. In this way he was deceived and deceiving.… But they do not notice that the Lord did not say, "The devil was naturally a stranger to the truth" but "The devil did not remain in the truth." By this, he meant us to understand that the devil had fallen from the truth in which, if he had remained, he would have become a partaker and would have remained in blessedness along with the holy angels.…They suppose [according to 1 John 3:8] that the devil was made with a sinful nature, but they misunderstand the passage; for if sin is natural, it is not sin at all. And how do they answer the prophetic proofs—either what Isaiah says when he represents the devil under the person of the king of Babylon, "How you are fallen, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" or what Ezekiel says, "You were in Eden, the garden of God …" where it is meant that he was at some point without sin? For a little after, it is still more explicitly said, "You were perfect in your ways." And if these passages cannot be interpreted properly in any other way, then we must understand by this passage also, "He did not remain in the truth," that he was once in the truth but did not remain in it. And from this passage, "The devil has sinned from the beginning," it is not that he sinned from the beginning of his created existence; rather, sin began in him, and he was the beginning of sin.

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." How were the Jews the children of the devil? By imitation, not by birth. Listen to the usual language of the Holy Scriptures. The prophet says to those very Jews, "Thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite." The Amorites were not a nation that gave origin to the Jews. The Hittites also were themselves of a nation altogether different from the race of the Jews. But because the Amorites and Hittites were impious, and the Jews imitated their impieties, they found parents for themselves, not of whom they were born, but in whose damnation they should share, because following their customs. But perhaps you inquire, Whence is the devil himself? From the same source certainly as the other angels. But the other angels continued in their obedience. He, by disobedience and pride, fell as an angel, and became a devil.

"He was a murderer from the beginning." This it is that explains, "the lusts of your father ye will do." "Ye seek to kill me, a man that telleth you the truth." He, too, had ill-will to man, and slew man. For the devil, in his ill-will to man, assuming the guise of a serpent, spoke to the woman, and from the woman instilled his poison into the man. They died by listening to the devil, whom they would not have listened to had they but listened to the Lord; for man, having his place between Him who created and him who was fallen, ought to have obeyed the Creator, not the deceiver. Therefore "he was a murderer from the beginning." Look at the kind of murder, brethren. The devil is called a murderer not as armed with a sword, or girded with steel. He came to man, sowed his evil suggestions, and slew him. Think not, then, that thou art not a murderer when thou persuadest thy brother to evil. If thou persuadest thy brother to evil, thou slayest him.

"And he stood [abode] not in the truth." Therefore he was in the truth, and fell by not standing in it. And why "stood he not in the truth"? "Because the truth is not in him;" not as in Christ. In such a way is the truth [in Him], that Christ Himself is the Truth. If, then, he had stood in the truth, he would have stood in Christ; but "he abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him."

"When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." Hear and understand. I shall not send thee far away [for the meaning]; understand it from the words themselves. It is not every one who tells a lie that is the father of his lie. For if thou hast got a lie from another, and uttered it, thou indeed hast lied in giving utterance to the lie; but thou art not the father of that lie, because thou hast got it from another. But the devil was a liar of himself. He begat his own falsehood; he heard it from no one. As God the Father begat as His Son the Truth, so the devil, having fallen, begat falsehood as his son.

(Tr. xlii. 10) Here we must guard against the heresy of the Manichæans, who hold a certain original nature of evil, and a nation of darkness with princes at their head, whence the devil derives his existence. And thence they say our flesh is produced; and in this way interpret our Lord's speech, Ye are of your father the devil: viz. to mean that they were by nature evil, drawing their origin from the opposite seed of darkness.

(Tr. xlii. 11) The Jews then were children of the devil by imitation, not by birth: And the lusts of your father ye will do, our Lord says. Ye are his children then, because ye have such lusts, not because ye are born of him: for ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth: and he envied man, and killed him: he was a murderer from the beginning; i. e. of the first man on whom a murder could be committed: man could not be slain, before man was created. The devil did not go, girt with a sword, against man: he sowed an evil word, and slew him. Do not suppose therefore that you are not guilty of murder, when you suggest evil thoughts to your brother. The very reason why ye rage against the flesh, is that ye cannot assault the soul.

(xi. de Civ. Dei, c. 13) But it will be objected perhaps, that if from the beginning of his existence, the devil stood not in the truth, he was never in a state of blessedness with the holy angels, refusing, as he did, to be subject to his Creator, and therefore false and deceitful; unwilling at the cost of pious subjection to hold that which by nature he was; and attempting in his pride and loftiness to simulate that which he was not. This opinion is not the same with that of the Manichæans, that the devil has his own peculiar nature, derived as it were from the opposite principle of evil. This foolish sect does not see that our Lord says not, Was alien from the truth, but Stood not in the truth, meaning, fell from the truth. And thus they interpret John, The devil sinneth from the beginning, (1 John 3:8) not seeing that if sin is natural, it is no sin. But what do the testimonies of the prophets reply? Isaiah, setting forth the devil under the figure of the prince of Babylon, says, How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! (Ezek. 28:13) Ezekiel says, Thou hast been in Eden, the garden of God. Which passages, as they cannot be interpreted in any other way, show that we must take the word, He stood not in the truth, to mean, that he was in truth, but did not remain in it; and the other, that the devil sinneth from the beginning, to mean, that he was a sinner not from the beginning of his creation, but from the beginning of sin. For sin began in him, and he was the beginning of sin.

(xi. de Civ. Dei, c. xiv) Or when our Lord says, The truth is not in him, He intends it as an index: as if we had asked Him, how it appeared that the devil stood not in the truth; and He said, Because the truth is not in him. For it would be in him, if he stood in it. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

(Tr. xlii. s. 12, 13) Some have thought from these words that the devil had a father, and asked who was the father of the devil. This is the error of the Manichæans. But our Lord calls the devil the father of a lie for this reason: Every one who lies is not the father of his own lie; for you may tell a lie, which you have received from another; in which case you have lied, but are not the father of the lie. But the lie wherewith, as with a serpent's bite, the devil slew man. had no source but himself: and therefore he is the father a lie, as God is the Father of the truth.

(de Quæst. Nov. et Vet. Test. 2, 90) Or thus: The devil is not a singular, but a common name. In whomsoever the works of the devil are found, he is to be called the devil. It is the name of a work, not of a nature. Here then our Lord means by the father of the Jews, Cain; whom they wished to imitate, by killing the Saviour: for he it was who set the first example of murdering a brother. That he spoke a lie of his own, means that no one sins but by his own will. And inasmuch as Cain imitated the devil, and followed his works, the devil is said to be his father.

But ignorance of yourself begets pride in you in this way: when your deceived and deceiving thought falsely tells you that you are better than you are. This indeed is pride, this is the beginning of all sin, when you are greater in your own eyes than before God, than in truth. And therefore he who first sinned this great sin (I speak of the devil), of him it was said that he stood not in the truth, but is a liar from the beginning; because what he was in his own thought, he was not in truth. What if he had disagreed with truth in this, that he thought himself lesser and lower than the truth held him to be? His ignorance would without doubt excuse him, and he would not at all be reckoned proud, nor would his iniquity be found so much to be for hatred, as his humility perhaps for grace.

"You are of your father the devil." Here, having shown that they are not children of God, he shows that they are children of the devil, so that all their glory may be emptied. He proposes: "You are of your father the devil": the word "of" does not indicate generation there, but imitation of example; Ezekiel sixteen: "Your father was an Amorite, and your mother a Hittite"; and First John three: "He who commits sin is of the devil."

He proves this, because they imitate him; whence: "you want to do the desires of your father." These are the desires about which First Timothy, last chapter, says: "Many useless and harmful desires, which plunge men into ruin and perdition." He shows that they imitate him in two things, namely in murder and lying: in lying there is the crookedness of the intellect, in murder of the affection. Therefore he says: "He was a murderer from the beginning," that is, after the beginning of the human race; because he led the first man to death by promising life and denying death: "You shall not die at all, he said," Genesis three, and Wisdom two: "God created man imperishable, but by the envy of the devil death entered the world," etc. And in this you imitate him; as was said above, you want to kill me. You also imitate him in lying: whence he says: "And he did not stand in the truth": rather, he fell into falsehood and vanity; Isaiah fourteen: "How have you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who rose in the morning"? "Because truth is not in him." For on account of the sin of pride he did not recover: Ezekiel twenty-eight: "You have been brought to nothing and shall not be forever." "When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own," because he has it from himself, with no other suggesting it. "But he is a liar and his father," that is, of lying: Job, second to last chapter: "He is king over all the children of pride." Augustine says: "The father of lying is the devil, the father of truth is God. Depart from the father of lying and run to the father of truth; embrace the truth, that you may receive freedom." The children of this father are all liars, who hate the truth. And such were the Jews; and the Lord proves this, that they hate the truth.

Likewise, it is asked concerning what he says: "You are of your father the devil." From this the Manichaean argues that the Lord is not the maker and creator of evil men.

To this Augustine responds that "father" here is used not of one who begets by origin, but by imitation. Similarly, the preposition "from" does not here denote origin in first being, but in second being. Hence Augustine: "Here they are called sons not by being born, but by imitating." Adam did not wish to imitate God by obeying, and he imitated the devil by consenting to sin.

Likewise, an objection is raised concerning what he says: "He was a murderer from the beginning."

From this the Manichaean objects that the malice of the devil has no beginning, and thus it seems that there are two principles: one of good and another of evil.

I respond: It must be said that this passage is explained in five ways.

In one way thus: he was a murderer from the beginning, because just as the Word was in the beginning, because he had no beginning.

But this is heretical and is refuted by the text: for it does not say "in the beginning," but "from the beginning."

Another exposition is that from his very beginning he was made evil, as the Psalm seems to say: "This dragon which you formed to sport with him."

And this is heretical, because just as it is impossible that the supremely hot should make cold, so too that the supremely good should make evil; and that verse of the Psalm and similar passages are to be understood after the fact.

The third exposition is this: he was a murderer from the beginning, that is, immediately after the beginning, because the interval between creation and the fall was brief; and therefore it is added: "He did not stand in the truth," because he did not persevere.

The fourth exposition is this: a murderer from the beginning not his own, but of the human race; hence Augustine: "Man could not have been killed unless man had been made."

The fifth is this, that a murderer from the beginning, because in the same instant he began to exist from God and to be evil from himself, just as our soul, which is infused into the body.

The first two are heretical; the next two are catholic; the last is doubtful and tending toward the heretical, although it is not heretical; and therefore it is not commonly held.

Likewise, an objection is raised concerning what he says, that the devil is the father of lies.

Therefore, since every sin is a lie, it seems that there is one principle of sin.

I respond: It must be said that one should not posit a first evil that is first in the genus of being, as though it were not from another; but one should posit a first evil before which no other evil preceded; and this is indeed the origin of subsequent evils, not always by efficient causation, but by occasion and by suggestion. Therefore he says: "He is a liar and the father of it," namely of lying.

