(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all discovered errors.)


ST. AUGUSTINE

THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS, BOOKS III-IV

[Translated by the Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D.
Edited, with Notes, by the Rev. M. B. Riddle, D.D.]

BOOK III

THIS BOOK CONTAINS A DEMONSTRATION OF THE HARMONY OF THE EVANGELISTS FROM
THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SUPPER ON TO THE END OF THE GOSPEL, THE NARRATIVES
GIVEN BY THE SEVERAL WRITERS BEING COLLATED, AND THE WHOLE ARRANGED IN ONE
ORDERLY CONNECTION.

PROLOGUE.

1. INASMUCH as we have now reached that point in the history at which all
the four evangelists necessarily hold their course in company on to the
conclusion, without presenting any serious divergence the one from the
other, if it happens anywhere that one of them makes mention of something
which another leaves unnoticed, it appears to me that we may demonstrate
the consistency maintained by the various evangelists with greater
expedition, if from this point onwards we now bring all the statements
given by all the writers together into one connection, and arrange the
whole in a single narration, and under one view.(1) I consider that in this
way the task which we have undertaken may be discharged with greater
convenience and facility than otherwise might be the case. What we have now
before us, therefore, is to attempt the construction of a single narrative,
in which we shall include all the particulars, and for which we shall
possess the attestation of those evangelists who, (each selecting for
recital out of the whole number of facts those which he had either the
ability or the desire to relate,) have prepared these records for us:(2)
this being done in such a manner, moreover, that all these statements, in
regard to which we have to prove an entire freedom from contradictions, are
taken as made by all the evangelists together.

CHAP. I.--OF THE METHOD IN WHICH THE FOUR EVANGELISTS ARE SHOWN TO BE AT
ONE IN THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN OF THE LORD'S SUPPER AND THE INDICATION OF HIS
BETRAYER.

2. Let us commence here, accordingly, with the notice presented by
Matthew, [which runs thus']: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread,
and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take,
eat; this is my body."(3) Both Mark and Luke also gave this section.(4) It
is true that Luke has made mention of the cup twice over: first before He
gave the bread; and, secondly, after the bread has been given. But the fact
is, that what is stated in that earlier connection has been introduced,
according to this writer's habit, by anticipation, while the words which he
has inserted here in their proper order are left unrecorded in those
previous verses, and the two passages when put together make up exactly
what stands expressed by those other evangelists.(5) John, on the other
hand, has said nothing about the body and blood of the Lord in this
context; but he plainly certifies that the Lord spake to that effect on
another occasion,(6) with much greater fulness than here. At present,
however, after recording how the Lord rose from supper and washed the
disciples' feet, and after telling us also the reason why the Lord dealt
thus with them, in expressing which He had intimated, although still
obscurely, and by the use of a testimony of Scripture, the fact that He was
being betrayed by the man who was to eat of His bread, at this point John
comes to the section in question, which the other three evangelists also
unite in introducing. He presents it thus: "When Jesus had thus said, He
was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto
you, That one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked (as the
same John subjoins) one on another, doubting of whom He spake."(7) "And (as
Matthew and Mark tell us) they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every
one of them to say unto Him, Is it I? And He answered and said (as Matthew
proceeds to state), He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same
shall betray me." Matthew also goes on to make the following addition to
the preceding: "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of Him; but
woe unto that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed! it had been
good for that man if he had not been born."(1) Mark, too, is at one with
him here as regards both the words themselves and the order of narration?
Then Matthew continues thus: "Then Judas, which betrayed Him, answered and
said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said." Even these words
did not say explicitly whether he was himself the man. For the sentence
still admits of being understood as if its point was this, "I am not the
person who has said so."(3) All this, too, may quite easily have been
uttered by Judas and answered by the Lord without its being noticed by all
the others.

3. After this, Matthew proceeds to insert the mystery of His body and
blood, as it was committed then by the Lord to the disciples. Here Mark and
Luke act correspondingly. But after He had handed the cup to them, [we find
that] He spoke again concerning His betrayer, in terms which Luke recounts,
when he says, "But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on
the table. And truly the Son of man goeth as it was determined: but woe
unto that man by whom He shall be betrayed."(4) At this point we must now
suppose that to come in which is narrated by John while these others omit
it, just as John has also passed by certain matters which they have
detailed. In accordance with this, after the giving of the cup, and after
the Lord's subsequent saying which has been brought in by Luke,--namely,
"But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table,"
etc.,--the statement made by John is [to be taken as immediately]
subjoined. It is to the following effect: "Now there was leaning on Jesus'
bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore
beckoned to him, and said unto him,s Who is he of whom He speaketh? He
then, when he had laid himself on Jesus' breast, saith unto Him, Lord, who
is it? Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have
dipped it. And when He had dipped the sop, He gave it to Judas, the son of
Simon [of] Scarioth. And after the sop Satan then entered into him."(6)

4. Here we must take care not to let John underlie the appearance not only
of standing in antagonism to Luke, who had stated before this, that Satan
entered into the heart of Judas at the time when he made his bargain with
the Jews to betray Him on receipt of a sum of money, but also of
contradicting himself. For, at an earlier point, and previous to [his
notice of] the receiving of this sop, he had made use of these terms: "And
supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas to
betray Him."(7) And how does he enter into the heart, but by putting
unrighteous persuasions into the thoughts of unrighteous men? The
explanation, however, is this. We ought to suppose Judas to have been more
fully taken possession of by the devil now, just as on the other hand, in
the instance of the good, those who had already received the Holy Spirit on
that occasion, subsequently to His resurrection, when He breathed upon them
and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost,"(8) also obtained a fuller gift of
that Spirit at a later time, namely, when He was sent down from above on
the day of Pentecost. In like manner, Satan then entered into this man
after the sop. And (as John himself mentions in the immediate context)
"Jesus saith unto him, What thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table
knew for what intent He spake this unto him; for some of them thought,
because Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy those things that
we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the
poor. He then, having received the sop, went immediately out; and it was
night. Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus saith, Now is the Son of man
glorified, and God is glorified in Him: and if God be glorified in Him, God
shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify Him."(9)

CHAP. II.--OF THE PROOF OF THEIR FREEDOM FROM ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE
NOTICES GIVEN OF THE PREDICTIONS OF PETER'S DENIALS.

5. "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me:
and, as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say
unto you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I
have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know
that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Simon Peter saith
unto Him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou
canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter saith
unto Him, Lord, why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for
Thy sake. Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake?
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, until thou
deniest me thrice."(10) John, from whose Gospel I have taken the passage
introduced above, is not the only evangelist who details this incident of
the prophetic announcement of his own denial to Peter. The other three also
record the same thing.(1) They do not, however, take one and the same
particular point in the discourses [of Christ] as their occasion for
proceeding to this narration. For Matthew and Mark both introduce it in a
completely parallel order, and at the same stage of their narrative,
namely, after the Lord left the house in which they had eaten the passover;
while Luke and John, on the other hand, bring it in before He left that
scene. Still we might easily suppose, either that it has been inserted in
the way of a recapitulation by the one couple of evangelists, or that it
has been inserted in the way of an anticipation by the other; only such a
supposition may be made more doubtful by the circumstance that there is so
remarkable a diversity, not only in the Lord's words, but even in those
sentiments of His by which the incident in question is introduced, and by
which Peter was moved to venture his presumptuous asseveration that he
would die with the Lord or for the Lord. These considerations may constrain
us rather to understand the narratives really to import that the man
uttered his presumptuous declaration thrice over, as it was called forth by
different occasions in the series of Christ's discourses, and that also
three several times the answer was returned him by the Lord, which
intimated that before the cock crew he would deny Him thrice.

6. And surely there is nothing incredible in supposing that Peter was
moved to such an act of presumption on several occasions, separated from
each other by certain intervals of time, as he was actually instigated to
deny Him repeatedly. Neither should it seem unreasonable to fancy that the
Lord gave him a reply in similar terms at three successive periods,
especially when [we see that] in immediate connection with each other, and
without the interposition of anything else either in fact or word, Christ
addressed the question to him three several times whether he loved Him, and
that, when Peter returned the same answer thrice over, He also gave him
thrice over the self- same charge to feed His sheep.(2) That it is the more
reasonable thing to suppose that Peter displayed his presumption on three
different occasions, and that thrice over he received from the Lord a
warning with respect to his triple denial, is further proved, as we may
see, by the very terms employed by the evangelists, which record sayings
uttered by the Lord in diverse form and of diverse import. Let us here call
attention again to that passage which I introduced a little ago from the
Gospel of John. There we certainly find that He had expressed Himself in
this way "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek
me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say
to you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I
have loved you, that ye love one another. By this shall all men know that
ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Simon Peter saith unto
Him, Lord, whither goest Thou?"(3) Now, surely it is evident here that what
moved Peter to utter this question, "Lord, whither goest Thou?" was the
words which the Lord Himself had spoken. For he had heard Him say, "Whither
I go, ye cannot come." Then Jesus made this reply to the said Peter:
"Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shall follow me
afterwards." Thereupon Peter expressed himself thus: "Lord, why cannot I
follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake."(4) And to this
presumptuous declaration the Lord responded by predicting his denial. Luke,
again, first mentions how the Lord said, "Simon, behold Satan hath desired
to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee,
that thy faith fail not; and, when thou art converted, strengthen thy
brethren:" next he proceeds immediately to tell us how Peter replied to
this effect: "Lord, I am ready to go with Thee, both unto prison and to
death;" and then he continues thus: "And He said, I tell thee, Peter, the
cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou
knowest me."(5) Now, who can fail to perceive that this is an occasion by
itself, and that the incident in connection with which Peter was incited to
make the presumptuous declaration already referred to is an entirely
different one? But, once more, Matthew presents us with the following
passage: "And when they had sung an hymn," he says, "they went out into the
Mount of Olives. Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended
because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and
the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen
again, I will go before you into Galilee."(6) The same passage is given in
precisely the same form by Mark.(7) What similarity is there, however, in
these words, or in the ideas expressed by them, either to the terms in
which John represents Peter to have made his presumptuous declaration, or
to those in which Luke exhibits him as uttering such an asseveration? And
so we find that in Matthew's narrative the connection proceeds immediately
thus: "Peter answered and said unto Him, Though all men shall be offended
because of Thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus saith unto him, Verily,
I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me
thrice. Peter saith unto him, Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not
deny Thee. Likewise also said all His disciples."(1)

7. All this is recorded almost in the same language also by Mark, only
that he has not put in so general a form what the Lord said with regard to
the manner in which the event [of Peter's failure] was to be brought about,
but has given it a more particular turn. For his version is this: "Verily I
say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow
twice; thou shalt deny me thrice."(2) Thus it appears that all of them tell
us how the Lord foretold that Peter would deny Him before the cock crew,
but that they do not all mention how often the cock was to crow, and that
Mark is the only one who has presented a more explicit notice of this
incident in the narrative. Hence some are of opinion that Mark's statement
is not in harmony with those of the others. But this is simply because they
do not give sufficient attention to the facts of the case, and, above all,
because they approach the question under the cloud of a prejudiced mind, in
consequence of their being possessed by a hostile disposition towards the
gospel. The fact is, that Peter's denial, when taken as a whole, is a
threefold denial. For he remained in the same state of mental agitation,
and harboured the same mendacious intention, until what had been foretold
regarding him was brought to his mind, and healing came to him by bitter
weeping and sorrow of heart. It is evident, however, that if this complete
denial--that is to say, the threefold denial--is taken to have commenced
only after the first crowing of the cock, three of the evangelists will
appear to have given an incorrect account of the matter. For Matthew's
version is this: "Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock
crow, thou shalt deny me thrice;" and Luke puts it thus: "I tell thee,
Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny
that thou knowest me;" and John presents it in this form: "Verily, verily,
I say unto thee, the cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice."
And thus, in different terms and with words introduced in diverse
successions, these three evangelists have expressed one and the same sense
as conveyed by the words which the Lord spake--namely, the fact that,
before the cock should crow, Peter was to deny Him thrice. On the other
hand, if [we suppose that] he went through the whole triple denial before
the cock began to crow at all, then Mark will be made to underlie the
charge of having given a superfluous statement when he puts these words
into the Lord's mouth: "Verily I say unto thee, That this day, before the
cock crow twice, thou shall deny me thrice." For to what purpose would it
be to say, "before the cock crow twice," when, on the supposition that this
entire threefold denial was gone through previous to the first crowing of
the cock, it is self-evident that a negation, which would thus be proved to
have been completed before the first cockcrow, must also, as matter of
course, be understood to have been fully uttered before the second cockcrow
and before the third, and, in short, before all the cockcrowings which took
place on that same night? But, inasmuch as this threefold denial was begun
previous to the first crowing of the cock, those three evangelists
concerned themselves with noticing, not the time at which Peter was to
complete it, but the extent(3) to which it was to be carried, and the
period at which it was to commence; that is to say, their object was to
bring out the facts that it was to be thrice repeated, and that it was to
begin previous to the cockcrowing. At the same time, so far as the man's
own mind is concerned, we might also quite well understand it to have been
engaged in, as a whole, previous to the first cockcrow. For although it is
true that, so far as regards the actual utterance of the individual who was
guilty of the denial, that threefold negation was only entered upon
previous to the first cockcrow, and really finished before the second
cockcrow, still it is equally true that, in so far as the disposition of
mind and the apprehensions indulged by Peter were concerned, it was
conceived,(4) as a whole, before the first cockcrow. Neither is it a matter
of any consequence of what duration those intervals of delay were which
elapsed between the several utterances of that thrice-recurring voice, if
it is the case that the denial completely possessed his heart even previous
to the first cockcrow,--in consequence, indeed, of his having imbibed a
spirit of terror so abject as to make him capable of denying the Lord when
he was questioned regarding Him, not only once, but a second time, and even
a third time. Thus, a more correct and careful consideration of the matter
might show us s that, precisely as it is declared that the man who looketh
on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his
heart,(1) so, in the present instance, inasmuch as in the words which he
spoke, Peter merely expressed the apprehension which he had already
conceived with such intensity in his mind as to make it capable of enduring
even on to a third repetition of his denial of the Lord, this threefold
negation is to be assigned as a whole to that particular period at which
the fear that sufficed thus to carry him on to a threefold denial took
possession of him. In this way, too, it may be made apparent that, even if
the words in which the denial was couched began to break forth from him
only after the first cockcrow, when his heart was smitten by the inquiries
addressed to him, it would involve neither any absurdity nor any
untruthfulness, although it were said that before the cock crew he denied
Him thrice, seeing that, in any case, previous to the crowing of the cock,
his mind had been assailed by an apprehension violent enough to be able to
draw him(2) on even to a third denial. All the less, therefore, ought we to
feel any difficulty in the matter, if it appears that the threefold denial,
as expressed also in the thrice-recurring utterances of the person who made
the denial, was entered upon previous to the crowing of the cock, although
it was not completed before the first cockcrow. We may take a parallel
case, and suppose an intimation to be made to the following effect to a
person: "This night, before the cock crow, you will write a letter to me,
in which you will revile me thrice." Well, surely in this instance, if the
man began to write the letter] before the cock had crowed at all, and
finished it after the cock had crowed for the first time, that would be no
reason for alleging that the intimation previously made was false. The
fact, therefore, is that, in putting these words into the Lord's lips,
"Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice," Mark has given us
a plainer indication of the intervals of time which separated the
utterances themselves. And when we come to the said section of the
evangelical narrative, we shall see that the circumstances are presented in
a manner which exhibits, in that connection also, the harmony subsisting
among the evangelists.

8. If, however, the demand is to get at the very words, literally and
completely, which the Lord addressed to Peter, we answer that it is
impossible to discover these; and further, that it is simply superfluous to
ask them, inasmuch as the speaker's meaning--to intimate which was the
object He had in view in uttering the words-- admits of being understood
with the utmost plainness, even under the diverse terms employed by the
evangelists. And whether, then, it be the case that Peter, instigated at
different occasions in the course of the Lord's sayings, made his
presumptuous declaration three several times, and had his denial foretold
him thrice over by the Lord, as is the more probable result to which our
investigation points us; or whether it may appear that the accounts given
by all the evangelists are capable of being reduced to a single statement,
when a certain order of narration is adopted, so that it could be proved
that it was only on one occasion that the Lord predicted to Peter, on the
exhibition of his presumptuous spirit, the fact that he would deny Him;--in
either case, any contradiction between the evangelists will fail to be
detected, as nothing of that nature really exists.

CHAP. III.--OF THE MANNER IN WHICH IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT NO DISCREPANCIES
EXIST BETWEEN THEM IN THE ACCOUNTS WHICH THEY GIVE OF THE WORDS WHICH WERE
SPOKEN BY THE LORD, ON TO THE TIME OF HIS LEAVING THE HOUSE IN WHICH THEY
HAD SUPPED.

9. At this point, therefore, we may now follow, as far as we can, the
order of the narrative, as gathered from all the evangelists together.
Thus, then, after the prediction in question had been made to Peter,
according to John's version, the same John proceeds with his statement, and
introduces in this connection the Lord's discourse, which was to the
following effect: "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God,
believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions;"(3) and so
forth. He narrates at length the sayings, so memorable and so pre-eminently
sublime, of which He delivered Himself in the course of that address,
until, in due connection, he comes to the passage where the Lord speaks as
follows: "O righteous Father, the world hath not known Thee: but I have
known Thee, and these have known that Thou hast sent me. And I have
declared unto them Thy name, and will declare it; that the love wherewith
Thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."(4) Again we find,
according to the narrative given by Luke, that there arose "a strife among
them which of them should be accounted the greatest. And He said unto them,
The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that
exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be
so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger;(5) and he
that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that
sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I
am among you as he that serveth. And ye are they which have continued with
me in my temptations: and I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath
appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and
sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."(1) The said Luke also
immediately subjoins to these words the following passage: "And the Lord
said to Simon: Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may
sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and
when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto Him:
Lord, I am ready to go with Thee, both into prison, and to death. And He
said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that
thou shall thrice deny that thou knowest me. And He said unto them, When I
sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they
said, Nothing. Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let
him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him
sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, this that is written
must yet be accomplished in me, And He was reckoned among the
transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said,
Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said unto them, It is enough."(2)
Next comes the passage, given both by Matthew and by Mark: "And when they
had sung an hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives. Then saith Jesus
unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is
written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be
scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into
Galilee. Peter answered and said unto Him, Though all men shall be offended
because of Thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus saith unto him, Verily
I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me
thrice. Peter saith unto Him, Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not
deny Thee. Likewise also said all the disciples."(3) We have introduced the
preceding section as it is presented by Matthew. But Mark also records it
almost in so many and the same words, with the exception of the apparent
discrepancy, which we have already cleared up above, on the subject of the
crowing of the cock.

CHAP. IV.--OF WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THE PIECE OF GROUND OR GARDEN TO WHICH
THEY CAME ON LEAVING THE HOUSE AFTER THE SUPPER; AND OF THE METHOD IN
WHICH, IN JOHN'S SILENCE ON THE SUBJECT, A REAL HARMONY CAN BE DEMONSTRATED
BETWEEN THE OTHER THREE EVANGELISTS--NAMELY, MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE.

10. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in the same connection as
follows: "Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane."(4)
This is mentioned also by Mark.(5) Luke, too, refers to it, although he
does not notice the piece of ground by name. For he says: "And He came out,
and went, as was His wont, to the Mount of Olives; and His disciples also
followed Him. And when He was at the place, He said unto them, Pray that ye
enter not into temptation."(6) That is the place which the other two have
instanced under the name of Gethsemane. There, we understand, was the
garden which John brings into notice when he gives the following narration:
"When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over
the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which He entered, and His
disciples."(7) Then taking Matthew's record, we get this statement next in
order: "He said unto His disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray
yonder.(8) And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and
began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith He unto them, My soul is
exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And
He went a little farther, and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, O my
Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I
will, but as Thou wilt. And He cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them
asleep, and saith unto Peter, What! could ye not watch with me one hour?
Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is
willing, but the flesh is weak. He went away again the second time, and
prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me except I
drink it, Thy will be done. And He came and found them asleep again: for
their eyes were heavy. And He left them, and went away again, and prayed
the third time, saying the same words. Then cometh He to His disciples, and
saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at
hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise,
let us be going: behold, he is at hand that shall betray me."(4)

11. Mark also records these passages, introducing them quite in the same
method and succession. Some of the sentences, however, are given with
greater brevity by him, and others are somewhat more fully explained. These
sayings of our Lord, indeed, may seem in one portion to stand in some
manner of contradiction to each other as they are presented in Matthew's
version. I refer to the fact that [it is stated there that] He came to His
disciples after His third prayer, and said to them, "Sleep on now, and take
your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man shall be
betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at
hand that shall betray me." For what are we to make of the direction thus
given above, "Sleep on now, and take your rest," when there is immediately
subjoined this other declaration, "Behold, the hour is at hand," and
thereafter also the instruction, "Arise, let us be going "? Those readers
who perceive something like a contradiction here, seek to pronounce these
words, "Sleep on now, and take your rest," in a way betokening that they
were spoken in reproach, and not in permission. And this is an expedient
which might quite fairly be adopted were there any necessity for it. Mark,
however, has reproduced these sayings in a manner which implies that after
He had expressed himself in the terms, "Sleep on now, and take your rest,"
He added the words, "It is enough," and then appended to these the further
statement, "The hour is come; behold, the Son of man shall be betrayed."(1)
Hence we may conclude that the case really stood thus: namely, that after
addressing these words to them, "Sleep on now, and take your rest," the
Lord was silent for a space, so that what He had thus given them permission
to do might be [seen to be] really acted upon; and that thereafter He made
the other declaration" Behold the hour is come" Thus it is that in Mark's
Gospel we find those words [regarding the sleeping] followed immediately by
the phrase, "It is enough;" that is to say," the rest which you have had is
enough now." But as no distinct notice is introduced of this silence on the
Lord's part which intervened then, the passage comes to be understood in a
forced manner, and it is supposed that a peculiar pronunciation must be
given to these words.

12. Luke, on the other hand, has omitted to mention the number of times
that He prayed. He has told us, however, a fact which is not recorded by
the others--namely, that when He prayed He was strengthened by an angel,
and that, as He prayed more earnestly, He had a bloody sweat, with drops
falling down to the ground. Thus it appears that when he makes the
statement, "And when He rose up from prayer, and was come to His
disciples," he does not indicate how often He had prayed by that time. But
still, in so doing, he does not stand in any kind of antagonism to the
other two. Moreover, John does indeed mention how He entered into the
garden along with His disciples. But he does not relate how He was occupied
there up to the period when His betrayer came in along with the Jews to
apprehend Him.

13. These three evangelists, therefore, have in this manner narrated the
same incident, just as, on the other hand, one man might give three several
accounts of a single occurrence, with a certain measure of diversity in his
statements, and yet without any real contradiction. Luke, for example, has
specified the distance to which He went forward from the disciples--that is
to say, when He withdrew from them in order to pray--more definitely than
the others. For he tells us that it was "about a stone's cast." Mark,
again, states first of all in his own words how the Lord prayed that, "If
it were possible, the hour might pass from Him," referring to the hour of
His Passion, which be also expresses presently by the term "cup." He then
reproduces the Lord's own words, in the following manner: "Abba, Father,
all things are possible to Thee: take away this cup from me." And if we
connect with these terms the clause which is given by the other two
evangelists, and for which Mark himself has also already introduced a clear
parallel, presented as a statement made in his own person instead of the
Lord's, the whole sentence will be exhibited in this form: "Father, if it
be possible, (for) all things are possible unto Thee, take away this cup
from me." And it will be so put just to prevent any one from supposing that
He made the Father's power less than it is when He said, "If it be
possible." For thus His words were not "If Thou canst do it" but "If it be
possible. And anything is possible which He wills. Therefore, the
expression, "If it be possible," has here just the same force as, "If Thou
wilt." For Mark has made the sense in which the phrase, "If it be
possible," is to be taken quite plain, when he says, "All things are
possible unto Thee." And further, the fact that these writers have recorded
how He said, "Nevertheless, not what I will, but what Thou wilt" (an
expression which means precisely the same as this other form,
"Nevertheless, not my will but Thine be done"), shows us clearly enough
that it was with reference not to any absolute impossibility on the
Father's side, but only to His will, that these words, "If it be possible,"
were spoken. This is made the more apparent by the plainer statement which
Luke has presented to the same effect. For his version is not, "If it be
possible," but, "If Thou be willing." And to this clearer declaration of
what was really meant we may add, with the effect of still greater
clearness, the clause which Mark has inserted, so that the whole will
proceed thus: "If Thou be willing, (for) all things are possible unto Thee,
take away this cup from me."

14. Again, as to Mark's mentioning that the Lord said not only "Father,"
but "Abba, Father," the explanation simply is, that "Abba" is in Hebrew
exactly what "Pater" is in Latin. And perhaps the Lord may have used both
words with some kind of symbolical significance, intending to indicate
thereby, that in sustaining this sorrow He bore the part of His body, which
is the Church, of which He has been made the corner-stone, and which comes
to Him [in the person of disciples gathered] partly out of the Hebrews, to
whom He refers when He says "Abba," and partly out of the Gentiles, to whom
He refers when He says "Pater" [Father].(1) The Apostle Paul also makes use
of the same significant expression. For he says, "In whom we cry, Abba,
Father;"(2) and, in another passage, "God sent His Spirit into your hearts,
crying, Abba, Father."(3) For it was meet that the good Master and true
Saviour, by sharing in the sufferings of the more infirm,(4) should in His
own person illustrate the truth that His witnesses ought not to despair,
although it might perchance happen that, through human frailty, sorrow
might steal in upon their hearts at the time of suffering; seeing that they
would overcome it if, mindful that God knows what is best for those whose
well-being He regards, they gave His will the preference over their own. On
this subject, however, as a whole, the present is not the time for entering
on any more detailed discussion. For we have to deal simply with the
question concerning the harmony of the evangelists, from whose varied modes
of narration we gather the wholesome lesson that, in order to get at the
truth, the one essential thing to aim at in dealing with the terms is
simply the intention which the speaker had in view in using them. For the
word "Father" means just the same as the phrase "Abba, Father." But with a
view to bring out the mystic significance, the expression, "Abba, Father,"
is the clearer form; while, for indicating the unity, the word "Father" is
sufficient. And that the Lord did indeed employ this method of address,
"Abba, Father," must be accepted as matter of fact. But still His intention
would not appear very obvious were there not the means (since others use
simply the term "Father") to show that under such a form of expression
those two Churches, which are constituted, the one out of the Jews, and the
other out of the Gentiles, are presented as also really one. In this way,
then, [we may suppose that] the phrase, "Abba, Father," was adopted in
order to convey the same idea as was indicated by the Lord on another
occasion, when He said, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold."(5)
In these words He certainly referred to the Gentiles, since He had sheep
also among the people of Israel. But in that passage He goes on immediately
to add the declaration, "Them also I must bring, that there may be one fold
and one Shepherd." And so we may say that, just as the phrase, "Abba,
Father," contains the idea of [the two races,] the Israelites and the
Gentiles, the word "Father," used alone, points to the one flock which
these two constitute.

