Bright Saturday

There are some who have entertained the idea-and those, too, who are no contemptible handlers of sacred eloquence-that the Apostle John was more loved by Christ on the ground that he never married a wife, and lived in perfect chastity from early boyhood. There is, indeed, no distinct evidence of this in the canonical Scriptures: nevertheless it is an idea that contributes not a little to the suitableness of the opinion expressed above, namely, that that life was signified by him, where there will be no marriage.

(Tract. cxxiv) He calls himself the disciple whom Jesus loved, because Jesus had a greater and more familiar love for him, than for the rest; so that He made him lie on His breast at supper. In this way John the more commends the divine excellency of that Gospel which he preached. Some think, and they no contemptible commentators upon Scripture, that the reason why John was loved more than the rest, was, because he had lived in perfect chastity from his youth up. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: 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?

Peter, turning around, saw that disciple etc. Here secondly, Peter, knowing his own death, inquires about the death of John: for he desired that he to whom he had been joined in life through great love might be joined to him in a likeness of death. And because Peter knew that the Lord loved John, he wanted to know by what death he wished him to die: therefore he says: Peter, turning around, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved, following, namely John. And a sign of special love is shown when it is added: who also reclined at the Supper upon his breast, above in chapter thirteen, and said: Lord, who is it that will betray you? He asked him what was secret: and this was a sign of love, because it was revealed to him, as is said above in chapter thirteen: and this is a sign of friendship, as is said above in chapter fifteen: "I have called you friends, because whatever I have heard from my Father, I have made known to you."

It is asked about what he says: That disciple whom Jesus loved. How did he dare to say this, when it is said in Ecclesiastes nine: No one knows whether he is worthy of love or of hatred? Likewise, since Christ loved all, why did John attribute this to himself, namely that he was loved more? This seems false: because Peter loved more; therefore he was better; but God loves the better more; therefore he loved Peter more than John. To this it can be answered that John knew by revelation or by certain signs that he was loved. To the second, Augustine seems to say that John was loved more, but Peter loved more; and therefore he asks who was better; and he says that Peter was better, but John was happier; and he turns these words to allegory, saying that through John the contemplative life is signified, and through Peter the active life. But this increases the question further; whence Augustine himself says that justice is hidden here, and mercy is manifest. Therefore it must be said that to love more is understood in two ways: either with respect to a greater reward, and thus Jesus loved Peter more, this being understood in the sense that Peter always loved the Lord more. In another way, to love more refers to a greater outward demonstration, because he showed more signs of love: and thus he loved John more.

It is asked: why did he show himself more to John, since he loved Peter more than John? — It seems that there would be pretense in the Lord. To this it can be responded that although Peter merited a greater reward, nevertheless it was fitting for Christ to show greater familiarity to John, because John was young and was a virgin and innocent: and these are things which in a wondrous way, both in the sight of God and of men, make a person lovable and more pleasing. Whence Bede says: "This is John, who by the privilege of surpassing love merited to be honored by the Lord more highly than the rest; and the special prerogative of chastity had made him worthy of a more abundant love." And the Gloss says that "John was more intimate, because he was more tender."

For in Asia also great luminaries have fallen asleep who will rise again on the last day of the advent of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and shall search out all the saints.… And this is also where John is, who leaned on the bosom of the Lord, who was a priest wearing the miter, a martyr and a teacher, and he sleeps at Ephesus.

Wherefore hath he reminded us of that reclining? Not without cause or in a chance way, but to show us what boldness Peter had after the denial. For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren, and not only doth not commit to another what relates to himself, but himself now puts a question to his Master concerning another. John is silent, but Peter speaks. He showeth also here the love which he bare towards him; for Peter greatly loved John, as is clear from what followed, and their close union is shown through the whole Gospel, and in the Acts.

Imitate, therefore, the ambassador of our Lord, and be his follower in every thing. That John, again, who "reclined on the bosom of our Lord, and whom He greatly loved," [John 21:20] — he, too, was a holy person. For it was not without reason that our Lord loved him. Paul, also, and Barnabas, and Timothy, with all the others, "whose names are written in the book of life," [Philippians 4:3] — these, I say, all cherished and loved sanctity, and ran in the contest, and finished their course without blemish, as imitators of Christ, and as sons of the living God. Moreover, also, Elijah and Elisha, and many other holy men, we find to have lived a holy and spotless life. If, therefore, you desire to be like these, imitate them with all your power.

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.

Why does the evangelist mention that he leaned on His breast and asked, "Who is it that will betray You?" Not simply or by chance, but to show that Peter, even after his denial, had boldness before the Lord. For he who before the Cross did not dare to ask about the betrayer, but entrusted the question to another, namely John, is now entrusted with the care of all, and not only does he not entrust the question about himself to another, but even concerning that very disciple who enjoyed a special love above all the others, he asks the Lord and becomes, as it were, an intercessor before Him.

Now we see that John is commended: first, as to his past; then with respect to his future (v 21). John is commended on three points in his past.

First, John had the privilege of having Christ's special love. The Evangelist says, Peter turned, for he had begun to follow Jesus even bodily, and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved. Here we see that Peter, already made a shepherd, was intent on the care of others: "And when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32). Now Jesus loved John without excluding the others, for above he said, "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you" (15:9). But he loved John above the others with a special love. There were three reasons for this. First, because of his penetrating understanding: for teachers especially love their intelligent students: "A servant who deals wisely has the king's favor" (Prv 14:35). Secondly, because of his purity, for he was a virgin: "He who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is gracious, will have the king as his friend" (Prv 22:11). Thirdly, because of his youth, for we have tender feelings for the young and the weak, and act with friendship towards them. And this is the way Christ acted with the youthful John: "When Israel was a child, I loved him" (Hos 11:1). We can see from this that God especially loves those who serve him from their youth: "My soul desires the first ripe figs" (Mic 7:1).

But this seems to go against Proverbs (8:17): "I love those who love me." Peter loved Christ more than the others: "Do you love me more than these?" (21:15). Therefore, Christ should have loved Peter more than John. I answer: it could be said that John, because he was more loved, was happier; while Peter, because he loved more, was better. But this would be a violation of justice. Consequently, this refers to a mystery: that is, Peter and John stand for two kinds of life, the active and the contemplative, and the end and object of each is Christ. The active life, which Peter signifies, loves God more than the contemplative life (which is signified by John) because it feels more keenly the difficulties of this present life, and more intensely desires to be freed from them and to go to God. But God loves the contemplative life more, because he preserves it longer: it does not come to an end with death, as does the active life: "The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob" (Ps 87:2).

Some try to solve this problem using the literal sense. They distinguish two kinds of love in Christ, according to his two wills, his human and divine will. They say that Christ loved Peter more with his divine love, but he loved John more with his human love. The objection to this is that Christ's human will was entirely conformed to his divine will; and so the more he loved one with his divine will, so also he loved that one more with his human will. Therefore, we should say that he loves that one the more to whom he wills more good. He loved Peter more in the sense that he made Peter love him more; Christ loved John more in another sense, that is, by giving him a keener understanding. "The Lord will fill him with the spirit of wisdom and understanding" (Sir 15:3). Accordingly, Peter is better because charity is better than knowledge (cf. 1 Cor 13:8); but John is better in keenness of understanding. However, only God can weigh their merits: "The Lord weighs the spirit" (Prv 16:2).

And so others say, and this is better, that Peter loved Christ more in his members; and in this way he was also more loved by Christ. For this reason the Church was entrusted to him. But John loved Christ more in Himself, and in this way was more loved by Christ, who entrusted his mother to John's care. Or, one could say that Peter loved Christ more readily and fervently. While John was more loved by being given tokens of intimate friendship, which Christ gave him on account of his youth and purity.

John adds, who had lain close to his breast at the supper, which commends him to us on the second point, his special intimacy with Christ. This was just explained.

Thirdly, John is commended on account of the special confidence he had in Christ, so that he could question Christ with more assurance than all the others. Thus he adds that this disciple had said, Lord, who is it that is going to betray you? This was also explained before (13:25).

John is recalling his own privileges in order to exalt Peter. One might suppose that because Peter had denied Christ he would not be allowed back to his former intimacy. To reject this, John shows that he was admitted to a greater intimacy. The one who did not dare to question Christ at the supper, but asked John to do it, was made head over his brethren after the passion, and is now questioning Christ not only for himself, but also for John. We can understand from this that those who fall into sin sometimes rise in greater grace: "For just as you purposed to go astray from God, return with tenfold zeal to seek him" (Bar 4:28).

When Peter therefore had seen him, whom he knew to be specially beloved, he says to Jesus: Lord, but what about this man? supply: will he suffer, in order to come to you? Chrysostom: "Peter loved John greatly: because therefore the Lord had foretold great things to Peter, wishing to receive this one also as a sharer, he says: Lord, but what about this man?"

Wherefore hath he reminded us of that reclining? Not without cause or in a chance way, but to show us what boldness Peter had after the denial. For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren, and not only doth not commit to another what relates to himself, but himself now puts a question to his Master concerning another. John is silent, but Peter speaks. He showeth also here the love which he bare towards him; for Peter greatly loved John, as is clear from what followed, and their close union is shown through the whole Gospel, and in the Acts. When therefore Christ had foretold great things to him, and committed the world to him, and spake beforehand of his martyrdom, and testified that his love was greater than that of the others, desiring to have John also to share with him, he said, "And what shall this man do?" "Shall he not come the same way with us?" And as at that other time not being able himself to ask, he puts John forward, so now desiring to make him a return, and supposing that he would desire to ask about the matters pertaining to himself, but had not courage, he himself undertook the questioning. What then saith Christ? "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" 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.

Our Lord then having foretold such great things of him, and committed the world to him, and prophesied his martyrdom, and made known his greater love, Peter wishing to have John admitted to a share of this calling, says, And what shall this man do? as if to say, Will he not go the same way with us? For Peter had great love for John, as appears from the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, which give many proofs of their close friendship. So Peter does John the same turn, that John had done him; thinking that he wanted to ask about himself, but was afraid, he puts the question for him.

When Peter heard this and was deemed worthy both of having the universe entrusted to him and of being crowned with martyrdom, then, out of his strong love for John, he asks about him as well: "And what about him? Will he not also go the same way as we? Will he not also be a partaker in the care and concern for the sheep?" For the words "follow Me" mean almost the same as: go, receive the sheep, go forth into the universe.

And so the Evangelist immediately shows Peter asking a question, When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, Lord, what about this man? This concerns the future of John. First, we have Peter's question; Christ's answer; and then the interpretation of the answer (v 23).

Regarding the first point, note that when our Lord said to Peter, "Follow me" (v 19), Peter did begin to follow him with bodily steps, and so did John. When Peter noticed John following he asked Christ about him, saying, Lord, what about this man? This was like saying: I am following you in your suffering. But this man, will he die also? John would have asked the same question had he dared.

But according to Chrysostom, Peter was questioning about the leadership of the Church, not about John's martyrdom. For Peter loved John more than all the other disciples, and they are always found together in the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles. So Peter wanted to have John as his companion in the work of preaching. Peter says, Lord, what about this man? as if to say, "Let him come with me."

This is the disciple etc. Here is set forth the reason for confirming our faith. The Evangelist confirms this in us in two ways: by certifying in truth and by grounding in humility. He certifies in truth when he declares himself a true and reliable witness. He says therefore: This is the disciple who bears witness concerning these things and has written these things, who is to be believed, all doubt being set aside, because we know that his testimony is true. Chrysostom: "Because he wrote with great certitude, he does not refuse to bring forward his own testimony, challenging each person to examine and scrutinize the things that were done. It is our custom, when we speak things that are very true, not to deny our own testimony: whence in Acts chapter five the Apostles said: We are witnesses of these words."

I think no wise man will doubt that the Lord would not have loved John if he had not been specially remarkable for virtue, and apt and perfectly equipped for every good work. For God can never be found to be inclined by any irrational leanings to those unworthy of His love, for such affections are more worthy of men. And He that was wholly proof against every assault and inroad of passion, and trod firmly in the path of every virtue, nay rather, was Virtue itself in all its forms, most assuredly would act in this, too, with judgment, and have His inclination free from all reproach----I mean, the inclination which led Him to deem him to whom this boon was due worthy of His love. After this admirable preface, then, and after having said that he was beloved, he modestly and with great humility says that he testified of these things; well and admirably inviting his hearers, as a necessary consequence, to assent to the things which he had written, and of which he had testified; for the preacher of truth cannot lie. Therefore, also, he says: We know that His witness is true. Dangerous, then, and awful is it assuredly, to lie at all; for man knoweth not how to bridle his tongue, and the Truth cannot love him that sinneth against truth.

John, who reclined on the bosom of Jesus, has left us one Gospel, although he confessed that he might have written so many that the world could not contain them. And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but he was commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of the seven thunders. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third. But not all consider them genuine, and together they do not contain one hundred lines.

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." Why is it, that then, when none of the others do so, he alone uses these words, and that for the second time, witnessing to himself? for it seems to be offensive to the hearers. What then is the cause? He is said to have been the last who came to writing, Christ having moved and roused him to the work; and on this account he continually sets forth his love, alluding to the cause by which he was impelled to write. Therefore also he continually makes mention of it, to make his record trustworthy, and to show, that, moved from thence, he came to this work. "And I know," he saith, "that the things are true which he saith. And if the many believe not, it is permitted them to believe from this."

"Whence it is clear that I could not have written to court favor; for I who, when the miracles were so many, have not even related so many as the others have, but omitting most of them, have brought forward the plots of the Jews, the stonings, the hatred, the insults, the revilings, and have shown how they called Him a demoniac and a deceiver, certainly could not have acted to gain favor. For it behooved one who courted favor to do the contrary, to reject the reproachful, to set forth the glorious." Since then he wrote what he did from full assurance, he does not decline to produce his own testimony, challenging men separately to enquire into and scrutinize the circumstances. For it is a custom with us, when we think that we are speaking exactly true, never to refuse our testimony; and if we do this, much more would he who wrote by the Spirit. What then the other Apostles when they preached declared, he also saith; "We are witnesses of the things spoken, and the Spirit which He hath given to them that obey Him." And besides, he was present at all, and did not desert Him even when being crucified, and had His mother entrusted to him; all which things are signs of his love for Him, and of his knowing all things exactly.

(Hom. lxxxviii. 2) John appeals to his own knowledge of these events, having been witness of them: This is the disciple which testifieth of these things. When we assert any undoubted fact in common life, we do not withhold our testimony: much less would he, who wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:32) And thus the other Apostles, And we are witnesses of these things, and wrote these things. John is only one who appeals to his own testimony; and he does so, because he was the last who wrote. And for this reason he often mentions Christ's love for him, i. e. to show the motive which led him to write, and to give weight to his history. And we know that his testimony is true. He was present at every event, even at the crucifixion, when our Lord committed His mother to him; circumstances which both show Christ's love, and his own importance as a witness. But if any believe not, let him consider what follows: And there are also many other things which Jesus did. If, when there were so many things to relate, I have not said so much as the other, and have selected often reproaches and contumelies in preference to other things, it is evident that I have not written partially. One who wants to show another off to advantage does the very contrary, omits the dishonourable parts.

(Hom. lxxxviii) This is said to show the power of Him Who did the miracles; i. e. that it was as easy for Him to do them, as it is for us to speak of them, seeing He is God over all, blessed for ever.

The interpreter [that is, Theodore himself] says that the words, "But there are also, etc." are not by John but by someone else.

Of the other Evangelists, not one testified about himself. They say that he undertook the writing of the Gospel after all the others, having been moved and stirred to do so by Christ. For this reason he constantly mentions His love for him, showing the reason why he undertook the writing, and that Christ entrusted this task to the one whom He loved more than the rest. And I know that he speaks the truth, that is: "What I have written, I have written with complete confidence, since I was present at everything—at the deeds and words, at the sufferings and the events after the resurrection. Therefore I boldly say of myself as well that I am truthful, and I invite anyone to examine and investigate each event individually." It is customary among us humans, when we are completely confident in the truth, not to refuse to offer our own testimony about it. So also the apostles said: "We are His witnesses in what we say, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him" (Acts 5:32). From what is it evident that I speak the truth and not to please the Teacher? From the fact that I omitted many things, it is evident that I did not wish to flatter Him. For I brought to light everything reproachful, not concealing even the fact that He was called a lawbreaker and a deceiver, and even a demoniac. Obviously, I was not trying to please Him. For whoever flatters does the opposite: he omits what is shameful and brings to light what is glorious.

Now we have the last part of this Gospel, which is a kind of epilogue. First, the Gospel is commended; and then the vastness of the subject treated (v 25). The Gospel is commended because of two things: its author, and its truth. Three things are mentioned about the author.

First, there is the authority of the author, because This is the disciple ‑ understanding what was mentioned before who was loved above the others, intimate with Christ, able to question him with confidence, and to whom it was granted to remain until Christ came. All these things refer to the authority of the author.

John is said to have been loved more than the others because of his unique charity: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (13:35). None of the other apostles speak so much of love for others as does John in his letters. We also read that as an old man he was carried to the church by his followers to teach the faithful. He taught only one thing: "Little children, love one another." This is the perfection of the Christian life.

Secondly, John's office is mentioned, which was to give testimony, for he says, who is bearing witness to these things. This is the special office of apostles: "You shall be my witnesses" (Acts 1:8); "You are my witnesses!" (Is 44:8).

Thirdly, he refers to his zeal when he says, and who has written these things. As an apostle he testified to the actions of Christ to those who were present; and in his zeal he recorded these actions in writing for those who were not with him and were to come after him: "Take a large tablet and write upon it in common characters" (Is 8:1); "The wisdom of the scribe depends on the opportunity of leisure; and he who has little business may become wise" (Sir 38:24). For it was granted to John to live until the time when the Church was at peace; and this is the time when he wrote all these things. John mentions such things so that we will not think that his gospel has less authority than the other three, seeing that he wrote after the death of all the other apostles, and the other gospels, especially that of Matthew, had been approved by them.

Now John states that his Gospel is true, and he speaks in the person of the entire Church which received it: "My mouth will utter truth" (Prv 8:7). We should note that although many have written about Catholic truth, there is a difference among them: those who wrote the canonical scriptures, such as the evangelists and apostles and the like, so constantly and firmly affirm this truth that it cannot be doubted. Thus John says, we know that his testimony is true: "If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:9). The reason for this is that only the canonical scriptures are the standard of faith. The others have set forth this truth but in such a way that they do not want to be believed except in those things in which they say what is true.

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

(Tract. cxxiv. 8) The which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written; meaning not the world had not space for them, but that the capacity of readers was not large enough to hold them: though sometimes words themselves may exceed the truth, and yet the thing they express be true; a mode of speech which is used not to explain an obscure and doubtful, but to magnify or estimate a plain, thing: nor does it involve any departure from the path of truth; inasmuch as the excess of the word over the truth is evidently only a figure of speech, and not a deception. This way of speaking the Greeks call hyperbole, and it is found in other parts of Scripture.

There are also many other things which Jesus did. He shows that he did not write all things fully: in which he humbles our understanding, lest we believe ourselves capable of knowing all things. For this reason he says that he did not write them. Therefore he says: Which if they were written out one by one, I do not think the world itself could contain the books that would have to be written — the text should be construed thus: contain those books which would have to be written — because our capacity is small: whence above in chapter sixteen: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."

It is asked: what does he mean when he says that the signs of Christ could not be contained in the whole world, since the world would contain the books not only if His deeds, but even all things that have been done from the beginning of the age, were written down? And it must be said that capacity is twofold: bodily and spiritual, which is through the intellect. If it is said of bodily capacity, it is spoken by way of hyperbole, as in other places of Scripture, as in the Psalm: They set their mouth against heaven: and concerning Solomon, that he made so great an abundance of silver as there are stones in Jerusalem, 3 Kings chapter ten. But if it is said or taken of the capacity of understanding, it is true according to the letter: whence Augustine: "We, knowing that our understanding could not contain the things that could be written concerning Christ: let us take care, by understanding with right faith what he wrote, and by practicing with right action what he taught, to arrive at the everlasting gifts which the Lord Himself promised," with the help of Him who lives and reigns forever and ever. Amen.

Very great, then, says the apostle, will be the number of the miracles that God has done, and altogether without number will the list of his deeds be seen to be. And out of many thousands have these that are recorded been taken, as not being inadequate to profit to the uttermost those who read them. And let no one who is of a teachable spirit and loves instruction, John implies, blame the one who wrote this book because he has not recorded the rest. For if "the things" that he did "had been written"—every one, without any omission—then such an immeasurable number of the books would have filled the world. We maintain that, even as it is, the power of the Word has been displayed more than abundantly. For it is open to everyone to observe that a thousand miracles were performed by the power of our Savior. The preachers of the Gospels, however, have recorded the more remarkable of them, in all probability. They recorded what could best be confirmed by their hearers in incorruptible faith and those that would provide instruction in morality and doctrine. They did this so that, conspicuous for the orthodoxy of their faith and glorified by many works that result in righteousness, they might meet at the very gates of the city above. And, being joined to the church of the firstborn in the faith, they might at length attain to the kingdom of heaven in Christ.

Holy Scripture omits all idle inquiry into substance as superfluous and unnecessary. And I think it was for this reason that John, the son of thunder, who with the loud voice of the doctrines contained in his Gospel rose above that of the preaching that heralded them, said at the close of his Gospel, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, so many that, in fact, if all of them were written, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." He certainly does not mean by these the miracles of healing, for of these the narrative [in general terms] leaves none unrecorded, even though it does not mention the names of all who were healed. For when he tells us that the dead were raised, that the blind received their sight, that the deaf heard, that the lame walked and that he healed all kinds of sickness and disease, he does not in this leave any miracle unrecorded but embraces each and all in these general terms. But it may be that the Evangelist means this in his profound wisdom: that we are to learn the majesty of the Son of God not by the miracles alone that he did in the flesh. For these are little compared with the greatness of his other work.… For since God has made all things in wisdom and to his wisdom there is no limit, … the world that is bounded by limits of its own cannot contain within itself the account of infinite wisdom. If, then, the whole world is too little to contain the teaching of the works of God, how many worlds could contain an account of the Lord of them all? For perhaps it will not be denied even by the tongue of the blasphemer that the maker of all things that have been created by the mere fiat of his will is infinitely greater than all. If, then, the whole creation cannot contain what might be said respecting itself—for this is, according to our explanation, what the great Evangelist is testifying to—how should human shallowness contain all that might be said of the Lord of creation?

