Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 36

St Augustine of Hippo (AD 354–430) · In Joannis evangelium tractatus CXXIV · PL 35, 1379–1976

36.1 Chapter VIII. 15–18 PL 35, 1662

1. In the four Gospels, or rather in the four books of the one Gospel, Saint John the apostle, not undeservedly in respect of his spiritual understanding compared to the eagle, has elevated his preaching higher and far more sublimely than the other three; and in this elevating of it he would have our hearts likewise lifted up. For the other three evangelists walked with the Lord on earth as with a man; concerning His divinity they have said but little; but this evangelist, as if he disdained to walk on earth, just as in the very opening of his discourse he thundered on us, soared not only above the earth and above the whole compass of air and sky, but even above the whole army of angels and the whole order of invisible powers, and reached to Him by whom all things were made; saying, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” To this so great sublimity of his beginning all the rest of his preaching well agrees; and he has spoken concerning the divinity of the Lord as none other has spoken. What he had drank in, the same he gave forth. For it is not without reason that it is recorded of him in this very Gospel, that at supper he reclined on the Lord’s bosom. From that breast then he drank in secret; but what he drank in secret he gave forth openly, that there may come to all nations not only the incarnation of the Son of God, and His passion and resurrection, but also what He was before His incarnation, the only Son of the Father, the Word of the Father, coeternal with Him that begat, equal with Him by whom He was sent; but yet in that very sending made less, that the Father might be greater.

In quatuor Evangeliis, vel potius quatuor libris unius Evangelii, sanctus Joannes apostolus, non immerito secundum intelligentiam spiritualem aquilae comparatus, altius multoque sublimius aliis tribus erexit praedicationem suam; et in ejus erectione etiam corda nostra erigi voluit. Nam caeteri tres evangelistae, tanquam cum homine Domino in terra ambulabant, de divinitate ejus pauca dixerunt: istum autem quasi piguerit in terra ambulare, sicut ipso exordio sui sermonis intonuit, erexit se, non solum super terram et super omnem ambitum aeris et coeli sed super omnem etiam exercitum Angelorum, omnemque constitutionem invisibilium potestatum, et pervenit ad eum per quem facta sunt omnia, dicendo, In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum: hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil . Huic tantae sublimitati principii etiam caetera congrua praedicavit, et de Domini divinitate, quomodo nullus alius, est locutus. Hoc ructabat quod biberat. Non enim sine causa de illo in isto ipso Evangelio narratur, quia et in convivio super pectus Domini discumbebat . De illo ergo pectore in secreto bibebat: sed quod in secreto bibit, in manifesto eructavit, ut perveniat ad omnes gentes non solum incarnatio Filii Dei, et passio, et resurrectio; sed etiam quid erat ante incarnationem Unicus Patri, Verbum Patris, coaeternus generanti, aequalis ei a quo missus est; sed in ipsa missione minor factus, quo major esset Pater.

36.2 PL 35, 1663

2. Whatever, then, you have heard stated in lowly manner concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, think of that economy by which He assumed flesh; but whatever you hear, or read, stated in the Gospel concerning Him that is sublime and high above all creatures, and divine, and equal and coeternal with the Father, be sure that this which you read appertains to the form of God, not to the form of the servant. For if you hold this rule, you who can understand it (inasmuch as you are not all able to understand it, but you are all bound to trust it),—if, I say, you hold this rule, as men walking in the light, you will fight against the calumnies of heretical darkness without fear. For there have not been wanting those who, in reading the Gospel, followed only those testimonies that concern the humility of Christ, and have been deaf to those which have declared His divinity; deaf for this reason, that they may be full of evil words. There have likewise been some, who, giving heed only to those which speak of the excellency of the Lord, even though they have read of His mercy in becoming man for our sakes, have not believed the testimonies, but accounted them false and invented by men; contending that our Lord Jesus Christ was only God, not also man. Some in this way, some in that: both in error. But the catholic faith, holding from both the truths which each holds and preaching the truth which each believes, has both understood that Christ is God and also believed Him to be man: for each is written and each is true. Shouldst thou assert that Christ is only God, thou deniest the medicine whereby thou wast healed: shouldst thou assert that Christ is only man, thou deniest the power whereby thou wast created. Hold therefore both. O faithful soul and catholic heart, hold both, believe both, faithfully confess both. Christ is both God and also man. How is Christ God? Equal with the Father, one with the Father. How is Christ man? Born of a virgin, taking upon Himself mortality from man, but not taking iniquity.

Quidquid ergo humiliter positum audistis de Domino Jesu Christo, susceptae carnis dispensationem cogitate; qualis factus est propter nos, non qualis erat ut faceret nos: quidquid autem sublime et supra omnes creaturas excelsum atque divinum, et Patri aequale atque coaeternum de illo audieritis in Evangelio poni, vel legeritis, scitote vos hoc legere quod ad formam Dei pertinet, non quod ad formam servi. Quia si istam regulam tenueritis qui capere potestis; non autem omnes capere potestis, sed omnes credere debetis: si ergo hanc regulam tenueritis, adversus calumnias tenebrarum haereticarum, tanquam in lumine ambulantes, securi pugnabitis. Non enim defuerunt qui sola evangelica testimonia legendo sectarentur, quae de humilitate Christi posita sunt, qui adversus ea testimonia quae divinitatem ejus locuta sunt, surdi fuerunt: ideo surdi, ut male verbosi. Item quidam illa sola attendentes quae de Domini sublimitate dicta sunt, etiam ipsi misericordiam ejus, qua homo factus est propter nos, et si legerunt, non crediderunt, et ab hominibus inducta, atque falsa esse putaverunt; contendentes Deum tantummodo fuisse Dominum nostrum Christum, non etiam hominem. Alii sic, alii sic; utrique in errore. Catholica autem fides ex utroque verum tenens quod tenet, et praedicans quod credit, et Deum Christum intellexit, et hominem credidit: utrumque enim scriptum est, et utrumque verum est. Si Deum tantum dixeris Christum, medicinam negas qua sanatus es: si hominem tantum dixeris Christum, potentiam negas qua creatus es. Utrumque igitur tene, anima fidelis et cor catholicum, utrumque tene, utrumque crede, utrumque fideliter confitere. Et Deus Christus est, et homo Christus. Qualis Deus Christus? Aequalis Patri, unum cum Patre. Qualis homo Christus? De virgine natus, trahens de homine mortalitatem, non trahens iniquitatem.