The devil is called "thief and robber;" having mixed false prophets with the prophets, as tares with the wheat. "All, then, that came before the Lord, were thieves and robbers;" not absolutely all men, but all the false prophets, and all who were not properly sent by Him. For the false prophets possessed the prophetic name dishonestly, being prophets, but prophets of the liar. For the Lord says, "Ye are of your father the devil; and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Nor ought we, beloved brethren, only to observe and understand that we should call Him Father who is in heaven; but we add to it, and say our Father, that is, the Father of those who believe-of those who, being sanctified by Him, and restored by the nativity of spiritual grace, have begun to be sons of God. A word this, moreover, which rebukes and condemns the Jews, who not only unbelievingly despised Christ, who had been announced to them by the prophets, and sent first to them, but also cruelly put Him to death; and these cannot now call God their Father, since the Lord confounds and confutes them, saying, "Ye are born of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. For he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him." And by Isaiah the prophet God cries in wrath, "I have begotten and brought up children; but they have despised me. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel hath not known me, and my people hath not understood me. Ah sinful nation, a people laden with sins, a wicked seed, corrupt children! Ye have forsaken the Lord; ye have provoked the Holy One of Israel to anger." In repudiation of these, we Christians, when we pray, say Our Father; because He has begun to be ours, and has ceased to be the Father of the jews, who have forsaken Him. Nor can a sinful people be a son; but the name of sons is attributed to those to whom remission of sins is granted, and to them immortality is promised anew, in the words of our Lord Himself: "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever, but the son abideth ever."

Having with reason led them off from their kindred with Abraham and convicted them of having unlikeness to him in their manners, and of being far removed from piety toward God Himself, and yet moreover having explained the reason of their not being able to be obedient to His speech, He again shows who will rather be more fittingly and properly termed their father. Ye therefore, He says, are of your father the devil, whom He says was also a murderer in the beginning and that he abides not in the truth and is a liar; and that his father was a liar, whom in what follows He defined clearly who he is : for the mighty force itself in their brevity of the words before us has much obscurity and specially needs accurate scrutiny. For deep is the discourse about this, and not clear I ween to the many. For as to the meaning which can readily be got, it allots to the Jews no other father than Satan who fell from heaven. But that which is put next about the father allotted them, that he is a liar just as his father also, troubles us, yea rather compels us to fresh doubt2 not a little. For whom (if we think reasonably) can we imagine to have been father to the devil, or what other before him fell to whom he that comes after can be compared in likeness and manner ? for no one will show us such a reading as this in the holy and Divine Scriptures; and in no wise is that to be received as truth which is not told in the Divinely-inspired Scriptures. For every spirit that is reckoned among devils as a child of the devil is called Satan according to what is said by our Saviour Christ, If then Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: yet have we heard of one surpassing the rest and above them, him to whom it is somewhere said by the Prophet Ezekiel, Thou art the seal of likeness and crown of beauty begotten in the delight of the Paradise of God, every precious stone hast: thou put on. Whom else then shall we unblamed suppose existed, after whom this one was formed, in likeness I mean as to vice? for some of the elder expositors, citing what is now before us, say that that ancient Satan who is conceived of as being the chief of all the other devils was bound by the Might of God and cast into Tartarus itself there to pay the penalty of what he had done in outrage against God, and that some other appeared after him, coming nothing short of the abominations of his father, and they affirmed that of him it was that the Saviour says that he was a murderer from the beginning and that he is a liar, as his father.

But unless we had much considered it in our minds, we should with reason have readily accepted this, but now this one thing above all suffers us not to approve inconsiderately. For at the time of the Saviour's Advent, the tyranny of the devil was receiving the beginning of its fall and the wicked and unclean spirits were being sent orth into the deep. And verily the devils would come and openly beg Him, that He would not command them to go forth into the deep. And we remember that they made a great outcry about this, saying, Let us alone, what have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus of Nazareth? we know Thee Who Thou art, The Holy One of God, art Thou come hither to torment us before the time? For that our Lord Jesus Christ having come among us would waste them away and manifoldly vex them, they themselves too knew full well, finding much talk of Him among those in Israel, yet found fault as though He had come not in His season, in this too acting tyrannically and perversely accusing the time of the Advent. But they say before the time, as though in no wise tormented in any other time, but looking for one, the time of the Advent, in which they were unquestionably to undergo what they are expecting. And to this we say besides, If, he being bound according to their distinction, some other deceived Adam, and does not yet cease from the madness whereof he is accused, the first one will be wholly blameless as regards us, and this account will free him from all blame, and neither hath he slain any, nor deceived nor lied, nor yet will it be justly said to him by God, As raiment stained in blood shall not be clean, so neither shalt thou be clean, because thou destroyedst My land and slewest My people. If therefore we grant that that he whom they say is the first is wholly without any share in the above enumerated evil deeds, whom shall we decide that the second after him imitated, or after whom was he formed who surpassed in wickedness his leader, and had the deeper impress of that one's villainy?

And it were I suppose not unreasonable that we searching out this matter should go through fuller proofs, but we think it superfluous to put forth too much energy for what needs not: we will therefore go on to another thought and accurately search who it was that Christ allotted to the Jews as their father of like manner and disposition, so that for his father might reasonably be enrolled an evil spirit, that prince of evil, i. e. Satan. He brings them up therefore to Cain who first of all men loved not Him who chastised him by reproofs, but was set forth as the beginning of envy and murder and craft and lying and deceit, next to that Satan whose son he is rightly said to be, inasmuch as he receives in himself the whole impress of that one's wickedness. For as God is the Father of every holy and righteous person, being Himself the beginning of the holiness and righteousness of all:----in the same way I deem will Satan be reasonably styled father of every wicked person, himself being the author of all wickedness. But since we have said that Cain was given to the Jews as their father, to Cain again Satan, come let us following out our own words clearly show that Satan first of all reared his neck at God's reproofs, then both deceived and lied and lastly through envy committed murder: and having shown that Cain was of like manner and disposition with him, we in the third place bring down our argument to the Jews who possess complete the image of the wickedness that is in him.

Satan therefore despising his own principality and greatly longing after what was above his own nature, and not keeping the limit of his position, was borne down and fell, thereby convicted by God and taught the measure of his nature. But nothing profited thereby by reason of his ill counsel, he sickened of a worse disease, by no means looking to the duty of amending his own disposition, but minded to abide in steadfast perversity. But when the first man was formed by God, according to the book of Moses, and was in Paradise, yet keeping the commandment given him, that I mean about the Tree, Satan was first kindled to envy, and in that his transgression and disobedience were blamed by the first-created, while they were as yet keeping the commandment given them, he was eager by much-intriguing deceits to draw them away unto disobedience. And knowing that they would waste away if they made light of the commands of the Great King, he persuades them to do this, encompassing with the uttermost ills those who had nothing injured him. For that a deed of devilish deceit and envy was the transgression in Adam and the death that through it sprang upon him, the very nature of the thing will itself teach us, and the saying of the all-wise Solomon will make clear to us speaking on this wise, God made not death, but through envy of the devil came death into the world.

Herein then is his part, let now Cain come in to us and stand before us. For he was the first-born of Adam, an husbandman by occupation, and next after him came Abel, but he was a shepherd of sheep. But since the law of nature called them to offer sacrifice to God, implanting untaught the knowledge of the Creator (for all good things have been sown and infused in our nature by God): Cain offered of the fruit of the ground, as it is written, but Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof; and God had respect unto Abel and to his gifts but unto Cain and to his offerings He had not respect. And Cain was very vexed and his countenance fell. And the Lord God said unto Cain, Why wert thou vexed and why did thy countenance fall? If thou offeredst well but dividedst not aright, didst thou not sin? be still. Then to Abel, Unto thee shall be his resort and thou shalt rule over him. Therefore Cain was blamed for dividing not aright his offering, Abel was rightly deemed worthy of praise and honour, which was to Cain food of envy. For he was exasperated at the correcting reproofs, just as Satan was, then swelling with unrighteous envy, as we said, he goes after his brother in guile, already devising the unholy murder. For, it says, Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go over unto another field better than this, and inviting as though to enjoyment and tender grass him who was utterly unconscious, he savagely murdered him, and first of all laid him dead on the ground, thinking (it seems) that he would surely win all wonder, having no longer any to surpass him. And having slain him, he told a lie; for when |655 God says. Where is Abel thy brother? he says, I know not, and out of his exceeding folly added in heat, Am I my brother's keeper? For it says that he well-nigh said thus, Thou who crownedst him unjustly what good didst Thou, his Keeper, do him? Thou seest then and that clearly that the whole likeness of the devil's wickedness was accurately finished in him, and the conformation of his manners moulded after an equal and like fashion.

Let our discourse therefore go forward to the impiety of the Jews, and putting around them the likeness of Cain's villainy, let us show that they essayed those things against Christ, which he did against Abel, that rightly and fitly he may be termed their father. Therefore first-born was Cain, as we have said, first-born again among the children of God by adoption was Israel, as was said to Moses, Israel is My first-born. And he hath brought of the produce of the ground an offering unto God, but to his offerings He had not respect, as it is written. For more earthly was Israel's worship of the law, as has been said, by bullocks and sheep and fruits of the earth, nor does God accept this. For to what purpose, He saith, cometh there to Me incense from Sheba and cinnamon from a far country? and by the voice of Isaiah too He openly crieth, Who required this at your hand? After Cain cometh the righteous Abel to sacrifice of the sheep. For after the service according to the law, and at the consummation of the Prophets came Christ the verily Righteous, bringing not fruits of the earth for a sacrifice to God the Father, but for the life and salvation of all offering to Him Himself as an immaculate Victim for an odour of a sweet smell. For God the Father dismissing as more earthly the worship after the Law, had respect to the sacrifice of our Saviour Christ. The word, had respect to means Delighted in. What followed? Cain was rebuked for not dividing aright, and when blamed was sick of envy, and hastens headstrong unto murder. And God was admonishing in His Son the people of the Jews, was asking of them better things for offering, bidding them transform the worship according to the Law unto spiritual fruit-bearing, and urging them to transfashion the Letter unto truth: but they reproved are angry, and are smitten with the paternal envy, and unrighteously plot murder against our Saviour Christ. Cain deceived Abel, and taking him into the field displayed him dead: the Jews likewise as far as in them lay deceived Christ, sending the traitor in the guise of a friend, who coming to Him to betray Him saluted Him deceitfully saying, Hail Master. And they too took Him into the plain, i. e., they destroyed Him without the gate. For without the gate did Christ suffer because of us and for us. Thou seest then how they are found to be in no way like Abraham or those who were really of him, but bear the image of their own fitly and really belonging father, and madly sick with wickedness conformed and akin to his, they rightly hear, ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do; he was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in, him; when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar just as was his father. And I, because I tell you the truth, ye believe Me not. The aim of the discourse looks to the father of the Jews who was brought forward and exhibited, I mean Cain, but it spreads out more generally. For not at that man's life does He bound the force of what He says, but puts it round about every one who is like him, allotting what is said of one individually to every one who is like him. For when (He says) Cain or other liar like him utters a lie, he utters it as of his own kin. For learning what he has from his rulers and him who hath given him the beginning of wickedness, he making the lie his own as some natural acquisition imitates his own father, for he utters a lie. Wherefore (He saith) since he had for his father one who delighted in lies, he is led on as by natural laws to the ignobility of his grandfather and father and shows forth in himself their villainy, and making the depravity of his ancestors the very clearest image of his own manners and ways, surely brags of his own ill.

Since then this is even so and the wickedness of elders engraven on those of like manners with themselves, causes them to be styled their children, what is it that hinders you from believing Me even when I tell you the truth, that I of a surety am sprung of a True Father, and (as I said before) I proceeded forth from God and am come? For if a person tells lies because he has a liar for his father and utters them thence as from his own kindred, how is it not of necessity that I too speaking the truth must be conceived to have been surely begotten of a True Father and not (as YE blasphemously surmised) from one of the earth who was of fornication and unlawful union?