"There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." "Whence it is clear that I could not have written to court favor; for I who, when the miracles were so many, have not even related so many as the others have, but omitting most of them, have brought forward the plots of the Jews, the stonings, the hatred, the insults, the revilings, and have shown how they called Him a demoniac and a deceiver, certainly could not have acted to gain favor. For it behooved one who courted favor to do the contrary, to reject the reproachful, to set forth the glorious." Since then he wrote what he did from full assurance, he does not decline to produce his own testimony, challenging men separately to enquire into and scrutinize the circumstances. For it is a custom with us, when we think that we are speaking exactly true, never to refuse our testimony; and if we do this, much more would he who wrote by the Spirit. What then the other Apostles when they preached declared, he also saith; "We are witnesses of the things spoken, and the Spirit which He hath given to them that obey Him." (Acts v. 32.)

And besides, he was present at all, and did not desert Him even when being crucified, and had His mother entrusted to him; all which things are signs of his love for Him, and of his knowing all things exactly. And if he has said that so many miracles had taken place, marvel thou not, but, considering the ineffable power of the Doer, receive with faith what is spoken. For it was as easy for Him to do whatever He would, as it is for us to speak, or rather much easier; for it sufficed that He should will only, and all followed.

And here we conclude … this commentary on the harp of the Spirit, on the heavenly theologian and Apostle who is the friend of the glory of the Lord, the holy John the younger.

Do not be amazed at what was said, that if books were written about the deeds of Jesus, the world could not contain them; but consider the ineffable power of God the Word and accept what was said with faith. For just as it is easy for us to speak, so it is easy for Him, and indeed far easier, to do whatever He pleases. Some say that this is said hyperbolically, according to the custom of Scripture; for Scripture habitually employs hyperboles. For example: "we saw cities reaching up to heaven" (Num. 13:29), "we saw sons, and we were in our own eyes as grasshoppers" (Num. 13:34), and the like. In the same sense, they say, it is said here that the world could not contain the books that would be written. Otherwise, by "the world" they understand a person who is minded toward worldly things; but the divine and mysterious works accomplished by Jesus in the invisible and visible world, and in the dispensation of the last times, which is full of mysteries, the worldly person cannot comprehend, according to the saying: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16:12). But let us pray that the deeds and words of the Lord may never fall into oblivion among us, but that we may always open this book of the Beloved and seek out the treasure contained in the miracles and teaching of Jesus; that, having been purified in word and life, on the day of revelation we may be deemed worthy of the most ineffable deeds and mysteries which now, while we are in the world, we cannot contain, and may be made perfect in Christ Himself, Who loved us, and through His beloved disciple enlightened us with the theology and knowledge of Him — the Son, and of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit, to Whom be glory forever. Amen.

Now John states the incompleteness of his Gospel as compared with the reality, because Christ not only did these things but there are also many other things which Jesus did.

His statement, were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written, can be understood in two ways. First, the word contain can refer to the capacity of our minds to understand. So the meaning is: So much could be said about Christ that the world could not understand all that could be written: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now," that is, understand them (16:12). We could also regard this statement as a deliberate exaggeration; and it then indicates the abundance of Christ's works.

How reconcile this? He had just said, we know that his testimony is true, and then immediately resorts to hyperbole, exceeding the truth. According to Augustine, Scripture does use figures of speech, such as "I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne" (Is 6:1), and such statements are not false. This is so when hyperbole is used. The desire of the speaker is not that we accept the literal meaning of the words, but what they were intended to mean, that is, the great number of Christ's works. Hyperbole is not used to explain what is obscure or doubtful, but to exaggerate or minimize what is obvious. For example, to emphasize how plentiful something is, one can say that there is enough for a hundred or a thousand people. And to minimize something, one could say that there is hardly enough for three. This is not speaking falsely, because it is so obvious that the words contort the reality that they show that one does not intend to lie, but to indicate that something is great or small.

Or, this statement could be understood to refer to the power of Christ, who performed these signs; and the emphasis is on every one of them. For to write about each and every word and deed of Christ is to reveal the power of every word and deed. Now the words and deeds of Christ are also those of God. Thus, if one tried to write and tell of the nature of every one, he could not do so; indeed, the entire world could not do this. This is because even an infinite number of human words cannot equal one word of God. From the beginning of the Church Christ has been written about; but this is still not equal to the subject. Indeed, even if the world lasted a hundred thousand years, and books written about Christ, his words and deeds could not be completely revealed: "Of making many books there is no end" (Eccl 12:12); The works of God "are multiplied above number" (Ps 50:5).

By Judaea are meant those who confess, whom Christ visits; for wherever there is confession of sins, or the praise of God, thither cometh Christ and His disciples, i. e. His doctrine and enlightenment; and there He is known by His cleansing men from sin: And there He tarried with them, and baptized.

"After these things came Jesus and His disciples into the land of Judea; and there He tarried with them, and baptized." Being baptized, He baptized. Not with that baptism with which He was baptized did He baptize. The Lord, being baptized by a servant gives baptism, showing the path of humility and leading to the baptism of the Lord, that is, His own baptism, by giving an example of humility, in not Himself refusing baptism from a servant. And in the baptism by a servant, a way was prepared for the Lord; the Lord also being baptized, made Himself a way for them that come to Him. Let us hear Himself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life." If thou seekest truth, keep the way, for the way and the truth are the same. The way that thou art going is the same as the whither thou art going: thou art not going by a way as one thing, to an object as another thing; not coming to Christ by something else as a way, thou comest to Christ by Christ. How by Christ to Christ? By Christ the man, to Christ God; by the Word made flesh, to the Word which in the beginning was God with God; from that which man ate, to that which angels daily eat. For so it is written, "He gave them bread of heaven: man ate the bread of angels." What is the bread of angels? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." How has man eaten the bread of angels? "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

But though we have said that angels eat, do not fancy, brethren, that this is done with teeth. For if you think so, God, of whom the angels eat, is as it were torn in pieces. Who tears righteousness in pieces? But still, some one asks me, And who is it that can eat righteousness? Well, how is it said, "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled"? The food which thou eatest carnally perishes, in order to refresh thee; to repair thy waste it is consumed: eat righteousness; and while thou art refreshed, it continues entire. Just as by seeing this corporeal light, these eyes of ours are refreshed, and yet it is a corporeal thing that is seen by corporeal eyes. Many there have been, when too long in darkness, whose eyesight is weakened by fasting, as it were, from light. The eyes, deprived of their food (for they feed on light), become wearied by fasting, and weakened, so that they cannot bear to see the light by which they are refreshed; and if the light is too long absent, they are quenched, and the very sense of sight dies as it were in them. What then? Does the light become less, because so many eyes are daily fed by it? Thy eyes are refreshed, and the light remains entire. As God was able to show this in the case of corporeal light to corporeal eyes, does He not show that other light to clean hearts as unwearied, continuing entire, and in no respect failing? What light? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." Let us see if this is light. "For with Thee is the fountain of light, and in Thy light shall we see light." On earth, fountain is one thing, light another. When thirsting, thou seekest a fountain, and to get to the fountain thou seekest light; and if it is not day, thou lightest a lamp to get to the fountain. That fountain is the very light: to the thirsting a fountain, to the blind a light. Let the eyes be opened to see the light, let the lips of the heart be opened to drink of the fountain; that which thou drinkest, thou seest, thou hearest. God becomes all to thee; for He is to thee the whole of these things which thou lovest. If thou regardest things visible, neither is God bread, nor is God water, nor is God this light, nor is He garment nor house. For all these are things visible, and single separate things. What bread is, water is not; and what a garment is, a house is not; and what these things are, God is not, for they are visible things. God is all this to thee: if thou hungerest, He is bread to thee; if thou thirstest, He is water to thee; if thou art in darkness, He is light to thee: for He remains incorruptible. If thou art naked, He is a garment of immortality to thee, when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality. All things can be said of God, and nothing is worthily said of God. Nothing is wider than this poverty of expression. Thou seekest a fitting name for Him, thou canst not find it; thou seekest to speak of Him in any way soever, thou findest that He is all. What likeness have the lamb and the lion? Both is said of Christ. "Behold the Lamb of God!" How a lion? "The Lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed."

Our Lord did not baptize with the baptism wherewith He had been baptized; for He was baptized by a servant, as a lesson of humility to us, and in order to bring us to the Lord's baptism, i. e. His own; for Jesus baptized, as the Lord, the Son of God.

After these things, is not immediately after His dispute with Nicodemus, which took place at Jerusalem; but on His return to Jerusalem after some time spent in Galilee.

After these things Jesus came. The Lord manifested himself to the Jews by a sign of power and by a word of teaching; here he manifests himself by the Sacrament of regeneration, receiving the Jews to baptism.

The purification of Christ through baptism is described first, by which he manifests himself to the Jews; and so he says: "After these things," that is, after the aforementioned manifestations, "Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea," so that he might make himself manifest to the Jews through baptism. Whence he adds: "And he was staying there with them," namely the disciples, "and was baptizing," according to what John had borne testimony to him in chapter 1: "Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, he it is who baptizes"; nor was he alone baptizing, but indeed also his precursor.

But a question arises concerning what he says, that Jesus was baptizing. On the contrary: In chapter 4: "Jesus was not baptizing, but his disciples": therefore there is a contradiction. Response: It must be said that he by whose authority something is done is the one who does it; whence "to do something" is twofold, namely by authority or by ministry. Christ baptized by authority, but his disciples by ministry: or he baptized interiorly, while the disciples baptized exteriorly.

But then there is a question: whence is it that the Lord did not baptize exteriorly in his own person? And it seems that he ought to have done so, so as to furnish others with an example, a form, and a manner.

Response: It must be said that he furnished others with a manner and taught them, but nevertheless he did not baptize for the sake of avoiding error and presumption: error, because people would have believed that others who had not been baptized by him were not truly baptized: presumption, lest those baptized by him be puffed up and despise those baptized by the disciples, and thereby the baptism of the disciples.

It is asked: which baptism is more powerful, whether that of Christ or that of John? That it is John's, it seems: because Christ was baptized with the baptism of John: therefore just as the priesthood of Melchizedek was nobler than the priesthood of Levi, because Levi was tithed by Melchizedek: by the same reasoning it seems so concerning baptism. Likewise, "Christ was not baptizing, but his disciples"; but the disciples of Christ were not greater than John: therefore neither was the baptism of Christ's disciples greater than the baptism of John. Likewise it is asked whether that baptism conferred grace? And that it did not, seems apparent: because it is said in chapter 7: "The Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified"; and if anyone who had been baptized had died before the Passion, he would not have entered the kingdom of God.

I respond: It must be said that according to Chrysostom, the baptism of Christ's disciples before the Passion was merely preparatory, just as was the baptism of John: hence both were devoid of grace. However, Bede and Augustine say that "John baptized, and there was rebaptism; Judas baptized, and there was no rebaptism." Hence they say that that baptism conferred grace, and was therefore nobler, because of nobler efficacy.

As to what is objected, that Christ was baptized: it must be said that the baptism of John had absolutely no effect upon Christ. As to what is objected, that the disciples were baptizing: it must be said that this is true, outwardly; but nevertheless in that baptism Christ was baptizing inwardly; this was not so, however, in the baptism of John. As to what is objected, that the Spirit had not yet been given: this must be understood of the visible and manifest giving, in the manner in which it was given through the imposition of hands, not of the invisible giving.

As to the objection that a baptized person who died would not fly forth: it must be said that this was not on account of a defect of grace in baptism, but because its price had not yet been paid. And if one objects that baptism has its efficacy from the Passion, it must be understood that it has the efficacy of conferring grace from the divine power operating invisibly therein, but from the Passion with respect to the opening of the gate. Or: if he had not yet suffered, nevertheless faith in the Passion was present, by reason of which it had efficacy — not indeed of opening the gate, but of giving grace.

After the conversation with Nicodemus had now reached its conclusion, the Divine Evangelist again prepares something else most profitable. For enlightened by the Divine Spirit to the exposition of things most needful, he knew that it would exceedingly profit his readers to know clearly, how great the excellence, and by how great measures, the baptism of Christ surpasses that of John. For it was indeed not far from his expectation, that certain would arise who of their folly should dare to say, either that there was no difference whatever between them, but that they ought to be crowned with equal honours; or, having stumbled into folly even wilder than this, say, that the vote of superiority ought to be taken away from Christ's baptism, and the superiority shamelessly lavished on the baptism by water. For what daring is not attainable by the ill-instructed, or through what blasphemy do they not rush, who rising up against the holy doctrines of the Church, pervert all equity, as it is written? The most wise Evangelist then, that he might destroy beforehand the plea for their vain-babbling, introduces the holy Baptist laying before his disciples the solution of the question. Christ therefore baptizes through His own disciples: likewise John too, and not altogether by the hands of others, nor yet did he baptize in those same fountains, where Christ was manifested doing this, but near to Salim, as it is written, and in one of the neighbouring fountains. And through the very distinction (in a way) of the fountains of waters does he show the difference of the baptism, and signify as in a figure that his baptism is not the same as that of our Saviour Christ: yet was it near and round about, bringing in a kind of preparation and introduction to the more perfect one. As then the law of Moses too is said to have a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things (for the Mosaic letter is a kind of preparatory exercise and pre-instruction for the worship in the Spirit, travailing with the truth hidden within), so shalt thou conceive too of the baptism unto repentance.

Nothing can be clearer or mightier than the truth, just as nothing is weaker than falsehood, though it be shaded by ten thousand veils. For even so it is easily detected, it easily melts away. But truth stands forth unveiled for all that will behold her beauty; she seeks no concealment, dreads no danger, trembles at no plots, desires not glory from the many, is accountable to no mortal thing, but stands above them all, is the object of ten thousand secret plots, yet remaineth unconquerable, and guards as in a sure fortress these who fly to her by her own exceeding might, who avoids secret lurking places, and setteth what is hers before all men.

"After this," saith the Evangelist, "He went forth and His disciples into the land of Judaea, and there He tarried with them and baptized." At the feasts He went up to the City to set forth in the midst of them His doctrines, and the help of His miracles; but after the feasts were over, He often went to Jordan, because many ran together there. For He ever chose the most crowded places, not from any love of show or vainglory, but because He desired to afford His help to the greatest number.

Yet the Evangelist farther on says, that "Jesus baptized not, but His disciples"; whence it is clear that this is his meaning here also. And why did Jesus not baptize? The Baptist had said before, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." Now he had not yet given the Spirit, and it was therefore with good cause that he did not baptize. But His disciples did so, because they desired to bring many to the saving doctrine.

As long as the feast of Passover continued, Jesus was in Jerusalem. When it passed, Jesus went out from there into the land of Judea and lived near the Jordan, where many gathered. He sought crowded places not for vain honor or glory, but because He desired to bring benefit and good to a greater number of people. When He also went up to the feasts, He went for this very same reason, to bring benefit to a greater number of people both by teaching and by the manifestation of miracles. Hearing that He baptized, do not think that He Himself baptized: His disciples baptized, but the evangelist attributes the work of the disciples to the Teacher. Further on, this same evangelist says that "Jesus did not baptize, but His disciples" (Jn. 4:2). Will you ask "why did He Himself not baptize"? Learn. John had previously said that "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Mt. 3:11). But He had not yet given the Holy Spirit, because it was not yet time. Therefore, if He had baptized, He would either have baptized without the Spirit (and how then would He have differed from John?), or He would have given the Spirit before the proper time, and this is unworthy of God, who does everything in due time. When was it time to give the Spirit? The time after the Ascension. For our nature in Christ Jesus needed to appear before the Father without sin, and after God was thus reconciled with us, for the Spirit to be sent down as a rich and generous gift.

Above, the Lord gave us his teaching on spiritual regeneration in words, here he completes his teaching through action, by baptizing. First, two kinds of baptism are mentioned. Secondly, a question about their relationship is raised (v 25). As to the first, two things are done. Mention is first made of the baptism of Christ. Secondly, of the baptism of John.

He says first, After this, i.e., the teaching on spiritual regeneration, Jesus and his disciples came to Judean territory. There is a question here about the literal meaning. For above, the Evangelist had said that the Lord had come from Galilee to Jerusalem, which is in Judean territory, where he taught Nicodemus. So how, after teaching Nicodemus, can he come into Judea, since he was already there?

Two answers are given to this. According to Bede, after his discussion with Nicodemus, Christ went to Galilee, and after remaining there for a time, returned to Judea. And so After this Jesus and his disciples came to Judean territory, should not be understood to mean that he came into Judea immediately after his talk with Nicodemus. Another explanation, given by Chrysostom, is that he did come into the territory of Judea immediately after this discussion: for Christ wanted to preach where the people gathered, so that many might be converted: "I have declared your justice in the great assembly" (Ps 39:10); "I have spoken openly to the world" (below 18:20). Now there were two places in Judea where the Jewish people gathered: Jerusalem, where they went for their feasts, and the Jordan, where they gathered on account of John's preaching and his baptism. And so the Lord used to visit both places; and after the feast days were over in Jerusalem, which is in one part of Judea, he went to another part, to the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

As for the moral sense, Judea means "confession," to which Jesus came, for Christ visits those who confess their sins or speak in praise of God: "Judea became his sanctuary" (Ps 113:2). He stayed there, because he did not make a merely temporary visit: "We will come to him, and make our abode with him," as it says below (14:23). And was baptizing, i.e., cleansing from sin; because unless one confesses his sins he does not obtain forgiveness: "He who hides his sins will not prosper" (Prv 28:13).

"And John also was baptizing in Aenon, near to Salim." A certain lake, "Aenon." How do we know it was a lake? "Because there was much water there, and they came and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison." If you remember, I told you why John baptized: because the Lord must needs be baptized. And why must the Lord be baptized? Because many there would be to despise baptism, that they might appear to be endowed with greater grace than they saw other believers endowed with. For example, a catechumen, now living continently, might despise a married person, and say of himself that he was better than the other believer. That catechumen might possibly say in his heart, "What need have I to receive baptism, to have just what that other man has, than whom I am already better?" Therefore, lest that neck of pride should hurl to destruction certain men much elated with the merits of their own righteousness, the Lord was willing to be baptized by a servant, as if addressing His chief sons: "Why do you extol yourselves? Why lift yourselves up because you have, one prudence, another learning, another chastity, another the courage of patience? Can you possibly have as much as I who gave you these? And yet I was baptized by a servant, you disdain to be baptized by the Lord." This is the sense of "to fulfill all righteousness."

But some one will say, "It were enough, then, that John baptized only the Lord; what need was there for others to be baptized by John?" Now we have said this too, that if John had baptized only the Lord, men would not be without this thought, that John had a better baptism than the Lord had. They would say, in fact, "So great was the baptism of John, that Christ alone was worthy to be baptized therewith." Therefore, to show that the baptism which the Lord was to give was better than that of John, that the one might be understood as that of a servant, the other as that of the Lord, the Lord was baptized to give an example of humility; but He was not the only one baptized by John, lest John's baptism should appear to be better than the baptism of the Lord. To this end, however, our Lord Jesus Christ showed the way, as you have heard, brethren, lest any man, arrogating to himself that he has abundance of some particular grace, should disdain to be baptized with the baptism of the Lord. For whatever the catechumen's proficiency, he still carries the load of his iniquity: it is not forgiven him until he shall have come to baptism. Just as the people Israel were not rid of the Egyptians until they had come to the Red Sea, so no man is rid of the pressure of sins until he has come to the font of baptism.

But why did John baptize? Because it was necessary that our Lord should be baptized. And why was it necessary that our Lord should be baptized? That no one might ever think himself at liberty to despise baptism.

John still continues baptizing, though Christ has begun; for the shadow remains still, nor must the forerunner cease, till the truth is manifested. And John also was baptizing in Ænon, near to Salim. Ænon is Hebrew for water; so that the Evangelist gives, as it were, the derivation of the name, when he adds, For there was much water there. Salim is a town on the Jordan, where Melchisedec once reigned.

The same kind of benefit which catechumens receive from instruction before they are baptized, the same did John's baptism convey before Christ's. As John preached repentance, announced Christ's baptism, and drew all men to the knowledge of the truth now made manifest to the world: so the ministers of the Church first instruct those who come to the faith, then reprove their sins; and lastly, drawing them to the knowledge and love of the truth, offer them remission by Christ's baptism.

"And John was also baptizing in Aennon near Salim," that is, Salem, which was the city of Melchisedech, Hebrews 7. And the reason is added: "Because there were many waters there." A good reason, because John baptized only in water; Mark 1: "I have baptized you with water," John said. "And they came" to him "and were baptized," even while Christ was baptizing; Matthew 3: "Jerusalem went out to him, and all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan, and they were baptized by him."

It is asked: since the baptism of John was preparatory to the baptism of Christ, and when truth arrives, the shadow ceases: it seems that he ought to have ceased baptizing from the moment Christ began.

Response: It must be said that he did cease, but not immediately. And the reason was fourfold: lest he seem contrary to him; lest he seem inconstant; lest he seem to have borne it indignantly; lest he cast his disciples into envy and jealousy.

(Hierom. Ep. c. xxiii. ad Evag.) It matters not whether it is called Salem, or Salim; since the Jews very rarely use vowels in the middle of words; and the same words are pronounced with different vowels and accents, by different readers, and in different places. And they came, and were baptized.

"And why, when the disciples of Jesus were baptizing, did not John cease to do so? why did he continue to baptize, and that even until he was led to prison? for to say, 'John also was baptizing in Aenon'; and to add, 'John was not yet cast into prison,' was to declare that until that time he did not cease to baptize. But wherefore did he baptize until then? For he would have made the disciples of Jesus seem more reverend had he desisted when they began. Why then did he baptize?" It was that he might not excite his disciples to even stronger rivalry, and make them more contentious still. For if, although he ten thousand times proclaimed Christ, yielded to Him the chief place, and made himself so much inferior, he still could not persuade them to run to Him; he would, had he added this also, have made them yet more hostile. On this account it was that Christ began to preach more constantly when John was removed. And moreover, I think that the death of John was allowed, and that it happened very quickly, in order that the whole attention of the multitude might be shifted to Christ, and that they might no longer be divided in their opinions concerning the two.