36.3 PL 35, 1663

3. These Jews then saw the man; they neither perceived nor believed Him to be God: and you have already heard how, among all the rest, they said to Him, “Thou bearest witness of thyself; thy witness is not true.” You have also heard what He said in reply, as it was read to you yesterday, and according to our ability discussed. To-day have been read these words of His, “Ye judge after the flesh.” Therefore it is, saith He, that you say to me, “Thou bearest witness of thyself; thy witness is not true,” because you judge after the flesh, because you perceive not God; the man you see, and by persecuting the man, you offend God hidden in Him. “Ye,” then, “judge after the flesh.” Because I bear witness of myself, I therefore appear to you arrogant. For every man, when he wishes to bear commendatory witness of himself, seems arrogant and proud. Hence it is written, “Let not thy own mouth praise thee, but let thy neighbor’s” mouth praise thee. But this was said to man. For we are weak, and we speak to the weak. We can speak the truth, but we can also lie; although we are bound to speak the truth, still we have it in our power to lie when we will. But far be it from us to think that the darkness of falsehood could be found in the splendor of the divine light. He spoke as the light, spoke as the truth; but the light was shining in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not: therefore they judged after the flesh. “Ye,” saith He, “judge after the flesh.”

Isti ergo Judaei videbant hominem, nec intelligebant nec credebant Deum: atque inter caetera audistis jam quemadmodum ei dixerint, Tu de te testimonium dicis; testimonium tuum non est verum . Audistis etiam quid ille responderit, cum hesterno die lectum esset, et pro nostris viribus disputatum. Hodie verba ejus haec lecta sunt, Vos secundum carnem judicatis. Ideo, inquit, mihi dicitis, Tu de te testimonium dicis; testimonium tuum non est verum, quia secundum carnem judicatis; quia Deum non intelligitis, et hominem videtis, et hominem persequendo, Deum latentem offenditis. Ergo secundum carnem judicatis. Ideo vobis arrogans videor, quia ego de me testimonium perhibeo. Omnis enim homo, quando de se vult perhibere testimonium laudabile, arrogans et superbus videtur. Ideo scriptum est, Non te laudet os tuum, sed laudet te os proximi tui . Sed hoc homini dictum est. Infirmi enim sumus, et apud infirmos loquimur. Verum dicere et mentiri possumus: etsi verum dicere debemus, et mentiri tamen possumus cum volumus. Lux mentiri non potest: absit ut in lucis divinae splendore tenebrae mendacii reperiantur. Loquebatur ille tanquam lux, loquebatur tanquam veritas; sed lux in tenebris lucebat, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt: ideo secundum carnem judicabant. Vos, inquit, secundum carnem judicatis.

36.4 PL 35, 1664

4. “I judge not any man.” Does not the Lord Jesus Christ, then, judge any man? Is He not the same of whom we confess that He rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, there sits at the right hand of the Father, and thence shall come to judge the quick and the dead? Is not this our faith of which the apostle says, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?” When, therefore, we confess these things, do we contradict the Lord? We say that He shall come a judge of the quick and the dead, whilst He says Himself, “I judge not any man.” This question may be solved in two ways: Either that we may understand this expression, “I judge not any man,” to mean, I judge not any man now; in accordance with what He says in another place, “I am not come to judge the world, but to save the world;” not denying His judgment here, but deferring it. Or, otherwise, surely that when He said, “Ye judge after the flesh,” He subjoined, “I judge not any man,” in such manner that thou shouldst understand “after the flesh” to complete the sense. Therefore let no scruple of doubt remain in our heart against the faith which we hold and declare concerning Christ as judge. Christ is come, but first to save, then to judge: to adjudge to punishment those who would not be saved; to bring them to life who, by believing, did not reject salvation. Accordingly, the first dispensation of our Lord Jesus Christ is medicinal, not judicial; for if He had come to judge first, He would have found none on whom He might bestow the rewards of righteousness. Because, therefore, He saw that all were sinners, and that none was exempt from the death of sin, His mercy had first to be craved, and afterwards His judgment must be executed; for of Him the psalm had sung, “Mercy and judgment will I sing to Thee, O Lord.” Now, He says not “judgment and mercy,” for if judgment had been first, there would be no mercy; but it is mercy first, then judgment. What is the mercy first? The Creator of man deigned to become man; was made what He had made, that the creature He had made might not perish. What can be added to this mercy? And yet He has added thereto. It was not enough for Him to be made man, He added to this that He was rejected of men; it was not enough to be rejected, He was dishonored; it was not enough to be dishonored, He was put to death; but even this was not enough, it was by the death of the cross. For when the apostle was commending to us His obedience even unto death, it was not enough for him to say, “He became obedient unto death;” for it was not unto death of any kind whatever: but he added, “even the death of the cross.” Among all kinds of death, there was nothing worse than that death. In short, that wherein one is racked by the most intense pains is called cruciatus, which takes its name from crux, a cross. For the crucified, hanging on the tree, nailed to the wood, were killed by a slow lingering death. To be crucified was not merely to be put to death; for the victim lived long on the cross, not because longer life was chosen, but because death itself was stretched out that the pain might not be too quickly ended. He willed to die for us, yet it is not enough to say this; He deigned to be crucified, became obedient even to the death of the cross. He who was about to take away all death, chose the lowest and worst kind of death: He slew death by the worst of deaths. To the Jews who understood not, it was indeed the worst of deaths, but it was chosen by the Lord. For He was to have that very cross as His sign; that very cross, a trophy, as it were, over the vanquished devil, He was to put on the brow of believers, so that the apostle said, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.” Nothing was then more intolerable in the flesh, nothing is now more glorious on the brow. What does He reserve for His faithful one, when He has put such honor on the instrument of His own torture? Now is the cross no longer used among the Romans in the punishment of criminals, for where the cross of the Lord came to be honored, it was thought that even a guilty man would be honored if he should be crucified. Hence, He who came for this cause judged no man: He suffered also the wicked. He suffered unjust judgment, that He might execute righteous judgment. But it was of His mercy that He endured unjust judgment. In short, He became so low as to come to the cross; yea, laid aside His power, but published His mercy. Wherein did He lay aside His power? In that He would not come down from the cross, though He had the power to rise again from the sepulchre. Wherein did He publish His mercy? In that, when hanging on the cross, He said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” Whether, then, it be that He said, “I judge not any man,” because He had come not to judge the world, but to save the world; or, that, as I have mentioned, when He had said, “Ye judge after the flesh,” He added, “I judge not any man,” for us to understand that Christ judgeth not after the flesh, like as He was judged by men.

