1. 1. Among all the divine authorities contained in the Sacred Scriptures, the Gospel rightly stands preeminent. For what the Law and the prophets foretold would come to pass is shown, restored and fulfilled, in the Gospel.

The first preachers of the Gospel were the apostles, who saw our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ himself even present in the flesh. They not only remembered the words heard from his mouth and the deeds done by him before their eyes, but also took care, when the office of evangelizing had been laid upon them, to announce to the human race those things which—before they had attached themselves to him as disciples—had been divinely done at his nativity, in his infancy, or in his boyhood, and were worthy of remembrance, and which they had been able to seek out and learn, by the surest indications and the most trustworthy testimonies, whether from himself, or from his parents, or from any others whatsoever.

Some of them, namely Matthew and John, also published in separate books written accounts about him, such things as seemed fit to be written.

1. 2. And lest it should be thought to make any difference, as regards the receiving and preaching of the Gospel, whether those announce it who followed the same Lord here appearing in the flesh, serving him as disciples, or those who faithfully believed what they had learned from them,

it was brought about by divine providence, through the Holy Spirit, that to certain ones even among those who followed the first apostles there was granted the authority not only of announcing but also of writing the Gospel.

These are Mark and Luke. As for the other men who attempted or dared to write something about the deeds of the Lord or of the apostles, they were not such, in their times, that the Church would put faith in them or receive their writings into the canonical authority of the Sacred Books—not only because they were not the kind of men whose narratives ought to be believed, but also because they deceitfully inserted into their writings certain things which the catholic and apostolic rule of faith and sound doctrine condemns.

The order of the evangelists, and their manner of writing.

2. 3. These four evangelists, then, most widely known throughout the whole world—and perhaps four for this reason, that there are four parts of the world, throughout the whole of which they declared, by the very mystery of their number, that Christ's Church was to be spread—

are reported to have written in this order: first Matthew, then Mark, third Luke, last John. Hence one order belonged to their coming to know and preaching, but another to their writing.

For in coming to know and in preaching, the first were certainly those who, following the Lord present in the flesh, heard him speak and saw him act, and were sent from his own mouth to evangelize.

But in the writing of the Gospel—which must be believed to have been divinely ordained—two of them held the first and the last place out of the number of those whom the Lord chose before his passion: Matthew first, John last, so that the remaining two, who were not of that number but had nonetheless followed Christ speaking in them, might be embraced as sons and, being thus set in the middle place, be guarded by the two on either side.

2. 4. Of these four, indeed, Matthew alone is reported to have written in the Hebrew tongue, the others in Greek. And although each one seems to have kept some order of narration of his own, yet none of them is found to have wished to write as if ignorant of another who preceded him, or to have passed over in ignorance what another is found to have written; rather, as it was inspired in each, he added the not-superfluous cooperation of his own labor.

For Matthew is understood to have taken up the incarnation of the Lord according to the royal line, and most of his deeds and sayings according to the present life of men. Mark, following him, seems to be as it were his attendant and abbreviator.

For with John alone he said nothing,

by himself alone very few things,

with Luke alone fewer still,

but with Matthew very many things, and many of them in almost the same number and the very same words, in agreement either with him alone or with the rest.

Luke, however, appears more occupied with the priestly line and person of the Lord.

For he too ascends to David himself, yet not following the royal stem, but going up through those who were not kings,

he comes out at Nathan the son of David (See Lk 3:31), who was himself not a king either.

Not as Matthew, who, descending through Solomon the king (See Mt 1:6), follows out in order the other kings as well, preserving in them a mystical number of which we shall speak later.

Matthew, together with Mark, directed his attention to the royal person of Christ; Luke, to the priestly.

3. 5. For the Lord Jesus Christ, the one true king and the one true priest—the former to rule us, the latter to expiate our sins—declared that he himself enacted, in his own figure, these two persons that had been severally entrusted to the fathers,

whether by that title which was fixed upon his cross, The King of the Jews (Mt 27:37; Mk 15:26; Lk 23:38; Jn 19:19)—whence, by a hidden prompting, Pilate answered, What I have written I have written (Jn 19:22), for it had been foretold in the Psalms, Do not destroy the inscription of the title (Ps 75:1 (74:1))—

or, as regards the person of the priest, in that he taught us to offer and to receive, whence he sent ahead a prophecy concerning himself, saying, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4 (109:4)).

And by many other proofs of the divine Scriptures Christ appears as king and priest See Ps 2:6; 45:2 (44:2); Mt 2:2; 21:5; 27:11; Mk 15:2; 9:12; Lk 19:38; 22:2, 3; Jn 1:49; 12:13, 15; 18:37; 19:14; Heb 1:5; 5:5, 6; 7:17. Hence David himself—who not without reason is more frequently called his father than Abraham is, and whom Matthew and Luke held in common, the one tracing the descent through Solomon, the other the ascent to Nathan (See Mt 1:6; Lk 3:31)—although he was openly a king, nevertheless also prefigured the person of a priest, when he ate the loaves of the presence, which it was not lawful to eat except for the priests alone (See Lev 24:9; 1 Sam 21:6; Mt 12:13). To this is added that Luke alone also records that Mary was shown by the angel to have been a kinswoman of Elizabeth (See Lk 1:36), who was the wife of Zechariah the priest, of whom the same evangelist wrote that he had her as his wife from among the daughters of Aaron (See Lk 1:5), that is, from the tribe of priests.

3. 6. Since, therefore, Matthew directed his attention to the person of the king, and Luke to that of the priest, both especially commended the humanity of Christ. For it was according to his manhood that Christ was made both king and priest,

to whom God gave the throne of David his father, that of his kingdom there should be no end (See Lk 1:32-33), and that there might be, to intercede for us, a mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus (See 1 Tim 2:5). Luke, however, did not have an abbreviator joined to him as Matthew had Mark, and this perhaps not without some mystery, since it belongs to kings not to be without the attendance of a retinue. Hence the one who had undertaken to narrate the royal person of Christ had joined to him as it were a companion to follow in his footsteps in some fashion; but the priest, because he entered the Holy of Holies alone (See Lev 16:17), for that reason Luke, whose attention was upon the priesthood of Christ, did not have, as it were, an associate following after to abbreviate his narrative in some fashion.

John took care to express the divinity of Christ himself.

4. 7. These three evangelists, nevertheless, were chiefly occupied with those things which Christ did in time through his human flesh; but John especially has in view the very divinity of the Lord, by which he is equal to the Father, and took care above all to commend it in his Gospel, so far as he believed it could suffice among men.

And so he is borne far above those three,

so that you may see these in some fashion dwelling on earth with Christ the man, but that one transcending the cloud by which all the earth is covered (See Sir 24:6), and reaching the clear heaven, whence with the keenest and steadiest gaze of the mind he might behold, in the beginning the Word, God with God, through whom all things were made,

and might recognize him as made flesh, that he might dwell among us (See Jn 1:1-14)—that he took on flesh, not that he was changed into flesh.

For unless the assumption of flesh had been accomplished with the divinity kept unchangeable, it would not be said, I and the Father are one (Jn 10:30); for the Father and the flesh are not one.

And this testimony of the Lord concerning himself the same John alone has recorded—both, He who has seen me has seen the Father also, and, I am in the Father and the Father is in me (Jn 14:9-10), and, that they may be one, even as we are one (Jn 17:22), and, whatever the Father does, these same things the Son does likewise (Jn 5:19);

and whatever other things there are that, to those who understand rightly, intimate the divinity of Christ, in which he is equal to the Father, John almost alone has set down in his Gospel—as one who, from the very breast of the Lord, upon which he was accustomed to recline at his supper (See Jn 13:25), drank the secret of his divinity more abundantly and, as it were, more intimately.

The two virtues: John is engaged with the contemplative, the other evangelists with the active.

5. 8. Accordingly, since two virtues are set before the human soul—one active, the other contemplative; the one by which one goes, the other to which one arrives; the one by which one labors, that the heart may be cleansed for seeing God (See Mt 5:8), the other by which one is at leisure and God is seen—

the former lies in the precepts for the practice of this temporal life, the latter in the teaching about that everlasting life. And for this reason the former works, the latter rests, because the former is in the purifying of sins, the latter in the light of the purified (See Col 1:12, 14; Heb 1:3).

And for this reason, in this mortal life, the former lies in the work of good conduct (See Jas 3:13; 1 Pet 2:12; 3:16); the latter, rather, in faith, and—among very few—through a glass in a riddle and in part, in some vision of the unchangeable truth (See Rom 5:2; Gal 2:16; 3:8; Phil 3:9; Jas 2:22; 1 Cor 13:12).

These two virtues are understood to be figured in the two wives of Jacob (See Gen 29:16; 23:28). Concerning them I discoursed, according to my small measure, in the Answer to Faustus the Manichean, as far as seemed sufficient for that work.

For Leah is interpreted "laboring," but Rachel "the seen beginning." From which it is given to understand, if you attend carefully, that the three evangelists, who pursued more copiously the temporal deeds and sayings of the Lord which had the most force for forming the conduct of the present life, were engaged with that active virtue; but John, narrating far fewer of the Lord's deeds, yet recording more carefully and abundantly his sayings—especially those that would suggest the unity of the Trinity and the felicity of eternal life—held his intention and preaching to the commending of the contemplative virtue.

Some have understood the four living creatures from the Apocalypse of the four evangelists more fittingly than others have.

6. 9. Hence it seems to me that those who, from the Apocalypse, have interpreted those four living creatures (See Rev 4:7; 5:6-7; Ezek 1:5, 10) as signifying the four evangelists attended to something more probable—those who understood the lion in Matthew, the man in Mark, the calf in Luke, the eagle in John—than those who assigned the man to Matthew, the eagle to Mark, the lion to John. For they wished to take a certain conjecture from the beginnings of the books, not from the whole intention of the evangelists, which ought rather to have been searched out. For it is far more fitting that he who especially commended the royal person of Christ should be taken as signified by the lion.

Hence also in the Apocalypse the lion is mentioned together with that very royal tribe, where it is said, The lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered (Rev 5:5).

For according to Matthew the Magi too are related to have come from the east to seek and adore a king, who appeared to them as born by means of the star; and King Herod himself dreads the infant king and, that he might be able to kill him, slays so many little ones (See Mt 2:1-18).

But that Luke was signified by the calf, on account of the greatest victim of the priest, neither party has doubted. For there the discourse of the narrator begins with the priest Zechariah; there the kinship of Mary and Elizabeth is mentioned (See Lk 1:5-36); there the rites of the first priesthood are narrated as fulfilled in the infant Christ (See Lk 2:22-24); and whatever other things can be carefully noted, by which it appears that Luke had his intention upon the person of the priest.

Mark, then, who wished to narrate neither the royal nor the priestly line, neither kinship nor consecration, and yet is shown to be engaged with those things which Christ the man did, seems to be signified, among those four living creatures, only by the figure of the man.

Now these three living creatures—whether lion, or man, or calf—walk upon the earth; hence these three evangelists were chiefly occupied with those things which Christ did in the flesh, and with the precepts for practicing the mortal life which he handed down to those who bear flesh.

But John flies above the clouds of human infirmity, like an eagle, and beholds the light of the unchangeable truth with the keenest and steadiest eyes of the heart.

The reason for undertaking the work on the agreement of the evangelists. A reply is made to those who say that Christ wrote nothing, and that his disciples lied in proclaiming him God.

7. 10. These holy four-horse chariots of the Lord, by which, borne through the world, he subdues the peoples under his gentle yoke and his light burden (See Mt 11:30), certain men assail with calumnies, whether out of impious vanity or out of unlearned rashness,

so as to detract from the credit of the truthful narrative of those through whom the Christian religion, sown throughout the world, has sprung up with such fruitfulness that unbelievers now scarcely dare to mutter their calumnies even among themselves, restrained as they are by the faith of the nations and the devotion of all peoples.

Nevertheless, because they still, by their calumnious disputations, either hold some back from the faith so that they do not believe, or disturb others, who already believe, by harassing them as far as they can; and because some of the brethren, with their faith secure, desire to know what they may answer to such questions, whether for the advancement of their own knowledge or for refuting the empty talk of those men—by the inspiration and help of the Lord our God (which would that it might profit also their salvation), we have undertaken in this work to demonstrate the error or rashness of those who think they put forward sufficiently clever accusations against the four books of the Gospel, which the four evangelists each wrote.

That this may be done, it must be shown how these four writers do not contradict one another. For this is what they are accustomed to object as if it were the chief proof of their empty claim: that the evangelists disagree among themselves.

7. 11. But first that must be discussed which is wont to trouble some, namely, why the Lord himself wrote nothing, so that it is necessary to believe others who wrote about him. For this is said especially by those pagans who do not dare to fault or blaspheme the Lord Jesus Christ himself, and who attribute to him the most excellent wisdom, but only as to a man; yet they say that his disciples attributed to their master more than was the case, in calling him the Son of God and the Word of God, through whom all things were made, and saying that he and God the Father are one (See Jn 1:3, 34; 17:22), and whatever similar things there are in the apostolic writings, by which we have learned that he, together with the Father, is to be worshiped as the one God (See 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31; Gal 1:1). For they think he is to be honored as a most wise man, but they deny that he is to be worshiped as God.

7. 12. When, therefore, they ask why he himself wrote nothing, they seem to have been prepared to believe about him what he himself had written, not what others proclaimed about him according to their own judgment.

Of these men I ask why they believed, concerning certain of their most noble philosophers, what their disciples left written in memory of them, when those philosophers had written nothing about themselves.

For Pythagoras, than whom Greece then had nothing more illustrious in that contemplative virtue, is reported to have written nothing, not only about himself, but about anything at all. As for Socrates, whom in turn they preferred to all in the active virtue, by which conduct is formed,

so much so that they do not keep silent that by the testimony also of their god Apollo he was pronounced the wisest of all—he treated Aesop's fables in a few little verses, applying his own words and meters to another's matter,

and was so far from wishing to write anything that he said he did even this under compulsion by the command of his daemon, as Plato, the most noble of his disciples, records—in which work, nevertheless, he chose to adorn another's opinions rather than his own.

What reason, then, is there why they believe about these men what their disciples committed to writing concerning them, yet are unwilling to believe about Christ what his disciples wrote about him,

especially since they confess that other men were surpassed by him in wisdom, although they are unwilling to confess that he is God?

Or were those men, whom they do not doubt to have been far inferior to him, able to make their disciples truthful about themselves, and he was not able?

But if it is most absurd to say so, then let them believe about him whom they confess to be wise, not what they themselves wish, but what they read in those who learned the things they wrote from that wise man.

If, on the report of fame, Christ is believed to be most wise, why, when a greater fame proclaims it, is he not believed to be God.

8. 13. Next let them say from what source they were able even to know or to hear that he was most wise.

If by the spreading of fame, is fame a surer messenger about him than his disciples, by whose preaching of him that very fame became fragrant throughout the whole world?

Finally, let them set fame against fame, and believe that fame about him which is the greater. For that fame which is scattered abroad with marvelous brightness concerning the Catholic Church, which they marvel to see spread over the whole world, incomparably surpasses the slight rumors of those men;

and that fame, so great, so renowned that, fearing it, these men gnaw their trembling and tepid little contradictions in their own bosom, now more afraid of being heard than wishing to be believed, proclaims Christ the only-begotten Son of God and God, through whom all things were made (See Jn 1:3).

If, then, they choose fame as a witness, why do they not choose this one, which shines forth with such brightness? If they choose a writing, why not the evangelical one, which prevails with such great authority? We, for our part, believe about their gods what both their own more ancient writing contains and a more renowned fame reports.

And if these gods are to be adored, why do they laugh at them in the theaters? But if they are to be laughed at, there is the more to laugh at when they are adored in the temples.

It remains that they themselves are willing to be witnesses about Christ, who take from themselves the merit of knowing what they say, by speaking what they do not know. Or, if they say they have certain books which they assert he wrote, let them bring them forth to us.

For surely they are most useful and most wholesome, which, as they themselves confess, a most wise man wrote. But if they are afraid to bring them forth, then assuredly they are bad; and further, if they are bad, a most wise man did not write them; but they confess that Christ was most wise: therefore Christ did not write any such thing.

Some pretend that Christ wrote books on the magical arts.

9. 14. But these men are so foolish as to say that in those books which they suppose he wrote are contained the arts by which they think he worked those miracles, the fame of which has spread everywhere:

by supposing which, they betray themselves as to what they love and what they aim at, since indeed they think Christ was most wise for this reason, that he knew some unlawful things or other, which not only Christian discipline but even the very administration of the earthly commonwealth rightly condemns. And surely, those who affirm that they have read such books of Christ, why do they not themselves do any such things as those at which they marvel that he did from such books?

Some rave that those same books were addressed to Peter and Paul.

10. 15. What of the fact that, by a divine judgment, some of those who either believe or wish it to be believed that Christ wrote such things err so far as to say that those same books were inscribed to Peter and Paul as if with the heading of a letter? And it may be that, whether the enemies of the name of Christ, or those who thought that by such execrable arts they could lend the weight of authority drawn from so glorious a name, wrote such things under the name of Christ and the apostles. In which most deceitful audacity they have been so blinded that they are deservedly laughed at even by boys who, still as boys, in the rank of lectors, know the Christian writings.

Against those who dream that Christ turned peoples to himself by the magic art.

10. 16. For when they wished to pretend that Christ had written some such thing to his disciples, they considered to whom he could most readily be believed to have written, namely to those who had attached themselves to him more intimately, to whom that as it were secret might worthily be committed; and Peter and Paul occurred to them—I believe because in many places they saw them painted together with him, since Rome solemnly and with great renown commends the merits of Peter and Paul, on account also of the same day of their passion.

Thus they have altogether deserved to err, who sought Christ and his apostles not in the holy books but on painted walls; nor is it any wonder if those who feigned were deceived by those who painted. For during the whole time in which Christ lived in mortal flesh with his disciples, Paul was not yet his disciple, whom—after his own passion, after the resurrection, after the ascension, after the Holy Spirit was sent from heaven, after the conversion and marvelous faith of many Jews, after the stoning of Stephen the deacon and martyr—while he was still called Saul and was grievously persecuting those who had believed in Christ, he called from heaven and made his disciple and apostle (See Acts 9:1-30). How, then, could he write books—which they wish to be thought he wrote before he died—to disciples as the most intimate, namely Peter and Paul, when Paul was not yet his disciple?

11. 17. Let those also consider this, who rave that he could do such great things by the magic arts and that he consecrated his own name to peoples, to turn them to himself, by that very art:

whether he could, by the magic arts, fill so many prophets with the divine Spirit before he was born on earth—prophets who foretold concerning him such future things as we now read in the Gospel as already past, and such as we now see present throughout the world.

For even if by the magic arts he brought it about that he should be worshiped after death, he was not a magician before he was born—he to whose coming, foretold by prophecy, a single nation was assigned, the whole administration of whose commonwealth was a prophecy of that king who was to come and to found a heavenly city out of all nations.

Why the God of the Jews was not received by the Romans.

12. 18. Accordingly, that Hebrew nation, assigned, as I said, to the prophesying of Christ, had no other god but the one God, the true God, who made heaven and earth and all things that are in them.

When he was offended, they were often subjected to their enemies; and now, even for the most grievous crime of having killed Christ, they have been utterly uprooted from Jerusalem itself, which was the head of their kingdom, and subjugated to the Roman Empire.

Now the Romans were accustomed to propitiate the gods of the nations they subjugated, by worshiping them and taking up their sacred rites. But this they were unwilling to do with the God of the Hebrew nation, whether when they attacked it or when they conquered it.

I believe it was because they saw that, if they received the sacred rites of that God who commanded that he alone be worshiped, with the images even destroyed, they would have to give up all that they had earlier taken up for worship, by whose religions they supposed their empire had grown—in which the deceit of the demons greatly deceived them.

For surely they ought to have understood that it was by the hidden will of the true God, in whose hands the supreme power over things lies, that the kingdom was given and increased to them,

not by the favor of those gods, who, if they had had any power in this matter, would rather have protected their own worshipers, lest they be overcome by the Romans, or would have subdued and subjugated the Romans themselves to them.

12. 19. For neither can they say that their piety and morals were loved and chosen by the gods of the nations they conquered. They will never say this, if they recall their own beginnings—the asylum of criminals and the fratricide of Romulus.

For when Remus and Romulus established an asylum, so that whoever, guilty of any crime, had fled there should have his offense unavenged, they did not give precepts of repentance for the saving of the souls of the wretched (See Gen 19:17; Lk 9:56; Jas 1:21; 5:20), but rather, for the price of impunity, armed an assembled band of the fearful against their own cities, whose laws they feared;

nor, when Romulus killed his brother, who had perpetrated no evil against him, did he think of the justice of avenging rather than of the rule of dominating. Did the gods then love such morals, by favoring the enemies of their own cities?

On the contrary, neither by deserting those cities did they oppress them, nor by going over to these others did they help them at all, because they do not have it in their power to give and to take away a kingdom; rather the one and true God does this by his hidden judgment,

not about to make at once happy those to whom he has given an earthly kingdom, nor at once wretched those from whom he has taken it away; but making men happy or wretched for another reason and from another source, he distributes temporal and earthly kingdoms to whom he wills and for as long as he wills, according to the predestined order of the ages, whether by permitting or by granting.

Why God allowed the Jews to be subjugated.

13. 20. Hence neither can they say this: "Why then did the God of the Hebrews, whom you call the supreme and true God, not only fail to subjugate the Romans to them, but not even help the Hebrews themselves, lest they be subjugated by the Romans?" For their manifest sins went before, on account of which the prophets had foretold so long beforehand that this would come upon them, and especially because in impious fury they killed Christ—in which sin they were blinded by the deserts of their other hidden sins. That his passion would be of profit to the nations was foretold by the same prophetic attestation. Nor did anything more clearly show that the kingdom and temple and priesthood and sacrifice of that nation, and that mystical anointing which in Greek is called chrism, whence the name "Christ" shines forth and on account of which that very nation called its kings christs (anointed)—that all this was assigned to nothing but the foretelling of Christ—than that, after the resurrection of the slain Christ began to be preached to the believing nations, all those things ceased, the Romans not knowing it, through whose victory, the Jews not knowing it, through whose subjugation, it came about that they ceased.

The God of the Hebrews, when they were conquered, showed that he himself was not conquered, by the overthrow of idols and the conversion of all nations to his worship.

14. 21. The few pagans who remain do not, indeed, observe a truly marvelous thing: that the God of the Hebrews, offended by the conquered and not received by the conquerors, is now proclaimed and worshiped by all nations.

For he is the God of Israel, of whom so long beforehand the prophet thus addressed the people of God: and he who rescues you, the God of Israel, shall be called the God of the whole earth (Isa 54:5).

This came about through the name of Christ, who came to men from the seed of Israel himself, who was the grandson of Abraham, from whom the nation of the Hebrews began; for to Israel himself also it was said, and in your seed all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed (See Acts 3:25; Gen 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; Ps 72:17 (71:17)).

Hence the God of Israel is shown to be the one God, who made heaven and earth and who cares for human affairs justly and mercifully, so that justice does not shut out mercy, nor mercy hinder justice (See Jas 2:13); and it is shown that he himself was not conquered in his Hebrew people, because he permitted his kingdom and priesthood to be assailed and destroyed by the Romans,

since indeed, through the Gospel of Christ, the true king and priest, which he prefigured as future by that kingdom and priesthood, the God of Israel himself now everywhere destroys the idols of the nations—which idols, precisely that they might not be destroyed, the Romans were unwilling to receive his sacred rites, as they had received the gods of the other nations they conquered.

