Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 124
124.1 Chapter XXI. 19–25 PL 35, 1969
1. It is no unimportant question why the Lord, when He manifested Himself for the third time to the disciples, said unto the Apostle Peter, “Follow me;” but of the Apostle John, “Thus I wish him to remain till I come, what is that to thee?” To the discussion or solution of this question, according as the Lord shall grant us ability we devote the last discourse of this work. When the Lord, then, had announced beforehand to Peter by what death he was to glorify God, “He saith unto him, Follow me. Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; who also leaned on His breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that shall betray Thee? Peter, therefore, seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what [of] this man? Jesus saith unto him, Thus do I wish him to remain till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple dieth not: yet Jesus said not unto him, He dieth not; but, Thus do I wish him to remain till I come, what is that to thee?” You see the great extent in this Gospel of a question which, by its depth, must exercise in no ordinary way the mind of the inquirer. For why is it said to Peter, “Follow me,” and not to the others who were likewise present? Surely the disciples followed Him also as their Master. But if it is to be understood only in reference to his suffering, was Peter the only one that suffered for the truth of Christianity? Was there not present there amongst those seven, another son of Zebedee, the brother of John, who, after His ascension, is plainly recorded to have been slain by Herod? But some one may say that, as James was not crucified, it was properly enough said to Peter, “Follow me,” inasmuch as he underwent not only death, but, like Christ, even the death of the cross. Be it so, if no other explanation can be found that is more satisfactory. Why, then, was it said of John, “Thus do I wish him to remain till I come, what is that to thee?” and the words repeated, “Follow thou me,” as if that other, therefore, were not to follow, seeing He wished him to remain till He comes. Who can readily believe that anything else was meant than what the brethren who lived at the time believed, namely, that that disciple was not to die, but to abide in this life till Jesus came? But John himself removed such an idea, by giving a flat contradiction to the report that the Lord had said so. For why should he add, “Jesus saith not, He dieth not,” save to prevent what was false from taking hold of the hearts of men?
Non parva quaestio est, cur apostolo Petro, quando se tertio manifestavit discipulis, dixerit Dominus, Sequere me; de apostolo autem Joanne, Sic eum volo manere donec veniam; quid ad te? Huic quaestioni, quantum Dominus ipse donaverit, sive pertractandae, sive solvendae sermonem novissimum hujus operis impendimus. Cum ergo praenuntiasset Dominus Petro, qua morte clarificaturus esset Deum, dicit ei: Sequere me. Conversus Petrus vidit illum discipulum quem diligebat Jesus, sequentem: qui et recubuit in coena super pectus ejus, et dixit, Domine, quis est qui tradet te? Hunc ergo cum vidisset Petrus, dicit Jesu: Domine, hic autem quid? Dicit ei Jesus: Sic eum volo manere donec veniam; quid ad te? Tu me sequere. Exiit ergo sermo iste inter fratres, quia discipulus ille non moritur. Et non dixit ei Jesus, Non moritur; sed, Sic eum volo manere donec veniam; quid ad te? Ecce quousque in hoc Evangelio extenditur quaestio, quae sua profunditate non mediocriter mentem scrutantis exercet. Cur enim dicitur Petro, Sequere me, nec dicitur caeteris qui simul aderant? Et profecto eum sicut magistrum discipuli sequebantur. Sed si ad passionem intelligendum est, numquid solus pro christiana veritate passus est Petrus? Nonne ibi erat in illis septem alius filius Zebedaei frater Joannis, qui post ejus ascensionem, ab Herode manifestatur occisus ? Verum aliquis dixerit, quoniam Jacobus non est crucifixus, merito dictum esse Petro, Sequere me, qui non solum mortem, sed etiam mortem crucis, sicut Christus, expertus est. Sit hoc, si nihil aliud quod sit convenientius potuerit inveniri. Cur ergo de Joanne dictum est, Sic eum volo manere donec veniam; quid ad te? et repetitum est, Tu me sequere; tanquam ille ideo non sequeretur, quoniam eum manere voluit donec veniat? Quis facile aliud dictum esse credat, quam quod fratres crediderant qui tunc erant, eo quod scilicet non esset discipulus ille moriturus, sed donec Jesus veniret, ista maneret in vita? Sed hanc opinionem Joannes ipse abstulit, non hoc dixisse Dominum aperta contradictione declarans. Cur enim subjungeret, Non dixit Jesus, Non moritur, nisi ne hominum cordibus quod falsum fuerat inhaereret?