Such words then will the Lord have used to the Jews. But we must know that in respect of men or of rational spirits in manners and habits is seen the kinness which they may have one to another [and] to the father of all wickedness the devil: in regard of the Only-Begotten this is taken only as an image of this which is before us 2: for by Him it [i. e., the relationship] is full exactly limned, for His Connaturalness with the Father is Natural and Essential. For being of Him in truth, possessing all that is His with Natural Property and the acme of likeness in ail things, He is seen the Form and Image and Impress of Him Who begat Him. Since therefore the Father is True, Truth of a surety is He too That is of Him, i. e., the Christ.

But the Son derives shape from the Father after a mode ineffable, and unspeakable, and unchangeable; (that is,) in such a manner as Moses says that tire colours of the conceived (kine) flowed from the rods which were fixed in the drinking-troughs. And in like manner, again, that capacities flowed also from the Son into Matter, similarly to the power in reference to conception which came from the rods upon the conceived (kine). And the difference of colours, and the dissimilarity which flowed from the rods through the waters upon the sheep, is, he says, the difference of corruptible and incorruptible generation. As, however, one who paints from nature, though he takes nothing away from animals, transfers by his pencil all forms to the canvas; so the Son, by a power which belongs to himself, transfers paternal marks from the Father into Matter. All the paternal marks are here, and there are not any more. For if any one, he says, of those (beings) which are here will have strength to perceive that he is a paternal mark transferred hither from above, (and that he is) incarnate-just as by the conception resulting from the rod a something white is produced,-he is of the same substance altogether with the Father in heaven, and returns thither. If, however, he may not happen upon this doctrine, neither will he understand the necessity of generation, just as an abortion born at night will perish at night. When, therefore, he says, the Saviour observes, "your Father which is in heaven," he alludes to that one from whom the Son deriving his characteristics has transferred them hither. When, however, (Jesus) remarks, "Your father is a murderer from the beginning," he alludes to the Ruler and Demiurge of matter, who, appropriating the marks delivered from the Son, generated him here who from the beginning was a murderer, for his work causes corruption and death.

If any one preaches the one God of the law and the prophets, but denies Christ to be the Son of God, he is a liar, even as also is his father the devil, and is a Jew falsely so called, being possessed of mere carnal circumcision. If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit. If any one says there is one God, and also confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God, and Wisdom, and the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul and body, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men. And such a man is poor in understanding, even as by name he is an Ebionite.

Moreover, since God rules over men and him too, and without the will of our Father in heaven not even a sparrow falls to the ground, it follows that his declaration, "All these things are delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give them," proceeds from him when puffed up with pride. For the creation is not subjected to his power, since indeed he is himself but one among created things. Nor shall he give away the rule over men to men; but both all other things, and all human affairs, are arranged according to God the Father's disposal. Besides, the Lord declares that "the devil is a liar from the beginning, and the truth is not in him." If then he be a liar and the truth be not in him, he certainly did not speak truth, but a lie, when he said, "For all these things are delivered to me, and to whomsoever I will I give them."

He had indeed been already accustomed to lie against God, for the purpose of leading men astray. For at the beginning, when God had given to man a variety of things for food, while He commanded him not to eat of one tree only, as the Scripture tells us that God said to Adam: "From every tree which is in the garden thou shalt eat food; but from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, from this ye shall not eat: for in the day that ye shall eat of it, ye shall die by death;" he then, lying against the Lord, tempted man, as the Scripture says that the serpent said to the woman: "Has God indeed said this, Ye shall not eat from every tree of the garden?" And when she had exposed the falsehood, and simply related the command, as He had said, "From every tree of the garden we shall eat; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die:" when he had [thus] learned from the woman the command of God, having brought his cunning into play, he finally deceived her by a falsehood, saying, "Ye shall not die by death; for God knew that in the day ye shall eat of it your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." In the first place, then, in the garden of God he disputed about God, as if God was not there, for he was ignorant of the greatness of God; and then, in the next place, after he had learned from the woman that God had said that they should die if they tasted the aforesaid tree, opening his mouth, he uttered the third falsehood, "Ye shall not die by death." But that God was true, and the serpent a liar, was proved by the result, death having passed upon them who had eaten. For along with the fruit they did also fall under the power of death, because they did eat in disobedience; and disobedience to God entails death. Wherefore, as they became forfeit to death, from that [moment] they were handed over to it. ...For they died who tasted of the tree; and the serpent is proved a liar and a murderer, as the Lord said of him: "For he is a murderer from the beginning, and the truth is not in him."

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do: he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth: when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own."

He had driven them out of their relationship to Abraham, and when they dared greater things, He then addeth a blow, telling them that they not only are not Abraham's children, but that they are even children of the devil, and inflicting a wound which might counterbalance their shamelessness; nor doth He leave it unsupported, but establisheth it by proofs. "For," He saith, "to murder belongeth to the wickedness of the devil." And He said not merely, "ye do his works," but, "ye do his lusts," showing that both he and they hold to murder, and that envy was the cause. For the devil destroyed Adam, not because he had any charge against him, but only from envy. To this also He alludeth here.

"And abode not in the truth." That is, in the right life. For since they continually accused Him of not being from God, He telleth them that this also is from thence. For the devil first was the father of a lie, when he said, "In the day that ye eat thereof your eyes shall be opened," and he first used it. For men use a lie not as a thing proper, but alien to their nature, but he as proper.

These words make it very clear that one is not a child of the devil as a result of creation, nor is anyone said to be a son of God because he was so created. It is also clear that one who was previously a child of the devil can become a child of God. Matthew also reveals this when he records that the Savior spoke as follows: "You have heard that it was said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, you shall love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may become children of your Father who is in heaven." For note that by [obeying] the commands, "Love your enemies" and "Pray for those who persecute you," he who previously was not a child of the Father in heaven subsequently becomes his child.

For such is the meaning of the words "You will to do your father's desires." But we must say in reference to these matters that the devil desires, let us say, that this boy be corrupted, and that this woman commit adultery and that these men visit prostitutes. By the power of these desires, [the devil] makes the desire to do the things that he wishes to effect serve him so that, according to this, one could say that the one [i.e., the devil] who causes the prostitution or adultery practices prostitution and commits adultery even before the human becomes involved. And you will say the same thing also about every sin, that is to say, the devil does not desire money, but he desires to make people lovers of money and passionately desirous of material things. And those who love money, even if all they do is wish for it, will to carry out this desire of his.

If we do the works of God and wish to do his desires, we are children of God. But if we do the works of the devil and wish to do what he desires, we are of our father the devil. Let us pay attention, then, not only to what we do but also to what we desire. For even to wish to do the desires of the devil is sufficient to be his child. Perhaps this is why the words "You wish to do the desires of your father" are added after the statement "You do the works of your father," so that we may learn that even if we merely wish to do what the devil desires, we will still be called the children of the devil.

But notice also the statement "In Adam all die, and in Christ all shall be made alive." … By observing these words you will perceive the life of man according to the image. And when you have understood what his life is, you will perceive in what manner the murderer killed the living man, and that he will correctly be called a murderer, not because he killed some particular individual but because he killed the whole race insofar as "in Adam all die."

And the reason why truth is not in him is that he has been deceived and accepts lies, and he has himself been deceived by himself. On this basis he is considered to be worse than the rest of these who are deceived, since they are deceived by him, but he creates his own deception himself.

If one carefully considers human nature, which is not easily purified of false teachings, one sees that, as "everyone is a liar," not everyone has stood in the truth. If someone is not a liar and has stood in the truth, he is not an ordinary person but is like those to whom God says, "I have said, 'You are gods, children of the Most High.' " … But when the Holy Spirit or an angelic spirit speaks, it does not speak from its own resources but from the Word of truth itself and from wisdom. This is made clear in the Gospel according to John below where Jesus teaches about the Paraclete, saying, "He will receive from me and will declare it to you." Whenever the lie speaks, however, it speaks from its own resources.… We then who are human beings should hurry and flee with all our strength to become "gods" since, to the extent that we are human, we are liars, just as the father of the lie is a liar.

(tom. xx. 21.) Consider too; it was not one man only that he killed, but the whole human race, inasmuch as in Adam all die; so that he is truly called a murderer from the beginning.

(tom. xx. 22.) There is only one way of standing in the truth; many and various of not standing in it. Some try to stand in the truth, but their feet tremble and shake so, they cannot. Others are not come to that pass, but are in danger of it, as we read in the Psalms, My feet were almost gone: (Ps. 72) others fall from it. Because the truth is not in him, is the reason why the devil did not stand in the truth. He imagined vain things, and deceived himself; wherein He was so far worse than others, in that, while others are deceived by him, he was the author of his own deception. But farther; does the truth is not in him, mean that he holds no true doctrine, and that every thing he thinks is false; or that he is not a member of Christ, who says, I am the truth? (c. 14:6) Now it is impossible that any rational being should think falsely on every subject and never be even ever so slightly right in opinion. The devil therefore may hold a true doctrine, by the mere law of his rational nature: and therefore his nature is not contrary to truth, i. e. does not consist of simple error and ignorance; otherwise he could never have known the truth.

(tom. xx. 23.) Note however; this word, liar, is applied to man, as well as to the devil, who begat a lie, as we read in the Psalm, All men are liars. (Ps. 111) If a man is not a liar, he is not an ordinary man, but one of those, to whom it is said, I have said, Ye are Gods. (Ps. 81) When a man speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; but the Holy Spirit speaketh the word of truth and wisdom; as he said below, He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you. (c. 16:15)

I should wish, my dearest brethren, always to receive the glad account of your sincere love and peace, so that the signs of your welfare might be promoted in turn by the dissemination of our letters among you, if our ancient enemy should give us quiet and deliverance from his attacks; who was a liar from the beginning,

If, on the contrary, it had been only the Son of God, most likely I should never have condescended to deal with Him." However, he is himself a liar from the beginning, and whatever man he instigates in his own way; as, for instance, Praxeas.

When Satan, he says, speaks lies and similar words, he does not use those of others but his own. He is the father of falsehood because he generated it and was the first to use it by speaking to Adam when he substituted certain words in place of others. The expression "He is a liar and the father of it" signifies that he is a liar and the father of lies. In other words, the devil not only generated lies. He was also the first to introduce them and to use them.

He said "you cannot hear My word" instead of "you do not want to." Then He gives the reason why they did not want to hear: that they have their own father, namely the devil. Although you madly ascribe yourselves as children to God, as your father, your deeds testify that the devil is a more natural father to you. "You want to carry out his desires." He did not say "deeds," but "desires," showing that they are very inclined toward lying and murder, two kinds of evil which are very characteristic of the devil. "He was a murderer from the beginning." Therefore you also, seeking to kill Me, liken yourselves to him who murdered Adam. "He did not stand in the truth," but is the father of lies. And you, when you lie about Me and say that I am not from God, do not stand in the truth, do not abide in My word; you are children of him who begot the lie. For he slandered God to men as well, when he told Eve that He had forbidden them the tree of the knowledge of good and evil out of envy. Likewise he slandered men to God, for example Job, saying that Job did not honor God for nothing. People, when they lie, make use of what is, as it were, another's falsehood. But the devil employs falsehood as his own property, for it is his offspring; and the liar in the proper sense and the father of lies is he himself. He said to Eve: "In the day that ye eat thereof, ye shall be as gods" (Gen. 3:5). But they (Adam and Eve) received death.