Ego non judico quemquam. Non ergo judicat quemquam Dominus Jesus Christus? Nonne ipse est quem confitemur resurrexisse tertia die, ascendisse in coelum, ibi sedere ad dexteram Patris, inde esse venturum ad judicandos vivos et mortuos? Nonne ipsa est fides nostra, de qua dicit Apostolus, Corde creditur ad justitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem ? Ergo quando ista confitemur, contra Dominum loquimur? Nos dicimus venturum judicem vivorum et mortuorum; ipse autem dicit, Ego non judico quemquam. Quaestio ista duobus modis solvi potest; ut aut hoc intelligamus, non judico quemquam, id est, modo: sicut dicit alio loco, Ego non veni ut judicem mundum, sed ut salvum faciam mundum ; non judicium suum negando, sed differendo. Aut certe quia dixerat, Vos secundum carnem judicatis; ita subjunxit, Ego non judico quemquam, ut subaudias, secundum carnem. Nullus ergo nobis contra fidem quam tenemus et annuntiamus de judice Christo, scrupulus dubitationis in corde remaneat. Venit Christus, sed primo salvare, postea judicare: eos judicando in poenam, qui salvari noluerunt; eos perducendo ad vitam, qui credendo salutem non respuerunt. Prima ergo dispensatio Domini nostri Jesu Christi medicinalis est, non judicialis: nam si primo venisset judicaturus, neminem invenisset cui praemia justitiae redderet. Quia ergo vidit omnes peccatores, et omnino neminem esse immunem a morte peccati; prius erat ejus misericordia praeroganda, et post exserendum judicium: quia de illo cantaverat Psalmus, Misericordiam et judicium cantabo tibi, Domine . Non enim judicium ait et misericordiam; nam si primo esset judicium, nulla esset misericordia: sed primo misericordia, postea judicium. Quae est primo misericordia? Creator hominis, homo esse dignatus est: factus est quod fecerat, ne periret quem fecerat. Quid huic misericordiae addi potest? Et tamen addidit. Parum fuit ei hominem fieri; sed etiam ab hominibus reprobari: parum erat reprobari; et exhonorari: parum erat exhonorari; et occidi: sed et hoc parum est; morte crucis. Nam et cum ejus obedientiam usque ad mortem factam commendaret Apostolus, parum illi fuit dicere, Factus obediens usque ad mortem: non enim qualemcumque mortem, sed addidit, mortem autem crucis . Illa morte pejus nihil fuit inter omnia genera mortium. Denique ubi dolores acerrimi exagitant, cruciatus vocatur, a cruce nominatus. Pendentes enim in ligno crucifixi, clavis ad lignum pedibus manibusque confixi, producta morte necabantur. Non enim crucifigi hoc erat occidi: sed diu vivebatur in cruce; non quia longior vita eligebatur, sed quia mors ipsa protendebatur, ne dolor citius finiretur. Mori voluit pro nobis: parum dicimus, crucifigi dignatus est, usque ad mortem crucis obediens factus. Elegit extremum et pessimum genus mortis, qui omnem fuerat ablaturus mortem: de morte pessima occidit omnem mortem. Pessima enim erat non intelligentibus Judaeis; nam a Domino electa erat. Ipsam enim crucem suam signum habiturus erat, ipsam crucem de diabolo superato tanquam tropaeum in frontibus fidelium positurus, ut diceret Apostolus: Mihi autem absit gloriari nisi in cruce Domini nostri Jesu Christi, per quem mihi munaus crucifixus est, et ego mundo . Nihil erat tunc in carne intolerabilius, nihil est nunc in fronte gloriosius. Quid servat fideli suo, qui talem honorem dedit supplicio suo? Denique modo in poenis reorum non est apud Romanos: ubi enim Domini crux honorata est, putatum est quod et reus honoraretur, si crucifigeretur. Qui ergo ideo venit, neminem judicavit: et malos passus est. Pertulit injustum judicium, ut ageret justum. Sed in eo quod pertulit injustum, misericordiae fuit. Denique ita humilis factus ut veniret ad crucem, distulit quidem potentiam, sed publicavit misericordiam. Unde distulit potentiam? Quia de cruce noluit descendere, qui potuit de sepulcro resurgere. Unde publicavit misericordiam? Quia pendens in cruce dixit: Pater, ignosce illis, quia nesciunt quid faciunt . Sive ergo propter hoc, quia non venerat judicare mundum, sed salvare mundum, dixit, Ego non judico quemquam: sive quemadmodum commemoravi, quoniam dixerat, Vos secundum carnem judicatis, addidit, Ego non judico quemquam, ut intelligamus Christum non secundum carnem judicare, sicut ab hominibus judicatus est.