So, the disciples of Jesus were baptizing, and John was still baptizing and did not cease, fulfilling two purposes at once: one — that he spoke to those coming to him about Christ and led them to Him; the other — that he gave the disciples no occasion for jealousy and great disputes. If he had stopped baptizing, what would his disciples not have done, given their envious disposition toward Christ? If he, crying out very frequently and always yielding precedence to Christ, did not persuade them to turn to Him, what jealousy would he have aroused in them had he stopped baptizing? The disciples of Christ baptize with a baptism having nothing greater than the baptism of John, for both are imperfect, as neither partakes of the Spirit, though the purpose of both is the same—to lead those being baptized to Christ.

Then when he says, But John also was baptizing, the Evangelist presents the baptism of John. And in regard to this he does four things. First, he presents the person who is baptizing. Secondly, the place of the baptism. Thirdly, its fruit. Fourthly, the time.

John is the person who is baptizing; so he says, John also was baptizing. There is a question about this: Since John's baptism was ordained to the baptism of Christ, it seems that John should have stopped baptizing when Christ started to baptize, just as the symbol does not continue when the truth comes. Three reasons are given for this. The first is in relation to Christ, for John baptized in order that Christ might be baptized by him. But it was not fitting that John baptize just Christ; otherwise, on this point alone, it might seem that John's baptism was superior to Christ's. Accordingly, it was expedient that John baptize others before Christ, because before Christ's teaching was to be made public it was necessary that men be prepared for Christ by John's baptism. In this way, the baptism of John is related to the baptism of Christ as the catechesis or religious instruction given to prospects to teach and prepare them for baptism is related to the true baptism. It was likewise important that John baptize others after he had baptized Christ, so that John's baptism would not seem to be worthless. For the same reason, the practice of the ceremonies of the old law was not abolished as soon as the truth came, but as Augustine says, the Jews could lawfully observe them for a time.

The second reason relates to John. For if John had stopped baptizing at once after Christ began baptizing, it might have been thought that he stopped out of envy or anger. And because, as the Apostle says, "We ought to look after what is good, not only before God, but also before all men" (Rom 12:17), this is the reason why John did not stop at once.

The third reason relates to John's disciples, who were already beginning to act like zealots toward Christ and his disciples, because they were baptizing. So if John had entirely stopped from baptizing, it would have provoked his disciples to an even greater zeal and opposition to Christ and his disciples. For even while John continued baptizing, they were hostile to Christ's baptism, as later events showed. And so John did not stop at once: "Take care that your freedom does not become a hindrance to those who are weak," as is said in 1 Corinthians (8:9).

The place of his baptism was at Aenon near Salim, where the water was plentiful. Another name for Salim is Salem, which is the village from which the king Melchizedek came. It is called Salim here because among the Jews a reader may use any vowel he chooses in the middle of his words; hence it made no difference to the Jews whether it was pronounced Salim or Salem. He added, where the water was plentiful, to explain the name of this place, i.e., Aenon, which is the same as "water."

The fruit of his baptism is the remission of sins; thus he says, people kept coming and were baptized, i.e., cleansed: for as is stated in Matthew (3:5) and in Luke (3:7), great crowds came to John.

He evidently here is relating what Christ did before John's imprisonment; a part which has been passed over by the rest, who commence after John's imprisonment.

"For John had not yet been cast into prison," because then his baptism ceased, the master being absent, for it was temporal. Concerning the imprisonment of John, Matthew 14: "Herod seized John and bound him and cast him into prison."

For it is evident that the three Evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Savior for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist and indicated this in the beginning of their account.… They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period that had been omitted by the earlier Evangelists and of the deeds done by the Savior during that period; that is, of those that were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: "This was the beginning of the miracles that Jesus did"; and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Aenon near Salim.… "For John was not yet cast into prison." John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ that were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three Evangelists mention the events that happened after that time.

Besides, even while he was baptizing, he did not cease continually to exhort them, and to show them the high and awful nature of Jesus. For He baptized them, and told them no other thing than that they must believe on Him that came after him. Now how would a man who acted thus by desisting have made the disciples of Christ seem worthy of reverence? On the contrary, he would have been thought to do so through envy and passion. But to continue preaching gave a stronger proof; for he desired not glory for himself, but sent on his hearers to Christ, and wrought with Him not less, but rather much more than Christ's own disciples, because his testimony was unsuspected and he was by all men far more highly esteemed than they. And this the Evangelist implies, when he says, "all Judaea and the country around about Jordan went out to him and were baptized." Even when the disciples were baptizing, yet many did not cease to run to him.

(Hom. xx. 1) But why did he go on baptizing now? Because, had he left off, it might have been attributed to envy or anger: whereas, continuing to baptize, he got no glory for himself, but sent hearers to Christ. And he was better able to do this service, than were Christ's own disciples; his testimony being so free from suspicion, and his reputation with the people so much higher than theirs. He therefore continued to baptize, that he might not increase the envy felt by his disciples against our Lord's baptism. Indeed, the reason, I think, why John's death was permitted, and, in his room, Christ made the great preacher, was, that the people might transfer their affections wholly to Christ, and no longer be divided between the two. For the disciples of John did become so envious of Christ's disciples, and even of Christ Himself, that when they saw the latter baptizing, they threw contempt upon their baptism, as being inferior to that of John's; And there arose a question from some of John's disciples with the Jews about purifying. That it was they who began the dispute, and not the Jews, the Evangelist implies by saying, that there arose a question from John's disciples, whereas he might have said, The Jews put forth a question.

Therefore Christ especially began to preach at the time when John was imprisoned, on account of the jealousy of the Baptist's disciples. I think that John's death was also permitted to happen very soon so that all the devotion of the people would transfer to Christ, and the people would not be divided in their thoughts about both John and Christ.

The time is indicated when he says, John had not yet been thrown into prison. He says this so that we may know that he began his narrative of Christ's life before the other Evangelists. For the others began their account only from the time of John's imprisonment. So Matthew (4:12) says: "When Jesus heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee." And so, because they had passed over the things that Christ did before John's imprisonment, John, who was the last to write a Gospel, supplied these omissions. He suggests this when he says: John had not yet been thrown into prison.

Note that by divine arrangement it came about that when Christ began to baptize, John did not continue his own baptizing and preaching for very long, in order not to create disunion among the people. But he was granted a little time so that it would not seem that he deserved to be repudiated, as was mentioned before. Again, by God's arrangement, it came about that after the faith had been preached and the faithful converted, the temple was utterly destroyed, in order that all the devotion and hope of the faithful could be directed to Christ.

"Then there arose a question on the part of John's disciples with the Jews about purifying." John baptized, Christ baptized. John's disciples were moved; there was a running after Christ, people were coming to John. Those who came to John, he sent to Jesus to be baptized; but they who were baptized by Christ were not sent to John. John's disciples were alarmed, and began to dispute with the Jews, as usually happens. Understand the Jews to have declared that Christ was greater, and that to His baptism people ought to have recourse. John's disciples, not yet understanding this, defended John's baptism. They came to John himself, that he might solve the question. Understand, beloved. And here we are given to see the use of humility, and, when people were erring in the subject of dispute, are shown whether John desired to glory in himself. Now probably he said, "You say the truth, you contend rightly; mine is the better baptism, I baptized Christ Himself." John could say this after Christ was baptized. If he wished to exalt himself, what an opportunity he had to do so! But he knew better before whom to humble himself: to Him whom he knew to have come after himself by birth, he willingly yielded precedence by confessing Him. He understood his own salvation to be in Christ. He had already said above, "We all have received out of His fullness;" and this is to confess Him to be God. For how can all men receive of His fullness, if He be not God? For if He is man in such wise that He is not God, then Himself also receives of the fullness of God, and so is not God. But if all men receive of His fullness, He is the fountain, they are drinkers. They that drink of a fountain, both thirst and drink. The fountain never thirsts; it has never need of itself. Men need a fountain. With thirsty stomachs and parched lips they run to the fountain to be refreshed. The fountain flows to refresh, so does the Lord Jesus.

Here is introduced the question proceeding from the twofold purification, which had its origin from the disciples of John accusing the Jews that, having abandoned John's baptism, they were going to Christ. On account of which he says: "Therefore a question arose from the disciples of John," as drawing its origin from them, "with the Jews" who were contradicting, namely "concerning purification," namely, where the greater purification was, whether in the baptism of John or of Christ. And the disciples of John were saying that the baptism of John was greater, the Jews to the contrary. On account of this, seeing that they could not prevail, they accuse Christ himself through envy.

The Jews being powerless to commend the purifications of the law, and not able to advocate the cleansing through the ashes of an heifer, plan something against John's disciples, whereby they thought to cause them no slight vexation, albeit easily worsted in their own matters. For since they who attended the blessed Baptist, appeared to be more excellent and of more understanding than the Pharisees, admiring the baptism of their own teacher, and opposing the purifications after the law; they are vexed at these things, who are diligent in reviling only and most ready unto all wickedness: and even overturning their own case, they praise Christ's Baptism, not rightly disposed, nor pouring forth true praise on it, but exasperated to the mere distressing of them; and lending out a statement against their opinion, until their purpose should attain its accomplishment. They cannot then adduce any reasonable proof, nor do they even support Christ out of the holy Scriptures (for, whence were such understanding to the uninstructed?): but they merely allege in confirmation of their own arguments, that very few in number are those who come to John, but that they flock together to Christ. For haply they in their exceeding folly thought that they should carry off the vote of victory, and might speak out in behalf of the legal purifications, as having already conquered, by giving the palm over John's to the Baptism bestowed by Christ on those who come to Him. And they vex those with whom their dispute was: but they get off with difficulty and leave the disciples of John, much more beaten by their ill-considered dispute. For they crown with compulsory praises, and against their will, the Lord.

If any one should enquire, "And in what was the baptism of the disciples better than that of John?" we will reply, "in nothing"; both were alike without the gift of the Spirit, both parties alike had one reason for baptizing, and that was, to lead the baptized to Christ. For in order that they might not be always running about to bring together those that should believe, as in Simon's case his brother did, and Philip to Nathanael, they instituted baptism, in order by it to bring all men to them easily, and to prepare a way for the faith which was to be. But that the baptisms had no superiority one over the other, is shown by what follows.

"There arose," saith the Evangelist, "a question (between some) of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying."

For the disciples of John being ever jealously disposed towards Christ's disciples and Christ Himself, when they saw them baptizing, began to reason with those who were baptized, as though their baptism was in a manner superior to that of Christ's disciples; and taking one of the baptized, they tried to persuade him of this; but persuaded him not. Hear how the Evangelist has given us to understand that it was they who attacked him, not he who set on foot the question. He doth not say, that "a certain Jew questioned with them," but that, "there arose a questioning from the disciples of John with a certain Jew, concerning purification."

A dispute arose between John's disciples and a certain Jew concerning baptism. The Jew held the baptism of Christ's disciples to be superior, while John's disciples held the baptism of their teacher to be superior.

Then when he says, A controversy arose, he brings in the issue of the two baptisms. First, the issue is mentioned. Secondly, it is brought to John's attention (v 26). Thirdly, the issue is resolved.

Because both John and Christ were baptizing, the disciples of John, out of zeal for their teacher, started a controversy over this. And this is what he says, A controversy arose, i.e., a dispute, between the disciples of John, who were the first to raise the issue, and the Jews, whom the disciples of John had rebuked for preferring Christ, because of the miracles he did, to John, who did not do any miracles. The issue was concerning purification, i.e., baptizing. The cause of their envy and the reason why they started the controversy was the fact that John sent those he baptized to Christ, but Christ did not send those he baptized to John. It seemed from this, and perhaps the Jews even said so, that Christ was greater than John. Thus, the disciples of John, having not yet become spiritual, quarreled with the Jews over the baptisms. "While there is envy and fighting among you, are you not carnal?" (1 Cor 3:3).

Meaning, Passing by thee, all men run to the baptism of Him Whom thou baptizedst.

"They came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all men come to him:" that is, What sayest thou? Ought they not to be hindered, that they may rather come to thee?

The Jews then asserted Christ to be the greater person, and His baptism necessary to be received. But John's disciples did not understand so much, and defended John's baptism. At last they come to John, to solve the question: And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, behold, the Same baptizeth.

"And they came to John and said to him: Rabbi! He who was beyond the Jordan with you," he was with you as a lesser, because you baptized him, whom you also exalted: whence they add: "To whom you bore witness": in the first chapter: "John bears witness concerning him" etc.: "behold, this one baptizes," as if to say, he usurps your office. And to provoke him to jealousy, they add: "And all come to him," as if no longer caring about you. They were moved by jealousy. Joshua did something similar: in Numbers 11, concerning the men who were prophesying, he said to Moses: "My lord, forbid them. And Moses answered: Why are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the people might prophesy, and that the Lord would give them his spirit"?

Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to Whom thou barest witness, behold, the Same baptizeth, and all men come to Him. John answered and said,

The disciples bitten by the words of the Pharisees, and looking to the very nature of the thing, were not able to convict them as liars, but were reasonably at a loss, and being ignorant of the great dignity of our Saviour, are exceedingly startled at John's shortcoming, and mingling words of love with reverence and admiration, they desire to learn, why He That was borne witness to by his voice, prevents him in honour, outstrips him in grace, and in baptizing takes in His net, not a portion of the whole Jewish multitude, but even all of them. And they made the inquiry as it seems not without the Will of God: for hence the Baptist invites them to an accurate and long explanation respecting the Saviour, and introduces the clearest distinction between the baptisms.

And observe, I pray you, the Evangelist's inoffensiveness. He does not speak in the way of invective, but as far as he is able softens the charge, merely saying, that "a question arose"; whereas the sequel (which he has also set down in an inoffensive manner) makes it plain that what was said was said from jealousy.

"They came," saith he, "unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all men come to Him."

That is, "He whom thou didst baptize"; for this they imply when they say, "to whom thou barest witness," as though they had said, "He whom thou didst point out as illustrious, and make remarkable, dares to do the same as thou." Yet they do not say, "He whom thou didst baptize" baptizeth; (for then they would have been obliged to make mention of the Voice that came down from heaven, and of the descent of the Spirit;) but what say they? "He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness"; that is, "He who held the rank of a disciple, who was nothing more than we, this man hath separated himself, and baptizeth." For they thought to make him jealous, not only by this, but by asserting that their own reputation was now diminishing. "All," say they, "come to Him." Whence it is evident, that they did not get the better of the Jew with whom they disputed; but they spoke these words because they were imperfect in disposition, and were not yet clear from a feeling of rivalry.

Those who had disputed about purification, that is, baptism, come to their teacher and begin to incite him, saying: "Teacher! He Who was with you, Who held the rank of a disciple, has separated and is baptizing"; He about Whom you testified, that is, Whom you baptized, Whom you made famous, dares to do the same thing as you; moreover, some do not heed you, but all heed Him: "For all," it says, "are going to Him, and are leaving you."

They referred this issue to John; hence he says, They went to John. If we examine this closely, we see that they were trying to incite John against Christ. Indeed, they are like the gossip and the double-tongued: "Those who gossip and are double-tongued are accursed, for they disturb many who are at peace" (Sir 28:15).

So they bring up four things calculated to set John against Christ. First, they recall the previous unimportant status of Christ. Secondly, the good John did for him. Thirdly, the role which Christ took on. Fourthly, the loss to John because of Christ's new role.

They recall Christ's unimportance when they say, the man who was with you, as one of your disciples; and not the one you were with as your teacher. For there is no good reason for envy if honor is shown to one who is greater; rather, envy is aroused when honor is given to an inferior: "I have seen slaves on horses, and princes walking like slaves" (Ecc 10:7); "I called my servant, and he did not answer me" (Jb 19:16). For a master is more disturbed at the rebellion of a servant and a subject than of anyone else.

Secondly, they remind John of the good he did Christ. Thus they do not say, "the one whom you baptized," because they would then be admitting the greatness of Christ which was shown during his baptism when the Holy Spirit came upon him in the form of a dove and in the voice of the Father speaking to him. So they say, the one of whom you have given testimony, i.e., we are very angry that the one you made famous and admired dares to repay you in this way: "The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me" (Ps 40:10). They said this because those who seek their own glory and personal profit from their office become dejected if their office is taken over by someone else.

And so thirdly, they even add that Christ took over John's office for himself, when they say, he is here baptizing, i.e., he is exercising your office; and this also disturbed them very much. For we generally see that men of the same craft are envious and underhanded with respect to one another; a potter envies another potter, but does not envy a carpenter. So, even teachers, who are seeking their own honor, become sad if another teaches the truth. In opposition to them, Gregory says: "The mind of a holy pastor wishes that others teach the truth which he cannot teach all by himself." So also Moses: "Would that all the people might prophesy," as we read in Numbers (11:29).

Yet they were not satisfied with merely disturbing John, rather they report something that should really excite him, that is, the loss that John seemed to be having because of the office Christ took over. They give this when they say: and all the people are flocking to him, i.e., the ones who used to come to you. In other words, they have rejected and disowned you, and now are all going to his baptism. It is clear from Matthew (11:7) that they used to go to John: "What did you go into the desert to see?" The same envy affected the Pharisees against Christ; so they said: "Look, the whole world has gone after him" (below 12:19). However, all this did not set John against Christ, for he was not a reed swaying in the wind, and this is clear from John's answer to their question.

John confessed Him: as you have heard that when Jesus was making many disciples, and they reported to John as if to excite him to jealousy,-for they told the matter as if moved by envy, "Lo, he is making more disciples than thou,"-John confessed what he was, and thereby merited to belong to Him, because he dared not affirm himself to be that which Jesus is. Now this is what John said: "A man cannot receive anything, except it be given him from heaven." Therefore Christ gives, man receives.

"He answered and said, A man cannot receive anything, except it be given him from heaven." Of whom, think you, had John said this? Of himself. "As a man, I received," saith he, "from heaven." Note, my beloved: "A man cannot receive anything, except it be given him from heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said, I am not the Christ." As much as to say, "Why do ye deceive yourselves? See how you have put this question before me. What have you said to me? 'Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness.' Then you know what sort of witness I bare to Him. Am I now to say that He is not the same whom I declared Him to be? And because I received somewhat from heaven, in order to be something, do you wish me to be empty of it, so as to speak against the truth? 'A man cannot receive anything, except it be given him from heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said I am not the Christ.'" Thou art not the Christ; but what if thou art greater than He since thou didst baptize Him? "I am sent:" I am the herald, He is the Judge.

(Tr. xiii. c. 9) Or perhaps John is speaking here of himself: I am a mere man, and have received all from heaven, and therefore think not that, because it has been given me to be somewhat, I am so foolish as to speak against the truth.

John humbles himself and places himself after Christ through consideration of human frailty against his disciples who wished him to magnify himself and his own baptism. On account of which he says: "A man cannot receive anything unless it has been given him from heaven"; James 1: "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of lights." And so, since I am a mere man, I cannot attribute to myself anything except what has been given to me; and therefore I do not attribute to myself the office of Christ, but that of a herald; 1 Corinthians 4: "What do you have that you have not received?"

That we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own. In the Gospel according to John: "No one can receive anything, except it were given him from heaven."387 Also in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "For what hast thou that thou hast not received? But if thou hast received it, why boastest thou, as if thou hadst not received it? "388 Also in the first of Kings: "Boast not, neither speak lofty things, and let not great speeches proceed out of your mouth, for the Lord is a God of knowledge."389 Also in the same place: "The bow of the mighty men has been made weak, and the weak are girt about with strength."390 Of this same thing in the Maccabees: "It is just to be subjected to God, and that a mortal should not think things equal to God."391 Also in the same place: "And fear not the words of a man that is a sinner, because his glory shall be filth and worms. Today he shall be lifted up, and to-morrow he shall not be found; because he is turned into his earth, and his thought has perished."392

Julianus of Telepte said: It is written, "No man can receive anything unless it have been given him from heaven." If heresy is from heaven, it can also give baptism.

A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

He says that there is nothing good in man, but must needs be wholly the gift of God, For it befits the creation to hear, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? I think then that we ought to be content with the measures allotted to us, and to rejoice in the honours apportioned to us from heaven, but by no means to stretch out beyond, nor in desire ever of what is greater unthankfully to despise the decree from above, and fight against the judgment of the Lord, in shame that one should appear to receive what is less than the more perfect: but with whatsoever God shall please to honour us, to value that highly. Let not my disciple therefore, saith he, be ashamed, if I do not overleap the measure given me, if I do not contemplate the greater, and am contracted to the glory befitting a man.

"A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from above."

Marvel not, if he speak of Christ in a lowly strain; it was impossible to teach all at once, and from the very beginning, men so pre-occupied by passion. But he desires to strike them for a while with awe and terror, and to show them that they warred against none other than God Himself, when they warred against Christ. And here he secretly establishes that truth, which Gamaliel asserted, "Ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." For to say, "None can receive anything, except it be given him from heaven," was nothing else than declaring that they were attempting impossibilities, and so would be found to fight against God. "Well, but did not Theudas and his followers 'receive' from themselves?" They did, but they straightway were scattered and destroyed, not so what belonged to Christ.

By this also he gently consoles them, showing them that it was not a man, but God, who surpassed them in honor; and that therefore they must not wonder if what belonged to Him was glorious, and if "all men came unto Him": for that this was the nature of divine things, and that it was God who brought them to pass, because no man ever yet had power to do such deeds. All human things are easily seen through, and rotten, and quickly melt away and perish; these were not such, therefore not human. Observe too how when they said, "to whom thou barest witness," he turned against themselves that which they thought they had put forward to lower Christ, and silences them after showing that Jesus' glory came not from his testimony; "A man cannot," he saith, "receive anything of himself, except it be given him from heaven." "If ye hold at all to my testimony, and believe it to be true, know that by that testimony ye ought to prefer not me to Him, but Him to me. For what was it that I testified? I call you yourselves to witness."

John, wishing to frighten them and show that by hindering Christ and pushing Him away from glory they are warring against God, says: "A man can receive nothing of himself"; and further: "If," he says, "it had not been given from heaven, then He Whom you envy would not have increased. Therefore you sin twice at once: once in that you oppose the decree of God, and again in that you undertake the impossible." Along with this he also somewhat reassures them by the fact that the one overcoming them is not a man, but God. "And we too," he says, "what we had, we had not from ourselves, but from heaven. If the works of Christ are more glorious, then one should not be surprised, for such is the will of God."