CHAP. V.--OF THE ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE GIVEN BY ALL THE FOUR EVANGELISTS IN
REGARD TO WHAT WAS DONE AND SAID ON THE OCCASION OF HIS APPREHENSION; AND
OF THE PROOF THAT THESE DIFFERENT NARRATIVES EXHIBIT NO REAL DISCREPANCIES.

15. When we follow the versions presented by Matthew and Mark, we find
that the history now proceeds thus: "And while He yet spake, lo, Judas, one
of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude, with swords and
staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. Now he that
betrayed Him, gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same
is He; hold Him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail,
Master; and kissed Him."(6) First of all, however, as we gather from Luke's
statement, He said to the traitor, "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man
with a kiss?"(7) Next, as we learn from Matthew, He spoke thus: "Friend,
wherefore art thou come?" Thereafter He added certain words which are found
in John's narrative, which runs in the following strain: "Whom seek ye?
They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am He. And
Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them. As soon then as He had
said unto them, I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground. Then
asked He them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus
answered, I have told you that I am He: if therefore ye seek me, let these
go their way; that the saying might be fulfilled which He spake, Of them
which thou gavest me have I lost none."(8)

16. Next comes in a passage, which is given by Luke as follows: "When they
which were about Him saw what would follow, they said unto Him, Lord, shall
we smite with the sword? And one of them smote the servant of the high
priest," as is noticed by all the four historians, "and cut off his ear,"
which, as we are informed by Luke and John, was his "right ear." Moreover,
we gather also from John that the person who smote the servant was Peter,
and that the name of the man whom he thus struck was Malchus. Next we take
what Luke mentions, namely, "Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus
far;"(1) with which we must connect the words appended by Matthew, namely,
"Put up thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall
perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father,
and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how
then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"(2) Along
with these words we may also place the question to which John tells us He
gave utterance on the same occasion, namely, "The cup which my Father hath
given me, shall I not drink it?"(3) And then, as is recorded by Luke, He
touched the ear of the person who had been struck, and healed him.

17. Neither should we let the idea disturb us, that some contradiction may
be found in the circumstance that Luke tells us how, when the disciples
asked Him whether they should smite with the sword, the Lord replied in
these words, "Suffer ye thus far," in a manner which might seem to imply
that He thus expressed Himself, after the blow had been struck, in terms
bearing that He was satisfied with what had been done so far, but desired
nothing further to be done; whereas the language which is employed by
Matthew might give us rather to understand that this whole incident of the
use which Peter made of the sword was displeasing to the Lord. For it is
more correct to suppose that when they put the question to Him, "Lord,
shall we smite with the sword?" He replied then, "Suffer ye thus far;" His
meaning being this: "Let not what is about to take place agitate you. These
men are to be suffered to go thus far; that is to say, so far as to
apprehend me, and thus to effect the fulfilment of those things which are
written of me." We have further to suppose, however, that during the time
which passed in the interchange of the question addressed by them to the
Lord, and the reply returned by Him to them, Peter was borne on by his
intense desire to appear as defender, and by his stronger excitement in the
Lord's behalf, to deal the blow. But while these two things might easily
have happened at the same time, two different statements could not have
been uttered by the same person in one breath.(4) For the writer would not
have used the expression, "And Jesus answered and said," unless the words
were a reply to the question which had been addressed by those who were
about Him, and not a statement directed to Peter's act. For Matthew is the
only one who has recorded the judgment passed by Jesus on Peter's act. And
in that passage the phrase which Matthew has employed is also not in the
form, "Jesus answered Peter thus, Put up thy sword;" but it runs in these
terms: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up thy sword;" from which it appears
that it was after the deed that Jesus thus declared Himself. What is
contained, again, in the phraseology used by Luke, namely, "And Jesus
answered and said, Suffer ye thus far," must be taken to have been the
reply which was returned to the parties who had put the question to Him.
But inasmuch as, according to our previous explanation, the single blow
with which the servant was struck was delivered just during the time when
the terms of the said question and answer were passing between these
persons and the Lord, the writer has considered it right to record that act
in the same particular order, so that it stands inserted between the words
of the interrogation and those in which the response was couched.
Consequently, there is nothing here in antagonism to the statement
introduced by Matthew, namely, "For all they that take the sword shall
perish with the sword,"--that is to say, those who may have used the sword.
But there might appear to be some inconsistency here if the Lord's answer
were taken in a sense which would show Him to have expressed approval on
this occasion of the voluntary use of the sword, even although it was only
to the effect of a single wound, and that, too, not a fatal one. The words,
however, which were addressed to Peter may be understood, as a whole, in an
application quite in harmony with the rest; so that, bringing in also what
Luke and Matthew have reported, as I have stated above, we obtain the
following connection: "Suffer ye thus far. Put up thy sword into its place;
for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword," etc. In what
way, moreover, this sentence, "Suffer ye thus far," is to be understood, I
have explained already. And if there is any better method of interpreting
it, be it so. Only let the veracity of the evangelists be maintained in any
case.

18. After this, Matthew continues the narrative, and mentions that in that
hour He addressed the multitude as follows: "Are ye come out as against a
thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching
in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me."(5) Then He added also certain
words, which Luke introduces thus: "But this is your hour, and the power of
darkness."(6) Next comes the sentence given by Matthew: "But all this was
done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the
disciples forsook Him and fled." This last fact is recorded also by Mark.
The same evangelist makes also the following addition: "And there followed
Him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body;
and when they laid hold on him, he left the linen cloth, and fled from them
naked."(1)

CHAP. VI.--OF THE HARMONY CHARACTERIZING THE ACCOUNTS WHICH THESE
EVANGELISTS GIVE OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE LORD WAS LED AWAY TO THE HOUSE
OF THE HIGH PRIEST, AS ALSO OF THE OCCURRENCES WHICH TOOK PLACE WITHIN THE
SAID HOUSE AFTER HE WAS CONDUCTED THERE IN THE NIGHTTIME, AND IN PARTICULAR
OF THE INCIDENT OF PETER'S DENIAL.

19. In the line of Matthew's narrative we come next upon this statement:
"And they that laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest,
where the scribes and the elders were assembled."(2) We learn, however,
from John that He was conducted first to Annas, the father-in-law of
Caiaphas.(3) On the other hand, Mark and Luke omit all mention of the name
of the high priest.(4) Moreover [we find that] He was led away bound. For,
as John informs us, there were at hand there, in the multitude, a tribune
and a cohort, and the servants of the Jews.(5) Then in Matthew we have
these words: "But Peter followed Him afar off unto the high priest's
palace, and went in and sat with the servants to see the end."(6) To this
passage in the narrative Mark makes this addition: "And he warmed himself
at the fire."(7) Luke also makes a statement which amounts to the same,
thus: "Peter followed afar off: and when they had kindled a fire in the
midst of the hall, and were sat down together, Peter sat down among
them."(8) And John proceeds in these terms: "And Simon Peter followed
Jesus, and so did another disciple. That disciple (namely, that other) was
known unto the high priest, and went in (as John also tells us) with Jesus
into the palace of the high priest. But Peter (as the same John adds) stood
at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known
unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in
Peter."(9) For , the last fact we are thus indebted to John's narrative.
And in this way we see how it came about that Peter also got inside, and
was within the hall, as the other evangelists mention.(10)

20. Then Matthew's report goes on thus: "Now the chief priests and elders
and all the council sought false witness against Jesus, to put Him to
death, but found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found
they none."(11) Mark comes in here with the explanation, that "their
witness agreed not together."(12) But, as Matthew continues, "At the last
came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy
the temple of God, and to build it in three days."(13) Mark states that
there were also others who said, "We have heard him say, I will destroy
this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build
another made without hands. And therefore (as Mark also observes in the
same passage) their witness did not agree together."(14) Then Matthew gives
us the following relation: "And the high priest arose and said unto Him,
Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? But
Jesus held His peace. And the high priest answered and said unto Him, I
adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the
Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said."(15) Mark
reports the same passage in different terms, only he omits to mention the
fact that the high priest adjured Him. He makes it plain, however, that the
two expressions ascribed to Jesus as the reply to the high priest,--namely,
"Thou hast said," and, "I am,"(16)--really amount to the same. For, as the
said Mark puts it, the narrative goes on thus: "And Jesus said, I am; and
ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming
with the clouds of heaven."(16) This is just as Matthew also presents the
passage, with the solitary exception that he does not say that Jesus
replied in the phrase "I am." Again, Matthew goes on further in this
strain: "Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken
blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have
heard his blasphemy. What think ye? And they answered and said, He is
guilty of death."(17) Mark's version of this is entirely to the same
effect. So Matthew continues, "Then did they spit in His face, and buffeted
Him, and others smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy
unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?"(18) Mark reports these
things in like manner. He also mentions a further fact, namely, that they
covered His face.(19) On these incidents we have likewise the testimony of
Luke.

21. These things the Lord is understood to have passed through on to the
early morning in the high priest's house, to which He was first conducted,
and in which Peter was also tempted.

With respect, however, to this temptation of Peter, which took place during
the time that the Lord was enduring these injuries, the several evangelists
do not present the same order in the recital of the circumstances. For
Matthew and Mark first narrate the injuries offered to the Lord, and then
this temptation of Peter. Luke, again, first describes Peter's temptation,
and only after that the reproaches borne by the Lord; while John, on the
other hand, first recounts part of Peter's temptation, then introduces some
verses recording what the Lord had to bear, next appends a statement to the
effect that the Lord was sent away thence (i.e. from Annas) to Caiaphas the
high priest, and then at this point resumes and sums up the relation which
he had commenced of Peter's temptation in the house to which he was first
conducted, giving a full account of that incident, thereafter reverting to
the succession of things befalling the Lord, and telling us how He was
brought to Caiaphas.(1)

22. Accordingly, Matthew proceeds as follows: "Now Peter sat without in
the palace; and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus
of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou
sayest. And as he went out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said
unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. And
again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. And after a while came
unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of
them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee. Then began he to curse and to swear,
saying that he knew not the man. And immediately the cock crew."(2) Such is
Matthew's version. But we are also given to understand that after he had
gone outside, and when he had now denied the Lord once, the first cock
crew,--a fact which Matthew does not specify, but which is intimated by
Mark.

23. But it was not when he was outside at the gate that he denied the Lord
the second time. That took place after he had come back to the fire-place.
There was no need, however, to mention the precise time at which he did
thus return. Consequently Mark goes on with his narrative of the incident
in these terms: "And he went out into the porch, and the cock crew. And a
maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of
them. And he denied it again."(3) This is not the same maid, however, as
the former one, but another, as Matthew tells us. Nay, we gather further
that on the occasion of the second denial he was addressed by two parties,
namely, by the maid who is mentioned by Matthew and Mark, and also by
another person who is noticed by Luke. For Luke's account runs in this
style: "And Peter followed afar off. And when they had kindled a fire in
the midst of the hall, and were sat down together, Peter sat down among
them. But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly
looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. And he denied Him,
saying, Woman, I know Him not. And after a little while, another saw him,
and said, "Thou art also of them."(4) Now the clause, "And after a little
while," which Luke introduces, covers the period during which [we may
suppose that] Peter went out and the first cock crew. By this time,
however, he had come in again; and thus we can understand the consistency
of John's narrative, which informs us that he denied the Lord the second
time as he stood by the fire. For in his version of Peter's first denial,
John not only says nothing about the first crowing of the cock (which holds
good of the other evangelists, too, with the exception of Mark), but also
leaves unnoticed the fact that it was as he sat by the fire that the maid
recognised him. For all that John says there is this, "Then saith the
damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's
disciples? He saith, I am not."(5) Then he brings in the statement which he
deemed it right to make on the subject of what took place with Jesus in
that same house. His record of this is to the following effect: "And the
servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, for it was
cold. And they warmed themselves; and Peter stood with them, and warmed
himself."(6) Here, therefore, we may suppose Peter to have gone out, and by
this time to have come in again. For at first he was sitting by the fire;
and after a space, as we gather, he had returned, and commenced to stand
[by the hearth].

24. It may be, however, that some one will say to us: Peter had not
actually gone out as yet, but had only risen with the purpose of going out.
This may be the allegation of one who is of opinion that the second
interrogation and denial took place when Peter was outside at the door. Let
us therefore look at what follows in John's narrative. It is to this
effect: "The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His
doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in
the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in
secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me
what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. And when He had
thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm
of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him,
If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest
thou me? And Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest."(1) This
certainly shows us that Annas was high priest. For Jesus had not been sent
to Caiaphas as yet, when the question was thus put to Him, "Answerest thou
the high priest so?" Mention is also made of Annas and Caiaphas as high
priests by Luke at the beginning of his Gospel.(2) After these statements,
John reverts to the account which he had previously begun of Peter's
denial. Thus he brings us back to the house in which the incidents took
place which he has recorded, and from which Jesus was sent away to
Caiaphas, to whom He was being conducted at the commencement of this scene,
as Matthew has informed us.(3) Moreover, it is in the way of a
recapitulation that John records the matters regarding Peter which he has
introduced at this point. Falling back upon his narration of that incident
with the view of making up a complete account of the threefold denial, he
proceeds thus: "And Simon stood and warmed himself. They said therefore
unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I
am not."(4) Here, therefore, we find that Peter's second denial occurred,
not when he was at the door, but as he was standing by the fire. This,
however, Could not have been the case, had he not returned by this time
after having gone outside. For it is not that by this second occasion he
had actually gone out, and that the other maid who is referred to saw him
there outside; but the matter is put as if it was on his going out that she
saw him; or, in other words, it was when he rose to go out that she
observed him, and said to those who were there,--that is, to those who were
gathered by the fire inside, within the court,--"This fellow was also with
Jesus of Nazareth." Then we are to suppose that the man who had thus gone
outside, on hearing this assertion, came in again, and swore to those who
were now inimically disposed, "I do not know the man."(5) In like manner,
Mark also says of this same maid, that "she began to say to them that stood
by, This is one of them."(6) For this damsel was speaking not to Peter, but
to those who had remained there when he went out. At the same time, she
spoke in such a manner that he heard her words; whereupon he came back and
stood again by the fire, and met their words with a negative. Then we have
the statement made by John in these terms: "They said, Art not thou also
one of his disciples?" We understand this question to have been addressed
to him on his return as he stood there; and we also recognise the harmony
in which this stands with the position that on this occasion Peter had to
do not only with that other maid who is mentioned by Matthew and Mark in
connection with this second denial, but also with that other person who is
introduced by Luke. This is the reason why John uses the plural, "They
said." The explanation then may be, that when the maid said to those who
were with her in the court as he went out, "This is one of them," he heard
her words and returned with the purpose of clearing himself, as it were, by
a denial. Or, in accordance with the more probable theory, we may suppose
that he did not catch what was said about him as he went out, and that on
his return the maid and the other person who is introduced by Luke
addressed him thus, "Art not thou also one of his disciples?" that he met
them with a denial, "and said, I am not;" and further, that when this other
person of whom Luke speaks insisted more pertinaciously, and said, "Surely
thou art one of them," Peter answered thus, "Man, I am not." Still, when we
compare together all the statements made by the several evangelists on this
subject, we come clearly to the conclusion, that Peter's second denial took
place, not when he was at the door, but when he was within, by the fire in
the court. It becomes evident, therefore, that Matthew and Mark, who have
told us how he went without, have left the fact of his return unnoticed
simply with a view to brevity.

25. Accordingly, let us next examine into the consistency of the
evangelists so far as the third denial is concerned, which we have
previously instanced in the statement given by Matthew only. Mark then goes
on with his version in these terms: "And a little after, they that stood by
said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilaean.
But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye
speak. And immediately the second time the cock crew."(7) Luke, again,
continues his narrative, relating the same incident in this fashion: "And
about the space of one hour after, another confidently affirmed, Of a truth
this fellow also was with him; for he is a Galilaean. And Peter said, Man,
I know not what thou sayest. And immediately while he yet spake the cock
crew."(8) John follows with his account of Peter's third denial, which is
thus given: "One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman
whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?
Peter then denied again; and immediately the cock crew."[1] Now what
precise period of time is meant under the phrase, "a little after," which
is employed by Matthew and Mark, is made clear by Luke, when he says, "And
about the space of one hour after." John, however, conveys no intimation of
this space of time. Again, with respect to the circumstance that Matthew
and Mark use the plural number instead of the singular, and speak of the
persons who were engaged with Peter, while Luke mentions only a single
individual, and John, too, specifies but one, particularizing him further
as kinsman to him whose ear Peter cut off; we may easily explain it either
by understanding Matthew and Mark to have adopted a familiar method of
speech here in employing the plural number simply instead of the singular,
or by supposing that one of the persons present--one who knew Peter and had
seen him--took the lead in making the declaration, and that the rest,
imitating his confidence, joined him in pressing the assertion upon Peter.
If this is the case, then two of the evangelists have given the general
statement, using simply the plural number; while the other two have
preferred to particularize only the one special individual who played the
chief part in the transaction. But, once more, Matthew affirms that the
words, "Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee,"
were spoken to Peter himself. In like manner, John tells us that the
question, "Did not I see thee in the garden with him?" was addressed
directly to Peter. But Mark, on the other hand, gives us to understand that
the sentence, "Surely he is one of them, for he is also a Galilaean," was
what those who stood by said to each other about Peter. And, in the same
way, Luke indicates that the declaration uttered by the other person, who
said, "Of a truth, this fellow also was with him, for he is a Galilaean,"
was not addressed to Peter, but was made regarding Peter. These variations,
however, may be explained either by understanding the evangelists, who
speak of Peter as the person directly addressed, to have fairly reproduced
the general sense, inasmuch as what was spoken about the man in his own
presence was much the same as if it had been spoken immediately to him; or
by supposing that both these methods of address were actually practised,
and that the one has been noticed by the former evangelists, and the other
by the latter. Moreover, we take the second cockcrowing to have occurred
after the third denial, as Mark has expressly informed us.

26. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in these terms: "And Peter
remembered the word of Jesus which He had said unto him, Before the cock
crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly."[2]
Mark, again, gives it thus: "And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus
had said unto him, Before the cock crow twice thou shall deny me thrice.
And he began to weep."[3] Luke's version is as follows: "And the Lord
turned and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord,
how He had said unto him, Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice.
And Peter went out and wept bitterly."[4] John says nothing about Peter's
recollection and weeping. Now, the statement made here by Luke, to the
effect that "the Lord turned and looked upon Peter," is one which requires
more careful consideration, with a view to its correct acceptance. For
although there are also inner halls (or courts), so named, it was in the
outer court (or hall) that Peter appeared on this occasion among the
servants, who were warming themselves along with him at the fire. And it is
not a credible supposition that Jesus was heard by the Jews in this place,
so that we might also understand the look referred to have been a look with
the bodily eye. For Matthew presents us first with this narrative: "Then
did they spit in His face and buffeted Him; and others smote Him with the
palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that
smote thee?"[5] And then he follows this up immediately with the paragraph
about Peter: "Now Peter sat without in the palace."[6] He would not,
however, have used this latter expression, had it not been the case that
the things previously alluded to were done to the Lord inside the house.
And, indeed, as we gather from Mark's version, these things took place not
simply in the interior, but also in the upper parts of the house. For,
after recording the said circumstances, Mark goes on thus: "And as Peter
was beneath in the palace."[7] Thus, as Matthew's words, "Now Peter sat
without in the palace," show us that the things previously mentioned took
place inside the house, so Mark's words, "And as Peter was beneath in the
palace," indicate that they were done not only in the interior, but in the
upper parts of the house. But if this is the case, how could the Lord have
looked on Peter with the actual glance of the bodily eye? These
considerations bring me to the conclusion, that the look in question was
one cast upon Peter from Heaven, the effect of which was to bring up before
his mind the number of times he had now denied [his Master], and the
declaration which the Lord had made to him prophetically, and in this way
(the Lord thus looking mercifully upon him[1]), to lead him to repent, and
to weep salutary tears. The expression, therefore, will be a parallel to
other modes of speech which we employ daily, as when we thus pray, "Lord,
look upon me;[12] or as when, in reference to one who has been delivered by
the divine mercy from some danger or trouble, we say that the "Lord looked
upon him." In the Scriptures, also, we find such words as these: "Look upon
me and hear me;[2] and "Return,[3] O Lord, and deliver my soul."[4] And,
according to my judgment, a similar view is to be taken of the expression
adopted here, when it is said that "the Lord turned and looked upon Peter;
and Peter remembered the word of the Lord." Finally, we have to notice how,
while it is the more usual practice with the evangelists to employ the name
"Jesus" in preference to the word "Lord" in their narratives, Luke has used
the latter term exclusively in the said sentence, saying expressly, "The
'Lord' turned and looked upon Peter; and Peter remembered the word of the
'Lord:'" whereas Matthew and Mark have passed over this "look" in silence,
and consequently have said that Peter remembered not the word of the
"Lord," but the word of "Jesus." From this, therefore, we may gather that
the "look" thus proceeding from Jesus was not one with the eyes of the
human body, but a look cast from Heaven.[5]

CHAP. VII.--OF THE THOROUGH HARMONY OF THE EVANGELISTS IN THE DIFFERENT
ACCOUNTS OF WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THE EARLY MORNING, PREVIOUS TO THE DELIVERY
OF JESUS TO PILATE; AND OF THE QUESTION TOUCHING THE PASSAGE WHICH IS
QUOTED ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PRICE SET UPON THE LORD, AND WHICH IS ASCRIBED
TO JEREMIAH BY MATTHEW, ALTHOUGH NO SUCH PARAGRAPH IS FOUND IN THE WRITINGS
OF THAT PROPHET.

27. Matthew next proceeds as follows: "When the morning was come, all the
chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus, to put
Him to death; and when they had bound Him, they led Him away, and delivered
Him to Pontius Pilate the governor."[6] Mark's version is to the like
effect: "And straightway in the morning, the chief priests held a
consultation with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, and bound
Jesus, and carried Him away, and delivered Him to Pilate."[7] Luke, again,
after completing his account of Peter's denial, recapitulates what Jesus
had to endure when it was now about daybreak, as it appears, and continues
his narrative in the following connection: "And the men that held Jesus
mocked Him, and smote Him; and when they had blindfolded Him, they struck
Him on the face, and asked Him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote
thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against Him. And as
soon as it was day, the elders of the people, and the chief priests, and
the scribes came together, and led Him into their council, saying, Art thou
the Christ? tell us. And He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not
believe; and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.
Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And He said unto them, Ye
say that I am. And they said, What need we further witness? For we
ourselves have heard of His own mouth. And the whole multitude of them
arose, and led Him unto Pilate."[8] Luke has thus recorded all these
things. His statement contains certain facts which are also related by
Matthew and Mark; namely, that the Lord was asked whether He was the Son of
God, and that He made this reply, "I say unto you, hereafter shall ye see
the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds
of heaven." And we gather that these things took place when the day was now
breaking, because Luke's expression is, "And as soon as it was day." Thus
Luke's narrative is similar to those of the others, although he also
introduces something which these others have left unnoticed. We gather
further, that when it was yet night, the Lord faced the ordeal of the false
witnesses,--a fact which is recorded briefly by Matthew and Mark, and which
is passed over in silence by Luke, who, however, has told the story of what
was done when the dawn was coming in. The former two-- namely, Matthew and
Mark--have given connected narratives of all that the Lord passed through
until early morning. After that, however, they have reverted to the story
of Peter's denial; on the conclusion of which they have come back upon the
events of the early morning, and have introduced the other circumstances
which remained for recital with a view to the completion of their account
of what befell the Lord.[9] But up to this point they have given no account
of the occurrences belonging specifically to the morning.[10] In like
manner John, after recording what was done with the Lord as fully as he
deemed requisite, and after telling also the whole story of Peter's denial,
continues his narrative in these terms: "Then lead they Jesus to
Caiaphas,[1] unto the hall of judgment. And it was early."[2] Here we might
suppose either that there had been something imperatively requiring
Caiaphas' presence in the hall of judgment, and that he was absent on the
occasion when the other chief priests held an inquiry on the Lord; or else
that the hall of judgment was in his house; and that yet from the beginning
of this scene they had thus only been leading Jesus away to the personage
in whose presence He was at last actually conducted But as they brought the
accused person in the character of one already convicted, and as it had
previously approved itself to Caiaphas' judgment that Jesus should die,
there was no further delay in delivering Him over to Pilate, with a view to
His being put to death.[3] And thus it is that Matthew here relates what
took place between Pilate and the Lord.