Thus he also took away the kingdom and priesthood of the prophetic nation, because the one who was promised through them had already come; and he subjugated the Roman Empire, by which that nation was conquered, to his own name through Christ the king, and converted it, by the strength and devotion of the Christian faith, to the overthrowing of the idols for whose honor's sake his sacred rites had not been received.

14. 22. I think that Christ did not, by the magic arts, bring it about—before he was born among men—that future things concerning himself should be foretold through so many prophets and even through the kingdom and priesthood of a certain nation.

For the people of that now-destroyed kingdom, dispersed everywhere by the marvelous providence of God, although they have remained without any anointing of king or priest—in which chrism the name of Christ appears—

nevertheless still hold the remnants of certain of their observances; whereas Roman worship, even when conquered and subjugated, did not accept those sacred rites that belong to the cult of idols,

so that it might carry the prophetic books as a testimony to Christ, and thus, from the books of his enemies, the truth of the Christ who was foretold might be proved. Why, then, do the wretched, by praising Christ wrongly, still betray themselves?

If some magical things have been written under his name, then, since the teaching of Christ is vehemently hostile to these arts, let them rather understand from this how great that name is, by adding which even those who live contrary to his precepts try to lend honor to their nefarious arts.

For just as, by the various errors of men, many have founded various heresies as well against the truth under his name, so even the enemies of Christ feel that, for persuading men of what they put forward against the teaching of Christ, they have no weight of authority for themselves unless it has the name of Christ.

Pagans, compelled to praise Christ, are insulting toward his disciples.

15. 23. What of the fact that these vain praisers of Christ and crooked disparagers of the Christian religion do not dare to blaspheme Christ for this reason, that certain of their philosophers—as Porphyry the Sicilian reveals in his books—consulted their gods as to what they should answer concerning Christ, and those gods, by their own oracles, were compelled to praise Christ?

Nor is it any wonder, since in the Gospel too we read that the demons confessed him (See Mk 1:24; Lk 4:41); and it is written in our prophets that the gods of the nations are demons (Ps 96:5 (95:5)). And for this reason these men, lest they strive against the responses of their own gods, hold back their blasphemies from Christ and pour them out upon his disciples;

but it seems to me that those gods of the nations, whom the pagan philosophers were able to consult, would also—if they were questioned about the disciples of Christ—be compelled to praise them too.

The apostles taught nothing about the overthrowing of idols different from what Christ or the prophets taught.

16. 24. Nevertheless, these men argue thus: that this overthrow of the temples, and condemnation of the sacrifices, and breaking of the images, does not come about through the teaching of Christ, but through that of his disciples, who, they contend, taught something other than what they learned from him—wishing in this way, while honoring and praising Christ, to tear down the Christian faith,

since indeed it is through the disciples of Christ that the deeds and sayings of Christ have been announced, on which the Christian religion stands—still hostile to these men, now very few in number, no longer attacking but still muttering. But if they are unwilling to believe that Christ taught such things, let them read the prophets, who not only commanded that the superstitions of idols be overthrown, but even foretold that this overthrow would come to pass in Christian times (See Ezek 14:6-25; Isa 2:18-22). If these prophets deceived, why is it fulfilled with such manifestation? If they spoke the truth, why is such great divinity resisted?

Against the Romans, who rejected the God of Israel alone.

17. 25. Nevertheless it must be asked of these men more carefully whom they think the God of Israel is. Why did they not receive him for worship, as they did the gods of the other nations which the Roman Empire subdued, especially since it is their opinion that all the gods are to be worshiped by the wise man?

Why, then, was this one rejected from the number of the rest? If he avails very much, why is he alone not worshiped by them? If he avails little or nothing, why, now that their images are crushed, is he alone worshiped by almost all nations?

They will never be able to be released from the bond of this question, who, while they worship gods greater and lesser—those whom they think to be gods—do not worship this God, who has prevailed over all whom they worship.

For if he is of great power, why was he judged to be rejected? If he is of little or no power, how could he do so much when rejected? If he is good, why is he alone separated from the rest of the good? If he is evil, why is he alone not overcome by so many good ones? If he is truthful, why are his precepts spurned? If he is a liar, why are his predictions fulfilled?

The God of the Hebrews was not received by the Romans, because he willed that he alone be worshiped.

18. 26. Finally, let them think about him what they will. Do not the Romans think that even evil gods are to be worshiped, who made shrines to Pallor and to Fever? Who counsel that demons are to be invited and demons to be appeased?

Whatever, then, they suppose about him, why did they judge that he alone was neither to be invoked nor to be propitiated by them? Who is this God, either so unknown that among so many gods he alone is still not found, or so well known that by so many men he alone is now worshiped?

Nothing, then, remains for them to give as a reason why they were unwilling to receive the sacred rites of this God, except that he willed that he alone be worshiped, and forbade the worship of those gods of the nations whom these men were already worshiping.

But this very thing is rather to be asked of them: whom, or of what kind, they think that God to be, who was unwilling that other gods be worshiped—those to whom these men made temples and images—and who could do so much that his will availed more for the overthrowing of their images than theirs availed for not receiving his sacred rites.

Surely the opinion of that philosopher of theirs is betrayed, whom they affirmed, even by an oracle, to have been the wisest of all men. For it is the opinion of Socrates that each god ought to be worshiped in the way that he himself has prescribed that he be worshiped.

Accordingly, a supreme necessity was laid upon these men of not worshiping the God of the Hebrews; for, if they wished to worship him in another way than he had said he was to be worshiped, they would surely not be worshiping him, but what they themselves had fashioned.

But if they wished to worship him in the way that he prescribed, they perceived that they must not worship the others whom he forbade to be worshiped.

And for this reason they spurned the worship of the one true God, lest they offend the many false ones, judging rather that the wrath of these would harm them than that the goodwill of that one would profit them.

That he is the true God.

19. 27. But granting that this was a vain necessity and a laughable timidity: now we ask what these men, to whom it is pleasing that all the gods are to be worshiped, think about this God. For if he is not to be worshiped, how are all worshiped, when he is not worshiped?

But if he is to be worshiped, then not all are to be worshiped, because, unless he alone is worshiped, he is not worshiped. Or will they perhaps say that he is not a god, while they call gods those who, as we believe, can do nothing except what they are permitted by his judgment—not so as to profit anyone, but so that they cannot even harm any except those whom he judges ought to be so harmed, who can do all things?

But, as they themselves are compelled to confess, they have certainly been able to do less than he. For if they are gods whose seers, consulted by men, gave responses near at hand to private matters—not to say deceived them—

how is he not God, whose seers not only gave fitting responses about the things that were consulted for the moment, but even, where they were not consulted, foretold so long beforehand those things concerning the whole human race and all nations which we now both read and see?

If they call him a god by whose inspiration the Sibyl sang the fates of the Romans, how is he not God who showed in advance that the Romans and all nations would believe in him as the one God through the Gospel of Christ, and would overthrow all the images of their fathers, just as he foretold?

Finally, if they call those gods who never dared, through their seers, to say anything against this God, how is he not God who, through his own seers, not only commanded that the images of these gods be overthrown, but even foretold that they would be overthrown among all nations by those who, having abandoned them, would be commanded to worship him as the one God and, being so commanded, would serve him (See Isa 2:17-20)?

Nothing is found foretold against the God of the Hebrews by the seers of the pagans.

20. 28. Or let them read, if they can, that any of the Sibyls, or any other of their seers, foretold that this would come to pass: that the God of the Hebrews, the God of Israel, would be worshiped by all nations; and that, because the worshipers of other gods had rightly spurned him before, there would also be writings of his prophets, set in an authority so lofty that, obeying them, even the Roman Empire would order the images to be destroyed; and that they had also given warning that such precepts should not be obeyed—let them read these things, if they can, from any books of their own seers.

For I forbear to say that the things which are read in their books bear testimony to our religion, that is, the Christian religion—things which they could hear from the holy angels and from our own prophets, just as even the demons were compelled to confess Christ present in the flesh (See Mk 1:24; Lk 4:41).

But I forbear these things, which, when we bring them forward, they contend were invented by our people. They themselves, altogether they themselves are to be pressed to bring forward something prophesied against the God of the Hebrews by the seers of their gods, just as we recite so many and such great things from the books of our prophets against their gods—both the commands we observe, and the predictions, and the deeds we point to as fulfilled (See Ps 44:21 (43:21); 81:10 (80:10); 96:5 (95:5); Wis 12:24). These things those who now remain, very few in number, prefer to grieve over as fulfilled than to acknowledge that God who was able to foretell what was to be fulfilled, since in their false gods, which are true demons, they seek nothing else as a great thing than to learn from their responses that something will come to pass for them.

This God alone is to be worshiped, who, while he forbids others to be worshiped, is not forbidden to be worshiped by others.

21. 29. Since these things are so, why do the wretched not rather understand that he is the true God, whom they see so separated from the fellowship of their gods that they, who profess that all the gods are to be worshiped, are compelled to confess him a God, while they are not allowed to worship him along with the rest?

Since, then, they cannot be worshiped together, why is not he chosen who forbids these others to be worshiped, with those others left aside who do not forbid him to be worshiped? Or, if they do forbid it, let it be read. For what ought rather to have been recited to their peoples in their temples, where nothing of the kind ever resounded? And surely the prohibition of so many against one ought to be better known and more powerful than that of one against so many.

For if the worship of this God is impious, the gods are useless who do not forbid men from impiety; but if his worship is pious, then, since in it it is enjoined that those others not be worshiped, the worship of those others is impious.

But if they so confidently forbid him to be worshiped that they fear more to be heard than they dare to forbid, by this very thing who would not be wise enough, who would not perceive, that he is rather to be chosen,

who so publicly forbids these gods to be worshiped, who ordered their images to be overthrown, foretold it, and overthrew them,

than these gods, whom we do not know to have commanded—that he should not be worshiped—whom we do not read to have foretold it, and whom we do not see to have availed anything?

I ask, let them answer: who is this God, who so pursues all the gods of the nations, who so betrays all their sacred rites, who so extinguishes them?

The opinion of the pagans about our God.

22. 30. Why should I question men who have become vain in their thinking, as to who this God is? Some say he is Saturn—I believe on account of the sanctifying of the Sabbath, because these men assigned that day to Saturn.

But Varro—than whom they find no one more learned among themselves—thought that the God of the Jews was Jupiter, holding that it made no difference by what name he was called, so long as the same reality was understood; I believe he was deterred by his supremacy.

For since the Romans are accustomed to worship nothing higher than Jupiter, as their Capitol clearly enough attests, and they judge him the king of all the gods, when Varro observed that the Jews worship the supreme God, he could suspect nothing other than Jupiter.

But whether they think the God of the Jews is Saturn or Jupiter, let them say when Saturn dared to forbid another god to be worshiped—not even Jupiter himself, who is reported to have expelled him from his kingdom, a son his father.

And if Jupiter, as the more powerful and the victor, pleased his worshipers, let them not worship Saturn, conquered and expelled. But Jupiter did not forbid even this Saturn to be worshiped, and the one whom he was able to conquer he nevertheless permitted to be a god.

What nonsense the pagans have talked about Jupiter and Saturn.

23. 31. "These," they say, "are fables, to be either interpreted by the wise or laughed at; but we worship Jupiter, of whom Maro says, All things are full of Jupiter (Virgil, Eclogue 3.60)"—that is, the spirit giving life to all things (See Jn 6:64; 1 Cor 15:42; 2 Cor 3:6). With reason, then, did Varro also suppose that Jupiter was worshiped by the Jews, because he says through the prophet, I fill heaven and earth (Jer 23:24). But what of the fact that the same poet speaks of aether?

How do they take it? For thus he says: then the almighty father Aether descended in fruitful showers into the lap of his joyful spouse (Virgil, Georgics 2.325-326). For they say that aether is not a spirit, but a lofty body, by which the heaven is stretched out above the air. Or is it conceded to the poet to speak now according to the Platonists, so that God is not a body but a spirit, now according to the Stoics, so that God is a body?

What, then, do they worship in the Capitol? If a spirit, if in short the corporeal heaven itself, what is that shield of Jupiter doing there, which they call the Aegis? For the origin of this name is given thus: that a goat (capra) nursed Jupiter when he was hidden from his mother. Or do the poets lie about this too? Are the Capitols of the Romans, then, the works of the poets? But what does this not-poetic but plainly mimic inconsistency mean—to seek the gods in books according to the philosophers, and to adore them in temples according to the poets?

23. 32. But was that Euhemerus too a poet, who reveals so very plainly that Jupiter himself, and Saturn his father, and Pluto and Neptune his brothers were men, so that their worshipers ought rather to give thanks to the poets, because they invented many things not to dishonor them but rather to adorn them?

And yet Cicero records that this Euhemerus too was translated into the Latin tongue by the poet Ennius (Cicero, De nat. deorum 1.119). Was Cicero himself a poet, who admonishes the one with whom he disputes in the Tusculans, as one privy to secrets, saying: but if I should try to search out ancient things, and to dig out from them what the writers of Greece have handed down, those very gods who are held to be of the greater nations will be found to have set out from here to heaven. Ask whose tombs are shown in Greece; recall, since you have been initiated, what is handed down in the mysteries; then at last you will understand how widely this extends (Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.29).

Here, certainly, he sufficiently confesses that the gods of these men were men, but he benevolently surmises that they reached heaven—although he did not hesitate to say publicly that even this honor of opinion was conferred upon them by men, when speaking of Romulus: him who founded this city, he says, Romulus, we have raised to the immortal gods by goodwill and fame (Cicero, Against Catiline 3.1.1). What wonder is it, then, if the more ancient men did this about Jupiter and Saturn and the rest, which the Romans did about Romulus, and which in still more recent times they wished to do even about Caesar?

To whom Virgil too added the adulation of his song, saying: behold, the star of the Dionaean Caesar has come forth (Virgil, Eclogue 9.47). Let them therefore see whether perhaps historical truth shows the tombs of the false gods on earth, while poetic vanity does not fix their stars, but feigns them, in heaven.

For that star is not really Jupiter's, or that one Saturn's; but after their death, upon the stars founded from the beginning of the world, men imposed these names—men who wished those dead ones to be held as gods. Of these, what so great an evil did chastity deserve, or what so great a good did pleasure deserve, that among the stars which circle with the sun and moon Venus should have a star and Minerva should not?

23. 33. But suppose Cicero too, an Academic, was more uncertain than the poets, who dared to mention the tombs of the gods and to commit it to writing—although he did not presume this on his own opinion, but recorded it from the tradition of those very sacred rites. Does Varro too either feign it as a poet, or set it down doubtfully as an Academic, when he says that the sacred rites of such gods were composed from the life or death of each of them, by which they lived or died among men? Was that Leo, the Egyptian priest, a poet or an Academic, who, to Alexander the Macedonian, revealed an origin of these gods different indeed from the opinion of the Greeks, yet such that he declared them to have been men?

23. 34. But what is that to us? Let them say that they do not worship Jupiter as a dead man, nor have dedicated the Capitol to a dead man, but to the spirit that gives life to all things, by which the world is filled, and let them interpret his shield, made of goatskin in honor of his nurse, as they will.

What do they say of Saturn? Which Saturn do they worship? Is he not the one who first came from Olympus: fleeing the arms of Jupiter, an exile with his kingdom taken away, who gathered together a race untaught and scattered upon the high mountains, and gave them laws, and chose that it be called Latium, since in these shores he had lain hidden in safety (Virgil, Aeneid 8.320-324)?

Does not his very image, which is fashioned with the head covered, indicate, as it were, one in hiding? Does not he himself show agriculture to the Italians, which he points to by the sickle? "No," they say; "for see to it, if he was that man and a certain king of whom these things are told; we, however, interpret Saturn as universal time, which his Greek name too shows; for he is called by a word which, with an aspiration added, is also the name of time, whence in Latin too he is called Saturn, as if he were sated (saturetur) with years." What is now to be done with these men, I do not know, who, trying to interpret the names and images of their gods for the better, confess that their greater god and the father of the rest is "time." For what else do they indicate than that all their gods are temporal, whose father they make time itself?

23. 35. At this their more recent philosophers, the Platonists, who lived already in Christian times, blushed, and tried to interpret Saturn otherwise, saying that he was named as it were from the satiety of intellect, in that in Greek the word for "satiety" is one thing and the word for "intellect" or "mind" is another. To this the Latin name too seems to lend support, as though composed of a first Latin part and a later Greek part, so that he should be called Saturn, as though "sated intellect."

They saw how absurd it would be if Jupiter, whom they either thought or wished to be thought an eternal god, were held to be the son of time. But according to this new interpretation—which, if their ancients had held it, it would be a wonder that it escaped Cicero and Varro—they call Jupiter the son of Saturn as a spirit flowing forth from that supreme mind, which they will have to be, as it were, the soul of this world, filling all heavenly and earthly bodies. Whence comes that line of Maro which I mentioned a little before: All things are full of Jupiter (Virgil, Eclogue 3.60).

Would not these men, if they could, change the superstition of men just as they change the very interpretation, and set up either no images at all, or Capitols to Saturn rather than to Jupiter? For they argue that no rational soul becomes wise except by participation in that supreme and unchangeable wisdom—not only the soul of any man, but even that of the world itself, which they call Jupiter; whereas we not only grant, but most of all proclaim, that there is a certain supreme wisdom of God, by participation in which whatever soul becomes truly wise becomes wise (See Wis 6:13-25; 1 Cor 1:30; Eph 1:17). But whether this whole corporeal mass which is called the world has a certain soul, or as it were its own soul—that is, a rational life by which it is governed as each animal is—is a great and hidden question, and this opinion ought neither to be affirmed unless it is found to be true, nor refuted unless it is found to be false. But what is this to a man, even if it always lies hidden from him, since indeed no soul becomes wise or blessed from any other soul whatsoever, but from that one supreme and unchangeable wisdom of God alone?

23. 36. The Romans, however, who founded the Capitol not to Saturn but to Jupiter, or the other nations which thought that Jupiter above all the other gods was to be worshiped, did not hold what these men held. For these men, according to this new opinion of theirs, would, if they had had any power in these matters, dedicate the highest citadels rather to Saturn; and they would above all destroy the astrologers and casters of nativities, who set Saturn—whom these men would call the maker of the wise—among the other stars as a maleficent god. This opinion has so prevailed against him in human minds that they are unwilling even to name him, calling him "the old man" rather than Saturn, with so timid a superstition that the Carthaginians have almost changed the name of one of their districts, calling it "the district of the old man" more frequently than "the district of Saturn."

Not all worship God who reject the God of Israel; nor do they worship him who worship others.

24. 37. It is known, then, what the worshipers of images are convicted of worshiping, and what they try to gloss over. But of these recent interpreters of Saturn too it must be asked what they think about the God of the Hebrews. For they too were pleased to worship all the gods along with the nations, since it shamed them, proud as they were, to be humbled under Christ for the remission of sins.

What, then, do they think about the God of Israel? If they do not worship him, they do not worship all the gods; but if they do worship him, they do not worship him as he commanded himself to be worshiped, because they also worship others whom he forbade to be worshiped. For through those seers he forbade these things, through whom he foretold that these very things would come to pass which their images now suffer from the Christians. For whether angels were sent to those prophets, to show them figuratively, through the fitting appearance of sensible things, that the creator of all is the one true God to whom all things are subject, and to indicate how he commanded himself to be worshiped; or whether the minds of some among them were so exalted by the Holy Spirit that they saw those things with that vision by which the angels themselves see—it is nonetheless established that they served that God who forbade other gods to be worshiped, and that they served him in the faith of piety, in the kingdom and priesthood of their own commonwealth, and in sacred rites signifying Christ who was to come as king and priest.

The false gods do not forbid others to be worshiped along with them. The God of Israel is convicted of being the true God by his works, both foretold and fulfilled.

25. 38. But further, among the gods of the nations—whom, while they wish to worship them, these men are unwilling to worship him who cannot be worshiped along with these—let them say what the reason is that none of them is found who forbids another to be worshiped, since they place them in various offices and functions and wish them to be presidents over the matters that pertain properly to each.

For if Jupiter does not forbid Saturn to be worshiped, because Saturn is not that man who expelled that human father from the kingdom,

but is either the body of heaven or the spirit filling heaven and earth, and therefore cannot forbid the supernal mind, from which he is said to have emanated, to be worshiped;

if for the same reason neither does Saturn forbid Jupiter to be worshiped, because he was not overcome by him in rebellion, as Saturn was by some Jupiter or other, fleeing whose arms he came into Italy, but rather the first mind favors the soul begotten of itself,

at least Vulcan would forbid Mars, the adulterer of his wife, to be worshiped; Hercules would forbid Juno, his persecutor. What is this so foul an agreement among them, that not even the chaste virgin Diana forbids the worship—I will not say of Venus, but of Priapus?

For if one man should wish to be both a hunter and a farmer, he will be the servant of both—though Diana blushes even to have her temple built near to Priapus's. But let them interpret Diana as whatever virtue they will, and let them interpret Priapus too as the god of fecundity—so that, indeed, in the breeding of females it would shame Juno to have such a helper—let them say what they please.

Let them interpret what they understand, so long as the God of Israel confounds all their arguments. For he, since he forbade all those gods to be worshiped, and was forbidden to be worshiped by none of them, and commanded, foretold, and accomplished the overthrow of their images and sacred rites, sufficiently shows that they are false and deceitful, and that he is the true and truthful God.

25. 39. But these now few worshipers of the many false gods—who would not marvel that they are unwilling to obey him concerning whom, when they are asked who that God is, they answer by supposing whatever they please, yet do not dare to deny that he is God, because, if they deny it, they are most easily convicted by his works, both foretold and fulfilled? For I do not speak of those things which they think they are free not to believe—that he in the beginning made heaven and earth and all things that are in them (See Gen 1:1)—nor of those very ancient things: that he translated Enoch (See Gen 5:24; Sir 44:16; Heb 11:5), that he destroyed the impious by the flood, that he delivered the just Noah and his household from it by means of the wood (See Gen 7:1-8:20; Wis 10:4; 1 Pet 3:20). I begin from Abraham with his deeds among men.

For to him was made, through an angelic oracle, a manifest promise, which we now see being fulfilled. For to him it was said, In your seed shall all the nations be blessed (Gen 22:18); from whose seed came the people of Israel, whence came the Virgin Mary, who bore Christ, in whom all the nations are blessed—let them now dare to deny it, if they can.

This promise was made also to Isaac the son of Abraham, and to Jacob the grandson of Abraham (See Gen 26:4; 28:14), who was also called Israel, from whom the whole people was both propagated and named, so that the God of this people was called the God of Israel—not that he is not himself the God of all nations, whether of those who do not know him or of those who now know him, but because in this people he willed the power of his promises to appear more manifestly. For that people, first multiplied in Egypt and freed from that slavery through Moses with many signs and portents, with very many nations subdued, received also the land of promise, in which it reigned through its kings sprung from the tribe of Judah (See Exod 1:7). This Judah was one of the twelve sons of Israel the grandson of Abraham, and thence the Jews, taking their name, did many things with God himself helping them, and suffered many things for their sins with him himself scourging them, until there should come the seed to whom the promise was made (See Gal 3:19), in whom all the nations would be blessed and would of their own accord break in pieces the images of their fathers (See Ezek 6:4; Hos 10:2).

Idolatry overthrown through the name of Christ and the faith of Christians, in accordance with the prophecies.