124.2 PL 35, 1970
2. But let any one who so listeth still refuse his assent, and declare that what John asserts is true enough, that the Lord said not that that disciple dieth not, and yet that this is the meaning of such words as He is here recorded to have used; and further assert that the Apostle John is still living, and maintain that he is sleeping rather than lying dead in his tomb at Ephesus. Let him employ as an argument the current report that there the earth is in sensible commotion, and presents a kind of heaving appearance, and assert whether it be steadfastly or obstinately that this is occasioned by his breathing. For we cannot fail to have some who so believe, if there is no want of those also who affirm that Moses is alive; because it is written that his sepulchre could not be found, and that he appeared with the Lord on the mountain along with Elias, of whom we read that he did not die, but was translated. As if Moses’ body could not have been hid somewhere in such a way as that its position should altogether escape discovery by men, and be raised up therefrom by divine power at the time when Elias and he were seen with Christ just as at the time of Christ’s passion many bodies of the saints arose, and after His resurrection appeared, according to Scripture, to many in the holy city. But still, as I began to say, if some deny the death of Moses, whom Scripture itself, in the very passage where we read that his sepulchre could nowhere be found, explicitly declares to have died; how much more may occasion be taken from these words where the Lord says, “Thus do I wish him to stay till I come,” to believe that John is sleeping, but still alive, beneath the ground? Of whom we have also the tradition (which is found in certain apocryphal scriptures), that he was present, in good health, when he ordered a sepulchre to be made for him; and that, when it was dug and prepared with all possible care, he laid himself down there as in a bed, and became immediately defunct: yet as those think who so understand these words of the Lord, not really defunct, but only lying like one in such a condition; and, while accounted dead, was actually buried when asleep, and that he will so remain till the coming of Christ, making known meanwhile the fact of his life by the bubbling up of the dust, which is believed to be forced by the breath of the sleeper to ascend from the depths to the surface of the grave. I think it quite superfluous to contend with such an opinion. For those may see for themselves who know the locality whether the ground there does or suffers what is said regarding it, because, in truth, we too have heard of it from those who are not altogether unreliable witnesses.
Sed cui placet, adhuc resistat; et dicat verum esse quod ait Joannes, non dixisse Dominum quod discipulus ille non moritur, sed hoc tamen significatum esse talibus verbis, qualia eum dixisse narravit; et asserat apostolum Joannem vivere, atque in illo sepulcro ejus quod est apud Ephesum, dormire eum potius quam mortuum jacere contendat. Assumat in argumentum, quod illic terra sensim scatere, et quasi ebullire perhibetur; atque hoc ejus anhelitu fieri, sive constanter sive pertinaciter asseveret. Non enim possunt deesse qui credant, si non desunt qui etiam Moysen asserant vivere; quia scriptum est ejus sepulcrum non inveniri , et apparuit cum Domino in monte, ubi et Elias fuit , quem mortuum legimus non esse, sed raptum . Quasi Moysi corpus non potuerit alicubi sic abscondi, ut prorsus homines lateret ubi esset, atque inde ad horam divinitus excitari, quando cum Christo Elias et ipse sunt visi: sicut ad horam multa sanctorum corpora surrexerunt, quando passus est Christus, et post ejus resurrectionem apparuerunt multis in sancta, sicut scriptum est, civitate . Sed tamen, ut dicere coeperam, si quidam Moysen mortuum negant, quem Scriptura ipsa, ubi sepulcrum ejus nusquam inveniri legimus, mortuum tamen esse sine ulla ambiguitate testatur; quanto magis Joannes ex istorum occasione verborum ubi Dominus ait, Sic eum volo manere donec venio, creditur vivus dormire sub terra? Quem tradunt etiam (quod in quibusdam Scripturis quamvis apocryphis reperitur), quando sibi fieri jussit sepulcrum, incolumem fuisse praesentem; eoque effosso et diligentissime praeparato, ibi se tanquam in lectulo collocasse, statimque eum esse defunctum: ut autem isti putant, qui haec verba Domini sic intelligunt, non defunctum, sed defuncto similem cubuisse; et cum mortuus putaretur, sepultum fuisse dormientem; et donec Christus veniat sic manere, suamque vitam scaturigine pulveris indicare: qui pulvis creditur, ut ab imo ad superficiem tumuli ascendat, flatu quiescentis impelli. Huic opinioni supervacaneum existimo reluctari. Viderint enim qui locum sciunt, utrum hoc ibi faciat vel patiatur terra quod dicitur; quia et revera non a levibus hominibus id audivimus.
124.3 PL 35, 1971
3. Meanwhile let us yield to the opinion, which we are unable to refute by any certain evidence, lest we stir up still another question that may be put to us, Why the very ground should seem in a kind of way to live and breathe upon the interred corpse? But can so great a question as the one before us be settled on such grounds as these, if by a great miracle, such as can be wrought by the Almighty, the living body lies so long asleep beneath the ground, till the coming of the end of the world? Nay, rather, does there not arise a wider and more difficult one, why Jesus bestowed on the disciple, whom He loved beyond the others to such an extent that he was counted worthy to recline on His breast, the gift of a protracted sleep in the body, when He delivered the blessed Peter, by the eminent glory of martyrdom, from the burden of the body itself, and vouchsafed to him what the Apostle Paul said that he desired, and committed to writing, namely, “to be let loose, and to be with Christ”? But if, what is rather to be believed, Saint John declared that the Lord said not, “He dieth not,” for the very purpose that no such meaning might be attached to the words which He used; and his body lieth in its sepulchre lifeless like those of others deceased; it remains, if that really takes place which report has spread abroad regarding the soil, which grows up anew, though continually carried away, that it is either so done for the purpose of commending the preciousness of his death, seeing it wants the commendation of martyrdom (for he suffered not death at a persecutor’s hand for the faith of Christ), or on some other account that is concealed from our knowledge. Still there remains the question, why the Lord said of one who was destined to die, “Thus I wish him to remain till I come.”