28. First, however, he makes a digression with the purpose of telling the
story of Judas' end, which is related only by him. His account is in these
terms: "Then Judas, which had betrayed Him, when he saw that He was
condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver
to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned, in that I have
betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? See thou to
that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed,
and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces,
and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is
the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the
potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The
field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by
Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the
price of Him that was valued, whom the children of Israel[4] did value, and
gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."[5]

29. Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this
passage is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks
that damage is thus done to the veracity of the evangelist, let him first
take notice of the fact that this ascription of the passage to Jeremiah is
not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and that some of them
state simply that it I was spoken "by the prophet." It is possible,
therefore, to affirm that those codices deserve rather to be followed which
do not contain the name of Jeremiah. For these words were certainly spoken
by a prophet, only that prophet was Zechariah. In this way the supposition
is, that those codices are faulty which contain the name of Jeremiah,
because they ought either to have given the name of Zechariah or to have
mentioned no name at all, as is the case with a certain copy, merely
stating that it was spoken "by the prophet, saying," which prophet would
assuredly be understood to be Zechariah. However, let others adopt this
method of defence, if they are so minded. For my part, I am not satisfied
with it; and the reason is, that a majority of codices contain the name of
Jeremiah, and that those critics who have studied the Gospel with more than
usual care in the Greek copies, report that they have found it stand so in
the more ancient Greek exemplars. I look also to this further
consideration, namely, that there was no reason why this name should have
been added [subsequently to the true text], and a corruption thus created;
whereas there was certainly an intelligible reason for erasing the name
from so many of the codices. For venturesome inexperience might readily
have done that, when perplexed with the problem presented by the fact that
this passage could not be found in Jeremiah.[6]

30. How, then, is the matter to be explained, but by supposing that this
has been done in accordance with the more secret counsel of that providence
of God by which the minds of the evangelists were governed? For it may have
been the case, that when Matthew was engaged in composing his Gospel, the
word Jeremiah occurred to his mind, in accordance with a familiar
experience, instead of Zechariah. Such an inaccuracy, however, he would
most undoubtedly have corrected (having his attention called to it, as
surely would have been the case, by some who might have read it while he
was still alive in the flesh), had he not reflected that [perhaps] it was
not without a purpose that the name of the one prophet had been suggested
instead of the other in the process of recalling the circumstances (which
process of recollection was also directed by the Holy Spirit), and that
this might not have occurred to him had it not been the Lord's purpose to
have it so written. If it is asked, however, why the Lord should have so
determined it, there is this first and most serviceable reason, which
deserves our most immediate consideration, namely, that some idea was thus
conveyed of the marvellous manner in which all the holy prophets, speaking
in one spirit, continued in perfect unison with each other in their
utterances,--a circumstance certainly much more calculated to impress the
mind than would have been the case had all the words of all these prophets
been spoken by the mouth of a single individual. The same consideration
might also fitly suggest the duty of accepting unhesitatingly whatever the
Holy Spirit has given expression to through the agency of these prophets,
and of looking upon their individual communications as also those of the
whole body, and on their collective communications as also those of each
separately. If, then, it is the case that words spoken by Jeremiah are
really as much Zechariah's as Jeremiah's, and, on the other hand, that
words spoken by Zechariah are really as much Jeremiah's as they are
Zechariah's, what necessity was there for Matthew to correct his text when
he read over what he had written, and found that the one name had occurred
to him instead of the other? Was it not rather the proper course for him to
bow to the authority of the Holy Spirit, under whose guidance he certainly
felt his mind to be placed in a more decided sense than is the case with
us, and consequently to leave untouched what he had thus written, in
accordance with the Lord's counsel and appointment, with the intent to give
us to understand that the prophets maintain so complete a harmony with each
other in the matter of their utterances that it becomes nothing absurd,
but, in fact, a most consistent thing for us to credit Jeremiah with a
sentence originally spoken by Zechariah?[1] For if, in these days of ours,
a person, desiring to bring under our notice the words of a certain
individual, happens to mention the name of another by whom the words were
not actually uttered,[2] but who at the same time is the most intimate
friend and associate of the man by whom they were really spoken; and if
forthwith recollecting that he has given the one name instead of the other,
he recovers himself and corrects the mistake, but does it nevertheless in
some such way as this, "After all, what I said was not amiss;" what would
we take to be meant by this, but just that there subsists so perfect a
unison of sentiment between the two parties--that is to say, the man whose
words the individual in question intended to repeat, and the second person
whose name occurred to him at the time instead of that of the other--that
it comes much to the same thing to represent the words to have been spoken
by the former as to say that they were uttered by the latter? How much
more, then, is this a usage which might well be understood and most
particularly commended to our attention in the case of the holy prophets,
so that we might accept the books composed by the whole series of them, as
if they formed but a single book written by one author, in which no
discrepancy with regard to the subjects dealt with should be supposed to
exist, as none would be found, and in which there would be a more
remarkable example of consistency and veracity than would have been the
case had a single individual, even the most learned, been the enunciator of
all these sayings? Therefore, while there are those, whether unbelievers or
merely ignorant men, who endeavour to find an argument here to help them in
demonstrating a want of harmony between the holy evangelists, men of faith
and learning, on the other hand, ought rather to bring this into the
service of proving the unity which characterizes the holy prophets.[3]

31. I have also another reason (the fuller discussion of which must be
reserved, I think, for another opportunity, in order to prevent the present
discourse from extending to larger limits than may be allowed by the
necessity which rests upon us to bring this work to a conclusion) to offer
in explanation of the fact that the name of Jeremiah has been permitted, or
rather directed, by the authority of the Holy Spirit, to stand in this
passage instead of that of Zechariah. It is stated in Jeremiah that he
bought a field from the son of his brother, and paid him money for it. That
sum of money is not given, indeed, under the name of the particular price
which is found in Zechariah, namely, thirty pieces of silver; but, on the
other hand, there is no mention of the buying of the field in Zechariah.
Now, it is evident that the evangelist has interpreted the prophecy which
speaks of the thirty pieces of silver as something which has received its
fulfilment only in the Lord's case, so that it is made to stand for the
price set upon Him. But again, that the words which were uttered by
Jeremiah on the subject of the purchase of the field have also a bearing
upon the same matter, may have been mystically signified by the selection
thus made in introducing [into the evangelical narrative] the name of
Jeremiah, who spoke of the purchase of the field, instead of that of
Zechariah, to whom we are indebted for the notice of the thirty pieces of
silver. In this way, on perusing first the Gospel, and finding the name of
Jeremiah there, and then, again, on perusing Jeremiah, and failing there to
discover the passage about the thirty pieces of silver, but seeing at the
same time the section about the purchase of the field, the reader would be
taught to compare the two paragraphs together, and get at the real meaning
of the prophecy, and learn how it also stands in relation to this
fulfilment of prophecy which was exhibited in the instance of our Lord. For
[it is also to be remarked that] Matthew makes the following addition to
the passage cited, namely, "Whom the children of Israel did value; and gave
them the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." Now, these words are
not to be found either in Zechariah or in Jeremiah. Hence we must rather
take them to have been inserted with a nice and mystical meaning by the
evangelist, on his own responsibility,--the Lord having given him to
understand, by revelation, that a prophecy of the said tenor had a real
reference to this occurrence, which took place in connection with the price
set upon Christ. Moreover, in Jeremiah, the evidence of the purchase of the
field is ordered to be cast into an earthen vessel. In like manner, we find
in the Gospel that the money paid for the Lord was used for the purchase of
a potter's field, which field also was to be employed as a burying-place
for strangers. And it may be that all this was significant of the
permanence of the repose of those who sojourn like strangers in this
present world, and are buried with Christ by baptism. For the Lord also
declared to Jeremiah, that the said purchase of the field was expressive of
the fact that in that land [of Judaea] there would be a remnant of the
people delivered from their captivity.[1] I judged it proper to give some
sort of sketch[2] of these things, as I was calling attention to the kind
of significance which a really careful and painstaking study should look
for in these testimonies of the prophets, when they are reduced to a unity
and compared with the evangelical narrative. These, then, are the
statements which Matthew has introduced with reference to the traitor
Judas.

CHAP. VIII.--OF THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNTS WHICH THE
EVANGELISTS GIVE OF WHAT TOOK PLACE IN PILATE'S PRESENCE.

32. He next proceeds as follows: "And Jesus stood before the governor: and
the governor asked Him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus saith
unto him, Thou sayest. And when He was accused of the chief priests and
elders, He answered nothing. Then saith Pilate unto Him, Hearest thou not
how many things they witness against thee? And He answered him to never a
word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly. Now at that feast the
governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they
were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release
unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for
envy they had delivered Him. But when he was set down on the judgment-seat,
his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man:
for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the
chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask
Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. But the governor answered and said unto them,
Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? And they said,
Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is
called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified. The governor said to
them, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let
him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that
rather a tumult was made, he took water and washed his hands before the
multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye
to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on
our children. Then released he Barabbas unto them; and when he had scourged
Jesus, he delivered Him to them to be crucified."[3] These are the things
which Matthew has reported to have been done to the Lord by Pilate.

33. Mark also presents an almost entire identity with the above, both in
language and in subject. The words, however, in which Pilate replied to the
people when they asked him to release one prisoner according to the custom
of the feast, are reported by this evangelist as follows: "But Pilate
answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the
Jews?"[4] On the other hand, Matthew gives them thus: "Therefore when they
were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release
unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?" There need be no
difficulty in the circumstance that Matthew says nothing about the people
having requested that one should be released unto them. But it may fairly
be asked, what were the words which Pilate actually uttered, whether these
reported by Matthew, or those recited by Mark. For there seems to be some
difference between these two forms of expression, namely, "Whom will ye
that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?" and,
"Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?" Nevertheless, as
they were in the habit of calling their kings "anointed ones,"[1] and one
might use the one term or the other,[2] it is evident that what Pilate
asked them was whether they would have the King of the Jews, that is, the
Christ, released unto them. And it matters nothing to the real identity in
meaning that Mark, desiring simply to relate what concerned the Lord
Himself, has not mentioned Barabbas here. For, in the report which he gives
of their reply, he indicates with sufficient clearness who the person was
whom they asked to have released unto them. His version is this: "But the
chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto
them." Then he proceeds to add the sentence, "And Pilate answered and said
again unto them, What will ye then that I should do unto him whom ye call
the King of the Jews?" This makes it plain enough now, that in speaking of
the King of the Jews, Mark meant to express the very sense which Matthew
intended to convey by using the term "Christ." For kings were not called
"anointed ones"[1] except among the Jews; and the form which Matthew gives
to the words in question is this, "Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do
then with Jesus which is called Christ?" So Mark continues, "And they cried
out again, Crucify him:" which appears thus in Matthew, "They all say unto
him, Let him be crucified." Again Mark goes on, "Then Pilate said unto them
Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly,
Crucify him." Matthew has not recorded this passage; but he has introduced
the statement, "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that
rather a tumult was made," and has also informed us how he washed his hands
before the people with the view of declaring himself innocent of the blood
of that just person (a circumstance not reported by Mark and the others).
And thus he has also shown us with all due plainness how the governor dealt
with the people with the intention of securing His release. This has been
briefly referred to by Mark, when he tells us that Pilate said, "Why, what
evil hath he done?" And thereupon Mark also concludes his account of what
took place between Pilate and the Lord in these terms: "And so Pilate,
willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered
Jesus, when he had scourged Him, to be crucified." The above is Mark's
recital of what occurred in presence of the governor.[3]

34. Luke gives the following version of what took place in presence of
Pilate: "And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found this fellow
perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying
that he himself is Christ a king."[4] The previous two evangelists have not
recorded these words, although they do mention the fact that these parties
accused Him. Luke is thus the one who has specified the terms of the false
accusations which were brought against Him. On the other hand, he does not
state that Pilate said to Him, "Answerest thou nothing? behold, how many
things they witness against thee." Instead of introducing these sentences,
Luke goes on to relate other matters which are also reported by these two.
Thus he continues: "And Pilate asked Him, saying, Art thou the King of the
Jews? And He answered him and said, Thou sayest." Matthew and Mark have
likewise inserted this fact, previous to the statement that Jesus was taken
to task for not answering His accusers. The truth, however, is not at all
affected by the order in which Luke has narrated these things; and as
little is it affected by the mere circumstance that one writer passes over
some incident without notice, which another expressly specifies. We have an
instance in what follows; namely, "Then said Pilate to the chief priests
and to the people, I find no fault in this man. And they were the more
fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry,
beginning from Galilee to this place. But when Pilate heard of Galilee, he
asked whether the man were a Galilean. And as soon as he knew that He
belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who himself also
was at Jerusalem at that time. And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding
glad; for he was desirous to see Him of a long season, because he had heard
many things of Him, and he hoped to see some miracle done by Him. Then he
questioned with Him in many words; but He answered him nothing. And the
chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him. And Herod with
his men of war set Him at nought, and mocked Him, and arrayed Him in a
gorgeous robe, and sent Him again to Pilate. And the same day Herod and
Pilate were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between
themselves."[5] All these things are related by Luke alone, namely, the
fact that the Lord was sent by Pilate to Herod, and the account of what
took place on that occasion. At the same time, among the statements which
he makes in this passage, there are some bearing a resemblance to matters
which may be found reported by the other evangelists in connection with
different portions of their narrations. But the immediate object of these
others, however, was to recount simply the various things which were done
in Pilate's presence on to the time when the Lord was delivered over to be
crucified.

In accordance with his own plan, however, Luke makes the above digression
with the view of telling what occurred with Herod; and after that he
reverts to the history of what took place in the governor's presence. Thus
he now continues as follows: "And Pilate, when he had called together the
chief priests and the rulers and the people, said unto them, Ye have
brought this man unto me as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I
having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching
those things whereof ye accuse him."[1] Here we notice that he has omitted
to mention how Pilate asked the Lord what answer He had to make to His
accusers. Thereafter he proceeds in these terms: "No, nor yet Herod: for I
sent you to him: and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will
therefore chastise him and release him. For of necessity he must release
one unto them at the feast. And they cried out all at once, saying, Away
with this man, and release unto us Barabbas; who for a certain sedition
made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison. Pilate, therefore,
willing to release Jesus, spake again to them. But they cried, saying,
Crucify him, crucify him. And he said unto them the third time, Why, what
evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore
chastise him and let him go. And they were instant with loud voices,
requiring that He might be crucified; and the voices of them[2]
prevailed."[3] The repeated effort which Pilate, in his desire to
accomplish the release of Jesus, thus made to gain the people's consent, is
satisfactorily attested by Matthew, although in a very few words, when he
says, "But when Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a
tumult was made." For he would not have made such a statement at all, had
not Pilate exerted himself earnestly in that direction, although at the
same time he has not told us how often he made such attempts to rescue
Jesus from their fury. Accordingly, Luke concludes his report of what took
place in the governor's presence in this fashion: "And Pilate gave sentence
that it should be as they required. And he released unto them him that for
sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they desired; but he
delivered Jesus to their will."[4]

35. Let us next take the account of these same incidents--that is to say,
those in which Pilate was engaged--as it is presented by John. He proceeds
thus: "And they themselves went not into the judgment-hall, lest they
should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. Pilate then went
out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They
answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have
delivered him up unto thee."[5] We must look into this passage in order to
show that it contains nothing inconsistent with Luke's version, which
states that certain charges were brought against Him, and also specifies
their terms. For Luke's words are these: "And they began to accuse Him,
saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give
tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a king." On the other
hand, according to the paragraph which I have now cited from John, the Jews
seem to have been unwilling to state any specific accusations, when Pilate
asked them, "What accusation bring ye against this man?" For their reply
was, "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto
thee;" the purport of which was, that he should accept their authority,
cease to inquire what fault was alleged against Him, and believe Him guilty
for the simple reason that He had been [reckoned] worthy of being delivered
up by them to him. This being the case, then, we ought to suppose that both
these versions report words which were actually said, both the one before
us at present, and the one given by Luke. For among the multitude of
sayings and replies which passed between the parties, these writers have
made their own selections as far as their judgment allowed them to go, and
each of them has introduced into his narrative just what he considered
sufficient. It is also true that John himself mentions certain charges
which were alleged against Him, and which we shall find in their proper
connections. Here, then, he proceeds thus: "Then said Pilate unto them,
Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews, therefore, said
unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; that the saying
of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spake, signifying what death He
should die. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again, and called
Jesus, and said unto Him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus
answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of
me?"[6] This again may seem not to harmonize with what is recorded by the
others,-- namely, "Jesus answered, Thou sayest,"--unless it is made clear
in what follows that the one thing was said as well as the other. Hence he
gives us to understand that the matters which he records next are [not to
be regarded as] things never actually uttered by the Lord, but are rather
to be considered things which have been passed over in silence by the other
evangelists. Mark, therefore, what remains of his narrative. It proceeds
thus: "Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation, and the chief
priests, have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered,
My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then
would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but
now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto Him, Art thou
a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king."[1] Behold, here
is the point at which he comes to that which the other evangelists have
reported. And then he goes on, the Lord being still the speaker, to recite
other matters which the rest have not recorded. His terms are these: "To
this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I
should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth
my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this,
he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no fault in
him. But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the
passover: will ye, therefore, that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
Then cried they all again, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a
robber. Then Pilate, therefore, took Jesus, and scourged Him. And the
soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on His head, and they put on
Him a purple robe; and they came to Him and said, Hail, King of the Jews!
and they smote Him with their hands. Pilate went forth again, and saith
unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find
no fault in him. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns and the
purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! When the chief
priests therefore and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, Crucify
him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him; for
I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our
law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."[2] This may
fit in with what Luke reports to have been stated in the accusation brought
by the Jews,--namely, "We found this fellow perverting our nation,"--so
that we might append here the reason given for it, "Because he made himself
the Son of God." John then goes on in the following strain: "When Pilate,
therefore, heard that saying, he was the more afraid, and went again into
the judgment-hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave
him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto Him, Speakest thou not unto me?
knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to
release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against
me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me
unto thee hath the greater sin. From thenceforth Pilate sought to release
Him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not
Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against
Caesar."[3] This may very well agree with what Luke records in connection
with the said accusation brought by the Jews. For after the words, "We
found this fellow perverting our nation," he has added the clause, "And
forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ
a king." This will also offer a solution for the difficulty previously
referred to, namely, the occasion which might seem to be given for
supposing John to have indicated that no specific charge was laid by the
Jews against the Lord, when they answered and said unto him, "If he were
not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee." John then
continues in the following strain: "When Pilate therefore heard that
saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment-seat, in a
place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was
the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith
unto the Jews, Behold your King? But they cried out, Away with him, crucify
him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests
answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he Him therefore unto
them to be crucified."[4] The above is John's version of what was done by
Pilate.[5]

CHAP. IX.--OF THE MOCKERY WHICH HE SUSTAINED AT THE HANDS OF PILATE'S
COHORT, AND OF THE HARMONY SUBSISTING AMONG THE THREE EVANGELISTS WHO
REPORT THAT SCENE, NAMELY, MATTHEW, MARK, AND JOHN.

36. We have now reached the point at which we may study the Lord's
passion, strictly so called, as it is presented in the narrative of these
four evangelists. Matthew commences his account as follows: "Then the
soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto
Him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped Him, and put on Him a
scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon
His head, and a reed in His right hand: and they bowed the knee before Him,
and mocked Him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!"[6] At the same stage in
the narrative, Mark delivers himself thus: "And the soldiers led Him away
into the hall called Praetorium; and they called together the whole band.
And they clothed Him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it
on His head, and began to salute Him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And
they smote Him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon Him, and, bowing
their knees, worshipped Him."[1] Here, therefore, we perceive that while
Matthew tells us how they "put on Him a scarlet robe," Mark speaks of
purple, with which He was clothed. The explanation may be that the said
scarlet robe was employed instead of the royal purple by these scoffers.
There is also a certain red-coloured purple which resembles scarlet very
closely. And it may also be the case that Mark has noticed the purple which
the robe contained, although it was properly scarlet. Luke has left this
without mention. On the other hand, previous to stating how Pilate
delivered Him up to be crucified, John has introduced the following
passage: "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged Him. And the
soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on His head, and they put on
Him a purple robe, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote Him
with their hands."[2] This makes it evident that Matthew and Mark have
reported this incident in the way of a recapitulation, and that it did not
actually take place after Pilate had delivered Him up to be crucified. For
John informs us distinctly enough that these things took place when He yet
was with Pilate. Hence we conclude that the other evangelists have
introduced the occurrence at that particular point, just because, having
previously passed it by, they recollected it there. This is also borne out
by what Matthew proceeds next to relate. He continues thus: "And they spit
upon Him, and took the reed, and smote Him on the head. And after that they
had mocked Him, they took the robe off from Him, and put His own raiment on
Him, and led Him away to crucify Him."[3] Here we are given to understand
that the taking the robe off Him and the clothing Him with His own raiment
were done at the close, when He was being led away. This is given by Mark,
as follows: "And when they had mocked Him. they took off the purple from
Him, and put His own clothes on Him."[4]

CHAP. X.--OF THE METHOD IN WHICH WE CAN RECONCILE THE STATEMENT WHICH IS
MADE BY MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE, TO THE EFFECT THAT ANOTHER PERSON WAS
PRESSED INTO THE SERVICE OF CARRYING THE CROSS OF JESUS, WITH THAT GIVEN BY
JOHN, WHO SAYS THAT JESUS BORE IT HIMSELF.

37. Matthew, accordingly, goes on with his narrative in these terms: "And
as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they
compelled to bear His cross."[5] In like manner, Mark says: "And they led
Him out to be crucified. And they compelled one Simon, a Cyrenian, who
passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to
bear His cross."[6] Luke's version is also to this effect: "And as they led
Him away, they laid hold upon one Simon a Cyrenian, coming out of the
country; and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after
Jesus."[7] On the other hand, John records the matter as follows: "And they
took Jesus, and led Him away. And He bearing His cross went forth into a
place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew, Golgotha;
where they crucified Him."[8] From all this we understand that Jesus was
carrying the cross Himself as He went forth into the place mentioned. But
on the way the said Simon, who is named by the other three evangelists, was
pressed into the service, and got the cross to carry for the rest of the
course until the spot was reached. Thus we find that both circumstances
really took place; namely, first the one noticed by John, and thereafter
the one instanced by the other three.

CHAP. XI.--OF THE CONSISTENCY OF MATTHEW'S VERSION WITH THAT OF MARK IN THE
ACCOUNT OF THE POTION OFFERED HIM TO DRINK, WHICH IS INTRODUCED BEFORE THE
NARRATIVE OF HIS CRUCIFIXION.

38. Matthew then proceeds in these terms: "And they came unto a place
called Golgotha; that is to say, a place of a skull."[9] So far as the
place is concerned, they are most unmistakeably at one. The same Matthew
next adds, "and they gave Him wine[10] to drink, mingled with gall; and
when He had tasted thereof, He would not drink."[11] This is given by Mark
as follows: "And they gave Him to drink wine mingled with myrrh; and He
received it not."[12] Here we may understand Matthew to have conveyed the
same sense as Mark, when he speaks of the wine being "mingled with gall."
For the gall is mentioned with a view to express the bitterness of the
potion. And wine mingled with myrrh is remarkable for its bitterness. The
fact may also be that gall and myrrh together made the wine exceedingly
bitter. Again, when Mark says that "He received it not," we understand the
phrase to denote that He did not receive it so as actually to drink it. He
did taste it, however, as Matthew certifies. Thus Mark's words, "He
received it not," convey the same meaning as Matthew's version, "He would
not drink." The former, however, has said nothing about His tasting the
potion.

CHAP. XII.--OF THE CONCORD PRESERVED AMONG ALL THE FOUR EVANGELISTS ON THE
SUBJECT OF THE PARTING OF HIS RAIMENT.

39. Matthew goes on thus: "And after they crucified Him, they parted His
garments, casting lots: and sitting down, they watched Him."[1] Mark
reports the same incident, as follows: "And crucifying Him, they parted His
garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take."[2] In like
manner Luke says: "And they parted His raiment, and cast lots. And the
people stood beholding."[3] The occurrence is thus recorded briefly by the
first three. But John gives us a more detailed narrative of the method in
which the act was gone about. His version runs thus: "Then the soldiers,
when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made four parts, to
every soldier a part; and also His coat: now the coat was without seam,
woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us
not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the Scripture
might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments, and for my
vesture they did cast lots."[4]

CHAP. XIII.--OF THE HOUR OF THE LORD'S PASSION, AND OF THE QUESTION
CONCERNING THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN MARK AND JOHN IN THE
ARTICLE OF THE "THIRD" HOUR AND THE "SIXTH."

40. Matthew continues thus: "And they set up over His head His accusation
written, 'This is Jesus the King of the Jews.'"[5] Mark, on the other hand,
before making any such statement, inserts these words: "And it was the
third hour, and they crucified Him."[6] For he subjoins these terms
immediately after he has told us about the parting of the garments. This,
then, is a matter which we must consider with special care, lest any
serious error emerge. For there are some who entertain the idea that the
Lord was certainly crucified at the third hour; and that thereafter, from
the sixth hour on to the ninth, the darkness covered the land. According to
this theory, we should have to understand three hours to have passed
between the time when He was crucified and the time when the darkness
occurred. And this view might certainly be held with all due warrant, were
it not that John has stated that it was about the sixth hour when Pilate
sat down on the judgment-seat, in a place that is called the Pavement, but
in Hebrew, Gabbatha. For his version goes on in this manner: "And as it was
the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith
unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away
with him! crucify him! Pilate said unto them, Shall I crucify your king?
The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he
Him therefore unto them to be crucified."[7] If Jesus, therefore, was
delivered up to the Jews to be crucified when it was about the sixth hour,
and when Pilate was then sitting upon the judgment-seat, how could He have
been crucified at the third hour, as some have been led to suppose, in
consequence of a misinterpretation of the words of Mark?

41. First, then, let us consider what the hour really is at which He can
have been crucified; and then we shall see how it happens that Mark has
reported Him to have been crucified at the third hour. Now it was about the
sixth hour when Pilate, who was sitting, as has been stated, at the time
upon the judgment-seat, delivered Him up to be crucified. The expression is
not that it was the sixth hour fully, but only that it was about the sixth
hour; that is to say, the fifth hour was entirely gone, and so much of the
sixth hour had also been entered upon. These writers, however, could not
naturally use such phraseologies as the fifth hour and a quarter, or the
fifth hour and a third, or the fifth hour and a hall or anything of that
kind. For the Scriptures have the well-known habit of dealing simply with
the round numbers, without mention of fractions, especially in matters of
time. We have an example of this in the case of the "eight days," after
which, as they tell us, He went up into a mountain,[8]--a space which is
given by Matthew and Mark as "six days after,"[9] because they look simply
at the days between the one from which the reckoning commences and the one
with which it closes. This is particularly to be kept in view when we
notice how measured the terms are which John employs here. For he says not
"the sixth hour," but "about the sixth hour." And yet, even had he not
expressed himself in that way, but had stated merely that it was the sixth
hour, it would still be competent for us to interpret the phrase in
accordance with the method of speech with which we are, as I said, familiar
in Scripture, namely, the use of the round numbers. And thus we could still
take the sense quite fairly to be that, on the completion of the fifth hour
and the commencement of the sixth, those matters were going on which are
recorded in connection with the Lord's crucifixion, until, on the close of
the sixth hour, and when He was hanging on the cross, the darkness occurred
which is attested by three of the evangelists, namely, Matthew, Mark, and
Luke.[1]

42. In due order, let us now inquire how it is that Mark, after telling us
that they parted His garments when they were crucifying Him, casting lots
upon them what every man should take, has appended this statement, "And it
was the third hour, and they crucified Him."[2] Now here he had already
made the declaration, "And crucifying Him, they parted His garments;" and
the other evangelists also certify that, when He was crucified, they parted
His garments. If, therefore, it was Mark's design to specify the time at
which the incident took place, it would have been enough for him to say
simply, "And it was the third hour." What reason, then, can be assigned for
his having added these words, "And they crucified Him," but that, under the
summary statement thus inserted, he intended significantly to suggest
something which might be found a subject for consideration, when the
Scripture in question was read in times in which the whole Church knew
perfectly well what hour it was at which the Lord was hanged upon the tree,
and the means were possessed for either correcting the writer's error or
confuting his want of truth? But, inasmuch as he was quite aware of the
fact that the Lord was suspended Ion the cross] by the soldiers, and not by
the Jews, as John most plainly affirms,[3] his hidden object [in bringing
in the said clause] was to convey the idea that those parties who cried out
that He should be crucified were the Lord's real crucifiers, rather than
the men who simply discharged their service to their chief in accordance
with their duty. We understand, accordingly, that it was the third hour
when the Jews cried out that the Lord should be crucified. And thus it is
intimated most truly that these persons did really crucify Christ at the
time when they cried out. All the more, too, did this merit notice, because
they were unwilling to have the appearance of having done the deed
themselves, and with that view delivered Him up unto Pilate, as their words
indicate clearly enough in the report given by John. For, after stating how
Pilate said to them, "What accusation bring ye against this man?" his
version proceeds thus: "They answered and said unto him, If he were not a
malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate
unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews
therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to
death."[4] Consequently, what they were especially unwilling to have the
appearance of doing, that Mark here shows that they actually did do at the
third hour. For he judged most truly that the Lord's murderer was rather
the tongue of the Jews than the hand of the soldiers.

43. Moreover, if any one alleges that it was not the third hour when the
Jews cried out for the first time in the terms referred to, he simply
displays himself most insanely to be an enemy to the Gospel; unless
perchance he can prove himself able to produce some new solution of the
problem. For he cannot possibly establish the position that it was not the
third hour at the period alluded to. And, consequently, we surely ought
rather to credit a veracious evangelist than the contentious suspicions of
men. But you may ask, How can you prove that it was the third hour? I
answer, Because I believe the evangelists; and if you also believe them,
show me how the Lord can have been crucified both at the sixth hour and at
the third. For, to make a frank acknowledgment, we cannot get over the
statement of the sixth hour in John's narrative; and Mark records the third
hour: and, therefore, if both of us accept the testimony of these writers,
show me any other way in which both these notes of time can be taken as
literally correct. If you can do so, I shall most cheerfully acquiesce. For
what I prize is not my own opinion, but the truth of the Gospel. And I
could wish, indeed, that more methods of clearing up this problem might be
discovered by others. Until that be done, however, join me, if it please
you, in taking advantage of the solution which I have propounded. For if no
explanation can be found, this one will suffice of itself. But if another
can be devised, when it is unfolded, we shall make our choice. Only don't
consider it an inevitable conclusion that any one of all the four
evangelists has stated what is false, or has fallen into error in a
position of authority at once so elevated and so holy.