36.5 PL 35, 1665

5. But that you may know that Christ is judge even now, hear what follows: “And if I judge, my judgment is true.” Behold, thou hast Him as thy judge, but acknowledge Him as thy Saviour, lest thou feel the judge. But why has He said that His judgment is true? “Because,” saith He, “I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.” I have said to you, brethren, that this holy Evangelist John soars exceedingly high: it is with difficulty that he is comprehended. But we need to remind you, beloved, of the deeper mystery of this soaring. Both in the prophet Ezekiel, and in the Apocalypse of this very John whose Gospel this is, there is mentioned a fourfold living creature, having four characteristic faces; that of a man, of an ox, of a lion, and of an eagle. Those who have handled the mysteries of Holy Scripture before us have, for the most part, understood by this living creature, or rather, these four living creatures, the four evangelists. They have understood the lion as put for king, because he appears to be, in a manner, the king of beasts on account of his strength and terrible valor. This character is assigned to Matthew, because in the generations of the Lord he followed the royal line, showing how the Lord was, along the royal line, of the seed of David. But Luke, because he begins with the priesthood of Zacharias, mentioning the father of John the Baptist, is designated the ox; for the ox was an important victim in the sacrifice of the priests. To Mark is deservedly assigned the man Christ, because neither has he said anything of the royal authority, nor did he begin with the priestly function, but only set out with the man Christ. All these have departed but little from the things of earth, that is, from those things which our Lord Jesus Christ performed on earth; of His divinity they have said very little, like men walking with Him on the earth. There remains the eagle; this is John, the preacher of sublime truths, and a contemplator with steady gaze of the inner and eternal light. It is said, indeed, that the young eagles are tested by the parent birds in this way: the young one is suspended from the talons of the male parent and directly exposed to the rays of the sun; if it looks steadily at the sun, it is recognized as a true brood; if its eye quivers, it is allowed to drop off, as a spurious brood. Now, therefore, consider how sublime are the things he ought to speak who is compared to the eagle; and yet even we, who creep on the earth, weak and hardly of any account among men, venture to handle and to expound these things; and imagine that we can either apprehend when we meditate them, or be apprehended when we speak.

Nam ut agnoscatis jam et judicem Christum, audite quod sequitur: Et si judico ego, judicium meum verum est. Ecce habes et judicem, sed agnosce salvatorem, ne sentias judicem. Quare autem dixit judicium suum verum esse? Quia solus, inquit, non sum, sed ego et qui misit me Pater. Dixi vobis, fratres, quia Joannes iste evangelista sanctus multum alte volat: vix est eum mente comprehendere. Mysterium autem altius volantis opus est ut commemorem Charitatem vestram. Et apud Ezechielem prophetam, et in Apocalypsi ipsius Joannis, cujus est hoc Evangelium, commemoratur animal quadruplex, habens quatuor personas; hominis, vituli, leonis, aquilae . Qui ante nos Scripturarum sanctarum mysteria tractaverunt, plerique in hoc animali, vel potius in his animalibus quatuor Evangelistas intellexerunt. Leonem pro rege positum, quoniam videtur leo rex esse quodammodo bestiarum, propter potentiam et terribilem fortitudinem. Haec persona tributa est Matthaeo, quia in generationibus Domini regiam seriem prosecutus est, quemadmodum esset Dominus per stirpem regiam de semine David regis. Lucas autem quoniam coepit a sacerdotio Zachariae sacerdotis, faciens mentionem patris Joannis Baptistae, vitulo deputatus est; quia magna victima vitulus erat in sacrificio sacerdotum. Marco homo Christus merito assignatus est, quia neque de regia potestate aliquid dixit, neque de sacerdotali coepit, sed tantum ab homine Christo exorsus est. Hi omnes prope de terrenis, id est de iis quae in terra gessit Dominus noster Jesus Christus, non recesserunt: de divinitate ejus perpauca locuti sunt, tanquam in terra cum illo ambulantes. Restat aquila: ipse est Joannes, sublimium praedicator, et lucis internae atque aeternae fixis oculis contemplator. Dicuntur enim et pulli aquilarum a parentibus sic probari, patris scilicet ungue suspendi, et radiis solis opponi: qui firme contemplatus fuerit, filius agnoscitur; si acie palpitaverit, tanquam adulterinus ab ungue dimittitur. Jam ergo videte quam sublimia loqui debuit, qui est aquilae comparatus: et tamen etiam nos humi repentes, infirmi et vix ullius momenti inter homines, audemus tractare ista, et ista exponere; et putamus nos aut capere posse cum cogitamus, aut capi dum dicimus.

36.6 PL 35, 1666

6. Why have I said this? For perhaps after these words one may justly say to me: Lay aside the book then. Why dost thou take in hand what exceeds thy measure? Why trust thy tongue to it? To this I reply: Many heretics abound; and God has permitted them to abound to this end, that we may not be always nourished with milk and remain in senseless infancy. For inasmuch as they have not understood how the divinity of Christ is set forth to our acceptance, they have concluded according to their will: and by not discerning aright, they have brought in most troublesome questions upon catholic believers; and the hearts of believers began to be disturbed and to waver. Then immediately it became a necessity for spiritual men, who had not only read in the Gospel anything respecting the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but had also understood it, to bring forth the armor of Christ against the armor of the devil, and with all their might to fight in most open conflict for the divinity of Christ against false and deceitful teachers; lest, while they were silent, others might perish. For whoever have thought either that our Lord Jesus Christ is of another substance than the Father is, or that there is only Christ, so that the same is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; whoever also have chosen to think that He was only man, not God made man, or God in such wise as to be mutable in His Godhead, or God in such wise as not to be man; these have made shipwreck from the faith, and have been cast forth from the harbor of the Church, lest by their inquietude they might wreck the ships in their company. Which thing obliged that even we, though least and as regards ourselves wholly unworthy, but in regard of His mercy set in some account among His stewards, should speak to you what either you may understand and rejoice with me, or, if you cannot yet understand, by believing it you may remain secure in the harbor.