Interim cedamus opinioni, quam certis documentis refellere non valemus, ne rursus aliud quod a nobis quaeratur exsurgat, Cur super humatum mortuum ipsa humus quodammodo vivere ac spirare videatur. Sed numquid hinc tanta ista solvitur quaestio, si magno miraculo, qualia potest facere Omnipotens, tamdiu vivum corpus in sopore sub terra est, donec veniat terminus saeculi? Quin imo fit amplior et difficilior, cur discipulo Jesus, quem diligebat prae caeteris, in tantum ut super pectus ejus discumbere mereretur, pro magno munere longum in corpore donaverit somnum: cum beatum Petrum per ingentem martyrii gloriam, ab onere ipsius corporis solverit, eique concesserit quod apostolus Paulus se concupisse dixit, et scripsit, Dissolvi et esse cum Christo . Si autem quod magis creditur, ideo sanctus Joannes ait, non dixisse Dominum, Non moritur, ne illis verbis quae dixit, hoc voluisse intelligi putaretur; corpusque ejus in sepulcro ejus exanime sicut aliorum mortuorum jacet: restat ut si vere ibi fit quod sparsit fama de terra, quae subinde ablata succrescit, aut ideo fiat ut eo modo commendetur pretiosa mors ejus, quoniam non eam commendat martyrium (non enim eum pro fide Christi persecutor occidit), aut propter aliquid aliud quod nos latet. Manet tamen quaestio cur dixerit Dominus de homine morituro, Sic eum volo manere donec veniam.
124.4 PL 35, 1971
4. And who, besides, would not be disposed, in the case of these two apostles, Peter and John, to make this further inquiry, why the Lord loved John better, when He Himself was better loved by Peter? For wherever John has something to say of himself, in order that the reference may be understood without any mention of his name, he adds this, that Jesus loved him, as if he were the only one so loved, that he might be distinguished by this mark from the others, who were all of them certainly loved by Christ: and what else, when he so spake, did he wish to be understood but that he himself was more abundantly loved? and far be it that he should utter a falsehood. And what greater proof could Jesus have given of His own greater love to him than that this man, who was only a partner with the rest of his fellow-disciples in the great salvation, should be the only one that leaned on the breast of the Saviour Himself? And further, that the Apostle Peter loved Christ more than the others, may be adduced from many documentary evidences; but to go no further after others, it is plainly enough apparent in the lesson almost immediately preceding the present, in connection with that third manifestation of the Lord, when He put to him the question, “Lovest thou me more than these?” He knew it, of course, and yet asked, in order that we also, who read the Gospel, might know Peter’s love to Christ, both from the questions of the One and the answers of the other. But when Peter only replied, “I love Thee,” without adding, “more than these,” his answer contained all that he knew of himself. For he could not know how much He was loved by any other, not being able to look into that other’s heart. But by saying in the earliest of his answers, “Yea, Lord, Thou knowest,” he stated in clear enough terms, that it was with perfect knowledge of all that the Lord asked what He asked. The Lord therefore knew, not only that Peter loved Him, but also that he loved Him more than the others. And yet if we propose to ourselves, in the way of inquiry, which of the two is the better, he that loveth Christ more or he that loveth Him less, who will hesitate to answer, he is the better that loveth Him more? If, on the other hand, we propose this question, which of the two is the better, he that is loved less or he that is loved more by Christ, without any doubt we shall reply that he is the better who is loved the more by Christ. In the comparison therefore which I drew first, Peter is superior to John; but in the latter, John is preferred to Peter. Accordingly, we have a third to propose in this form: Which of the two disciples is the better, he that loveth Christ less than his fellow-disciple [does], and is loved more than his fellow-disciple by Christ? or he who is loved less than his fellow-disciple by Christ, while he, more than his fellow-disciple, loveth Christ? Here it is that the answer plainly halts, and the question grows in magnitude. As far, however, as my own wisdom goes, I might easily reply, that he is the better who loveth Christ the more, but he the happier who is loved the more by Christ; if only I could thoroughly see how to defend the justice of our Deliverer in loving him the less by whom He is loved the more, and him the more by whom He is loved the less.