For he accused God to man, saying to Eve, But of envy He hath forbidden you the tree: and to God he accused man, as in Job, Doth Job serve God for nought? (Job 1:9)

After showing that the Jews had a certain spiritual origin, and after rejecting the origin they presumed they had, our Lord here gives their true origin, ascribing their fatherhood to the devil. First, he makes his statement; secondly, he gives its reason; and thirdly, he explains this reason.

He says: You do the works of the devil; therefore, you are of your father the devil, that is, by imitating him: "Your father was an Amorite, and your mother a Hittite" (Ez 16:3).

Here one must guard against the heresy of the Manicheans who claim that there is a definite nature called "evil," and a certain race of darkness with its own princes, from which all corruptible things derive their origin. According to this opinion, all men, as to their flesh, have come from the devil. Further, they say that certain souls belong to that creation which is good, and others to that which is evil. Thus they said that our Lord said, you are of your father, the devil, because they came from the devil according to the flesh, and their souls were part of that creation which was evil. But as Origen says, to suppose that there are two natures because of the difference between good and evil seems to be like saying that the substance of an eye which sees is different from that of an eye that is clouded or crossed. For just as a healthy and bleary eye do not differ in substance, but the bleariness is from some deficient cause, so the substance and nature of a thing is the same whether it is good or has a defect in itself, which is a sin of the will. And so the Jews, as evil, are not called the children of the devil by nature, but by reason of their imitating him.

Then when he says, and your will is to do your father's desires, he gives the reason for this, for their being of the devil. It is like saying: you are not the children of the devil as though created and brought into existence by him, but because by imitating him your will is to do your father's desires. And these desires are evil, for as he envied and killed man - "through the devil's envy death entered the world" (Wis 2:24) - so you too envy me and "you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth" (8:40).

Then when he says, he was a murderer from the beginning, he explains the reason he gave. First, he mentions the characteristic of the devil that they imitate; secondly, he shows that they are truly imitators of that (8:45).

With respect to the first it should be noted that two sins stand out in the devil: the sin of pride towards God, and of envy towards man, whom he destroys. And from the sin of envy towards man, because of which he injures him, we can know his sin of pride. And so first, he mentions the devil's sin against man; secondly, his sin against God, he did not stand in the truth.

His sin of envy against man lies in the fact that he kills him. So he says, he, that is, the devil, was a murderer from the beginning. Here it should be noted that the devil kills man not with the sword, but by persuading him to do evil. "Through the devil's envy death entered the world" (Wis 2:24). First, the death of sin entered: "The death of the wicked is very evil" (Ps 33:22); then came bodily death: "Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin" (Rom 5:12). As Augustine says: "Do not think that you are not a murderer when you lead your brother into evil." However, it should be noted with Origen, that the devil is not called a murderer with respect to only some particular person, but with respect to the whole race, which he destroyed in Adam, in whom all die, as we read in 1 Corinthians (c 15). Thus he is called a murderer because that is a chief characteristic, and he is so indeed from the beginning, that is, from the time that a man existed who could be killed, who could be murdered; for one cannot be murdered unless he first exists.

Then when he says, he did not stand in the truth, he mentions the devil's sin against God, which consists in the fact that he turned away from the truth, which is God. First, he shows that he is turned from the truth; secondly, he shows that he is contrary to the truth: when he lies, he speaks according to his own nature. As to the first he does two things: first, he shows that the devil is turned from the truth; secondly, he explains what he has said, because there is no truth in him.

He says, he did not stand in the truth. Here it should be noted that truth is of two kinds, namely, the truth of word and the truth of deed. The truth of word consists in a person saying what he feels in his heart and what is in reality: "Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor" (Eph 4:25); "He who speaks truth from his heart, who does not slander with his tongue" (Ps 15:3). The truth of deed, on the other hand, is the truth of righteousness, i.e., when a person does what befits him according to the order of his nature. Concerning this it says above: "He who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God" (3:21). Speaking of this truth our Lord says, in the truth, namely, the truth of righteousness, he did not stand, because he abandoned the order of his nature, which was that he be subject to God, and through him acquire his happiness and the fulfillment of his natural desire. And so, because he wanted to obtain this through himself, he fell from the truth.

The statement, he did not stand in the truth, can be understood in two ways. Either he never had anything to do with the truth, or that he once did, but did not continue in it. Now never to have anything to do with the truth of righteousness has two meanings. One is according to the Manicheans, who say that the devil is evil by nature. From this it follows that he was always evil, because whatever is present by nature is always present. But this is heretical, for we read: "God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them" (Ps 146:6). Therefore, every being is from God; but everything which is from God, insofar as it is, is good.

Consequently, others have said that the devil was created good in his nature by God, but became evil in the first instant by his own free choice. And this opinion differs from that of the Manicheans who say that the devils were always and by nature evil, whereas this opinion claims that they were always evil by free choice.

Someone might suppose that since an angel is not evil by nature but by a sin of his own will - and sin is an act - it is possible that at the beginning of the act the angel was good, and at the end of the evil act he became evil. For it is plain that the act of sin in the devil is subsequent to his creation, and that the terminus of creation is the existence of an angel; but the terminus of the act of sin is that he is evil. Consequently, according to this explanation, they conclude that it is impossible that an angel be evil in the first instant in which the angel came to exist.

But this explanation does not seem to be sufficient, because it is true only in motions that occur in time and that are accomplished in a successive manner, not in instantaneous motions. For in every successive motion the instant in which an act begins is not the one in which the action is terminated; thus, if a local motion follows upon an alteration, the local motion cannot be terminated in the same instant as the alteration. But in changes that are instantaneous, the terminus of a first and of a second change can occur together and in the same instant. Thus, in the same instant that the moon is illumined by the sun, the air is illumined by the moon. Now it is clear that creation is instantaneous, and likewise the act of free choice in the angels, since they do not go through the weighings and discoursings of reason. Thus, in the case of an angel there is nothing to prevent the same instant from being the terminus of creation (in which he was good), and the terminus of a free decision (in which he was evil). Some admit this, although they do not say that it so happened, but that it could have so happened. And they base themselves on the authority of Scripture, for under the figure of the king of Babylon it is said of the devil: "How have you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who did rise in the morning?" (Is 14:12); and under the person of the king of Tyre it says: "You were in the pleasures of the paradise of God" (Ez 28:13). Accordingly, they say that he was not evil at the first instant of his creation, but that he was once good, and fell through his free choice.

But it must be said that he could not be evil at the first instant of his creation. The reason for this is that no act is sinful except insofar as it is outside the nature of the voluntary agent. But in order of acts, the natural act is first: thus in understanding, first principles are understood first, and through them other things are understood; and in willing, we likewise first will the ultimate perfection and ultimate end, the desire for which is naturally in us, and on account of this we seek other things. Now that which is done according to nature is not sin. Therefore, it is impossible that the first act of the devil was evil; consequently, at some instant the devil was good. But he did not stand in the truth, i.e., he did not remain in it. Concerning the statement from 1 John (3:8): "The devil has sinned from the beginning," one may say that he did indeed sin from the beginning in the sense that once he began to sin he never stopped.

Then when he says, because there is no truth in him, he explains what he has said. And this explanation can be understood in two ways. In one way, according to Origen, so that it is an explanation of the general by the particular, as when I explain that Socrates is an animal by the fact that he is a man. It is then like saying: he did not stand in the truth, but fell from it, and this because there is no truth in him. Now there are two classes of those that do not stand in the truth: some do not stand in the truth because they are not convinced, but waver: "My feet had almost stumbled, my steps had well nigh slipped" (Ps 73:2); others, on the other hand, because they have entirely recoiled from the truth. And this was the way the devil did not stand in the truth, but turned away from it in aversion.

But is there no truth at all in him? For if there is no truth in him, we would not understand himself or anything else, since understanding is concerned only with things that are true. I answer that there is some truth in the evil spirits, just as there is something true. For no evil utterly destroys a good thing, since at least the subject in which evil is found is good. Thus Dionysius says that the natural goods remain intact in evil spirits. Thus there is some truth in them, but not the fulfilling truth from which they have turned, namely, God, who is fulfilling truth and wisdom.

In a second way, this explanation is understood as a sign, as Augustine says. For it seems that he should rather have said the converse, namely, "there is not truth in him, because he did not stand in the truth." But just as a cause is sometimes shown by its effect, so our Lord wished to show that the truth was not in him because he did not stand in the truth; for truth would have been in him had he stood in the truth. A similar pattern of speech is found in "I cried because you heard" (Ps 16:6): as if to say that it is evident that I cried because you heard me.

Then he shows that the devil is contrary to the truth, when he lies, he speaks according to his own nature. First, he makes this point; secondly, he explains it.

The contrary of truth is falsity and a lie. The devil is contrary to the truth because he speaks a lie. Thus he says, he lies. Here we should note that, God excepted, whoever speaks on his own speaks a lie; although not everyone who speaks a lie speaks on his own. God alone, when speaking on his own, speaks the truth, for truth is an enlightenment of the intellect, and God is light itself and all are enlightened by him: "the true light that enlightens every man" (1:9). Thus he is truth itself, and no one speaks the truth except insofar as he is enlightened by him. So Ambrose says: "Every truth, by whomsoever spoken, is from the Holy Spirit." Thus the devil, when he speaks on his own, speaks a lie; man, too, when he speaks on his own, speaks a lie; but when he speaks from God, he speaks the truth: "Let God be true though every man be false" (Rom 3:4). But not every man who tells a lie speaks on his own, for sometimes he gets this from someone else, not indeed from God, who is truthful, but from him who did not stand in the truth and who first invented lying. So in a unique way when the devil tells a lie, he is speaking on his own: "I will go forth and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all prophets" (1 Kgs 22:22); "The Lord mingled" (that is, allowed to mingle) "a spirit of error in their midst" (Is 19:14).

He explains this statement when he says, for he is a liar and the father of lies. The Manicheans did not understand this, and placed some kind of procreation in the evil spirits, with the devil as their father. They said that the devil "is a liar and his father." It should not be understood this way, as our Lord said that the devil is a liar and its father, the father of lies. Not everyone who lies is the father of his lie. As Augustine says, "If you have learned a lie from someone else and you repeat it, you have indeed lied, but you are not the father of that lie." But the devil, because he did not learn from someone else the lie by which he destroyed humankind as with poison, is the father of the lie, just as God is the father of truth. The devil was the first to invent the lie, namely, when he lied to the woman: "You will not die" (Gen 3:4). Just how true this statement was, was proved by the outcome.

Here we should note that the book Questions of the New and Old Testament takes the words you are of your father the devil, and applies them to Cain, in the sense that one is called a devil who performs the works of the devil, and you are imitating him; hence you are of your father the devil, that is, of Cain, who did the work of the devil, and you are imitating him. Cain "was a murderer from the beginning," because he killed his brother Abel. And he "did not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him." This is obvious because when the Lord asked him, "Where is Abel your brother?" he said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9). Thus he is a liar. But the first explanation is better.

"But because I speak the truth, you do not believe me," and thus you hate the truth: the Psalm: "O sons of men, how long will you be heavy of heart?" And because they could say: we do not disbelieve on account of hatred of truth, but of iniquity: therefore he adds.