Here we have John's answer to the question presented to him by his disciples. Their question contained two points: a complaint about the office Christ took on, and so they said, he is here baptizing; and about Christ's increasing fame and reputation among the people, and so they said, all the people are flocking to him. Accordingly, John directs his answer to these two complaints. First he answers the complaint about the office Christ took on. Secondly, the complaint about Christ's increasing reputation (v 30). As to the first he does two things. First, he shows the source of Christ's office and of his own. Secondly, their difference (v 28). Thirdly, how Christ and he are related to these offices.

As to the first, note that although John's disciples broach their question maliciously, and so deserve to be rebuked, John nevertheless does not sharply reprove them; and this because of their imperfection. For he feared that they might be provoked by a rebuke, leave him, and, joining forces with the Pharisees, publicly harass Christ. In acting this way he was putting into practice what is said of the Lord: "The bruised reed he will not break" (Is 42:3). Again, we should also note that he begins his answer not by telling them what is great and wonderful about Christ, but what is common and obvious; and he did this on account of their envy. For since the excellence of a person provokes others to envy, if John had stressed Christ's excellence at once, he would have fed the fire of their envy.

Thus he states something unpretentious, and says, No one can lay hold of anything unless it is given to him from heaven; and he said this to them in order to inspire them with reverence. As if to say: If all men are going to him, it is God's doing, because no one can lay hold of anything, in the order of perfection and goodness, unless it is given to him from heaven. Therefore, if you oppose him, you oppose God. "If this plan or work is from men, it will fail," as is said in Acts (5:38). This is the way Chrysostom explains it, applying these words to Christ.

Augustine, on the other hand, does much better when he refers them to John. No one can lay hold of anything unless it is given to him from heaven: as if to say: You are zealous on my behalf and you want me to be greater than Christ; but that has not been given to me, and I do not wish to usurp it: "No one takes this honor on himself" (Heb 5:4). This is the origin of their offices.

"Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said I am not the Christ." Thou art not the Christ; but what if thou art greater than He since thou didst baptize Him? "I am sent:" I am the herald, He is the Judge.

"You yourselves bear me witness that I said: I am not the Christ": in chapter 1: "And he confessed, that I am not the Christ." "But that I am sent before him," as a voice before the Word; in chapter 1: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight" etc.

That Christ is the Bridegroom, having the Church as His bride, from which spiritual children were to be born. In Joel: "Blow with the trumpet in Sion; sanctify a fast, and call a healing; assemble the people, sanctify the Church, gather the elders, collect the little ones that suck the breast; let the Bridegroom go forth of His chamber, and the bride out of her closet." Also in Jeremiah: "And I will take away from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of the joyous, and the voice of the glad; the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride." Also in the eighteenth Psalm: "And he is as a bridegroom going forth from his chamber; he exulted as a giant to run his course. From the height of heaven is his going forth, and his circuit even to the end of it; and there is nothing which is hid from his heat." Also in the Apocalypse: "Come, I will show thee the new bride, the Lamb's wife. And he took me in the Spirit to a great mountain, and he showed me the holy city Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God." Also in the Gospel according to John: "Ye are my witnesses, that I said to them who were sent from Jerusalem to me, that I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before Him. For he who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom is he who standeth and heareth him with joy, and rejoiceth because of the voice of the bridegroom." The mystery of this matter was shown in Jesus the son of Nave, when he was bidden to put his shoes from off him, doubt less because he himself was not the bridegroom. For it was in the law, that whoever should refuse marriage should put off his shoe, but that he should be shod who was to be the bridegroom: "And it happened, when Jesus was in Jericho, he looked around with his eyes, and saw a man standing before his face, and holding a javelin in his hand, and said, Art thou for us or for our enemies? And he said, I am the leader of the host of the Lord; now draw near. And Jesus fell on his rice to the earth, and said to him, Lord, what dost Thou command unto Thy servant. And the leader of the Lord's host said, Loose thy shoe from thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." Also, in Exodus, Moses is bidden to put off his shoe, because he, too, was not the bridegroom: "And there appeared unto him the angel of the Lord in a flame of fire out of a bush; and he saw that the bush burned with fire, but the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will pass over and see this great sight, why the bush is not consumed. But when He saw that he drew near to see, the Lord God called him from the bush, saying, Moses, Moses. And he said, What is it? And He said, Draw not nigh hither, unless thou hast loosed thy shoe from off thy feet; for the place on which thou standest is holy ground. And He said unto him, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." This was also made plain in the Gospel according to John: "And John answered them, I indeed baptize with water, but there standeth One in the midst of you whom ye know not: He it is of whom I said, The man that cometh after me is made before me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose." Also according to Luke: "Let your loins be girt, and your lamps burning, and ye like to men that wait for their master when he shall come from the wedding, that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him. Blessed are those servants whom their Lord, when He cometh, shall find watching." Also in the Apocalypse: "The Lord God omnipotent reigneth: let us be glad and rejoice, and let us give to Him the honour of glory; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself ready."

He brings his disciples to the recollection of the words which they have already often heard, partly reproving them rightly, as steeped in forgetfulness of things profitable, and slumbering in respect to this so most dread doctrine, partly persuading them to remember the Divine Scripture, as having been nourished in zeal for the knowledge of these things; Whom it preaches as the Christ to come, whom again as the Baptist the forerunner. For thus would they, having received knowledge of each, be in no wise angry, seeing them in the state befitting each. I shall need then, saith he, no other witnesses to this, I have my own disciples as ear-witnesses, I confessed my state of servitude, when I fore-announced, I was sent, I am not the Christ. Let Him overcome, prevail, shine forth yet more as Lord and God.

"Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before Him."

"If then ye hold to my testimony, (and ye even now produce it when ye say, 'to whom thou barest witness,') He is not only not diminished by receiving my witness, but rather is increased by it; besides, the testimony was not mine, but God's. So that if I seem to you to be trustworthy, I said this among other things, that 'I am sent before Him.'" Seest thou how he shows little by little that this Voice was divine? For what he saith is of this kind: "I am a servant, and say the words of Him that sent me, not flattering Christ through human favor, but serving His Father who sent me. I gave not the testimony as a gift, but what I was sent to speak, I spake. Do not then because of this suppose that I am great, for it shows that He is great. He is Lord of all things."

"You yourselves," he says, "know that I testified about Him that He is greater than me." So then, if you fully accept my testimony, then know that He is more honorable than me, and my joy consists in everyone coming to Him.

Then follows the difference of their offices, when he says, You yourselves are witnesses. As if to say: From the testimony which I bore to him, you can know the office committed to me by Christ: for You yourselves are witnesses, i.e., you can testify, to the fact that I said: I am not the Christ—"He declared openly and did not deny" (above 1:20)—but the one sent before him, as a herald before a judge. And so from my own testimony you can know my office, which is to go before Christ and prepare the way for him: "There was a man sent by God, whose name was John" (above 1:6). But the office of Christ is to judge and to preside. If we look at this closely we can see that John, like a skilful disputant, answers them with their own arguments: "I judge you out of your own mouth," as said in Luke (19:22).

That is, he alone is the husband of the Church, he is the expectation of the nations, offering to him the bond of nuptial grace, the prophets have loosed their sandals in his presence. He is the bridegroom, I am the friend of the bridegroom: I rejoice because he has come, because I hear the bridal voice, because no longer do we endure the harsh punishments of sins, the severe torments of the Law, but rather the forgiveness of sins, the voice of joy, the sound of gladness, we have heard the exultation of the festive nuptials.

There were prophets before John, and many, and great, and holy, worthy of God, full of God, announcers of the Savior; witnesses of the truth. However, it could not be said of any of them what was said of John: Among those born of women, none has arisen greater than John the Baptist. So what does this greatness placed before greatness mean? For the testimony of great humility. For he was so great that Christ could have been thought. John could have exploited the error of men and not exerted himself to persuade that he was the Christ, because those who heard and saw him, already thought he was without him saying it. There was no need for him to sow error, but to confirm it. But that humble friend of the bridegroom, zealous for the bridegroom, not substituting himself as the adulterer for the bridegroom, bears testimony to his friend, and commends him who was truly the bridegroom to the bride: that he might be loved in him, he hates to be loved instead of him. "He who has the bride is the bridegroom," he says. And as if you might say, "Who are you then?" He adds, "But the friend of the bridegroom stands and hears him, and rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice." He stands and hears: the disciple hears the master; because he hears, he stands; for if he does not hear, he falls. Hence the greatness of John is especially commended; for when he could have been thought to be Christ, he preferred to bear testimony to Christ, to commend him; to humble himself rather than to be taken instead of him, and to deceive others.

"He that hath the bride is the Bridegroom; but the friend of the Bridegroom, who standeth and heareth Him, rejoiceth greatly because of the Bridegroom's voice." Not of himself did he give himself joy. He that will have joy of himself shall be sad; but he that will have his joy of God will ever rejoice, because God is everlasting. Dost thou desire to have everlasting joy? Cleave to Him who is everlasting. Such an one John declared himself to be. "Because of the Bridegroom's voice, the friend of the Bridegroom rejoiceth," not because of his own voice, and "standeth and heareth." Therefore, if he falls, he heareth Him not: for of a certain one who fell it is said, "And he stood not in the truth;" this is said of the devil. It behoves the Bridegroom's friend, then, "to stand and to hear." What is it to stand? It is to abide in His grace, which he received. And he hears a voice at which he rejoices. Such was John: he knew whereof he rejoiced; he did not arrogate to himself to be what he was not; he knew himself as one enlightened, not the enlightener.

"This my joy therefore is fulfilled." What is his joy? To rejoice at the Bridegroom's voice. It is fulfilled in me, I bare my grace; more I do not assume to myself, lest also I lose what I have received. What is this joy? "With joy rejoiceth for the Bridegroom's voice." A man may understand, then, that he ought not to rejoice of his own wisdom, but of the wisdom which he has received from God. Let him ask nothing more, and he loses not what he found. For many, in that they affirmed themselves to be wise, became fools. The apostle convicts them, and says of them, "Because that which is known of God is manifest to them; for God has showed it unto them." Hear ye what he says of certain unthankful, ungodly men: "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are seen, being understood by the things that are made, His eternal power likewise, and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Why without excuse? "Because, knowing God" (he said not, "because they knew Him not"), "they glorified Him not as God, nor were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened: professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." If they had known God, they had known at the same time that God, and none other, had made them wise; and they would not then attribute to themselves that which they did not have from themselves, but to Him from whom they had received it. But by their unthankfulness they became fools. Therefore, what God gave freely, He took from the unthankful. John would not be this; he would be thankful: he confessed to have received, and declared that he rejoiced for the Bridegroom's voice, saying, "Therefore this my joy is fulfilled."

But hear a far stronger, a far more expressive testimony. See ye what it is we are treating of; see ye that to love any person in place of Christ is adultery. Why do I say this? Let us attend to the voice of John. People could be mistaken in him, could think him to be the person he was not. He rejects the false honor, in order to hold the truth complete. See what he declares Christ to be; what does he say himself is? "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom." Be chaste, love the bridegroom. But what art thou, who sayest to us, "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom? But the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice." The Lord our God will help me in proportion to the tumult of my heart, for it is full of sadness, to utter the grief I feel; but I beseech you by Christ Himself to imagine in thought what it will not be possible for me to utter; for I know that my grief cannot be expressed with befitting impressiveness. Now I see many adulterers who desire to get possession of the bride, purchased at so great a price, loved while deformed that she might be made fair, having been purchased and delivered and adorned by such an one; and those adulterers strive with their words to be loved instead of the bridegroom. Of that One it is said, "This is He that baptizeth." Who is he that goes forth from us and says, "I am he that baptizeth"? Who is he that goes forth from us and says, "That is holy which I give"? Who is he that goes hence and says, "It is good for thee to be born of me"? Let us hear the friend of the bridegroom, not the adulterers against the bridegroom; let us hear one jealous, but not for himself.

Brethren, return in thought to your own homes. I speak of carnal, I speak of earthly things; I speak after the manner of men, for the infirmity of your flesh. Many of you have, many of you wish to have, many, though you wish not to have, still have had wives; many who do not at all wish to have wives, are born of the wives of your fathers. This is a feeling that touches every heart. There is no man so alien from mankind in human affairs as not to feel what I say. Suppose that a man, having set out on a journey, had commended his bride to the care of his friend: "See, I pray thee, thou art my dear friend; see to it, lest in my absence some other may perchance be loved in my stead." Then what sort of a person must he be, who, while the guardian of the bride or wife of his friend, does indeed endeavor that none other be loved, but if he wishes himself to be loved instead of his friend, and desires to enjoy her who was committed to his care, how detestable must he appear to all mankind! Let him see her gazing out of the window, or joking with some one somewhat too heedlessly, he forbids her as one who is jealous. I see him jealous, but let me see for whom he is jealous; whether for his absent friend or for his present self. Think that our Lord Jesus Christ has done this. He has committed His bride to the care of His friend; He has set out on a journey to a far country to receive a kingdom, as He says Himself in the Gospel, but yet is present in His majesty. Let the friend who has gone beyond the sea be deceived; and if he is deceived, woe to him who deceives! Why do men attempt to deceive God,-God who looks at the hearts of all, and searches the secrets of all?

Let us return and see what this John saith: "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom;" she is not my bride. And dost thou not rejoice in the marriage? Yea, saith he, I do rejoice: "But the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the voice of the bridegroom." Not because of mine own voice, saith he, do I rejoice, but because of the Bridegroom's voice. I am in the place of hearer; He, of speaker: I am as one that must be enlightened, He is the light; I am as the ear, He is the word. Therefore the friend of the Bridegroom standeth and heareth Him. Why standeth? Because he falls not. How falls not? Because he is humble. See him standing on solid ground; "I am not worthy to loose the latchet of His shoe." Thou doest well to be humble; deservedly thou dost not fall; deservedly thou standest, and hearest Him, and rejoicest greatly for the Bridegroom's voice. So also the apostle is the Bridegroom's friend; he too is jealous, not for himself, but for the Bridegroom. Hear his voice when he is jealous: "I am jealous over you," said he, "with the jealousy of God:" not with my own, nor for myself, but with the jealousy of God. Why? How? Over whom art thou jealous, and for whom? "For I have espoused you to one husband, to present a chaste virgin to Christ." Why dost thou fear, then? Why art thou jealous? "I fear," saith he, "lest, as the serpent beguiled Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the chastity which is in Christ." The whole Church is called a virgin. You see that the members of the Church are divers, that they are endowed with and do rejoice in divers gifts: some men wedded, some women wedded; some are widowers who seek no more to have wives, some are widows who seek no more to have husbands; some men preserve continence from their youth, some women have vowed their virginity to God: divers are the gifts, but all these are one virgin. Where is this virginity, for it is not in the body. It belongs to few women; and if virginity can be said of men, to few men in the Church belongs a holy integrity even of body; yet one such is a more honorable member. Other members, however, preserve virginity, not in body, but all in mind. What is the virginity of the mind? Entire faith, firm hope, sincere charity. This is the virginity which he, who was jealous for the Bridegroom, feared might be corrupted by the serpent. For, just as the bodily member is marred in a certain part, so the seduction of the tongue defiles the virginity of the heart. Let her who does not desire without cause to keep virginity of body, see to it that she be not corrupted in mind.

What shall I say, then, brethren? Even the heretics have virgins, and there are many virgins among heretics. Let us see whether they love the Bridegroom, so that this virginity may be guarded. For whom is it guarded? "For Christ." Let us see if it be for Christ, and not for Donatus: let us see for whom this virginity is preserved: you can easily prove. Behold, I show you the Bridegroom, for He shows Himself. John bears witness to Him: "This is He that baptizeth." O thou virgin, if for this Bridegroom thou preservest thy virginity, why runnest thou to him who says, "I am he that baptizeth," while the friend of the Bridegroom tells thee, "This is He that baptizeth"? Again, thy Bridegroom possesseth the whole world; why, then, shouldst thou be defiled with a part of it? Who is the Bridegroom? "For God is King of all the earth." This thy Bridegroom possesses the whole, because He purchased the whole. See at what price He purchased it, that thou mayest understand what He has purchased. What price has He given? He gave His blood. Where gave He, where shed He, His blood? In His passion.

Evidently, then, my brethren, it profits those men nothing to keep virginity, to have continence, to give alms. All those doings which are praised in the Church profit them nothing; because they rend unity, namely, that "coat" of charity. What do they? Many among them are eloquent; great tongues, streams of tongues. Do they speak like angels? Let them hear the friend of the Bridegroom, jealous for the Bridegroom, not for himself: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

But what say they? "We have baptism." Thou hast, but not thine. It is one thing to have, another to own. Baptism thou hast, for thou hast received to be baptized, received as one enlightened, provided thou be not darkened of thyself; and when thou givest, thou givest as a minister, not as owner; as a herald proclaiming, not as a judge. The judge speaks through the herald, and nevertheless it is not written in the registers, "The herald said," but, "The judge said." Therefore see if what thou givest is thine by authority. But if thou hast received, confess with the friend of the Bridegroom, "A man cannot receive anything, except it be given him from heaven." Confess with the friend of the Bridegroom, "He that hath the bride is the Bridegroom; but the friend of the Bridegroom standeth and heareth Him." But O, would thou didst stand and hear Him, and not fall, to hear thyself! For by hearing Him, thou wouldst stand and hear; for thou wilt speak, and thy head is puffed with pride. I, saith the Church, if I am the bride, if I have received pledges, if I have been redeemed at the price of that blood, do hear the voice of the Bridegroom; and I do hear the voice of the Bridegroom's friend too, if he give glory to my Bridegroom, not to himself. Let the friend speak: "He that hath the bride is the Bridegroom; but the friend of the Bridegroom standeth and heareth Him, and rejoices greatly because of the voice of the Bridegroom." Behold, thou hast sacraments; and I grant that thou hast. Thou hast the form, but thou art a branch cut off from the vine; thou hast a form, I want the root. There is no fruit of the form, except where there is a root; but where is the root but in charity? Hear the form of the cut-off branches; let Paul speak: "Though I know all mysteries," saith he, "and have all prophecy, and all faith" (and how great a faith!), "so as to remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."

Let no man tell you fables, then. "Pontius wrought a miracle; and Donatus prayed, and God answered him from heaven." In the first place, either they are deceived, or they deceive. In the last place, grant that he removes mountains: "And have not charity," saith the apostle, "I am nothing." Let us see whether he has charity. I would believe that he had, if he had not divided unity. For against those whom I may call marvel-workers, my God has put me on my guard, saying, "In the last times there shall arise false prophets, doing signs and wonders, to lead into error, if it were possible, even the elect: Lo, I have foretold it to you." Therefore the Bridegroom has cautioned us, that we ought not to be deceived even by miracles. Sometimes, indeed, a deserter frightens a plain countryman; but whether he is of the camp, and whether he is the better of that character with which he is marked, is what he who would not be frightened or seduced attends to. Let us then, my brethren, hold unity: without unity, even he who works miracles is nothing. The people Israel was in unity, and yet wrought no miracles: Pharaoh's magicians were out of unity, and yet they wrought the like works as Moses. The people Israel, as I have said, wrought no miracles. Who were saved with God-they who did, or they who did not, work miracles? The Apostle Peter raised a dead person: Simon Magus did many things: there were there certain Christians who were not able to do either what Peter did or what Simon did; and wherein did they rejoice? In this, that their names were written in heaven. For this is what our Lord Jesus Christ said to the disciples on their return, because of the faith of the Gentiles. The disciples, in truth, themselves said, boasting, "Behold, Lord, in Thy name even the devils are subject to us." Rightly indeed they confessed, they brought the honor to the name of Christ; and yet what does He say to them? "Do not ye glory in this, that the devils are subject to you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven." Peter cast out devils. Some old widow, some lay person or other, having charity, and holding the integrity of faith, forsooth does not do this. Peter is the eye in the body, that man is the finger, yet is he in the same body in which Peter is; and if the finger has less power than the eye, yet it is not cut off from the body. Better is it to be a finger and to be in the body, than to be an eye and to be plucked out of the body.

Therefore, my brethren, let no man deceive you, let no man seduce you: love the peace of Christ, who was crucified for you, whilst He was God. Paul says, "Neither he that planteth is anything, neither he that watereth, but God who giveth the increase." And does any of us say that he is something? If we say that we are something, and give not the glory to Him, we are adulterers; we desire ourselves to be loved, not the Bridegroom. Love ye Christ, and us in Him, in whom also you are beloved by us. Let the members love one another, but live all under the Head.

But what of that resurrection of the body? For these who hear and live, whence live, except by hearing? For "the friend of the Bridegroom standeth and heareth Him, and rejoiceth greatly because of the Bridegroom's voice:" not because of his own voice; that is to say, they hear and live by partaking, not by coming into being; and all that hear live, because all that obey live.

(Tr. xiii. c. 12) As if He said, She is not My spouse. But dost thou therefore not rejoice in the marriage? Yea, I rejoice, he saith, because I am the friend of the Bridegroom.

(Tr. xiii) But wherefore doth he stand? Because he falleth not, by reason of his humility. A sure ground this to stand upon, Whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. Again; He standeth, and heareth Him. So then if he falleth, he heareth Him not. Therefore the friend of the Bridegroom ought to stand and hear, i. e. to abide in the grace which he hath received, and to hear the voice in which he rejoiceth. I rejoice not, he saith, because of my own voice, but because of the Bridegroom's voice. I rejoice; I in hearing, He in speaking; I am the ear, He the Word. For he who guards the bride or wife of his friend, takes care that she love none else; if he wish to be loved himself in the stead of his friend, and to enjoy her who was entrusted to him, how detestable doth he appear to the whole world! Yet many are the adulterers I see, who would fain possess themselves of the spouse who was bought at so great a price, and who aim by their words at being loved themselves instead of the Bridegroom.

(Tr. xiv. c. 3) Or thus; This my Joy is fulfilled, i. e. my joy at hearing the Bridegroom's voice. I have my gift; I claim no more, lest I lose that which I have received. He who would rejoice in himself, hath sorrow; but he who would rejoice in the Lord, shall ever rejoice, because God is everlasting.