26. 40. For it was not in Christian times, but so long beforehand, that what is fulfilled through Christians was foretold. The very Jews who have remained enemies of the name of Christ—concerning whose future faithlessness too those prophetic writings are not silent—they themselves have and read the prophet saying: O Lord my God and my refuge in the day of evils, to you the nations shall come from the ends of the earth and shall say, 'Truly our fathers worshiped lies, the images, and there is no profit in them (Jer 16:19).' Behold, now it comes to pass; behold, now the nations come from the ends of the earth to Christ, saying these things and breaking the images. For this too is a great thing that God has granted to his Church spread everywhere: that the Jewish nation, deservedly subdued and dispersed through the lands, should carry everywhere the books of our prophets, lest these be thought composed by us, and, hostile to our faith, should become a witness of our truth. How, then, did the disciples of Christ teach what they did not learn from Christ—as the foolish boast in their folly—so that the superstition of the gentile gods and images should be destroyed? Can it even be said that the disciples of Christ feigned those prophecies which are now read in the books of the enemies of Christ?

26. 41. For who overthrew these things but the God of Israel? For to that very people it was said, through the divine voices made to Moses: Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God (Deut 6:4). You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor the likeness of anything, neither of what is in heaven above nor of what is on the earth below (Deut 5:8; Exod 20:4); and that he might even overthrow these things, where he has received the power, it is thus enjoined upon him: You shall not adore their gods, nor shall you serve them; you shall not do according to their works, but tearing down you shall tear down and breaking in pieces you shall break in pieces their images (Exod 23:24). But who would say that Christ and Christians do not pertain to Israel, since Israel was the grandson of Abraham, to whom first, and then to Isaac his son, and then to Israel his grandson himself, it was said—what I have already mentioned—In your seed shall all the nations be blessed (Gen 22:18)? Which we now see being done in Christ, since from there sprang that virgin of whom the prophet of the people of Israel and of the God of Israel sang, saying: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel (Isa 7:14). And Emmanuel is interpreted, God with us (See Mt 1:23).

The God of Israel, then, who forbade other gods to be worshiped, who forbade idols to be fashioned, who commanded that they be overthrown, who through the prophet foretold that the nations from the ends of the earth would say, Truly our fathers worshiped lies, the images, in which there is no profit (Jer 16:19)—he himself, through the name of Christ and the faith of Christians, commanded, promised, and brought about the overthrow of all these superstitions. In vain, then, do the wretched, because they have been forbidden to blaspheme Christ even by their own gods, that is, by the demons fearing the name of Christ, wish to make alien to him that teaching by which Christians dispute against the idols and uproot all those false religions, where they have been able.

He presses the remnants of the idolaters, that they may at last serve the true God who everywhere overthrows the idols.

27. 42. Let them answer concerning the God of Israel—whom not only the books of the Christians but also those of the Jews testify to teach and command these things; concerning him let them consult their own gods, who forbade Christ to be blasphemed; concerning the God of Israel, if they hear, let them give some insulting reply. But whom shall they consult? Or where shall they now consult? Let them read the books of their own. If they think the God of Israel is Jupiter, as Varro wrote (let me speak for the moment according to their opinion), why then do they not believe Jupiter that the idols are to be destroyed? If they think he is Saturn, why do they not worship him? Or why do they not worship him in the way that he prescribed himself to be worshiped, through those seers through whom he fulfilled what he foretold? Why do they not believe him that the images are to be overthrown and that other gods are not to be worshiped?

If he is neither Jupiter nor Saturn—because, if he were one of them, he would not say such great things against the sacred rites of their Jupiter and Saturn—who, then, is he, who alone among them is not worshiped on account of the other gods, and who, with the other gods overthrown, so evidently brings it about that he alone is worshiped, with every proud height humbled that had raised itself against Christ, persecuting and killing the Christians for the sake of the idols? Now, certainly, they seek where they may hide themselves when they wish to sacrifice, or where they may shut up their own gods, lest they be found by the Christians and broken. Whence comes this, except from fear of laws and kings, through whom the God of Israel exerts his power over those now made subject to the name of Christ, just as he promised long before, saying through the prophet: and all the kings of the earth shall adore him, all the nations shall serve him (Ps 72:11 (71:11))?

The foretold rejection of idols.

28. 43. Indeed, that is already being fulfilled which is sung again and again through the prophet: that he would forsake his impious people—not the whole of it, indeed, because many of the Israelites believed in Christ, for thence were even his apostles—and that he would humble every proud and injurious one, so that he himself alone might be exalted, that is, that he alone might be made manifest to men as high and powerful, until the idols should be cast away by the believers and hidden by the unbelievers, when, for fear of him, the earth is broken in pieces, that is, earthly men are broken by fear, fearing the law, whether of him himself or of those who, believing in him and reigning over the nations, would forbid such sacrileges.

28. 44. For these things, which—that they might be more easily understood—I have set forth briefly beforehand, the prophet states thus: And now, you house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord. For he has forsaken his people, the house of Israel, because their land was filled, as from the beginning, with auguries, as that of foreigners, and many foreign children were born to them. For their land was filled with silver and gold, and there was no number of their treasures. And the land was filled with horses, and there was no number of their chariots. And the land was filled with the abominations of the works of their own hands, and they adored the things that their fingers had made. And man bowed himself down and the man humbled himself, and I will not forgive them. And now enter into the rocks and hide yourselves in the earth from the face of the fear of the Lord and from the majesty of his power, when he shall rise up to break the earth in pieces. For the eyes of the Lord are lofty, but man is lowly. And the loftiness of men shall be humbled, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. For the day of the Lord of Sabaoth is upon every injurious and proud one and upon everyone lofty and elated, who shall be humbled; and upon every cedar of Lebanon, of the lofty and the elated, and upon every tree of Lebanon, of Bashan, and upon every mountain and upon every high hill, and upon every ship of the sea and upon every spectacle of beautiful ships. And the contumely of men shall be humbled and shall fall, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. And they shall hide all things fashioned by hands in caves and in the clefts of the rocks and in the caverns of the earth, from the face of the fear of the Lord and from the majesty of his power, when he shall rise up to break the earth in pieces. For in that day man shall cast away the golden and silver abominations, which they made that they might adore vain and noxious things, that they may enter into the holes of the solid rock and into the clefts of the rocks, from the face of the fear of the Lord and from the majesty of his power, when he shall rise up to shatter the earth (Isa 2:5-21).

Why should the pagans not worship the God of Israel, if they suppose him to be even the one set over the elements?

29. 45. What do they say about this God of Sabaoth, which is interpreted "God of powers," or "of armies," because the powers and armies of the angels serve him? What do they say about this God of Israel, that he is the God of that people from whom came the seed in whom all the nations would be blessed (See Gen 22:18)? Why do they alone not worship him, who contend that all the gods are to be worshiped? Why do they not believe him, who has both shown and overthrown the other false gods? I heard one of them say that he had read in some philosopher or other, that from the things which the Jews did in their sacred rites he had understood which God they worshiped: the one set over, he said, those elements out of which this visible and corporeal world is constructed (Perhaps Numenius: see Eusebius, Praep. ev. 7.3)—whereas in the Holy Scriptures of his prophets it is openly shown that the God commanded to be worshiped by the people of Israel is the one who made heaven and earth (See Gen 1:1) and from whom is all true wisdom (See Sir 1:1; 15:10; Wis 7:15-17). But what need is there to dispute longer about this, when for what I am doing it suffices that, by whatever presumption they suppose about that God, they cannot deny that he is God? For if he is set over the elements out of which this world consists, why is not he alone rather worshiped than Neptune, who is set over the sea alone; or finally than Silvanus, who is set over fields and woods alone; than the Sun, who is set over the day alone, or even over all the heat of heaven; than the Moon, who shines forth with power over the night alone, or even over moisture; than Juno, who is reported to hold the air alone? For surely those who are set over parts, whoever they are, must of necessity be under him who bears the office over all the elements and over this whole mass. But he forbids them all to be worshiped. Why, then, do these men, against the command of the greater of them, not only wish to worship them, but, for the sake of them, refuse to worship him? They still do not find what they may pronounce, constantly and clearly, about this God of Israel, nor will they ever find it, until they find him to be the one true God, by whom all things were created.

The God of Israel, the prophecies being fulfilled, has now become known everywhere.

30. 46. Accordingly, a certain Lucan, a great declaimer of theirs in verse—himself too, I believe, long seeking, whether through his own thoughts or through the books of his own people, who the God of the Jews might be, and, because he did not seek piously, not finding him—nevertheless preferred to call the God whom he did not find an uncertain God rather than no God, since he felt such great evidences of him. For he says: and Judea, given over to the sacred rites of an uncertain God (Lucan, Pharsalia 2.592-593). And this God, the holy and true God of Israel, had not yet done, through the name of Christ, such great things among all the nations as have followed up to the present day after Lucan's times. But now, who is so hard as not to be bent? Who is so torpid as not to be set afire, when that is fulfilled which is written, that there is no one who hides himself from his heat, now that the things foretold so long before in that same Psalm, from which I have quoted that little verse, are made manifest in the clearest light? For by the name of the heavens the apostles of Christ were signified, because God presided in them, that they might announce the Gospel. Already, then, the heavens have declared the glory of God, and the firmament has announced the works of his hands. Day to day has uttered speech, and night to night has announced knowledge. Already there are no languages nor tongues whose voices are not heard. Already their sound has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. Already in the sun, that is, in manifestation, he has set his tabernacle, which is his Church, because, that he might do this, he himself, as it follows there, came forth as a bridegroom from his chamber, that is, the Word joined to human flesh came forth from the virginal womb; already he has exulted as a giant and run his course; already his going forth was from the height of heaven, and his return even to the height of heaven (See Ps 19:1-7 (18:1-7)). And therefore most rightly follows the verse which I mentioned a little before: and there is no one who hides himself from his heat (Ps 19:7 (18:7)). And still these frail ones, chattering their little contradictions, choose to be turned by this fire into ashes like stubble (See Isa 47:14) rather than to be purified of dross like gold (See Prov 17:3; Wis 3:6; Sir 2:5), when both the deceitful monuments of the false gods have already been frustrated, and the truthful promises of that uncertain God have already been made certain!

The prophecy about Christ fulfilled.

31. 47. Let the evil praisers of Christ, then, who are unwilling to be Christians, cease to say that Christ did not teach that their gods should be forsaken and their images broken in pieces (See Deut 7:5). For the God of Israel, of whom it was foretold that he would be called the God of the whole earth (See Isa 54:5)—and the God of the whole earth he is now called—foretold through the prophets that this would come to pass, and fulfilled it through Christ at the fitting time. For surely, if the God of Israel is now called the God of the whole earth, it is necessary that what he commanded come to pass, since the one who commanded it has become known. But because it was through Christ and in Christ that he became known, so that his Church would be spread throughout the world and through it the God of Israel would be called the God of the whole earth—let those who wish read, a little above, in the same prophet; indeed, let it be recalled by me too. For it is not so long that it ought to be passed over. For many things are said about the presence and humility and passion of Christ, and about his body, of which he is the head, that is, his Church, when it is called as it were barren, that did not bear.

For through many years the Church, which was to be among all nations in her children, that is, in her saints, did not appear, since Christ had not yet been announced by the evangelists to those to whom he had not been announced by the prophets; and it is said that the children of the forsaken one would be more than those of her who has a husband—since by the name of husband was signified the Law or the king, which the people of Israel first received, while the nations had not received the Law at the time when the prophet spoke, nor had the king of the Christians yet appeared to the nations, from which nations nevertheless there came forth a far more fruitful and numerous multitude of the saints (See Isa 54:1; Gal 4:27). So, then, says Isaiah, beginning from the humility of Christ and afterward turning himself to address the Church, up to that verse which we mentioned, where he says: and he who rescued you, the very God of Israel, shall be called the God of the whole earth (Isa 54:5).

Behold, he says, my servant shall be in understanding, and he shall be exalted and greatly honored. As many shall marvel over you, so too your appearance shall be seen as without honor by all, and your honor by men. For so shall many nations marvel over him, and kings shall keep their mouth shut, because they to whom it was not announced concerning him shall see, and they who have not heard shall understand (Isa 52:13-15). Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? We announced him before him as a child, as a root in a thirsty land; there is no appearance in him nor honor. And we saw him, and he had no appearance nor comeliness; but his countenance was abject and the set of his form deformed beyond all men. A man in stripes and one who knows how to bear infirmities, on account of which his face was turned away; he was wronged and not greatly esteemed. He bears our infirmities and is in sorrows for us. And we esteemed him to be in sorrows and in stripes and in punishment. But he himself was wounded for our sins and made weak for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon him; by his bruise we have been healed. We all like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord handed him over for our sins. And he himself, because he was ill-treated, did not open his mouth; like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb before the one who shears it he was without voice, so he did not open his mouth. In his humility his judgment was taken away. His generation, who shall declare it? For his life shall be taken from the earth. From the iniquities of my people he was led to death. I will therefore give the wicked for his burial and the rich for his death, because he did no iniquity nor deceit in his mouth. The Lord wills to purify him of the stripe. If you give your soul for your sins, you shall see a seed of the longest life. And the Lord wills to take away his soul from sorrows, to show him light and to form it through understanding, to justify the just one who serves many well, and he himself shall bear their sins. Therefore he himself shall inherit many and shall divide the spoils of the strong, because his soul was handed over to death and he was reckoned among the wicked, and he himself bore the sins of many and was handed over for their iniquities (Isa 53:1-12; see Mt 8:17). Rejoice, O barren one, who do not bear; break forth and cry, you who do not travail, because the children of the forsaken one are more than of her who has a husband. For the Lord said, 'Enlarge the place of your tent and fix fast your courts; there is no reason to spare. Stretch out the cords further and set up strong stakes. Again and again extend to the right and to the left. For your seed shall inherit the nations, and you shall inhabit the cities that were forsaken. There is no reason for you to fear, for you shall prevail, nor be ashamed that you were detestable. For you shall forget your confusion forever, you shall not remember the ignominy of your widowhood, because I am the Lord who makes you, the Lord is his name; and he who rescued you, the very God of Israel, shall be called the God of the whole earth (Isa 54:1-5).'

31. 48. What can be said against this evidence and expression of things both foretold and fulfilled? If they think his disciples lied about the divinity of Christ, will they doubt about the passion of Christ? They are not wont to believe that he rose again; but they even gladly believe that he suffered all those human things from men, because they wish him to be believed a man only. He, then, who like a sheep was led to the slaughter (See Isa 53:7; Mt 26:63), who was reckoned among the wicked, who was wounded for our sins, by whose bruise we have been healed (Isa 53:5; Mk 15:28; Lk 22:37; Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:3), whose face was wronged and not greatly esteemed, struck with palms and smeared with spittle, whose form on the cross was deformed; he who was led to death from the iniquities of the people of Israel; he who had no appearance nor comeliness, when he was struck with blows, when he was crowned with thorns, when, hanging, he was mocked; he who, as a lamb before the one who shears it has no voice (See Isa 53:7; Mt 26:67; Mk 14:65; Lk 22:63; 1 Pet 2:22), so did not open his mouth, when it was said to him by those insulting, Prophesy to us, Christ (Mt 26:68; see Mk 14:65; Lk 22:64). Indeed, he is now exalted, now greatly honored. Indeed, many nations now marvel over him (See Isa 52:13-15). Now the kings have kept their mouth shut, by which they promulgated the most savage laws against the Christians. Indeed, they to whom it was not announced about him now see, and they who have not heard now understand (See Rom 15:16-21). For the nations, to whom the prophets did not announce, themselves see, rather, how true the things announced through the prophets are. And they who did not hear Isaiah himself speaking now understand, in his writings, of whom he spoke these things. For even in the very nation of the Jews, who believed the report of the prophets, or to whom was the arm of the Lord, which is Christ himself, who was announced through them, revealed, when with their own hands they committed those crimes against Christ which the prophets they had had foretold would come to pass (See Isa 53:1; Jn 12:37-38; Rom 10:16)? Indeed, he now possesses many by inheritance and divides the spoils of the strong (See Isa 53:12), since the things which the devil and the demons possessed, those expelled and betrayed, he distributes for the buildings of his churches and whatever necessary uses.

The teaching of the apostles against idolatry is vindicated from the prophecies.

32. 49. What, then, do the perverse praisers of Christ and disparagers of Christians say to these things? Did Christ, that these things should be foretold through the prophets so long beforehand, do this by the magic arts, or did his disciples feign them? Did the disciples of Christ feign that the Church—spread among the nations, once barren, now rejoicing in more children than that synagogue which had received the Law or the king as a husband—should so enlarge the place of her tent, occupying all nations and tongues, that further than the bounds of the Roman Empire are extended, even unto the Persians and the Indians and other barbarous nations, she should stretch out her cords; that to the right, through true Christians, and to the left, through feigned Christians, his name should be extended among so many peoples; that her seed should inherit the nations; that she should now inhabit the cities which had been forsaken by the true worship of God and by true religion; that she should not fear the threats and furies of men, when she was clothed in the blood of the martyrs as with a purple honor; that she should prevail over her so many and so vehement and powerful persecutors; that she should not be ashamed that she was detestable, when it was a great crime to become or to be a Christian; that she should forget her confusion forever, because where sin had abounded, grace did much more abound (See Rom 5:20); that she should not be mindful of the ignominy of her widowhood, because, a little while forsaken and exposed to reproaches, she flourishes again with so eminent a glory? Did the disciples of Christ, finally, feign that the Lord, who made her and rescued her from the dominion of the devil and the demons, the very God of Israel, should now be called the God of the whole earth—which the prophets, whose books are now held in the hands of the enemies of Christ, foretold so long before Christ became the Son of man (See Isa 54:2-5)?

32. 50. From this, then, let them understand—what is left obscure or doubtful not even to the dullest and most obtuse—from this, I say, let the perverse praisers of Christ and execrators of the Christian religion understand that even the disciples of Christ learned and taught against their gods those things which the teaching of Christ contains; because the God of Israel, who is found to have commanded, in the books of the prophets, that all these things which these men wish to worship be abominated and overthrown, is himself now called, through Christ and the Church of Christ, the God of the whole earth, as he promised so long beforehand (See Isa 54:5). For if, by a marvelous madness, they surmise that Christ worshiped their gods, and that through these he was able to do such great things, did the God of Israel too worship their gods—he who fulfilled what he promised concerning himself, to be worshiped among all nations, and concerning those gods, to be abominated and overthrown, through Christ (See Deut 7:5)? Where are their gods? Where are the prophecies of the fanatics and the divinations of the soothsayers? Where are the auguries or auspices or haruspices or oracles of the demons? Why is there not brought forward, from such ancient books, something admonished and foretold against the Christian faith and against the truth of our prophets, now so manifest and expressed among all the nations? "We offended our gods," they say, "and they forsook us; therefore the Christians prevailed against us, and the felicity of human affairs, wearied and diminished, slips away." Let them at least read, from the books of their own seers, that this would come to pass for them through the Christians; but let them read those passages where, if not Christ—since they wish him to have been a worshiper of their gods—at least the God of Israel was reproved and detested, who is established as the overthrower of theirs. But they will never bring this forward, except what they may perhaps just now have fabricated. And when they have brought it forward, it will be clear, by that very fact—that so great a thing, so unknown, is brought forward, which surely ought, before what was foretold had happened, to have been recited in the temples of the gods of all nations, so that those who now wish to be Christians might be forearmed and forewarned.

Against those who complain that the felicity of human affairs has been diminished through Christian times.

33. 51. Next, as for their complaint about the diminishing of the felicity of human affairs through Christian times—if they should read the books of their own philosophers reproving those things which are now withdrawn from them even as they refuse and murmur, then indeed they would find great praise for Christian times. For what of felicity is diminished for them, except what they were most basely and luxuriously abusing, to the great injury of the Creator? Unless perhaps the times are evil for this reason, that through almost all the cities the theaters are falling, the dens of foulness and the public professions of disgraceful deeds; and there are falling too the marketplaces or the walls in which the demons were worshiped. For why are they falling, except from the want of those things by whose wanton and sacrilegious use they were built? Did not their own Cicero, when he was praising a certain actor Roscius, say that he was so skilled that he alone was worthy to be allowed to go on the stage; and so good a man that he alone was worthy not to be allowed to go onto it (Cicero, In Defense of Roscius)? What else does he most openly show but that that stage is so foul that a man ought to be there so much the less, the more he is a good man? And yet their gods were appeased by such disgrace as he judged ought to be kept away from good men. There is also from this same Cicero an open confession, where he says that the goddess-mother Flora must be appeased by him through the celebration of games (Cicero, Against Verres 5.14.36). In which games such great foulness was wont to be exhibited that, in comparison with them, the rest are decent—from the very performing of which, nevertheless, good men are forbidden. What is this mother Flora, what sort of goddess is she, whom the more celebrated foulness, given loose rein, wins over and propitiates? How much more decently did Roscius go onto the stage than Cicero worshiped such a goddess?

If, by the diminished abundance of the things that are lavished on celebrating these spectacles, the gods of the nations are offended, it appears what sort they are who are delighted by such things. But if they themselves, being angry, diminish these things, they are more useful in their anger than in their being appeased. Wherefore let them either accuse their own philosophers, who reproved such things in luxurious men, or break their own gods, who demanded such things of their worshipers—if indeed they now find either gods to break or gods to hide; but, in Christian times, let them cease to impute, with blasphemy, the failing of favorable things, by which they were flowing away into foul and noxious pursuits, lest they rather remind us of the source from which the power of Christ is the more to be praised.

Epilogue of the foregoing.

34. 52. I would say many things on this matter, did not the necessity of the work I have undertaken compel me now to conclude this book and to return to the purpose I set forth. For when I undertook to resolve, as I could, the Gospel questions where the four evangelists seem to some not to agree among themselves, with the intentions of each set forth, it first occurred to me that I must discuss what some are wont to ask, namely, why we bring forward no writings of Christ himself. For thus they wish both that he be believed to have written something else or other which they love, and to have thought nothing against their gods but rather to have worshiped them by a magic rite, and that his disciples not only lied about him in calling him God, through whom all things were made (Jn 1:3)—when he was nothing but a man, though of the most excellent wisdom—but also did not teach, about their gods, what they had learned from him. Whence it came about that we pressed them rather concerning the God of Israel, who is worshiped, through the Church of Christians, by all the nations, and now everywhere overthrows their sacrilegious vanities, just as he foretold so long beforehand through his prophets, and, through the name of Christ in whom he had promised that all the nations would be blessed (See Gen 22:18), he fulfilled what he foretold.

From this they ought to understand that Christ could neither have known nor taught anything else about their gods than what the God of Israel commanded and foretold through the prophets—through whom he promised and sent Christ himself, in whose name, according to the promise which he made to the fathers that all the nations would be blessed, it came about that the God of Israel himself was called the God of the whole earth (See Isa 54:5)—and that his disciples did not deviate from the teaching of their master, when they forbade the gods of the nations to be worshiped, lest we either supplicate to senseless images, or have fellowship with the demons, or serve, by the obedience of religion, the creation rather than the Creator (See Rom 1:25).

The mystery of the Mediator is proclaimed to the ancients through prophecy, to us through the Gospel.