44. Again, if any one affirms his ability to prove it not to have been the
third hour when the Jews cried out in the terms in question, because, after
Mark's statement to this effect, "And Pilate answered, and said again unto
them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of
the Jews? And they cried out again, Crucify him," we find no further
details introduced into the narrative of the same evangelist, but are led
on at once to the statement, that the Lord was delivered up by Pilate to be
crucified--an act which John mentions to have taken place about the sixth
hour;--I repeat, if any one adduces such an argument, let him understand
that many things have been passed by without record here, which occurred in
the interval when Pilate was engaged in looking out for some means by which
he could rescue Jesus from the Jews, and was exerting himself most
strenuously by every means in his power to withstand their maddened
desires. For Matthew says, "Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do, then,
with Jesus, which is called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified."
Then we affirm it to have been the third hour. And when the same Matthew
goes on to add the sentence, "But when Pilate saw that he could prevail
nothing, but that rather a tumult was made," we understand that a period of
two hours had passed, during the attempts made by Pilate to effect the
release of Jesus, and the tumults raised by the Jews in their efforts to
defeat him, and that the sixth hour had then commenced, previous to the
close of which those things took place which are related as happening
between the time when Pilate delivered up the Lord and the oncoming of the
darkness. Once more, as regards what Matthew records above,--namely, "And
when he was set down on the judgment-seat, his wife sent unto him, saying,
Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things
this day in a dream because of him,"[1]--we remark, that Pilate really took
his seat upon the tribunal at a later point, but that, among the earlier
incidents which Matthew was recounting, the account given of Pilate's wife
came into his mind, and he decided on inserting it in this particular
connection, with the view of preparing us for understanding how Pilate had
an especially urgent reason for wishing, even on to the last, not to
deliver Him up to the Jews.

45. Luke, again, after mentioning how Pilate said, "I will therefore
chastise him and let him go," tells us that the whole multitude then cried
out, "Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas."[2] But perhaps
they had not yet exclaimed, "Crucify him!" For Luke next proceeds thus:
"Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake gain to them. But they
cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him!"[3] This is understood to have
been at the third hour. Luke then continues in these terms: "And he said
unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no
cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him and let him go. And
they were instant With loud voices requiring that He might be crucified.
And the voices of them prevailed."[4] Here, then, this evangelist also
makes it quite evident that there was a great tumult. With sufficient
accuracy for the purposes of my inquiry into the truth, we can further
gather how long the interval was after which he spoke to them in these
terms, "Why, what evil hath he done?" And when he adds thereafter, "They
were instant with loud voices, requiring that He might be crucified, and
the voices of them prevailed," who can fail to perceive that this clamour
was made just because they saw that Pilate was unwilling to deliver the
Lord up to them? And, inasmuch as he was exceedingly reluctant to give Him
up, he did not certainly yield at present in a moment, but in reality two
hours and something more were passed by him in that state of hesitancy.

46. Interrogate John in like manner, and see how strong this hesitancy was
on Pilate's part, and how he shrank from so shameful a service. For this
evangelist records these incidents much more fully, although even he
certainly does not mention all the occurrences which took up these two
hours and part of the sixth hour. After telling us how Pilate scourged
Jesus, and allowed the robe to be put on Him in derision by the soldiers,
and suffered Him to be subjected to ill-treatment and many acts of mockery
(all of which was permitted by Pilate, as I believe, really with the view
of mitigating their fury and keeping them from persevering in their
maddened desire for His death), John continues his account in the following
manner: "Pilate went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him
forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus
forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith
unto them, Behold the man!"[5] The object of this was, that they might gaze
upon that spectacle of ignominy and be appeased. But the evangelist
proceeds again: "When the chief priests therefore and officers saw Him,
they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him!"[6] It was then the third
hour, as we maintain. Mark also what follows: "Pilate saith unto them, Take
ye him, and crucify him; for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him,
We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the
Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more
afraid; and went again into the judgment-hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence
art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto Him,
Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify
thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no
power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he
that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. From thenceforth Pilate
sought to release Him."[7] Now, when it is said here that "Pilate sought to
release Him," how long a space of time may we suppose to have been spent in
that effort, and how many things may have beer omitted here among the
sayings which were uttered by Pilate, or the contradictions which were
raised by the Jews, until these Jews gave expression to the words which
moved him, and made him yield? For the writer goes on thus: "But the Jews
cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend:
whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate
therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the
judgment-seat, in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew,
Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, about the sixth
hour."[1] Thus, then, between that exclamation of the Jews when they first
cried out, "Crucify him," at which period it was the third hour, and this
moment when he sat down on the judgment-seat, two hours had passed, which
had been taken up with Pilate's attempts to delay matters and the tumults
raised by the Jews; and by this time the fifth hour was quite spent, and so
much of the sixth hour had been entered. Then the narrative goes on thus:
"He saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with
him, away with him! crucify him!"[2] But not even now was Pilate so
overcome by the apprehension of their bringing a charge against himself as
to be very ready to yield. For his wife had sent to him when he was sitting
at this time upon the judgment-seat,--an incident which Matthew, who is the
only one that records it, has given by anticipation, introducing it before
he comes to its proper place (according to the order of time) in his
narrative, and bringing it in at another point which he judged opportune.
In this way, Pilate, still continuing his efforts to prevent further
advances, said then to them, "Shall I crucify your king?" Thereupon "the
chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he Him
therefore unto them to be crucified."[3] And in the time that passed when
He was on the way, and when He was crucified along with the two robbers,
and when His garments were parted and the possession of His coat was
decided by lot, and the various deeds of contumely were done to Him (for,
while these different things were going on, gibes were also cast at Him),
the sixth hour was fully spent, and the darkness came on, which is
mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke.[4]

47. Let such impious pertinacity therefore perish, and let it be believed
that the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified at once at the third hour by the
voice of the Jews, and at the sixth by the hands of the soldiers. For
during these tumults on the part of the Jews, and these agitations on the
side of Pilate, upwards of two hours elapsed from the time when they burst
out with the cry, "Crucify Him." But again, even Mark, who studies brevity
above all the other evangelists, has been pleased to give a concise
indication of Pilate's desire and of his efforts to save the Lord's life.
For, after giving us this statement, "And they cried again, Crucify him"
(in which he gives us to understand that they had cried out before this,
when they asked that Barabbas might be released to them), he has appended
these words: "Then Pilate continued to say unto them, Why, what evil hath
he done?"[5] Thus by one short sentence he has given us an idea of matters
which took a long time for their transaction. At the same time, however,
keeping in view the correct apprehension of his meaning, he does not say,
"Then Pilate said unto them," but expresses himself thus: "Then Pilate
continued to say unto them, Why, what evil hath he done?" For, if his
phrase had been "said,"[6] we might have understood him to mean that such
words were uttered only once. But, by adopting the terms, "continued to
say,"[7] he has made it clear enough to the intelligent that Pilate spoke
repeatedly, and in a number of ways. Let us therefore consider how briefly
Mark has expressed this as compared with Matthew, how briefly Matthew as
compared with Luke, how briefly Luke as compared with John, while at the
same time each of these writers has introduced now one thing and now
another peculiar to himself. In fine, let us also consider how brief is
even the narrative given by John himself, as compared with the number of
things which took place, and the space of time occupied by their
occurrence. And let us give up the madness of opposition, and believe that
two hours, and something more, may quite well have passed in the interval
referred to.

48. If any one, however, asserts that if this was the real state of the
case, Mark might have mentioned the third hour explicitly at the point at
which it really was the third hour, namely, when the voices of the Jews
were lifted up demanding that the Lord should be crucified; and, further,
that he might have told us plainly there that those vociferators did really
crucify Him at that time,--such a reasoner is simply imposing laws upon the
historians of truth in his own overweening pride. For he might as well
maintain that if he were himself to be a narrator of these occurrences,
they ought all to be recorded just in the same way and the same order by
all other writers as they have been recorded by himself. Let him therefore
be content to reckon his own notion inferior to that of Mark the
evangelist, who has judged it right to insert the statement just at the
point at which it was suggested to him by divine inspiration. For the
recollections of those historians have been ruled by the hand of Him who
rules the waters, as it is written, according to His own good pleasure. For
the human memory moves[1] through a variety of thoughts, and it is not in
any man's power to regulate either the subject which comes into his mind or
the time of its suggestion. Seeing, then, that those holy and truthful men,
in this matter of the order of their narrations, committed the casualties
of their recollections (if such a phrase may be used) to the direction of
the hidden power of God, to whom nothing is casual, it does not become any
mere man, in his low estate, removed far from the vision of God, and
sojourning distantly from Him, to say, "This ought to have been introduced
here;" for he is utterly ignorant of the reason which led God to will its
being inserted in the place it occupies. The word of an apostle is to this
effect: "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost."[2] And
again he says: "To the one indeed we are the savour of life unto life; to
the other, the savour of death unto death;" and adds immediately, "And who
is sufficient for these things?"[3]--that is to say, who is sufficient to
comprehend how righteously that is done? The Lord Himself expresses the
same when He says, "I am come that they which see not might see, and that
they which see might be made blind."[4] For it is in the depth of the
riches of the knowledge and wisdom of God that it comes to pass that of the
same lump one vessel is made unto honour, and another unto dishonour.[5]
And to flesh and blood it is said, "O man, who art thou that repliest
against God?"[6] Who, then, knows the mind of the Lord in the matter now
under consideration? or who hath been His counsellor,[7] where He has in
such wise ruled the hearts of these evangelists in their recollections, and
has raised them to so commanding a position of authority in the sublime
edifice of His Church, that those very things which are capable of
presenting the appearance of contradictions in them become the means by
which many are made blind, deservedly given over to the lusts of their own
heart, and to a reprobate mind;[8] and by which also many are exercised in
the thorough cultivation of a pious understanding, in accordance with the
hidden righteousness of the Almighty? For the language of a prophet in
speaking to the Lord is this: "Thy thoughts are exceeding deep. An
inconsiderate man will not know, and a foolish man will not understand
these things."[9]

49. Moreover, I request and admonish those who read the statement which,
with the help of the Lord, has thus been elaborated by us, to bear in mind
this discourse, which I have thought it needful to introduce in the present
connection, in every similar difficulty which may be raised in such
inquiries, so that there may be no necessity for repeating the same thing
over and over again. Besides, any one who is willing to clear himself of
the hardness of impiety, and to give his attention to the subject, will
easily perceive how opportune the place is in which Mark has inserted this
notice of the third hour, so that every one may there be led to bethink
himself of an hour at which the Jews really crucified the Lord, although
they sought to transfer the burden of the crime to the Romans, whether to
the leaders among them or to the soldiers,[as we see] when we come here
upon the record of what was done by the soldiers in the discharge of their
duty. For this writer says here, "And crucifying Him, they parted His
garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take."[10] And to
whom can this refer but to the soldiers, as is made manifest in John's
narrative? Thus, lest any one should leave the Jews out of account, and
make the conception of so great a crime lie against those soldiers, Mark
gives us here the statement, "And it was the third hour, and they crucified
Him,"--his object being to have those Jews rather discovered to be the real
crucifiers, who will be found by the careful investigator in a position
making it quite possible for them to have cried out for the Lord's
crucifixion at the third hour, while he observes that what was done by the
soldiers took place at the sixth hour."

50. At the same time, however, there are not wanting persons who would
have the time of the preparation--which is referred to by John, when he
says, "And it was the preparation of the passover, about the sixth hour"--
understood under this third hour of the day, which was also the period at
which Pilate sat down upon the judgment-seat. In this way the completion of
the said third hour would appear to be the time when He was crucified, and
when He was now hanging on the tree. Other three hours must then be
supposed to have passed, at the end of which He gave up the ghost.
According to this idea, too, the darkness would have commenced with the
hour at which He died-- that is to say, the sixth hour of the day--and have
lasted until the ninth. For these persons affirm that the preparation of
the passover of the Jews was indeed on the day which was followed by the
day of the Sabbath, because the days of unleavened bread began with the
said Sabbath; but that, nevertheless, the true passover, which was being
realized in the Lord's passion, the passover not of the Jews, but of the
Christians, began to be prepared--that is, to have its parasceue--from the
ninth hour of the night onwards, inasmuch as the Lord was then being
prepared for being put to death by the Jews. For the term parasceue means
by interpretation "preparation." Between the said ninth hour of the night,
therefore, and His crucifixion, the period occurs which is called by John
the sixth hour of the parasceue, and by Mark the third hour of the day; so
that, according to this view, Mark has not introduced by way of
recapitulation into his record the hour at which the Jews cried out,
"Crucify him, crucify him," but has expressly mentioned the third hour as
the hour at which the Lord was nailed to the tree. What believer would not
receive this solution of the problem with favour, were it only possible to
find some point [in the narrative of incidents] in connection with the said
ninth hour, at which we could suppose, in due consistency with other
circumstances, the parasceue of our passover--that is to say, the
preparation of the death of Christ--to have commenced. For, if we say that
it began at the time when the Lord was apprehended by the Jews, it was
still but the first parts of the night. If we hold that it was at the time
when He was conducted to the house of Caiaphas' father-in- law, where He
was also heard by the chief priests, the cock had not crowed at all as yet,
as we gather from Peter's denial, which took place only when the cock was
heard. Again, if we suppose it was at the time when He was delivered up to
Pilate, we have in the plainest terms the statement of Scripture, to the
effect that by this time it was morning. Consequently, it only remains for
us to understand that this parasceue of the passover--that is to say, the
preparation for the death of the Lord--commenced at the period when all the
chief priests, in whose presence He was first heard, answered and said, "He
is guilty of death," an utterance which we find reported both by Matthew
add by Mark;[1] so that they are taken to have introduced, in the form of a
recapitulation, at a later stage, facts relating to the denial of Peter,
which in point of historical order had taken place at an earlier point. And
it is nothing unreasonable to conjecture, that the time at which, as I have
said, they pronounced Him guilty of death, may very well have been the
ninth hour of the night, between which time and the hour at which Pilate
sat down on the judgment-seat there came in this sixth hour, as it is
called--not, however, the sixth hour of the day, but that of the parasceue-
-that is to say, the preparation for the sacrifice of the Lord, which is
the true passover. And, on this theory, the Lord was suspended on the tree
when the sixth hour of the same parasceue was completed, which occurred at
the completion of the third hour of the day.[2] We may make our choice,
therefore, between this view and the other, which supposes Mark to have
introduced the third hour by way of reminiscence, and to have had it
especially in view, in mentioning the hour there, to suggest the fact of
the condemnation brought upon the Jews in the matter of the Lord's
crucifixion, in so far as they are understood to have been in a position to
raise the clamour for His crucifixion to such an effect that we may hold
them to have been the persons who actually crucified Him, rather than the
men by whose hands He was suspended on the tree; just as the centurion,
already referred to, approached the Lord in a more genuine sense than could
be said of those friends whom He sent [on the matter-of-fact mission].[3]
But whichever of these two views we adopt, unquestionably a solution is
found for this problem on the subject of the hour of the Lord's passion,
which is most remarkably apt at once to excite the impudence of the
contentious and I to agitate the inexperience of the weak.

CHAP. XIV.--OF THE HARMONY PRESERVED AMONG ALL THE EVANGELISTS ON THE
SUBJECT OF THE TWO ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED ALONG WITH HIM.

51. Matthew continues his narrative in the following terms: "Then were
there two robbers crucified with Him, one on the right hand, and another on
the left."[4] Mark and Luke give it also in a similar form.[5] Neither does
John raise any question of difficulty, although he has made no mention of
those robbers. For he says, "And two other with Him, on either side one,
and Jesus in the midst."[6] But there would have been a contradiction if
John had spoken of these others as innocent, while the former evangelists
called them robbers.

CHAP. XV.--OF THE CONSISTENCY OF THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY MATTHEW, MARK, AND
LUKE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PARTIES WHO INSULTED THE LORD.

52. Matthew goes on in the following strain: "And they that passed by
reviled Him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the
temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou be the Son of
God, come down from the cross."[1] Mark's statement agrees with this almost
to the letter. Then Matthew continues thus: "Likewise also the chief
priests, mocking Him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others;
himself he cannot save: if he be the King of Israel, let him now come down
from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver
him now, if He will: for he said, I am the Son of God."[2] Mark and Luke,
although they report the words differently, nevertheless agree in conveying
the same meaning, although the one passes without notice something which
the other mentions.[3] For they are both really at one on the subject of
the chief priests, giving us to understand that they insulted the Lord when
He was crucified. The only difference is, that Mark does not specify the
elders, while Luke, who has instanced the rulers, has not added the
designation "of the priests," and thus has rather comprehended the whole
body of the leading men under the general designation; so that we may
fairly take both the scribes and the elders to be included in his
description.

CHAP. XVI.--OF THE DERISION ASCRIBED TO THE ROBBERS, AND OF THE QUESTION
REGARDING THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN MATTHEW AND MARK ON THE
ONE HAND, AND LUKE ON THE OTHER, WHEN THE LAST-NAMED EVANGELIST STATES THAT
ONE OF THE TWO MOCKED HIM, AND THAT THE OTHER BELIEVED ON HIM.

53. Matthew continues his narrative in these terms: "The robbers also,
which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth."[4] Mark is
quite in harmony with Matthew here, giving the same statement in different
words.[5] On the other hand, Luke may be thought to contradict this, unless
we be careful not to forget a certain mode of speech which is sufficiently
familiar. For Luke's narrative runs thus: "And one of the malefactors which
were hanged railed on Him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and
us."[6] And then the same writer proceeds to introduce into the same
context the following recital: "But the other answering, rebuked him,
saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this
man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when
Thou comest into Thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily, I say unto
thee, To-day thou shall be with me in paradise."[7] The question then is,
how we can reconcile either Matthew's report, "The robbers also, which were
crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth," or Mark's, namely, "And
they that were crucified with Him reviled Him," with Luke's testimony,
which is to the effect that one of them reviled Christ, but that the other
arrested him and believed on the Lord. The explanation will be, that
Matthew and Mark, presenting a concise version of the passage under review,
have employed the plural number instead of the singular; as is the case in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, where we find the statement given in the plural
form, that "they stopped the mouths of lions,"[8] while Daniel alone is
understood to be referred to. Again, the plural number is adopted where it
is said that they "were sawn asunder,"[9] while that manner of death is
reported only of Isaiah. In the same way, when it is said in the Psalm,
"The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers took counsel
together," etc.,[10] the plural number is employed instead of the singular,
according to the exposition given of the passage in the Acts of the
Apostles. For those who have made use of the testimony of the said Psalm in
that book take the kings to refer to Herod, and the princes to Pilate.[11]
But further, inasmuch as the pagans are in the habit of bringing such
slanderous charges against the Gospel, I would ask them to consider how
their own writers have spoken of Phaedras and Medeas and Clytemnestras,
when there really was but a single individual reputed trader each of these
names. And what is more common, for example, than for a person to say, "The
rustics also behave insolently to me," even although it should only be one
that acted rudely? In short, no real discrepancy would be created by the
restriction of Luke's report to one of the two robbers, unless the other
evangelists had declared expressly that "both" the malefactors reviled the
Lord; for in that case it would not be possible for us to suppose only one
individual intended under the plural number. Seeing, however, that the
phrase employed is "the robbers," or "those who were crucified with Him,"
and the term "both" is not added, the expression is one which might have
been used if both these men had been engaged in the thing, but which might
equally well be adopted if one of the two had been implicated in it,--that
fact being then conveyed by the use of the plural number, according to a
familiar method of speech.

CHAP. XVII.--OF THE HARMONY OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS IN THEIR NOTICES OF THE
DRAUGHT OF VINEGAR.

54. Matthew proceeds in the following terms: "Now from the sixth hour
there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour."[1] The same fact
is attested by two others of the evangelists.[2] Luke adds, however, a
statement of the cause of the darkness, namely, that "the sun was
darkened." Again, Matthew continues thus: "And about the ninth hour Jesus
cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani! that is to
say, My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me? And some of them that stood
there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias."[3] Mark's
agreement with this is almost complete, so far as regards the words, and
not only almost, but altogether complete, so far as the sense is concerned.
Matthew next makes this statement: "And straightway one of them ran, and
took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave
Him to drink."[4] Mark presents it in a similar form: "And one ran, and
filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to
drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take Him
down."[5] Matthew, however, has represented these words about Elias to have
been spoken, not by the person who offered the sponge with the vinegar, but
by the rest. For his version runs thus: "But the rest said, Let be; let us
see whether Elias will come to save Him;"[6]--from which, therefore, we
infer that both the man specially referred to and the others who were there
expressed themselves in these terms. Luke, again, has introduced this
notice of the vinegar previous to his report of the robber's insolence. He
gives it thus: "And the soldiers also mocked Him, coming to Him, and
offering Him vinegar, and saying, If thou be the King of the Jews, save
thyself."[7] It has been Luke's purpose to embrace in one statement what
was done and what was said by the soldiers. And we ought to feel no
difficulty in the circumstance that he has not said explicitly that it was
"one" of them who offered the vinegar. For, adopting a method of expression
which we have discussed above,[8] he has simply put the plural number for
the singular.[9] Moreover, John has also given us an account of the
vinegar, where he says: "After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were
now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, I thirst.
Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with
vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to His mouth."[10] But although
the said John thus informs us that Jesus said "I thirst," and also mentions
that there was a vessel full of vinegar there, while the other evangelists
leave these things unspecified, there is nothing to marvel at in this.

CHAP. XVIII.--OF THE LORD'S SUCCESSIVE UTTERANCES WHEN HE WAS ABOUT TO DIE;
AND OF THE QUESTION WHETHER MATTHEW AND MARK ARE IN HARMONY WITH LUKE IN
THEIR REPORTS OF THESE SAYINGS, AND ALSO WHETHER THESE THREE EVANGELISTS
ARE IN HARMONY WITH JOHN.

55. Matthew proceeds as follows: "And Jesus, crying again with a loud
voice, yielded up the ghost."[11] In like manner, Mark says, "And Jesus
cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost."[12] Luke, again, has told
us what He said when that loud voice was uttered. For his version is thus:
"And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into Thy hands I
commend my spirit: and saying this, He gave up the ghost."[13] John, on the
other hand, as he has left unnoticed the first voice, which Matthew and
Mark have reported--namely, "Eli, Eli"--has also passed over in silence the
one which has been recited only by Luke, while the other two have referred
to it under the designation of the "loud voice." I allude to the cry,
"Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit." Luke has also attested the
fact that this exclamation was uttered with a loud voice; and hence we may
understand this particular cry to be identified with the loud voice which
Matthew and Mark have specified. But John has stated a fact which is
noticed by none of the other three, namely, that He said "It is finished,"
after He had received the vinegar. This cry we take to have been uttered
previous to the loud voice referred to. For these are John's words: "When
Jesus, therefore, had received the vinegar, He said, It is finished; and He
bowed His head, and gave up the ghost."[14] In the interval elapsing
between this cry, "It is finished," and what is referred to in the
subsequent sentence, "and He bowed His head and gave up the ghost," the
voice was uttered which John himself has passed over without record, but
which the other three have noticed. For the precise succession appears to
be this, namely, that He said first "It is finished," when what had been
prophesied regarding Him was fulfilled in Him, and that thereafter--as if
He had been waiting for this, like one, indeed, who died when He willed it
to be so--He commended His spirit [to His Father], and resigned it.[1] But,
whatever the order may be in which a person may consider it likely that
these words were spoken, he ought above all things to guard against
entertaining the notion that any one of the evangelists is in antagonism
with another, when one leaves unmentioned something which another has
repeated, or particularizes something which another has passed by in
silence.

CHAP. XIX.--OF THE RENDING OF THE VEIL OF THE TEMPLE, AND OF THE QUESTION
WHETHER MATTHEW AND MARK REALLY HARMONIZE WITH LUKE WITH RESPECT TO THE
ORDER IN WHICH THAT INCIDENT TOOK PLACE.

56. Matthew proceeds thus: "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent
in twain from the top to the bottom."[2] Mark's version is also as follows:
"And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the
bottom."[3] Luke likewise gives a statement in similar terms: "And the veil
of the temple was rent in the midst."[4] He does not introduce it, however,
in the same order. For, with the intention of attaching miracle to miracle,
he has told us first how "the sun was darkened," and then has deemed it
right to subjoin the said sentence in immediate succession, namely, "And
the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Thus it would appear that he
has introduced at an earlier point this incident, which really took place
when the Lord expired, so as to give us there a summary description of the
circumstances relating to the drinking of the vinegar, and the loud voice,
and the death itself, which are understood to have taken place previous to
the rending of the veil, and after the darkness had come in. For Matthew
has inserted this sentence, "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent,"
in immediate succession to the statement, "And Jesus, crying again with a
loud voice, yielded up the ghost;" and has thus given us clearly to
understand that the time when the veil was rent was after Jesus had given
up His spirit. If, however, he had not added the words, "And behold," but
had said simply, "And the veil of the temple was rent," it would have been
uncertain whether Mark and he had narrated the incident in the form of a
recapitulation, while Luke had kept the exact order, or whether Luke had
given the summary account of what these others had introduced in the
correct historical succession.

CHAP. XX.--OF THE QUESTION AS TO THE CONSISTENCY OF THE SEVERAL NOTICES
GIVEN BY MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ASTONISHMENT FELT
BY THE CENTURION AND THOSE WHO WERE WITH HIM.