"And because I tell you the truth, ye believe Me not." What kind of consequence is this? "Having no charge against Me, ye desire to kill Me. For because ye are enemies of the truth, therefore ye persecute Me. Since had this not been the reason, ye would have named your charge." Wherefore He added, "Which of you convinceth Me of sin?" Then they said, "We be not born of fornication." Yet in fact many of them were born of fornication, for they practiced unbefitting unions. Still He doth not convict them of this, but setteth Himself to the other point. For when He hath proved them to be, not of God, but of the devil, by all these signs, (for to do murder is of the devil, and to lie is of the devil, both which ye do,) then He showeth that to love is the sign of being of God.

We must question how he says, to people who believe in him, "because I speak the truth, you do not believe in me." Consider whether it is possible to believe in someone in one particular aspect but not to believe in another aspect. For instance, one could believe that Jesus was crucified in Judea in the time of Pontius Pilate but not believe that he was born of the Virgin Mary. This one believes and disbelieves in the same person. Take, as another example, those who believe in the Jesus who performed the recorded wonders and signs in Judea but who do not believe in the Son of the one who made heaven and earth. These believe and disbelieve in the same one.…It is likely that they believed in him on the basis of what was seen because of his marvelous deeds, but they did not believe in his deeper sayings.… You see this even in the present, that there are many people who marvel at Jesus whenever they consider the story about him but who no longer believe when a teaching that is deeper and greater than their capacity is disclosed to them, but instead suspect it to be false.

But you do not believe Me, because I speak the truth. Having nothing to accuse Me of other than the truth, you rise up against Me for this very reason, as sons of the father of lies.

After mentioning some characteristics of the devil, he then shows that the Jews are imitating these. Our Lord ascribed two kinds of evil to the devil, murder and lying. He reproved them before for their imitation of one of these, namely, murder: "Now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth" (8:40). Then passing from this, he reproves them for turning away from the truth: first, he shows that they are turned away from the truth; secondly, he rejects a certain reason they might give for this (v 46); thirdly, he concludes to the true reason for their being turned away from the truth (v 46b).

He says first: It was said that the devil is a liar and the father of lies, and you are imitating him because you do not wish to adhere to the truth. Thus he says, If I tell the truth to you you do not believe me; "If I tell you, you will not believe" (Lk 22:67); "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe me, etc." (3:12). And Isaiah complains: "Who has believed what we have heard?" (Is 53:1).

For we shall show that Christ did not teach the nations impiety, but delivered ignorant and wretched men from those who most wickedly wronged them.

"Which of you convicts me of sin?" As if to say: no one can. On this account it is said in reproof in Job fifteen: "You reprove with words him who is not equal to you." Why then do you not believe me? "If I speak the truth, why do you not believe me?" This is certainly not on account of my fault, but your malice; and this he proves.

If I say the truth, why do ye not believe Me?

He goes often through the selfsame words, when He sees that they understand nought: for this too is a thing most befitting for teachers, not to shrink from manifoldly revolving the instruction which at the first was not taken in, in order that it may be fixed in the souls of the hearers. When therefore the liar (He says) speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar just as his father:----why do ye reasoning and acting not conformably to what I say, not believe Me, albeit I say the truth, [imagining] that I am therefore speaking apart from the truth, seeing that I am even so True as is the Father also? It is (I suppose) likely that He is convicting the Jews of being therefore infirm in the power of containing the words of the truth, because they are not sons of the truth. To no purpose do they falsely call God their Father, saying, We have One Father, God. For God (He says) being wholly Truth, rejoices in the truth and wills them that worship Him, to worship Him in Spirit and in truth. And the children of the truth receive willingly what is of kin to them, i. e., the Truth. But YE when I tell you the truth do therefore not believe, because ye are not children of the truth. Some such thing does the Lord seem to me to be saying to the Jews, as one will easily see if one adapt the speech to another person. For let one for example of sober character say to an unbridled son or servant or neighbour, If I seem to thee to be of sober character shunning fornication and putting the thought thereof as far from me as possible, why disbelievest thou and givest no credence when I say that it is a foul and polluted deed? One would not I suppose say that he said this, looking for an answer to his question, but whereby he shows him unbelieving clearly convicts him that he rejoicing in licentiousness does not admit the speech that would amend him.

Thus then shall we conceive as to the Jews likewise, when Christ says, If I say the truth, why do ye not believe Me? for the form of such questions has an affirmation alongside of them and ever annexed, from the very questions themselves; yea rather (may one say) the question largely convicts them. For we convict those who are asked of having the sickness of being without what ourselves possess. But note how He says, not absolutely nor generally, why believe ye Me not? but hath added YE, hinting at those who were wont more fiercely to disbelieve, and indicating that there were some there who had haply a nobler mind, and did not preserve in their ways the accurate impress of Cain's stubbornness, but were even now going forward to being even enrolled among the children of God. For I say that we must not think that all the Jews were utterly immersed in untempered folly, but that some having a zeal of God, as Paul saith, yet not according to knowledge, did therefore delay a little as to the faith. But in those who were thus disposed we shall blame, as much looking unto wrath and intemperately kindled unto bloodthirstiness, the unholy scribes and Pharisees in particular, to whom will more fitly pertain the, Why do YE not believe Me, Christ as it were attributing to them as their own, boundless unbelief. For they were they who are the leaders and who persuade their subjects to go along with their profane-nesses. Rightly therefore are they accused as having taken away the key of knowledge, and neither entering in themselves, and hindering others. The YE therefore has its more especial application to the rulers.

Which of you convinceth Me of sin?

The question is not that of one who looketh to be convicted, but rather of One Who takes away and utterly denies the possibility of Very God Who beamed forth of God, falling into sin: for Christ did no sin. For all sin takes its rise from the turning aside from the better unto that which is not so, and is produced in those whose nature it is to turn and who are recipient of change unto what they ought not. For how will he be conceived to even sin who knows no turning nor is recipient of change to ought that is not convenient, but rather is steadfast in His own innate Good, and that not from another but from Himself? The Lord then enquires of the Jews if they can at all convict Him of sin. And the word used for this will go through every transgression universally: but connecting it fitly with what is before us, we say that He does not at present ask it of every sin and do this as fearing to be convicted, but we consider it in this way, that since He was ever zealous to shame the sin of the Jews, He would not have endured by this question to incite them to again accuse Him of those things of which they before said, For a good work we stone Thee not but for blasphemy, and because Thou, being a Man, makest Thyself God: and besides that they should bring forward the breach of the sabbath in regard to which He was judged to have exceedingly transgressed. By sin therefore He at present means falsehood. For if (He says) I am never yet convicted of being untrue, why are ye minded to disbelieve Me who ever speak the truth, and tell you of a surety that I am sprung of the Very Father and know not falsehood? Give therefore give to faith unhesitatingly to hold that I am surely True when I say of Myself, I proceeded forth from God and am come, of you that your father is the devil, for ye lie and desire to kill just as he doth. But He convicts them profitably of desiring to kill Him, cutting short thereby their attempts. For sin exposed often blushes, and after a sort withdraws, finding no way of going forward and persisting: but if it think that it lies hid, it is ever the more lifted up and with unchecked impetus creeps on to basest consummation.

We must not think that all the Jews were utterly immersed in ill-tempered foolishness. Rather, some had "a zeal for God," as Paul said, "but it was not yet enlightened," and these therefore delayed a little regarding the faith. But regarding those who were thus disposed we shall blame the unholy scribes and Pharisees … whose boundless unbelief stirred the others to wrath and intemperately kindled them to bloodthirstiness. For the scribes and Pharisees were the leaders and the ones who persuaded their subjects to go along with their sacrilege. It is fitting therefore that they are accused as having "taken away the key of knowledge," and neither entering themselves, they hinder others. Therefore, when Christ says, "Why do you not believe me?" he is primarily speaking against the leaders.

Consider, dearest brothers, the gentleness of God. He had come to forgive sins, and yet he said: "Which of you can convict me of sin?" He did not disdain to show by reasoning that he was not a sinner, he who by the power of his divinity could justify sinners.

(Hom. xviii. in Evang.) Observe here the condescension of God. He who by virtue of His Divinity could justify sinners, deigns to show from reason, that He is not a sinner.

He truly assumed a body; for "the Word was made flesh," and lived upon earth without sin. For says He, "Which of you convicteth me of sin?" He did in reality both eat and drink.

Now, so far as the literal meaning is concerned, the text also involves the Savior's boldness, since no man could say with the confidence that he had not sinned, "Which of you convicts me of sin?" It is only our Lord "who did not sin," "who has been tempted in all things like as we are, without sin." He is the only one able to address these words to all who have ever known him. Now, I understand the words "which of you" to be said not only to those present but also to the whole human race, as if we were to understand it to mean: Who of your race? Or, what sort of person will be able to convict me of sin? But be assured: there is no one.

(tom. xx. in Joan. s. 25.) A bold speech this; which none could have had the confidence to utter, but he Who did no sin; even our Lord.

They themselves called themselves sons of God. He says: "If you are sons of God, you certainly ought to hate the sinner. If you can convict Me, whom you hate, of sin, then obviously you hate Me justly. But if no one can convict Me openly, you hate Me for the truth." For what truth? Without doubt, for the fact that He called Himself the Son of God, which is completely true.

As if to say: If ye are the sons of God, ye ought to hold sinners in hatred. If ye hate Me, when ye cannot convince Me of sin, it is evident that ye hate Me because of the truth: i. e. because I said I was the Son of God.

The reason which the Jews might allege for their unbelief is that Christ is a sinner, for it is not easy to believe a sinner even when he is telling the truth. Thus we read: "But to the wicked God says: 'What right have you to recite my statutes?'" (Ps 50:16). So they might have said: We do not believe you since you are a sinner.

Accordingly, he excludes this reason when he says, Which of you convicts me of sin? As if to say: You have no good reason for not believing me when I speak the truth, since you can find no sin in me: "He committed not sin; no guile was found on his lips" (1 Pt 2:22).

According to Gregory, we are invited to consider the mildness of God, who did not consider it beneath himself to show by rational grounds that he who can justify sinners by the power of his divinity is not a sinner: "If I have rejected the cause of my manservant or my maidservant, when they brought a complaint against me; what then shall I do when God rises up?" (Jb 31:13). We should also honor the unique greatness of Christ's purity, for as Chrysostom says, no mere man could have confidently said, Which of you convicts me of sin? Only God, who had no sin, could say this: "Who can say, 'I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin?'" (Prv 20:9) - this is like saying: No one but God alone. "They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one," except Christ (Ps 14:3).

Next, he concludes to the real reason they have turned away from the truth. First, he mentions the reason; secondly, he rejects their rejoinder (v 48). As to the first he does three things: first, he asks a question; secondly, he begins with a reasonable starting point; thirdly, he draws from his conclusion.

First, he says: Since you cannot say that you do not believe me because I am a sinner, one can ask why if I tell the truth, you do not believe me, since I am not a sinner? This is like saying: If you cannot convict me, whom you hate, of sin, it is obvious that you hate me because of the truth, that is, because I say that I am the Son of God: "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion" (Prv 18:2).

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." Here, again, it is not of their nature as men, but of their depravity, that you are to think. In this way they are of God, and yet not of God. By nature they are of God, in depravity they are not of God.

(Tr. xlii. 16) Apply this not to their nature, but to their faults. They both are from God, and are not from God at the same time; their nature is from God, their fault is not from God. This was spoken too to those, who were not only faulty, by reason of sin, in the way in which all are: but who it was foreknown would never possess such faith as would free them from the bonds of sin.

"He who is of God hears the words of God," First John four: "He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us"; but you do not hear, and why? "Therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God," but rather of the devil: Sirach three: "A good ear will hear wisdom with all desire"; on the contrary, the Jews did not hear: Acts seven: "Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit."