35. 53. Wherefore, since he is himself the Wisdom of God, through whom all things were created, and since no rational minds, whether of angels or of men, become wise except by participation in him—to whom we cleave through the Holy Spirit, through whom love is poured out in our hearts (See Rom 5:5), which Trinity is one God—it was provided by divine providence for mortals, whose temporal life was held occupied with things rising and setting, that this same Wisdom of God, with a man assumed into the unity of his person, in whom he might be born, live, die, and rise again in time, by saying and doing, by suffering and enduring things suited to our salvation, should become both, below, an example to men of returning, and, above, an example to angels of abiding. For unless something arose in time also in the nature of the rational soul—that is, began to be what it was not—it would never come from the worst and foolish life to the wise and best. And for this reason, since the truth of those who contemplate fully enjoys eternal things, while the faith of those who believe is owed to things that have arisen, man is purified through faith in temporal things, that he may perceive the truth of eternal things. For one of them too, a most noble philosopher, Plato, in that book which they call the Timaeus, says thus: as much as eternity avails toward that which has arisen, so much does truth avail toward faith (Plato, Timaeus, p. 29). Those two are above, eternity and truth; these two are below, that which has arisen and faith. That we may therefore be called back from the lowest to the highest, and that which has arisen may receive eternity, we must come through faith to truth. And because all things that proceed to their contrary are brought back through some middle thing, temporal iniquity was alienating us from eternal justice; there was need, therefore, of a middle temporal justice, which middle should be temporal from the lowest, just from the highest, and thus, neither tearing itself away from the highest nor tempering itself to the lowest, should render the lowest to the highest. Therefore Christ was called the Mediator of God and men, between the immortal God and mortal man, God and man, reconciling man to God (See 1 Tim 2:5), remaining what he was, made what he was not. He is for us faith in things that have arisen, who is truth in things eternal.

35. 54. This great and unutterable mystery, this kingdom and priesthood, was revealed to the ancients through prophecy; it is proclaimed to their descendants through the Gospel. For it was fitting that, at some time, there should be rendered among all the nations what was long promised through one nation. Accordingly, he who sent the prophets ahead before his descent, himself also sent the apostles after his ascension. And to all his disciples, through the man whom he assumed, he is the head, as it were of the members of his body. And so, when they wrote the things which he showed and said, it must by no means be said that he himself did not write them; since indeed his members did that which they came to know with the head dictating. For whatever he willed us to read concerning his own deeds and sayings, this he commanded them to write, as if with his own hands. Whoever understands this fellowship of unity and this ministry of the members, harmonious in their diverse offices under one head, will receive what he reads in the Gospel from the disciples of Christ narrating it no otherwise than if he had beheld the very hand of the Lord, which he bore in his own body, writing it. Wherefore let us now rather see of what kind are those things which they think the evangelists wrote contrary to one another (which can seem so to those who understand too little), so that, these questions resolved, it may from this too appear that the members of that head, not only by thinking the same thing, but also by writing things that agree, preserved, in the unity of the body itself, a genuine concord.

1. 1. Since, by a discourse not brief and quite necessary, which we have embraced in one book, we have refuted the emptiness of those who think the disciples of Christ, in writing the Gospel, are to be despised because we bring forward no writings of Christ himself—whom, though not as God, yet as a man far excelling the rest in wisdom, they do not doubt is to be honored—and who wish him to be seen to have written such things as the perverse love, not such as, when read and believed, can correct men from perversity: now let us see how the things which the four evangelists wrote about Christ agree both with themselves and with one another, lest from this any stumbling block be suffered in the Christian faith by those who are more curious than capacious, who, thinking that they have found certain inconsistencies and contradictions—not in the Gospel books read in any fashion, but as if more carefully searched through—judge that these are rather to be objected contentiously than considered prudently.

1. 2. The evangelist Matthew began thus: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Mt 1:1). By this beginning of his he shows sufficiently that he undertook to narrate the generation of Christ according to the flesh. For according to this Christ is the Son of man (See Mt 8:20; 9:6), which he himself also most frequently calls himself, commending to us what he mercifully deigned to be for us. For that supernal and eternal generation, according to which the only-begotten Son of God is before all creation, because all things were made through him (See Jn 1:3), is so ineffable that what was said by the prophet is understood of it: His generation, who shall declare it? (Isa 53:8) Matthew, then, follows out the human generation of Christ, recording the begetters from Abraham, whom he leads down to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born. For it was not right that he should think Joseph ought, on this account, to be separated from his marriage with Mary, that Mary bore Christ not from his intercourse, but as a virgin.

For by this example it is grandly intimated to faithful married people that, even with continence preserved by equal consent, a marriage can endure and be called a marriage, with no mingling of the sex of the body, but with the affection of the mind guarded—especially since a son could even be born to them without any carnal embrace, which is to be employed only for the begetting of children. For Joseph was not, on this account, not to be called the father of Christ, that he had not begotten him by lying with Mary, since indeed he would rightly be the father even of one whom, not procreated from his own wife, he had adopted from somewhere.

1. 3. Christ was indeed thought to be the son of Joseph also in another way, as though begotten altogether from his flesh; but this was thought by those from whom Mary's virginity lay hidden. For Luke says: and Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as it was thought, the son of Joseph (Lk 3:23). Yet this same Luke did not at all hesitate to call not Mary alone his parent, but both his parents, where he says: and the boy grew and was strengthened, full of wisdom, and the grace of God was in him. And his parents went every year to Jerusalem on the solemn day of the Pasch (Lk 2:40-41). But lest anyone here suppose that by "parents" the blood relatives of Mary, together with his mother herself, are rather to be understood, what will he answer to that which this same Luke said above: and his father and mother were marveling at the things which were said about him (Lk 2:33)? Since, therefore, he himself narrates that Christ was born not from the intercourse of Joseph, but from the Virgin Mary, whence does he call him his father, except because we rightly understand him also as the husband of Mary, without the mingling of flesh, by that very joining of marriage, and on this account also the father of Christ much more closely—who was born of his wife—than if he had been adopted to him from somewhere? Whence that is manifest which he says, as was thought, the son of Joseph (Lk 3:23)—that he said it on account of those who thought him born of Joseph as other men are born.

2. 4. And for this reason, even if someone could demonstrate that Mary drew no origin of blood relationship from David, it would be enough, according to this reasoning, to take Christ as the son of David (See Mt 1:1-20), by which reasoning Joseph too was rightly called his father: how much more, since, when the apostle Paul evidently says that Christ is of the seed of David according to the flesh (See Rom 1:3), we surely ought not to doubt that Mary herself too drew some blood relationship from the stock of David! And since the priestly lineage of this woman too is not passed over—Luke intimating that Elizabeth was her kinswoman (See Lk 1:36), whom he says to be of the daughters of Aaron (See Lk 1:5)—it must be most firmly held that the flesh of Christ was propagated from both lineages, namely of kings and of priests, in which persons, among that people of the Hebrews, the mystical anointing too was figured, that is, chrism, whence the name of Christ shines forth, foretold so long beforehand even by this most evident signification.

3. 5. But as for those whom it troubles that Matthew enumerates some forefathers, descending from David down to Joseph (See Mt 1:1-16), while Luke enumerates others, ascending from Joseph up to David (See Lk 3:23-38), it is easy for them to observe that Joseph could have had two fathers: one by whom he was begotten, the other by whom he was adopted. For the custom of adopting is an ancient one, even in that people of God, that they might make sons for themselves whom they had not themselves begotten. For, apart from the fact that Pharaoh's daughter had adopted Moses (See Exod 2:10) (for she indeed was a foreigner), Jacob himself adopted his grandsons born of Joseph, in most manifest words, saying: Now therefore your two sons, who were born to you before I came to you, are mine: Ephraim and Manasseh shall be to me as Reuben and Simeon. But the children whom you beget afterward shall be yours (Gen 48:5-6). Whence it also came about that there were twelve tribes of Israel, apart from the tribe of Levi, which served the Temple; for with it there were thirteen, while the sons of Jacob had been twelve. Whence it is understood that Luke took up, in his Gospel, the father of Joseph not by whom he was begotten, but by whom he had been adopted (See Lk 3:23), whose forefathers he might record upward until he came out to David.

For since it is necessary, both evangelists narrating the truth, namely both Matthew and Luke, that one of them held the origin of that father who had begotten, the other of him who had adopted Joseph, we understand it more probable that Luke held the origin of the one adopting than the one who refused to say that Joseph was begotten by him whose son he was narrating him to be. For he was more suitably called the son of him by whom he had been adopted, than he would be said to be begotten by him of whose flesh he was not born. But Matthew, saying, Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob (Mt 1:2), and thus persevering in this word which is begot, until at the last he should say, and Jacob begot Joseph (Mt 1:16), sufficiently expressed that he had led down the order of the begetters to that father by whom Joseph was not adopted, but begotten.

3. 6. And yet, even if Luke too had said that Joseph was begotten by Eli, not even thus ought this word to disturb us, so that we should believe anything other than that by one evangelist the begetting father, by the other the adopting father, was recorded. For it is not absurdly said that anyone has begotten, not by flesh but by love, the one whom he has adopted as a son for himself; or indeed even we, to whom God gave the power to become his sons (See Jn 1:12)—he did not beget us of his own nature and substance, as he begot the only Son, but surely adopted us by love (See Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4). The apostle is understood often to use this word for no other reason than to distinguish the Only-begotten before all creation, through whom all things were made, who alone was born of the substance of the Father, according to the equality of divinity, altogether that which the Father is—whom he says was sent to take on flesh from that lineage in which we too are according to our nature, so that, by his partaking of our mortality through love, he might make us partakers of his divinity through adoption. For thus he says: but when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, that he might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons (Gal 4:4-5). And yet we are also said to be born of God, that is, having received the power to be made his sons, we who were already men, but are made so by grace, not by nature (See Eph 1:5). For if we were sons by nature, we would never have been anything else.

For when John had said, he gave them the power to become sons of God, to those who believe in his name, he went on to say, who were born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (Jn 1:12-13). Thus those whom he said were made sons of God, having received the power—which that adoption signifies which Paul mentions—the same he said were born of God (See Rom 8:15).

And, that he might show more openly by what grace it was done, and the Word, he says, was made flesh and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14), as if he said: "What wonder is it, if they were made sons of God, since they were flesh, for whose sake the Only one was made flesh, since he was the Word?" With this great difference, indeed, that we, made sons of God, are changed for the better, but he, the Son of God, when he had been made the Son of man, was not changed for the worse, but took on what was inferior. James too says: of his own will he begot us by the word of truth, that we might be some beginning of his creation (Jas 1:18). Lest, namely, in that which he says begot we should think we are made that which he himself is, he therefore sufficiently shows that a certain primacy among creation was granted to us by this adoption.

3. 7. It would not, then, be alien from the truth, even if Luke said Joseph was begotten by the one by whom he had been adopted. For even thus he begot him, not that he might be a man, but that he might be a son, just as God begot us, that we might be his sons, whom he had made that we might be men. But the Only one he begot, not only that he might be the Son, which the Father is not, but also that he might be God, which the Father too is. But clearly, if Luke too had used this word, it would in every way be ambiguous which of them had recorded the adopting, which the father begetting from his own flesh; just as, even if neither of them said begot, but both this one called him the son of that man and that one of the other, it would be no less ambiguous which of them had recorded the one of whom he was born, which the one by whom he had been adopted. But now, since one says, Jacob begot Joseph (Mt 1:16), the other, Joseph, who was the son of Eli (Lk 3:23), even the very difference of the words has elegantly intimated what each had undertaken. But this could easily, indeed, as I said, occur to a religious man, who would judge that anything else whatsoever was rather to be sought than that he should believe an evangelist had lied; easily, I say, it would occur to him to see by what causes one man could have had two fathers. This would occur to those calumniators too, had they not preferred to wrangle rather than to consider.

4. 8. But that which is next to be intimated truly required a most attentive and diligent reader, that it might be noticed and seen. For it has been acutely observed that Matthew, who had set out to intimate the royal person in Christ, named, apart from Christ himself, forty men in the series of generations (Mt 1:17). Now this number signifies that time in which, in this world and on this earth, we must be ruled by Christ according to the laborious discipline by which, as it is written, God scourges every son whom he receives (See Heb 12:6), of which the Apostle says that we must enter the kingdom of God through tribulation (See Acts 14:22). This is signified also by that iron rod of which we read in the Psalm: you shall rule them with an iron rod (Ps 2:9), when he had said above: but I have been set up by him as king over Zion, his holy mountain (Ps 2:6). For even the good are ruled with an iron rod, of whom it is said: it is time that judgment begin at the house of the Lord; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not believe the Gospel of God? And if the just man is scarcely saved, where shall the sinner and the impious appear (1 Pet 4:17-18)? To whom pertains what follows: you shall shatter them like a potter's vessel (Ps 2:9). For the good are ruled through this discipline, but the evil are broken in pieces—who are mentioned as though the same persons, on account of the one and the same sacraments which the evil have in common with the good.

4. 9. Since, then, this number is a sacrament of this laborious time, in which, under the discipline of Christ the king, we contend against the devil, it also declares this: that the fast of forty days, that is, the humbling of the soul, was consecrated both by the Law and the prophets through Moses and Elijah, who fasted forty days each (See Exod 34:28; 1 Kgs 19:8), and by the Gospel through the Lord's own fast, during which forty days he was also tempted by the devil (See Mt 4:1-2)—prefiguring what else than temptation, throughout all the time of this world, in his own flesh, which he deigned to take on from our mortality? After the resurrection too he willed to be with his disciples on this earth no more than forty days (See Acts 1:3), still mingled with this life of theirs by human conversation and taking with them the foods of mortals, although now not about to die, that through those forty days he might signify, by his hidden presence, that he would fulfill what he had promised when he said: behold, I am with you even to the consummation of the world (Mt 28:20). But why this number signifies this temporal and earthly life—one cause, indeed, occurs close at hand, although there is perhaps another more hidden—is that the seasons of the years run in fourfold turns, and the world itself is bounded by four parts, which Scripture sometimes mentions under the name of the winds, from the East and the West, from the North and the South (See Zech 2:6; 14:4). And forty contains ten four times. Moreover, ten itself is completed by the number proceeding from one up to four.

4. 10. Receiving, therefore, Christ the king as coming to this world and to this earthly and mortal life of men, to rule us laboring in temptation, Matthew began from Abraham and enumerated forty men. For from the very nation of the Hebrews, that it might be distinguished from the other nations, God separated Abraham from his land and from his kindred (See Gen 12:1-2). Christ came in the flesh, so that this too should pertain especially to prophesying and foretelling him more distinctly: from which nation it was promised that he would come. For although he had distinguished the four-times-ten generations by three sections, saying that from Abraham to David there are fourteen generations, and from David to the transmigration of Babylon another fourteen, and as many others to the nativity of Christ (See Mt 1:17), he did not nevertheless add them into a sum so as to say: there are forty-two in all. For one in those forefathers is counted twice, namely Jechoniah, at whom there occurred a certain bending toward foreign nations, when there was the transmigration into Babylon. But where an order is bent from its straight course and, that it may go in a different direction, makes as it were an angle, that which is at the angle is counted twice, namely at the end of the prior order and at the head of the bending itself. And this very thing already also prefigured Christ as about to migrate, as it were, from the circumcision to the uncircumcision (See Eph 2:11)—as though from Jerusalem to Babylon—and to be, for those believing in him from this side and from that, as it were a cornerstone (See Eph 2:20). These things God then prepared in figure for things to come in truth. For Jechoniah himself too, where this angle was prefigured, is interpreted "the preparation of God." Thus, then, there are now not forty-two, which three times fourteen make, but, on account of the one counted twice, forty-one generations, if we also reckon in Christ himself, who royally presides over this temporal and earthly life of ours, to be ruled, as it were by the number forty.

4. 11. Because Matthew wished to signify him as descending to share this mortality with us, he therefore recorded the generations themselves, from Abraham down to Joseph and to the nativity of Christ himself, by descending, from the beginning of his Gospel (See Mt 1:2). But Luke narrates the generations not from the beginning, but from the baptism of Christ (See Lk 3:23-38), and not by descending but by ascending, signifying him rather as a priest in expiating sins, where the voice from heaven declared him, where John bore testimony to him, saying: behold him who takes away the sins of the world (Jn 1:29). And by ascending he passes beyond Abraham too and comes to God, to whom, cleansed and expiated, we are reconciled (See Rom 5:10). Rightly, too, did he take up the origin of adoption, because through adoption we are made sons of God by believing in the Son of God. But through carnal generation the Son of God was rather made, for our sake, the Son of man. And he sufficiently showed that he did not call Joseph the son of Eli because he was begotten of him, but because he had been adopted by him, since he also called Adam himself the son of God, though he was made by God—but, through the grace which he afterward lost by sinning, was set up in paradise as a son.

4. 12. Wherefore in the generations of Matthew is signified the taking up of our sins by the Lord Christ, but in the generations of Luke is signified the abolition of our sins by the Lord Christ. Therefore the one narrates them descending, the other ascending. For what the Apostle says—God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh—this is the taking up of sins; but what he adds—that from sin he might condemn sin in the flesh (Rom 8:3)—this is the expiation of sins. Accordingly Matthew descends from David himself through Solomon, in whose mother David sinned; but Luke ascends to David himself through Nathan, the prophet through whom God expiated David's sin (See 2 Sam 11:4; 12:1-14). The very number too, which Luke follows out, indicates most certainly the abolition of sins. For because Christ had no iniquity, which he did not have, it is surely not joined to the iniquities of men which he took up in his flesh; therefore the number in Matthew, apart from Christ, is forty. But because he joins us, expiated and purified from all sin, to his own justice and the Father's, that there may be what the Apostle says—but he who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit (1 Cor 6:17)—therefore in that number which is in Luke, both Christ himself, from whom the enumeration begins, and God, to whom it comes, are counted in, and the number seventy-seven is made, by which is signified the remission and abolition of absolutely all sins. Which the Lord himself too evidently expressed through the mystery of this number, saying that it must be forgiven to one who sins not only seven times, but even seventy-seven times (See Mt 18:22).

4. 13. Nor is it in vain that this number pertains to the cleansing of all sins, if it is inquired into more diligently. For the number ten, as it were the number of justice, is shown in the ten precepts of the Law. Now sin is the transgression of the Law, and surely the transgression of the number ten is fittingly figured by the number eleven; whence the curtains of haircloth in the tabernacle too are commanded to be made eleven (See Exod 26:7). But who would doubt that haircloth pertains to the signification of sin? And for this reason, because all time revolves in the sevenfold number of days, fittingly, by eleven multiplied seven times, all sins come to the number seventy-seven. In which number there also occurs the full remission of sins, with the flesh of our priest expiating us—from whom this number now begins—and reconciling us to God, to whom this number now comes, through the Holy Spirit, who appeared in the form of a dove at this baptism (See Lk 3:22), where this number is mentioned.

5. 14. After the generations have been enumerated, Matthew continues thus: Now the generation of Christ was in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:18). How this came about, which he here passed over, Luke set forth, after mentioning the conception of John, narrating thus: And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by the Lord into a city of Galilee whose name was Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the name of the virgin was Mary. And the angel, having come in to her, said: 'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women.' And when she had seen him, she was troubled at his word and considered what kind of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her: 'Do not fear, Mary, for you have found grace with God. Behold, you shall conceive in your womb and bear a son (See Isa 7:14), and you shall call his name Jesus; he shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end (See Dan 7:14, 27; Mic 4:7).' And Mary said to the angel: 'How shall this be, since I do not know a man?' And the angel, answering, said to her: 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you; and therefore the Holy One who shall be born shall be called the Son of God (Lk 1:26-35),' and the rest, which do not pertain to what is now being treated. This, then, Matthew mentioned, saying of Mary, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit; nor is it contrary that Luke set forth what Matthew passed over, since both testify that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, just as it is not contrary that Matthew next connects what Luke passes over. For Matthew goes on and says: But Joseph her husband, since he was just and unwilling to expose her, wished to send her away secretly. But as he was thinking these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying: Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife; for what is born in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins (Acts 4:12). Now all this was done, that what was said by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel (See Isa 7:14), which is interpreted 'God with us.'' And Joseph, rising from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took his wife; and he did not know her until she had borne her firstborn son, and he called his name Jesus (Mt 1:19-25). Now when Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judah in the days of Herod the king (Mt 2:1), and the rest.

5. 15. About the city of Bethlehem, Matthew and Luke agree; but how and for what cause Joseph and Mary came to it, Luke sets forth (See Lk 2:4), while Matthew passes it over. On the other hand, about the Magi coming from the east, Luke is silent, but Matthew speaks, weaving it thus: Behold, Magi from the East came to Jerusalem, saying: 'Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East and have come to adore him.' But Herod the king, hearing this, was troubled (Mt 2:1-3), and the rest, up to that place where it is written of the Magi themselves that having received a response in a dream that they should not return by way of Herod, they went back to their own region by another way (See Mt 2:12). All this Luke passed over, just as Matthew did not narrate what Luke narrates: that the Lord was placed in a manger, and that an angel announced him born to the shepherds, and that a multitude of the heavenly host arose with the angel, praising God, and that the shepherds came and saw that what the angel had announced to them was true, and that on the day of his circumcision he received his name, and the things which the same Luke narrates after the days of Mary's purification were fulfilled: that he brought him to Jerusalem, and about Simeon and Anna, what they said about him in the temple, after they recognized him, filled with the Holy Spirit (See Lk 2:7-28). All these things Matthew is silent about.

5. 16. Whence it is rightly asked when those things were done—either what Matthew passes over and Luke tells, or what Luke passes over and Matthew tells. For Matthew, after the Magi who had come from the east returned to their own region, goes on and narrates that Joseph was admonished by an angel to flee with the infant into Egypt, lest he be killed by Herod; then that Herod, not finding him, killed the children of two years old and under; and that, when Herod had died, he returned from Egypt, and, having heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea in place of his father Herod, dwelt with the boy in the region of Galilee, in the city of Nazareth (See Mt 2:12-23)—all of which Luke is silent about.

Nor can it on that account seem contrary that either this one tells what that one passes over, or that one mentions what this one does not tell. But it is asked: when could the things have happened which Matthew weaves together about the departure into Egypt and the return thence after Herod's death, so that they were now dwelling in the city of Nazareth, to which Luke records that they returned after they had performed in the Temple, regarding the boy, all things according to the Law of the Lord (See Lk 2:39)? Here, accordingly, that is to be recognized which will be of value for the rest of such matters, lest they similarly disturb and confuse the mind: that each evangelist so weaves his own narrative that the arranged series may seem as though it passes over nothing; for, while the things he does not wish to tell are left unsaid, he so joins the things he does wish to tell to those he was telling, that they seem to follow continuously.

But when one tells what the other was silent about, the order, carefully considered, indicates the place where he could leap over the things that were passed over by him, so as to couple the things he intended to tell to the foregoing, as though they followed with nothing interposed. And for this reason it is understood that Matthew, where he says the Magi were admonished in a dream not to return by way of Herod, and went back to their own region by another way (See Mt 2:12), there passed over the things which Luke narrated as done concerning the Lord in the temple, and said by Simeon and Anna; where again Luke, passing over the departure into Egypt which Matthew narrates, wove the return to the city of Nazareth as though continuous (See Lk 2:22-39).

5. 17. But if anyone wishes to order one narrative out of all the things which, concerning Christ's nativity and infancy or boyhood, are either told or passed over by one or the other in the narration of both, he can do so thus:

Now the generation of Christ was in this way (Mt 1:18). There was, in the days of Herod the king of Judah, a certain priest named Zechariah, of the course of Abijah, and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. Now they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord without complaint. And they had no son, because Elizabeth was barren, and both had advanced in their days. Now it came to pass, when he was performing the priestly office in the order of his course before God, according to the custom of the priesthood it fell to him by lot to place the incense, having entered the Temple of the Lord; and all the multitude of the people was praying outside at the hour of incense. And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing at the right of the altar of incense, and Zechariah, seeing him, was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him: 'Do not fear, Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name John; and there shall be joy and exultation for you, and many shall rejoice at his nativity; for he shall be great before the Lord, and shall not drink wine and strong drink, and shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb, and shall convert many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God; and he himself shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, that he may turn the hearts of the fathers to the children (See Mal 4:6) and the unbelieving to the prudence of the just, to prepare for the Lord a perfect people.'