Illud etiam in his duobus apostolis Petro et Joanne quem non moveat ad quaerendum, cur Joannem plus dilexerit Dominus, cum ipsum Dominum plus dilexerit Petrus? Ubicumque enim se commemorat Joannes, ut nomine suo tacito ipse possit intelligi, hoc addit quod eum diligebat Jesus, quasi solum diligeret, ut hoc signo discerneretur a caeteris, quos utique omnes diligebat: quid ergo, nisi amplius se dilectum, cum hoc diceret, volebat intelligi? quod absit ut mendaciter diceret. Quod autem majus dare potuit Jesus majoris erga eum suae dilectionis indicium, quam ut homo cum caeteris condiscipulis suis socius tantae salutis, solus tamen discubuerit super pectus ipsius Salvatoris? Porro quod apostolus Petrus plus aliis dilexit Christum, possunt quidem documenta multa proferri: sed ut longe in alia non eamus, ipsius tertiae manifestationis Domini paulo superiore lectione, quae istam praecedit, satis evidenter apparet, ubi interrogans eum, dixit, Diligis me plus his? Quod utique sciebat, et tamen interrogabat, ut etiam nos qui legimus Evangelium, amorem Petri erga Dominum, et illo interrogante et isto respondente nossemus. Quod autem in eo quod respondit Petrus, Amo te, non addidit, plus his, hoc respondit quod de seipso sciebat. Non enim quantum ab alio quolibet diligeretur scire poterat, qui cor alterius videre non poterat. Sed tamen superioribus verbis dicendo, Etiam, Domine, tu scis , satis et ipse declaravit, scientem Dominum interrogasse quod interrogavit. Sciebat igitur Dominus non solum quod diligeret, verum etiam quod plus illis eum diligeret Petrus. Et tamen si proponamus quaerentes, quis duorum sit melior, utrum qui plus, an qui minus diligit Christum; quis dubitabit respondere, eum qui plus diligit esse meliorem? Item si proponamus quis duorum sit melior, utrum quem minus, an quem plus diligit Christus; eum qui plus diligitur a Christo, meliorem procul dubio respondebimus. In illa ergo comparatione quam prius posui, Petrus Joanni; in hac vero altera, Joannes anteponitur Petro. Proinde tertiam sic proponimus: quis est duorum discipulorum melior, qui minus quam condiscipulus ejus diligit Christum, et plus quam condiscipulus ejus diligitur a Christo? an ille quem minus quam condiscipulum ejus diligit Christus, cum plus ipse quam suus condiscipulus diligat Christum? Hic plane cunctatur responsio, et augetur quaestio. Quantum autem ipse sapio, meliorem qui plus diligit Christum, feliciorem vero quem plus diligit Christus, facile responderem; si justitiam Liberatoris nostri minus eum diligentis a quo plus diligitur, et eum plus a quo minus diligitur, quemadmodum defenderem, perviderem.
124.5 PL 35, 1972
5. I shall therefore, in the manifested mercy of Him whose justice is hidden, set about the discussion, in order to the solution of a question of such importance, in accordance with the strength which He may graciously bestow: for hitherto it has only been proposed, not expounded. Let this, then, be the commencement of its exposition, namely, that we bear in mind that in this corruptible body, which burdens the soul, we live a miserable life. But we who are now redeemed by the Mediator, and have received the earnest of the Holy Spirit, have a blessed life in prospect, although we possess it not as yet in reality. But a hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. And it is in the evils that every one suffers, not in the good things that he enjoys, that he has need of patience. The present life, therefore, whereof it is written, “Is not the life of man a term of trial upon earth?” in which we are daily crying to the Lord, “Deliver us from evil,” a man is compelled to endure, even when his sins are forgiven him, although it was the first sin that caused his falling into such misery. For the penalty is more protracted than the fault; lest the fault should be accounted small, were the penalty to end with itself. On this account it is also, either for the demonstration of our debt of misery, or for the amendment of our passing life, or for the exercise of the necessary patience, that man is kept through time in the penalty, even when he is no longer held by his sin as liable to everlasting damnation. This is the truly lamentable but unblameable condition of the present evil days we pass in this mortal state, even while in it we look with loving eyes to the days that are good. For it comes from the righteous anger of God, whereof the Scriptures say, “Man, that is born of woman, is of few days and full of anger:” for the anger of God is not like that of man, the disturbance of an excited man, but the calm fixing of righteous punishment. In this anger of His, God restraineth not, as it is written, His tender mercies; but, besides other consolations to the miserable, which He ceaseth not to bestow on mankind, in the fullness of time, when He knew that such had to be done, He sent His only-begotten Son, by whom He created all things, that He might become man while remaining God, and so be the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: that those who believe in Him, being absolved by the laver of regeneration from the guilt of all their sins,—to wit, both of the original sin they have inherited by generation, and to meet which, in particular, regeneration was instituted, and of all others contracted by evil conduct,—might be delivered from perpetual condemnation, and live in faith and hope and love while sojourning in this world, and be walking onward to His visible presence amid its toilsome and perilous temptations on the one hand, but the consolations of God, both bodily and spiritual, on the other, ever keeping to the way which Christ has become to them. And because, even while walking in Him, they are not exempt from sins, which creep in through the infirmities of this life, He has given them the salutary remedies of alms whereby their prayers might be aided when He taught them to say, “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.” So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troublous life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,” he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, “On this rock will I build my Church,” because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. This Church, accordingly, which Peter represented, so long as it lives amidst evil, by loving