57. Matthew proceeds thus: "And the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept
arose, and came out of the graves after the resurrection, and went into the
holy city, and appeared unto many."[5] There is no reason to fear that
these facts, which have been related only by Matthew, may appear to be
inconsistent with the narratives presented by any one of the rest. The same
evangelist then continues as follows: "Now when the centurion, and they
that were with him watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things
that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of
God."[6] Mark offers this version: "And when the centurion which stood over
against Him saw that He so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly
this was the Son of God."[7] Luke's report runs thus: "Now when the
centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a
righteous man."[8] Here Matthew says that it was when they saw the
earthquake that the centurion and those who were with him were thus
astonished, whereas Luke represents the man's amazement to have been drawn
forth by the fact that Jesus uttered such a cry, and then gave up the
ghost; thus making it clear how He had it in His own power to determine the
time for His dying. But this involves no discrepancy. For as the said
Matthew not only tells us how the centurion "saw the earthquake," but also
appends the words, "and those things that were done," he has indicated that
there was room enough for Luke to represent the Lord's death as itself the
thing which called forth the centurion's wonder. For that event is also one
of the things which were done in so marvellous a manner then. At the same
time, even although Matthew had not added any such statement, it would
still have been perfectly legitimate to suppose, that as many astonishing
things did take place at that time, and as the centurion and those who were
with him may well have looked upon them all with amazement, the historians
were at liberty to select for narration any particular incident which they
were severally disposed to instance as the subject of the man's wonder. And
it would not be fair to impeach them with inconsistency, simply because one
of them may have specified one occurrence as the immediate cause of the
centurion's amazement, while another introduces a different incident. For
all these events together had really been matters for the man's
astonishment. Again, the mere fact that one evangelist tells us that the
centurion said, "Truly this was the Son of God," while another informs us
that the words were, "Truly this man was the Son of God," will create no
difficulty to any one who has retained some recollection of the numerous
statements and discussions bearing upon similar cases, which have already
been given above. For these different versions of the words both convey
precisely the same sense and although one writer introduces the wore "man"
while another does not, that implies no kind of contradiction. A greater
appearance of discrepancy may be supposed to be created by the
circumstance, that the words which Luke reports the centurion to have
uttered are not "This was the Son of God," but "This was a righteous man."
But we ought to suppose either that both things were actually said by the
centurion, and that two of the evangelists have recorded the one
expression, and the third the other; or else perhaps that it was Luke's
intention to bring out the exact idea which the centurion had in view when
he said that Jesus was the Son of God. For it may be the case that the
centurion did not really understand Him to be the Only- begotten, equal
with the Father; but that he called Him the Son of God simply because he
believed Him to be a righteous man, as many righteous men have been named
sons of God. Moreover, when Luke says, "Now when the centurion saw what was
done," he has really used terms which cover all the marvellous things which
occurred on that occasion, commemorating a single deed of wonder, so to
speak, of which all those miraculous incidents were, as we may say, members
and parts. But, once more, as regards the circumstance that Matthew has
also referred to those who were with the centurion, while the others have
left these parties unnoticed, to whom will this not explain itself on the
well-understood principle that there is no contradiction necessarily
involved in the mere fact that one writer records what another passes by
without mention? And, finally, as to Matthew's having told us that "they
feared greatly," while Luke has said nothing about the man being afraid,
but has informed us that "he glorified God," who can fail to understand
that he glorified [God] just by the fear which he exhibited?

CHAP. XXI.--OF THE WOMEN WHO WERE STANDING THERE, AND OF THE QUESTION
WHETHER MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE, WHO HAVE STATED THAT THEY STOOD AFAR OFF,
ARE IN ANTAGONISM WITH JOHN, WHO HAS MENTIONED THAT ONE OF THEM STOOD BY
THE CROSS.

58. Matthew proceeds thus: "And many women were there beholding afar off,
which followed Jesus from Galilee: among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary
the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's children."[1]
Mark gives it in this form: "There were also women looking on afar off:
among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and of
Joseph, and Salome (who also, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and
ministered unto Him); and many other women which came up with Him unto
Jerusalem."[2] I see nothing which can be supposed to constitute a
discrepancy between these writers here. For in what way can the truth be
affected by the fact that some of these women are named in both lists,
while others are referred to only in the one? Luke has likewise connected
his narrations as follows: "And all the people that came together to that
sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and
returned. And all His acquaintance and the women that followed Him from
Galilee stood afar off beholding these things."[3] Here we perceive that he
is quite in harmony with the former two as far as regards the presence of
the women, although he does not mention any of them by name. On the subject
of the multitude of people who were also present, and who, as they beheld
the things which were done, smote their breasts and returned, he is in like
manner at one with Matthew, although that evangelist has introduced into
the context this distinct statement: "Now the centurion and they that were
with him." Thus it simply appears that Luke is the only one who has spoken
expressly of His "acquaintance" who stood afar off. For John has also
noticed the presence of the women before the Lord gave up the ghost. His
narrative runs thus: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and
His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When
Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by whom He loved,
He saith unto His mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the
disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto
his own home."[4] Now, as regards this statement, had not Matthew and Mark
at the same time mentioned Mary Magdalene most explicitly by name, it might
have been possible for us to say that there was one company of women afar
off, and another near the cross. For none of these writers has mentioned
the Lord's mother here but John himself. The question, therefore, which
rises now is this, How can we understand the same Mary Magdalene both to
have stood afar off along with other women, as the accounts of Matthew and
Mark bear, and to have been by the cross, as John tells us, unless it be
the case that these women were at such a distance as made it quite
legitimate to say at once that they were near, because they were at hand
there in the sight of Him, and also afar off in comparison with the crowd
of people who were standing round about in closer vicinity along with the
centurion and the soldiers? It is open for us, then, to suppose that those
women who were present at the scene along with the Lord's mother, after He
commended her to the disciple, began then to retire with the view of
extricating themselves from the dense mass of people, and of looking on at
what remained to be done from a greater distance. And in this way the rest
of the evangelists, who have introduced their notices of these women only
after the Lord's death, have properly reported them to be standing by that
time afar off.

CHAP. XXII.--OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EVANGELISTS ARE ALL AT ONE ON THE
SUBJECT OF THE NARRATIVE REGARDING JOSEPH, WHO BEGGED THE LORD'S BODY FROM
PILATE, AND WHETHER JOHN'S VERSION CONTAINS ANY STATEMENTS AT VARIANCE WITH
EACH OTHER.

59. Matthew proceeds as follows: "Now when the even was come, there came a
rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
he went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the
body to be delivered."' Mark presents it in this form: "And now when the
even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the
Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, an honourable councillor, which also waited
for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved
the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled if He were already dead: and,
calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether He had been any
while[2] dead. And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to
Joseph."[3] Luke's report runs in these terms: "And, behold, there was a
man named Joseph, a councillor; and he was a good man, and a just (the same
had not consented to the counsel and deed of them): he was of Arimathea, a
city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. This man
went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus."[4] John, on the other
hand, first narrates the breaking of the legs of those who had been
crucified with the Lord, and the piercing of the Lord's side with the lance
(which whole passage has been recorded by him alone), and then subjoins a
statement which is of the same tenor with what is given by the other
evangelists. It proceeds in these terms: "And after this, Joseph of
Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews,
besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave
him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus."[5] There is
nothing here to give any one of them the appearance of being in antagonism
with another. But some one may perhaps ask whether John is not inconsistent
with himself, when he at once unites with the rest in telling us how Joseph
begged the body of Jesus, and comes forward as the only one who states here
that Joseph had been a disciple of Jesus secretly for fear of the Jews. For
the question may reasonably be raised as to how it happened that the man
who had been a disciple secretly for fear had the courage to beg His body--
a thing which not one of those who were His open followers was bold enough
to do. We must understand, however, that this man did so in the confidence
which his dignified position gave him, the possession of which rendered it
possible for him to make his way on familiar terms into Pilate's presence.
And we must suppose, further, that in the performance of that last service
relating to the interment, he cared less for the Jews, however he tried in
ordinary circumstances, when hearing the Lord, to avoid exposing himself to
their enmity.

CHAP. XXIII.--OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FIRST THREE EVANGELISTS ARE QUITE
IN HARMONY WITH JOHN IN THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN OF HIS BURIAL.

60. Matthew proceeds thus: "And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped
it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had
hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the
sepulchre, and departed."[6] Mark's version is as follows: "And he bought
fine linen,[7] and took Him down, and wrapped Him in the linen, and laid
Him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto
the door of the sepulchre."[8] Luke reports it in those terms: "And he took
it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn
in stone, wherein never man before was laid."[9] So far as these three
narratives are concerned, no allegation of a want of harmony can possibly
be raised. John, however, tells us that the burial of the Lord was attended
to not only by Joseph, but also by Nicodemus. For he begins with Nicodemus
in due connection with what precedes, and goes on with his narrative as
follows: "And there came also Nicodemus (which at the first came to Jesus
by night), and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound
weight."[10] Then, introducing Joseph again at this point, he continues in
these terms: "Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen
clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the
place where He was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new
sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus,
therefore, because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh
at hand."[1] But there is really as little ground for supposing any
discrepancy here as there was in the former case, if we take a correct view
of the statement. For those evangelists who have left Nicodemus unnoticed
have not affirmed that the Lord was buried by Joseph alone, although he is
the only one introduced into their records. Neither does the fact, that
these three are all at one in informing us how the Lord was wrapped in the
linen cloth by Joseph, preclude us from entertaining the idea that other
linen stuffs may have been brought by Nicodemus, and added to what was
given by Joseph, so that John may be perfectly correct in his narrative,
especially as what he tells us is that the Lord was wrapped not in a linen
cloth, but in linen clothes.[2] At the same time, when we take into account
the handkerchief which was used for the head, and the bandages with which
the whole body was swathed, and consider that all these were made of linen,
we can see how, even although there was really but a single linen cloth [of
the kind referred to by the first three evangelists] there, it could still
have been stated with the most perfect truth that "they wound Him in linen
clothes." For the phrase, linen clothes, is one applied generally to all
textures made of flax.

CHAP. XXIV.--OF THE ABSENCE OF ALL DISCREPANCIES IN THE NARRATIVES
CONSTRUCTED BY THE FOUR EVANGELISTS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE EVENTS WHICH TOOK
PLACE ABOUT THE TIME OF THE LORD'S RESURRECTION.

61. Matthew proceeds thus: "And there was there Mary Magdalene, and the
other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre."[3] This is given by Mark
as follows: "And Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Joseph, beheld
where He was laid."[4] So far it is evident that there is no kind of
inconsistency between the accounts.

62. Matthew continues in these terms: "Now the next day, that followed the
day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto
Pilate. saying, Sir, we have remembered that deceiver said, while he was
yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the
sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by
night and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the
dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto
them, Ye have a watch; go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they
went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a
watch."[5] This narrative is given only by Matthew. Nothing, however, is
stated by any of the others which can have the appearance of contrariety.

63. Again, the same Matthew carries on his recital as follows: "Now, in
the evening of the Sabbath,[6] when it began to dawn towards the first day
of the week,[7] came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the
sepulchre. And, behold, them was a great earthquake: for the angel of the
Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the
door, and sat upon it. And his countenance was like lightning, and his
raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and
became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear
not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here;
for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay: And go
quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead; and,
behold, He goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I
have told you."[8] Mark is in harmony with this. It is possible, however,
that some difficulty may be felt in the circumstance that, according to
Matthew's version, the stone was already rolled away from the sepulchre,
and the angel was sitting upon it. For Mark tells us that the women entered
into the sepulchre, and there saw a young man sitting on the right side,
covered with a long white garment, and that they were affrighted.[9] But
the explanation may be, that Matthew has simply said nothing about the
angel whom they saw when they entered into the sepulchre, and that Mark has
said nothing about the one whom they saw sitting outside upon the stone. In
this way they would have seen two angels, and have got two separate angelic
reports relating to Jesus,--namely, first one from the angel whom they saw
sitting outside upon the stone, and then another from the angel whom they
saw sitting on the right side when they entered into the sepulchre. Thus,
too, the injunction given them by the angel who was sitting outside, and
which was conveyed in the words, "Come, and see the place where the Lord
lay," would have served to encourage them to go within the tomb; on coming
to which, as has been said, and venturing within it, we may suppose then,
to have seen the angel concerning whom Matthew tells us nothing, but of
whom Mark discourses, sitting on the right side, from whom also they heard
things of like tenor to those they had previously listened to. Or if this
explanation is not satisfactory, we ought certainly to accept the theory
that, as they entered into the sepulchre, they came within a section of the
ground where, it is reasonable to suppose, a certain space had been by that
time securely enclosed, extending a little distance in front of the rock
which had been cut out in order to construct the place of sepulture; so
that, according to this view, what they. really beheld was the one angel
sitting on the right side, in the space thus referred to, which same angel
Matthew also represents to have been sitting upon the stone which he had
rolled away from the mouth of the tomb when the earthquake took place, that
is to say, from the place which had been dug out in the rock for a
sepulchre.

64. It may also be asked how it is that Mark says: "And they went out
quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed:
neither said they anything to any man; for they were afraid;"[1] whereas
Matthew's statement is in these terms: "And they departed quickly from the
sepulchre with fear and great joy, and did run to bring His disciples
word.[2] The explanation, however, may be that the women did not venture to
tell either of the angels themselves,--that is, they had not courage enough
to say anything in reply to what they had heard from the angels. Or,
indeed, it may be that they were not bold enough to speak to the guards
whom they saw lying there; for the joy which Matthew mentions is not
inconsistent with the fear of which Mark takes notice. Indeed, we ought to
have supposed that both feelings had possession of their minds, even
although Matthew himself had said nothing about the fear. But now, when
this evangelist also particularizes it, saying, "They departed quickly from
the sepulchre with fear and great joy," he allows nothing to remain which
can occasion any question of difficulty on this subject.

65. At the same time, a question, which is not to be dealt with lightly,
does arise here with respect to the exact hour at which the women came to
the sepulchre. For when Matthew says, "Now, on the evening of the Sabbath,
when it was dawning toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene,
and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre," what are we to make of Mark's
statement, which runs thus: "And very early in the morning, the first day
of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun"?[3] It
is to be observed that in this Mark states nothing inconsistent with the
reports given by other two of the evangelists, namely, Luke and John. For
when Luke says, "Very early in the morning," and when John puts it thus,
"Early, when it was yet dark," they convey the same sense which Mark is
understood to express when he says, "Very early, at the rising of the sun;"
that is to say, they all refer to the period when the heavens were now
beginning to brighten in the east, which, of course, does not take place
but when the sunrise is at hand. For it is the brightness which is diffused
by the rising sun that is familiarly designated by the name of the dawn.[4]
Consequently, Mark does not contradict the other evangelist who uses the
phrase, "When it was yet dark;" for as the day breaks, what remains of the
darkness [of the night] passes away just in proportion as the sun continues
to rise. And this phrase, "Very early in the morning," need not be taken to
mean that the sun itself was actually seen by this time [blazing] over the
lands; but it is rather to be taken as like the kind of expression which we
are in the habit of employing when speaking to people to whom we wish to
intimate that something should be done more betimes than usual. For when we
have used the term, "Early in the morning,"[5] if we wish to keep the
persons addressed from supposing that we refer directly to the time when
the sun is already conspicuously visible over earth, we usually add the
word "very," and say, "very early in the morning," in order that they may
clearly understand that we allude to the time which is also called the
daybreak.[6] At the same time, it is also customary for men, after the
cockcrow has been repeatedly heard, and when they begin to surmise that the
day is now approaching, to say, "It is now early in the morning;"[5] and
when after this they weigh their words and observe that, as the sun now
rises,--that is to say, as it now makes its immediate advent into these
parts,--the sky is just beginning to redden, or to brighten, those who
said, "It is early in the morning," then amplify their expression and say,
"It is very early in the morning." But what does it matter, provided only
that, whichever method of explanation be preferred, we understand that what
is meant by Mark, when he uses the terms "early in the morning,"[5] is just
the same as is intended by Luke when he adopts the phrase, "in the
morning;"[7] and that the whole expression employed by the former--namely,
"very early in the morning"[8]--amounts to the same as that which we find
in Luke--namely, "very early in the dawn,"[9]--and as that which is chosen
by John when he says, "early, when it was yet dark"?[1] Moreover, when Mark
speaks of the "rising of the sun," he just means that by its rising the sun
was now beginning to bring the light in upon the sky. But the question now
is this: how can Matthew be in harmony with these three when he says
neither "in the early morning" nor "early in the morning," but "in the
evening of the Sabbath, when it was beginning to dawn toward the first day
of the week"? This is a matter which must be carefully investigated.[2]
Now, under that first part of the night, which is [here called] the
evening, Matthew intended to refer to this particular night, at the close
of which the women came to the sepulchre. And we understand his reason for
so referring to the said night to have been this: that by the time of the
evening it was lawful for them to bring the spices, because the Sabbath was
then indeed over. Consequently, as they were hindered by the Sabbath from
doing so previously, he has given a designation of the night, taken from
the time at which it began to be a lawful thing for them to do what they
did at any period of the same night which pleased them. Thus, therefore,
the phrase "in the evening of the Sabbath" is used, as if what was said had
been "in the night of the Sabbath," or in other words, in the night which
follows the day of the Sabbath. The express words which he employs thus
indicate this with sufficient clearness. For his terms are these: "Now, in
the evening of the Sabbath, when it began to dawn toward the first day of
the week;" and that could not be the case if what we had to understand to
be denoted by the mention of the "evening" was simply the first short space
of the night, or in other words, only the beginning of the night. For what
can be said "to begin to dawn toward the first day of the week" is not
explicitly the beginning [of the night], but the night itself, as it
commences to be brought to its close by the advance of the light. For the
terminus of the first part of the night is just the beginning of the second
part, but the terminus of the whole night is the light. Hence we could not
speak of the evening as dawning toward the first day of the week unless
under the term "evening" we should understand the night itself to be meant,
which, as a whole, is brought to its close by the light. It is also a
familiar method of speech in divine Scripture to express the whole under
the part; and thus, under the word "evening" here, the evangelist has
denoted the whole night, which finds its extreme point in the dawn.[3] For
it was in the dawn that those women came to the sepulchre; and in this way
they really came on the night, which is here indicated by the term
"evening." For, as I have said, the night as a whole is denoted by that
word; consequently, at whatever period of that night they might have come,
they certainly did come in the said night. And, accordingly, if they came
at the latest point in that night, it is still unquestionably the case that
they did come in the said night. But it could not be said to be on "the
evening, when it began to dawn toward the first day of the week," unless
the night as a whole can be understood under that expression. Accordingly,
the women who came in the night referred to, came in the evening specified.
And if they came at any period, even the latest during that night, they
surely came in the night itself.

66. For the space of three days, which elapsed between the Lord's death
and resurrection, cannot be correctly understood except in the light of
that form of expression according to which the part is dealt with as the
whole.[4] For He said Himself, "For as Jonas was three days and three
nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth."[5] Now, in whichever way we reckon
the times, whether from the point when He yielded up the ghost, or from the
date of his burial, the sum does not come out clearly, unless we take the
intermediate day, that is to say, the Sabbath, as a complete day--in other
words, a full day along with its night,--and, on the other hand, understand
those days between which that one intervenes--that is to say, the day of
the preparation and the first day of the week, which we designate the
Lord's day--to be dealt with on the principle of the part standing for the
whole. For of what avail is it that some, hard pressed by these
difficulties, and not knowing the very large part which the mode of
expression referred to--namely, that which takes the part as the whole--
plays in the matter of solving the problems presented in the Holy
Scriptures, have struck out the idea of reckoning as a distinct night those
three hours, namely, from the sixth hour to the ninth, during which the sun
was darkened, and as a distinct day the other three hours, during which the
sun was restored again to the lands, that is to say, from the ninth hour on
to its setting? For the night connected with the coming Sabbath follows,
and if we compute it along with its day, there will then be two days and
two nights. But, further, after the Sabbath there comes in the night
connected with the first day of the week, that is to say, with the dawning
of the Lord's day, which was the time when the Lord arose. Consequently,
the result to which this mode of calculation leads us will be just two days
and two nights, and one night, even supposing it possible to take the last
as a complete night, and taking it for granted that we were not to show
that the said dawn was in reality the ultimate portion of the same. Thus it
would appear that, even although we were to compute these six hours in that
fashion, during three of which the sun was darkened, and during the other
three of which it shone forth again, we would not establish a satisfactory
reckoning of three days and three nights. In accordance, therefore, with
the usage which meets us so frequently in the language of the Scriptures,
and which deals with the part as the whole, it remains for us to hold the
time of the preparation to constitute the day at the one extremity,[1] on
which the Lord was crucified and buried, and, from that limit, to find one
whole day along with its night which was fully spent. In this way, too, we
must take the intermediate member, that is to say the day of the Sabbath,
not as calculated simply from the part, but as a really complete day. The
third day, again, must be computed from its first part; that is to say,
calculating from the night, we must look upon it as making up a whole day
when its day-portion is connected with it. Thus we shall get a space of
three days, on the analogy of a case already considered, namely, those
eight days after which the Lord went up into a mountain; with respect to
which period we find that Matthew and Mark, fixing their attention simply
on the complete days intervening, have put it thus, "After six days,"
whereas Luke's representation of the same is this, "An eight days after."
[2]

67. Let us now proceed, therefore, to look into the rest of this passage,
and see how in other respects these statements are quite consistent with
what is given by Matthew. For Luke tells us, with the utmost plainness,
that two angels were seen by those women who came to the sepulchre. One of
these angels we have understood to be referred to by each of the first two
evangelists; that is to say, one of them is noticed by Matthew, namely, the
one who was sitting outside upon the stone, and a second by Mark, namely,
the one who was sitting within the sepulchre on the right side. But Luke's
version of the scene is to the following effect: "And that day was the
preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. And the women which had come with Him
from Galilee beheld the sepulchre, and how His body was laid. And they
returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath-day,
according to the commandment.[3] Now upon the first day of the week, very
early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices
which they had prepared.[4] And they found the stone rolled away from the
sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two
men stood by them in shining garments; and as they were afraid, and bowed
down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living
among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake unto
you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered
into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise
again. And they remembered His words. And they returned from the sepulchre,
and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest."[5] The
question, therefore, is this, how can these angels have been seen sitting
each one separately,--namely, one outside upon the stone, according to
Matthew, and another within upon the right side, according to Mark,--if
Luke's report of the same bears that the two stood beside those women,
although the words ascribed to them are similar? Well, it is still possible
for us to suppose that one angel was seen by the women in the position
assigned by Matthew, and in the circumstances indicated by Mark, as we have
already explained. In this way, we may understand the said women to have
entered into the sepulchre, that is to say, into a certain space which had
been fenced off within a kind of enclosure, in such a manner that an
entrance might be said to be made when they came in front of the rocky
place in which the sepulchre was constructed; and there we may take them to
have beheld the angel sitting upon the stone which had been rolled away
from the tomb, as Matthew tells us, or in other words, the angel sitting on
the right side, as Mark expresses it.[6] And then we may further surmise
that the said women, after they had gone within, and when they were looking
at the place where the body of the Lord lay, saw other two angels standing,
as Luke informs us, by whom they were addressed in similar terms, with a
view to animate their minds and edify their faith.[7]

68. But let us also examine John's version, and see whether or in what
manner its consistency with these others is apparent. John, then, narrates
these incidents as follows: "Now the first day of the week cometh Mary
Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and saw the
stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon
Peter, and to the other disciples whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them,
They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where
they have laid Him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple,
and they came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other
disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he,
stooping down, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh
Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen
clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about His head, not lying with the
linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also
that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and
believed. For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again
from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. But
Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and, as she wept, she stooped
down, and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white sitting,
the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had
lain. They say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them,
Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid
Him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus
standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why
weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener,
saith unto Him, Sir, if thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast
laid Him, and I will take Him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned
herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith
unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to
my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father;
and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told, the disciples
that she had seen the Lord, and, that He had spoken these things unto
her.''(1) In the narrative thus given by John, the statement of the day or
time when the sepulchre was come to agrees with the accounts presented by
the rest. Again, in the report of two angels who were seen, he is also at
one with Luke. But when we observe how the one evangelist tells us that
these angels were seen standing, while the other says that they were
sitting; when we notice, also, that there are certain other things which
are left unrecorded by these two writers; and, further, when we consider
how questions are thus raised regarding the possibility of proving the
consistency of the one set of historians with the other on these subjects,
and of fixing the order in which those said things took place,-we see that,
unless we submit the whole to a careful examination, there may easily
appear to be contradictions here between the several narratives.

69. This being the case, therefore, let us, so far as the Lord may help
us, take all these incidents, which took place about the time of the Lord's
resurrection, as they are brought before us in the statements of all the
evangelists together, and let us arrange them in one connected narrative,
which will exhibit them, precisely as they may have actually occurred. It
was in the early morning of the first day of the week, as all the
evangelists are at one in attesting, that the women came to the sepulchre.
By that time, all that is recorded by Matthew alone had already taken
place; that is to say, in regard to the quaking of the earth, and the
rolling away of the stone, and the terror of the guards, with which they
were so stricken, that in some part they lay like dead men. Then, as John
informs us, came Mary Magdalene, who unquestionably was surpassingly more
ardent in her love than these other women(2) who had ministered to the
Lord; so that it was not unreasonable in John to make mention of her alone,
leaving those others unnamed, who, however, were along with her, as we
gather from the reports given by others of the evangelists. She came
accordingly; and when she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre,
without pausing to make any more minute investigation, and never doubting
but that the body of Jesus had been removed from the tomb, she ran, as the
same John states, and told the state of matters to Peter and to John
himself. For John is himself that disciple whom Jesus loved. They then set
out running to the sepulchre; and John, reaching the spot first, stooped
down and saw the linen clothes lying, but he did not go within. But Peter
followed up, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen clothes lie,
and the napkin, which had been about His head, not lying with the linen
clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then John entered also,
and saw in like manner, and believed what Mary had told him, namely, that
the Lord had been taken away from the sepulchre. "For as yet they knew not
the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples
went away again unto their own home. But Mary stood without at the
sepulchre weeping,"(1)--that is to say, before the place in the rock in
which the sepulchre was constructed, but at the same time within that space
into which they had now entered; for there was a garden there, as the same
John mentions.(2) Then they saw the angel sitting on the right side, upon
the stone which was rolled away from the sepulchre; of which angel both
Matthew and Mark discourse. "Then he said unto them, Fear not ye; for I
know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here; for He is
risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay: and go quickly,
and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead; and, behold, He
goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have told
you."(3) In Mark we also find a passage similar in tenor to the above. At
these words, Mary, still weeping, bent down and looked forwards into the
sepulchre, and beheld the two angels, who are introduced to us in John's
narrative, sitting in white raiment, one at the head, and the other at the
feet, where the body of Jesus had been deposited. "They say unto her,
Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away
my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him."(4) Here we are to
suppose the angels to have risen up, so that they could be seen standing,
as Luke states that they were seen, and then, according to the narrative of
the same Luke, to have addressed the women, as they were afraid and bowed
down their faces to the earth. The terms were these: "Why seek ye the
living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake
unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be
delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day
rise. And they remembered His words."(5) It was after this that, as we
learn from John, "Mary turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and
knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou?
whom seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto Him,
Sir, if thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I
will take Him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and
saith unto Him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her,
Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my
brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and
to my God, and your God."(6) Then she departed from the sepulchre, that is
to say, from the ground where there was space for the garden in front of
the stone which had been dug out. Along with her there were also those
other women, who, as Mark tells us, were surprised with fear and trembling.
And they told nothing to any one. At this point we next take up what
Matthew has recorded in the following passage: "Behold, Jesus met them,
saying, All hail! And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped
Him."(7) For thus we gather that, on coming to the sepulchre, they were
twice addressed by the angels; and, again, that they were also twice
addressed by the Lord Himself, namely, at the point at which Mary took Him
to be the gardener, and a second time at present, when He meets them on the
way, with a view to strengthen them by such a repetition, and to bring them
out of their state of fear. "Then, accordingly, said He unto them, Be not
afraid: go, tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall
they see me."(8) "Then came Mary Magdalene, and told the disciples that she
had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things unto her;"(9)- -not
herself alone, however, but with her also those other women to whom Luke
alludes when he says, "Which told these things unto the eleven disciples,
and all the rest. And their words seemed to them like madness, and they
believed them not."(10) Mark also attests these facts; for, after telling
us how the women went out from the sepulchre, trembling and amazed, and
said nothing to any man, he subjoins the statement, that the Lord rose
early the first day of the week, and appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out
of whom He had cast seven devils, and that she went and told them who had
been with Him, as they mourned and wept, and that they, when they heard
that He was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.(11) It is
further to be observed, that Matthew has also introduced a notice to the
effect that, as the women who had seen and heard all these things were
going away, there came likewise into the city some of the guards who had
been lying like dead men, and that these persons reported to the chief
priests all the things that were done, that is to say, those of them which
they were themselves also in a position to observe. He tells us, moreover,
that when they were assembled with the elders and had taken counsel, they
gave large money unto the soldiers, and bade them say that His disciples
came and stole Him away while they slept, promising at the same time to
secure them against the governor, who had given those guards. Finally, he
adds that they took the money, and did as they had been taught, and that
this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.(12)

CHAP. XXV.--OF CHRIST'S SUBSEQUENT MANIFESTATIONS OF HIMSELF TO THE
DISCIPLES, AND OF THE QUESTION WHETHER A THOROUGH HARMONY CAN BE
ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT NARRATIVES WHEN THE NOTICES GIVEN BY THE
FOUR SEVERAL EVANGELISTS, AS WELL AS THOSE PRESENTED BY THE APOSTLE PAUL
AND IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, ARE COMPARED TOGETHER.

