Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 70

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

70.1 Chapter XIV. 7–10 PL 35, 1818

1. The words of the holy Gospel, brethren, are rightly understood only if they are found to be in harmony with those that precede; for the premises ought to agree with the conclusion, when it is the Truth that speaks. The Lord had said before, “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also:” and then had added, “And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;” and showed that all He said was that they knew Himself. What, therefore, the meaning was of His going to Himself by Himself,—for He also lets the disciples see that it is by Him that they are to come to Him,—we have already told you, as we could, in our last discourse. When He says, therefore, “That where I am, there ye may be also,” where else were they to be but in Himself? In this way is He also in Himself, and they, therefore, are just where He is, that is, in Himself. Accordingly, He Himself is that eternal life which is yet to be ours, when He has received us unto Himself; and as He is that life eternal, so is it in Him, that where He is there shall we be also, that is to say, in Himself. “For as the Father hath life in Himself,” and certainly that life which He has is in no wise different from what He is Himself as its possessor, “so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself,” inasmuch as He is the very life which He hath in Himself. But shall we then actually be what He is, (namely), the life, when we shall have begun our existence in that life, that is, in Himself? Certainly not, for He, by His very existence as the life, hath life, and is Himself what He hath; and as the life, is in Him, so is He in Himself: but we are not that life, but partakers of His life, and shall be there in such wise as to be wholly incapable of being in ourselves what He is, but so as, while ourselves not the life, to have Him as our life, who has Himself the life on this very account that He Himself is the life. In short, He both exists unchangeably in Himself and inseparably in the Father. But we, when wishing to exist in ourselves, were thrown into inward trouble regarding ourselves, as is expressed in the words, “My soul is cast down within me:” and changing from bad to worse, cannot even remain as we were. But when by Him we come unto the Father, according to His own words, “No man cometh unto the Father but by me,” and abide in Him, no one shall be able to separate us either from the Father or from Him.

Verba sancti Evangelii, fratres, ita recte intelliguntur, si cum superioribus reperiuntur habere concordiam: convenire enim debent praecedentia consequentibus, quando veritas loquitur. Superius dixerat Dominus, « Et si abiero, et praeparavero vobis locum; iterum venio, et accipiam vos ad meipsum, ut ubi ego sum, et vos sitis: » deinde addiderat, « Et quo ego vado scitis, et viam scitis; » nihilque aliud ostendit esse quod dixit, nisi quia ipsum sciebant. Quid ergo esset ire ad seipsum per seipsum, quod etiam discipulis praestat ut eant ad ipsum per ipsum, ut potuimus pristino sermone jam diximus. Quod itaque ait, Ut ubi ego sum, et vos sitis, ubi erant futuri nisi in ipso? Ac per hoc est etiam ipse in seipso, et ideo ibi illi ubi et ipse, id est, in ipso. Ipse est igitur vita aeterna in qua futuri sumus, cum acceperit nos ad se: et ipsa vita aeterna quod ipse est in ipso est, ut ubi est ipse, et nos simus, hoc est, in ipso. Sicut enim habet Pater vitam in semetipso, et utique non aliud est vita quam habet, nisi quod est ipse qui hanc habet: sic dedit Filio habere vitam in semetipso , cum ipse sit eadem vita quam habet in semetipso. Numquid autem nos vita quod est ipse, hoc erimus, cum in illa vita, hoc est in ipso esse coeperimus? Non utique, quia ipse existendo vita habet vitam, et ipse est quod habet, et quod vita est in ipso, ipse est in seipso: nos autem non ipsa vita, sed ipsius vitae participes sumus, atque ita ibi erimus, ut in nobis ipsis non quod ipse est esse possimus, sed nos ipsi non vita, ipsum habeamus vitam, qui seipsum habet vitam, eo quod ipse sit vita. Denique ipse et in seipso est immutabiliter, et in Patre inseparabiliter: nos vero cum in nobis ipsis esse voluissemus, ad nos ipsos turbati sumus; unde illa vox est, Ad meipsum turbata est anima mea : atque in deterius commutati, neque id quod fuimus, manere potuimus. Cum autem per ipsum venimus ad Patrem, sicut ait, Nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me; manentes in illo, nec a Patre nos quis quam poterit separare, nec ab illo.