Quare ista dixi? Forte enim post haec verba quisquam mihi juste dicat: Pone ergo codicem. Quod excedit mensuram tuam, quid sumis in manum tuam? quid ei committis linguam tuam? Ad hoc respondeo: Multi haeretici abundant, et ad hoc eos Deus abundare permisit, ne semper lacte nutriamur, et in bruta infantia remaneamus. Quia enim non intellexerunt quomodo commendaretur divinitas Christi, sapuerunt sicut voluerunt: non autem recte sapiendo, fidelibus catholicis quaestiones molestissimas intulerunt; coeperunt exagitari et fluctuare corda fidelium. Jam tunc necessitas facta est spiritualibus viris, qui aliquid secundum divinitatem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, non solum legerant in Evangelio, sed etiam intellexerant, ut contra arma diaboli Christi arma proferrent: et de Christi divinitate adversus falsos fallacesque doctores, quantis possent viribus, apertissima conflictatione pugnarent; ne cum ipsi tacerent, alii perirent. Quicumque enim senserunt Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, aut diversae substantiae esse quam Pater est, aut tantum esse Christum solum, ut ipse sit Pater, ipse sit Filius, ipse sit Spiritus sanctus: quicumque etiam sentire voluerunt hominem fuisse solum, non Deum factum hominem, aut ita Deum ut in sua divinitate mutabilem, aut ita Deum ut non et hominem; a fide naufragaverunt, et de portu Ecclesiae projecti sunt, ne inquietudine sua naves secum positas frangerent. Quae res coegit ut etiam nos minimi, et quantum ad nos pertinet prorsus indigni, quantum autem ad illius misericordiam in aliquo dispensatorum ejus numero constituti, non vobis taceamus quod aut intelligatis, mecumque gaudeatis; aut si intelligere nondum valetis, credendo securi in portu maneatis.

36.7 PL 35, 1667

7. I will accordingly speak; let him who can, understand; and let him who cannot understand, believe: yet will I speak what the Lord saith, “Ye judge after the flesh; I judge not any man,” either now, or after the flesh. “But even, if I judge, my judgment is true.” Why is Thy judgment true? “Because I am not alone,” saith He, “but I and the Father that sent me.” What then, O Lord Jesus? If Thou wert alone would Thy judgment be false: and is it because Thou art not alone, but Thou and the Father that sent Thee, that Thou judgest truly? How shall I answer? Let Himself answer: He saith, “My judgment is true.” Why? “Because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.” If He is with Thee, how has He sent Thee? And has He sent Thee, and yet is He also with Thee? Is it so that having been sent, Thou hast not departed from Him? And didst Thou come to us, and yet abode there? How is this to be believed? how apprehended? To these two questions I answer: Thou sayest rightly, how is it to be apprehended; how believed, thou sayest not rightly. Rather, for that reason is it right to believe it, because it is not immediately to be apprehended; for if it were a thing to be immediately apprehended, there would be no need to believe it, because it would be seen. It is because thou dost not apprehend that thou believest; but by believing thou art made capable of apprehending. For if thou dost not believe, thou wilt never apprehend, since thou wilt remain less capable. Let faith then purify thee, that understanding may fill thee. “My judgment is true,” saith He, “because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.” Therefore, O Lord our God, Jesus Christ, Thy sending is Thy incarnation. So I see, so I understand: in short, so I believe, in case it may smack of arrogance to say, so I understand. Doubtless the Lord Jesus Christ is even here; rather, was here as to His flesh, is here now as to His Godhead: He was both with the Father and had not left the Father. Hence, in that He is said to have been sent and to have come to us, His incarnation is set forth to us, for the Father did not take flesh.

Dicam ergo; capiat qui potest, credat qui non potest: tamen dicam quod ait Dominus, Vos secundum carnem judicatis; ego non judico quemquam, aut modo, aut secundum carnem. Sed et si ego judico, judicium meum verum est. Quare judicium tuum verum est? Quia solus non sum, inquit, sed ego et qui misit me Pater. Quid ergo, Domine Jesu? Si solus esses, falsum esset judicium tuum; et ideo verum judicas, quia solus non es, sed tu et qui te misit Pater? Quid responsurus sum? Ipse respondeat: Verum est, inquit, judicium meum. Quare? Quia solus non sum, sed ego et qui misit me Pater. Si tecum est, quomodo te misit? Et te misit, et tecum est? Itane et missus non recessisti? itane et ad nos venisti, et ibi mansisti? Quomodo istud creditur? quomodo capitur? Ad haec duo respondeo: Quomodo capitur, recte dicis; quomodo creditur, non recte dicis. Imo ideo bene creditur, quia non cito capitur: nam si cito caperetur, non opus erat ut crederetur; quia videretur. Ideo credis, quia non capis; sed credendo fis idoneus ut capias. Nam si non credis, numquam capies; quia minus idoneus remanebis. Fides ergo mundet te, ut intellectus impleat te. Verum est, inquit, judicium meum; quia solus non sum, sed ego et qui misit me Pater. Ergo, Domine Deus noster Jesu Christe, missio tua incarnatio tua est. Sic video, sic intelligo: postremo sic credo, ne arrogantiae sit dicere. Sic intelligo. Prorsus et hic est Dominus noster Jesus Christus; imo hic erat secundum carnem, modo hic est secundum divinitatem: et cum Patre erat, et a Patre non recesserat. Quod ergo dicitur missus venisse ad nos, incarnatio ipsius commendatur, quia Pater non est incarnatus.