70. We must take up the consideration of the manner in which the Lord
showed Himself to the disciples after His resurrection, and that with the
view not only of bringing out clearly the consistency of the four
evangelists with each other on these subjects, but also of exhibiting their
agreement with the Apostle Paul, who discourses of the theme in his First
Epistle to the Corinthians. The statement by the latter runs in the
following terms: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also
received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to
the Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:(1)
after that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the
greater part remain unto this day, but some are fallen asleep. After that,
He was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all He was seen
of me also, as of one born out of due time."(2) Now this succession of the
appearances is one which has been given by none of the evangelists. Hence
we must examine whether the order which they have put on record does not
stand in antagonism to this. For neither has Paul related all, nor have the
evangelists included everything in their reports. And the real subject for
our investigation, therefore, is the question, whether, among the incidents
which do come under our notice in these various narratives, there is
anything fitted to establish a discrepancy between the writers. Now Luke is
the only one among the four evangelists who omits to tell us how the Lord
was seen by the women, and confines his statement to the appearance of the
angels. Matthew, again, informs us that He met them as they were returning
from the sepulchre. Mark likewise mentions that He appeared first to Mary
Magdalene; as also does John. Only Mark does not state how He manifested
Himself to her, while John does give us an explanation of that. Moreover,
Luke not only passes by in silence the fact that He showed Himself to the
women, as I have already remarked, but also reports that two disciples, one
of whom was Cleophas, talked with Him, before they recognised Him, in a
strain which seems to imply that the women had related no other appearance
seen by them than that of the angels who told them that He was alive. For
Luke's narrative proceeds thus: "And, behold, two of them went that same
day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore
furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
And it came to pass that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus
Himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden, that
they should not know Him. And He said unto them, What manner of
communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are
sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleophas, answering, said unto
Him, Art thou only a stranger[3] in Jerusalem, and hast not known the
things which are come to pass there in these days? And He said unto them,
What things? And they said unto Him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which
was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people; and
how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to
death, and have crucified Him. But we trusted that it had been He that
should have redeemed Israel: and besides all this, to-day is the third day
since these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company
made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; and when they found
not His body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of
angels, which said that He was alive. And certain of them which were with
us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women said; but Him
they saw(4) not."(5) All these things they relate, according to Luke's
narrative, just as they were able to command their recollections and
bethink themselves of what had been reported to them by the women, or by
the disciples who had run to the sepulchre when the intelligence was
conveyed to them that His body had been removed from the place. It is at
the same time true that Luke himself reports only Peter to have run to the
tomb, and there to have stooped down and seen the linen clothes laid by
themselves, and then to have departed, wondering in himself at that which
was come to pass. This notice about Peter, moreover, is introduced previous
to the narrative of these two disciples whom He found on the way, and
subsequently to the story of the women who had seen the angels, and who had
heard from them that Jesus had risen again; so that this position might
seem to mark the period at which Peter ran to the sepulchre. But still we
must suppose that Luke has inserted the passage about Peter here in the
form of a recapitulation. For the time when Peter ran to the sepulchre was
also the time when John ran to it; and at that point all that they had
heard was simply the statement conveyed to them by the women, and in
particular by Mary Magdalene, to the effect that the body had been carried
away. Furthermore, the period at which the said woman brought such tidings
was just the occasion when she saw the stone rolled away from the
sepulchre. And it was at a later point that these other things occurred,
connected with the vision of the angels, and the appearance of the Lord
Himself, who showed Himself twice over to the women, namely, once at the
sepulchre, and a second time when He met them as they were returning from
the tomb. This, however, took place previous to His being seen by those two
upon the journey, one of whom was Cleophas. For, when this Cleophas was
talking with the Lord, before he recognized who He was, he did not say
expressly that Peter had gone to the sepulchre. But his words were these:
"Certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it
even so as the women said;" which last statement is also to be understood
as introduced in the form of a recapitulation. For the reference is to the
report brought first of all by the women to Peter and John about the
removal of the body. And thus, when Luke here informs us that Peter ran to
the sepulchre, and also states how Cleophas mentioned that some of those
who were with them went to the tomb, he is to be taken as attesting John's
account, which bears that two persons proceeded to the sepulchre. But Luke
has specified Peter alone in the first instance, just because it was to him
that Mary had brought the earliest tidings. A difficulty, however, may also
be felt in the circumstance that the same Luke does not say that Peter
entered, but only that he stooped down and saw the linen clothes hid by
themselves, and that thereupon he departed, wondering in himself; whereas
John intimates that it was rather himself (for he is the disciple whom
Jesus loved) that looked at the scene in this fashion, not going within the
sepulchre, which he was the first to reach, but simply bending down and
beholding the linen clothes laid in their place; although he also adds that
he did enter the tomb afterwards. The explanation, therefore, is simply
this, that Peter at first did stoop down and look in after the fashion
which Luke specifies, but to which John makes no allusion; and that he went
actually in somewhat later, but still before John entered. And in this way
we shall find that all these writers have given a true account of what
occurred in terms which betray no discrepancies.(1)

71. Taking, then, not only the reports presented by the four evangelists,
but also the statement given by the Apostle Paul, we shall endeavour to
bring the whole into a single connected narrative, and exhibit the order in
which all these incidents may have taken place, comprehending all the
Lord's appearances to the male disciples, and leaving out His earlier
declarations to the women. Now, in the entire number of the men, Peter is
understood to be the one to whom Christ showed Himself first. At least,
this holds good so far as regards all the individuals who are actually
mentioned by the four evangelists, and by the Apostle Paul. But, at the
same time, who would be bold enough either to affirm or to deny that He may
have appeared to some one among them before He showed Himself to Peter,
although all these writers pass the matter over in silence? For the
statement which Paul also gives is not in the form, "He was seen first of
Cephas." But it runs thus: "He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
after that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once." And thus it
is not made clear who these twelve were, just as we are not informed who
these five hundred were. It is quite possible, indeed, that the twelve here
instanced were some unknown twelve belonging to the multitude of the
disciples. For now the apostle might speak of those whom the Lord
designated apostles, not as the twelve, but as the eleven. Some codices,
indeed, contain this very reading. I take that, however, to be an
emendation introduced by men who were perplexed by the text, supposing it
to refer to those twelve apostles who, by the time when Judas disappeared,
were really only eleven. It may be the case, then, that those are the more
correct codices which contain the reading "eleven;" or it may be that Paul
intended some other twelve disciples to be understood by that phrase;(2)
or, once more, the fact may be that he meant that consecrated number(3) to
remain as before, although the circle had been reduced to eleven: for this
number twelve, as it was used of the apostles, had so mystical an
importance, that, in order to keep the spiritual symbol of the same number,
there could be but a single individual, namely, Matthias, elected to fill
the place of Judas(4) But whichever of these several views may be adopted,
nothing necessarily results which can appear to be inconsistent with truth,
or at variance with any one most trustworthy historian among them. Still,
it remains the probable supposition, that, after He was seen of Peter, He
appeared next to those two, of whom Cleophas was one, and regarding whom
Luke presents us with a complete narrative, while Mark gives us only a very
brief notice. The latter evangelist(1) reports the same incident in these
concise terms: "And after that He appeared in another form unto two of
them, as they walked and went to a country- seat."(2) For it is not
unreasonable for us to suppose that the place of residence(3) referred to
may also have been styled a country-seat;(4) just as Bethlehem itself,
which formerly was called a city, is even at the present time also named a
village, although its honour has now been made so much the greater since
the name of this Lord, who was born in it, has been proclaimed so
extensively throughout the Churches of all nations. In the Greek codices,
indeed, the reading which we discover is rather "estate"(5) than "country-
seat." But that term was employed not only of residences,(6) but also of
free towns(7) and colonies beyond the city, which is the head and mother of
the rest, and is therefore called the metropolis.

72. Again, if Mark tells us that the Lord appeared to these persons in
another form, Luke refers to the same when he says that their eyes, were
holden, that they should not know Him. For something had come upon their
eyes which was suffered to remain until the breaking of the bread, in
reference to a well-known mystery, so that only then was the different form
in Him made visible to them, and they did not recognise Him, as is shown by
Luke's narrative, until the breaking of the bread took place. And thus, in
apt accordance with the state of their minds, which were still ignorant of
the truth, that it behoved Christ to die and rise again, their eyes
sustained something of a similar order; not, indeed, that the truth itself
proved misleading, but that they were themselves incompetent to perceive
the truth, and thought of the matter as something else than it was. The
deeper significance of all which is this, that no one should consider
himself to have attained the knowledge of Christ, if he is not a member in
His body--that is to say, in His Church--the unity of which is commended to
our notice under the sacramental symbol of the bread by an apostle, when he
says: "We being many are one bread and one body."(8) So was it that, when
He handed to them the bread which He had blessed, their eyes were opened,
and they recognised Him, that is to say, their eyes were opened for such
knowledge of Him, in so far as the impediment was now removed which had
prevented them from recognising Him. For certainly they were not walking
with closed eyes. But there was something in them which debarred them from
seeing correctly what was in their view,--a state of matters, indeed, which
is the familiar result of darkness, or of a certain kind of humour. It is
not meant by this, however, that the Lord could not alter the form of His
flesh, so that His figure might be literally and actually different, and
not the one which they were in the habit of beholding. For, indeed, even
before His passion, He was transfigured on the mount so that His
countenance "did shine as the sun."(9) And He who made genuine wine out of
genuine water can also transform any body whatsoever in all unquestionable
reality into any other kind of body which may please Him. But what is meant
is, that He had not acted so when He appeared in another form unto those
two individuals. For He did not appear to be what He was ,o to these men,
because their eyes were holden, so that they should not know Him. Moreover,
not unsuitably may we suppose that this impediment in their eyes came from
Satan, with the view of precluding their recognition of Jesus. But,
nevertheless, permission that it should be so was given by Christ on to the
point at which the mystery of the bread was taken up. And thus the lesson
might be, that it is when we become participants in the unity of His body,
that we are to understand the impediment of the adversary to be removed,
and liberty to be given us to know Christ.

73. Besides, it is necessary to believe that these were the same persons
to whom Mark also refers. For he informs us, that they went and told these
things to the rest: just as Luke states, that the persons in question rose
up the same hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered
together, and them that were with them, saying, "The Lord is risen indeed,
and hath appeared to Simon."(11) And then he adds that these two also told
what things were done on the way, and how He was known of them in breaking
of bread.(12) By this time, therefore, a report of the resurrection of
Jesus had been conveyed by those women, and also by Simon Peter, to whom He
had already shown Himself. For these two disciples found those to whom they
came in Jerusalem talking of that very subject. Consequently, it may be the
case that fear made them decline mentioning formerly, when they were on the
way, that they had heard that He had risen again, so that they confined
themselves to stating how the angels had been seen by the women. For, not
knowing with whom they were conversing, they might reasonably be anxious
not to let any word drop from them on the subject of Christ's resurrection,
lest they should fall into the hands of the Jews. But again, we must remark
that Mark states that "they went and told it unto the residue: neither
believed they them:"(1) whereas Luke tells us that these others were
already saying that the Lord was risen indeed, and had appeared unto Simon.
Is not the explanation, however, simply this, that there were some of them
there who refused to credit what was related? Moreover, to whom can it fail
to be clear that Mark has just omitted certain matters which are fully set
forth in Luke's narrative,--that is to say, the subjects of the
conversation which Jesus had with them before He recognised them, and the
manner in which they came to know Him in the breaking of the bread? For,
after recording how He appeared to them in another form, as they went
towards a country- seat, Mark has immediately appended the sentence, "And
they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them;" as if
men could tell of a person whom they had not recognised, or as if those to
whom He had appeared only in another form could know Him! Without doubt,
therefore, Mark has simply given us no explanation of the way in which they
came to know Him, so as to be able to report the same to others. And this,
then, is a thing which deserves to be imprinted on our memory, in order
that we may accustom ourselves to keep in view the habit which these
evangelists have of passing over those matters which they do not put on
record, and of connecting the facts which they do relate in such a manner
that, among those who fail to give due consideration to the usage referred
to, nothing proves itself a more fruitful source of misapprehension than
this, leading them to imagine the existence of discrepancies in the sacred
writers.

74. Luke next proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "And as
they thus spake, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto
them, Peace be unto you: it is I; be not afraid.(2) But they were terrified
and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And He said unto
them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold
my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when He had thus spoken,
He showed them His hands and His feet."(3) It is to this act, by which the
Lord showed Himself after His resurrection, that John is also understood to
refer when he discourses as follows: "Then, when it was late on the first
day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were
assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and
saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when He had so said, He showed unto
them His hands and His side."(4) Thus, too, we may connect with these words
of John certain matters which Luke reports, but which John Himself omits.
For Luke continues in these terms: "And while they yet believed not for
joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave
Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And when He had eaten
before them, He took what remained,(5) and gave it unto them.''(6) Again, a
passage which Luke omits, but which John presents, may next be connected
with these words. It is to the following effect: "Then were the disciples
glad when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto
you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when He had said
this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever
sins ye retain, they are retained."(7) Once more, we may attach to the
above section another which John has left out, but which Luke inserts. It
runs thus: "And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto
you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were
written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms,
concerning me. Then opened He their understanding, that they might
understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus
it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and
that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among
all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things.
And I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city,
until ye be endued with power from on high.''(8) Observe, then, how Luke
has here referred to that promise of the Holy Spirit which we do not
elsewhere find made by the Lord, save in John's Gospel.(9) And this
deserves something more than a passing notice, in order that we may bear in
mind how the evangelists attest each other's truth, even on subjects which
some of them may not themselves record, but which they nevertheless know to
have been reported. After these matters, Luke passes over in silence all
else that happened, and introduces nothing into his narrative beyond the
occasion when Jesus ascended into heaven. And at the same time he appends
this [statement of the ascension], just as if it followed immediately upon
these words which the Lord spake, at the same time with those other
transactions on the first day of the week, that is to say, on the day on
which the Lord rose again; whereas, in the Acts of the Apostles,(1) the
self-same Luke tells us that the event really took place on the fortieth
day after His resurrection. Finally, as regards the fact that John states
that the Apostle Thomas was not present with these others on the occasion
under review, whereas, according to Luke, the two disciples, of whom
Cleophas was one, returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven assembled and
those who were with them, it admits of little doubt that we must suppose
Thomas simply to have left the company before the Lord showed Himself to
the brethren when they were talking in the terms noticed above.

75. This being the case, John now records a second manifestation of
Himself, which was vouchsafed by the Lord to the disciples eight days
after, on which occasion Thomas also was present, who had not seen Him up
to that time. The narrative proceeds thus: "And after eight days again His
disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, the doors
being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith
He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach
hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but
believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus
saith unto Him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:
blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.''(2) This
second appearance of the Lord among the disciples--that is to say, the
appearance which John records in the second instance--we might also
recognise as alluded to by Mark in a section concisely disposing of it,
according to that evangelist's habit. A difficulty, however, is created by
the circumstance that his terms are these: "Lastly,(3) He appeared unto
those eleven as they sat at meat."(4) The difficulty does not lie in the
mere fact that John says nothing about their sitting at meat, for he might
well have omitted that; but it does rest in the use of the word "lastly,"
for that makes it seem as if He did not show Himself to them after that
occasion, whereas John still proceeds to record a third appearance of the
Lord by the sea of Tiberias. And then we have to keep in view the fact that
the same Mark tells us how Jesus "upbraided them with their unbelief and
hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after
He was risen." In these words he refers to the two disciples to whom He
appeared after He was risen, as they went toward a country-seat, and to
Peter, to whom the examination of Luke's narrative has shown us that He
manifested Himself first of all [among the apostles],--perhaps also to Mary
Magdalene, and those other women who were along with her on the occasion
when He was seen by them at the sepulchre, and again when He met them as
they were returning on the way. For the said Mark has constructed his
record in a manner which leads him first to insert his brief notice of the
two disciples to whom He appeared as they went toward the country-seat, and
of their giving a report to the residue and obtaining no credit, and then
to subjoin in the immediate connection this statement: "Lastly, He appeared
unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief
and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him
after He was risen." How, then, is this phrase "lastly" used, as if they
did not see Him subsequently to this occasion? For the last time that the
apostles saw the Lord upon the earth was really the time when He ascended
into heaven, and that event took place on the fortieth day after His
resurrection. Now, is it likely that He would upbraid them at that period
on the ground that they had not believed those who had seen Him after He
was risen, when by that time they had seen Him themselves so often after
His resurrection, and especially when they had seen Him on the very day of
His resurrection,--that is to say, on the first day of the week, when it
was now about night, as Luke and John record? It remains for us, therefore,
to suppose that, in the passage under review, it was Mark's intention to
give a statement, in his own concise fashion, simply on the subject of the
said day of the Lord's resurrection; that is to say, that first day of the
week on which Mary and the other women who were along with her saw Him
after daybreak, on which also Peter beheld Him, on which likewise He
appeared to the two disciples, of whom Cleophas was one, and to whom Mark
himself also seems to refer; on which, further, when it was now about
night, He showed Himself to the eleven (Thomas, however, being excepted)
and those who were with them; and on which, finally, the persons already
instanced reported to the disciples the things which they had seen. Hence
it is that he has employed the term "lastly," because the incident
mentioned was the last that took place on this same day. For the night was
now coming on by the time that the two disciples had returned from the
place where they had recognised Him in the breaking of bread, and had made
their way into Jerusalem and found the eleven, as Luke tells us, and those
who were with them, speaking to each other about the Lord's resurrection
and about His having appeared to Peter; to whom these two also related what
had occurred on the way, and how they came to know Him in the breaking of
bread. But, assuredly, there were also there some who did not believe.
Hence we see the truth of Mark's words, "Neither believed they them." When
these, therefore, were now sitting at meat, as Mark informs us, and when
they were talking of these subjects, as Luke tells us, the Lord stood in
their midst, and said unto them, "Peace be unto you," as Luke and John both
record. Moreover, the doors were shut when He entered among them, as John
alone mentions. And thus, among the words which, as Luke and John have
reported, the Lord spoke to the disciples on that occasion, this
expostulation also comes in, which is instanced by Mark, and in which He
upbraided them for not believing those who had seen Him after He was risen.

76. But, again, a difficulty may also be felt in understanding how Mark
says that the Lord appeared to the eleven as they sat at meat, if the time
referred to is really the beginning of the night of that Lord's day, as is
indicated by Luke and John. For John, indeed, tells us plainly that the
Apostle Thomas was not with them on that occasion; and we believe that he
left them before the Lord entered among them, but after the two disciples
who returned from the village had been conversing with the eleven, as we
discover from Luke. Luke, it is true, presents a point in his narrative, at
which we may fairly suppose, first, that Thomas went out while they were
talking of these subjects, and then that the Lord came in Mark, however,
who says, "Lastly, He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat,"
compels us to admit that Thomas also was there. But it may be the case,
perhaps, that he chose to style them the eleven, although one of the
company was absent, because the same apostolic society was designated by
this number at the time previous to the election of Matthias in the place
of Judas. Or, if there is a difficulty in accepting this explanation, we
may still suppose that, after the many manifestations in which He
vouchsafed His presence to the disciples during the forty days, He also
showed Himself on one final occasion to the eleven as they sat at meat,--
that is to say, on the fortieth day itself; and that, as He was now on the
point of leaving them and ascending into heaven, He was minded on that
memorable day specially to upbraid them with their refusal to believe those
who had seen Him after He had risen until they should first have seen Him
themselves; and this particularly because it was the case that, when the)
preached the gospel subsequently to His ascension, the very Gentiles would
be ready to believe what they did not see. For, after mentioning this
upbraiding, Mark at once proceeds to subjoin this passage: "And He said
unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned."(1) If, therefore, they were charged to
preach that he who believes not shall be condemned, when that indeed which
he believes not is just what he has not seen, was it not meet that they
should themselves first of all be thus reproved for their own refusal to
believe those to whom the Lord had shown Himself at an earlier stage until
they should have seen Him with their own eyes?

77. In what follows we have a further recommendation to take this to have
been the last manifestation of Himself in bodily fashion which the Lord
gave to the apostles. For the same Mark continues in these terms: "And
these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out
devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and
if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay
hands on the sick, and they shall recover."(2) Then he appends this
statement: "So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received
up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and
preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by
signs following."(3) Now, when he says, "So then, after the Lord had spoken
unto them, He was received up into heaven," he appears probably enough to
indicate that this was the last discourse He held with them upon the earth.
At the same time, the words do not seem to shut us up to that idea
absolutely. For what he says is not, "after He had spoken these things unto
them," but simply, "after He had spoken unto them;" and hence it would be
quite admissible, were there any necessity for such a theory, to suppose
that this was not the last discourse, and that was not the last day on
which He was present with them upon the earth, but that all the matters
regarding which He spake with them in all these days may be referred to in
the sentence," After He had spoken unto them, He was received up into
heaven." But, inasmuch as the considerations which we have detailed above
lead us rather to conclude that this was the last day, than to suppose that
the allusion is specifically to the eleven at a time when, in consequence
of the absence of Thomas, they were only ten, we are of opinion that after
this discourse which Mark mentions, and with which we have to connect in
their proper order those other words, whether of the disciples or of the
Lord Himself, which are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles,(1) we must
believe the Lord to have been received up into heaven, to wit, on the
fortieth day after the day of His resurrection.

78. John, again, although he tells us plainly that he has passed over many
of the things which Jesus did, has been pleased, nevertheless, to give us a
narrative of a third manifestation of Himself, which the Lord granted to
the disciples after the resurrection, namely, by the sea of Tiberias, and
before seven of the disciples,--that is to say, Peter, Thomas, Nathanael,
the sons of Zebedee, and two others who are not mentioned by name. That is
the occasion when they were engaged in fishing; when, in obedience to His
command, they cast the nets on the right side, and drew to land great
fishes, a hundred and fifty and three: when He also asked Peter three times
whether He was loved by him, and charged him to feed His sheep, and
delivered a prophecy regarding what he would suffer, and said also, with
reference to John, "Thus(2) I will that he tarry till I come." And with
this John has brought his Gospel to its conclusion.

79. We have next to consider now what was the occasion of His first
appearance to the disciples in Galilee. For this incident, which John
narrates as the third in order, took place in Galilee by the sea of
Tiberias. And one may perceive that the scene was in that district, if he
calls to mind the miracle of the five loaves, the narrative of which the
same John commences in these terms: "After these things Jesus went over the
sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias."(3) And what should naturally
be supposed to be the proper locality for His first manifestation to the
disciples after His resurrection but Galilee? This seems to be the
conclusion to which we should be led when we recollect the words of the
angel who, according to Matthew's Gospel, addressed the women as they came
to the sepulchre. The words were these: "Fear not ye; for I know that ye
seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified. He is not here; for He is
risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay: and go quickly,
and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead; and, behold, He
goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have told
you."(4) Mark presents a similar report, whether the angel of whom he
speaks be the same one or a different. His version runs thus: "Be not
affrighted: ye seek Jesus of Nazareth which was crucified; He is risen; He
is not here: behold the place where they laid Him. But go your way, tell
His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall
ye see Him, as He said unto you."(5) Now the impression which these words
seem to produce is, that Jesus was not to show Himself to His disciples
after His resurrection, but in Galilee. The appearance thus referred to,
however, is not recorded even by Mark himself, who has informed us how He
showed Himself first to Mary Magdalene in the early morning of the first
day of the week; how she went and told them that had been with Him as they
mourned and wept; how these persons refused to believe her; how, after
this, He was next seen by the two disciples who were going to the residence
in the country; how these twain reported what had occurred to them to the
residue, which, as Luke and John agree in certifying, took place in
Jerusalem on the very day of the Lord's resurrection, and when night was
now coming on. Thereafter the same evangelist comes next to that appearance
which he calls His last, and which was vouchsafed to the eleven as they sat
at meat; and when he has given us his account of that scene, he tells us
how He was received up into heaven, which event took place, as we know, on
the Mount Olivet, at no great distance from Jerusalem. Thus Mark nowhere
relates the actual fulfilment of that which he declares to have been
announced beforehand by the angel. Matthew, on the other hand, confines his
statement to a single occurrence, and refers to no other locality
whatsoever, whether earlier or later, where the disciples saw the Lord
after He was risen, but the Galilee which was specified in the angel's
prediction. This evangelist, in short, first introduces his notice of the
terms in which the women were addressed by the angel; then he subjoins an
account of what happened as they were going, and how the members of the
watch were bribed to give a false report; and then he inserts his statement
[of the appearance in Galilee], just as if that were the very event which
followed immediately on what he has been relating. For, indeed, the angel's
words, "He is risen; and behold, He goeth before you into Galilee," were
really such as might make it seem reasonable to suppose that nothing would
intervene [before that manifestation in Galilee]. Matthew's version,
accordingly, proceeds as follows: "Then the eleven disciples went away into
Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw
Him, they worshipped Him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto
them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto
the end of the world."(1) In these terms has Matthew closed his Gospel.