And Mary, rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And it came to pass, when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and cried out with a loud voice and said: 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, as the voice of your greeting came into my ears, the infant leaped for joy in my womb.' And blessed is she who believed, for the things that were said to her by the Lord shall be accomplished. And Mary said: 'My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has exulted in God my Savior, because he has looked upon the lowliness of his handmaid (See 1 Sam 2:1-11); for behold, from now on all generations shall call me blessed, because he who is mighty has done great things for me. And holy is his name (See Ps 111:9 (110:9); 99:3 (98:3)), and his mercy is from generation to generation upon those who fear him (See Ps 103:17 (102:17)). He has shown might in his arm, he has scattered the proud in the thought of their heart, he has put down the mighty from their seat and exalted the lowly, he has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty (See Ps 33:10 (32:10); 34:11 (33:11); 89:11 (88:11); Isa 51:9; Job 5:11). He has received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and his seed forever (See Gen 17:9; 22:16; Ps 132:11 (131:11); Isa 41:8-9; Mic 7:20).' And Mary stayed with her about three months and returned to her house (Lk 1:5-56) and was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

But Joseph her husband, since he was just and unwilling to expose her, wished to send her away secretly. But as he was thinking these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying: 'Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife; for what is born in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins.' Now all this was done, that what was said by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel (Isa 7:14), which is interpreted 'God with us.'' And Joseph, rising from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took his wife and did not know her (Mt 1:18-25). But for Elizabeth the time of her bearing was fulfilled, and she bore a son.

And Zechariah his father was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying: 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel (See Ps 41:14 (40:14); 72:18 (71:18); 106:48 (105:48)), because he has visited and accomplished the redemption of his people. And he has raised up a horn of salvation for us, in the house of David his servant (See 1 Sam 2:10; Ps 132:17 (131:17)), as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets, who are from of old, salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us (See Ps 106:10 (105:10)), to show mercy to our fathers and to be mindful of his holy covenant, the oath which he swore to Abraham our father, that he would grant us (See Ps 105:8-9 (104:8-9); Gen 22:16; Jer 31:33; Heb 6:13-17), that, without fear, delivered from the hands of our enemies, we should serve him in holiness and justice before him all our days. And you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High; for you shall go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways (See Mal 3:1; 4:5), to give knowledge of salvation to his people, for the remission of their sins, through the heart of the mercy of our God, in which the Dayspring from on high has visited us, to enlighten those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to direct our feet into the way of peace (See Zech 3:8; 6:12; Mal 4:2).' And the boy grew and was strengthened in spirit, and was in the deserts until the day of his showing to Israel (Lk 1:57-80).

And there were shepherds in the same region, keeping watch and guarding the night watches over their flock. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood beside them, and the brightness of God shone round about them, and they feared with a great fear. And the angel said to them: 'Do not fear; for behold, I announce to you a great joy, which shall be to all the people, because there has been born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. And this shall be a sign to you: you shall find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a manger.' And suddenly there was, with the angel, a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying: 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will.' And it came to pass, when the angels had departed from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another: 'Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this word which has come to pass, which the Lord has shown to us.' And they came in haste and found Mary and Joseph and the infant placed in the manger. And seeing this, they understood concerning the word which had been spoken to them about this boy. And all who heard marveled, also at the things which had been told them by the shepherds; but Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things which they had heard and seen, as it was told to them. And after eight days were completed, that he should be circumcised, his name was called Jesus, which was called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb (Lk 2:1-21). Behold, Magi from the East came to Jerusalem, saying: 'Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East and have come to adore him.' But Herod the king, hearing this, was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where Christ should be born. But they said to him: 'In Bethlehem of Judah, for thus it is written through the prophet: 'And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the princes of Judah; for out of you shall come forth a leader who shall rule my people Israel (Mic 5:2; see Jn 7:42).'' Then Herod, secretly calling the Magi, diligently inquired of them the time of the star which had appeared to them. And sending them to Bethlehem, he said: 'Go and inquire diligently about the boy, and when you have found him, report to me, that I too may come and adore him.' And when they had heard the king, they departed. And behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, until, coming, it stood over where the boy was. But seeing the star, they rejoiced with an exceedingly great joy. And entering the house, they found the boy with Mary his mother, and falling down they adored him, and opening their treasures they offered him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh (See Ps 72:10 (71:10)). And having received a response in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they went back to their own region by another way (Mt 2:6-13).

And when they had withdrawn, after the days of her purification were fulfilled, according to the Law of Moses, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, as it is written in the Law of the Lord, that every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord (See Exod 13:2; Num 8:16), and to give a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons (See Lev 12:8). And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, awaiting the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was in him. And he had received a response from the Holy Spirit that he would not see death unless he first saw the Christ of the Lord. And he came in the Spirit into the Temple. And when his parents brought in the boy Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, he too took him into his arms and blessed God and said: 'Now you dismiss your servant, Lord, according to your word, in peace, because my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared before the face of all peoples, a light for the revelation of the nations and the glory of your people Israel.' And his father and mother were marveling at the things which were said about him. And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother: 'Behold, this one is set for the fall and the rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that shall be contradicted (See Isa 8:14; Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:7), and a sword shall pierce your own soul, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.' And there was Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She had advanced in many days and had lived with her husband seven years from her virginity, and she was a widow up to eighty-four years, who did not depart from the temple, serving with fastings and prayers night and day. And she, coming upon them at that very hour, gave thanks to the Lord and spoke about him to all who were awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem. And when they had performed all things according to the Law of the Lord (Lk 2:22-39), behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph, saying: 'Rise and take the boy and his mother and flee into Egypt and be there until I tell you; for it shall come to pass that Herod will seek the boy to destroy him.' And rising, he took the boy and his mother by night and withdrew into Egypt. And he was there until the death of Herod, that what was said by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: 'Out of Egypt I have called my son (Hos 11:1).' Then Herod, seeing that he had been deceived by the Magi, was greatly angered, and sending out, he killed all the children who were in Bethlehem and in all its borders, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had inquired of the Magi. Then was fulfilled what was said through Jeremiah the prophet, saying: 'A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and much wailing, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be consoled, because they are no more (Jer 31:15).' But when Herod had died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying: 'Rise and take the boy and his mother and go into the land of Israel; for those who sought the boy's life are dead.' And rising, he took the boy and his mother and came into the land of Israel. But hearing that Archelaus reigned in Judea in place of his father Herod, he feared to go there. And being admonished in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee. And coming, he dwelt in a city which is called Nazareth, that what was said through the Prophets might be fulfilled: 'that he shall be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:13-23).' And the boy grew and was strengthened, full of wisdom, and the grace of God was in him. And his parents went every year to Jerusalem on the solemn day of the Pasch. And when he had become twelve years old, as they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast day, and when the days were completed, as they were returning, the boy Jesus remained in Jerusalem, and his parents did not know it. But supposing him to be in the company, they went a day's journey and sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances. And not finding him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, hearing them and questioning them. And all who heard him were astounded at his prudence and his answers. And seeing him, they marveled. And his mother said to him: 'Son, why have you done so to us? Behold, your father and I have been seeking you in sorrow.' And he said to them: 'Why is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be about the things that are my Father's?' And they did not understand the word which he spoke to them. And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace before God and men (Lk 2:40-52).

6. 18. From here it begins to be narrated about the preaching of John, which all four mention. For Matthew, after those words which I set down as his last, where he mentioned the testimony from the prophet, that he shall be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23), goes on and adds: Now in those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the desert of Judea (Mt 3:1), and the rest. And Mark, who narrated nothing about the nativity or infancy or boyhood of the Lord, took the beginning of his Gospel from here, that is, from the preaching of John. For he began thus: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: 'Behold, I send my angel before your face, who shall prepare your way (See Mal 3:1). A voice of one crying in the desert: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths (See Isa 40:3).'' John was in the desert, baptizing and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mk 1:1-4), and the rest. And Luke, after the words where he says, And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace before God and men (Lk 2:52), now goes on about the preaching of John, saying: Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate governing Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and Philip his brother tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, under the chief priests Annas and Caiaphas, the word of the Lord came upon John the son of Zechariah in the desert (Lk 3:1-2), and the rest. John too, the apostle most eminent among the four evangelists, after he had spoken about the Word of God, who is the Son himself before all the ages of creation, because all things were made through him (See Jn 1:1-5), immediately brought in the matter of John's preaching and testimony, saying: There was a man sent from God, whose name was John (Jn 1:6). Whence it is now to be seen, concerning this John, how the narrations of the four evangelists do not disagree among themselves—not that this be required or demanded of us throughout, as we just now did concerning the beginnings of Christ born of Mary, how Matthew and Luke agree among themselves, so that we made one narrative out of both, showing to the slower that for either of them to mention what the other is silent about, or to be silent about what the other mentions, does not impede the understanding of the truthful narration of the other; so that by this example, whether as it was done by me or in some other more convenient way, each one may see that in the other such passages too there can be done what he has perceived to have been done here.

6. 19. Now, then, as I said, let us see the agreement of the four evangelists about John the Baptist. Matthew goes on thus: Now in those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the desert of Judea (Mt 3:1). Mark did not say in those days, because he had set forth no series of things in whose days it might be understood that he was speaking, if he said in those days. But Luke, through the earthly powers, expressed the times themselves of John's preaching or baptism more pointedly, saying: Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate governing Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and Philip his brother tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, under the chief priests Annas and Caiaphas, the word of the Lord came upon John the son of Zechariah in the desert (Lk 3:1-2). Yet we ought not to understand that Matthew signified these days, that is, this time of these powers, when he said in those days, but that he wished what he says, in those days, to be taken over a much longer space of time. For as soon as he had narrated that Christ returned from Egypt when Herod had died (See Mt 2:19-21)—which surely was done at the time of his infancy or boyhood, so that it can be consistent with what Luke narrated as done by him in the temple of Jerusalem when he was twelve years old (See Lk 2:42-50)—when, then, he had mentioned the infant or boy recalled from Egypt, Matthew immediately brought in: Now in those days came John the Baptist (Mt 3:1), surely intimating not only the days of his boyhood, but all the days from his nativity up to the time at which John began to preach and baptize, by which time the age of Christ is found to be that of a young man, because he himself and John were of the same age, and he is narrated to have been about thirty years old when he was baptized by him.

7. 20. But, regarding Herod, it is wont to trouble some that Luke narrated that, in the days of John's baptism, when the Lord too was baptized as a young man, Herod was tetrarch of Galilee (See Lk 3:1-21), but Matthew says that, when Herod had died, the boy Jesus returned from Egypt (See Mt 2:19-22); which both cannot be true, unless it be understood that there were two Herods. And since no one is ignorant that this could have happened, by what blindness do those rave who are more inclined to calumniate the truth of the Gospel than, considering it a little, to understand that two men were called by the same name?—of which thing all things are full of examples. For this later Herod is reported to have been the son of the earlier Herod, just as Archelaus, whom Matthew mentions as having succeeded his father in the kingdom of Judea when he had died; just as Philip, whom Luke intimates to be the brother of the tetrarch Herod and himself tetrarch of Ituraea. For that Herod who sought the life of the boy Christ was a king, but the other Herod, his son, was called not king, but tetrarch, which name, derived from a fourth part of a kingdom, sounds out in the prefix.

8. 21. Unless perhaps someone be again troubled by this: since Matthew said that Joseph feared, on the boy's return, to go into Judea, because Archelaus his son reigned there in place of his father Herod, how could he go into Galilee, where another son of his, Herod, was tetrarch, as Luke testifies (See Mt 2:22; Lk 3:1)? As if, indeed, the very times in which the boy was then feared for were the same as those which Luke now mentioned, which had so changed that in Judea itself Archelaus was now no longer king, but Pontius Pilate, who was not king of the Jews, but governor, in whose times the sons of the elder Herod, living under Tiberius Caesar, did not have a kingdom, but a tetrarchy. Which surely had not yet happened when Joseph, fearing Archelaus reigning in Judea, betook himself with the boy into Galilee, where his city Nazareth also was.

9. 22. Or perhaps this too troubles someone: how Matthew says that on this account the parents of the boy Jesus went into Galilee, because out of fear of Archelaus they were unwilling to go into Judea (See Mt 2:22), when they seem rather to have gone into Galilee for this reason, that their city was Nazareth of Galilee, as Luke did not pass over in silence (See Lk 2:4)? But it must be understood that, where the angel in a dream in Egypt said to Joseph, Rise and take the boy and his mother and go into the land of Israel (Mt 2:13), it was so understood at first by Joseph that he thought he was commanded to proceed into Judea; for that could first be understood as the land of Israel. But further, after he learned that the son of Herod, Archelaus, reigned there, he was unwilling to expose himself to that danger, since "the land of Israel" could also be so understood that Galilee too would be reckoned there, because the people of Israel inhabited it too. And yet this question can be resolved in another way as well. For it could seem to the parents of Christ that, with the boy, about whom they had learned such things through angelic responses, they ought not to dwell except in Jerusalem, where the Temple of the Lord was, and that for this reason, returning from Egypt, they would have gone there and dwelt there, had they not been terrified by the presence of Archelaus; for they were not divinely commanded to dwell there, so that they ought to disregard, concerning Archelaus, what they feared.

10. 23. Or does someone say this too: How, then, as Luke narrates, did his parents go every year of Christ's boyhood to Jerusalem (See Lk 2:41), if out of fear of Archelaus they were prevented from going there? It would not be difficult for me to resolve this, not even if any of the evangelists had expressed how long Archelaus reigned there. For it could happen that, during a feast day, amid so vast a crowd, they would go up secretly, soon to return, where nevertheless on other days they feared to dwell, so that they were neither irreligious by omitting the solemnity nor conspicuous by a continuous stay. But since all are silent even about the reign of Archelaus, how lasting it was, this understanding too lies open, that what Luke says—that they were accustomed to go up every year to Jerusalem—we take to have been done at the time when Archelaus was no longer feared. But if any history besides the Gospel, to which faith should seem due, reveals that the reign of Archelaus was somewhat longer, what I said above will suffice: that the parents of the boy so feared dwelling in Jerusalem that nevertheless, on account of the fear of God, they did not omit the solemn festival, in which they could most easily lie hidden. For it is not incredible that, opportune times of days or hours being seized, men should go to those places in which they dread to be.

11. 24. Hence too that question is resolved, if it troubles anyone: since that elder Herod was already anxious, struck by the report of the Magi that a king of the Jews had been born (See Mt 2:3-16), how could they, when the days of his mother's purification were completed, go up safely with him into the temple, that there might be done concerning him, according to the Law of the Lord (See Lk 2:22), the things which Luke mentions? For who does not see that even that one day could lie hidden from a king occupied with many things? But if that does not seem probable—that Herod, who, very anxious, was awaiting what the Magi might report to him about the boy (See Mt 2:8), after so many days perceived that he had been deceived, so that, the time of his mother's purification having passed and the solemnity of the firstborn having been performed concerning the infant in the temple of Jerusalem, after even their departure into Egypt, it then came into his mind to seek the boy's life and to kill so many little ones—if, then, this troubles someone, I forbear to say with how many and how great occupations the care of a king could be distended, and turned aside altogether, or impeded, from that intention for very many days. For the causes by which this could have happened cannot be enumerated; yet no one is so inexperienced in human affairs as to deny or doubt that they could have been many and great. For to whose thought would it not occur how many other more terrible things, whether true or false, could be reported to a king, so that he who had feared the infant king as one who would, after some years, oppose him or his sons, agitated by the terrors of certain nearer dangers, would occupy his mind, snatched from that care, rather in guarding against other things close at hand? So then, to forbear these things, I say this: after the Magi reported nothing to Herod, he could believe that they had been deceived by the vision of a deceptive star, and that after they did not find the one whom they had thought born, they were ashamed to return to him, and thus, with his fear dispelled, he rested from inquiring after and persecuting the boy. When, therefore, after the purification of his mother, they had come with him to Jerusalem, and those things had been done in the temple which are narrated by Luke (See Lk 2:22-39)—because the words of Simeon and Anna prophesying about him, when they had begun to be proclaimed by those who had heard them, were about to recall the king's mind to its former intention—Joseph, admonished through a dream, fled with the infant and his mother into Egypt (See Mt 2:3-16). Then, the things which had been done and said in the temple being divulged, Herod perceived that he had been deceived by the Magi; and then, desiring to bring about Christ's death, he killed many infants, as Matthew narrates.

12. 25. Matthew, then, weaves together about John thus: Now in those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the desert of Judea and saying: 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near.' For this is he who was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying: 'A voice of one crying in the desert: prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths (See Mt 3:1-3).' Mark too and Luke agree that this testimony of Isaiah is about John (Mk 1:3; Lk 3:4). For Luke mentioned several following words too from the same prophet, when he was narrating about John the Baptist. And John the Evangelist mentions that John the Baptist himself brought forward this same testimony of Isaiah about himself (See Jn 1:23), just as Matthew has now said certain words of John which the others did not say. Preaching, he says, in the desert of Judea and saying: 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near.' These words of John the others passed over. But now, as for what follows, which Matthew goes on and adds—For this is he who was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying: 'A voice of one crying in the desert: prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths'—it is placed ambiguously, and it does not become clear whether Matthew mentioned this in his own person, or whether, still following the words of the same John, he added it, so that all this is understood to have been said by John: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near. For this is he who was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, and the rest. For this ought not to trouble us, that he does not say, "for I am he who was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet," but says, For this is he who was spoken of. For such a manner of speaking is wont to belong even to the evangelists Matthew and John themselves. For Matthew said, he found a man sitting at the tax office (Mt 9:9), and did not say, "he found me"; and John says, This is the disciple who bears testimony of these things and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true (Jn 21:24)—he did not say, "I am," or "my testimony is true." And the Lord himself very frequently says the Son of man or the Son of God (Mt 9:6; 16:27; 17:9; Mk 8:31-38; Jn 5:25), and does not say "I"; and it behooved, he says, Christ to suffer and to rise on the third day (Lk 24:46)—he does not say, "it behooved me to suffer." John the Baptist too, then, could, when he had said, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near, add about himself what follows: For this is he who was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, and the rest, so that, after his words, Matthew thus weaves the narrative: Now John himself had a garment of camel's hair, and the rest. And if this is so, it is no wonder if, when asked too what he said about himself, as John the Evangelist narrates, I, he says, am the voice of one crying in the desert (Jn 1:23), just as he had already said, commanding that they repent. About his clothing, then, and his food, Matthew goes on thus, saying: Now John himself had a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his loins. And his food was locusts and wild honey (Mt 3:4). This Mark too says in almost the same words (See Mk 1:6), but the other two are silent.

12. 26. Matthew, then, goes on and says: Then there went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region around the Jordan, and they were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. But seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them: 'Brood of vipers, who has shown you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear, therefore, fruit worthy of repentance, and do not be willing to say within yourselves: We have Abraham as our father; for I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up sons of Abraham. For already the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree, therefore, that does not bear good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance; but he who is to come after me is stronger than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire, whose winnowing fan is in his hand, and he shall thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he shall burn with unquenchable fire (Mt 3:5-12).'

All this Luke too says, expressing almost the same words of John (See Lk 3:7-17). And where there is something different in the words, the same meaning is nevertheless not departed from—as when Matthew says that John said, and do not be willing to say within yourselves: We have Abraham as our father (Mt 3:9), but the other, and do not begin to say: 'We have Abraham as our father' (Lk 3:8); the one, I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance (Mt 3:11), the other interposes the question of the crowds, what they should do, and John answering them about good works as about the fruits of repentance (See Lk 3:10-16), which Matthew omitted;

then, while they were thinking in their hearts about him, whether he himself were the Christ, he says that he answered: I indeed baptize you with water (Lk 3:16)—he did not say "unto repentance." Then Matthew: but he who, he says, is to come after me is stronger than I. But the other: but there comes, he says, one stronger than I (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16). Likewise Matthew: whose sandals, he says, I am not worthy to carry (Mt 3:11), but the other: the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to loose (Lk 3:16). Which Mark too says, though he is silent about the rest. For after mentioning his clothing and food, he goes on and says: and he preached, saying: 'There comes one stronger than I after me, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. I have baptized you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit (Mk 1:7-8).' About the sandals, then, this differs from Luke, that he added stooping down; but about the baptism it differs from both, because he did not say and with fire, but only with the Holy Spirit. For just as Matthew, so Luke too said, and in the same order, he shall baptize you in the Spirit and fire, except that Luke did not add Holy, as Matthew said, in the Holy Spirit and fire.

To these three John the Evangelist attests, when he says: John bears testimony of him and cries out, saying: 'This was he of whom I said: He who comes after me has been made before me, because he was prior to me (Jn 1:15).' For thus he shows that he then said this, when they record that he said it to them; but that he repeated and recalled what he had already said, when he says, This was he of whom I said: 'He who comes after me.'

12. 27. If, then, it is asked which words John the Baptist rather said—whether those which Matthew, or those which Luke records him to have said, or those which Mark set down in the very few he recorded him to have said, being silent about the rest—he who prudently understands judges that this is in no way to be labored over, since the meanings themselves are necessary for the knowing of the truth, by whatever words they were expressed. For that one keeps one order of words, another another, is surely not contrary. Nor is it contrary if one says what another passes over. For as each one remembered, and as it was to each one's mind, whether more briefly or more at length, to express the same meaning, so it is manifest that they expressed it.

12. 28. And in this it sufficiently appears—which pertains most of all to the matter—that, since the truth of the Gospel, proceeding from the Word of God, which abides above all creation eternal and unchangeable, obtained the highest summit of authority through creation, dispensed by temporal signs and the tongues of men,

we ought not to think that anyone lies if, several persons recalling a thing which they heard or saw, the same thing is nevertheless indicated not in the same manner and the same words; or if the order of words is changed, or other words are brought forth for others which nevertheless mean the same; or if something is said less—either because it did not occur to the one recalling, or because it can be understood from other things that are said; or if, for the sake of narrating other things which one decides rather to tell, so that a fitting measure of time may suffice, each one undertakes that something is not to be set forth by him in full, but to be touched on in part; or if, to illuminate and make clear the meaning, he to whom authority of narrating has been granted adds nothing indeed of the things, yet something of the words; or if, holding the matter well, he does not attain, although he tries this, to enunciate from memory in full the very words too which he heard.

But whoever says that it ought certainly to have been granted to the evangelists, through the power of the Holy Spirit, that they should not differ in the kind of words, nor in the order, nor in the number, does not understand that, the more the authority of the evangelists excels, by so much the more, through them, the security of the rest of men who speak the truth was to be confirmed: so that, when several happen to narrate the same thing, no one of them can in any way be rightly accused of falsehood, if he has so differed from another that he can be defended even by the preceding example of the evangelists.

For since it is not lawful either to think or to say that any of the evangelists lied, so it will appear that neither did he lie to whom, in recalling, some such thing happened as is shown to have happened to them. And the more it pertains to the best morals to beware of falsehood, the more we ought to have been governed by so eminent an authority, that we should not think there are falsehoods when we find the narrations of certain persons varying among themselves as they have varied among the evangelists. At the same time too, which pertains most of all to faithful teaching, we should understand that the truth, not so much of words as of things, is to be sought or embraced, since we approve those who do not use the same expression, when they do not differ in the things and the meanings, as having stood firm in the same truth.