The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. By the bride he means the church gathered from among all nations.… It is a virgin pure of heart, perfect in love, bound to him in the bond of peace, in chastity of body and soul and in the unity of the Catholic faith. For it is useless for her to be a virgin in body without retaining the purity of the Catholic faith. Our Lord therefore committed his bride to his friends who are the preachers of the true gospel. Therefore, John says, "The friend of the bridegroom who stands and hears him rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice." The friend is able to stand and hear him because he remains in the true faith and preaches what he believes.

Who art thou then, since thou art not the Christ, and who is He to Whom thou bearest witness? John replies, He is the Bridegroom; I am the friend of the Bridegroom, sent to prepare the Bride for His approach: He that hath the Bride, is the Bridegroom. By the Bride he means the Church, gathered from amongst all nations; a Virgin in purity of heart, in perfection of love, in the bond of peace, in chastity of mind and body; in the unity of the Catholic faith; for in vain is she a virgin in body, who continueth not a virgin in mind. This Bride hath Christ joined unto Himself in marriage, and redeemed with the price of His own Blood.

His Bride therefore our Lord committed to His friend, i. e. the order of preachers, who should be jealous of her, not for themselves, but for Christ; The friend of the Bridegroom which standeth and heareth Him, rejoiceth greatly because of the Bridegroom's voice.

He rejoiceth at hearing the Bridegroom's voice, who knows that he should not rejoice in his own wisdom, but in the wisdom which God giveth him. Whoever in his good works seeketh not his own glory, or praise, or earthly gain, but hath his affections set on heavenly things; this man is the friend of the Bridegroom.

Here he shows that Christ is set before him in the power of baptizing. For it belongs to him to baptize whose it is to regenerate; and it belongs to him to regenerate who has the bride, from whom he may beget. Therefore he says: "He who has the bride is the bridegroom," and from her he can beget and baptize: Ephesians 5: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of water in the word of life." Bede: "Christ is the bridegroom, the bride is the Church gathered from the nations: 2 Corinthians 11: I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. His therefore it is to regenerate; but mine it is not to regenerate nor to envy, but rather to rejoice as a friend." Therefore he adds: "But the friend of the bridegroom, who stands," by grace, "and hears him," by internal inspiration, "rejoices with joy because of the voice of the bridegroom. Rejoices with joy," that is, rejoices fully, because he wishes to rejoice with him. "Friend": in chapter 15: "You are my friends" etc. "Stands": Romans 14: "To his own Lord he stands or falls." "Hears": Psalm: "I will hear what the Lord God speaks in me" etc. "Rejoices with joy": Philippians, the last chapter: "Rejoice in the Lord always" etc. And in this way John rejoiced as a friend, not grieving as one envious. Therefore he says: "In this therefore my joy is fulfilled," that is, perfected, namely joy is then fulfilled when it has what it desires: in chapter 16: "Ask, and you shall receive, that your joy may be full."

Chrysostom inquires about this, that John calls himself the friend of the bridegroom, when above he had not dared to call himself a worthy servant: in chapter 1: "Whose latchet I am not worthy" etc.

Chrysostom responds that answers are fitted to questions: and above John was being incited to ambition; and therefore he humbled himself and called himself an unworthy servant. Here he is being incited to jealousy: and therefore he calls himself a friend and says that he rejoices at his good.

Now the shoes which the Father bids the servant give to the repentant son who has be-taken himself to Him, do not impede or drag to the earth (for the earthly tabernacle weighs down the anxious mind); but they are buoyant, and ascending, and waft to heaven, and serve as such a ladder and chariot as he requires who has turned his mind towards the Father. For, beautiful after being first beautifully adorned with all these things without, he enters into the gladness within. For "Bring out" was said by Him who had first said, "While he was yet a great way off, he ran and fell upon his neck." For it is here that all the preparation for entrance to the marriage to which we are invited must be accomplished. He, then, who has been made ready to enter will say, "This my joy is fulfilled." But the unlovely and unsightly man will hear, "Friend, how camest thou in here, without having a wedding garment?"

The discourse again took its rise from likeness to our affairs, but leads us to the knowledge of subtle thoughts. For types of things spiritual are those which endure the touch of the hand, and the grossness of corporeal examples introduceth oftentimes a most accurate proof of things spiritual. Christ then, says he, is the Bridegroom and ruler of the assembly, I the bidder to the supper and conducter of the bride, having as my chiefest joy and illustrious dignity, to be only enrolled among His friends, and to hear the Voice of Him That feasteth. I have therefore even now that that I long for, and my dearest wish is fulfilled. For not only did I preach that Christ would come, but Him already present have I seen, and His very Voice do I lay up in my ears. But ye, most wise disciples, seeing the human nature that is betrothed to Christ, going to Him, and beholding the nature which was cut off and a run-away from its love to Him attaining to spiritual union through holy Baptism, grieve not, saith he, that it befits not me, but rather runs very gladly to the spiritual Bridegroom (for this were in truth just and more fitting). For He That hath the bride is the Bridegroom; that is, seek not in me the crown of the Bridegroom, not for me does the Psalmist rejoice, saying, Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people and thy father's house, for the King hath desired thy beauty: nor seeking my chamber doth the bride say, Tell me, O Thou Whom my soul loveth, where Thou feedest, where Thou makest Thy flock to rest at noon: she has the Bridegroom from Heaven. But I will rejoice, having surpassed the honour becoming a bondman, in the title and reality of friendship.

I deem then that the meaning of the passage, has been full well interpreted: and having already sufficiently explained the spiritual marriage, I think it tedious to write any more about it.

"Whose sandal strap I am not worthy to untie." The custom among the ancients was that if someone did not wish to take as wife the one who was suited to him, he who came as bridegroom by right of kinship to her would untie his sandal. What then did Christ appear as among men, if not the bridegroom of holy Church? Of whom the same John also says: "He who has the bride is the bridegroom." But because men thought John was the Christ, which the same John denies, he rightly declares himself unworthy to untie the strap of his sandal. As if he openly said: I am unable to uncover the footsteps of our Redeemer, because I do not undeservedly usurp for myself the name of bridegroom.

Those who thought John was Christ believed the Church to be his bride. But he said: "He who has the bride is the bridegroom." As if to say: I am not the bridegroom, but the friend of the bridegroom. Nor did he declare that he rejoiced because of his own voice, but in the voice of the bridegroom, because he did not rejoice in his heart because he was humbly heard by the people when he spoke, but because he himself heard the voice of truth within so that he might speak outwardly. He rightly says his joy was fulfilled, because whoever rejoices in his own voice does not have full joy.

"He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice."

"But how doth he who said, 'whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose,' now call himself His 'friend'?" It is not to exalt himself, nor boastingly, that he saith this, but from desire to show that he too most forwards this, (i.e. the exaltation of Christ,) and that these things come to pass not against his will or to his grief, but that he desires and is eager for them, and that it was with a special view to them that all his actions had been performed; and this he has very wisely shown by the term "friend." For on occasions like marriages, the servants of the bridegroom are not so glad and joyful as his "friends." It was not from any desire to prove equality of honor, (away with the thought,) but only excess of pleasure, and moreover from condescension to their weakness that he calleth himself "friend." For his service he before declared by saying, "I am sent before Him." On this account, and because they thought that he was vexed at what had taken place, he called himself the "friend of the Bridegroom," to show that he was not only not vexed, but that he even greatly rejoiced. "For," saith he, "I came to effect this, and am so far from grieving at what has been done, that had it not come to pass, I should then have been greatly grieved. Had the bride not come to the Bridegroom, then I should have been grieved, but not now, since my task has been accomplished. When His servants are advancing, we are they who gain the honor for that which we desired hath come to pass, and the bride knoweth the Bridegroom, and ye are witnesses of it when ye say, 'All men come unto Him.' This I earnestly desired, I did all to this end; and now when I see that it has come to pass, I am glad, and rejoice, and leap for joy."

But what meaneth, "He which standeth and heareth Him rejoiceth greatly, because of the Bridegroom's voice"? He transfers the expression from the parable to the subject in hand; for after mentioning the bridegroom and the bride, he shows how the bride is brought home, that is, by a "Voice" and teaching. For thus the Church is wedded to God; and therefore Paul saith, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." "At this 'Voice,'" saith he, "I rejoice." And not without a cause doth he put "who standeth," but to show that his office had ceased, that he had given over to Him "the Bride," and must for the future stand and hear Him; that he was a servant and minister; that his good hope and his joy was now accomplished. Therefore he saith,

"This my joy therefore is fulfilled."

That is to say, "The work is finished which was to be done by me, for the future I can do nothing more." Then, to prevent increase of jealous feeling, not then only, but for the future, he tells them also of what should come to pass, confirming this too by what he had already said and done.

If the Bride, that is, the people, were not coming to this Bridegroom, then I, the friend of the bridegroom, would grieve; but now that this has happened, I rejoice greatly, for I see that the Bridegroom — Christ — calls out to the bride — the people — and teaches them. Not without purpose did he say "standing," but by this he shows that his work is finished and he stands already without activity, and that he finally needs to stand and only listen to the teaching of Christ and His conversation with the bride. "My joy," he says, "has been fulfilled in the Bridegroom." The task entrusted to me as the friend of the bridegroom, I see, has succeeded. So, the Lord is the bridegroom of every soul; the bridal chamber in which the union takes place is the place of baptism, that is, the church; He gives the bride a pledge — the forgiveness of sins, the communion of the Holy Spirit, and the rest in the age to come, when He will lead those who are worthy into better and higher mysteries. Note, then, that the bridegroom is none other than Christ alone, while all teachers are friends of the bridegroom, as was the Forerunner. For the giver of blessings is none other than the Lord alone; all the rest are mediators and ministers of the blessings bestowed by the Lord.

Christ is the spouse of every soul; the wedlock, wherein they are joined, is baptism; the place of that wedlock is the Church; the pledge of it, remission of sins, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost; the consummation, eternal life; which those who are worthy shall receive. Christ alone is the Bridegroom: all other teachers are but the friends of the Bridegroom, as was the forerunner. The Lord is the giver of good; the rest are the despisers of His gifts.

For which cause I rejoice now, that all men follow Him. For had the bride, i. e. the people, not come forth to meet the Bridegroom, then I, as the friend of the Bridegroom, should have grieved,

He shows how John is related to his own office when he says: It is the groom who has the bride. First, he gives a simile. Secondly, he applies it to his own situation. With respect to the first he does two things. First, he gives a simile which applies to Christ; and secondly, to himself.

As to the first, we should note that on the human level it is the groom who regulates, governs and has the bride. Hence he says, It is the groom who has the bride. Now the groom is Christ: "Like a bridegroom coming out of his bridal chamber" (Ps 18:6). His bride is the Church, which is joined to him by faith: "I will espouse you to myself in faith" (Hos 2:20). In keeping with this figure, Zipporah said to Moses: "You are a spouse of blood to me" (Ex 4:25). We read of the marriage: "The marriage of the Lamb has come" (Rv 19:7). So, because Christ is the groom, he has the bride, that is, the Church; but my part is only to rejoice in the fact that he has the bride.

Consequently he says, The groom's friend waits there and listens to him, rejoicing at hearing his voice. Although John had said earlier that he was not worthy to unfasten the strap of Jesus' sandal, he here calls himself the friend of Jesus in order to bring out the faithfulness of his love for Christ. For a servant does not act in the spirit of love in regard to the things that pertain to his master, but in a spirit of servitude; while a friend, on the other hand, seeks his friend's interests out of love and faithfulness. Hence a faithful servant is like a friend to his master: "If you have a faithful servant, treat him like yourself" (Sir 33:31). Indeed, it is proof of a servant's faithfulness when he rejoices in the prosperity of his master, and when he obtains various goods, not for himself, but for his master. And so because John did not keep the bride entrusted to his care for himself, but for the groom, we can see that he was a faithful servant and a friend of the groom. It is to suggest this that he calls himself the groom's friend.

Those who are friends of the truth should act in the same way, not turning the bride entrusted to their care to their own advantage and glory, but treating her honorably for the honor and glory of the groom; otherwise they would not be friends of the groom but adulterers. This is why Gregory says that a servant who is sent by the groom with gifts for the bride is guilty of adulterous thoughts if he himself desires to please the bride. This is not what the Apostle did: "I espoused you to one husband in order to present you to Christ as a chaste virgin" (2 Cor 11:2). And John did the same, because he did not keep the bride, i.e., the faithful, for himself, but brought them to the groom, that is, to Christ.

And so by saying, the groom's friend, he suggests the faithfulness of his love. Further, he suggests his constancy when he says, waits, firm in friendship and faithfulness, not extolling himself above what he really is: "I will stand my watch" (Hb 2:1); "Be steadfast and unchanging" (1 Cor 15:58); "A faithful friend, if he is constant, is like another self" (Sir 6:11).

He suggests his attention when he says, and listens to him, i.e., attentively considers the way in which the groom is united to the bride. For according to Chrysostom, these words explain the manner of this marriage, for it is accomplished through faith, and "faith comes through hearing" (Rom 10:17). Or, he listens to him, i.e., reverently obeys him, by caring for the bride according to the commands of the groom: "I will listen to him as my master," as is said in Isaiah (50:4). This is in opposition to those evil prelates who do not follow Christ's command in governing the Church.

Likewise, he hints at his spiritual joy when he says, rejoicing at hearing his voice, that is, when the groom talks to his bride. And he says, rejoicing (literally, "rejoicing with joy"), to show the truth and perfection of his joy. For one whose rejoicing is not over the good, does not rejoice with true joy. And so, if it made me sad that Christ, who is the true groom, preaches to the bride, i.e., the Church, I would not be a friend of the groom; but I am not sad.

Therefore in this case my joy is complete, namely, in seeing what I have so long desired, that is, the groom speaking to his bride. Or, my joy is complete, i.e., brought to its perfect and due measure, when the bride is united to the groom, because I now have my grace and I have completed my work: "I will rejoice in the Lord, and I will take joy in God, my Jesus" (Hb 3:18).

"He must increase, but I must decrease." What is this? He must be exalted, but I must be humbled. How is Jesus to increase? How is God to increase? The perfect does not increase. God neither increases nor decreases. For if He increases, He is not perfect; if He decreases, he is not God. And how can Jesus increase, being God? If to man's estate, since He deigned to be man and was a child; and, though the Word of God, lay an infant in a manger; and, though His mother's Creator, yet sucked the milk of infancy of her: then Jesus having grown in age of the flesh, that perhaps is the reason why it is said, "He must increase, but I must decrease." But why in this? As regards the flesh, John and Jesus were of the same age, there being six months between them: they had grown up together; and if our Lord Jesus Christ had willed to be here longer before His death, and that John should be here with Him, then, as they had grown up together, so would they have grown old together: in what way, then, "He must increase but I must decrease"? Above all, our Lord Jesus Christ being now thirty years old, does a man who is already thirty years old still grow? From that same age, men begin to go downward, and to decline to graver age, thence to old age. Again, even had they both been lads, he would not have said, "He must increase," but, We must increase together. But now each is thirty years of age. The interval of six months makes no difference in age; the difference is discovered by reading rather than by the look of the persons.

What means, then, "He must increase, but I must decrease"? This is a great mystery! Before the Lord Jesus came, men were glorying of themselves; He came a man, to lessen man's glory, and to increase the glory of God. Now He came without sin, and found all men in sin. If thus He came to put away sin, God may freely give, man may confess. For man's confession is man's lowliness: God's pity is God's loftiness. Therefore, since He came to forgive man his sins, let man acknowledge his own lowliness and let God show His pity. "He must increase, but I must decrease:" that is, He must give, but I must receive; He must be glorified, but I must confess. Let man know his own condition, and confess to God; and hear the apostle as he says to a proud, elated man, bent on extolling himself: "What hast thou that thou didst not receive? And if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou didst not receive it?" Then let man understand that he has received; and when he would call that his own which is not his, let him decrease: for it is good for him that God be glorified in him. Let him decrease in himself, that he may be increased in God.

These testimonies and this truth, Christ and John signified by their deaths. For John was lessened by the head: Christ was exalted on the cross; so that even there it appeared what this is, "He must increase, but I must decrease." Again, Christ was born when the days were just beginning to lengthen; John was born when they began to shorten. Thus their very creation and deaths testify to the words of John, when he says, "He must increase, but I must decrease." May the glory of God then increase in us, and our own glory decrease, that even ours may increase in God! For this is what the apostle says, this is what Holy Scripture says: "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." Wilt thou glory in thyself? Thou wilt grow; but grow worse in thy evil. For whoso grows worse is justly decreased. Let God, then, who is ever perfect, grow, and grow in thee. For the more thou understandest God, and apprehendest Him, He seems to be growing in thee; but in Himself He grows not, being ever perfect. Thou didst understand a little yesterday; thou understandest more to-day, wilt understand much more to-morrow: the very light of God increases in thee: as if thus God increases, who remains ever perfect. It is as if one's eyes were being cured of former blindness, and he began to see a little glimmer of light, and the next day he saw more, and the third day still more: to him the light would seem to grow; yet the light is perfect, whether he see it or not. Thus it is also with the inner man: he makes progress indeed in God, and God seems to be increasing in him; yet man himself is decreasing, that he may fall from his own glory, and rise into the glory of God.

(Tr. xxv. c. 4, 5) What meaneth this, He must increase? God neither increases, nor decreases. And John and Jesus, according to the flesh, were of the same age: for the six months' difference between them is of no consequence. This is a great mystery. Before our Lord came, men gloried in themselves; He came in no man's nature, that the glory of man might be diminished, and the glory of God exalted. For He came to remit sins upon man's confession: a man's confession, a man's humility, is God's pity, God's exaltation. This truth Christ and John proved, even by their modes of suffering: John was beheaded, Christ was lifted up on the cross. Then Christ was born, when the days begin to lengthen; John, when they begin to shorten. Let God's glory then increase in us, and our own decrease, that ours also may increase in God. But it is because thou understandest God more and more, that He seemeth to increase in thee: for in His own nature He increaseth not, but is ever perfect: even as to a man cured of blindness, who beginneth to see a little, and daily seeth more, the light seemeth to increase, whereas it is in reality always at the fall, whether he seeth it or not. In like manner the inner man maketh advancement in God, and it seemeth as if God were increasing in Him; but it is He Himself that decreaseth, falling from the height of His own glory, and rising in the glory of God.

The crowd believed that [John] was the Christ because of the greatness of his power, while some people supposed that our Lord was not the Christ but a prophet because of the weakness of his flesh. John himself revealed the secret meaning of this difference.… Our Lord increased because it became known to believers throughout the entire world that he who was believed to be a prophet was the Christ. John diminished and decreased because it became apparent that he who was judged to be the Christ was not himself the Christ but the herald of the Christ.

"He must increase, but I must decrease." This is the best sign, when someone rejoices at another's exaltation together with his own diminishment. "He must increase," in death, because he was exalted on the cross; "but I must decrease," in having my head cut off. Or: "he must increase," in fame, so that he may be believed to be Christ; "but I must decrease," so that I who am believed to be Christ may be believed to be his forerunner. Or: "he must increase," in baptizing and in the number of disciples; "I must decrease," because his baptism and his discipleship were about to cease shortly, but Christ's on the contrary to be enlarged. The Apostle rejoiced at this enlargement, Philippians 1: "Whether by occasion or by truth Christ is proclaimed, in this I rejoice, and indeed I shall rejoice."

"I must decrease," said the prophet John, and the Word of the Lord alone, in which the law terminates, "increase." Understand now for me the mystery of the truth, granting pardon if I shrink from advancing further in the treatment of it, by announcing this alone: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing." Certainly He is called "the chief corner stone; in whom the whole building, fitly joined together, groweth into an holy temple of God," according to the divine apostle.

He convicts his disciples of being yet troubled about trifles, and of taking unseasonable offence at what they by no means ought, and of not yet knowing accurately, Who and whence Emmanuel is. For not thus far, saith he, shall His Deeds be marvelled at, nor because more are baptized by Him, shall He for this alone surpass my honour, but He shall attain to so great a measure of honour, as befitteth God. For He must needs come to increase of glory, and, through daily additions of miracles, ever mount up to the greater, and shine forth with greater splendour to the world: but I must decrease, abiding in that measure wherein I appear, not sinking from what was once given me, but in such a degree inferior to Him That advanceth ever to an increase of glory, as He hasteth and passeth on.

And this the blessed Baptist interpreteth to us. But our discourse will advance profitably through examples, making the force of what has been said clearer. Let then a stake two cubits long be fixed in the ground: let there lie near a plant too, just peeping above the ground, putting forth green shoots into the air, and ever thrust up to a greater height by the resistless vigour from the roots; if then one could put voice into the stake, and it should then say of itself and its neighbour the plant, This must increase, but I decrease; one would not reasonably suppose that it indicated any harm to itself, nor that its existing measure would be clipped, but it would be affirming its decrease in that sort only, in which it is found less than that which is ever advancing towards increase. Again you may take an example akin to this one, and suppose the brightest of the stars to cry out saying of the sun, It must increase, but I decrease. For while in the gloom of night the depth of the atmosphere is darkened, one may well admire the morning star flashing forth its golden light, and conspicuous in its full glory: but when the sun now gives notice of its rising, and bedews the world with a moderate light, the star is surpassed by the greater, and gives place to him advancing little by little. And it too might well speak the words of John, being in that same state, which he says he is enduring.

And he adds: "He must increase, but I must decrease." In this matter we must ask in what way Christ increased and in what way John decreased, unless it be that the people, seeing John's abstinence and observing that he was withdrawn from men, thought he was Christ; but seeing Christ eating with tax collectors and walking among sinners, they believed he was not Christ but a prophet. But as time passed, Christ who was thought to be a prophet was recognized as Christ, and John who was believed to be Christ became known to be a prophet, and thus was fulfilled what his forerunner predicted about Christ: "He must increase, but I must decrease." Indeed, in the estimation of the people Christ increased because he was recognized as what he was; and John decreased because he ceased to be called what he was not.

"He must increase, but I must decrease."