36.8 PL 35, 1667

8. For there are certain heretics called Sabellians, who are also called Patripassians, who affirm that it was the Father Himself that had suffered. Do not thou so affirm, O Catholic; for if thou wilt be a Patripassian, thou wilt not be sane. Understand, then, that the incarnation of the Son is termed the sending of the Son; and do not believe that the Father was incarnate, but do not yet believe that He departed from the incarnate Son. The Son carried flesh, the Father was with the Son. If the Father was in heaven, the Son on earth, how was the Father with the Son? Because both Father and Son were everywhere: for God is not in such manner in heaven as not to be on earth. Hear him who would flee from the judgment of God, and found not a way to flee by: “Whither shall I go,” saith he, “from Thy Spirit; and whither shall I flee from Thy face? If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there.” The question was about the earth; hear what follows: “If I descend unto hell, Thou art there.” If, then, He is said to be present even in hell, what in the universe remains where He is not present? For the voice of God with the prophet is, “I fill heaven and earth.” Hence He is everywhere, who is confined by no place. Turn not thou away from Him, and He is with thee. If thou wouldst come to Him, be not slow to love; for it is not with feet but with affections thou runnest. Thou comest while remaining in one place, if thou believest and lovest. Wherefore He is everywhere; and if everywhere, how not also with the Son? Is it so that He is not with the Son, while, if thou believest, He is even with thee?

Nam Sabelliani dicti sunt quidam haeretici, qui vocantur et Patripassiani, qui dicunt ipsum Patrem passum fuisse. Noli tu, catholice: si enim fueris patripassianus, non eris sanus. Ergo intellige missionem Filii nominatam incarnationem Filii: Patrem autem incarnatum esse non credas, sed a Filio incarnato Patrem recessisse non credas Ille carnem portabat, ille cum Filio erat. Si in coelo Pater, in terra Filius; quomodo Pater cum Filio erat? Quia et Pater et Filius ubique erant: non enim in coelo sic est Deus, ut non sit in terra. Audi illum qui volebat fugere judicium Dei, et non inveniebat qua: Quo abibo, inquit, a spiritu tuo, et a facie tua quo fugiam? Si ascendero in coelum, tu ibi es. De terra erat quaestio; audi quid sequitur: Si descendero ad infernum, ades . Si ergo et in inferno dicitur quod adsit, quid rerum remanet ubi non sit? Vox enim Dei est apud prophetam, Coelum et terram ego impleo . Ubique ergo est, qui nullo clauditur loco. Noli ab illo averti, et tecum est. Si vis ad eum pervenire, noli piger esse amare: non enim pedibus, sed affectibus curris. Uno loco mancus venis, si credis et diligis. Ergo ubique est: si ubique est, quomodo cum Filio non est? Itane cum Filio non est, qui, si credis, et tecum est?

36.9 PL 35, 1668

9. How, then, is His judgment true, but because the Son is true? For this He said: “And if I judge, my judgment is true; because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.” Just as if He had said, “My judgment is true,” because I am the Son of God. How dost Thou prove that Thou art the Son of God? “Because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.” Blush, Sabellian; thou hearest the Son, thou hearest the Father. Father is Father, Son is Son. He said not, I am the Father, and I the same am the Son; but He saith, “I am not alone.” Why art Thou not alone? Because the Father is with me. “I am, and the Father that sent me;” thou hearest, “I am, and He that sent me.” Lest thou lose sight of the person, distinguish the persons. Distin guish by understanding, do not separate by faithlessness; lest again, fleeing as it were Charybdis, thou rush upon Scylla. For the whirlpool of the impiety of the Sabellians was swallowing thee, to say that the Father is the same who is Son: just now thou hast learned, “I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.” Thou dost acknowledge that the Father is Father, and that the Son is Son; thou dost rightly acknowledge: but do not say the Father is greater, the Son is less; do not say, the Father is gold, the Son is silver. There is one substance, one Godhead, one co-eternity, perfect equality, no unlikeness. For if thou only believe that Christ is another, not the same person that the Father is, but yet imagine that in respect of His nature He is somewhat different from the Father, thou hast indeed escaped Charybdis, but thou hast been wrecked on the rocks of Scylla. Steer the middle course, avoid each of the two perilous sides. Father is Father, Son is Son. Thou sayest now, Father is Father, Son is Son: thou hast fortunately escaped the danger of the absorbing whirl; why wouldst thou go unto the other side to say, the Father is this, the Son that? The Son is another person than the Father is, this thou sayest rightly; but that He is different in nature, thou sayest not rightly. Certainly the Son is another person, because He is not the same who is Father and the Father is another person, because He is not the same who is Son: nevertheless, they are not different in nature, but the selfsame is both Father and Son. What means the self-same? God is one. Thou hast heard, “Because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me:” hear how thou mayest believe Father and Son; hear the Son Himself, “I and the Father are one.” He said not, I am the Father; or, I and the Father is one person; but when He says, “I and the Father are one,” hear both, both the one, unum, and the are, sumus, and thou shalt be delivered both from Charybdis and from Scylla. In these two words, in that He said one, He delivers thee from Arius; in that He said are, He delivers thee from Sabellius. If one, therefore not diverse; if are, therefore both Father and Son. For He would not say are of one person; but, on the other hand, He would not say one of diverse. Hence the reason why He says, “my judgment is true,” is, that thou mayest hear it briefly, because I am the Son of God. But I would have thee in such wise believe that I am the Son of God, that thou mayest understand that the Father is with me: I am not Son in such manner as to have left Him; I am not in such manner here that I should not be with Him; nor is He in such manner there as not to be with me: I have taken to me the form of a servant, yet have I not lost the form of God; therefore He saith, “I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.”