80. Thus, then, were it not that the consideration of the narratives given
by others of the evangelists led us inevitably to examine the whole subject
with greater care, we might entertain the idea that the scene of the Lord's
first manifestation of Himself to the disciples after His resurrection,
could be nowhere else but in Galilee. In like manner, had Mark passed over
the angel's announcement without notice, any one might have supposed that
Matthew was induced to tell us how the disciples went away to a mountain in
Galilee, and there worshipped the Lord, by his desire to show the actual
fulfilment of the charge, and of the prediction which he had also recorded
to have been conveyed by the angel. As the case now stands, however, Luke
and John both certify with sufficient clearness, that on the very day of
His resurrection the Lord was seen by His disciples in Jerusalem, which is
at such a distance from Galilee as makes it impossible for Him to have been
seen by these same individuals in both places in the course of a single
day. In like manner, Mark, while he does report in similar terms the
announcement made by the angel, nowhere mentions that the Lord actually was
seen in Galilee by His disciples after He was risen. These, therefore, are
considerations which strongly force upon us an inquiry into the real import
of this saying, "Behold, He goeth before you into Galilee! there shall ye
see Him." For if Matthew himself, too, had not stated that the eleven
disciples went away into Galilee into a mountain, where Jesus had appointed
them, and that they saw Him there and worshipped Him, we might have
supposed that there was no literal fulfilment of the prediction in
question, but that the whole announcement was intended to convey a
figurative meaning. And a parallel to that we should then find in the words
recorded by Luke, namely, "Behold I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day
and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected;"(2) which prediction
certainly was not accomplished in the letter. In like manner, if the angel
had said, "He goeth before you into Galilee, there shall ye see Him first;"
or, "Only there shall ye see Him;" or, "Nowhere else but there shall ye see
Him;" unquestionably, in that case, Matthew would have been in antagonism
with the rest of the evangelists. As the matter stands, however, the words
are simply these: "Behold, He goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye
see Him;" and there is no statement of the precise time at which that
meeting was to take place--whether at the earliest opportunity, and before
He was seen by them elsewhere, or at a later period, and after they had
seen Him also in other places besides Galilee; and, further, although
Matthew relates that the disciples went away into Galilee into a mountain,
he neither specifies the day of that departure, nor constructs his
narrative in an order which would force upon us the necessity of supposing
that this particular event must have been actually the first appearance.
Consequently, we may conclude that Matthew stands in no antagonism with the
narratives of the other evangelists, but that he makes it quite competent
for us, in due consistency with his own report, to understand the meaning
and accept the truth of these other accounts. At the same time, as the Lord
thus pointed, not to the place where He intended first to manifest Himself,
but to the locality of Galilee, where undoubtedly He appeared afterwards;
and as He conveyed these instructions about beholding Himself at once
through the angel, who said," Behold, He goeth before you into Galilee:
there shall ye see Him;" and by His own words, "Go, tell my brethren, that
they go into Galilee, and there shall ye see me;"--in these facts we find
considerations which make every believer anxious to inquire with what
mystical significance all this may be understood to have been stated.

81. In the first place, however, we must also consider the question of the
time at which He may thus have shown Himself in bodily form in Galilee,
according to the statement given by Matthew in these terms: "Then the
eleven disciples went away into Galilee into a mountain where Jesus had
appointed them; and when they saw Him, they worshipped Him; but some
doubted." That it was not on the day of His resurrection is manifest. For
Luke and John agree in telling us most plainly that He was seen in
Jerusalem that very day, when the night was coming on; while Mark is not so
clear on the subject. When was it, then, that they saw the Lord in Galilee?
I do not refer to the appearance mentioned by John, by the sea of Tiberias;
for on that occasion there were only seven of them present, and they were
found fishing. But I mean the appearance detailed by Matthew, when the
eleven were on the mountain, to which Jesus had gone before them, according
to the announcement made by the angel. For the import of Matthew's
statement appears to be this, that they found Him there just because He had
gone before them according to appointment.

It did not take place, then, either on the day on which He rose, or in the
eight days that followed, after which space John states that the Lord
showed Himself to the disciples, when Thomas, who had not seen Him on the
day of His resurrection, saw Him for the first time. For, surely, on the
supposition that the eleven had really seen Him on the mountain in Galilee
within the period of these eight days, it may well be asked how Thomas, who
had been of the number of these eleven, could be said to have seen Him for
the first time at the end of these eight days. To that question there is no
answer, unless, indeed, one could say that they were not the eleven, who by
that time bore the specific designation of Apostles, but some other eleven
disciples singled out of the numerous body of His followers. For those
eleven were, indeed, the only persons who were yet called by the name of
Apostles, but they were not the only disciples. It may perhaps be the case,
therefore, that the apostles are really referred to; that not all but only
some of them were there; that there were also other disciples with them, so
that the number of persons present was made up to eleven; and that Thomas,
who saw the Lord for the first time at the end of those eight days, was
absent on this occasion. For when Mark mentions the said eleven, he does
not use the general expression "eleven," but says explicitly, "He appeared
unto the eleven."(1) Luke, likewise, puts it thus: "They returned to
Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with
them." There he gives us to understand that these were the eleven--that is
to say, the apostles. For when he adds, "and those who were with them," he
has surely indicated plainly enough, that those with whom these others
were, were styled "the eleven" in some eminent sense; and this leads us to
understand those to be meant who were now called distinctively Apostles.
Consequently, it is quite possible that, out of the body of apostles and
other disciples, the number of eleven disciples was made up who saw Jesus
upon the mountain in Galilee, within the space of these eight days.

82. But another difficulty in the way of this settlement arises here. For,
when John has recorded how the Lord was seen, not by the eleven on the
mountain, but by seven of them when they were fishing in the sea of
Tiberias, he appends the following statement: "This is now the third time
that Jesus showed Himself to His disciples, after that He was risen from
the dead."(2) Now, if we accept the theory that the Lord was seen by the
company of the eleven disciples within the period of these eight days, and
previous to His being seen by Thomas, this scene by the sea of Tiberias
will not be the third but the fourth time that He showed Himself. Here,
indeed, we must take care not to let any one suppose that, in speaking of
the third time, John meant that there were in all only three appearances of
the Lord. On the contrary, we must understand him to refer to the number of
the days, and not to the number of the manifestations themselves; and,
further, it is to be observed that these days are not presented as coming
in immediate succession after each other, but as separated by intervals in
accordance with intimations given by the evangelist himself. For, keeping
out of view His appearance to the women, it is made perfectly plain in the
Gospel that He showed Himself three several times on the first day after He
was risen; namely, once to Peter; again to those two disciples, of whom
Cleophas was one; and a third time to the larger body, while they were
conversing with each other as the night came on. But all these John,
looking to the fact that they took place on a single day, reckons as one
appearance. Then he identifies a second--that is to say, an appearance on
another day-- with the occasion on which Thomas also saw Him; and he
particularizes a third by the sea of Tiberias, that is to say, not
literally His third appearance, but the third day of His self-
manifestations. Thus the result is, that after all these incidents, we are
constrained to suppose this other occasion to have occurred on which,
according to Matthew, the eleven disciples saw Him on the mountain in
Galilee, to which He had gone before them according to appointment, so that
all that had been foretold, both by the angel and by Himself, should be
fulfilled even to the letter.

83. Consequently, in the four evangelists we find mention made of ten
distinct appearances of the Lord to different persons after His
resurrection. First, to the women near the sepulchre.(3) Secondly, to the
same women as they were on the way returning from the sepulchre.(4)
Thirdly, to Peter.(5) Fourthly, to the two who were going to the place in
the country.(6) Fifthly, to the larger number in Jerusalem, when Thomas was
not present.(7) Sixthly, on the occasion when Thomas saw Him.(8) Seventhly,
by the sea of Tiberias.(9) Eighthly, on the mountain in Galilee, of which
Matthew speaks.(10) Ninthly, at the time to which Mark refers in the words,
"Lastly, as they sat at meat," thereby intimating that now they were no
more to eat with Him upon the earth.(11) Tenthly, on the same day, not now
indeed upon the earth, but lifted up in the cloud, as He ascended into
heaven, as Mark and Luke record. This last appearance, indeed, is
introduced by Mark, directly after he has told us how the Lord showed
Himself to them as they sat at meat. For his narrative goes on connectedly
as follows: "So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received
up into heaven."(1) Luke, on the other hand, omits all that may have passed
between Him and His disciples during the forty days, and, after giving the
history of the first day of His resurrection-life, when He showed Himself
to the larger number in Jerusalem, he silently connects therewith the
closing day on which He ascended up into heaven. His statement proceeds in
this form: "And He led them out as far as to Bethany; and He lifted up His
hands, and blessed them; and it came to pass, that while He blessed them,
He was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.''(2) Thus, therefore,
besides seeing Him upon the earth, they beheld Him also as He was borne up
into heaven. So many times, then, is He reported in the evangelical books
to have been seen by different individuals, previous to His completed
ascension into heaven, namely, nine times upon the earth, and once in the
air as He was ascending.

84. At the same time, all is not recorded, as John plainly declares.(3)
For He had frequent intercourse with His disciples during the forty days
which preceded His ascension into heaven.(4) He had not, however, showed
Himself to them throughout all these forty days without interruption. For
John tells us, that after the first day of His resurrection-life, there
elapsed other eight days, at the end of which space He appeared to them
again. The appearance which is identified [in John] as the third--namely,
the one by the sea of Tiberias--may perhaps have taken place on an
immediately succeeding day; for there is nothing antagonistic to that. And
then He showed Himself when it seethed the proper time to Him, as He had
appointed with them (which appointment had also been conveyed in the
previous prophetic announcement) to go before them into Galilee. And all
throughout these forty days, He appeared on occasions, and to individuals,
and in modes, just as He was minded. To these appearances Peter alludes
when, in the discourse which he delivered before Cornelius and those who
were with him, he says, "Even to us who did eat and drink with Him after He
rose from the dead, for the space of forty days."(5) It is not meant,
however, that they had eaten and drunk with Him daily throughout these
forty days. For that would be contrary to John's statement, who has
interposed the space of eight days, during which He was not seen, and makes
His third appearance take place by the sea of Tiberias. At the same time,
even although He [should be supposed to have] manifested Himself to them
and lived with them every day after that period, that would not come into
antagonism with anything in the narrative. And, perhaps, this expression,
"for the space of forty days," which is equivalent to four times ten, and
may thus sustain a mystical reference to the whole world or the whole
temporal age, has been used just because those first ten days, within which
the said eight fall, may not incongruously be reckoned, in accordance with
the practice of the Scriptures, on the principle of dealing with the part
in general terms as the whole.

85. Let us therefore compare what is said by the Apostle Paul with the
view of deciding whether it raises any question of difficulty. His
statement proceeds thus: "That He rose again the third day according to the
Scriptures, and that He was seen of Cephas."(6) He does not say, "He was
seen first of Cephas" For this would be inconsistent with the fact that it
is recorded in the Gospel that He appeared first to the women. He continues
thus: "then of the twelve;" and whoever the individuals may have been to
whom He then showed Himself, and whatever the precise hour, this was at
least on the very day of His resurrection. Again he goes on: "After that He
was seen of above five hundred brethren at once." And whether these were
gathered together with the eleven when the doors were shut for fear of the
Jews, and when Jesus came to them after Thomas had gone out from the
company, or whether the reference is to some other appearance subsequent to
these eight days, no discrepancy is created. Again he says, "after that He
was seen of James." We ought not, however, to suppose this to mean that
this was the first occasion on which He was seen of James; but we may take
it to allude to some special appearance to that apostle by himself. Next he
adds, "then of all the apostles," which does not imply that this was the
first time that He showed Himself to them, but that from this period He
lived in more familiar intercourse with them on to the day of His
ascension. Finally he says, "And last of all He was seen of me also, as of
one born out of due time." But that was a revelation of Himself from heaven
some considerable time after His ascension.

86. Consequently, let us now take up the subject which we had postponed,
and inquire what mystical meaning may underlie the report given by Matthew
and Mark, namely, that on rising He made this statement, "I will go before
you into Galilee: there shall ye see me." For this announcement, if it was
fulfilled at all, was certainly not fulfilled till a considerable interval
had elapsed; whereas it is couched in terms which seem to lead us (although
such a conclusion is not an absolute necessity) most naturally to expect
that the appearance referred to would be either the only one or the first
that would ensue. We observe, however, that the words in question are not
given as the words of the evangelist himself, in the form of a narrative of
a past occurrence, but as the words of the angel, who spoke according to
the Lord's commission, and subsequently also as the words of the Lord
Himself; that is to say, the words are used by the evangelist in his
narrative, but they are presented by him as a direct statement of what was
spoken by the angel and by the Lord. This, therefore, unquestionably
compels us to accept them as uttered prophetically.(1) Now Galilee may be
interpreted to mean either "Transmigration" or "Revelation." Consequently,
if we adopt the idea of "Transmigration," what other sense occurs to us to
put upon the sentence," He goeth before you into Galilee, there shall you
see Him," but just this, that the grace of Christ was to be transferred
from the people of Israel to the Gentiles? That in preaching the gospel to
these Gentiles, the apostles would meet with no acceptance unless the Lord
prepared a way for them in the hearts of men,--this may be what is to be
understood by the sentence, "He goeth before you into Galilee." And, again,
that they would look with joy and wonder at the breaking down and removing
of difficulties, and at the opening of a door for them in the Lord through
the enlightenment of the believing,--this is what is to be understood by
the words, "there shall ye see Him;" that is to say, there shall ye find
His members, there shall ye recognise His living body in the person of
those who shall receive you. Or, if we follow the second view which takes
Galilee to signify "Revelation," the idea may be, that He was now no more
to be in the form of a servant, but in that form in which He is equal with
the Father;(2) as He promised to those who loved Him when He said,
according to the testimony of John, "And I will love him, and will manifest
myself to him."(3) That is to say, He was afterwards to manifest Himself,
not merely as they saw Him before, nor merely in the way in which, rising
as He did with His wounds upon Him, He was to give Himself to be touched as
well as seen by them, but in the character of that ineffable light,
wherewith He enlightens every man that cometh into this world, and in
virtue of which He shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehends Him
not.(4) Thus has He gone before us to something from which He withdraws
not, although He comes to us, and which does not involve His leaving us,
although He has preceded us thither. That will be a revelation which may be
spoken of as a true Galilee, when we shall be like Him; there shall we see
Him as He is.(5) Then, also, will there be for us the more blessed
transmigration, from this world into that eternity, if we embrace His
precepts so as to be counted worthy of being set apart on His right hand.
For there, those on the left hand shall go away into eternal burning, but
the righteous into life eternal.(6) Hence they shall pass thither, and
there, shall they see Him, as the wicked do not see Him. For the wicked
shall be taken away, so that he shall not see the brightness of the
Lord;(7) and the unrighteousness shall not see the light. For He says, "And
this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent;"(8) even as He shall be known in that
eternity to which He will bring His servants by the form of a servant, in
order that in liberty they may contemplate the form of the Lord.

BOOK IV.

THIS BOOK EMBRACES A DISCUSSION OF THOSE PASSAGES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO
MARK, LUKE, OR JOHN.

PROLOGUE.

1. As we have examined Matthew's narrative in its complete connection, and
as the comparison which we have carried out between it and the other three
on to its conclusion has established the fact, that not one of these
evangelists contains anything either at variance with other statements in
his own Gospel, or inconsistent with the accounts presented by his fellow-
historians, let us now subject Mark to a similar scrutiny. Our plan will be
to omit those sections which he has in common with Matthew, which we have
already investigated as far as seemed requisite and are now done with, and
to take up those paragraphs which remain, with the view of submitting them
to discussion and comparison, and of demonstrating their thorough harmony
with what is related by the other evangelists on to the notice of the
Lord's Supper. For we have already dealt with all the incidents which are
reported in all the four Gospels from that point on to the end, and have
considered the subject of their mutual consistency.

CHAP. 1.--OF THE QUESTION REGARDING THE PROOF THAT MARK'S GOSPEL IS IN
HARMONY WITH THE REST IN WHAT IS NARRATED (THOSE PASSAGES WHICH HE HAS IN
COMMON WITH MATTHEW BEING LEFT OUT OF ACCOUNT), FROM ITS BEGINNING DOWN TO
THE SECTION WHERE IT IS SAID, "AND THEY GO INTO CAPHARNAUM, AND STRAIGHTWAY
ON THE SABBATH- DAY HE TAUGHT THEM:" WHICH INCIDENT IS REPORTED ALSO BY
LUKE.

2. Mark, then, commences as follows: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God: as it is written in the prophet Isaiah;" and so on,
down to where it is said, "And they go into Capharnaum; and straightway on
the Sabbath-day He entered into the synagogue and taught them."(1) In this
entire context, everything has been examined above in connection with
Matthew. This particular statement, however, about His going into the
synagogue at Capharnaum and teaching them on the Sabbath- day, is one which
Mark has in common with Luke.(2) But it raises no question of difficulty.

CHAP. II.--OF THE MAN OUT OF WHOM THE UNCLEAN SPIRIT THAT WAS TORMENTING
HIM WAS CAST, AND OF THE QUESTION WHETHER MARK'S VERSION IS QUITE
CONSISTENT WITH THAT OF LUKE, WHO IS AT ONE WITH HIM IN REPORTING THE
INCIDENT.

3. Mark proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: "And they were
astonished at His doctrine: for He taught them as one that had authority,
and not as the scribes. And there was in their synagogue a man with an
unclean spirit: and he cried out, saying,(3) What have we to do with thee,
thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us?" and so on, down to
the passage where we read, "And He preached in the synagogues throughout
all Galilee, and cast out devils."(4) Although there are some points here
which are common only to Mark and Luke, the entire contents of this section
have also been already dealt with when we were going over Matthew's
narrative in its continuity. For all these matters came into the order of
narration in such a manner that I thought they could not be passed over.
But Luke says that this unclean spirit went out of the man in such a way as
not to hurt him: whereas Mark's statement is to this effect: "And the
unclean spirit cometh out of him, tearing him, and crying with a loud
voice." There may seem, therefore, to be some discrepancy here. For how
could the unclean spirit have been "tearing him," or, as some codices have
it, "tormenting. him," if, as Luke says, he" hurt him not"? Luke, however,
gives the notice in full, thus: "And when the devil had thrown him in the
midst, he came out of him, and "hurt him not."(5) Thus we are to understand
that when Mark says, "tormenting him," he just refers to what Luke
expresses in the sentence, "When he had thrown him in the midst." And when
the latter appends the words, "and hurt him not," the meaning simply is,
that the said tossing of the man's limbs and tormenting him did not
debilitate him, as is often the case with the exit of devils, when, at
times, some of the members are even destroyed(1) in the process of removing
the trouble.

CHAP. III.--OF THE QUESTION WHETHER MARK'S REPORTS OF THE REPEATED
OCCASIONS ON WHICH THE NAME OF PETER WAS BROUGHT INTO PROMINENCE ARE NOT AT
VARIANCE WITH THE STATEMENT WHICH JOHN HAS GIVEN US OF THE PARTICULAR TIME
AT WHICH THE APOSTLE RECEIVED THAT NAME.

4. The same Mark continues as follows: "And there came a leper to Him,
beseeching Him, and kneeling down to Him, and saying unto Him, If thou
wilt, thou canst make me clean;" and so on, down to where it is said, "And
they cried out, saying, Thou art the Son of God: and He straightway charged
them that they should not make Him known."(2) Luke(3) also records
something similar to the last passage which we have here adduced. But
nothing emerges involving any discrepancy. Mark proceeds thus: "And He
goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto Him whom He would: and they came
unto Him. And He ordained twelve that they should be with Him, and that He
might send them forth to preach; and He gave them power to heal sicknesses,
and to cast out devils. And Simon He surnamed Peter;" and so on, down to
where it is said, "And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how
great things Jesus had done: and all men did marvel."(4) I am aware that I
have spoken already of the names of the disciples when following the order
of Matthew's narrative.(5) Here, therefore, I repeat the caution, that no
one should suppose Simon to have received the name Peter on this occasion
for the first time, or fancy that Mark is here in any antagonism with John,
who reports that disciple to have been addressed long before in these
terms: "Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, A
stone."(6) For John has there recorded the very words in which the Lord
gave him that name. Mark, on the other hand, has introduced the matter in
the form of a recapitulation in this passage, when he says, "And Simon He
surnamed Peter." For, as it was his intention to enumerate the names of the
twelve apostles here, and it was necessary for him thus to mention Peter,
he decided briefly to intimate the fact that the said name was not borne by
that disciple all along, but was given him by the Lord, not, however, at
the time with which Mark was immediately dealing, but on the occasion in
connection with which John has introduced the very words employed by the
Lord. The other matters embraced within this paragraph, present nothing
inconsistent with any of the other Gospels, and they have also been
discussed previously.

CHAP. IV.--OF THE WORDS, "THE MORE HE CHARGED THEM TO TELL NO ONE, SO MUCH
THE MORE A GREAT DEAL THEY PUBLISHED IT;" AND OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THAT
STATEMENT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH HIS PRESCIENCE, WHICH IS COMMENDED TO
OUR NOTICE IN THE GOSPEL.

5. Mark continues thus: "And when Jesus was passed over again by ship unto
the other side, much people gathered unto Him: and He was nigh unto the
sea;" and so on, down to where we read, "And the apostles gathered
themselves together unto Jesus, and told Him all things, both what they had
done, and what they had taught."(7) This last portion Mark has in common
with Luke, and there is no discrepancy between them. The rest of the
contents of this section we have already discussed. Mark continues in these
terms: "And He said unto them, Come ye apart into a desert place, and rest
a while;" and so on, down to the words, "But the more He charged them, so
much the more a great deal they published it; and were beyond measure
astonished, saying, He hath done all things well: He maketh both the deaf
to hear, and the dumb to speak."(8) In all this there is nothing which
presents the appearance of any want of harmony between Mark and Luke; and
the whole of the above we have already considered, when we were comparing
these evangelists with Matthew. At the same time, we must make sure that no
one shall suppose that the last statement, which I have cited here from
Mark's Gospel, is in antagonism with the entire body of the evangelists,
who, in reporting most of His other deeds and words, make it plain that He
knew what went on in men; that is to say, that their thoughts and desires
could not be concealed from Him. Thus John puts it very clearly in the
following passage: "But Jesus did not commit Himself unto them, because He
knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man; for He knew
what was in man."(9) But what wonder is it that He should discern the
present thoughts of men, if He announced beforehand to Peter the thought
which he was to entertain in the future,(10) but which he certainly had not
then, at the very time when he was boldly declaring himself ready to die
for Him, or with Him?" This being the case, then, how can it fail to appear
as if this knowledge and foreknowledge, which He possessed in so supreme a
measure, is contradicted by Mark's statement, "He charged them that they
should tell no man: but the more He charged them, so much the more a great
deal they published it"? For if He, as one who held in His own knowledge
all the intentions of men, both present and future was aware that they
would publish it all the more the more He charged them not to publish it,
what purpose could He have in giving them such a charge? Well, but may not
the explanation be this, that he desired to give backward ones to
understand how much more zealously and fervently they ought to preach on
whom He lays the commission to preach, if even men who were interdicted
were unable to keep silent?

CHAP. V.--OF THE STATEMENT WHICH JOHN MADE CONCERNING THE MAN WHO CAST OUT
DEVILS ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT BELONG TO THE CIRCLE OF THE DISCIPLES; AND OF
THE LORD'S REPLY, "FORBID THEM NOT, FOR HE THAT IS NOT AGAINST YOU IS ON
YOUR PART;" AND OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THAT RESPONSE DOES NOT CONTRADICT
THE OTHER SENTENCE, IN WHICH HE SAID, "HE THAT IS NOT WITH ME IS AGAINST
ME."

6. Mark proceeds as follows: "In those days again,(1) the multitude being
very great, and having nothing to eat;" and so on, down to the words, "John
answered Him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name,
and he followeth not us; and we forbade him.(2) But Jesus said, Forbid him
not; for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can
lightly speak evil of me; for he that is not against you is on your
side."(3) Luke relates this in similar terms, with this exception, that he
does not insert the clause, "for there is no man which shall do a miracle
in my name that can lightly speak evil of me." Consequently, there is
nothing here to raise the question of any discrepancy between these two. We
must see, however, whether this sentence must be supposed to stand in
opposition to another of the Lord's sayings, namely, the one to this
effect, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not
with me scattereth abroad."(4) For how was this man not against Him, who
was not with Him, and of whom John reported that he did not unite with them
in following Him, if he is against Him who is not with Him? Or if the man
was against Him, how does He say to the disciples, "Forbid him not; for he
that is not against you is on your side"? Will any one aver that it is of
consequence to observe that here He says to the disciples, "He that is not
against you is on your side;" whereas, in the other passage, He spoke of
Himself in the terms, "He that is not with me is against me"? That would
make it appear, indeed, as if it were possible for one not to be with Him,
although he was associated with those disciples of His who are, so to
speak; His very members. Besides, how would the truth of such sayings as
these stand then: "He that receiveth you receiveth me;"(5) and "Inasmuch as
ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it
unto me"?(6) Or is it possible for one not to be against Him, although he
may be against His disciples? Nay; for what shall we make then of words
like these: "He that despiseth you, despiseth me;"(7) and, "Inasmuch as ye
did it not unto the least of mine, ye did it not unto me;"(8) and, "Saul,
Saul, why persecutest thou me,"(9)-- although it was His disciples that
Saul was persecuting? But, in good truth, the sense intended to be conveyed
is just this, that, so far as a man is not with Him, so far is he against
Him; and again, that, so far as a man is not against Him, so far is he with
Him. For example, take this very case of the individual who was working
miracles in the name of Christ, and yet was not in the company of Christ's
disciples: so far as this man was working miracles in His name, so far was
he with them, and so far he was not against them.(10) But, inasmuch as they
had prohibited the man from doing a thing in which, so far forth, he was
really with them, the Lord said to them," Forbid him not." For what they
ought to have forbidden was what was outside their fellowship, so that they
might bring him over to the unity of the Church, and not a thing like this,
in which he was at one with them, that is to say, so far as he commended
the name of their Master and Lord in the casting out of devils. And this is
the principle on which the Catholic Church acts, not condemning common
sacraments among heretics; for in these they are with us, and they are not
against us. But she condemns and forbids division and separation, or any
sentiment adverse to peace and truth. For therein they are against us, just
because they are not with us in that, and because, not gathering with us,
they are consequently scattering.

CHAP. VI.--OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MARK HAS RECORDED MORE THAN LUKE AS
SPOKEN BY THE LORD IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE OF THIS MAN WHO WAS CASTING
OUT DEVILS IN THE NAME OF CHRIST, ALTHOUGH HE WAS NOT FOLLOWING WITH THE
DISCIPLES; AND OF THE QUESTION HOW THESE ADDITIONAL WORDS CAN BE SHOWN TO
HAVE A REAL BEARING UPON WHAT CHRIST HAD IN VIEW IN FORBIDDING THE
INDIVIDUAL TO BE INTERDICTED WHO WAS PERFORMING MIRACLES IN HIS NAME.