12. 29. What, then, in the things which I have set forth from the narrations of the evangelists, compared, is to be thought contrary? Is it that one said, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry (Mt 3:11), but the others, to loose the strap of his sandal (Lk 3:16; Jn 1:27)? For it seems to be different, not in words or in the order of words or in some kind of expression, but even in the thing itself, that it is one thing to carry the sandals, another to loose the strap of the sandal. With reason, then, it can be asked what John said he was not worthy to do—whether to carry the sandals or to loose the strap of the sandal. For if he said one of these, that one seems to have narrated the truth who could narrate this which he said; but he who narrated the other, even if he did not lie, will certainly be thought either to have forgotten, or to have said one thing for another.

But it is fitting that all falsehood be absent from the evangelists—not only that which is brought forth by lying, but also that which arises through forgetting. And so, if it pertains to the matter to understand something else from what is said, to carry the sandals, and something else from what is said, to loose the strap of the sandal, what else would you rightly suppose is to be taken, except that John said both, whether one at one time and the other at another, or in one connected statement? For he could say thus: "whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose, nor to carry his sandals," so that one of the evangelists took up one thing from this, the others another, yet all narrated the truth.

But if John intended nothing, when he spoke of the Lord's sandals, except his excellence and his own humility, whichever of these he said—whether about loosing the strap of the sandals or about carrying the sandals—he nevertheless held the same meaning; whoever, even with his own words, through the mention of the sandals, expressed the same signification of humility, did not thereby stray from the same intention. A useful manner, then, and most of all to be committed to memory, when we speak of the agreement of the evangelists: that there is no falsehood when each, even saying something else which the one of whom he narrates something did not say, nevertheless sets forth that intention of his which the one who mentions his words also sets forth. For thus we wholesomely learn that nothing else is to be sought than what he who speaks means.

On the baptism of Jesus.

13. 30. Matthew, then, goes on and says: Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan, to John, to be baptized by him. But John tried to prevent him, saying: 'I ought to be baptized by you, and you come to me?' But Jesus, answering, said to him: 'Allow it for now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all justice.' Then he allowed him (Mt 3:13-15). The rest too attest that Jesus came to John. And three mention that he was baptized (See Mk 1:9; Lk 3:21; Jn 1:32-34), but they are silent about what Matthew says—that John said it to the Lord, or that the Lord answered John.

14. 31. Then Matthew goes on: And having been baptized, immediately he came up out of the water. And behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him. And behold, a voice from the heavens, saying: 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Mt 3:16-17).' This the other two, Mark and Luke, narrate similarly, but about the words of the voice which came from heaven they vary the expression, the meaning nevertheless being preserved (See Mk 1:10-11; Lk 3:22). For what Matthew says was said, This is my beloved Son, and what the other two say, You are my beloved Son (Mk 1:11; Lk 3:22), serve to set forth the same meaning, as was treated above.

For the heavenly voice said one of these, but the evangelist wished to show that what was said served this end, This is my Son: that it might be indicated rather to those who were hearing that he was the Son of God; and thus he wished to report it as said, You are my Son, as if it were said to them, This is my Son. For it was not being indicated to Christ what he knew, but those who were present were hearing, on whose account the voice itself was made. But now, as for the fact that one says, in whom I am well pleased, another, in you I am well pleased, another, in you it has pleased me—if you ask which of these sounded in that voice, any one may be taken, provided you understand that those who did not report the same expression reported the same meaning.

This diversity of expressions is useful for this too, lest what was said in one way be too little understood and interpreted otherwise than the matter stands. For what was said, in whom I am well pleased, if anyone should wish to understand it so that God should seem to have been pleased in the Son, he is admonished by what was said, in you I am well pleased. If, again, from this one alone anyone should understand that in the Son the Father was pleasing to men, he is admonished by what was said, in you it has pleased me.

From which it sufficiently appears that whichever of the evangelists held even the words of the heavenly voice, the others varied the words to set forth the same meaning more familiarly, so that it is understood that this was said by all, as though it were said: "in you I have set my good pleasure," that is, "to carry out through you what has pleased me." But that which some codices have according to Luke—that this sounded in that voice which is written in the Psalm, You are my Son, today I have begotten you (Ps 2:7; Lk 3:22)—although it is reported not to be found in the more ancient Greek codices, yet, if it can be confirmed by any copies worthy of credence, what else is to be understood than that both, in whatever order of words, sounded from heaven?

15. 32. But what is said about the dove according to John is not narrated as to when it was done; rather the words of John the Baptist are reported, recalling what he saw. In which it is asked how it was said: And I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize in water, he said to me: 'Upon whomever you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit (Jn 1:33).' For if he came to know him then, when he saw the dove descending upon him, it must be asked how he said to the one coming to be baptized, I ought rather to be baptized by you (Mt 3:14); for he said this to him before the dove descended. From which it appears that, although he already knew him (for he even leaped in his mother's womb when Mary had come to Elizabeth (See Lk 1:41)), he nevertheless learned something in him, which he did not yet know, by the descent of the dove: namely, that he himself baptizes in the Holy Spirit by a certain proper and divine power, so that no man who had received baptism from God, even if he baptized someone, could say that what he handed on was his own, or that the Holy Spirit was given by himself.

16. 33. Matthew goes on and says: Then Jesus was led into the desert by the Spirit, to be tempted by the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward he was hungry. And the tempter, coming, said to him: 'If you are the Son of God, say that these stones become loaves.' He, answering, said: 'It is written: not by bread alone does man live, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God' (See Deut 8:3), and the rest, up to where it is said: Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and ministered to him (Mt 4:1-11). All this Luke narrates similarly, though not in the same order (See Lk 4:1-13). Whence it is uncertain which was done first—whether the kingdoms of the earth were first shown to him and afterward he was set on the pinnacle of the temple, or this first and that afterward. Yet it is nothing to the matter, since it is manifest that all was done; and that Luke sets forth the same meanings in other words—is it not always to be remarked how nothing is lost to the truth? But Mark indeed attests that he was tempted in the desert by the devil forty days and nights (See Mk 1:12-13); but he is silent about what was said to him or what he answered. Likewise, what Luke passed over, this one did not pass over in silence: that the angels ministered to him. But John passed over this whole passage.

17. 34. Matthew goes on, narrating: But when he had heard that John had been handed over, he withdrew into Galilee (Mt 4:12). This Mark too says, and Luke too (See Mk 1:14; Lk 4:14); but Luke says nothing in this place about John being handed over. But John the Evangelist says that, before Jesus went into Galilee, Peter and Andrew stayed with him one day, and then the name was imposed on Peter, when before he was called Simon. Likewise, on the following day, when he now wished to go out into Galilee, he found Philip and said to him that he should follow him. From there it came about that he narrated also about Nathanael. And on the third day, when he was in Galilee, he did that miracle in Cana of the turning of water into wine (See Jn 1:39-2:11). All of which the other evangelists passed over, weaving into their narratives that Jesus returned into Galilee. Whence it is understood that some days were interposed, in which those things about the disciples were done which are interposed by John. But it is not contrary to that place where Matthew narrates that the Lord said to Peter, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:18). For he is not to be understood as having received this name then, but rather then, when John records that it was said to him, You shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter (Jn 1:42), so that the Lord called him by this name afterward, saying, You are Peter. For he does not say, You shall be called Peter, but, You are Peter, because it had already been said to him before, You shall be called.

17. 35. Then Matthew weaves his narrative and says: And having left the city of Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali (Mt 4:13), and the rest, until the discourse is concluded which he held on the mountain (See Mt 4:14-7:29). In this weaving of the narrative Mark attests to him about the calling of the disciples Peter and Andrew, and a little after, James and John (See Mk 1:16-31). But while Matthew immediately joined the narrative of that lengthy discourse which he held on the mountain, after he had healed many and a great crowd had followed him (See Mt 5:1-7:29), Mark interposed other things—because he was teaching them in the synagogue and they were astounded at his teaching (See Mk 1:16-22). Then he himself said what Matthew too said after that lengthy discourse, that he was teaching them as one having authority and not as the scribes (Mt 7:29; Mk 1:22). He narrated also about the man from whom the unclean spirit was cast out, then about Peter's mother-in-law (See Mk 1:23-31); and in these things Luke agrees with him (See Lk 4:31-39); but Matthew narrated nothing about that demon; about Peter's mother-in-law, however, he was not silent, but afterward (See Mt 8:14-15).

17. 36. But in this place which we are now considering, the same Matthew, after the calling of the disciples—whom, while they were fishing, he commanded to follow him—narrates that he went about Galilee, teaching in the synagogues and preaching the Gospel and healing every illness; and, the crowds having gathered to him, that he went up onto the mountain and used that lengthy discourse (See Mt 4:23-5:1). He gives, then, a place for understanding that the things were done then which Mark narrates after the choosing of the same disciples—when he went about Galilee and taught in their synagogues, then also about Peter's mother-in-law (See Mk 1:16-31)—but that he mentioned afterward what he had passed over, although he did not recall into the narrative all that had been passed over.

17. 37. It can indeed trouble one how John says that not in Galilee, but beside the Jordan, Andrew first followed the Lord with another, whose name is not mentioned; then that Peter received his name from him; thirdly, that Philip was called to follow him (See Jn 1:35-44). But the other three evangelists say that they were called from their fishing, agreeing well enough among themselves, especially Matthew and Mark (See Mt 4:18; Mk 1:16). For Luke does not name Andrew, who nevertheless is understood to have been in that boat, according to the narration of Matthew and Mark, who briefly touch on how it was done, which Luke set forth more openly, mentioning there also the miracle about the catch of fish, and that from the boat itself the Lord first spoke to the crowds (See Lk 5:1-11). This too seems to differ, that he mentions said to Peter only by the Lord, from now on you shall be catching men (Lk 5:10), which the others narrated was said to both brothers. But this could surely first be said to Peter, when he marveled at the great multitude of fish caught, which Luke intimated, and to both afterward, which those two mentioned. That, then, which we said about John must be carefully considered; for it cannot be thought a small contradiction, since there is much difference both of place and of time and of the calling itself. For if, beside the Jordan, before Jesus went into Galilee, at the testimony of John the Baptist, two followed him, of whom one was Andrew, who immediately brought his brother Simon to Jesus, when he also received the name that he should be called Peter—how is it said by the other evangelists that he found them fishing in Galilee and called them to discipleship, except that it is to be understood that they did not then so see the Lord beside the Jordan as already to cleave to him inseparably, but only came to know who he was, and, marveling, returned to their own affairs?

17. 38. For when he had made wine from water in Cana of Galilee, the same John says that his disciples believed in him. Which he narrates thus: And on the third day a marriage was made in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. And both Jesus and his disciples were invited to the marriage (Jn 2:1-2). They surely, if they then believed in him, as he says a little after, were not yet disciples when they were invited to the marriage. But this was said in that manner of speaking by which we speak when we say that the apostle Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia (See Acts 22:3)—for he was not yet then an apostle. So, when we hear that the disciples of Christ were invited to the marriage, we ought to understand not yet disciples, but those who were to be disciples. For they were surely already disciples of Christ when these things were narrated and written down, and therefore the narrator of past times spoke thus about them.

17. 39. But as for what the same John says—after this he went down to Capernaum, he and his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there not many days (Jn 2:12)—it is uncertain whether Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee had already attached themselves to him. For Matthew first narrates that he came and dwelt in Capernaum, and afterward that he called them, fishing, from their boats (See Mt 4:13-19); but this one narrates that his disciples came to Capernaum with him. Or perhaps Matthew recapitulated what he had passed over, because he himself does not say, "after this, walking beside the sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers," but, without any difference of following time, walking, he says, beside the sea of Galilee he saw two brothers (Mt 4:18), and the rest? Accordingly it can be that he afterward narrated not what was done afterward, but what he had earlier passed over, so that they are understood to have come to Capernaum with him, where John says that he himself and his mother and his disciples came. Or were they rather other disciples—just as Philip was already following him, whom he had so called as to say to him, Follow me (Jn 1:43)? For in what order all twelve apostles were called does not appear in the narrations of the evangelists, since not only the order of the calling, but not even the calling itself of all is mentioned, but only of Philip and Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee and Matthew the publican, who was also called Levi (See Mt 4:18-22; 9:9; Mk 1:16; Lk 5:1-11; Jn 1:35). Singly, however, and first and alone, Peter received his name from him (See Jn 1:42). For the sons of Zebedee he called not singly, but both together, sons of thunder (See Mk 3:17).

17. 40. It must indeed be noted that the Gospel and apostolic Scripture calls not only those twelve his disciples, but all who, believing in him, were instructed by his teaching for the kingdom of heaven. Out of whose multitude he chose twelve, whom he also named apostles, as Luke mentions (See Lk 6:13-16). For he himself a little after says: and coming down with them, he stood in a level place, and a crowd of his disciples and a copious multitude of the people (Lk 6:17). He would surely not call twelve men a crowd of disciples. In other places of the Scriptures too this evidently appears, that all those were called his disciples who learned from him what pertains to eternal life.

17. 41. But it can be asked how he called the fishermen two by two from the boats—first Peter and Andrew, then, having gone forward a little, the other two, the sons of Zebedee, as Matthew and Mark narrate—when Luke says that both their boats were filled with that great catch of fish, and mentions that the companions of Peter, James and John the sons of Zebedee, were called to help, when they could not draw out the nets full, and at the same time marveled at so great a multitude of fish which had been caught; and when he had said to Peter only, Do not fear; from now on you shall be catching men (Lk 5:10), that nevertheless they together, the boats drawn up to land, followed him. Whence it is to be understood that this was done first which Luke intimates, and that they were not then called by the Lord, but only it was foretold to Peter that he would catch men. Which was not said as if he would never afterward catch fish; for even after the Lord's resurrection we read that they fished (See Jn 21:3). It was said, then, that he would thereafter catch men; it was not said that he would no longer catch fish. Whence a place is given to understand that they returned, according to custom, to the catching of fish, so that afterward there was done what Matthew and Mark narrate, when he called them two by two and himself commanded that they should follow him—first the two, Peter and Andrew, then the other two, the sons of Zebedee. For then, not with the boats drawn up to land as though with care of returning, but so they followed him, as one calling and commanding that they should follow him.

18. 42. This too must be inquired into: how John the Evangelist says that, before John the Baptist was sent into prison, Jesus went into Galilee (See Jn 1:43) (for after he mentioned that in Cana of Galilee he made wine from water and went down to Capernaum with his mother and disciples, and they stayed there not many days, he says that he then went up to Jerusalem on account of the Pasch, and after these things came into the land of Judea, he and his disciples, and there tarried with them and was baptizing (See Jn 2:1-13; 3:22), where he goes on and says: now John too was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there were many waters there, and people came and were baptized; for John had not yet been sent into prison (Jn 3:23-24)), whereas Matthew says: but when he had heard that John had been handed over, he withdrew into Galilee (Mt 4:12). Similarly Mark too: now after John had been handed over, he says, Jesus came into Galilee (Mk 1:14). Luke too says nothing indeed about John being handed over, yet he too, after the baptism and temptation of Christ, says that he went into Galilee, just as those two. For he weaves his narrative thus: and when all the temptation was finished, the devil departed from him for a time. And Jesus went forth in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report went out about him through the whole region (Lk 4:13-14). Whence it is understood that these three evangelists did not narrate things contrary to John the Evangelist, but passed over the Lord's first coming into Galilee after he was baptized, when he there turned water into wine; for John had not yet then been handed over; but that they connected to their narratives that coming of his into Galilee which was made after John was handed over. About this return of his into Galilee, John the Evangelist too speaks thus: when, therefore, Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus makes more disciples and baptizes than John (although Jesus did not baptize, but his disciples), he left Judea and went again into Galilee (Jn 4:1-3). Then, therefore, we understand that John had already been handed over, but that the Jews had heard that he made more disciples and baptized than John had made and baptized.

19. 43. Now let us see, concerning that lengthy discourse which, according to Matthew, the Lord held on the mountain (See Mt 5:1-7:29), whether the other evangelists seem to contradict it in nothing. For Mark did not mention it at all, nor said anything like it, except certain sentences not connectedly, but scattered, which the Lord repeated in other places. Yet he left a place in the text of his narrative where we may understand that this discourse was spoken, but passed over by him: and he was, he says, preaching in their synagogues and in all Galilee and casting out demons (Mk 1:39). In this preaching, which he says he held in all Galilee, that discourse too is understood to have been held on the mountain, which Matthew mentions. For the same Mark goes on thus: and there came to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling he said: 'If you will, you can cleanse me (Mk 1:40),' and the rest. About this cleansed leper he connects such things that he is understood to be the same one whom Matthew mentions as cleansed then, when, after that discourse, the Lord came down from the mountain. For Matthew says thus: and when he had come down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. And behold, a leper, coming, adored him, saying: 'Lord, if you will, you can cleanse me (Mt 8:1-2),' and the rest.

19. 44. Luke too mentions this leper, not indeed in this order (See Lk 5:12-16), but as they are wont to recall things passed over or to anticipate things done later, just as those things were divinely suggested which, known before, they afterward wrote down by recalling. Nevertheless the same Luke himself too narrated a lengthy discourse of the Lord, where he too began as Matthew did in this one.

For the one said, Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Mt 5:3), and the other, Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God (Lk 6:20). Then many of the things that follow are similar in Luke's narration too. And at the end of the discourse the very conclusion is found altogether the same, about the prudent man who builds upon the rock, and about the foolish one who builds upon the sand, except that there he says only the river dashed against the house, not also the rain and the winds, as Matthew does (See Lk 6:49; Mt 7:26-27). It could, then, very easily be believed that he too interposed the same discourse of the Lord, but passed over some sentences which Matthew set down, likewise set down others which this one did not say, and even set forth some, not in the same words, the integrity of the truth being nevertheless preserved, in a similar way.

19. 45. This could, as I said, very easily be believed, were it not troubling that Matthew says this discourse was held by the Lord sitting, on the mountain (Mt 5:1), but Luke, by the Lord standing, in a level place (See Lk 6:17). This diversity, therefore, makes it seem that the one was a different discourse, the other another. For what would prevent Christ from repeating elsewhere certain things which he had already said before, or from doing again certain things which he had already done before?

These two discourses, of which Matthew inserted one, Luke the other, are not indeed probably believed to be separated by a long distance of time, for this reason: that both before and afterward both narrated certain similar or the same things, so that it is not absurdly thought that their narrations, interposing these things, were engaged with the same places and days. For Matthew says it thus: and great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan. And seeing the crowds, he went up onto the mountain, and when he had sat down, his disciples came to him. And opening his mouth, he taught them, saying: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Mt 4:25-5:3),' and the rest.

Here it can seem that he wished to avoid the many crowds, and for this reason went up onto the mountain, as though withdrawing from the crowds, that he might speak to his disciples alone.

To which thing Luke too seems to attest, narrating thus: now it came to pass in those days, he went out onto the mountain to pray, and he was spending the night in prayer to God. And when day came, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles: Simon, whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon who is called the Zealot, Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor. And coming down with them, he stood in a level place, and a crowd of his disciples and a copious multitude of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the coast of Tyre and Sidon, who had come to hear him and to be healed of their illnesses. And those who were troubled by unclean spirits were cured. And the whole crowd sought to touch him, because power went out from him and healed all. And he himself, lifting up his eyes upon his disciples, said: 'Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God' (Lk 6:12-20), and the rest.

Here it can be understood that, when on the mountain he chose twelve disciples out of the many, whom he named apostles—which Matthew passed over—he then held that discourse which Matthew interposed and Luke was silent about; that is, that on the mountain, and then, when he had come down, in a level place, he held another similar one, about which Matthew is silent and Luke is not silent, and that both discourses were concluded in the same way (See Lk 6:12-49).

19. 46. But as for the fact that Matthew, when that discourse is ended, goes on and says, and it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the crowds marveled at his teaching (Mt 7:28), it can seem that he meant the crowds of disciples, out of whom he had chosen those twelve (See Lk 6:13; Mk 3:13). But what he soon says—and when he had come down from the mountain, great crowds followed him, and behold, a leper, coming, adored him (Mt 8:1-2)—can be understood to have happened after both discourses, not only the one which Matthew, but also the one which Luke interposes. For it does not appear how much time was interposed after the coming down from the mountain, but Matthew wished only to signify this: that after that coming down there were many crowds with the Lord when he cleansed the leper, not how much time intervened—especially since Luke says that the same leper was cleansed when the Lord was already placed in a city (See Lk 5:12), which Matthew did not care to say.

19. 47. Although this too can occur: that, in some higher part of the mountain, the Lord was first with his disciples alone, when he chose those twelve out of them; then that he came down with them, not from the mountain, but from the very height of the mountain into a level place, that is, into some flat area which was on the side of the mountain and could hold many crowds; and that he stood there until the crowds gathered to him, and afterward, when he had sat down, his disciples came nearer, and thus, with them and the rest of the crowds present, he held one discourse,

which Matthew and Luke narrated, in a different manner of narrating, but with the same truth of the things and the sentences which both said. For we have already given warning—what, even with no one warning, each one had spontaneously to see—that if one passes over something which another says, it is not contrary, nor if one says something in a different way than another, provided the same truth of the things and sentences is set forth; so that what Matthew says, and when he had come down from the mountain (Mt 8:1), may at the same time be understood also of that level place which could be on the side of the mountain. Then Matthew narrates about the cleansed leper, which Mark and Luke too do similarly (See Mt 8:1-4; Mk 1:40-45; Lk 5:12-16).

20. 48. After these things Matthew goes on and says: but when he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, beseeching him and saying: 'Lord, my servant lies at home paralyzed and is grievously tormented (Mt 8:5-6),' and the rest, up to where he says: and the servant was healed from that hour (Mt 8:13). This about the centurion's servant Luke too mentions—not, like this one, after the cleansed leper, whom he afterward, recalling, mentioned,

but after the end of that lengthier discourse, which he joins thus: but when he had completed all his words in the ears of the people, he entered Capernaum. Now a certain centurion's servant, being ill, was about to die, who was precious to him (Lk 7:1-2), and the rest, up to the place where he was healed (See Lk 7:3-10). Here it is to be understood that, when he had indeed completed all his words in the ears of the people, Christ entered Capernaum—that is, that he did not enter before he had concluded these words, but that it is not expressed after how great an interval of time, when he had concluded these discourses, he entered Capernaum. For in that very interval that leper was cleansed, whom Matthew interposes in his own place, but this one afterward recalls.

20. 49. Now then let us see whether Matthew and Luke agree among themselves about this servant of the centurion. For Matthew says: a centurion came to him, beseeching him and saying: 'My servant lies at home paralyzed (Mt 8:5-6).' To which seems to be opposed what Luke says: and when he had heard about Jesus, he sent to him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him to come and save his servant. But when they had come to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying to him: 'He is worthy that you should grant him this; for he loves our nation, and he himself built us our synagogue.' And Jesus was going with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying: 'Lord, do not be troubled; for I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, for which reason I did not even judge myself worthy to come to you; but say the word, and my servant shall be healed (Lk 7:3-7).' For if this was done thus, how will what Matthew narrates be true—a certain centurion came to him—when he himself did not come, but sent friends,

unless, attending diligently, we understand that Matthew did not in every way forsake the customary manner of speaking? For we are accustomed to say that something has approached even before it arrives where it is said to approach—whence we also say, "it has approached a little," or, "it has approached much," toward that which it seeks to reach—but we also for the most part say that the very arrival, for the sake of attaining which one approaches, has been made, even if the one to whom he arrives does not see the one who arrives, when through a friend he reaches someone whose favor is necessary to him. Which custom has so held that now even commonly those are called "reachers" who, by the interposition of suitable persons, attain by the art of solicitation the as-it-were-inaccessible minds of any powerful persons. If, then, the arrival itself is customarily said to be made through others, how much more can an approach be made through others, which for the most part remains short of arrival, since one could indeed approach very much, but yet could not arrive! Not absurdly, then, did Matthew wish to say in brief—what even commonly can be understood, the approach of the centurion to the Lord having been made through others—a centurion came to him.