Likewise, it is asked concerning what he says: "He who is of God."

Some have drawn strength for the error that good spirits are from God materially.

It is answered to them that it is erroneous to say that God is the matter of anything, since he is most simple.

But then an objection is raised: because if "from" denotes there an origin and efficient cause, and we are all from God, then we all hear the word of God.

Likewise, did not they themselves hear?

I respond: As has been said above, "from" denotes origin not with respect to primary being, but with respect to secondary being, which is the being of grace and of guilt, and this indeed according to conformity and imitation. Whence the meaning is: "he who is from God," through conformity of will, "hears the words of God," with the ear of the heart, not of the body, because in that way even the wicked hear.

We must here understand that certain are of God, not as though begotten of His Essence (for that were foolish), nor yet according to what is said through Paul, All things are of God (for since He is Creator and Maker of all things who giveth being to all, the Divine Paul saith that all things are of Him): but it will not harmonize so to understand it here, for all are of God, both bad and good, in so far as He is Creator of all. He says therefore that he is of God who by virtue and a right conversation is related to God, and accounted worthy of kinness to Him, in that He deigns to enrol such among His children. He therefore, He says, that is of God will receive most readily and gladly the Divine words (for that which is of kin and own is always dear) but he that is not of God, i. e., he who in no wise prizes relationship with Him, will not most gladly hear the Divine words: for neither will good easily inexist the bad, nor will longing for virtue be to them a thing worth fighting for, since their mind has been filled with the extremest depravity and looks to only its own will.

But when Christ says, He that is of God heareth God's words, let no one think that He is bidding us to give the Divine voice entry in merely our bodily ears. For who that is, even though he be a thoroughly bad man, will not surely hear the voice of him who speaketh, if he have not by some disease lost his hearing? But the word heareth, He here puts instead of Consents, believes and lays up in his mind, as it is said in the book of Proverbs, The wise will receive commandments in his heart. For that of the unwise or despisers the word borne about, like some meaningless sound and like some din that annoys to no purpose, forthwith departs from the recipients: but into the heart of the prudent like some generous soil it sinks in.

Full wisely does now the Lord, convicting the madness of the Jews and showing that they blaspheme without restraint, say that His words are the words of God. For He reinstructs them (He says) to think more becomingly of Him and not to deem that of Joseph or any other of those on the earth did He of a truth spring, but to believe that of the Essence of God the Father He hath appeared God of God. Which they indeed understanding are annoyed and burn with hotter wrath, adding iniquity to their iniquity, as it is written, through those things whereby they insult Him yet more.

But what follows is very terrifying: "He who is of God hears the words of God; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God." For if he who is of God hears the words of God, and whoever is not of him cannot hear his words, let each one ask himself whether he perceives the words of God in the ear of his heart, and he will understand where he is from. The Truth commands us to desire the heavenly homeland, to crush the desires of the flesh, to shun the glory of the world, not to covet what belongs to others, and to give away what is our own. Therefore let each one of you consider within himself whether this voice of God has taken hold in the ear of his heart, and he will recognize that he is already of God. For there are some who do not deign to receive the precepts of God even with the ear of the body. And there are some who indeed receive them with the bodily ear, but embrace them with no desire of the mind. And there are some who gladly receive the words of God, so that they are even moved to tears of compunction, but after the time of weeping they return to iniquity. These certainly do not hear the words of God, who scorn to put them into practice by their deeds. Therefore, dearest brothers, call your life back before the eyes of your mind, and with profound consideration fear what sounds from the mouth of Truth: "Therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."

(ut sup.) Let him then, who would understand God's words, ask himself whether he hears them with the ears of his heart. For there are some who do not deign to hear God's commands even with their bodily ears; and there are others who do this, but do not embrace them with their heart's desire; and there are others again who receive God's words readily, yea and are touched, even to tears: but who afterwards go back to their sins again; and therefore cannot be said to hear the word of God, because they neglect to practise it.

"Why do ye not understand My speech?" Since they were always doubting, saying, "What is it that he saith, 'Whither I go ye cannot come'?" therefore He telleth them, "Ye do not understand My speech," "because ye have not the word of God. And this cometh to you, because that your understanding is groveling, and because what is Mine is far too great for you." But what if they could not understand? Not to be able here means not to be willing; for "ye have trained yourselves to be mean, to imagine nothing great." Because they said that they persecuted Him as being themselves zealous for God, on this account He everywhere striveth to show that to persecute Him is the act of those who hate God, but that, on the contrary, to love Him is the act of those who know God.

But how came it into their thoughts to betake themselves to God? He had shown them unworthy of Abraham; desiring therefore to escape this charge, they mounted higher. For when He reproached them with murder, they said this, making it, as it were, a kind of excuse for themselves that they were avenging God. Therefore He showeth that this very thing is the act of men opposing God. And the, "I came forth," showeth that He was from thence. He saith, "I came forth," alluding to His arrival among us. But since they would probably say to Him, "Thou speaketh certain things strange and new," He telleth them that He was come from God. "And therefore with good reason ye hear them not, because ye are of the devil. For on what account would ye kill Me? What charge have ye to bring against Me? If there be none, why do ye not believe Me?" Thus then having proved them to be of the devil by their lying and their murder, He showeth them also to be alien from Abraham and from God, both because they hated One who had done no wrong, and because they would not hear His word.

(tom. xx. 24.) But how is this said to the Jews who believed on Him? Consider: a man may believe in one sense, not believe in another; e. g. that our Lord was crucified by Pontius Pilate, but not that He was born of the Virgin Mary. In this same way, those whom He is speaking to, believed in Him as a worker of miracles, which they saw Him to be; but did not believe in His doctrines, which were too deep for them.

"He who is of God hears the words of God." Therefore, if you too were sons of God, you would not turn away from Me, the Son of God, who came down from heaven and exalts the words of God.

He then begins with a reasonable and true starting point, saying, he who is of God hears the words of God. For we read in Sirach (13:15): "Every creature loves its like." Therefore, whoever is of God, to that extent possesses a likeness to the things of God and clings to them. Thus, he who is of God gladly hears the words of God: "Every one who is of the truth hears my voice" (18:37). The word of God ought to be heard gladly by those, above all, who are of God, since it is the seed by which we are made the children of God: "He called them gods to whom the word of God came" (10:35).

He draws his conclusion from this saying, the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God. This is like saying: The reason for your unbelief is not my sin, but your own wickedness; as Sirach (6:20) says: "She seems very harsh to the uninstructed."

Augustine says about them that as to their nature, they are of God, indeed; but by reason of their vice and evil affection they are not of God. For this statement was made to those who were not just sinful, for this was common to all; it was made to those of whom it was foreknown that they would not believe with that faith by which they could have been set free from the chains of their sins.

It should be noted, as Gregory says, that there are three degrees of being badly disposed in one's affections. Some refuse to physically hear God's precepts. Of these we read: "Like the deaf adder that stops its ear" (Ps 58:4). Others hear them physically, but they do not embrace them with the desire of their heart, since they do not have the will to obey them: "They hear what you say, but they will not do it" (Ez 33:32). Finally, there are those who joyfully receive the words of God and even weep with tears of sorrow; but after the time of crying is past and they are oppressed with troubles or allured by pleasures, they return to their sins. An example of this is given in Matthew (c 13) and Luke (c 8), where we read of the word being choked by cares and anxieties. "But the house of Israel will not listen to you; for they are not willing to listen to me" (Ez 3:7). Consequently, a sign that a person is of God is that he is glad to hear the words of God, while those who refuse to hear, either in affection or physically, are not of God.

(Tr. xliv. 1. 2) And to imitate His patience first, if we would attain to His power. But though being reviled, He reviled not again, it was incumbent on Him to deny the charge. Two charges had been made against Him: Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil. In reply He does not say, I am not a Samaritan: for Samaritan means keeper; and He knew He was a keeper: He could not redeem us, without at the same time preserving us. Lastly, He is the Samaritan, who went up to the wounded, and had compassion on him.

(Tr. xliii. 3) Then after being so reviled, all that He says to vindicate His glory, is, But I honour My Father: as if to say, That you may not think Me arrogant, I tell you, I have One, Whom I honour.

(Tr. xliii. 3) As if to say, I do my duty: ye do not do yours.

"Jesus answered." Here the second point is touched upon, namely the patient response, because he does not respond to the whole insult but to a part. Whence he says: "I do not have a demon," by whose power I would perform works for my own glory; "but I honor my Father," who is in heaven, because he did all things for the glory of the Father, according to that word of the Apostle in First Corinthians 10: "Do all things for the glory of God." "And you have dishonored me," by inflicting insult, and consequently you have also dishonored the Father; above in chapter 5: "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him."

Likewise it is asked: since two things had been objected against him, why did the Lord respond only to one?

Gregory responds that "he denied the one and by his silence consented to the other. For Samaritan is interpreted as guardian, and he himself was the guardian, of whom the Psalm says: Unless the Lord guard the city," etc.

It is answered in another way that it was certain that he was born of the Jews; therefore it was not necessary for him to respond, because it was evidently false.

In a third way it is answered that the charge of being a Samaritan touched upon his own dishonor, but the charge about a demon touched upon divine dishonor and was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, about which Matthew twelve speaks, and it detracted from the glory of the Father. Therefore the Lord taught us to endure our own reproaches, but not divine ones. And this is clear from his response: "I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father."

Gentle is the word, but nevertheless very pointed. For most emphatically does He say, I have not a devil, and putting Himself in contradistinction to them, He shows that He is free from their railing and that it is true of them. For unless themselves had a devil, they would (it is likely) have shuddered at calling Him possessed Who was attested to them by His Deeds as God. Most excellently therefore does He say, I have not, transferring the speech to them and allotting it rather to them by reason that so it was in truth. I therefore have not (He says) but YE the devil, and I honour My Father, saying that I am God and have beamed forth of God and affirming that I knew not sin. For it needed, it needed that He Who is of God be God and that He Who is of Him Who knoweth not sin should be beheld such as He of Whom He is. But if (as is necessary the opposite should be) refusing to offend you, I had not used such splendid language (for God would not be honoured if conceived of as having a Son not God) the Father (He says) would not have been honoured if He had been called the Father of one who falls into sin. Hence in witnessing most excellent things to Myself, I in no wise (He says) blaspheme as ye suppose, but rather honour My Father. I honour Him in another way too (for I say with justice of you that ye are not of God, since neither is it right that they who have come to this pitch of wickedness and are drenched in all villainy should say that they are of God. For He honours and deems worthy of kin to Him not the liar and railer and blasphemer and haughty and insolent, nor yet one whose wont it is to seek to kill unjustly, but the gentle and meek and pious and godly and good. Hence in this way too do I honour the Father, putting forth from kinness with Him those who are condemned for utter wickedness; and YE again dishonour Me doing this, and attack the praise that belongs to the Father that ye may be caught, blaspheming not only against the Son, but now against Him too. For if I by witnessing of Myself things most excellent, honour My Father, he will surely (He says) dishonour Him, who clothes Him That is of Him with the deepest reproaches. On all sides therefore is Christ consistent with His own words, and clearly shows that He is God by Nature, and whereby He says that the Father is honoured when the kinness to Him of the multitude of the unholy is thrust off, by this doth He say that the Jews are in all respects alien to God: for what more unholy than they who say those things?