7. Mark proceeds with his narrative in these terms: "For whosoever shall
give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ,
verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. And whosoever shall
offend one of these little ones that believe on me, it is better for him
that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter
into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that
never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched." And so on, down to where it is said, "Have salt in yourselves,
and have peace one with another."(1) These words Mark represents to have
been spoken by the Lord in the connection immediately following what He
said in forbidding the man to be interdicted who was casting out devils in
His name, and yet was not following Him along with the disciples. In this
section, too, he introduces some matters which are not found in any of the
other evangelists, but also some which occur in Matthew as well, and some
which we come across in like manner both in Matthew and in Luke. Those
other evangelists, however, bring in these matters in different
connections, and in another order of facts, and not at this particular
point when the statement was made to Christ about the man who did not
follow Him along with the disciples, and yet was casting out devils in His
name. My opinion, therefore, is, that the Lord did really utter sayings in
this connection, according to Mark's attestation, of which he also
delivered Himself on other occasions, and this for the simple reason, that
they were sufficiently pertinent to this expression of His mind which he
gave here, when He forbade the placing of any interdict upon the working of
miracles in His name, even although that should be done by a man who did
not follow Him along with His disciples. For Mark presents the relation of
the one passage to the other thus: "For he that is not against us is on our
part; for whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name,
because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his
reward." This makes it plain that even this man, whose case John had taken
up, and thus had given occasion for the Lord to commence the discourse
referred to, was not separating himself from the society of the disciples
to any such effect as to scorn it like a heretic. But his position was
something parallel to the familiar one of men who, while not going the
length yet of receiving the sacraments of Christ, nevertheless favour the
Christian name so far as even to receive Christians, and accommodate
themselves to them for this very reason, and none other, that they are
Christian; of which type of persons it is that He tells us that they do not
lose their reward. This does not mean, however, that they ought at once to
think themselves quite safe and secure simply on account of this kindness
which they cherish towards Christians, while at the same time they are
neither cleansed by Christ's baptism, nor incorporated into the unit), of
His body. But the import is, that they are now being guided by the mercy of
God in such a way that they may also come to these higher things,(2) and so
quit this present world in safety. And such persons assuredly are more
profitable [servants], even before they become associated with the number
of Christians, than those individuals who, while already bearing the
Christian name and partaking in the Christian sacraments, recommend courses
which are only fitted to drag others, whom they may persuade to adopt them,
along with themselves into eternal punishment. These are the persons to
whom He refers under the figure of the members of the body, and whom He
commands to be cast out from the body, like an offending hand or eye; that
is to say, to be cut off from the fellowship of that unity, in order that
they should seek rather to enter into life without such associates, than to
go into hell in their company. Moreover, they are separated from those from
whom they separate themselves, just when no consent is yielded to their
evil recommendations, that is to say, to the offences in which they
indulge. And if, indeed, they are discovered in the character of their
perversity to all good men with whom they have any fellowship? they are cut
off completely from the fellowship of all, and also from participation in
the divine sacraments. But if they are known in this character only to
some, while their perversity is unknown to the majority, they must just be
borne with, as the chaff is endured in the thrashing-floor previous to the
winnowing; that is to say, they must be dealt with in a manner which will
neither involve any agreement with them in the fellowship of
unrighteousness, nor lead to a forsaking of the society of the good on
their account. This is what is done by those who have salt in themselves,
and who have peace one with another.

CHAP. VII.--OF THE FACT THAT FROM THIS POINT ON TO THE LORD'S SUPPER, WITH
WHICH ACT THE DISCUSSION OF ALL THE NARRATIVES OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS
CONJOINTLY COMMENCED, NO QUESTION CALLING FOR SPECIAL EXAMINATION IS RAISED
BY MARK'S GOSPEL.

8. Mark continues as follows: "And He arose from thence, and cometh into
the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort
unto Him again; and, as He was wont, He taught them again;" and so on, down
to where it is said, "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she
of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."(1) In this
entire context, all the above has been subjected to investigation already,
with the view of removing the appearance of any contrariety, when we were
comparing the other Gospels in due order with Matthew. This narrative,
however, of the poor widow who cast two mites into the treasury is reported
only by two of them, namely, Mark and Luke.(2) But their harmony admits of
no question. And from this point onwards to the Lord's Supper, which latter
act formed the starting-point for our discussion of all the records of the
four evangelists taken conjointly, Mark introduces nothing of a kind to
make it necessary for us to institute a special comparison between it and
any other statement, or to conduct an inquiry with the view of dispelling
any appearance of discrepancy.

CHAP. VIII.--OF LUKE'S GOSPEL, AND SPECIALLY OF THE HARMONY BETWEEN ITS
COMMENCEMENT AND THE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

9. Next in succession, therefore, let is now go over the Gospel of Luke in
regular order. We shall omit, however, those passages which he has in
common with Matthew and Mark. For all these have been already handled.
Luke, then, begins his narrative in the following fashion: "Forasmuch as
many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of these things
which have been fulfilled(3) among us, even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word; it
seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from
the very first, to write unto thee in order(4) most excellent Theophilus,
that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast
been instructed."(5) This beginning does not pertain immediately to the
narrative presented in the Gospel. But it suggests to us to be cognizant of
the fact, that this same Luke is also the writer of the other book which
bears the name of the Acts of the Apostles. Our ground for holding this
opinion is not merely the circumstance that the name of Theophilus occurs
there as well as here. For it might quite well happen that there was a
second person with the name of Theophilus; and even if it was one and the
same person that was referred to in both cases, still another composition
might have been addressed to him by a different individual, just as the
Gospel was written in his behoof by Luke. We base our view of the identity
of authorship, however, on the fact that this second book commences in the
following strain: "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all
that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He,(6)
through the Holy Ghost, gave commandment unto the apostles whom He chose to
preach the gospel."(7) This statement gives us to understand that, previous
to this, he had written one of those four books of the gospel which are
held in the loftiest authority in the Church. At the same time, when he
tells us that he had composed a treatise of all that Jesus began both to do
and teach until the day in which He gave commandment to the apostles, we
are not to take this to mean that he actually has given us a full account
in his Gospel of all that Jesus did and said when He lived with His
apostles on earth. For that would be contrary to what John affirms when he
says that there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if
they should be written every one, the world itself could not contain the
books.(8) And besides, it is the admitted fact that not a few things have
been narrated by the other evangelists, which Luke himself has not touched
upon in his history. The sense therefore is, that he wrote a treatise of
all these things, in so far as he made a selection out of the whole mass of
materials for his narrative, and introduced those facts which he judged fit
and suitable for the satisfactory discharge of the responsible duty laid
upon him. Again, when he speaks of many who had "taken in hand to set forth
in order a declaration of those things which have been fulfilled among us,"
he seems to refer to certain parties who had not been able to complete the
task which they had assumed. Hence he also says that it seemed good to him
also to "write carefully in order, forasmuch as many have taken in hand,"
etc. The allusion here, however, we ought to take to be to those writers
who have attained to no authority in the Church, just because they were
utterly incompetent rightly to carry out what they took in hand. Moreover,
the author at present before us has not confined himself to the task of
bringing down his narrative to the

events of the Lord's resurrection and assumption; neither has it been his
aim simply to have a place commensurate in honour with his labours in the
company of the four writers of the Gospel Scriptures. But he has also
undertaken a record of what was done subsequently by the hands of the
apostles; and relating as many of those events as he believed to be needful
and helpful to the edification of the faith of readers or hearers, he has
given us a narrative so faithful, that his is the only book that has been
reckoned worthy of acceptance in the Church as a history of the Acts of the
Apostles; while all these other writers who attempted, although deficient
in the trustworthiness which was the first requisite, to compose an account
of the doings and sayings of the apostles, have met with rejection. And,
further, Mark and Luke certainly wrote at a time when it was quite possible
to put them to the test not only by the Church of Christ, but also by the
apostles themselves who were still alive in the flesh.

CHAP. IX.--OF THE QUESTION HOW IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE NARRATIVE OF THE
HAUL OF FISHES WHICH LUKE HAS GIVEN US IS NOT TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH THE
RECORD OF AN APPARENTLY SIMILAR INCIDENT WHICH JOHN HAS REPORTED
SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE LORD'S RESURRECTION; AND OF THE FACT THAT FROM THIS
POINT ON TO THE LORD'S SUPPER, FROM WHICH EVENT ONWARDS TO THE END THE
COMBINED ACCOUNTS OF ALL THE EVANGELISTS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED, NO DIFFICULTY
CALLING FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION EMERGES IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE ANY MORE
THAN IN THAT OF MARK.

10. Luke, then, commences his Gospel in the following fashion: "There was
in the days of Herod the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias,
of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her
name was Elisabeth;" and so on, down to the passage where it is said, "Now
when He had left speaking, He said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep,
and let down your nets for a draught."(1) In this whole section, there is
nothing to stir any question as to discrepancies. It is true that John
appears to relate something resembling the last passage. But what he gives
is really something widely different. I refer to what took place by the sea
of Tiberias after the Lord's resurrection.(2) In that instance, not only is
the particular time extremely different, but the circumstances themselves
are of quite another character. For there the nets were cast on the right
side, and a hundred and fifty and three fishes were caught. It is added,
too, that they were great fishes. And the evangelist, therefore, has felt
it necessary to state, that "for all there were so many, yet was not the
net broken," surely just because he had in view the previous case, which is
recorded by Luke, and in connection with which the nets were broken(3) by
reason of the multitude of fishes. As for the rest, Luke has not recounted
things like those which John has narrated, except in relation to the Lord's
passion and resurrection. And this whole section, which comes in between
the Lord's Supper and the conclusion, has already been handled by us in a
manner which has yielded, as the result of a comparison of the testimonies
of all the evangelists conjointly, the demonstration of an entire absence
of discrepancies between them.

CHAP. X.--OF THE EVANGELIST JOHN, AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN HIM AND THE
OTHER THREE.

11. John remains, between whom and others there is left no comparison to
be instituted. For, however the evangelists may each have reported some
matters which are not recorded by the others, it will be hard to prove that
any question involving real discrepancy arises out of these. Thus, too, it
is a clearly admitted position that the first three--namely, Matthew, Mark,
and Luke--have occupied themselves chiefly with the humanity of our Lord
Jesus Christ, according to which He is both king and priest. And in this
way, Mark, who seems to answer to the figure of the man in the well-known
mystical symbol of the four living creatures,(4) either appears to be
preferentially the companion of Matthew, as he narrates a larger number of
matters in unison with him than with the rest, and therein acts in due
harmony with the idea of the kingly character whose wont it is, as I have
stated in the first book,(5) to be not unaccompanied by attendants; or
else, in accordance with the more probable account of the matter, he holds
a course in conjunction with both [the other Synoptists]. For although he
is at one with Matthew in the larger number of passages, he is nevertheless
at one rather with Luke in some others. And this very fact shows him to
stand related at once to the lion and to the steer, that is to say, to the
kingly office which Matthew emphasizes, and to the sacerdotal which. Luke
introduces, wherein also Christ appears distinctively as man, as the figure
which Mark sustains stands related to both these. On the other hand,
Christ's divinity, in virtue of which He is equal to the Father, in
accordance with which He is the Word, and God with God, and the Word that
was made flesh in order to dwell among us,(6) in accordance with which
also. He and the Father are one,(7) has been taken specially in hand by
John with a view to its recommendation to our minds. Like an eagle, he
abides among Christ's sayings of the sublimer order, and in no way descends
to earth but on rare occasions. In brief, although he declares plainly his
own knowledge of the Lord's mother, he nevertheless neither unites with
Matthew and Luke in recording His nativity, nor associates himself with all
the three in relating His baptism; but all that he does there is simply to
present the testimony delivered by John in a lofty and sublime fashion, and
then, quitting the company of these others, he proceeds with Him to the
marriage in Cana of Galilee. And there, although the evangelist himself
mentions His mother by that very name, He nevertheless addresses her thus:
"Woman, what have I to do with thee?"(3) In this, however, [it is to be
understood that] He does not repel her of whom He received the flesh, but
means to convey the conception of His divinity with special fitness at Ibis
time, when He is about to change the water into wine; which divinity,
likewise, had made that woman, and had not itself been made in her.

12. Then, after noticing the few days spent in Capharnaum, the evangelist
comes again to the temple, where he states that Jesus spoke of the temple
of His body in these terms: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up:"(2) in which declaration emphatic intimation is given not only
that God was in that temple in the person of the Word that was made flesh,
but also that He Himself raised the said flesh to life, in the veritable
exercise of that prerogative which He has in His oneness with the Father,
and according to which He does not act separately from Him; whereas it will
perhaps be found that, in all other passages, the phrase which Scripture
employs is one to the effect that God raised Him: neither is there any such
expression, found anywhere else as that, when God raised, Christ, Christ
also raised Himself, because He is one God with the Father; which is the
import of the passage now before us, in which He says, "Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

13. Then how great and how divine are the words reported to have been
spoken with Nicodemus! From these the evangelist proceeds again to the
testimony of John, and brings before our notice the fact, that the friend
of the bridegroom cannot but rejoice because of the bridegroom's voice. In
this statement He gives us to understand that the soul of man neither has
light derivable from itself, nor can have blessing, except by participation
in the unchangeable wisdom. Thereafter he carries us on to the case of the
woman of Samaria, in connection with which mention is made of the water,
whereof if a man drinks, he shall never thirst again. Once more, he brings
us again to Cana of Galilee, where Jesus had made the water wine. In that
narrative he tells us how He spoke to the nobleman, whose son was sick, in
these terms: "Except ye see signs and wonders ye believe not :"(3) in which
saying He aims at lifting the mind of the believer high above all things
mutable, so that He would not have even the miracles themselves, which,
however they may bear the impression of what is divine, are yet wrought in
the instance of what is changeable in bodies, made objects of seeking on
the part of the faithful.

14. Next he brings us back to Jerusalem, and tells the story of the
healing of the man who had an infirmity of thirty-eight years' standing.
What words are spoken on this occasion, and how ample is the discourse!
Here we are met by the sentence, "The Jews sought to kill Him, because He
not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making
Himself equal with God."(4) In this passage it is made sufficiently plain
that He did not speak of God as His Father in the ordinary sense in which
holy men are in the habit of using the phrase, but that He meant that He is
His equal. For, a little before this, He had said to those who were
impeaching Him with violating the Sabbath-day, "My Father worketh hitherto,
and I work."(5) Then their fury flamed forth, not merely because He said
that God was His Father, but because He wished it to be understood that He
was equal with God, when He used the phrase, "My Father worketh hitherto,
and I work." In which utterance He also shows it to be matter of course
that, as the Father works, the Son should work also; because the Father
does not work without the Son. And this is in accordance with what He
states a little further on in the same passage, when these parties were
incensed at His declaration, namely, "For what things soever He doeth,
these also doeth the Son likewise."(6)

15. Then at length John descends to bear company with the other three,
whose course is with the same Lord, but upon the earth, and joins them in
recording the feeding of the five thousand men with the five loaves. In
this narrative, however, he is the only one who mentions, that when the
people wished to make Him a king, Jesus departed into a mountain Himself
alone.(7) And in making that statement, his intention appears to me to have
been just to communicate to the reasonable soul the truth, that Christ
reigns over our mind and reason purely in a sphere in which He is exalted
above us, in which He has no community of nature with men, and in which He
is verily by Himself alone, as He is the Father's only fellow. This,
however, is a mystical truth, which escapes the cognizance of carnal men,
whose life creeps upon the lower soil of this earth, just because it is so
sublime a mystery. Hence Christ Himself also departs into the mountain from
the men whose habit is to seek for His kingdom with earthly conceptions of
it. Thus is it that He expresses Himself elsewhere to this effect, "My
kingdom is not of this world."(1) And this, again, is something which is
reported only by John, who soars high over earth in a kind of ethereal
flight, and delights himself in the light of the Sun of righteousness.
Then, on passing from the narrative connected with this mountain, and from
the miracle of the five loaves, he still keeps company with the same three
for a little while, until the notice of the crossing of the sea is reached,
and the occasion on which Jesus walked upon the waters. But at this point
he at once rises again to the region of the Lord's discourses, and relates
those words, so grave, so lengthened, so sustainedly lofty and elevated,
which had their occasion in the multiplying of the bread, when He addressed
the multitudes to the following effect: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye
seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the
loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for
that meat which endureth unto everlasting life."(2) After which sayings, He
continues to discourse in similar terms for a very long period, and in the
most exalted strain. At that time, some fell away from the sublime teaching
of such words, namely, those who walked no more with Him afterwards. But
there were also those who did cleave to Him; and these were they who were
able to receive the meaning of this saying, "It is the spirit that
quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing."(3) For surely it is true,
that even through the flesh it is the spirit that profiteth,(4) and the
spirit alone that profiteth; whereas the flesh without the spirit profiteth
nothing.

16. Next we come to the passage where His brethren--that is to say, His
relations according to the flesh--urge Him to go up to the feast-day, in
order that He may have an opportunity of making Himself known to the
multitude. And here, again, how supremely elevated is the tone of His
reply! "My time is not yet come, but your time is alway ready. The world
cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it that the works
thereof are evil."(5) So it is the case, then, that "your time is alway
ready," because ye desire that kind of day to which the prophet refers when
he says, "But I have not laboured following Thee, O Lord; and the day of
man I have not desired, Thou knowest:"(6) that is to say, to soar to the
light of the Word, and to desire that day which Abraham desired to see, and
which he did see, and was glad.(7) And again, how wonderful, how divine,
how sublime are the words which John represents Him to have spoken after He
had gone up to the temple, at the time of the feast! They are such as
these: that where He was about to go, thither they could not come;(8) that
they both knew Him, and knew whence He was;(9) that He who sent Him is
true, whom they knew not,(9) which is much the same as if He had said, "Ye
both know whence I am, and know not whence I am." And what else did He wish
to be understood by such utterances, but that it was possible for Him to be
known to them according to the flesh, in respect of lineage and country,
but that, so far as regarded His divinity, He was unknown to them? On this
occasion, too, when He spoke of the gift of the Holy Spirit, He showed them
who He was, inasmuch as He could hold the power of bestowing that highest
boon.

17. Again, how weighty are the things which this evangelist reports Jesus
to have spoken, when He came back to the temple from Mount Olivet, and
after the forgiveness which He extended to the adulteress, who had been
brought before Him by His tempters, as one deserving to be stoned: on which
occasion He wrote with His finger upon the ground, as if He would indicate
that people of the character of these men would be written on earth, and
not in heaven, as He also admonished His disciples to rejoice that their
names were written in heaven!(10) Or, it may be that He meant to convey the
idea that it was by humbling Himself(which He expressed by bending down His
head) that He wrought signs upon the earth; or, that the time was now come
when His law should be written, not, as formerly, on the sterile stone, but
on a soil which would yield fruit. Accordingly, after these incidents, He
affirmed Himself to be the light of the world, and declared that be who
followed Him would not walk in darkness, but would have the light of life.
He said, also, that He was "the beginning which also discoursed to
them."(11) By which designation He clearly distinguished Himself from the
light which He made, and presented Himself as the Light by which all things
have been made. Consequently, when He said that He was the light of the
world, we are not to take the words to bear simply the sense intended when
He addressed the disciples in similar terms, saying, "Ye are the light of
the world." For they are compared only to the kindled light, which is not
to be put beneath a bushel, but to be set upon a candlestick;(1) as He also
says of John the Baptist, that "he was a burning and shining light."(2) But
He is Himself the beginning, of whom it is likewise declared, that "of His
fulness have all we received."(3) On the occasion presently under review,
He asserted further that He, the Son, is the Truth, which will make us
free, and without which no man will be free.(4)

18. Next, after telling the story of the giving of sight to the man who
was blind from his birth, John tarries for a space over the copious
discourse to which that incident gave occasion, on the subject of the
sheep, and the shepherd, and the door, and the power of laying down His
life and taking it again, wherein He gave token of the supreme might of His
divinity. Thereafter, he relates how, at the time when the feast of the
dedication was being celebrated in Jerusalem, the Jews said to Him, "How
long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us
plainly."(5) And then he reports the sublime words which the Lord uttered
when the opportunity thus arose for a discourse. It was on this occasion
that He said, "I and my Father are one."(6) After this, again, he brings
before us the raising of Lazarus from the dead: in connection with which
miracle the Lord said, "I am the resurrection and the life: he that
believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever
liveth and believeth in me shall never die."(7) In these words what do we
recognise but the sublimity of the Godhead of Him, in fellowship with whom
we shall live for ever? Once more, John joins Matthew and Mark in what is
recorded about Bethany, where the scene took place with the precious
ointment which was poured upon His feet and His head by Mary.(8) And then,
on to the Lord's passion and resurrection, John keeps by the other three
evangelists, but only in so far as his narrative engages itself with the
same places.

19. Moreover, so far as regards the Lord's discourses, he does not cease
to ascend to the sublimer and more extended utterances of which, from this
point also, He delivered Himself. For he inserts a lofty address which the
Lord spoke on the occasion when, through Philip and Andrew, the Gentiles
expressed their desire to see Him, and which is introduced by none of the
other evangelists. There, too, he reports the remarkable words which were
spoken again on the subject of the light which enlightens and makes men the
children of light.(9) Thereafter, in connection with the Supper itself, of
which none of the evangelists has failed to give us some notice, how
affluent and how lofty are those words of Jesus which John records, but
which the others have passed over in silence! I may instance not only His
commendation of humility, when He washed the disciples' feet, but also that
marvellously overpowering and pre-eminently copious discourse which the
Lord delivered to the eleven who remained with Him after His betrayer had
been indicated by the morsel of bread, and had gone out. It was in this
discourse, over which John lingers long, that He said, "He that hath seen
me, hath seen the Father also."(10) It was in it, too, that He expressed
Himself so largely about the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, whom He was to
send to them, and about His own glory, which He had with the Father before
the world was, and about His making us one in Himself, even as He and the
Father are one,--not that He and the Father and we should be one, but that
we should be one as they are one. And many other things of a wonderfully
sublime order did He utter in that connection. But who can fail to see that
to discuss such themes in any manner that would be worthy of them, even if
we were competent to do so, is at least not the task which we have
undertaken in the present effort? For our object is to help those who are
lovers of the Word of God and students of holy truth to understand that, in
his Gospel, John was indeed an announcer and preacher of the same Christ,
the true and truthful One of whom the other three who have composed Gospels
also testified, and to whom the rest of the apostles likewise bore witness,
who, although they did not take in hand the construction of written
narratives, did at least discharge the kindred service in officially
preaching of Him: but that, at the same time, he was borne to far loftier
heights in the doctrine of Christ from the very beginning of his book, and
that it was but on rare occasions that he kept to the level pursued by the
others. These occasions were the following in particular, namely: first by
the Jordan, in reference to the testimony of John the Baptist; secondly, on
the other side of the sea of Tiberias, when the Lord fed the multitudes
with the five loaves, and walked upon the waters; thirdly, in Bethany,
where He had the precious ointment poured over Him by the devotion of a
woman of faith. And so he proceeds, until he meets them at the time of the
Passion, which, as matter of course, he had to relate in conjunction with
them. But, even in that section, and on the particular subject of the
Lord's Supper, which has been left unnoticed by none of them, he has
presented us with a much more affluent statement, as if he drew his
materials directly from the treasure-store of that bosom of the Lord on
which it was his wont to recline. Then, again, [John shows us how] He
astonishes Pilate with words of a sublimer import, declaring that His
kingdom is not of this world, and that He was born a King, and that He came
into the world for this purpose, that He might bear witness to the
truth.(1) [It is in this Gospel also that] He withdraws Himself(2) from
Mary with some deep mystical intention after His resurrection, and says to
her, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father."(3) It is here,
too, that He imparts the Holy Spirit to the disciples by breathing on
them(4) giving us thereby to understand that this Spirit who is
consubstantial and co-eternal with the Trinity, should not be considered to
be simply the Spirit of the Father, but should also be held to be the
Spirit of the Son.

20. Finally, He here commits His sheep to the care of Peter, who loves
Him, and thrice confesses that love, and then He states that He wills this
very John so to tarry until He comes.(5) In which utterance, again, He
seems to me to have conveyed in a profound and mystical way the fact that
this(6) evangelical stewardship of John's, in which he is borne aloft into
the most liquid light of the Word,(7) where it is possible to behold the
equality and unchangeableness of the Trinity, and in which, above all, we
see at what a distance from all others in respect of essential character
that humanity stands by whose assumption it occurred that the Word was made
flesh, cannot be clearly discerned and recognised until the Lord Himself
comes. Consequently, it will tarry thus until He comes. At present it will
tarry in the faith of believers, but hereafter it will be possible to
contemplate it face to face,(8) when He, our Life, shall appear, and when
we shall appear with Him in glory.(9) But if any one supposes that with
man, living, as he still does, in this mortal life, it may be possible for
a person to dispel and clear off every obscurity induced by corporeal and
carnal fancies, and to attain to the serenest light of changeless truth,
and to cleave constantly and unswervingly to that with a mind thoroughly
estranged from the course of this present life, that man understands
neither what he asks, nor who he is that put such a supposition. Let such
an individual rather accept the authority, at once lofty and free from all
deceitfulness, which tells us that, as long as we are in the body, we are
absent from the Lord, and that we walk by faith find not by sight? And
thus, with all perseverance keeping and guarding his faith and hope and
charity, let him look forward to the sight which is promised, in accordance
with that earnest which we have received of the Holy Ghost, who shall teach
us all truth,(11)when God, who raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall
also quicken our mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in us.(12) But
before this body, which is dead by reason of sin, is quickened, it is
without doubt corruptible, and presseth down the soul.(13) And if, in the
body, man is ever helped to reach beyond the cloud with which the whole
earth is covered,(14)--that is to say, beyond this carnal darkness with
which the whole life of earth is covered,--it is simply as if he were
touched with a rapid coruscation, only to sink swiftly into his natural
infirmity, the desire surviving by which he may again be excited(to what is
evil), and the purity being insufficient to establish him(in what is good).
The more, however, any one can do this, the greater is he; while the less
he can do so, the less is he. And if the mind of a man has as yet had no
such experience--in which mind nevertheless Christ dwells by faith--he
ought to strive earnestly to diminish the lusts of this world, and to make
an end of them by the exercise of moral virtue, walking, as it were, in the
company of these three evangelists with Christ the Mediator. And, with the
joy of large hope, let him in faith hold Him who is alway the Son of God,
but who, for our sakes, became the Son of man, in order that His eternal
power and Godhead might be united with(15) our weakness and mortality, and,
on the basis of what is ours, make a way for us in Himself and to Himself.
That a man may be kept from sinning, he should be ruled by Christ the King.
If he happens to sin, he may obtain remission from Christ, who is also
priest. And thus, nurtured in the exercise of a good conversation and life,
and borne out of the atmosphere of earth on the wings of a twofold love, as
on a pair of strong pinions, so may he be enlightened by the same Christ,
who is also the Word, the Word who was in the beginning, the Word who was
with God, and the Word who was God; and although that will still be through
a glass darkly, it will be a sublime kind of illumination far superior to
every corporeal similitude. Wherefore, although it is the gifts of the
active virtue that shine pre-eminent in the first three evangelists, while
it is the gift of the contemplative virtue that discerns such subjects,
nevertheless, this Gospel of John, in so far as it also is in part, will so
tarry until that which is perfect comes.(1) And to one, indeed, is given by
the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same
Spirit? One man regardeth the day to the Lord;(3) another receives a
clearer draught from the breast of the Lord; another is caught up even to
the third heaven, and hears unspeakable words.(4) But all, as long as they
are in the body, are absent from the Lord.(5) And for all believers living
in the good hope, whose names are written in the book of life, there is
still in reserve that which is referred to in the words, "And I will love
him, and will manifest myself unto him."(6) Nevertheless, the greater the
advance which a man may make in the apprehension and knowledge of this
theme during the time of this absence from the Lord, all the more carefully
should he guard against those devilish vices, pride and envy. Let him
remember that this very Gospel of John, which urges us so pre-eminently to
the contemplation of truth, gives a no less remarkable prominence to the
inculcation of the sweet grace of charity. Let him also consider that most
true and wholesome precept which is couched in the words, "The greater thou
art, the more humble thyself in all."(7) For the evangelist who presents
Christ to us in a far loftier strain of teaching than all the others, is
also the one in whose narrative the Lord washes the disciples' feet.(8)


Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning in
1867. (LNPF I/VI, Schaff). The digital version is by The Electronic Bible
Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
  The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
  Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
  Provided courtesy of:

       EWTN On-Line Services
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Data: 703-791-4336
       FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
       Telnet: ewtn.com
       WWW: http://www.ewtn.com.
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.