70.2 PL 35, 1818

2. Connecting, therefore, His previous words with those that follow, He proceeded to say, “If ye had known me, ye should certainly have known my Father also.” This conforms to His previous words, “No man cometh unto the Father but by me.” And then He adds: “And from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him.” But Philip, one of the apostles, not understanding what he had just heard, said, “Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” And the Lord replied to him, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet have ye not known me, Philip? he that seeth me, seeth also the Father.” Here you see He complains that He had been so long time with them, and yet He was not known. But had He not Himself said, “And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;” and on their saying that they knew it not, had convinced them that they did know, by adding the words: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life”? How, then, says He now, “Have I been so long time with you, and have ye not known me?” when, in fact, they knew both whither He went and the way, on no other grounds save that they really knew Himself? But this difficulty is easily solved by saying that some of them knew Him, and others did not, and that Philip was one of those who did not know Him; so that, when He said, “And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know,” He is understood as having spoken to those that knew, and not to Philip, who has it said to him, “Have I been so long time with you, and have ye not known me, Philip?” To such, then, as already knew the Son, was it now also said of the Father, “And from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him:” for such words were used because of the all-sided likeness subsisting between the Father and the Son; so that, because they knew the Son, they might henceforth be said to know the Father. Already, therefore, they knew the Son, if not all of them, those at least to whom it is said, “And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;” for He is Himself the way. But they knew not the Father, and so have also to hear, “If ye have known me, ye have known my Father also;” that is, through me ye have known Him also. For I am one, and He another. But that they might not think Him unlike, He adds, “And from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him.” For they saw His perfectly resembling Son, but needed to have the truth impressed on them, that exactly such as was the Son whom they saw, was the Father also whom they did not see. And to this points what is afterwards said to Philip, “He that seeth me, seeth also the Father.” Not that He Himself was Father and Son, which is a notion of the Sabellians, who are also called Patripassians, condemned by the Catholic faith; but that Father and Son are so alike, that he who knoweth one knoweth both. For we are accustomed to speak in this way of two who closely resemble each other, to those who are in the habit of seeing one of them, and wish to know what like the other is, so that we say, In seeing the one, you have seen the other. In this way, then, is it said “He that seeth me, seeth also the Father.” Not, certainly, that He who is the Son is also the Father, but that the Son in no respect disagrees with the likeness of the Father. For had not the Father and Son been two persons, it would not have been said, “If ye have known me, ye have known my Father also.” Such is certainly the case for “no one,” He says, “cometh unto the Father but by me: if ye have known me, ye have known my Father also;” because it is I, who am the only way to the Father, that will lead you to Him, that He also may Himself become known to you. But as I am in all respects His perfect image, “from henceforth ye know Him” in knowing me; “and have seen Him,” if you have seen me with the spiritual eyesight of the soul.

Connectens itaque consequentia praecedentibus: Si cognovistis me, inquit, et Patrem meum utique cognovistis. Hoc est quod ait: Nemo venit ad Patrem, nisi per me. Deinde subjungit: Et amodo cognoscetis eum, et vidistis eum. Sed Philippus unus ex Apostolis, quid audierit non intelligens: Domine, inquit, ostende nobis Patrem, et sufficit nobis. Cui Dominus: Tanto, inquit, tempore vobiscum sum, et non cognovistis me, Philippe? Qui videt me, videt et Patrem. Ecce increpat quod tanto tempore cum ipsis erat, et non cognoscebatur. Nonne ipse dixerat, Et quo ego vado scitis, et viam scitis; et se nescire dicentes, eos haec scire convicerat, addendo atque dicendo, Ego sum via, veritas et vita? Quomodo nunc dicit, Tanto tempore vobiscum sum, et non cognovistis me? cum profecto, et quo iret, et viam scirent, non ob aliud nisi quod ipsum utique scirent? Sed facile ista solvitur quaestio, si dicamus quod eum aliqui eorum sciebant, aliqui nesciebant, atque in his qui nesciebant et Philippus erat: ut quod ait, Et quo ego vado scitis, et viam scitis, illis dixisse intelligatur qui sciebant; non Philippo cui dictum est, Tanto tempore vobiscum sum, et non cognovistis me, Philippe? His ergo qui Filium jam noverant, etiam illud de Patre dictum est, Et amodo cognoscetis eum, et vidistis eum; dictum est enim propter omnimodam similitudinem quae illi cum Patre est, ut ideo amodo dicerentur nosse Patrem, quia noverant similem Filium. Ergo jam sciebant Filium, etsi non omnes, certe quidam eorum quibus dicitur, Et quo vado scitis, et viam scitis: ipse est enim via. Sed Patrem nesciebant, ideo audiunt, Si cognovistis me, et Patrem meum cognovistis: per me utique et illum. Alius enim ego sum, alius ille. Sed ne putarent dissimilem, Et amodo, inquit, cognoscetis eum, et vidistis eum. Viderunt enim ejus simillimum Filium, sed admonendi fuerant talem esse etiam Patrem quem nondum videbant, qualis est Filius quem videbant. Et ad hoc valet quod postea Philippo dicitur, Qui videt me, videt et Patrem. Non quod ipse esset Pater et Filius, quod in Sabellianis, qui vocantur etiam Patripassiani, catholica fides damnat: sed quod tam similes sint Pater et Filius, ut qui unum noverit, ambos noverit. Solemus enim de simillimis duobus ita loqui eis qui unum illorum vident, et qualis est alius volunt nosse, ut dicamus: Vidistis istum, illum vidistis. Sic ergo dictum est, Qui me videt, videt et Patrem: non utique ut ipse sit Pater qui Filius, sed quod a Patris similitudine in nullo prorsus discrepet Filius. Nam nisi duo essent Pater et Filius, non dictum esset, Si cognovistis me, et Patrem meum cognovistis. Utique enim, quia nemo, inquit, venit ad Patrem, nisi per me; si cognovistis me, et Patrem meum cognovistis: quoniam ego per quem venitur ad Patrem, perducam vos ad eum, ut ipsum etiam cognoscatis. Sed quoniam illi sum omnino simillimus, amodo cognoscetis eum, cum cognoscitis me: et vidistis eum, si oculis cordis vidistis me.