and following Christ is delivered from evil. But its following is the closer in those who contend even unto death for the truth. But to the universality [of the Church] is it said, “Follow me,” even as it was for the same universality that Christ suffered: of whom this same Peter saith, “Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow His footsteps.” This, then, you see is why it was said to him, “Follow me.” But there is another, an immortal life, that is not in the midst of evil: there we shall see face to face what is seen here through a glass and in a riddle, even when much progress is made in the beholding of the truth. There are two states of life, therefore, preached and commended to herself from heaven, that are known to the Church, whereof the one is in faith, the other in sight; one in the temporal sojourn in a foreign land, the other in the eternity of the [heavenly] abode; one in labor, the other in repose; one on the way, the other in the fatherland; one in active work, the other in the wages of contemplation; one declines from evil and makes for good, the other has no evil to decline from, and has great good to enjoy; the one fights with a foe, the other reigns without a foe; the one is brave in the midst of adversities, the other has no experience of adversity; the one is bridling its carnal lusts, the other has full scope for spiritual delights; the one is anxious with the care of conquering, the other secure in the peace of victory; the one is helped in temptations, the other, free from all temptations, rejoices in the Helper Himself; the one is occupied in relieving the indigent, the other is there, where no indigence is found; the one pardons the sins of others, that its own may be pardoned to itself, the other neither has anything to pardon nor does aught for which pardon has to be asked; the one is scourged with evils that it may not be elated with good things, the other is free from all evil by such a fullness of grace that, without any temptation to pride, it may cleave to that which is supremely good; the one discerneth both good and evil, the other has only that which is good presented to view: therefore the one is good, but miserable as yet; the other, better and blessed. This one was signified by the Apostle Peter, that other by John. The whole of the one is passed here to the end of this world, and there finds its termination, the other is deferred for its completion till after the end of this world, but has no end in the world to come. Hence it is said to the latter, “Follow me;” but of the former, “Thus I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.” For what means this last? So far as my wisdom goes, so far as I comprehend, what is it but this, Follow thou me by imitating me in the endurance of temporal evils; let him remain till I come to restore everlasting good? And this may be expressed more clearly in this way: Let perfected action, informed by the example of my passion, follow me; but let contemplation only begun remain [so] till I come, to be perfected when I come. For the godly plenitude of patience, reaching forward even unto death, followeth Christ; but the fullness of knowledge tarrieth till Christ come, to be manifested then. For here the evils of this world are endured in the land of the dying, while there shall be seen the good things of the Lord in the land of the living. For in saying, “I wish him to tarry till I come,” we are not to understand Him as meaning to remain on, or abide permanently, but to wait; seeing that what is signified by him shall certainly not be fulfilled now, but when Christ is come. But what is signified by him to whom it was said, “Follow thou me,” unless it be done now, will never attain to the expected end. And in this life of activity, the more we love Christ the more easily are we delivered from evil. But He loveth us less as we now are, and therefore delivers from it, that we may not be always such as we are. There, however, He loveth us more; for we shall not have aught about us to displease Him, or aught that He will have to separate us from: nor is it for aught else that He loveth us here but that He may heal and translate us from everything He loveth not. Here, therefore, [He loveth us] less, where He would not have us remain; there in larger measure, whither He would have us to be passing, and out of that wherein He would not that we should perish. Let Peter therefore love Him, that we may obtain deliverance from our present mortality; let John be loved by Him, that we may be preserved in the immortality to come.
Aggrediar igitur in ejus manifesta misericordia, cujus est occulta justitia, de solvenda quaestione tam ingenti, pro viribus quas ipse donaverit, disputare: hucusque enim proposita est, non exposita. Exponendae vero ejus hoc sit exordium; ut meminerimus in hoc corruptibili corpore quod aggravat animam , vitam nos miseram vivere. Sed qui jam redempti per Mediatorem sumus, et Spiritum sanctum pignus accepimus, beatam vitam in spe habemus, etsi re ipsa nondum tenemus. Spes autem quae videtur, non est spes: quod enim videt quis, quid sperat? Si autem quod non videmus speramus, per patientiam exspectamus . In malis autem quae quisque patitur, non in bonis quibus fruitur, opus est patientia. Hanc itaque vitam de qua scriptum est, Numquid non tentatio est vita humana super terram ? in qua quotidie clamamus ad Dominum, Libera nos a malo , cogitur homo tolerare etiam remissis peccatis: quamvis ut in eam veniret miseriam, primum fuerit causa peccatum. Productior est enim poena quam culpa; ne parva putaretur culpa, si cum illa finiretur et poena. Ac per hoc vel ad demonstrationem debitae miseriae, vel ad emendationem labilis vitae, vel ad exercitationem necessariae patientiae, temporaliter hominem detinet poena et quem jam ad damnationem sempiternam reum non detinet culpa. Haec est istorum dierum, quos in hac mortalitate agimus malos, quamvis in ea diligamus videre dies bonos, flenda quidem, sed non reprehendenda conditio. Venit enim de ira Dei justa, de qua Scriptura loquens, Homo, inquit, natus ex muliere, brevis vitae, et plenus irae : cum ira Dei non sit ut hominis, id est perturbatio concitati animi, sed tranquilla justi supplicii constitutio. In hac ira sua Deus non continens, sicut scriptum est, miserationes suas , praeter alia solatia miserorum quae generi humano praebere non cessat, in plenitudine temporis, quo ipse sciebat hoc esse faciendum, misit Filium suum unigenitum , per quem creavit universa, ut manens Deus fieret homo, et esset mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus : in quem credentes, per lavacrum regenerationis soluto reatu omnium peccatorum, et originalis videlicet quod generatio trahit, contra quam maxime regeneratio est instituta, et caeterorum quae male agendo contracta sunt, liberarentur a damnatione perpetua, et viverent in fide et spe et charitate, peregrinantes in hoc saeculo, atque in ejus tentationibus laboriosis et periculosis, consolationibus autem Dei et corporalibus et spiritualibus ambularent ad conspectum ejus, viam tenentes, quod eis factus est Christus. Et quia in ipso quoque ambulantes non sunt sine peccatis, quae de hujus vitae infirmitate subrepunt, dedit eleemosynarum remedia salutaria, quibus eorum adjuvaretur oratio, ubi eos dicere docuit, Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris . Hoc agit Ecclesia spe beata in hac vita aerumnosa: cujus Ecclesiae Petrus apostolus, propter Apostolatus sui primatum, gerebat figurata generalitate personam. Quod enim ad ipsum proprie pertinet, natura unus homo erat, gratia unus christianus, abundantiore gratia unus idemque primus apostolus: sed quando ei dictum est, Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum, et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in coelis; et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in coelis, universam significabat Ecclesiam, quae in hoc saeculo diversis tentationibus velut imbribus, fluminibus, tempestatibus quatitur, et non cadit, quoniam fundata est super petram, unde Petrus nomen accepit. Non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra; sicut non Christus a christiano, sed christianus a Christo vocatur. Ideo quippe ait Dominus, Super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, quia dixerat Petrus, Tu es Christus Filius Dei vivi . Super hanc ergo, inquit, petram quam confessus es, aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Petra enim erat Christus : super quod fundamentum etiam ipse aedificatus est Petrus. Fundamentum quippe aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id quod positum est, quod est Christus Jesus . Ecclesia ergo quae fundatur in Christo, claves ab eo regni coelorum accepit in Petro, id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata. Quod est enim per proprietatem in Christo Ecclesia, hoc est per significationem Petrus in petra; qua significatione intelligitur Christus petra. Petrus Ecclesia. Haec igitur Ecclesia quam significabat Petrus, quamdiu degit in malis, amando et sequendo Christum liberatur a malis. Magis autem sequitur in eis qui certant pro veritate usque ad mortem. Sed universitati dicitur, Sequere me, pro qua universitate passus est Christus: de quo dicit idem Petrus, Christus pro nobis passus est, relinquens nobis exemplum, ut sequamur vestigia ejus . Ecce propter quod ei dictum est, Sequere me. Est autem alia vita immortalis, quae non est in malis: ibi facie ad faciem videbimus, quod hic per speculum et in aenigmate videtur , quando multum in conspicienda veritate proficitur. Duas itaque vitas sibi divinitus praedicatas et commendatas novit Ecclesia, quarum est una in fide, altera in specie; una in tempore peregrinationis, altera in aeternitate mansionis; una in labore, altera in requie; una in via, altera in patria; una in opere actionis, altera in mercede contemplationis; una declinat a malo et facit bonum, altera nullum habet a quo declinet malum, et magnum habet quo fruatur bonum; una cum hoste pugnat, altera sine hoste regnat; una fortis est in adversis, altera nihil sentit adversi; una carnales libidines frenat, altera spiritualibus delectationibus vacat; una est vincendi cura sollicita, altera victoriae pace secura; una in tentationibus adjuvatur, altera sine ulla tentatione in ipso adjutore laetatur; una subvenit indigenti, altera ibi est ubi nullum invenit indigentem; una aliena peccata ut sua sibi ignoscantur ignoscit, altera nec patitur quod ignoscat, nec facit quod sibi poscat ignosci; una flagellatur malis, ne extollatur in bonis, altera tanta plenitudine gratiae caret omni malo, ut sine ulla tentatione superbiae cohaereat summo bono; una bona et mala discernit, altera quae sola bona sunt cernit: ergo una bona est, sed adhuc misera; altera melior et beata. Ista significata est per apostolum Petrum, illa per Joannem. Tota hic agitur ista usque in hujus saeculi finem, et illic invenit finem: differtur illa complenda post hujus saeculi finem, sed in futuro saeculo non habet finem. Ideo dicitur huic, Sequere me: de illo autem, Sic eum volo manere donec veniam; quid a te? Tu me sequere. Quid enim est hoc? Quantum sapio, quantum capio, quid est hoc, nisi, Tu me sequere per imitationem perferendi temporalia mala; ille maneat donec sempiterna venio redditurus bona? Quod apertius ita dici potest: Perfecta me sequatur actio, informata meae passionis exemplo; inchoata vero contemplatio maneat donec venio, perficienda cum venero. Sequitur enim Christum, perveniens usque ad mortem pia plenitudo patientiae: manet autem donec veniat Christus, tunc manifestanda plenitudo scientiae. Hic quippe tolerantur mala hujus mundi in terra morientium, ibi videbuntur bona Domini in terra viventium. Quod enim ait, Volo eum manere donec veniam, non sic intelligendum est quasi dixerit, remanere vel permanere; sed, exspectare: quoniam quod per eum significatur, non utique nunc, sed cum venerit Christus, implebitur. Quod autem per hunc significatur, cui dictum est, Tu me sequere, nisi nunc agatur, non pervenietur ad illud quod exspectatur. In hac autem activa vita quanto magis Christum diligimus, tanto facilius liberamur a malo. At ipse nos minus diligit quales nunc sumus; et hinc ideo liberat, ne semper tales simus. Ibi vero amplius nos diligit; quoniam quod ei displiceat, et quod a nobis auferat, non habebimus: nec ob aliud nos hic diligit, nisi ut sanet et transferat ab his quae non diligit. Hic ergo minus, ubi non vult remaneamus: ibi amplius, quo vult transeamus, et unde non vult pereamus. Amet ergo eum Petrus, ut ab ista mortalitate liberemur: ametur ab eo Joannes, ut in illa immortalitate servemur.