That is to say, "What is mine has now come to a stand, and has henceforth ceased, but what is His increaseth; for that which ye fear shall not be now only, but much more as it advances. And it is this especially which shows what is mine the brighter! for this end I came, and I rejoice that what is His hath made so great progress, and that those things have come to pass on account of which all that I did was done." Seest thou how gently and very wisely he softened down their passion, quenched their envy, showed them that they were undertaking impossibilities, a method by which wickedness is best checked? For this purpose it was ordained, that these things should take place while John was yet alive and baptizing, in order that his disciples might have him as a witness of the superiority of Christ, and that if they should not believe, they might be without excuse. For John came not to say these words of his own accord, nor in answer to other enquirers, but they asked the question themselves, and heard the answer. For if he had spoken of himself, their belief would not have been equal to the self-condemning judgment which they received when they heard him answer to their question; just as the Jews also, in that they sent to him from their homes, heard what they did, and yet would not believe, by this especially deprived themselves of excuse.

John himself professes that the celestial things are not his, but Christ's, by saying, "He who is from the earth speaketh concerning the earth; He who comes from the realms above is above all; " and again, by saying that he "baptized in repentance only, but that One would shortly come who would baptize in the Spirit and fire; " -of course because true and stable faith is baptized with water, unto salvation; pretended and weak faith is baptized with fire, unto judgment.

In speech, by which prayer is enunciated, in spirit, by which alone it prevails, even John had taught his disciples to pray, but all John's doings were laid as groundwork for Christ, until, when "He had increased "-just as the same John used to fore-announce "that it was needful" that "He should increase and himself decrease" -the whole work of the forerunner passed over, together with his spirit itself, unto the Lord.

"My work," he says, "is finished, and I have handed the people over to Him. Therefore my glory must decrease, while His must increase." How then does the Forerunner's glory decrease? Just as the morning star is obscured by the sun and it seems to many that its light has been extinguished, though in reality it has not been extinguished but is obscured by a greater light; so, without a doubt, the morning star of the Forerunner is covered by the noetic Sun, and therefore he is said to decrease. But Christ increases, because in a short time He makes Himself known through miracles. He does not increase by way of progress in virtue. Away with such a thought! It is the idle talk of Nestorius. Rather, He increases in terms of the manifestation and revelation of His Divinity; for little by little, and not all at once, does He declare that He is God.

As, on the sun rising, the light of the other heavenly bodies seems to be extinguished, though in reality it is only obscured by the greater light: thus the forerunner is said to decrease; as if he were a star hidden by the sun. Christ increases in proportion as he gradually discloses Himself by miracles; not in the sense of increase, or advancement in virtue, (the opinion of Nestorius,) but only as regards the manifestation of His divinity.

Then when he says, He must increase, and I must decrease, he answers their question as to their complaint about the increasing esteem given to Christ. First, he notes that such an increase is fitting. Secondly, he gives the reason for it (v 31).

So he says: You say that all the people are flocking to him, i.e., to Christ, and therefore that he is growing in honor and esteem among the people. But I say that this is not unbecoming, because He must increase, not in himself, but in relation to others, in the sense that his power becomes more and more known. And I must decrease, in the reverence and esteem of the people: for esteem and reverence are not due to me as if I were a principal; but they are due to Christ. And therefore since he has come, the signs of honor are diminishing in my regard, but increasing in regard to Christ, just as with the coming of the prince, the office of the ambassador ceases: "When the perfect comes, what is imperfect will pass away" (1 Cor 13:10). And just as in the heavens the morning star appears and gives light before the sun, only to cease giving light when the sun appears, so John went before Christ and is compared to the morning star: "Can you bring out the morning star?" (Jb 38:32).

This is also signified in John's birth and in his death. In his birth, because John was born at a time when the days are getting shorter; Christ, however, was born when the days are growing longer, on the twenty-fifth of December. In his death, because John dies shortened by decapitation; but Christ died raised up by the lifting up of the cross.

In the moral sense, this should take place in each one of us. Christ must increase in you, i.e., you should grow in the knowledge and love of Christ, because the more you are able to grasp him by knowledge and love, the more Christ increases in you; just as the more one improves in seeing one and the same light, the more that light seems to increase. Consequently, as men advance in this way, their self-esteem decreases; because the more one knows of the divine greatness, the less he thinks of his human smallness. As we read in Proverbs (30:1): "The revelation spoken by the man close to God"; and then there follows: "I am the most foolish of men, and the wisdom of men is not in me." "I have heard you, but now I see you, and so I reprove myself, and do penance in dust and ashes," as we read in Job (42:5).

Or, cometh from above; i. e. from the height of that human nature which was before the sin of the first man. For it was that human nature which the Word of God assumed: He did not take upon Him man's sin, as He did his punishment.

What we have just heard, appears now distinctly and clearly. "He that cometh from above, is above all." See what he says of Christ. What of himself? "He that is of the earth, is of earth, and speaketh of the earth. He that cometh from above is above all" - this is Christ; and "he that is of the earth, is of earth, and speaketh of the earth" - this is John. And is this the whole: John is of the earth, and speaks of the earth? Is the whole testimony that he bears of Christ a speaking of the earth? Are they not voices of God that are heard from John, when he bears witness of Christ? Then how does he speak of the earth? He said this of man. So far as relates to man in himself, he is of earth, and speaks of the earth; and when he speaks some divine things, he is enlightened by God. For, were he not enlightened, he would be earth speaking of earth. God's grace is apart by itself, the nature of man apart by itself. Do but examine the nature of man: man is born and grows, he learns the customs of men. What does he know but earth, of earth? He speaks the things of men, knows the things of men, minds the things of men; carnal, he judges carnally, conjectures carnally: lo! it is man all over. Let the grace of God come, and enlighten his darkness, as it saith, "Thou wilt lighten my candle, O Lord; my God, enlighten my darkness;" let it take the mind of man, and turn it to its own light; immediately he begins to say, as the apostle says, "Yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me;" and, "Now I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." That is to say, "He must increase, but I must decrease." Thus John: as regards John, he is of the earth, and speaks of the earth; whatever that is divine thou hast heard from John, is of Him that enlightens, not of him that receives.

(Tr. xiv. c. 6) Or, speaketh of the earth, he saith of the man, i. e. of himself, so far as he speaks merely humanly. If he says ought divine, he is enlightened by God to say it: as saith the Apostle; Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. (1 Cor. 15:10) John then, so far as pertains to John, is of the earth, and speaketh of the earth: if ye hear ought divine from him, attribute it to the Enlightener, not to him who hath received the light.

God condescended to us, for He expressed Himself through the incarnate Word. He who is from the earth belongs to earth, and of the earth he speaks. He who comes from heaven is over all. The witnessing of Christ was greater than that of John the Baptist, for He did not speak by means of the supporting power of someone else, since His spirit could see all things. And so, whoever is from heaven can truly reveal the things of heaven.

"He who comes from above is above all": the Gloss: "Therefore he rightly increases," and on account of this he is raised above all; Psalm: "You have subjected all things under his feet" etc.

"He who is of the earth speaks of the earth." Here he places Christ above himself in wisdom of preaching, because John as an earthly one could speak of earthly things, but Christ of heavenly things. Therefore he says: "He who is of the earth speaks of the earth"; such is John, who was conceived in sins. "He who comes from heaven is above all," in the dignity of teaching: Christ came from heaven: 1 Corinthians 15: "The first man is of the earth, earthly; the second is from heaven, heavenly"; therefore from heaven, because he is spiritual, because he is sublime in Deity: in chapter 8: "You are from below, I am from above." And because he is from above, he speaks of things above with certitude.

It is asked concerning what John says: "He who is of the earth speaks of the earth." He said this of himself, and it seems that he spoke unfittingly: because he himself was not speaking earthly things, but heavenly things.

Chrysostom responds to this that he did not say this absolutely, but comparatively: not because they were earthly, but because they were earthly compared to the teaching of Christ. Augustine responds that that proposition is to be understood in itself or with reduplication: "He who is of the earth," insofar as he is earthly, "speaks of the earth": but if he speaks of heavenly things, this is insofar as he is imbued with the Spirit, which comes from above.

It is asked concerning what he says: "He comes from heaven" etc. It seems from this that Christ did not assume human flesh, but heavenly flesh; or if human flesh, why is he not said to come from the earth like other men?

Augustine responds: "From heaven or from above, that is, from the height of human nature before the sin of the first parent."

But this seems to agree with that heresy that some particle remained in Adam uncorrupted, which was transmitted through successive generations all the way to the Virgin, and from it the flesh of Christ was made.

On account of this, the word is to be soundly understood as said by a certain likeness: because, just as the flesh in Adam before sin was pure and without stain, so Christ assumed immaculate flesh. And it should be noted that he does not here call "earth" the passible nature, but the corrupted nature generated through sinful corruption, according to which Christ was not begotten, but was conceived through the divine power of the Holy Spirit: therefore "from above."

CHAPTER II. That the Son is not in the number of things originate, but above all, as God of God.

He That cometh from above is above all.

No great thing is it, saith he, nor exceeding wonderful, if Christ surpass the glory of human nature: for not thus far doth He set the bounds of His own glory, but is over all creation, as God, is above all things made, not as numbered among all, but as excepted from all, and Divinely set over all. He adds the reason, shaming the gainsayer, and silencing the opposer. He That cometh from above, saith he, that is, He That is born of the root from above, preserving in Himself by Nature the Father's Natural goodness, will confessedly possess the being above all. For it would be impossible that the Son should not altogether appear to be such as He That begat is conceived of, and rightly. For the Son Who excelleth in sameness of Nature, the Brightness and express Image of the Father, how will He be inferior to Him in glory? Or will not the Property of the Father be dishonoured in the Son, and we insult the Image of the Begotten, if we count Him inferior? But this I suppose will be manifest to all. Therefore is it written also, That all men, should honour the Son even as they honour the Father: he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father. He That glorieth in equal honour with God the Father, by reason of being of Him by Nature, how will He not be conceived of as surpassing the essence of things originate? for this is the meaning of is above all.

But I perceive that the mind of the fighters against Christ will never rest, but they will come, as is probable, vainly babbling and say, "When the blessed Baptist says that the Lord sprang from above, what reason will compel us to suppose that He came of the Essence of the Father, by reason of the word from above, and not rather from heaven, or even from His inherent superiority above all, so that for this reason He should be conceived of and said to be also above all?" When therefore they aim at us with such words, they shall hear in return, Not your most corrupt reasonings o most excellent, will we follow, but rather the Divine Scriptures and the Sacred Writings only. We must then search in them, how they define to us the force of from above. Let them hear then a certain one of the Spirit-clad crying, Every good gift and every perfect gift is from, above, and cometh down from the Father of lights. Lo, plainly he says that from above is from the Father: for knowing that nought else surpasseth things originate save the Ineffable Nature of God, he rightly attached to it the term from above. For all things else fall under the yoke of bondage; God alone riseth above being ruled, and reigneth: whence He is truly above all. But the Son, being by Nature God and of God, will not be excluded from the glory in respect of this. But if ye deem that from above ought to be taken as Of heaven, let the word be used of every angel and rational power. For they come to us from heaven who inhabit the city that is above, and ascend and descend, as the Saviour somewhere says, upon the Son of man. What then persuaded the blessed Baptist to attribute that which was in the power of many to the Son Alone specially, and as to One coming down from above to call Him, He That cometh from above? For surely he ought to make the dignity common to the rest, and say, They that come from above are above all. But he knew that the expression was due to the One Son, as sprung of the Supreme Root.

Therefore from above does not mean from heaven: but will be piously and truly understood, in the sense we spoke of before. For how is He at all above all, if from above signify not From the Father, but rather From Heaven? For if this be so, every one of the angels too will be above all, as coming from thence. But if each one escapes being reckoned among all, of whom at last will all be composed? or how will the word all remain intact, preserving accurately its meaning, while such a multitude of angels overpass and break down the boundary of all? For all it is no longer, if they remain outside, who were in all. But the Word That shone forth ineffably from God the Father, having His Proper Birth from above, and being of the Essence of the Father as of a fountain, will not by His coming wrong the word all, seeing He escapes being reckoned among all as if a part: but rather will be above all, as Other than they, both by Nature and God-befitting Power and all other Properties of Him Who begat Him.

But perchance they will say abashed at the absurd result of the investigation, "From above means not from heaven, but from His inherent superiority above all." Come then, testing more accurately the force of what is said, let us see at what an end their attempt will terminate. First then, it is wholly foolish and without understanding, to say that the Son Himself hath come from His Own Dignity, and that as from a certain place or out of one, He One and the Same advances from His Own Excellency to be above all. In addition to this, I would also most gladly enquire of them, in respect of the excellence above all, whether they will grant it to the Son Essentially and irrevocably, or added from without in the nature of accident. If then they say that He hath the Excellence by acquisition, and is honoured with dignities from without, one must needs acknowledge that the Only-Begotten could exist deprived of glory, and be stripped of the acquired (as they call it) grace, and be deprived of being above all, and appear bare of the excellence which they now admire, since an accident may be lost, seeing that it belongeth not to the essence of its subject. There will therefore be change and varying in the Son: and the Psalmist will lie hymning Him with vain words, The heavens shall perish, but Thou shalt endure: yea all of them shall wax old like a garment, as a vesture shalt Thou change them and they shall be changed: but Thou art the Same, and Thy years shall have no end. For how is He the Same, if with us He changeth, and that with changes for the worse? Vainly too (it seems) doth He glory of Himself, saying, Behold, behold, I am, I change not, and there is no God beside Me. And how will not the passions of the offspring reach up to the Father Himself too, since He is His Impress and Exact Likeness? God the Father then will be changeable, and has the Supremacy over all accruing to Him: I omit the rest. For what belongs to the Image will of necessity appertain unto the Archetype. But they will not say that He hath the supremacy from without (shuddering at such difficulties alike and absurdities of their arguments), but Essential rather and irrevocable. Then again (o most excellent) how will ye not agree with us even against your will, that the Son being by Nature God, is above all, and therefore cometh of the Alone Essence of God the Father? For if there be nought of things originate which is not parted off by the force of the All, but the Son is above all, to wit, as Other than all, and having the Essential Supremacy over all, and not the same in nature with all, how will He not be at length conceived of as Very God? For He Who is Essentially separate from the multitude of created beings, and by Nature escapes the being classed among things originate, what else can He be, save God? For we see no mean, as far as regards existing essence. For the creation is ruled over, and God is conceived of as over it. If then the Son be by Nature God, and have been ineffably begotten of God the Father, from above signifies the Nature of the Father. Therefore the Only Begotten is above all, inasmuch as He too is seen to be of that Nature.

He that is of the earth is earthly and speaketh of the earth. The earthborn (says he) will not effect equally in power of persuasion with Him Who is God over all. For he that is of the earth will speak as man, and will rank merely as an adviser, committing to his disciples the whole reins of desire to believe: but He That cometh from above, as God, having used discourse with a certain Divine and ineffable grace, sends it into the ears of those who come to Him. But in proportion as He is by Nature Superior, so much the more effectually will He surely in-work. And with much profit does the blessed Baptist say such things to his disciples. For since they were beholding him surpassed by the glory of the Saviour, and were now not a little offended thereat, wherefore they came to him and said, Rabbi, He That was with thee beyond Jordan, to Whom thou barest witness, behold the Same baptizeth, and all men come to Him; needs did the Spirit-clad, cutting off the sickness of offence, and implanting in his disciples a healthful perception on most necessary points, explain the Saviour's supremacy over all, and teach no less the cause why all men were already going to Him, and leaving the baptism by water alone, went to the more Divine and perfect one, to wit, that by the Holy Ghost.

He that cometh from heaven is above all. This testifieth (saith he) that very great and incomparable the distinction between those of the earth and the Word of God That cometh down from above and from Heaven. If I am not fit to teach, and my word alone suffice you not, the Son Himself will confirm it, testifying that in an incomprehensible degree differs the earth-born from the Beginning Which is above all. For disputing somewhere with the unholy Jews, the Saviour said, Ye are from beneath; I am from above. For He says that the nature of things originate is from beneath, as subject and of necessity in bondservice to God Who calleth them into being: from above again He calleth the Divine and Ineffable and Lordly Nature, as having all things originate under Its feet, and subjecting them to the yoke of His Authority. For not idly did the blessed Baptist add these things to, those above. For that; he may not be supposed by his disciples to be inventing empty arguments, and from fear of seeming with reason inferior to Christ, to call Him greater and from above, himself from beneath and of the earth; needs does he from what the Saviour Himself said, seal the force of the things said, and show the explanation to be not as they thought, an empty excuse, but rather a demonstration of the truth.

It is no big thing, and not all that wonderful either, if Christ surpasses the glory of human nature. For the boundaries of his glory don't only extend so far—in fact, they extend over all creation just as God is above everything that has been made and in no way numbered among them. He, as the exception to everything, is divinely placed over everything. And then John explains why, which silences anyone who might disagree. "He who comes from above," he says, "is born of the root that is from above, preserving in himself by nature the Father's natural goodness. Such a person will most assuredly possess an existence that surpasses everything. For, it would be impossible for the Son not to appear altogether to be the same kind of being as the one who begot him is conceived of. And this is only right. For how can the Son, who excels because he is of the same nature and is the Brightness and express Image of the Father—how can he be inferior to his [Father] in glory? Or will not the property of the Father be dishonored in the Son, and do we not insult the Image of the Begotten, if we consider him to be inferior? But this I suppose will be clear to everyone. This is why it is also written that everyone should honor the Son even as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father. Whoever is glorified with equal honor with God the Father, because he exists from him by nature, has to be conceived of as surpassing the essence of things originate. For this is what "above all" means.

That is, from the Father. He is above all in two ways; first, in respect of His humanity, which was that of man before he sinned: secondly, in respect of the loftiness of the Father, to whom He is equal.

It is likely, also, that a similar account is to be given of the fact, that David alone of the prophets prophesied with an instrument, called by the Greeks the "psaltery," and by the Hebrews the "nabla," which is the only musical instrument that is quite straight, and has no curve. And the sound does not come from the lower parts, as is the case with the lute and certain other instruments, but from the upper. For in the lute and the lyre the brass when struck gives back the sound from beneath. But this psaltery has the source of its musical numbers above, in order that we, too, may practise seeking things above, and not suffer ourselves to be borne down by the pleasure of melody to the passions of the flesh. And I think that this truth, too, was signified deeply and clearly to us in a prophetic way in the construction of the instrument, viz., that those who have souls well ordered and trained, have the way ready to things above. And again, an instrument having the source of its melodious sound in its upper parts, may be taken as like the body of Christ and His saints-the only instrument that maintains rectitude; "for He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." This is indeed an instrument, harmonious, melodious, well-ordered, that took in no human discord, and did nothing out of measure, but maintained in all things, as it were, harmony towards the Father; for, as He says: "He that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: He that cometh from heaven, testifies of what He has seen and heard."

"He that cometh from above," he saith, "is above all; he that is of the earth, is earthly, and speaketh of the earth." Since you make much ado with my testimony, and in this way say that I am more worthy of credit than He, you needs must know this, that it is impossible for One who cometh from heaven to have His credit strengthened by one that inhabiteth earth.

And what means "above all," what is the expression intended to show to us? That Christ hath need of nothing, but is Himself sufficient for Himself, and incomparably greater than all; of himself John speaks as being "of the earth, and speaking of the earth." Not that he spake of his own mind, but as Christ said, "If I have told you of earthly things and ye believe not," so calling Baptism, not because it was an "earthly thing," but because He compared it when He spake with His own Ineffable Generation, so here John said that he spake "of earth," comparing his own with Christ's teaching. For the "speaking of earth" means nothing else than this, "My things are little and low and poor compared with His, and such as it was probable that an earthly nature would receive. In Him 'are hid all the treasures of wisdom.'" (Col. ii. 5.) That he speaks not of human reasonings is plain from this. "He that is of the earth," saith he, "is earthly." Yet not all in him was earthly, but the higher parts were heavenly, for he had a soul, and was partaker of a Spirit which was not of earth. How then saith he that he is "earthly"? Seest thou not that he means only, "I am small and of no esteem, going on the ground and born in the earth; but Christ came to us from above." Having by all these means quenched their passion, he afterwards speaks more openly of Christ; for before this it was useless to utter words which could never have gained a place in the understanding of his hearers: but when he hath pulled up the thorns, he then boldly casts in the seed, ...

"He who is from the earth," says John, "speaketh earthly things; and He who is here from the heavens speaketh those things which He hath seen." And what is the Lord Christ's-as this method of praying is-that is not heavenly? And so, blessed brethren, let us consider His heavenly wisdom: first, touching the precept of praying secretly, whereby He exacted man's faith, that he should be confident that the sight and hearing of Almighty God are present beneath roofs, and extend even into the secret place; and required modesty in faith, that it should offer its religious homage to Him alone, whom it believed to see and to hear everywhere.

The Forerunner compares himself with Christ and says that He comes "from above," from the Father, and is "above all," surpassing all and preserving the supremacy of the Father, while I, being of the earth, speak earthly things, imperfect and lowly in comparison with the teaching of Christ. Although the teaching of the Forerunner himself was also divine, in comparison with the teaching of Christ it contains much that is earthly.

Christ cometh from above, as descending from the Father; and is above all, as being elected in preference to all.

Then when he says, The One who came from above is above all things, he gives the reason for what he has just said. And he does this in two ways. First, on the basis of Christ's origin. And secondly, by considering Christ's teaching.

Regarding the first, we should note that in order for a thing to be perfect, it must reach the goal fixed for it by its origin; for example, if one is born from a king, he should continue to progress until he becomes a king. Now Christ has an origin that is most excellent and eternal; therefore he must increase by the manifestation of his power, in relation to others, until it is recognized that he is above all things. Thus he says, The One who came from above, that is, Christ, according to his divinity. "No one has gone up to heaven except the One who came down from heaven" (above 3:13); "You are from below, I am from above" (below 8:23).

Or, he came from above, as to his human nature, i.e., from the "highest" condition of human nature, by assuming it according to what was predominant in it in each of its states. For human nature is considered in three states. First, is the state of human nature before sin; and from this state he took his purity by assuming a flesh unmarked by the stain of original sin: "A lamb without blemish" (Ex 12:5). The second state is after sin; and from this he took his capability to suffer and die by assuming the likeness of sinful flesh as regards its punishment, but not in its guilt: "God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3). The third state is that of resurrection and glory; and from this he took his impossibility of sinning and his joy of soul.