20. 50. Nevertheless, the depth of the holy evangelist's mystical expression must not be carelessly regarded, according to which it is written in the Psalm: Come to him and be enlightened (Ps 34:6 (33:6)). Accordingly, because the Lord himself so praised the faith of the centurion, by which one truly comes to Jesus, that he said, I have not found such faith in Israel (Mt 8:10), the prudent Evangelist wished to say that the centurion himself rather came to Christ, than those through whom he had sent his words. But Luke, for this reason, disclosed the whole, how it was done, so that from this we might be compelled to understand in what way the other, who could not lie, said that he came. For thus also that woman who suffered a flow of blood, although she touched the hem of his garment, nevertheless touched the Lord more than those crowds by whom he was pressed (See Lk 8:42-48; Mt 9:20; Mk 5:25). For as she, the more she believed, the more she touched the Lord, so the centurion too, the more he believed, the more he approached the Lord. The rest in this chapter, which one says and another passes over, are gone over superfluously, since, by that rule first commended, they are found to have nothing contrary.

21. 51. Matthew goes on and says: and when Jesus had come into the house of Peter, he saw his mother-in-law lying and feverish. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and ministered to them (Mt 8:14-15). When this was done—that is, after what or before what—Matthew did not express.

For it is not necessary that what is narrated after a thing be understood to have been done also after it. Without doubt, however, this one is understood to have recalled what he had earlier omitted.

For Mark narrates it (See Mk 1:29-31) before he mentions that about the cleansed leper, which he seems to have interposed after the discourse held on the mountain, about which he himself was silent.

And so Luke too narrates about Peter's mother-in-law after this event (See Lk 4:38-41)—after which Mark too does—before the discourse, which he too interposed as lengthy, which can seem to be the same one which Matthew says was held on the mountain.

But what does it matter who places a thing in what place—whether what he inserts in order, or what, omitted, he recalls, or what, done afterward, he anticipates—provided only that he does not contradict, in narrating the same or other things, either himself or another?

For since it is in no one's power, however well and faithfully the things are known, in what order each one recalls them (for what comes into a man's mind earlier or later is not as we wish, but as it is given),

it is probable enough that each of the evangelists believed he ought to narrate in that order in which God had willed to suggest to his recollection the very things which he was narrating—at least in those matters whose order, whether it be this or that, takes nothing away from the authority and truth of the Gospel.

21. 52. But why the Holy Spirit—distributing his own gifts to each one as he wills (1 Cor 12:11), and therefore also governing and ruling, without doubt, the minds of the saints in recalling what they were to write (for the sake of the Books to be placed on so great a summit of authority)—permitted one to order his narrative thus, another thus, whoever inquires with pious diligence will be able, divinely helped, to find. Yet this is not the task of this work which we have now undertaken.

It is enough that we demonstrate that the evangelists contradict neither themselves nor one another, in whatever order each of them could or wished to narrate either the same or other deeds and sayings of Christ. Wherefore, where the order of times does not appear, it ought to matter nothing to us what order of narrating any of them kept; but where it does appear, if anything troubles us that seems to contradict either itself or another, it must surely be considered and unraveled.

22. 53. Matthew, then, goes on, saying: and when evening had come, they brought to him many who had demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were ill, that what was said through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: 'He himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses (Mt 8:16-17; Isa 53:4).' That this pertains to the time of the same day he sufficiently indicates, when he joins, and when evening had come. So too Mark, when he had said of Peter's mother-in-law, who was healed, and she ministered to them, subjoined this same thing: and when evening had come, when the sun had set, they brought to him all who were ill and who had demons, and the whole city was gathered at the door. And he healed many who were troubled with various illnesses and cast out many demons and did not allow them to speak, because they knew him. And rising very early, he went out and departed into a desert place (Mk 1:32-35).

Here Mark seems to have kept the order, so that after what was said, and when evening had come, he then said, and rising very early. Although it is not necessary, where it is said and when evening had come, to take it as the evening of the same day, nor where it is said early, the early morning of the same night, nevertheless in some way the order of the things done can seem to be preserved here, on account of the arranged order of times. Luke too, when he had narrated about Peter's mother-in-law, does not himself say and when evening had come, but nevertheless added what means the same, saying: and when the sun had set, all who had any sick with various illnesses brought them to him; and he, laying his hand on each one, cured them. And demons too went out from many, crying out and saying: 'You are the Son of God.' And rebuking them, he did not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ. And when day came, he went out and went into a desert place (Lk 4:40-42).

And here too we see the very same order of times kept which we found in Mark. But Matthew, who seems to have mentioned this about Peter's mother-in-law not in the order in which it was done, but as one recalling what he had passed over, after he had narrated what was done on that day, even in the evening, does not now subjoin the early morning, but narrates thus: and Jesus, seeing many crowds around him, ordered them to go across the strait (Mt 8:18). Now this is something else, not that which Mark and Luke weave, who place the early morning after the evening.

What was here said, then—and Jesus, seeing many crowds around him, ordered them to go across the strait—we ought to take as something else he interposed, recalling it: that on a certain day, when Jesus had seen many crowds around him, he ordered them to go across the strait.

23. 54. Then what he subjoins—and a scribe, coming, said to him: 'Master, I will follow you wherever you go,' up to where he says, let the dead bury their own dead (Mt 8:19-22; see Lk 9:57-62)—this Luke too narrates similarly. But he does so after many things, and not himself with the order of times expressed, but in the manner of one recalling: whether what he earlier omitted, or what, done even later than the things that follow, he anticipated, is uncertain.

For he says thus: and it came to pass, as they were walking on the way, a certain one said to him: 'I will follow you wherever you go (Lk 9:57).' And he answered him the very same things which Matthew mentions. But that Matthew says this was done then, when he ordered them to go across the strait (See Mt 8:18), while Luke says, as they were walking on the way (See Lk 9:57), is not contrary, because they were surely walking on the way, to come to the strait.

And about the one who asks first to bury his father, Matthew and Luke agree entirely (See Mt 8:21; Lk 9:59). For that Matthew first set down the words of the one asking this on account of his father, and then those of the Lord saying, Follow me, while Luke first set down those of the Lord saying, Follow me, and then those of the one asking this, makes no difference to the meaning. Luke mentioned also that another said, I will follow you, Lord, but first allow me to take leave of those who are at home (Lk 9:61), about whom Matthew is silent. From there Luke now went on to something else, not to that which followed in the order of time. And after these things, he says, the Lord appointed seventy-two others (Lk 10:1). After these things, indeed, manifestly; but after how great an interval of time the Lord did that after these things does not appear. In that very interval, however, occurs what Matthew next subjoins. For the same Matthew still keeps the order of times, narrating thus:

24. 55. And as he went up into the boat, his disciples followed him. And behold, a great commotion arose on the sea, up to where he says, and he came into his own city (Mt 8:23-9:1). These two things, narrated continuously by Matthew—about the sea made calm after Jesus, roused from sleep, commanded the winds, and about those who had a fierce demon and, their bonds broken, were driven into the desert—Mark and Luke narrate similarly (See Mk 4:36-5:17; Lk 8:22-37).

Certain sentences were spoken in different words by one and another, yet not different sentences—as that which Matthew says he said, Why are you fearful, you of little faith? Mark says it thus: Why are you fearful? Do you not yet have faith? (Mt 8:26; Mk 4:40)

that is, that perfect faith, like the grain of mustard seed. This, then, is what the other too says, of little faith. But Luke: Where is your faith? (Lk 8:25)

And the whole could indeed be said: "Why are you fearful? Where is your faith? You of little faith." Whence one mentions one thing here, another another. And as for what they said when they roused him,

Matthew thus: Lord, save us, we are perishing; Mark: Master, does it not concern you that we are perishing? Luke: Teacher, we are perishing (Mt 8:25; Mk 4:38; Lk 8:24): it is one and the same meaning of those rousing the Lord and wishing to be saved, nor is there need to ask which of these was rather said to Christ.

For whether they said one of these three, or other words which no evangelist mentioned but which nevertheless mean just as much toward the same truth of the meaning, what does it matter to the matter? Although this too could have happened: that, several rousing him at the same time, all these things were said, one by one and another by another.

Likewise, what they said when the storm was stilled, according to Matthew: What kind of man is this, that the winds and the sea obey him? (Mt 8:27) According to Mark: Who, do you think, is this, that the wind and the sea obey him? (Mk 4:41) According to Luke: Who, do you think, is this, that he commands both the winds and the sea, and they obey him? (Lk 8:25) Who does not see that it is one meaning? For Who, do you think, is this? and What kind of man is this? mean just as much; and where he commands is not said, it is surely understood as a consequence, because the one who commands is obeyed.

24. 56. But as for the fact that Matthew says there were two who suffered that legion of demons which was allowed to go into the swine, while Mark and Luke mention one (See Mt 8:28; Mk 5:1-2; Lk 8:27), you may understand that one of them was a person of some more illustrious and famous standing, for whom that region especially grieved and for whose salvation it was most busy.

Wishing to signify this, two evangelists judged that he alone was to be mentioned, about whom the fame of this deed had spread more widely and more brilliantly. Nor does the fact that the words of the demons are stated differently by the evangelists have any difficulty, since they can either be reduced to one meaning or be understood as all said.

Nor that in Matthew he speaks in the plural, but in them in the singular, since they too narrate that, when asked what he was called, he answered that he was legion, because the demons were many. Nor that Mark says the herd of swine was around the mountain, but Luke on the mountain, contradicts at all. For the herd of swine was so great that some of it was on the mountain, some around the mountain. For there were two thousand swine, as Mark expressed.

25. 57. From here, then, Matthew goes on, still preserving the order of times, and thus weaves his narrative: and going up into the boat, he crossed over and came into his own city. And behold, they brought to him a paralytic lying on a bed (Mt 9:1-2), and the rest, up to where he says, but the crowds, seeing this, feared and glorified God, who gave such power to men (Mt 9:8). About this paralytic Mark and Luke too spoke (See Mk 2:3-12; Lk 5:18-26).

That Matthew, then, says the Lord said, Take courage, son, your sins are forgiven you (Mt 9:2), while Luke did not say son, but man (Lk 5:20), serves to intimate more expressly the meaning of the Lord: because the sins were being forgiven to a man, who by this very fact, that he was a man, could not say, "I have not sinned"; and at the same time so that the one who forgave a man might be understood as God. Mark indeed said this (See Mk 2:5), which Matthew too said, but he did not say Take courage. It could indeed be said thus: Take courage, man; your sins are forgiven, son, or, Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven, man, or in any fitting order of words.

25. 58. That, indeed, can trouble us, that Matthew narrates about this paralytic thus: and going up into the boat, he crossed over and came into his own city. And behold, they brought to him a paralytic lying on a bed (Mt 9:1-2).

But Mark says this was done not in his city, which is surely called Nazareth, but in Capernaum, which he narrates thus: and again he entered Capernaum after some days, and it was heard that he was in the house. And many gathered, so that there was no room, not even at the door, and he spoke the word to them. And they came, bringing to him a paralytic, who was carried by four. And when they could not bring him to him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was, and making an opening they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. But when Jesus saw their faith, and the rest (Mk 2:1-5). But Luke does not mention in what place it was done, but says thus:

and it came to pass on one of the days, and he himself was sitting, teaching, and there were Pharisees sitting, and doctors of the Law, who had come out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem, and the power of the Lord was present to heal them. And behold, men carrying on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they sought to bring him in and place him before him. And not finding by what way they might bring him in because of the crowd, they went up onto the roof and through the tiles let him down with his bed into the midst before Jesus. When he saw their faith, he said: 'Man, your sins are forgiven you' (Lk 5:17-20), and the rest.

There remains, then, a question between Mark and Matthew, that Matthew writes as though it was done in the Lord's city, but Mark in Capernaum. Which would be resolved with more difficulty if Matthew also named Nazareth. But now, since Galilee itself could be called the city of Christ, because Nazareth was in Galilee—just as the whole empire, set up in so many cities, is called the Roman city; and since the city is set up among so many nations, of which it is written, Glorious things are said of you, city of God (Ps 87:3 (86:3)); and since the earlier people of God too, dwelling in so many cities, was also called one house, the house of Israel (See Isa 5:7; Jer 3:20; Ezek 3:4-7)—

who would doubt that Jesus did this in his own city, when he did it in the city of Capernaum, a city of Galilee, to which, by crossing the strait, he had returned from the region of the Gerasenes, so that, coming into Galilee, he would rightly be said to have come into his own city, in whatever town of Galilee he was—especially since Capernaum itself was so preeminent in Galilee that it was held as a metropolis? But if it were absolutely not allowed to take the city of Christ either as Galilee itself, in which Nazareth was, or as Capernaum itself, which stood out as the head of the cities of Galilee, we would say that Matthew passed over the things which were done after Jesus came into his own city, until he should come also to Capernaum, and added this about the healed paralytic—just as in many cases they do thus, passing over the things in between, as though what they subjoin, with no indication of their having passed anything over, follows immediately.

26. 59. From here, then, Matthew goes on, saying: and as Jesus passed by from there, he saw a man sitting at the tax office, named Matthew, and said to him: 'Follow me,' and rising he followed him (Mt 9:9). Mark narrates this thus, he too keeping the same order after the healing of that paralytic: and he went out, he says, to the sea, and all the crowd came to him, and he taught them. And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office, and said to him: 'Follow me.' And rising he followed him (Mk 2:13-14). Nothing here contradicts; for Matthew is the same one who is also Levi. Luke too subjoins this, after the same paralytic was healed, thus: and after these things he went out and saw a publican named Levi sitting at the tax office, and said to him: 'Follow me.' And leaving all and rising, he followed him (Lk 5:27-28). But from this it seems more probable that Matthew, by recalling, mentions these things which he had passed over, because Matthew is surely to be believed to have been called before that discourse held on the mountain. For on that mountain Luke then mentions that all twelve were chosen out of the many disciples, whom he also named apostles (See Lk 6:13).

27. 60. Matthew, accordingly, goes on and says: and it came to pass, as he reclined at table in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and reclined with Jesus and his disciples, and the rest, up to where he says, but they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved (Mt 9:10-17).

Here Matthew did not express in whose house Jesus reclined with the publicans and sinners. Whence it could seem that he subjoined this not in order, but interposed it, recalling what was done at another time, were it not that Mark and Luke, who narrate this altogether similarly (See Mk 2:15-22; Lk 5:27-39), make it manifest that Jesus reclined in the house of Levi, that is, of Matthew, and that all those things which follow were said there.

For Mark says this same thing thus, keeping the same order: and it came to pass, as he reclined at table in his house, many publicans and sinners reclined together with Jesus (Mk 2:15). When, then, he says in his house, he surely expresses the one of whom he was speaking above, that is, Levi. So too Luke, when he had said, he said to him: 'Follow me,' and leaving all and rising he followed him, immediately subjoined: and Levi made him a great banquet in his house, and there was a great crowd of publicans and of others who were reclining at table with them (Lk 5:28-29). It is therefore manifest in whose house these things were done.

27. 61. Now let us see the very words which all these three evangelists set down—either what was said to the Lord or what was answered by him. Matthew: and seeing this, he says, the Pharisees said to his disciples: 'Why does your master eat with publicans and sinners? (Mt 9:11)' In almost the same words Mark too says this: Why does your master eat and drink with publicans and sinners? (Mk 2:16)

There was passed over by Matthew, then, what this one added, and drink. But what does it matter to the matter, since the meaning is full, intimating that they feasted together? But Luke seems to have mentioned this somewhat differently. And the Pharisees and their scribes murmured, he says, saying to his disciples: 'Why do you eat and drink with publicans and sinners?' (Lk 5:30)

Not, surely, wishing their master to be understood as not there, but intimating that this was objected to all together, both to him and to his disciples; yet not said to him, but to them, so that it might be taken both of him and of them. For surely Luke too says that the Lord answered thus: 'I have not come to call the just, but sinners to repentance (Lk 5:32).'

Which he would not have answered them, unless what they had said—you eat and drink—pertained especially to himself. Therefore Matthew and Mark too narrated that this was objected concerning him to his disciples, because even when it was said about the disciples, it was rather objected to the master, whom they imitated by following.

There is, then, one meaning, and it is so much the better intimated, the more, in certain words, the truth remaining, it is varied. Likewise, what Matthew reports the Lord answered: The healthy have no need of a physician, but those who are ill. But go and learn what this is: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice (Hos 6:6).' For I have not come to call the just, but sinners (Mt 9:12-13). Mark too and Luke kept the same meaning in almost the same words (See Mk 2:17; Lk 5:31), except that both do not interpose that testimony from the prophet, I desire mercy rather than sacrifice (Hos 6:6). But Luke, when he had said, I have not come to call the just, but sinners, added to repentance (Lk 5:32), which serves to explain the meaning, lest anyone suppose that sinners are loved by Christ for this very thing, that they are sinners—since that similitude too about the sick well intimates what God wills by calling sinners, as a physician the sick, namely, that from iniquity, as from sickness, they may be made well, which is done through repentance.

27. 62. Likewise, what Matthew says: then the disciples of John came to him, saying: 'Why do we and the Pharisees fast frequently? (Mt 9:14)' Mark brought it in similarly, saying: and the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting, and they come and say to him: 'Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast? (Mk 2:18)' Except that this one can be thought to have added that the Pharisees said this together with the disciples of John, when Matthew reports that only the disciples of John said this. But the very words which it is read in Mark that they said indicate rather that others said this about others—that is, that the guests who were present came to Jesus, because the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting, and said this to him about them; so that what he says, they come, he did not say of those very ones about whom he had interposed, and the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting, but, while these were fasting, those came whom this moved, and they say to him: Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but yours do not fast? Which Luke expressed more evidently, intimating this same thing thus, when he had said what the Lord answered them about the calling of sinners as of the sick: but they, he says, said to him: 'Why do the disciples of John fast frequently and make supplications, and likewise those of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink? (Lk 5:33)' So here too, like Mark, he narrated that others said this about others. Whence, then, does Matthew say: then the disciples of John came to him, saying: 'Why do we and the Pharisees fast? (Mt 9:14)' Except that they too were present, and all in turn, as each one could, objected this, whose meaning, in a different manner of speaking, but yet not alien from the truth, was intimated by the three evangelists.

27. 63. Likewise that about the sons of the bridegroom, that they will not fast as long as the bridegroom is with them (See Mt 9:15; Mk 2:19; Lk 5:34), Matthew and Mark interposed similarly, except that Mark called sons of the wedding those whom the other called of the bridegroom, which makes no difference to the matter. For by sons of the wedding we understand not only those of the bridegroom, but also those of the bride.

There is, then, the same open meaning, not another, opposed one. But Luke did not say, "Can the sons of the bridegroom fast?" but said: Can you make the sons of the bridegroom fast, as long as the bridegroom is with them? (Lk 5:34) In which he too, to intimate something else, elegantly opened the same meaning.

For thus it is understood that those very ones who were speaking were about to bring it about that the sons of the bridegroom, mourning, should fast, since they themselves were about to kill the bridegroom. But what Matthew said, mourn, Mark and Luke said fast, because the other too afterward says then they will fast, not, "then they will mourn." But by that word he signified that the Lord spoke of such a fast as pertains to the humility of tribulation, so that the other one, which pertains to the joy of a mind suspended toward spiritual things and on this account in some way withdrawn from corporeal foods, the Lord is understood to have signified by the later similitudes about the new cloth and the new wine (See Mt 9:16-17), showing this: that this kind of fasting does not suit those who are animal and carnal, occupied about the body, and on this account still drawing the old sense. Which similitudes the other two also set forth similarly. For it is now sufficiently at hand that there is nothing contrary, if one says something, whether of word or of thing, which another passes over, provided either that the same meaning is not departed from, or that what is perhaps otherwise set down is not opposed to the other.

28. 64. Then Matthew goes on, still preserving the order of times: as he was saying these things to them, behold, a certain ruler came and adored him, saying: 'My daughter has just now died, but come, lay your hand upon her, and she shall live,' and the rest (Mt 9:18-26), up to where he says, and the girl rose. And this report went out into all that land (Mt 9:25-26).

The other two too, Mark and Luke, say this, but they now depart from this order. For they recall and insert it elsewhere—that is, in that place where he returns, by crossing the strait, from the region of the Gerasenes, after the demons were cast out and let go into the swine. For Mark joins this thus, after that deed among the Gerasenes: and when Jesus had crossed over in the boat again across the strait, he says, a great crowd gathered to him, and he was beside the sea. And there came one of the rulers of the synagogue, named Jairus, and seeing him he fell down at his feet, and the rest (Mk 5:21-22).

And for this reason it is to be understood that this about the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue was indeed done when Jesus had crossed over in the boat again across the strait, but how long after does not appear. For unless there had been an interval, there would have been no time when there could have happened what Matthew just now narrated at the banquet in his own house (See Mt 9:10-17); for, in the manner of the evangelists, he narrated as about another what had been done concerning himself and at his own house, after which deed nothing else immediately follows but this about the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue.

For he himself weaves it so that the very transition openly indicates that this is narrated as a consequence which was also done as a consequence, since indeed, when he had mentioned above what Jesus said about the new cloth and the new wine, he immediately subjoined: as he was saying these things to them, behold, a certain ruler came (Mt 9:18). And for this reason, if he came as he was saying these things, nothing else of his deeds and sayings was interposed.

But in the narration of Mark a place lies open where other things could have been interposed, as we have already shown. Similarly Luke too, when, after the miracle narrated among the Gerasenes, he passes to narrating about the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, does not so pass as to resist Matthew, who shows that this was done after those similitudes about the cloth and the wine, by saying, as he was saying these things.

For he, when he had concluded what he had narrated as done among the Gerasenes, passes to something else in this manner: now it came to pass, he says, when Jesus had returned, the crowd received him, for they were all awaiting him. And behold, a man whose name was Jairus, and he himself was a ruler of the synagogue, and he fell at the feet of Jesus, and the rest (Lk 8:40–41).

Thus it is understood that the crowd indeed received the Lord immediately, since they were awaiting him to return; but what he added—and behold, a man whose name was Jairus—is not to be taken as done immediately, but first that about the banquet of the publicans, as Matthew narrates (See Mt 9:10–17), to which Luke so joins this that nothing else can be understood to have been done as a consequence.

28. 65. In this narration, then, which we have now undertaken to consider, about the woman who suffered a flow of blood all these three evangelists agree without any question. For it makes no difference to the truth of the matter that something is left unsaid by one and said by another; nor that Mark says, Who touched my garments? (Mk 5:30) and Luke, Who touched me? (Lk 8:45) For one spoke in the customary way, the other in the proper way, yet both the same meaning. For we more customarily say, "You are tearing me," than, "You are tearing my garments," when nevertheless it is plain what we wish to be understood.