124.6 PL 35, 1975
6. But by this line of argument we have shown why Christ loved John more than Peter, not why Peter loved Christ more than John. For if Christ loveth us more in the world to come, where we shall live unendingly with Him, than in the present, from which we are in the course of being rescued, that we may be always in the other, it does not follow on that account that we shall love Him less when better ourselves; since we can in no possible way be better ourselves, save by loving Him more. Why was it, then, that John loved Him less than Peter, if he signified that life, wherein He must be more abundantly loved, but because on that very account it was said, “I will that he tarry,” that is wait, “till I come;” for we have not yet the love itself, which will then be greater far, but are expecting that future, that we may have it when He shall come? Just as in his own epistle the same apostle declares, “It has not yet appeared what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.” Then accordingly shall we love the more that which we shall see. But the Lord Himself, in His predestinating knowledge, loveth more that future life of ours that is yet to come, such as He knows it will be hereafter in us, in order that by so loving us He may draw us onward to its possession. Wherefore, as all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth, we know our present misery, because we feel it; and therefore we love more the mercy of the Lord, which we wish to be exhibited in our deliverance from misery, and we ask and experience it daily, especially in the remission of sins: this it is that was signified by Peter, as loving more, but less beloved; because Christ loveth us less in our misery than in our blessedness. But the contemplation of the truth, such as it then shall be, we love less, because as yet we neither know nor possess it: this was signified by John as loving less, and therefore waiting both for that state itself, and for the perfecting in us of that love to Him, to which He is entitled, till the Lord come; but loved the more, because that it is, which is symbolized by him, that maketh him blessed.
Sed ista ratione illud ostenditur, cur amplius Joannem quam Petrum amaverit Christus, non cur amplius Petrus quam Joannes amaverit Christum. Neque enim, si plus nos diligit Christus in futuro saeculo, ubi cum illo sine fine vivemus, quam in isto unde eruimur, ut illic semper simus, propterea nos tunc eum minus dilecturi sumus quando meliores erimus; cum meliores utique nisi amplius eum diligendo, nullo modo esse possimus. Cur ergo Joannes minus eum diligebat quam Petrus, si eam vitam significabat, in qua est multo amplius diligendus, nisi quia propterea dictum est, Volo eum manere, id est exspectare, donec veniam, quoniam et ipsum amorem qui tunc multo amplior erit, nondum habemus, sed futurum exspectamus, ut cum ipse venerit, habeamus? Nam sicut in Epistola sua idem dicit apostolus, Nondum apparuit quod erimus; scimus quoniam cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est . Tunc ergo amplius quod videbimus, diligemus. Ipse autem Dominus illam quae futura est vitam nostram, qualis in nobis futura sit sciens, praedestinatione plus amat, ut ad eam nos amando perducat. Quocirca quoniam universae viae Domini misericordia et veritas , miseriam nostram praesentem novimus, quia sentimus; et ideo misericordiam Domini, quam nobis de miseria liberandis exhiberi volumus, plus amamus, eamque quotidie maxime pro peccatorum remissione poscimus et habemus: hoc per Petrum significatum est plus amantem, sed minus amatum; quia minus nos amat Christus miseros quam beatos. Veritatis autem contemplationem qualis tunc futura est, minus amamus, quia nondum novimus nec habemus: haec per Joannem significata est minus amantem, atque ideo et ad ipsam, et ad ejus in nobis amorem, qualis ei debetur, implendum, donec veniat Dominus exspectantem; sed plus amatum, quia id quod per illum figuratum est, hoc efficit beatum.