Here we must be on guard against the error of those who say that there was left in Adam something materially unmarked by the original stain, and this was passed on to his descendants; for example, to the Blessed Virgin, and that Christ's body was formed from this. This is heretical, because whatever existed in Adam in a material way was marked by the stain of original sin. Further, the matter from which the body of Christ was formed was purified by the power of the Holy Spirit when he sanctified the Blessed Virgin.

The One who came from above, according to his divinity as well as his human nature, is above all things, both by eminence of rank: "The Lord is high above all nations" (Ps 112:4), and by his authority and power: "He has made him the head of the Church," as is said in Ephesians (1:22).

Now he gives the reason for what he had said above (v 30), by considering the teaching of Christ. First, he describes the doctrine of Christ and its grandeur. Secondly, the difference in those who receive or reject this doctrine (v 32b). He does two things with respect to the first. First, he describes John's doctrine. Secondly, he describes the doctrine of Christ (v 32).

As to the first we should note that a man is known mainly by what he says: "Your accent gives you away" (Mt 26:73); "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Mt 12:34). This is why the quality of a teaching or doctrine is considered according to the quality of its origin. Accordingly, in order to understand the quality of John's doctrine, we should first consider his origin. So he says, He who is of earth, that is John, not only as to the matter from which he was made, but also in his efficient cause: because the body of John was formed by a created power: "They dwell in houses of clay, and have a foundation of earth" (Jb 4:19). Secondly, we should consider the quality of John himself, which is earthly; and so he says, is earthly. Thirdly, the quality of his teaching is described: he speaks of earthly things. "You will speak of the earth" (Is 29:4).

But since John was full of the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb, how can he be said to speak of earthly things? I answer that, according to Chrysostom, John says he speaks of earthly things by comparison with the teaching of Christ. As if to say: The things I speak of are slight and inferior as becomes one of an earthly nature, in comparison to him "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col 2:3); "As the heavens are high above the earth, so my ways are high above your ways" (Is 55:9).

Or we could say according to Augustine, and this is a better explanation, that we can consider what any person has of himself and what he has received from another. Now John and every mere human of himself is of the earth. Therefore, from this standpoint, he has nothing to speak of except earthly things. And if he does speak of divine things, it is due to a divine enlightenment: "Your heart has visions, but unless they come from the Almighty, ignore them" (Sir 34:6). So the Apostle says, "It is not I, but the grace of God which is with me" (1 Cor 15:10); "For it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit who is speaking through you" (Mt 10:20). Accordingly, as regards John, he is earthly and speaks of earthly things. And if there was anything divine in him, it did not come from him, as he was the recipient, but from the one enlightening him.

He that is of the earth is of the earth; i. e. is earthly, and speaketh of the earth, speaketh earthly things.

"He that cometh from heaven is above all; and what He hath seen and heard, that He testifieth: and no man receiveth His testimony." Cometh from heaven, is above all, our Lord Jesus Christ; of whom it was said above, "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven." And He is above all; "and what He hath seen and heard, that He speaks." Moreover, He hath a Father, being Himself the Son of God; He hath a Father, and He also hears of the Father. And what is that which He hears of the Father? Who can unfold this? When can my tongue, when can my heart be sufficient, either the heart to understand, or the tongue to utter, what that is which the Son hath heard from the Father? May it be the Son has heard the Word of the Father? Nay, the Son is the Word of the Father. You see how all human effort is here wearied out; you see how all guessing of our heart, all straining of our darkened mind, here fails. I hear the Scripture saying that the Son speaks that which He heareth from the Father; and again, I hear the Scripture saying that the Son is Himself the Word of the Father: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The words that we speak are fleeting and transient: as soon as thy word has sounded from thy mouth, it passeth away; it makes its noise, and passes away into silence. Canst thou follow thy sound, and hold it to make it stand? Thy thought, however, remains, and of that thought that remains thou utterest many words that pass away.

What say we, brethren? When God spake, did He give out a voice, or sounds, or syllables? If He did, in what tongue spake He? In Hebrew, or in Greek, or in Latin? Tongues are necessary where there is a distinction of nations. But there none can say that God spake in this tongue, or in that. Observe thy own heart. When thou conceivest a word which thou mayest utter, - for I will say, if I can, what we may note in ourselves, not whereby we may comprehend that, - well, when thou conceivest a word to utter, thou meanest to utter a thing, and the very conception of the thing is already a word in thy heart: it has not yet come forth, but it is already born in the heart, and is waiting to come forth. But thou considerest the person to whom it is to come forth, with whom thou art to speak: if he is a Latin, thou seekest a Latin expression; if a Greek, thou thinkest of Greek words; if a Punic, thou considerest whether thou knowest the Punic language: for the diversity of hearers thou hast recourse to divers tongues to utter the word conceived; but the conception itself was bound by no tongue in particular. Whilst therefore God, when speaking, required not a language, nor took up any kind of speech, how was He heard by the Son, seeing that God's speaking is the Son Himself? As, in fact, thou hast in thy heart the word that thou speakest, and as it is with thee, and is none other than the spiritual conception itself (for just as thy soul is spirit, so also the word which thou hast conceived is spirit; for it has not yet received sound to be divided by syllables, but remains in the conception of thy heart, and in the mirror of the mind); so God gave out His Word, that is, begat the Son. And thou, indeed, begettest the word even in thy heart according to time; God without time begat the Son by whom He created all times. Whilst, therefore, the Son is the Word of God, and the Son spoke to us not His own word, but the word of the Father, He willed to speak Himself to us when He was speaking the word of the Father.

(Tr. xiv. c. 7) But what is it, which the Son hath heard from the Father? Hath He heard the word of the Father? Yea, but He is the Word of the Father. When thou conceivest a word, wherewith to name a thing, the very conception of that thing in the mind is a word. Just then as thou hast in thy mind and with thee thy spoken word; even so God uttered the Word, i. e. begat the Son. Since then the Son is the Word of God, and the Son hath spoken the Word of God to us, He hath spoken to us the Father's word. What John said is therefore true.

"And what he has seen and heard, this he testifies," as one who is certain. "He saw," as the Wisdom of God, because he saw by himself: "he heard," as the Son receiving from the Father; in chapter 15: "All things whatsoever I have heard from my Father, I have made known to you." And although his doctrine is most excellent, nevertheless it is despised by the carnal. Therefore he adds: "And no one receives his testimony," that is, no worldly man: in chapter 15: "And they have both seen and hated both me and my Father": but the spiritual, who do receive it, become certain of his doctrine.

And no man receiveth His testimony.

Not as though no one receiveth the testimony, that Christ is God by Nature and, sprung from above and the Father, is above all, does the blessed Baptist say this (for many received, and have believed it, and before all Peter, saying, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God): but as having himself conceived of the great dignity of the Speaker more rightly than they all, does he all but shaking his head, and smiting with right hand on his thigh, marvel at the folly of them that disbelieve Him.

But since the other part of the verse runs thus, And what He hath seen and heard, that He testifieth, come we will discuss a few things on this too. We are so constituted and habituated, as to receive the full proof of everything, by means of two especial senses particularly, I mean sight and hearing. For having been both ear-witnesses and eye-witnesses of anything, we come to speak positively thereof. Persuading them therefore to hasten to belief in Christ (for He speaks, says he, that He knows accurately), he takes again, as it were, from the likeness to us, that we may understand it more Divinely, and says, What He hath seen and heard, that He testifieth.

Having by all these means quenched their passion, he afterwards speaks more openly of Christ; for before this it was useless to utter words which could never have gained a place in the understanding of his hearers: but when he hath pulled up the thorns, he then boldly casts in the seed, saying, "He that cometh from above is above all. And what He hath heard He speaketh, and what He hath seen He testifieth; and no man receiveth His testimony."

Having uttered something great and sublime concerning Him, he again brings down his discourse to a humbler strain. For the expression, "what He hath heard and seen," is suited rather to a mere man. What He knew He knew not from having learned it by sight, or from having heard it, but He included the whole in His Nature, having come forth perfect from the Bosom of His Father, and needing none to teach Him. For, "As the Father," He saith, "knoweth Me, even so know I the Father." (c. x. 13.) What then means, "He speaketh that He hath heard, and testifieth that He hath seen"? Since by these senses we gain correct knowledge of everything, and are deemed worthy of credit when we teach on matters which our eyes have embraced and our ears have taken in, as not in such cases inventing or speaking falsehoods, John desiring here to establish this point, said, "What He hath heard and seen": that is, "nothing that cometh from Him is false, but all is true." Thus we when we are making curious enquiry into anything, often ask, "Didst thou hear it?" "Didst thou see it?" And if this be proved, the testimony is indubitable.

"And no man receiveth His testimony." Yet He had disciples, and many besides gave heed to His words. How then saith John, "No man"? He saith "no man," instead of "few men," for had he meant "no man at all," how could he have added, "He that hath received His testimony, hath set to his seal that God is true."

Here he touches his own disciples, as not being likely for a time to be firm believers. And that they did not even after this believe in Him, is clear from what is said afterwards; for John even when dwelling in prison sent them thence to Christ, that he might the more bind them to Him. Yet even then they scarcely believed, to which Christ alluded when He said, "And blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in Me." (Matt. xi. 6.) And therefore now he said, "And no man receiveth His testimony," to make sure his own disciples; all but saying, "Do not, because for a time few shall believe on Him, therefore deem that His words are false; for, 'He speaketh that He hath seen.'" Moreover he saith this to touch also the insensibility of the Jews. A charge which the Evangelist at commencing brought against them, saying, "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." For this is no reproach against Him, but an accusation of those who received Him not. (c. i. 11.)

He says that He saw and heard, that is, He speaks and testifies about what He heard from the Father and what He saw, that is, what He knows with precision. But no one among those who do not heed the truth accepts His testimony. When you hear that Christ speaks what He heard from the Father, do not think that He has need to learn knowledge from the Father, but since everything the Son knows by nature He has from the Father, as being consubstantial with Him, it is said that He heard from the Father what He knows. This is similar to how you, having seen a son who resembles his father in everything, say that he has everything from his father, that is, he turned out to resemble no one else but his father.

When ye hear then, that Christ speaketh what He saw and heard from the Father, do not suppose that He needs to be taught by the Father; but only that that knowledge, which He has naturally, is from the Father. For this reason He is said to have heard, whatever He knows, from the Father.

Now he describes the doctrine of Christ. And he does three things. First, he shows its origin, which is heavenly; hence he says, The One who comes from heaven is above all things. For although the body of Christ was of the earth as regards the matter of which it was made, yet it came from heaven as to its efficient cause, inasmuch as his body was formed by divine power. It also came from heaven because the eternal and uncreated person of the Son came from heaven by assuming a body. "No one has gone up to heaven except the One who came down from heaven, the Son of Man, who lives in heaven" (above 3:13).

Secondly, he shows the dignity of Christ, which is very great; so he says, is above all things. This was explained above.

Thirdly, he infers the dignity of Christ's doctrine, which is most certain, because he testifies to what he sees and to what he hears. For Christ, as God, is truth itself; but as man, he is its witness: "For this was I born, and for this I came into the world: to testify to the truth" (below 18:37). Therefore, he gives testimony to himself: "You testify to yourself" (below 8:13). And he testifies to what is certain, because his testimony is about what he has heard with the Father: "I speak to the world what I have heard from my Father" (below 8:26); "What we have seen and heard" (1 Jn 1:3).

Note that knowledge of a thing is acquired in one way through sight and in another way through hearing. For by sight, knowledge of a thing is acquired by means of the very thing seen; but by hearing, a thing is not made known by the very voice that is heard, but by means of the understanding of the one speaking. And so, because the Lord has knowledge which he has received from the Father, he says, to what he sees, insofar as he proceeds from the essence of the Father; and to what he hears, insofar as he proceeds as the Word of the Father's intellect. Now because among intellectual beings, their act of being is other than their act of understanding, their knowledge through sight is other than their knowledge through hearing. But in God the Father, the act of being (esse) and the act of understanding (intelligere) are the same. Thus in the Son, to see and hear are the same thing. Moreover, since even in one who sees there is not the essence of the thing seen in itself but only its similitude, as also in the hearer there is not the actual thought of the speaker but only an indication of it, so the one who sees is not the essence of the thing in itself, nor is the listener the very thought expressed. In the Son, however, the very essence of the Father is received by generation, and he himself is the Word; and so in him to see and to hear are the same.

And so John concludes that since the doctrine of Christ has more grandeur and is more certain than his, one must listen to Christ rather than to him.

Above, John the Baptist commended the teaching of Christ; here, however, he considers the difference in those who receive it. Thus, he treats of the faith that must be given to this teaching. And he does three things. First, he shows the scarcity of those who believe. Secondly, the obligation to believe (v 33). Lastly, the reward for belief (v 36).

He says therefore: I say that Christ has certain knowledge and that he speaks the truth. Yet although few accept his testimony, that is no reflection on his teaching, because it is not the fault of the teaching but of those who do not accept it: namely, the disciples of John, who did not yet believe, and the Pharisees, who slandered his teaching. Thus he says, And his testimony no one accepts.

No one can be explained in two ways. First, so that it implies a few; and so some did accept his testimony. He shows that some did accept it when he adds, "But whoever accepts his testimony." The Evangelist used this way of speaking before when he said: "He came unto his own, and his own did not receive him" (above 1:11): because a few did receive him.

In another way, to accept his testimony is understood as to believe in God. But no one can believe of himself, but only due to God: "You are saved by grace" (Eph 2:8). And so he says, his testimony no one accepts, i.e., of himself, but it is given to him by God.

This can be explained in another way by realizing that Scripture refers to people in two ways. As long as we are in this world the wicked are mingled with the good; and so Scripture sometimes speaks of "the people," or "they," meaning those who are good; while at other times, the same words can refer to the wicked. We can see this in Jeremiah (26): for first it says that all the people and the priests sought to kill Jeremiah, and this referred to those who were evil; then at once it says that all the people sought to free him, and this referred to those who were good. In the same way, John the Baptist says, looking to the left, i.e., toward those who are evil, And his testimony no one accepts; and later, referring to those on the right, i.e., to the good, he says, But whoever accepts his testimony.

Or, Hath put to his seal, i. e. hath put a seal on his heart, for a singular and special token, that this is the true God, Who suffered for the salvation of mankind.

"He that cometh from heaven is above all; and what He hath seen and heard, that testifieth He; and His testimony no man receiveth." If no man, to what purpose came He? He means, no man of a certain class. There are some people prepared for the wrath of God, to be damned with the devil; of these, none receiveth the testimony of Christ. For if none at all, not any man, received, what could these words mean, "But he that received His testimony hath set to his seal that God is true"? Not certainly, then, no man, if thou sayest thyself, "He that received His testimony has set to his seal that God is true." Perhaps John, on being questioned, would answer and say, I know what I have said, in saying no man. There are, in fact, people born to God's wrath, and thereunto foreknown. For God knows who they are that will and that will not believe; He knows who they are that shall persevere in that in which they have believed, and who that shall fall away; and all that shall be for eternal life are numbered by God; and He knows already the people set apart. And if He knows this, and has given to the prophets by His Spirit to know it, He gave this also to John. Now John was observing, not with his eye, - for as regards himself he is earth, and speaketh of earth, - but with that grace of the Spirit which he received of God, he saw a certain people, ungodly, unbelieving. Contemplating that people in its unbelief, he says, "His testimony, who came from heaven, no man receiveth." No man of whom? Of them who shall be on the left hand, of them to whom it shall be said, "Go into the everlasting fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels." Who are they that do receive it? They who shall be at the right hand, they to whom it shall be said, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom which is prepared for you from the beginning of the world." He observes, then, in the Spirit a dividing, but in the human race a mingling together; and that which is not yet separated locally, he separated in the understanding, in the view of the heart; and he saw two peoples, one of believers, one of unbelievers. Fixing his thought on the unbelievers, he says, "He that cometh from heaven is above all; and what He hath seen and heard, that He testifieth and no man receiveth His testimony." He then turned his thought from the left hand, and looked at the right, and proceeded to say, "He that received His testimony has set to his seal that God is true." What means "has set to his seal that God is true," if it be not that man is a liar, and God is true? For no human being can speak any truth, unless he be enlightened by Him who cannot lie. God, then, is true; but Christ is God. Wouldest thou prove this? Receive His testimony and thou findest it. For "he that hath received His testimony has set to his seal that God is true." Who is true? The same who came from heaven, and is above all, is God, and true. But if thou dost not yet understand Him to be God, thou hast not yet received His testimony: receive it, and thou puttest thy seal to it; confidently thou understandest, definitely thou acknowledgest, that God is true.

(Tr. xiv. c. 8) Or thus; There is a people reserved for the wrath of God, and to be condemned with the devil; of whom none receiveth the testimony of Christ. And others there are ordained to eternal life. Mark how mankind are divided spiritually, though as human beings they are mixed up together: and John separated them by the thoughts of their heart, though as yet they were not divided in respect of place, and looked on them as two classes, the unbelievers, and the believers. Looking to the unbelievers, he saith, No man receiveth his testimony. Then turning to those on the right hand he saith, He that hath received his testimony, hath set to his seal.

(Tr. xiv. c. 8) What is it, that God is true, except that God is true, and every man a liar? For no man can say what truth is, till he is enlightened by Him who cannot lie. God then is true, and Christ is God. Wouldest thou have proof? Hear His testimony, and thou wilt find it so. But if thou dost not yet understand God, thou hast not yet received His testimony.

"But he who has received his testimony has set his seal that God is truthful," that is, he will imprint it with certitude as a seal upon the heart.

Wherefore the Father bestows on him the glory and honour that was due and meet, putting on him the best robe, the robe of immortality; and a ring, a royal signet and divine seal, — impress of consecration, signature of glory, pledge of testimony (for it is said, "He has set to his seal that God is true,") [John 3:33] and shoes, not those perishable ones which he has set his foot on holy ground is bidden take off, nor such as he who is sent to preach the kingdom of heaven is forbidden to put on, but such as wear not, and are suited for the journey to heaven, becoming and adorning the heavenly path, such as unwashed feet never put on, but those which are washed by our Teacher and Lord.

CHAPTER III. That Christ is God and of God by Nature.

In no other way was it possible to sho the impiety of them that believe not, except the glorious achievement of the believers were made known. For by the contrast of good things is the evil easily discerned, and the knowledge of what is better convicts the worse. If any then (saith he) have assented to the words of Him That cometh from above, he hath sealed and confirmed by his understanding, that truth is ever akin and most dear to the Divine Nature. Whence the converse is manifest to them that see. For he who thrusts away the faith will surely witness against himself, that God is not true. But we must again take notice, that he removes the Son from consubstantiality with the creation, and shows by what has been said that He is by Nature God. For if he that believeth the things spoken by Him, and receiveth the testimony which He gave of Himself, sealed and well confirmed that God is true; how shall not Christ be conceived of as by Nature God, Who is testified of as true by the credit of the things just said? or let our opponent again say how the Divine Nature is honoured, as being true, by our Saviour's testimony being received. For if He be not wholly by Nature God, he that believeth will not be reverencing the Divine Nature, as true, but rather one (according to them) the fairest of creatures. But since, when Christ is believed, the declaration of being true extendeth to God, it is I suppose altogether clear, that He being God, not falsely so called, Himself taketh honour to Himself from those who believe. |191

But the enemy of the truth will not (it seems) agree to these words of ours, but will start up strong, not admitting the Son to be by Nature God: and will say again, Thou cavillest, sir, and contrivest turns of many-varied reasonings, ever rejecting somehow the simple and right sense. For since the Word of God hath come down from Heaven, calling out openly, I speak not of Myself, but the Father Which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak: and again, All things that I have heard of My Father, I will make known unto you: or also, as the holy Baptist averred in the following words, For He Whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: therefore of Him is he saying, He that receiveth His testimony hath set to his seal, that God is True. For verily is God the Father true, but thou attemptest to bring round to the Son what is due to Another.

What then shall we say to these things? shall we class the Only-Begotten among the prophets, fulfilling the ministry befitting Prophets, and doing nought besides? For by whom is it not unhesitatingly received, that Prophets used to bring us voices from God? Then what excellence is there in the Son, if He accomplish this alone? how is He above all, if He is still ranked along with Prophets, and is clad in slave-befitting measure? How, as though surpassing them in glory doth He say in the Gospels, If He called them gods unto whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Him Whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest: because I said, I am the Son of God? For in these words He clearly severeth Himself off from the company of Prophets, and saith that they were called gods, because the Word of God came to them, but Himself He con-fesseth Son. For to the holy Prophets was imparted grace by measure through the Spirit; but in our Saviour Christ it hath pleased all the full ness of the God-head to dwell bodily, as Paul saith; wherefore also of His fullness have all we received, as John affirmed. How then will the Giver be On a par with the recipients, or how will the Fullness of the God-head be reckoned in the portion of the minister?

Let them then hence consider narrowly, into how great blasphemy their argument will hazard them. And how one ought to understand the words, I speak not of Myself, but the Father Which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak, will be explained more at large in its proper time and place. But I think that at present the objections of our opponents ought to be made a foundation of piety, and from what they put forth, we ought to contend for the doctrines of the Church. They then affirm that the Son has received commandments from the Father, and says nothing of Himself: but whatsoever He heard, as Himself says, these things He is zealous to say to us too. Well, let him hold to this; for we will agree, since this nothing wrongeth the Son, as far at least as concerns the question of whence He is; yea rather it bringeth in a most beautiful ceconomy in respect of the present subject. Therefore when they hear Him say, I and the Father are One; He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; I am in the Father, and the Father in Me: let them receive His testimony, let them set to their seal, that God the Father is true, persuading the Son to speak what He knoweth accurately; let them not disbelieve the words of the Saviour, interpreting to us the things of His Father.

There was no other possible way of showing the impiety of those who do not believe except by making known the glorious achievement of the believers. Evil is a lot easier to see when it is contrasted with good. When you know there is something better out there, it only puts what is worse in starker contrast. If anyone then, John says, has assented to the words of the one who comes from above, he has sealed and confirmed by his understanding that truth is ever near and dear to the divine nature. The opposite is just as obvious because anyone who throws away the faith will most certainly testify, against himself, that God is not true.

"He that hath received His testimony hath set to his seal that God is true." Here he terrifies them also by showing that he who believeth not on Him, disbelieveth not Him alone, but the Father also; wherefore he adds: "He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God."