70.3 PL 35, 1819

3. Why, then, Philip, dost thou say, “Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us? Have I been so long time with you, and yet have ye not known me, Philip? He that seeth me, seeth the Father also.” If it interests thee much to see this, believe at least what thou seest not. For “how,” He says, “sayest thou, Show us the Father?” If thou hast seen me, who am His perfect likeness, thou hast seen Him to whom I am like. And if thou canst not directly see this, “believest thou not,” at least, “that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?” But Philip might say here, “I see Thee indeed, and believe Thy full likeness to the Father; but is one to be reproved and rebuked because, when he sees one who bears a likeness to another, he wishes to see that other to whom he is like? I know, indeed, the image, but as yet I know only the one without the other; it is not enough for me, unless I know that other whose likeness he bears. Show us, therefore, the Father, and it sufficeth us.” But the Master really reproved the disciple because He saw into the heart of his questioner. For it was with the idea, as if the Father were somehow better than the Son, that Philip had the desire to know the Father: and so he did not even know the Son, because believing that He was inferior to another. It was to correct such a notion that it was said, “He that seeth me, seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Show us the Father?” I see the meaning of thy words: it is not the original likeness thou seekest to see, but it is that other thou thinkest the superior. “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?” Why desirest thou to dis cover some distance between those who are thus alike? why cravest thou the separate knowledge of those who cannot be separated? What, after this, He says not only to Philip, but to all of them together, must not now be thrust into a corner, in order that, by His help, it may be the more carefully expounded.

Quid ergo est quod dicis, Philippe, Ostende nobis Patrem, et sufficit nobis? Tanto, inquit, tempore vobiscum sum, et non cognovistis me, Philippe? Qui videt me, videt et Patrem. Quod si ad te multum est hoc videre, saltem quod non vides hoc crede. Quomodo enim dicis, inquit, Ostende nobis Patrem? Si me vidisti qui omnimodo similis sum, vidisti illum cui similis sum. Quod si videre non potes, non saltem credis quia ego in Patre, et Pater in me est? Poterat hic dicere Philippus: Video quidem te, et credo simillimum esse Patri; sed numquid arguendus et objurgandus est qui cum similem videt, etiam illum cui similis est vult videre? Similem quidem novi, sed adhuc alterum sine altero novi; non mihi sufficit, nisi et illum cujus est iste similis noverim. Ostende itaque nobis Patrem, et sufficit nobis. Sed ideo magister discipulum arguebat, quoniam cor postulantis videbat. Tanquam enim melior esset Pater quam Filius, ita Philippus Patrem nosse cupiebat: et ideo nec Filium sciebat, quo melius esse aliquid credebat. Ad hunc sensum corrigendum dictum est, Qui videt me, videt et Patrem. Quomodo tu dicis, Ostende nobis Patrem? Video quomodo tu dicas: non alterum quaeris videre similem, sed illum putas esse meliorem. Non credis quia ego in Patre, et Pater in me est? Cur in similibus distantiam cupis cernere? cur inseparabiles separatim desideras nosse? Deinde non ad solum Philippum, sed ad eos pluraliter loquitur, quae non sunt in angustias coarctanda, ut adjuvante ipso diligentius exponantur.

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.