Unde ergo verum est judicium ejus, nisi quia verus est Filius? Hoc enim dixit, Et si judico, verum est judicium meum; quia solus non sum, sed ego et qui misit me Pater. Tanquam diceret, Verum est judicium meum, quia Filius Dei sum. Unde probas quia Filius Dei es? Quia solus non sum, sed ego et qui misit me Pater. Erubesce, Sabelliane, audis Filium, audis Patrem. Pater, Pater est; Filius, Filius est. Non dixit, Ego sum Pater, et ego ipse sum Filius; sed, solus non sum, inquit. Quare solus non es? Quia mecum est Pater. Ego sum, et qui misit me Pater: nudis. Ego sum, et qui me misit. Ne perdas personam, distingue personas. Distingue intelligentia, noli separare perfidia; ne iterum quasi fugiens Charybdim, in Scyllam incurras. Vorabat enim te gurges impietatis Sabellianorum, ut diceres ipsum esse Patrem qui est Filius: modo didicisti, Solus non sum, sed ego et qui misit me Pater. Agnoscis quia Pater, Pater est; et Filius, Filius est Bene agno eis: sed noli dicere, Pater major est, Filius minor est; noli dicere, Pater aurum est, Filius argentum est. Una substantia est, una divinitas, una coaeternitas, perfecta aequalitas, dissimilitudo nulla. Nam si tantummodo alterum credideris esse Christum, non eum qui Pater est, in aliquo tamen distantem secundum naturam esse putaveris; a Charybdi quidem evasisti, sed in Scyllaeis scopulis naufragasti. In medio naviga, utrumque periculosum latus evita. Pater, Pater est; Filius, Filius est. Jam dicis, Pater, Pater est; Filius, Filius est: bene periculum absorbentis gurgitis evasisti; quid vis ire in alteram partem, ut dicas, Aliud est Pater, Filius aliud? Alius est, recte dicis; aliud, non recte. Alius enim est Filius, quia non est ipse qui Pater; et alius Pater, quia non ipse qui Filius: non tamen aliud, sed hoc ipsum est et Pater et Filius. Quid est, hoc ipsum est? Unus Deus est. Audisti, Quia non sum solus, sed ego et qui misit me Pater; audi quomodo credas Patrem et Filium, audi ipsum Filium: Ego et Pater unum sumus . Non dixit, Pater ego sum; aut, Ego et Pater unus est: sed cum dicit, Ego et Pater unum sumus: utrumque audi, et unum, et sumus, et a Charybdi et a Scylla liberaberis. In duobus istis verbis quod dixit, unum, liberat te ab Ario: quod dixit, sumus, liberat te a Sabellio. Si unum, non ergo diversum; si sumus, ergo et Pater et Filius. Sumus enim, non diceret de uno; sed et unum non diceret de diverso. Ergo ideo verum est, inquit, judicium meum, breviter ut audias, quia Filius Dei sum. Sed sic tibi persuadeo, inquit, quia Filius Dei sum, ut intelligas quia mecum est Pater: non sic sum Filius ut ipsum deseruerim; non ita hic sum, ut eum ipso non sim; non ita ibi ille est, ut mecum non sit: formam servi accepi sed formam Dei non amisi; Solus ergo, inquit, non sum, sed ego et qui misit me Pater.

36.10 PL 35, 1669

10. He had spoken of judgment; He means to speak of testimony. “In your law,” saith He, “it is written that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.” He expounded the law to them also, if they were not unthankful. For it is a great question, my brethren, and to me it certainly appears to have been ordained in a mystery, where God said, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand.” Is truth sought by two witnesses? Clearly it is; so is the custom of mankind: but yet it may be that even two witnesses lie. The chaste Susanna was pressed by two false witnesses: were they not therefore false because they were two? Do we speak of two or of three? A whole people lied against Christ. If, then, a people, consisting of a great multitude of men, was found a false witness, how is it to be understood that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand,” unless it be that in this manner the Trinity is mysteriously set forth to us, in which is perpetual stability of truth? Dost thou wish to have a good cause? Have two or three witnesses,—the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In short, when Susanna, the chaste woman and faithful wife, was pressed by two false witnesses, the Trinity supported her in her conscience and in secret: that Trinity raised up from secrecy one witness, Daniel, and convicted the two. Therefore, because it is written in your law that the witness of two men is true, receive our witness, lest ye feel our judgment. “For I,” saith He, “judge not any man; but I bear witness of myself:” I defer judgment, I defer not the witness.

Dixerat de judicio; de testimonio vult dicere. In Lege, inquit, vestra scriptum est quia duorum hominum testimonium verum est. Ego sum qui de me testimonium perhibeo, et testimonium perhibet de me qui misit me Pater. Exposuit illis et Legem, si ingrati non essent. Magna enim quaestio est, fratres mei, et valde mihi videtur in mysterio res esse constituta, ubi Deus dixit, In ore duorum vel trium testium stabit omne verbum . Veritas quaeritur per duos testes? Ita plane, sic se habet humani generis consuetudo: sed tamen fieri potest ut et duo mentiantur. Susanna casta duobus falsis testibus urgebatur: numquid quia duo erant, ideo falsi testes non erant? De duobus dicimus aut de tribus? universus populus me titus est contra Christum . Si ergo populus constans ex magna hominum multitudine, falsus testis inventus est; quomodo accipiendum est, In ore duorum vel trium testium stabit omne verbum: nisi quia hoc modo per mysterium Trinitas commendata est, in qua est perpetua stabilitas veritatis? Vis habere bonam causam? Habeto duos vel tres testes, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum. Denique quando Susanna casta femina fidelisque conjux duobus falsis testibus urgebatur, Trinitas illi in conscientia atque in occulto suffragabatur: illa Trinitas de occulto unum testem Danielem excitavit, et duos convicit . Ergo quia in Lege vestra scriptum est, duorum hominum testimonium verum esse, accipite nostrum testimonium, ne sentiatis judicium. Ego enim, inquit, non judico quemquam, sed testimonium perhibeo de me: differo judicium, non differo testimonium.