But having received such an insult, let us hear what the Lord responds: "I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you have dishonored me." For since "Samaritan" is interpreted as "guardian," and he himself is truly the guardian of whom the Psalmist says: "Unless the Lord guards the city, in vain do those who guard it keep watch"; and to whom it is said through Isaiah: "Guardian, what of the night? Guardian, what of the night?" — the Lord did not wish to answer: "I am not a Samaritan"; but rather, "I do not have a demon." For indeed two things were charged against him: one he denied, the other he conceded by remaining silent. For he had come as the guardian of the human race; and if he had said that he was not a Samaritan, he would have denied that he was a guardian. But he kept silent about what he acknowledged, and patiently repelled what he heard falsely spoken, saying: "I do not have a demon." In these words, what else is confounded but our pride? For if it is provoked even slightly, it returns more savage injuries than it received: it does the evils it can, and threatens even those it cannot do. Behold, the Lord receiving an injury does not grow angry, does not answer with insulting words. If he had wished to respond to those saying these things: "You have a demon," he would certainly have spoken the truth, because unless they had been filled with a demon, they could not have spoken such perverse things about God. But having received the injury, Truth did not wish to say even what was true, lest he should seem not to have spoken truth, but to have returned insult when provoked. From this matter, what is suggested to us except that at the time when we receive insults from neighbors out of falsehood, we should also keep silent about their true evils, lest we turn the ministry of just correction into weapons of fury? But because whoever uses zeal for God is dishonored by wicked men, the Lord provided us an example of patience in himself, when he says: "But I honor my Father, and you have dishonored me."

(Hom. xviii. in Evang.) See; when God suffers a wrong, He does not reply reproachfully: Jesus answered, I have not a devil. An intimation this to us, that when reproached by our neighbours falsely, we should not retort upon them by bringing forward their evil deeds, however true such charges might be; lest the vehicle of a just rebuke turn into a weapon of rage.

(Hom. xliii. 3) As all who have zeal toward God are liable to meet with dishonour from wicked men, our Lord has Himself set us an example of patience under this trial; And ye do dishonour Me.

Let us imitate him, since he also was an imitator of Christ. If he, with enemies, who went even to the length of murder and slaughter, said nothing offensive to them, what pardon shall we deserve, who in reviling and abuse become infuriated, calling our enemies villains, detestable wretches? Just as Christ also said: I have not a devil, but I honor My Father: but ye do dishonor Me.

The statement "And you dishonor me" follows these words and is addressed to those who have dishonored him and said to him, "Are we not correct in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?" They thought that their incorrect statement was correct. For they denounced the Savior because they thought incorrectly that he was a Samaritan and had a demon. But we must think that the statement "And you dishonor me" was made not only to those at that time but also to those who always dishonor him by what they do contrary to the upright word of God. It was made by those who dishonor Christ, who is justice, by the unjust things they do.… "You dishonor me" would also be said to anyone who despises wisdom, since Christ also is wisdom.

Thus they insult Him, yet He accepts their insults without malice. However, when they call themselves sons of God, He strongly rebukes them, standing up for the truth; but when He Himself is insulted, He does not defend Himself. By this He teaches us also to stand up for the glory of God and to bear meekly the insults that concern ourselves, just as He Himself meekly says: "I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father." How does He honor the Father? By defending Him and not allowing murderers and liars to call themselves sons of the Savior and the Truth. "You," He says, "dishonor Me because I honor My Father, whom you revile, since you falsely claim that He is your father. But even if I do not avenge Myself and endure the insults, do not think that this insult will remain unavenged. There is a Father who will punish for such an insult inflicted upon Me because I defend Him and do not allow you to call yourselves His sons."

He honoured the Father, by revenging Him, and not suffering murderers or liars to call themselves the true sons of God.

Then when he says, Jesus answered: I have not a demon, our Lord rejects the response of the Jews. Now they had taxed Christ with two things, that he was a Samaritan and that he had a demon. Concerning the first, our Lord makes no apology, and this for two reasons. First, according to Origen, because the Jews always wanted to keep themselves apart from the Gentiles. But the time had now come when the distinction between Jews and Gentiles was to be removed, and everyone was to be called to the way of salvation. Accordingly, our Lord, in order to show that he had come for the salvation of all, made himself all things to all men, more so than Paul, so that he might win all (cf. 1 Cor 9:22); and so he did not deny that he was a Samaritan. The other reason was that "Samaritan" means "keeper," and because he especially is our keeper, as we read, "He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep" (Ps 121:4), so he did not deny that he was a Samaritan.

But he did deny that he had a demon, saying, I have not a demon. First, he rejects the insult; secondly, he reproves the insulters for their obstinacy (v 49b). As to the first he does two things: first, he rejects the insult; secondly, he shows that the opposite is true, I honor my Father.

It should be noted with respect to the first that when correcting the Jews our Lord often spoke harshly to them: "Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees" (Mt 23:14), and many other instances are recorded in Matthew. But there is no record that our Lord spoke harsh or injurious words in answer to their harsh words or deeds against himself. Rather, as Gregory said, God accepted their insults, and did not answer with insulting words, but simply said, I have not a demon. And what does this suggest to us if not that when we are falsely attacked by our neighbor with railing words, we should keep silence, even about his abusive words, so as not to pervert our ministry of correcting in a just manner into a weapon of our anger. However, while we should not value our own goods, we should vindicate the things that are of God. As Origen says, Christ alone is capable of claiming, I have not a demon, for he has nothing, either slight or serious, of the devil in him; thus he says: "The ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me" (14:30). "What accord has Christ with Belial?" (2 Cor 6:15).

He supports his stand by saying the opposite: but I honor my Father. Now the devil hinders honor being given to God; therefore, any person who seeks God's honor is a stranger to the devil. Thus, Christ, who honors his Father, that is, God, has not a demon. Furthermore, it is a proper and singular mark of Christ that he honor his Father, as we read: "A son honors his father" (Mal 1:6). And Christ is most singularly the Son of God.

Next he reproves the impudence of those insulting him. First, he reproves them; secondly, he rejects the supposed reason for their reproof; and thirdly, he foretells their deserved condemnation.

He says first, I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. This is like saying: I do what I ought, but you do not do what you ought. Indeed, by dishonoring me you dishonor my Father: "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him" (5:23).

"And I," said He, "seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth." Whom does He wish to be understood but the Father? How, then, does He say in another place, "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son," while here He says, "I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth"? If, then, the Father judgeth, how is it that He judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son? ...Similarly now said the Lord Christ, "I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth." How is there "one that seeketh and judgeth"? There is the Father, who discerns and distinguishes between my glory and yours. For ye glory in the spirit of this present world. Not so do I who say to the Father, "Father, glorify Thou me with that glory which I had with Thee before the world was." What is "that glory"? One altogether different from human inflation. Thus doth the Father judge. And so to "judge" is to "discern." And what does He discern? The glory of His Son from the glory of mere men; for to that end is it said, "God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows." For not because He became man is He now to be compared with us. We, as men, are sinful, He is sinless; we, as men, inherit from Adam both death and delinquency, He received from the Virgin mortal flesh, but no iniquity.

(Tr. xliii. 4) Meaning of course the Father. But how is it then that He says in another place, The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. (c. 5:22) Judgment is sometimes put for condemnation, whereas here it only stands for trial: as if to say, There is one, even My Father, who distinguishes My glory from yours; ye glory after this world, I not after this world. The Father distinguishes the glory of the Son, from that of all men: for that He has been made man, does not bring us to a comparison with Him. We men have sin: He was without sin, even when He was in the form of a servant; for, as the Word which was in the beginning, who can speak worthily of Him?

"I do not seek my own glory." Here the third point is touched upon, namely the reason for the patient response. For he was not responding in order to glorify himself; but he endured their insult, not because it was true, but because he did not care about glory; on account of which he says: "I do not seek my own glory," and therefore I do not respond to your insult; Jerome: "He who does not seek glory does not feel insult." Therefore I do not care about the insult inflicted, but nevertheless do not think yourselves free from fault and from fitting retribution; whence he says: "There is one who seeks and judges," namely the Father, who seeks the glory of the Son; below in chapter 12: "And I have glorified and will glorify again"; "and judges": as if to say: I reserve it to his judgment. Gregory: "The Son reserves the insults inflicted upon him to the judgment of the Father, so that he may surely teach us how patient we ought to be, since he who judges does not yet wish to avenge himself."

Likewise it is asked about what he says: "There is one who seeks and judges."

On the contrary: Above in chapter five: "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son."

I respond: There is a judgment of condemnation and of discernment: the first is treated above, the second is found here.

Herein is that seen to be clearly true which is said through Peter of the Saviour, Who when He was reviled reviled not again, suffering He threatened not but delivered Himself to Him That judgeth righteously. For see how He hearing things of all the worst and cruellest from those who are impiously raging against Him (and this full oft) He abides in His own gentleness, and in no wise departs from what beseems Him, for our ensample doing this too, that we zealous to follow His Footsteps might not be caught in rendering railing for railing, nor ought else of evil for evil, but might rather overcome evil with good.

I therefore seek not My glory (He says) and this not as though He were proffering to those who so willed the insulting of Him as a thing free from peril, nor yet as inciting any to go readily unto this impiety is He seen to say this, but He signifies rather thus: I am come (He says) not to make glory from you My business, nor desiring at all honour or fame: for being in the form of God the Father I have abased Myself and have for your sakes become Man as you. And He Who disdained not to take servant's form, when He might have remained in equality with God the Father and had the full enjoyment of things above mind and speech, how will He be deemed to be seeking glory from any and not rather to be enduring voluntary disgrace for others' good?

Our Lord here is either saying this, or in another way too we will suppose that He seeketh not His own glory. For it being in His Power to punish immediately those who insult Him and to demand satisfaction for their blasphemy as behaving ungodly against the Very Lord of all:----He bears calmly what is grievous and endures to that extent as not so much as to desire to grieve by a mere word the haughty ones, yet in order that blasphemy against God may not seem a beaten track to any, needs does He, forbidding them to advance thereto, straightway oppose as a barrier, the Father's wrath. For though the Son be longsuffering and do not forthwith take vengeance for His own glory, the Father (He says) will not be forbearing, for He will be an Avenger and will rise up against the insulters, not as though taking the part of another nor as though He were pleased to grieve in behalf of one of the saints insulted and deemed it became Him thus to do, but as though the sin reached up unto Him (for there is nought at all intervening between the Father and the Son, as far I mean as identity of Essence, even though either be conceived of as existing separately). For therefore does our Lord Jesus Christ too elsewhere say, He that honoureth not the Son neither doth he honour the Father. For the Son hath in Himself Naturally the Father Co-glorified and Co-existing, the Father again hath in Himself the Son partaker of His Essence, so too of His glory in every thing. The wretched Jews therefore will be punished for their blasphemy against the Lord and Son, impious against the whole Consubstantial and Holy Trinity and grieving in the Son the Nature that is King of all.

Every one therefore who at all practiseth piety must therefore shun in ought offending the good God. For not because He doth not immediately bring His Anger on those who offend against Him, must we therefore be supine. For He is Good, not bringing on His Anger every day, yet if we turn not, He will whet His sword, as it is written, and will bend against us His Bow, wherein are the instruments of death, that is to say, every form of shame and intolerable trouble.

But what we should do in such matters, he still admonishes us by example, when he adds: "But I do not seek my own glory; there is one who seeks and judges." We know certainly that it is written that the Father has given all judgment to the Son, and yet behold the same Son, receiving injuries, does not seek his own glory. He reserves the insults inflicted for the Father's judgment, so that he might surely intimate to us how patient we ought to be, since he who judges does not yet wish to avenge himself.