Since then He speaketh His words, he that believeth and he that believeth not, believeth or believeth not God. "Hath set to His seal," that is, "hath declared." Then, to increase their dread, he saith, "that God is true;" thus showing, that no man could disbelieve Christ without making God who sent Him guilty of a falsehood. Because, since He saith nothing save what is from the Father, but all that He saith is His, he that heareth not Him, heareth not Him that sent Him. See how by these words again he strikes them with fear. As yet they thought it no great thing not to hearken to Christ; and therefore he held so great a danger above the heads of the unbelievers, that they might learn that they hearken not to God Himself, who hearken not to Christ.

And whoever received His witness, that is, His teaching, that one has set his seal, that is, has shown, has confirmed, that God is true. For whoever believes in the one sent from God believes God, and by this he sets his seal and proves that he believed Him, because He is true. And conversely, whoever does not believe in the one sent from God shows that He is a liar, and for this reason did not believe Him, because He is a liar (Rom. 1:25; 1 John 5:10). Therefore, whoever believes in Christ, by the very fact that he believed in the one sent from God, shows that God is true. For it is evident that he believed Him because He is true.

But whoever accepts his testimony. Here he speaks of the obligation to believe, i.e., to submit oneself to divine truth. As to this he does four things. First, he presents the divine truth. Secondly, he speaks of the proclamation of the divine truth (v 34). Thirdly, of the ability to proclaim it (v 34b). Fourthly, he gives the reason for this ability (v 35).

Man's obligation to the faith is to submit himself to divine truth, and so he says that if few accept his testimony that means that some do. Hence he says, whoever accepts his testimony, i.e., whoever he may be, has given a sign, i.e., he ought to affix a certain sign or has in fact placed a seal in his own heart, that Christ is God. And he is true, because he said that he is God. If he were not, he would not be true, but it is written: "God is true" (Rom 3:4). Concerning this seal it is said: "Set me as a seal on your heart" (Sg 8:6), and "The foundation of God stands firm, bearing a seal, etc." as we read in 2 Timothy (2:19).

Or, following Chrysostom, he has given a sign, i.e., he has shown that God, that is, the Father, is true, because he sent his Son whom he promised to send. The Evangelist says this to show that those who do not believe Christ deny the truthfulness of the Father.

(Verse 53, 54.) And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that he departed from there. And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, so that they marveled and said. After the parables that he spoke to the people, and that only the apostles understood, he went to his own country to teach more openly there.

Where does this wisdom and these virtues come from? The Nazarenes marvel at where he gets his wisdom and virtue; but the error is obvious, for they suspect that he is the son of a carpenter.

After the parables which the Lord spake to the people, and which the Apostles only understand, He goes over into His own country that He may teach there also.

Wonderful folly of the Nazarenes! They wonder whence Wisdom itself has wisdom, whence Power has mighty works! But the source of their error is at hand, because they regard Him as the Son of a carpenter; as they say, Is not this the carpenter's son?

Matthew says "these parables" because in a short time He would tell them other ones. He departed so that He could benefit others by His presence. "His own country" means Nazareth, for He was raised there. He was teaching in the synagogue, speaking openly in public, that they might not later have grounds to claim that He was teaching things contrary to the law.

The Nazarenes were foolish to think that low birth and plain ancestry hinder anyone from pleasing God. Let us suppose that Jesus was simply man and not God. What would have prevented Him from being a great wonderworker? So they are proven to be foolish and spiteful. They ought rather to have taken pride that their native city had produced such a good man.

The Lord is dishonored by his own. Although his wisdom in teaching and his mighty works excited admiration, their faithlessness held them back from true discernment. For they did not believe that God was doing these things in a man. Moreover, they referred to his father, his mother, brothers and sisters and took offense at him.

Thus the Lord is held in no honour by His own; and though the wisdom of His teaching, and the power of His working raised their admiration, yet do they not believe that He did these things in the name of the Lord, and they cast His father's trade in His teeth. Amid all the wonderful works which He did, they were moved with the contemplation of His Body, and hence they ask, Whence hath this man these things? And thus they were offended in him.

And what doth he now call His country? As it seems to me, Nazareth. "For He did not many mighty works there," it is said, but in Capernaum He did miracles: wherefore He said also, "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto Heaven, shalt be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."

But having come there, while He slackens somewhat in His miracles; so as not to inflame them unto more envy, nor to condemn them more grievously, by the aggravation of their unbelief: He yet puts forth a doctrine, having no less of wonder in it than the miracles. For these utterly senseless men, when they ought to have marvelled, and to have been amazed at the power of His words, they on the contrary hold Him cheap, because of him who seemed to be His father; yet we know they had many examples of these things in the former times, and from fathers of no note had seen illustrious children. For so David was the son of a certain mean husbandman, Jesse; and Amos, the child of a goatherd, and himself a goatherd; and Moses too, the lawgiver, had a father very inferior to himself. When they therefore, for this especially, ought to adore and be amazed, that being of such parents He spake such things, it being quite manifest, that so it was not of man's care, but of God's grace: yet they, what things they should admire Him for, for those they despise Him.

He is moreover continually frequenting the synagogues, lest if He were always abiding in the wilderness, they should the more accuse Him as making a schism, and fighting against their polity. Being amazed therefore, and in perplexity, they said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these powers?" either calling the miracles powers, or even the wisdom itself.

The synagogues could not be his. A malicious and disbelieving crowd gathered there. A people full of hate rather than love came together. A group of ill-disposed and ill-mannered people assembled. "He began to teach in their synagogues, so that they were astonished." They were astonished because of indignation and not because of grace. They were amazed because of envy and not because of praise. They raged because what the proud seated on the floor were unable to discern, humility on its feet was thoroughly teaching.

"So that they were astonished, and said, 'Where did he get this wisdom?' " The one who speaks this way does not know God, from whom is wisdom and from whom are mighty works. Solomon points to that source of wisdom. While still young, he accepted the highest honor of the kingdom so he might rule the people entrusted to him with virtue and not with arrogance, with wisdom and not with pride, with his heart and not with his head. He wanted wisdom from God, earnestly asked for it and received it. "Where did he get this wisdom and these mighty works?" The mighty power that gives eyesight denied by nature, that restores hearing to those drowned in silence, that unscrambles the words of those who are mute, that enables the lame to walk again and that orders souls headed for the realm of the dead to return to their bodies is from God, unless someone envious of salvation should deny it.

He taught in their synagogues where great numbers were met, because it was for the salvation of the multitude that He came from heaven upon earth. It follows; So that they marvelled, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these many mighty works? His wisdom is referred to His doctrine, His mighty works to His miracles.

As the case stood, however, it was actually the ordinary condition of His terrene flesh which made all things else about Him wonderful, as when they said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works? " Thus spake even they who despised His outward form.

And coming into his own country. His country is sometimes called Nazareth, where he was brought up, and there he worked few miracles; sometimes Bethlehem, where he was born; sometimes Capharnaum, because he worked miracles there. And he taught them in their synagogues, etc. There follows the wonder. And first the wonder is set forth; secondly, its effect is identified. He says: so that they wondered. It was not surprising if they wondered; Ps 118:129: your testimonies are wonderful. They wondered whence those powers came: for wonder is caused when the effect is seen but the cause is unknown. They saw the manifest effect, but did not know the cause; hence they said: whence has this man this wisdom and these mighty works? But this was a foolish wonder, because 1 Cor 1:24 states that he is the power and the wisdom of God. But they did not know this, and therefore they wondered.

Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.

Those heretics were called Antidicomarites who denied the virginity of Mary to the point that they claim that after the birth of Christ she had intercourse with her husband.

(Quæst. in Matt. q. 17.) No wonder then that any kinsmen by the mother's side should be called the Lord's brethren, when even by their kindred to Joseph some are here called His brethren by those who thought Him the son of Joseph.

Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, the brother of the sons of Joseph, and very religious, while knowing the near relationship of the Lord, yet did not say that he himself was His brother. But what said he? "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ,"— of Him as Lord; but "the brother of James." [Jude 1] For this is true; he was His brother, (the son) of Joseph.

And verily the blessed Jeremiah says, as to our Lord Jesus Christ, "For both thy brethren and the house of thy father, they too despised Thee, and they cried out; of thy followers were they gathered together: believe them not, for they will speak fair words unto Thee." [Jeremiah 12:6] For His brethren who before the faith thought little of Him, and in the words just spoken, all but attempt to cry out against Him, were gathered together through faith, and have spoken fair words unto Him, both aiding others, and striving with words in behalf of the faith. Very watchfully did the Prophet, having named His brethren, profitably add, The house of Thy father, lest they too should be supposed to have been of the blessed Virgin, rather than of His father Joseph alone.

It helps us to understand the terms 'first-born' and 'only-begotten' when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin 'until she brought forth her first-born son' [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin

Because there are those who dare to say that Mary cohabited with Joseph after she bore the Redeemer, we reply, 'How would it have been possible for her who was the home of the indwelling of the Spirit, whom the divine power overshadowed, that she be joined by a mortal being, and gave birth filled with birthpangs, in the image of the primeval curse?' If Mary was blessed of women, she would have been exempt from the curse from the beginning, and from the bearing of children in birthpangs and curses. It would be impossible therefore to call one who gave birth with these birthpangs blessed.

For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that she had marital relations after the Savior's birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turns them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head. To begin with, when the Virgin was entrusted to Joseph - lots having compelled her to take this step - she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. It was for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come - [a witness] that Christ's incarnation was nothing spurious but was truly attested, as without a man's seed but truly brought about by the Holy Spirit.

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.

But clearly this was the son of the carpenter who was subduing iron with fire, melting away all the might of the world with good judgment and forming the mass into every work that was humanly useful. He was molding the formless material of our bodies into members for different ministries and for every work of eternal life. They all became irritated at these things. Among the many astonishing things he did, they were most deeply moved by his contemplativeness and his bodily self-control.

And this was the carpenter's son who subdues iron by means of fire, who tries the virtue of this world in the judgment, and forms the rude mass to every work of human need; the figure of our bodies, for example, to the divers ministrations of the limbs, and all the actions of life eternal.

How then, says Helvidius, do you make out that they were called the Lord's brethren who were not his brethren? I will show how that is. In Holy Scripture there are four kinds of brethren — by nature, race, kindred, love. Instances of brethren by nature are Esau and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Andrew and Peter, James and John. As to race, all Jews are called brethren of one another, as in Deuteronomy, [Deuteronomy 15:12] "If your brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto you, and serve you six years; then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you." And in the same book, [Deuteronomy 17:15] "You shall in anywise set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, which is not your brother." And again, [Deuteronomy 22:1] "You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them: you shall surely bring them again unto your brother. And if your brother be not near unto you, or if you know him not, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother seek after it, and you shall restore it to him again." And the Apostle Paul says, [Romans 9:3-4] "I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites." Moreover they are called brethren by kindred who are of one family, that is πατρία, which corresponds to the Latin paternitas, because from a single root a numerous progeny proceeds. In Genesis [Genesis 13:8, 11] we read, "And Abram said to Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray you, between me and you, and between my herdmen and your herdmen; for we are brethren." And again, "So Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east: and they separated each from his brother." Certainly Lot was not Abraham's brother, but the son of Abraham's brother Aram. For Terah begot Abraham and Nahor and Aram: and Aram begot Lot. Again we read, [Genesis 12:4] "And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son." But if you still doubt whether a nephew can be called a son, let me give you an instance. [Genesis 14:14] "And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen." And after describing the night attack and the slaughter, he adds, "And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot." Let this suffice by way of proof of my assertion. But for fear you may make some cavilling objection, and wriggle out of your difficulty like a snake, I must bind you fast with the bonds of proof to stop your hissing and complaining, for I know you would like to say you have been overcome not so much by Scripture truth as by intricate arguments. Jacob, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, when in fear of his brother's treachery he had gone to Mesopotamia, drew near and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, and watered the flocks of Laban, his mother's brother. [Genesis 29:11] "And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son." Here is an example of the rule already referred to, by which a nephew is called a brother. And again, [Genesis 29:15] "Laban said to Jacob. Because you are my brother, should you therefore serve me for nought? Tell me what shall your wages be." And so, when, at the end of twenty years, without the knowledge of his father-in-law and accompanied by his wives and sons he was returning to his country, on Laban overtaking him in the mountain of Gilead and failing to find the idols which Rachel hid among the baggage, Jacob answered and said to Laban, [Genesis 31:36-37] "What is my trespass? What is my sin, that you have so hotly pursued after me? Whereas you have felt all about my stuff, what have you found of all your household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and your brethren, that they may judge between us two." Tell me who are those brothers of Jacob and Laban who were present there? Esau, Jacob's brother, was certainly not there, and Laban, the son of Bethuel, had no brothers although he had a sister Rebecca.

Innumerable instances of the same kind are to be found in the sacred books. But, to be brief, I will return to the last of the four classes of brethren, those, namely, who are brethren by affection, and these again fall into two divisions, those of the spiritual and those of the general relationship. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." And in another psalm the Saviour says, "I will declare your name unto my brethren." And elsewhere, [John 20:17] "Go unto my brethren and say to them." I say also general, because we are all children of one Father, there is a like bond of brotherhood between us all. [Isaiah 66:5] "Tell these who hate you," says the prophet, "you are our brethren." And the Apostle writing to the Corinthians: [1 Corinthians 5:11] "If any man that is named brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one no, not to eat." I now ask to which class you consider the Lord's brethren in the Gospel must be assigned. They are brethren by nature, you say. But Scripture does not say so; it calls them neither sons of Mary, nor of Joseph. Shall we say they are brethren by race? But it is absurd to suppose that a few Jews were called His brethren when all Jews of the time might upon this principle have borne the title. Were they brethren by virtue of close intimacy and the union of heart and mind? If that were so, who were more truly His brethren than the apostles who received His private instruction and were called by Him His mother and His brethren? Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, "Behold, your brethren seek you," for all men alike were entitled to the name. The only alternative is to adopt the previous explanation and understand them to be called brethren in virtue of the bond of kindred, not of love and sympathy, nor by prerogative of race, nor yet by nature. Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, [Genesis 20:11] "She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's," that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister...

It is clear that our Lord's brethren bore the name in the same way that Joseph was called his father: [Luke 1:18] "I and your father sought you sorrowing." It was His mother who said this, not the Jews. The Evangelist himself relates that His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him, and there are similar passages which we have already quoted in which Joseph and Mary are called his parents. Seeing that you have been foolish enough to persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt, you will perhaps plead the diversity of readings. I therefore come to the Gospel of John, and there it is plainly written, [John 1:45] "Philip finds Nathanael, and says unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." You will certainly find this in your manuscript. Now tell me, how is Jesus the son of Joseph when it is clear that He was begotten of the Holy Ghost? Was Joseph His true father? Dull as you are, you will not venture to say that. Was he His reputed father? If so, let the same rule be applied to them when they are called brethren, that you apply to Joseph when he is called father.

(Verse 55, 56.) Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did he get all these things? And they took offense at him. The error of the Jews is our salvation, and the condemnation of the heretics. For they saw Jesus Christ merely as a man, so that the carpenters thought him to be the son: Isn't this the carpenter's son? Are you surprised if they err about his brothers, when they err about his father? This place has been explained more fully in the aforementioned book against Helvedius.

(in Helvid. 14.) Those who are here called the Lord's brethren, are the sons of a Mary, His Mother's sister; she is the mother of this James and Joseph, that is to say, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and this is the Mary who is called the mother of James the Less.

And when they are mistaken in His Father, no wonder if they are also mistaken in His brethren. Whence it is added, Is not his mother Mary, and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?

This error of the Jews is our salvation, and the condemnation of the heretics, for they perceived Jesus Christ to be man so far as to think Him the son of a carpenter.

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, "For neither did His brethren believe in Him."

"Is not this the carpenter's son?" The greater then the marvel, and the more abundant the ground of amaze. "Is not His mother called Mary, and His brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? and His sisters, are they not all with us? Whence hath this man these things? And they were offended in Him."

Seest thou that Nazareth was where He was discoursing? "Are not his brethren," it is said, "such a one, and such a one?" And what of this? Why, by this especially you ought to have been led on to faith. But envy you see is a poor base thing, and often falls foul of itself. For what things were strange and marvellous, and enough to have gained them over, these offended them.

I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" [Matthew 13:55-56] They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you," [Luke 1:35] might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." [Galatians 1:19] And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James." [Jude 1]

(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

[NOTE: This is often erroneously attributed to Papias of Hierapolis, AD 130]

And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel.

(non occ. cf. Serm. 135. App.) For the Father of Christ is that Divine Workman who made all these works of nature, who set forth Noah's ark, who ordained the tabernacle of Moses, and instituted the Ark of the covenant; that Workman who polishes the stubborn mind, and cuts down the proud thoughts.

Come, now, if you have read in the utterance of the prophet in the Psalms, "God hath reigned from the tree," I wait to hear what you understand thereby; for fear you may perhaps think some carpenter-king is signified, and not Christ, who has reigned from that time onward when he overcame the death which ensued from His passion of "the tree.

John was related to Jesus, in the following manner. Joseph, the Betrothed of the most pure Theotokos, had seven children by his previous wife—four sons, and three daughters whose names were Martha, Esther, and Salome. John was the son of Salome; therefore, Jesus was John's uncle. Because Salome was the daughter of Joseph—the "father of the Lord"—she was considered to be the Lord's sister; and her son, John, the Lord's nephew. Salome means "peaceful"; John means "the grace of her." May every soul understand that Christ's peace, which is offered to all men, calms the passions of the soul, and gives birth to divine grace within us. But a soul in turmoil, always battling with others and with itself, cannot be counted worthy of divine grace. Consider another marvelous thing about John. Only he is said to have three mothers: first, Salome, his natural mother; second, thunder, for he is a "son of thunder" (Mk 3:17), on account of his powerful proclamation of the Gospel ; and third, Mary, the Theotokos, concerning whom the Lord said to John, "Behold thy mother" (Jn 19:27).

The Lord had brothers and sisters, the children of Joseph which he begat by the wife of his brother Cleopas. For when Cleopas died childless, Joseph took his wife in accordance with the law and had six children by her, four boys and two girls, Mary, who was called the daughter of Cleopas, in accordance with the law, and Salome.

Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb ["Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.), wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards...

Some, as Jerome says on Matthew 12:49-50, "suppose that the brethren of the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But we understand the brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, His Mother's sister." For "Scripture speaks of brethren in four senses; namely, those who are united by being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same family, by common affection." Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by relationship, as being blood-relations of His. But Joseph, as Jerome says (Contra Helvid. ix), is rather to be believed to have remained a virgin, "since he is not said to have had another wife," and "a holy man does not live otherwise than chastely."

And they set forth their wonder and their knowledge: hence they said, is not this the carpenter's son? For he was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was not an ironworker but a woodworker: although he could also be called the son of the craftsman who fashioned the dawn and the sun, Ps 73:16. Is not his mother called Mary? They knew all the things that pertained to his humanity. About Mary it is stated above at 1:18: when his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, etc. And his brethren James and Joseph, Simon and Jude. Helvidius understood these to be sons of Mary. But this is false; rather they were his cousins. Or they are called brethren because they were of the kindred of Joseph, who was thought to be the father of Jesus. Gen 13:8: let there be no strife between me and you, for we are brethren, Abraham said to Lot: although Lot was the son of his brother.

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonorable, impious, unworthy or evil... I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

The Lord had brothers and sisters, the children of Joseph which he begat by the wife of his brother Cleopas. For when Cleopas died childless, Joseph took his wife in accordance with the law and had six children by her, four boys and two girls, Mary, who was called the daughter of Cleopas, in accordance with the law, and Salome.

And in the same way is to be understood what follows: and his sisters, are they not all with us? Therefore from those things which pertained to the flesh, they went forth into wonder, saying: whence then has this man all these things?

(Verse 58) And he did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. Not because he was unable to do many miracles for them, who were unbelieving; but rather because in doing many miracles he would condemn the unbelieving citizens. It can also be understood in another way, that Jesus is despised in his own home and country, that is, among the Jewish people. And therefore, he performed only a few signs there, so that they would not become completely without excuse. But he performs greater signs daily among the nations through his apostles, not so much in the healing of bodies, but in the salvation of souls.

Not that because they did not believe He could not do His mighty works; but that He might not by doing them be condemning His fellow-citizens in their unbelief.

Or we may understand it otherwise, that Jesus is despised in His own house and country, signifies in the Jewish people; and therefore He did among them few miracles, that they might not be altogether without excuse; but among the Gentiles He does daily greater miracles by His Apostles, not so much in healing their bodies, as in saving their souls.

But if His miracles raised their wonder, why did He not work many? Because He looked not to display of Himself, but to what would profit others; and when that did not result, He despised what pertained only to Himself that He might not increase their punishment. Why then did He even these few miracles? That they should not say, We should have believed had any miracles been done among us.

It seems to me that the production of miracles is similar in some ways to the case of physical things. Cultivation is not sufficient to produce a harvest of fruits unless the soil, or rather the atmosphere, cooperates to this end. And the atmosphere of itself is not sufficient to produce a harvest without cultivation. The one who providentially orders creation did not design things to spring up from the earth without cultivation. Only in the first instance did he do so when he said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation, with the seed sowing according to its kind and according to its likeness."It is just this way in regard to the production of miracles. The complete work resulting in a healing is not displayed without those being healed exercising faith. Faith, of whatever quality it might be, does not produce a healing without divine power.

Christ indeed came to his own country, because it was written, "He came among his own, and his own did not receive him." In plain fact, when he says, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country," he is teaching that it is a painful situation to have influence among his own. To stand out among the local denizens is similar to an inflammation. A near relation's glory burns the near relations. If neighbors have to pay homage to a neighbor, they consider it servitude. "And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief." Power has no effect where unbelief does not deserve it. And while Christ does not demand a reward when he heals, he becomes indignant when injustice is shown to him instead of honor.

Hence it follows: and he did not work many miracles there; not because he could not, since he was omnipotent, but he did not, because the purpose for which he worked miracles was that they might believe in him. But they held him in contempt, because they interpreted things in a bad sense, and therefore they were not disposed to faith: yet he worked some, so that they might be rendered inexcusable; and therefore he says not many, because he worked some. And this was on account of their unbelief.