124.7 PL 35, 1975
7. Let no one, however, separate these distinguished apostles. In that which was signified by Peter, they were both alike; and in that which was signified by John, they will both be alike hereafter. In their representative character, the one was following, the other tarrying; but in their personal faith they were both of them enduring the present evils of the misery here, both of them expecting the future good things of the blessedness to come. And such is the case, not with them alone, but with the holy universal Church, the spouse of Christ, who has still to be rescued from the present trials, and to be preserved in the future happiness. And these two states of life were symbolized by Peter and John, the one by the one, the other by the other; but in this life they both of them walked for a time by faith, and the other they shall both of them enjoy eternally by sight. For the whole body of the saints, therefore, inseparably belonging to the body of Christ, and for their safe pilotage through the present tempestuous life, did Peter, the first of the apostles, receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ. For it is not the former alone but the whole Church, that bindeth and looseth sins; nor did the latter alone drink at the fountain of the Lord’s breast, to emit again in preaching, of the Word in the beginning, God with God, and those other sublime truths regarding the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead. which are to be yet beheld in that kingdom face to face, but meanwhile till the Lord’s coming are only to be seen in a mirror and in a riddle; but the Lord has Himself diffused this very gospel through the whole world, that every one of His own may drink thereat according to his own individual capacity. 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.
Nemo tamen istos insignes apostolos separet. Et in eo quod significabat Petrus, ambo erant; et in eo quod significabat Joannes, ambo futuri erant. Significando sequebatur iste, manebat ille: credendo autem ambo mala praesentia hujus miseriae tolerabant, ambo futura bona illius beatitudinis exspectabant. Nec ipsi soli, sed universa hoc facit sancta Ecclesia sponsa Christi, ab istis tentationibus eruenda, in illa felicitate servanda. Quas duas vitas Petrus et Joannes figuraverunt, singuli singulas: verum et in hac temporaliter ambulaverunt ambo per fidem, et illa in aeternum fruentur ambo per speciem. Omnibus igitur sanctis ad Christi corpus inseparabiliter pertinentibus, propter hujus vitae procellosissimae gubernaculum, ad liganda et solvenda peccata claves regni coelorum primus Apostolorum Petrus accepit: eisdemque omnibus sanctis propter vitae illius secretissimae quietissimum sinum, super pectus Christi Joannes evangelista discubuit. Quoniam nec iste solus, sed universa Ecclesia ligat solvitque peccata: nec ille in principio Verbum Deum apud Deum, et caetera de Christi divinitate, et de totius divinitatis trinitate atque unitate sublimia, quae in illo regno facie ad faciem contemplanda, nunc autem donec veniat Dominus, in speculo atque in aenigmate contuenda sunt, quae praedicando ructaret, de fonte Dominici pectoris solus bibit; sed ipse Dominus ipsum Evangelium pro sua cujusque capacitate omnibus suis bibendum toto terrarum orbe diffudit. Sunt qui senserint, et hi quidem non contemptibiles sacri eloquii tractatores, a Christo Joannem apostolum propterea plus amatum, quod neque uxorem duxerit, et ab ineunte pueritia castissimus vixerit . Hoc quidem in Scripturis canonicis non evidenter apparet: verumtamen id quoque multum adjuvat congruentiam hujusce sententiae, quod illa vita per eum significata est, ubi non erunt nuptiae.
124.8 PL 35, 1976
8. “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: as, “They set their mouths against the heavens;” and, “The top of the hair of such as go on in their trespasses;” and many others of the same kind, which are no more wanting in the sacred Scriptures than other tropes or modes of speaking. Of these I might give a more elaborate discussion, were it not that, as the evangelist here terminates his Gospel, I am also compelled to bring my discourse to a close.
Hic est discipulus ille qui testimonium perhibet de his, et scripsit haec; et scimus quia verum est testimonium ejus. Sunt autem, inquit, et alia multa quae fecit Jesus, quae si scribantur per singula, nec ipsum arbitror mundum capere eos qui scribendi sunt libros. Non spatio locorum credendum est mundum capere non posse, quae in eo scribi quomodo possent, si scripta non ferret? sed capacitate legentium comprehendi fortasse non possent: quamvis salva rerum fide, plerumque verba excedere videantur fidem. Quod non fit quando aliquid quod erat obscurum vel dubium, causa et ratione reddita exponitur: sed quando id quod apertum est vel augetur, vel extenuatur, nec tamen a tramite significandae veritatis erratur; quoniam sic verba rem quae indicatur excedunt, ut voluntas loquentis nec fallentis appareat, qui novit quousque credatur, a quo ultra quam credendum est vel minuitur loquendo aliquid, vel augetur. Hunc loquendi modum graeco nomine, non solum graecarum, verum etiam latinarum litterarum magistri hyperbolen vocant. Qui modus, sicut hoc loco, ita in nonnullis aliis divinis Litteris invenitur: ut est, Posuerunt in coelum os suum ; et, Verticem capilli perambulantium in delictis suis ; et multa hujusmodi, quae Scripturis sanctis non desunt, sicut alii tropi, hoc est locutionum modi. De quibus operosius disputarem, nisi Evangelista terminante Evangelium suum, etiam ipse compellerer meum terminare sermonem.