36.11 PL 35, 1669

11. Let us, brethren, choose for ourselves God as our judge, God as our witness, against the tongues of men, against the weak suspicions of mankind. For He who is the judge disdains not to be witness, nor is He advanced in honor when He becomes judge; since He who is witness will also Himself be judge. In what way is He witness? Because He asks not another to learn from Him who thou art. In what way is He judge? Because He has the power of killing and making alive, of condemning and acquitting, of casting down into hell and of raising up into heaven, of joining to the devil and of crowning with the angels. Since, therefore, He has this power, He is judge. Now, because He requires not another witness that He may know thee; and that He who will hereafter judge thee is now seeing thee, there is no means whereby thou canst deceive Him when He begins to judge. For there is no furnishing thyself with false witnesses who can circumvent that judge when He shall begin to judge thee. This is what God says to thee: When thou despisedst, I did see it; and when thou believedst not, I did not frustrate my sentence. I delayed it, not removed it. Thou wouldst not hear what I enjoined, thou shalt feel what I foretold. But if thou hearest what I enjoined, thou shalt not feel the evils which I have foretold, but thou shalt enjoy the good things which I have promised.

Eligamus nobis, fratres, contra linguas hominum, contra infirmas suspiciones generis humani Deum judicem, Deum testem. Non enim dedignatur testis esse qui judex est, aut promovetur cum fit judex; quoniam qui testis est, ipse judex erit. Quare ipse testis? Quia non quaerit alium unde cognoscat qui sis. Quare ipse judex? Quia ipse habet potestatem mortificandi et vivificandi, damnandi et absolvendi, in gehennas praecipitandi et in coelos levandi, diabolo conjungendi et cum Augelis coronandi. Cum ergo ipse habeat hanc potestatem, judex est. Quia vero ut te cognoscat non quaerit alium testem; qui tunc judicabit te, modo videt te: non est unde illum fallas, cum coeperit judicare. Non enim adhibes tibi aliquos falsos testes, qui judicem illum possint circumvenire, quando te coeperit judicare. Deus hoc tibi dicit: Quando contemnebas, ego videbam; et quando non credebas, sententiam meam non frustrabam: differebam, non auferebum. Noluisti audire quod praecepi, senties quod praedixi. Si autem audias quae praecepi, non mala senties quae praedixi, sed bona percipies quae promisi.

36.12 PL 35, 1669

12. Let it not by any means surprise any one that He says, “My judgment is true; because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me;” whilst He has said in another place, “The Father judgeth not any man, but all judgment hath He given to the Son.” We have already discoursed on these same words of the evangelist, and we remind you now that this was not said because the Father will not be with the Son when He comes to judge, but because the Son alone will be apparent to the good and the bad in the judgment, in that form in which He suffered, and rose again, and ascended into heaven. For at that moment, indeed, as they were beholding Him ascending, the angelic voice sounded in the ears of His disciples, “So shall He come in like manner as ye have seen Him going into heaven;” that is, in the form of man in which He was judged, will He judge, in order that also that prophetic utterance may be fulfilled, “They shall look upon Him whom they pierced.” But when the righteous go into eternal life, we shall see Him as He is; that will not be the judgment of the living and the dead, but only the reward of the living.

Ne aliquem sane moveat quod ait, Verum est judicium meum; quia solus non sum, sed ego et qui misit me Pater; cum alibi dixerit, Pater non judicat quemquam, sed omne judicium dedit Filio . Jam in eisdem verbis Evangelii disputavimus, et nunc admonemus, non hoc ideo dictum, quia Pater non erit cum Filio judicante; sed quoniam bonis et malis in judicio solus Filius apparebit, in ea forma in qua passus est, et resurrexit, et ascendit in coelum. Discipulis quippe tunc conspicientibus ascendentem, vox angelica sonuit, Sic veniet, quemadmodum vidistis eum euntem in coelum : id est, in forma hominis in qua judicatus est judicabit, ut etiam illud propheticum impleatur, Videbunt in quem pupugerunt . Cum vero euntibus justis in vitam aeternam, videbimus eum sicuti est; non erit illud judicium vivorum et mortuorum, sed praemium tantummodo vivorum.

36.13 PL 35, 1670

13. Likewise, let it not surprise you that He says, “In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true,” that any man should hence suppose that this was not also the law of God, because it is not said, In the law of God: let him know that, when it is said thus, In your law, it is just as if He said, “In the law which was given to you;” given by whom, except by God? Just as we say, “Our daily bread;” and yet we say, “Give us this day.”

Item ne moveat quod ait, In Lege vestra scriptum est quia duorum hominum testimonium verum est, et ideo quisquam existimet non fuisse illam legem Dei, quia non dictum est, In lege Dei: sciat ita dictum esse, In Lege vestra, tanquam diceret, in Lege quae vobis est data; a quo, nisi a Deo? Sicut dicimus, Panem nostrum quotidianum: et tamen dicimus, Da nobis hodie .

Philip Schaff (ed.), Buffalo/New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886-1889. Public domain: English translation first published 1885-1900 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series). Latin: Migne, Patrologia Latina (1844-1855), public domain; transcription from Corpus Corporum (University of Zurich).

Save for later

Enter your email and we will send you a sign-in link. No password. What you save (articles, verses, chapters, documents) follows you to any device.