(ut sup.) How we are to take injuries, He shows us by His own example, when He adds, I seek not Mine own glory, there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

"I seek not Mine own glory." "These things," He saith, "I have spoken to show that it becometh not you, being murderers, to call God your Father; so that I have spoken them through honor for Him, and for His sake do I hear these reproaches, and for His sake do ye dishonor Me. Yet I care not for this insolence; to Him, for whose sake I now hear these things, ye owe an account of your words. For 'I seek not Mine own glory.' Wherefore I omit to punish you, and betake Myself to exhortation, and counsel you so to act, that ye shall not only escape punishment, but also attain eternal life."

God, who gave his own Son for us, seeks the glory of Christ in each of those who have received him. He will find it in those who attend to themselves and work out the opportunities for virtue that have been implanted in them, but he will not find it in those who are not such. When he does not find it, he will judge those in whom he does not find the glory of his own Son and will say to them, "Because of you my name is continually blasphemed among the nations."

There is One who seeks My glory, and not only seeks it, but is also able to judge and punish those who offend Me without cause. Often someone seeks redress for an offense, but cannot himself judge. But the Father both seeks the glory of the Son and is able to judge. Therefore He also said: "There is One who seeks and judges." What love for mankind! He is offended, yet leaving the seeking of His own glory and vengeance to the Father, He turns to exhortation and teaching, and in this way does good to those who insult Him. So too must we repay our enemies.

But they could say: You are too severe, you are too concerned for your own glory, and so you reprove us. He rejects this, and speaking as man, says, I do not seek my own glory. For it is God alone who can seek his own glory without fault; others must seek it in God: "Let him who glories, glory in the Lord" (2 Cor 10:17); "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing."

But does not Christ as man have glory? He does indeed, and it is great in every respect, because, although he does not seek it, nevertheless, there is One who seeks it, that is, the Father; for we read: "Thou dost crown him with glory and honor" (Ps 8:5), referring to Christ in his human nature.

Not only will he seek my glory in those who accomplish works of great virtue, but he will punish and condemn those who speak against my glory; thus he adds: and he will be the judge. This, however, seems to conflict with the statement above (5:22): "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son." I answer that the Father does not judge anyone apart from the Son, because even that judgment which he will make concerning the fact that you insult me, he will make through the Son. Or, one might say that judgment is sometimes taken for condemnation, and this judgment the Father has given to the Son, who alone will appear in visible form in judgment, as has been said. Sometimes, however, it is understood as meaning to distinguish one from another; and this is the way it is used here. Thus we read: "Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause" (Ps 42:1). It is like saying: It is the Father who will distinguish my glory from yours, for he discerns that you glory in the world; and he sees the glory of his Son, whom he has anointed above his fellows and who is without sin. But you are men with sin.

But what sayest Thou, O Lord, of Thyself? "Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." Ye say, "Thou hast a devil." I call you to life: keep my word and ye shall not die. They heard, "He shall never see death who keepeth my word," and were angry, because already dead in that death from which they might have escaped.

(Tr. xliii. 10, 11) See is put for experience. But since, about to die Himself, He spoke with those about to die, what means this, If a man keep My saying, he shall never see death? What, but that He saw another death from which He came to free us, death eternal, the death of the damned, which is shared with the devil and his angels! That is the true death: the other is a passage only.

"Amen, amen I say to you." The Lord has shown that through his teaching there is liberation from the blindness of error and the servitude of sin; here now he shows that through it there is liberation from the damnation of death. First, against those reviling, he shows the efficacy of his word; second, against those arguing, he shows his excellence; third, to those marveling, his eternity; fourth, to those persecuting, his patient humility.

There is set forth, then, first the commendation of the doctrine of Christ in this, that those who keep it are snatched from death, and this without any doubt: therefore he says: "Amen, amen, I say to you," that is, I Jesus assert this in truth: "If anyone keeps my word, he shall never taste death." This observance is through the keeping of the commandments; Ecclesiastes 8: "He who keeps the commandment shall experience no evil"; and Wisdom 6: "The keeping of the laws is the consummation of incorruption. And incorruption makes one to be near to God." And such a one does not taste death through experience, namely eternal death, although he may see it, according to that saying of Isaiah last chapter: "They shall go out and see the corpses of men who have transgressed against me"; Matthew 16: "There are some standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

But it is asked here: since the Jews were scandalized and did not understand the Lord, because they understood only in a carnal manner, why is it that the Lord did not cease from preaching?

I respond: It must be said that the Lord spoke in such a way that they could have understood spiritually, but by the just judgment of God they were blinded; nor did he cease from preaching, because, as Gregory says, "when the perversity of the wicked increases, preaching ought not to be diminished, but increased."

He shows that it is superfluous to array long defences against those who are wont to delight in blaming; for He bends Himself to what was necessary, I mean the calling through faith unto eternal life, and all but bidding farewell to those who had through their unlearning grieved Him, He kneads up His own discourse with a sort of art. For having before said of God, He that is of God heareth God's words, He immediately says, If a man keep My word, showing that He is by Nature God and hence teaching that no further reach of impiety yet remains to the Jews when they have said that He hath a devil Who giveth eternal Life to those who will keep His word. For will He not be known by this too to be God by Nature? for to what other will pertain the being able to quicken for ever them who hear His words, save to Him Who is God by Nature?

The Divine word is kept, when a man does not transgress the Divine Commandment but is instant and does without delay that which is bidden and is in no wise accused of sloth in the Divine laws. But note again how great exactitude the words have, for He does not endure to say, If a man hear My Word, but, If a man keep My Word. For there receive into their ear the word of God, not men alone holden in sin, but also the unhallowed band itself of the devils: and verily Satan the chieftain of them all, when he daring to tempt in the wilderness our Lord Jesus Christ, kicking against the pricks by reason of his much ferocity of character, did set before Him the Divine word also, saying. It has been written That He shall command His Angels respecting Thee to guard Thee in all Thy ways. Therefore not in mere hearing is the word of salvation, nor in only learning is life, but in keeping what was heard, and as a certain rule and guide of life was He setting before [them] the Divine word. He says that the sure keeper of His words shall not see death for ever, not surely as taking away death in the flesh, but as God not accounting that death is death, for to Him nought is dead, in that His it is both to bring to the birth that which is not and easily to quicken that which when so wrought has decayed. Or He says that the saints shall not see death in the age to come, which age will strictly and more truly be conceived of as not having an end like this of ours; and He says that they who have kept His Divine Word, shall not see death during that age, not as though any should die after the Resurrection, for the death of all has been undone in the death of Christ and the might of decay brought to an end, but by death He means (as is like) being punished for ever. And you may learn this, viewing what Himself has said above: for Verily (He says) I say to you, he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, he that disobeyeth the Son shall not see life: albeit all shall rise again and shall hasten anew unto life, both faithful and faithless. For by no means is the Resurrection partial, but equally to all, so far at least that all must live again.

How then will he that believeth not the Son not see life, albeit all look to rise again? it is then manifest to every body that it is Christ's wont to call life, a long living in gladness and glory which refuseth to draw to a close, and this is treasured up in hope for the saints. As therefore He says that he which disobeyeth the Son shall have |668 no sight of life albeit all look to live again, meaning here not the life of the body, but calling by this name the hope prepared for the saints: in the same way He says that the brave and intrepid keeper of His Divine words shall not see death for ever, not surely signifying hereby the death of the body, but the punishment prepared for the sinners. For as in the former joy is indicated through the word life, so here too punishment through saying death.

But when the perversity of the wicked increases, preaching must not only not be broken off, but even increased. The Lord admonishes us of this by his own example, who after being said to have a demon bestowed the benefits of his preaching more generously, saying: "Amen, amen, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he shall not see death forever." But just as it is necessary for the good to become even better through insults, so the reprobate always become worse from benefit. For having received the preaching, they say again: "Now we know that you have a demon." For since they had clung to eternal death, and did not see the same death to which they clung, while they looked only at death of the flesh, they were blind to the word of Truth.

(Hom. xviii. in Evang.) As the perversity of the wicked increases, preaching so far from giving way, ought even to become more active. Thus our Lord, after He had been accused of having a devil, imparts the treasures of preaching in a still larger degree: Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep My saying, he shall never see death.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep My saying, he shall never see death." Here He speaketh not of faith only, but of a pure life. Above He said, "shall have everlasting life," but here, "shall not see death." At the same time He hinteth to them that they could do nothing against Him, for if the man that should keep His saying should not die, much less should He Himself.

For what is that death that has come into the world through sin if it is not the last enemy of Christ that will be destroyed? And what is that death that passed to all people because all have sinned if it is not this very death that also reigned from Adam to Moses? Now Moses, that is, the law, continued until the sojourn of our Lord Jesus and ruled by one man's transgression through that one man, until those who have received the abundance of grace and righteousness should reign in life through the one Christ Jesus. Whoever, then, has kept the word of the Only Begotten and Firstborn of creation will never see this death, since it is the nature of the Word to prevent death from being seen. And this is how we must understand the words "If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death." It is as if he who speaks these words had given those who hear them light as a gift and said, If anyone keeps this light of mine, he will never see darkness.

"If anyone keeps My word," that is, joins to faith a pure life as well (for only he truly keeps the Lord's teaching who also has a pure life), such a person shall not see the death by which sinners die, being delivered in the age to come to endless torment and falling away from the true life. At the same time, He lets them know that if the one who keeps My word does not die, then all the more so do I not die. Why then do you want to kill Me, over Whom death has so little power that I even grant true life to others? For although believers die bodily, they are alive in God.

Above, our Lord had promised two things to his followers: liberation from darkness and the attainment of life, saying, "He who follows me does not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (8:12). The first of these has been treated above; so we are now concerned with the second, the obtaining of life through Christ. First, he states the truth; secondly he counters its denial by the Jews (v 52).

It should be noted that although Christ had been loaded down with insults and criticisms, he did not stop his teaching; indeed, after being accused of having a demon, he offers the benefits of his teachings more generously, saying: Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death. He is here giving us an example that when the malice of wicked men increases, and those that are converted are abused with insults, preaching, so far from being curtailed, should be increased: "And you, son of man, be not afraid of them, nor be afraid of their words" (Ez 2:6); "the gospel for which I am suffering and wearing fetters like a criminal. But the word of God is not fettered" (2 Tim 2:9).

In this statement our Lord does two things: he requires something, and he promises something. What he requires is that his words be kept, if any one keeps my word - for the word of Christ is the truth. Therefore, we should keep it, first of all, by faith and continual meditation: "Do not forsake her, and she will keep you" (Prv 4:6); secondly, by fulfilling it in action: "He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me" (14:21).

What he promises is freedom from death; thus he says, he will never see death, that is, experience it: "They who act by me (i.e., by divine wisdom) shall not sin; they who explain me shall have life everlasting" (Sir 24:30). Such a reward suits such merit, for life everlasting consists especially in the divine vision: "This is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent" (17:3). Now the seedbed and source of this vision comes into us by the word of Christ; "The seed is the word of God" (Lk 8:11). Therefore, just as a person who keeps the seed of some plant or tree from being destroyed succeeds in obtaining its fruit, so the person who keeps the word of God attains to life everlasting: "Keep my statutes and my ordinances by doing which a man shall live" (Lev 18:5).

"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.