28. 66. But whereas Matthew narrates that the ruler of the synagogue announced to the Lord not that his daughter was about to die, or was dying, or was placed at the extremity of life (See Mt 9:18), but altogether dead, while those two say she was already near death, yet not yet dead (See Mk 5:23; Lk 8:42)—to such a degree that they say there came afterward those who announced her dead, and that for this reason the master ought no longer to be troubled, as though he were coming to keep her, by laying on his hand, from dying, not as one who could raise her when dead—

it must be considered, lest it seem to contradict, and it must be understood that, for the sake of brevity, Matthew rather wished to say that the Lord was asked to do what it is manifest that he did, namely, to raise her when dead; for he attended not to the words of the father about his daughter, but, what is more important, to his intention, and set down such words as his intention was.

For he had so despaired that he wished her rather to come to life again, not believing that she whom he had left dying could be found alive. Thus the two set down what Jairus said, but Matthew, what he wished and thought. Both, then, were asked of the Lord: that he should either make her well as she was dying or raise her when dead; but since Matthew had set out to say the whole briefly, he intimated that the father, beseeching, said what it is also certain he wished and Christ did. Indeed, if those two, or any of them, had mentioned that the father himself said what those coming from his house had said—that Jesus should no longer be troubled, because the girl was dead—the words which Matthew set down would contradict his thought. But now, as for that too—it is not read that he consented to those who announced it and forbade that the master should now come. And for this reason that too which the Lord said to him, Do not fear, only believe, and she shall be saved (Lk 8:50), did not rebuke him as one distrusting, but more strongly confirmed him as one believing. For such was the faith in him as in the one who said, I believe, Lord; help my unbelief (Mk 9:24).

28. 67. Since these things are so, through such varied but not contrary expressions of the evangelists we learn a thing plainly most useful and very necessary: that in anyone's words we ought to inspect nothing but the intention, which the words ought to serve, and that no one lies if he says in other words what he meant whose words he does not state—lest wretched word-catchers think the truth must be bound, as it were, to the tips of the letters, when surely not only in words, but also in all other signs of minds, nothing is to be inquired into but the mind itself.

28. 68. But as for the fact that some codices have, according to Matthew, for the woman is not dead, but sleeps (Mt 9:24), when Mark and Luke testify that she was a girl of twelve years (See Mk 5:42; Lk 8:42), you may understand that Matthew spoke in the Hebrew manner. For in other places of the Scriptures too this is found, that not only those who had known a man, but altogether females, even untouched and intact, are called women, just as it is written of Eve herself, he formed her into a woman (Gen 2:22), and that in the book of Numbers, where the women who had not known the bed of a male, that is, the virgins, are commanded to be kept (See Num 31:18), lest they be killed; by which manner of speaking Paul too says that Christ himself was made of a woman (See Gal 4:4). For this we understand better than that we should believe that girl of twelve years was already married or had known a man.

29. 69. Matthew goes on and says: and as Jesus passed by from there, two blind men followed him, crying out and saying: 'Have mercy on us, son of David (Mt 9:27),' and the rest, up to where he says, but the Pharisees said: 'He casts out demons by the prince of demons (Mt 9:34).' This about the two blind men and the mute demon Matthew alone sets down.

For those two blind men about whom the others too narrate (See Mk 10:46–52; Lk 18:35–43) are not these; but nevertheless a similar thing was done, so that, if Matthew himself had not also mentioned that deed (See Mt 20:29–34), it could be thought that this which he now narrates was said also by the other two. Which we ought diligently to commit to memory—that there are certain similar deeds—which is proved when this same evangelist mentions both, so that, if ever we find such things, single, in single evangelists, and in them something contrary which cannot be resolved, it may occur to us that this is not the same deed, but another similar one, or one done in a similar way.

30. 70. Hereafter, indeed, the order of the things done does not appear. For after these two deeds about the blind men and the mute demon, he goes on thus: and Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the Gospel of the kingdom and curing every illness and every infirmity. But seeing the crowds, he had pity on them, because they were harassed and lying down like sheep having no shepherd. Then he says to his disciples: 'The harvest indeed is great, but the laborers are few; ask, therefore, the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.' And calling together his twelve disciples, he gave them power over unclean spirits, and the rest (Mt 9:35–10:1), up to where he says, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward (Mt 10:42).

In this whole passage which we have now mentioned, he gave his disciples many admonitions; but whether Matthew subjoined them in order, or whether his recollection was the order of his narrating, as has been said, does not appear. This passage Mark seems to have touched on briefly, and he entered upon it thus, saying: and he went about the villages round about, teaching. And he called together the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them power over unclean spirits, and the rest (Mk 6:6–7), up to where he says, shake off the dust from your feet in testimony against them (Mk 6:11).

But before Mark narrated this, he first, after the raised daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, narrated that in which they marveled at the Lord in his own country, whence he had such great wisdom and powers, when they knew his kindred (See Mk 6:1–6)—which Matthew mentions after this admonition of the disciples and after many other things (See Mt 13:53–58). And so it is uncertain whether Matthew recalled this, which takes place in his own country, having omitted it, or whether Mark anticipated it, recalling it; which of them kept the order of the thing done and which the order of his recollection. But Luke immediately, after the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus, subjoins this passage about the power and admonition of the disciples (See Lk 9:1–6), as briefly indeed as Mark, nor he in such a way that this appears to follow even in the order of the things done. In the names, then, of the disciples, Luke, who names them by another name when they are first chosen on the mountain, does not differ from Matthew except in the name of Judas the son of James, whom Matthew calls Thaddeus (See Mt 10:3), but some codices have Lebbaeus. But who would ever forbid that one man be called by two or three names?

30. 71. Likewise it is wont to be asked how Matthew and Luke mention that the Lord said to the disciples that they should not even carry a staff (See Mt 10:10; Lk 9:3), when Mark says: and he charged them that they should take nothing on the way except a staff only, and he too goes on: no bag, no bread, nor money in the belt (Mk 6:8), so that he shows that his narration is engaged in the same passage in which that of those too who said that not even a staff should be carried.

This is resolved so that we understand that the staff which, according to Mark, is to be carried was said under one signification, and that which, according to Matthew and Luke, is not to be carried, under another; just as temptation is understood under one signification, of which it is said, God tempts no one (Jas 1:13), and under another, of which it is said, the Lord your God tempts you, that he may know whether you love him (Deut 13:3). The former is of seduction, the latter of testing; just as judgment is taken in one way, of which it is said, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment (Jn 5:29), and in another, of which it is said, Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from a nation not holy (Ps 43:1 (42:1)). For that judgment is of condemnation, this of discernment.

30. 72. And there are many other words which do not have one signification, but, fittingly placed in different places, are understood in different ways, and are sometimes said with an explanation, as is that: do not become children in your senses, but in malice be little ones, that in your senses you may be perfect (1 Cor 14:20). For this could be said briefly in a closed sentence: "do not be children, but be children." And that: if anyone among you thinks himself wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise (1 Cor 3:18).

For what else did he say than: "let him not be wise, that he may be wise"? But sometimes they are said so closed that they exercise the inquirer, as is what he says to the Galatians: bear one another's burdens, and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But let each one prove his own work, and then he shall have glory in himself and not in another. For each one shall bear his own burden (Gal 6:2–5).

Unless you take the word burden under different significations, you will without doubt think that he is contrary to himself in speaking, and this in one sentence with the words placed so close together—he who, when he had said a little before, bear one another's burdens, afterward said, each one shall bear his own burden. But the burdens of sharing infirmity are one thing, those of rendering an account to God of our acts another: the former, to be sustained, are shared with the brethren; the latter, as one's own, are borne by each one. Thus also staff is understood spiritually, of which the Apostle said, shall I come to you with a staff? (1 Cor 4:21) and corporeally, which we use whether for a horse or for whatever else there may be need—to forbear, for the moment, the other figurative significations of this word.

30. 73. Both, then, must be taken as said by the Lord to the apostles: both that they should not carry a staff and that they should carry only a staff. For when, according to Matthew, he said to them, Do not possess gold nor silver nor money in your belts, no bag for the way nor two tunics nor sandals nor a staff, he immediately subjoined: for the laborer is worthy of his food (Mt 10:9–10).

Whence he sufficiently shows why he wished them not to possess and carry these things—not that they are not necessary for the sustenance of this life, but because he was so sending them that he showed these things were owed to them by those very ones to whom, believing, they would announce the Gospel: as wages to those serving as soldiers, as the fruit of the vineyard to those who plant it, as the milk of the flock to those who shepherd it.

Whence Paul says: who ever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who shepherds a flock and does not partake of the milk of the flock? (1 Cor 9:7) For here he was speaking of the things that are necessary for the preachers of the Gospel. Whence a little after he says: if we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your carnal things? If others partake of this power over you, do we not much more? But we have not used this power (1 Cor 9:11–12).

Whence it appears that the Lord did not so command these things as though the evangelists ought to live from no other source than from those providing for them, to whom they announce the Gospel—otherwise the same Apostle acted against this command, who got his living from the labors of his own hands, lest he be a burden to anyone (1 Thess 2:9)—but that he gave a power, in which they might know that these things were owed to them. But when something is commanded by the Lord, unless it is done, it is the fault of disobedience.

But when a power is given, it is lawful for anyone not to use it, and, as it were, to yield his own right. Speaking these things to the disciples, then, the Lord was doing that which the Apostle himself a little after more openly sets forth thus: do you not know that those who work in the temple eat of the things of the temple? That those who serve the altar share with the altar? So too the Lord ordained for those who announce the Gospel to live from the Gospel. But I have used none of these things (1 Cor 9:13–15).

And so, when he says that the Lord thus ordained, but that he himself did not use it, he surely shows that a power of using was given, not a necessity of serving imposed.

30. 74. Ordaining this, then—what the Apostle says he ordained, that those who announce the Gospel should live from the Gospel—the Lord spoke those things to the apostles, that, secure, they should neither possess nor carry the things necessary for this life, neither great nor small. Therefore he set down not even a staff, showing that all things are owed to his ministers by his faithful, who require nothing superfluous. And for this reason, by adding for the laborer is worthy of his food (Mt 10:10), he altogether opened and illuminated whence and why he spoke all these things.

This power, then, he signified by the name of the staff, when he said: that they should take nothing on the way except a staff only (Mk 6:8). For it could even be said thus briefly: "carry with you none of the necessary things, not even a staff, except a staff only," so that what was said, not even a staff, is understood, "not even the smallest things"; but what was added, except a staff only, is understood, because, through the power received from the Lord, which was signified by the name of the staff, even the things that are not carried will not be lacking. Both, then, the Lord said; but because not both are thought to have been mentioned by one evangelist, the one who said that the staff, set under one signification, was to be taken away, is thought to be contrary to the one who, again, said that the staff, signifying something else, was not to be taken away; but, the reason now rendered, let him not be so thought.

30. 75. So too, when Matthew says that sandals are not to be carried on the way (See Mt 10:10), he forbids the care by which they are thought to be carried lest they be lacking. This is to be understood also of the two tunics, lest any of them should think that, besides the one he was wearing, another was to be carried, anxious lest there be need, when from that power he could receive it.

Accordingly Mark, by saying that they were shod with sandals or soles, admonishes that this footwear has some mystical signification, so that the foot be neither covered nor bare to the ground—that is, that the Gospel be neither hidden nor lean upon earthly advantages. And as for the fact that he forbids two tunics to be carried or had, but more expressly to be worn, saying, and that they should not be clothed with two tunics (See Mk 6:9), what does he admonish them but to walk not doubly, but simply?

30. 76. Thus it is in no way to be doubted that the Lord said all these things, partly properly, partly figuratively; but that the evangelists inserted into their writings, one these, another those, and that certain of the same things either two or three of them, whichever, or all four, set down—nor yet that all things were so written which were either said or done by him. But whoever thinks the Lord could not, in one discourse, set down some sayings figuratively, some properly, let him inspect the rest of his discourses; he will see how rashly and unlearnedly he thinks this. For this one can—to say one thing that for the moment occurs to my mind—since he admonishes that the left hand should not know what the right hand does (See Mt 6:3), think that the very almsgiving, and whatever else he there enjoins, is to be taken figuratively.

30. 77. I admonish again, indeed—what the reader ought to remember, lest he very often need such admonition—that in various places of his discourses the Lord already repeated many things which he had said elsewhere, lest perhaps, when the order of the very passages does not agree with that of another evangelist, anyone think there is here something contrary to one of them, when he ought to understand that what was already said elsewhere is said again elsewhere; and that this must be observed not only of sayings, but also of deeds. For nothing forbids us to believe this same thing was done again. But to calumniate the Gospel, while one does not believe that what no one proves could not be done again was done again, is of sacrilegious vanity.

31. 78. Matthew goes on and says: and it came to pass, when Jesus had finished giving commands to his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in their cities. Now John, when he had heard in his chains the works of Christ, sending two of his disciples, said to him: 'Are you he who is to come, or do we await another?' (Mt 11:1–3) and the rest, up to where he says, and wisdom is justified by her children (Mt 11:19). This whole passage about John the Baptist—that he sent to Jesus, and what sort of answer those whom he sent received, and whatever the Lord said about John after their departure—Luke too interposes (See Lk 7:18–35), not indeed in the same order; but which of them keeps the order of his own recollection here, which the order of the things themselves, does not appear.

32. 79. Matthew goes on and says: then he began to reproach the cities in which most of his powers had been done, because they had not done penance, and the rest (Mt 11:20), up to where he says, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you (Mt 11:24). This too Luke mentions, joining these things from his own mouth to a certain continued discourse of the Lord (See Lk 10:12–15).

Whence it rather seems that he mentions those things in the order in which they were said by the Lord, but that Matthew kept the order of his own recollection. Or, if what the same Matthew says, then he began to reproach the cities, is thought to be taken so that he is believed to have wished to express the very point of time in that word then, and not rather the time itself, somewhat more broadly, in which these many things were done and said—whoever believes this, let him also believe that this was said twice.

For since even in one evangelist certain things are found which the Lord said twice—as in the same Luke about not carrying a bag on the way, it is found said by the Lord in two other places similarly (See Lk 9:3; 10:4)—what wonder if something else too, said twice, is told singly by single evangelists in the same order in which it was said, and therefore a different order appears in the single ones, because it was said both then when the one and then when the other mentions it?

33. 80. Matthew goes on: at that time Jesus, answering, said: 'I confess to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent,' and the rest (Mt 11:25), up to where he says, for my yoke is sweet and my burden light (Mt 11:30). This passage Luke too mentions, but in part. For he himself does not say, Come to me, all you who labor (Mt 11:28), and the other things that follow. But it is credible that this was said once by the Lord, and that Luke did not mention the whole of what was said. For Matthew says, at that time Jesus, answering, said, after he reproached the cities; but Luke, after that reproach of the cities (See Lk 10:13–20), interposes certain things, not many, however, and subjoins this thus: in that very hour he exulted in the Holy Spirit and said (Lk 10:21). Whence, even if Matthew did not say at that time, but in that very hour, Luke interposes so few things in between that it would not absurdly seem to have been said even in the same hour.

34. 81. Matthew goes on and says: at that time Jesus went on the Sabbath through the standing grain, but his disciples, being hungry, began to pluck the ears and to eat (Mt 12:1), and the rest, up to where he says, for the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath (Mt 12:8). This too is mentioned without any question of contradiction both by Mark and by Luke (See Mk 2:23–28; Lk 6:1–5), but they do not say at that time. Whence perhaps Matthew rather kept here the order of the thing done, but those two the order of their own recollection—unless what was said, that time, is taken more broadly, that is, the time in which these many and various things were done.

35. 82. Matthew goes on, then, narrating thus: and when he had gone on from there, he came into their synagogue. And behold, a man having a withered hand (Mt 12:9–10), and the rest, up to where he says, and it was restored to health like the other (Mt 12:13). About this healed man who had a withered hand, Mark and Luke too are not silent (See Mk 3:1–5; Lk 6:6–11). It could be thought that both about the ears of grain and about this healed man were done on the same day, since the Sabbath is mentioned here too, had Luke not disclosed that the healing of the withered hand was done on another Sabbath.

Accordingly, what Matthew says—and when he had gone on from there, he came into their synagogue—he did not indeed come except when he had gone on from there; but after how many days he came into their synagogue, after he had gone on from that field of grain, or whether he went there directly and immediately, is not expressed. And for this reason a place is given to the narration of Luke, who says that this man's hand was healed on another Sabbath. But it can trouble us how Matthew said that they questioned the Lord whether it is lawful to cure on the Sabbath (Mt 12:10), wishing to find an occasion of accusing, while he set before them a similitude about a sheep, saying:

what man shall there be among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out? How much better is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11–12), when Mark and Luke report that they rather were questioned by the Lord: is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath or to do evil? To save a soul or to destroy it? (Mk 3:4; Lk 6:9) And so it must be understood that they first questioned the Lord whether it is lawful to cure on the Sabbath, then that he, understanding their thoughts, who were seeking an entrance for accusing, set in the midst the one he was about to heal and asked what Mark and Luke mention that he asked, and then, while they were silent, set before them the similitude about the sheep and concluded that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath; finally, having looked around at them with anger, as Mark says, grieved at the blindness of their heart, said to the man, Stretch out your hand (Mt 12:13; Mk 3:5; Lk 6:10).

36. 83. Matthew goes on, weaving his narrative thus: but the Pharisees, going out, took counsel against him, how they might destroy him. But Jesus, knowing it, withdrew from there, and many followed him, and he healed them all and charged them that they should not make him known, that what was said through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, saying (Mt 12:14–17), and the rest, up to where he says, and in his name the nations shall hope (Mt 12:21).

This one alone mentions; the other two went on to other things. Mark indeed seems to have kept somewhat the order of the thing done, who says that Jesus, having learned of the malignant plan of the Jews against him, withdrew to the sea with his disciples, and that the crowds flowed together to him, and that he healed very many of them (See Mk 3:6–12).

But whence he began to go on to something else—not what followed in order—scarcely appears: whether where he says that the crowds gathered to him (for this could be even at another time), or where he says, he went up onto the mountain.

Which Luke too seems to mention, saying: now it came to pass in those days, he went out onto the mountain to pray (Lk 6:12); for by saying in those days, he sufficiently shows that it was not done immediately.

37. 84. Matthew, then, goes on and says: then there was brought to him one having a demon, blind and mute, and he cured him, so that he spoke and saw (Mt 12:22). This Luke mentions not in this order, but after many such things, and he says only mute (See Lk 11:14–15), not also blind. But because he is silent about something he is not to be thought to say something different from the other; for he too weaves together those following things which Matthew does.

38. 85. Matthew goes on, saying: and all the crowds were astounded and said: 'Is this not the son of David?' But the Pharisees, hearing it, said: 'This man does not cast out demons except by Beelzebul, the prince of demons.' But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said to them: 'Every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation' (Mt 12:23–25) and the rest, up to where he says, by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned (Mt 12:37). Mark does not subjoin, on the occasion of that mute man, what was said about Jesus, that he casts out demons by Beelzebul, but after certain other things which he alone mentions, he too connects this—either recalling it elsewhere and adding it, or passing over something and then returning to this order (See Mk 3:22–30). But Luke says, in almost the same words, what Matthew says; and that he calls the Spirit of God the finger of God, he does not depart from the same meaning (See Lk 11:14–26)—nay rather, he even teaches something, so that we may know how we are to understand, wherever in the Scriptures we read the finger of God. But in the other things which Mark and Luke do not here say, there is no controversy, nor in those which they say somewhat otherwise, because the meaning is the same.

39. 86. Matthew goes on and says: then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: 'Master, we wish to see a sign from you' (Mt 12:38), and the rest, up to where he says thus: so shall it be also to this most wicked generation (Mt 12:45). These things Luke too narrates, in that very place indeed, but in a somewhat different order (See Lk 11:16–26).

For that they sought a sign from the Lord from heaven, he mentioned above, after that miracle about the mute man, and did not there report what the Lord answered them to this; but afterward, when the crowds had run together, he says that this was answered to those whom he gives us to understand he had mentioned above, that they were seeking a sign from heaven; and this he attaches, after he interposed about the woman who said to the Lord, Blessed is the womb that bore you (Lk 11:27).

But he interposes this woman, when he had mentioned, from the discourse of the Lord, that the unclean spirit, going out of a man, returns and finds the house cleansed. After that woman, then, when he said it was answered to the crowds about the sign which they sought from heaven, the similitude of the prophet Jonah being interposed, then, the discourse of the Lord himself being continued, he mentions what was said about the Queen of the South and about the Ninevites (See Lk 11:17–32). Thus he rather mentioned something which Matthew was silent about than passed over anything of those things which the other narrated in this place. But who does not see that it is asked superfluously in what order the Lord said those things—since this too we ought to learn, through the most excellent authority of the evangelists, that it is no falsehood if someone has set out anyone's discourse not in the order in which it proceeded from him, when the order itself makes no difference to the matter, whether it be this way or that? And still Luke indicates this discourse of the Lord to be more extended, and in it mentions certain things such as Matthew has in that discourse which was held on the mountain (See Lk 11:33–36; Mt 5:15; 6:22), which we understand were said twice, both there and here. But, this discourse ended, Luke goes on to something else, in which it is uncertain whether he kept the order of the things done. For he connects it thus: and as he was speaking, a certain Pharisee asked him to dine with him (Lk 11:37). But he does not say "as he was speaking these things," but as he was speaking. For if he had said "as he was speaking these things," he would necessarily compel us to understand that these things were narrated by him in this order, not only, but also done by the Lord in this order.

40. 87. Matthew, then, goes on and says: while he was still speaking to the crowds, behold, his mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to him (Mt 12:46), and the rest, up to where he says, for whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother (Mt 12:50). This without doubt we ought to understand as done as a consequence.

For he premised, as he passed to narrating this: while he was still speaking to the crowds. But what is still except that which he was speaking? For he did not say, "and as he was speaking to the crowds, behold, his mother and brothers," but, while he was still speaking: which words, when he says them, compel us to understand, as he was speaking these things which he was indicating above. For Mark too, after what he reported the Lord said about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and there come, he says, his mother and brothers (Mk 3:31–35),

certain things being passed over which, in the same text of the Lord's discourse, both Matthew set down more at length than Mark, and Luke more at length than Matthew. But Luke did not keep the order of this thing done, but anticipated it and narrated it earlier, recalling it (See Lk 8:19–21).

In short, he interposed this so that it appears loosed from the connection both of the foregoing and of the following. For after he had mentioned certain parables of the Lord, he thus interposed this, recalled, about his mother and brothers: now there came to him, he says, both his mother and his brothers, and they could not reach him because of the crowd (Lk 8:19): he did not express when they came to him; again, when he passes on from here too, he speaks thus: now it came to pass, he says, on one of the days, and he himself went up into a boat, and his disciples (Lk 8:22). And here too, when he says, it came to pass on one of the days, he sufficiently indicates that it is not necessary that this day be understood as the one on which this was done, or that one which immediately follows. And so what Matthew narrates about the mother and brothers of the Lord has nothing of contradiction with the other two, neither in the words of the Lord, nor in the very order of the things done.

41. 88. Matthew goes on: on that day, Jesus, going out of the house, sat beside the sea. And many crowds gathered to him, so that, going up into a boat, he sat, and all the crowd stood on the shore. And he spoke many things to them in parables, saying (Mt 13:1–3), and the rest, up to where he says, therefore every scribe learned in the kingdom of heaven is like a man, a householder, who brings forth from his treasure things new and old (Mt 13:52). That, after what was narrated about the mother and brothers of the Lord, this was done immediately, and that Matthew kept this order even in narrating, the matter intimates, because, when he passed on from there, he so connected it as to say: on that day, Jesus, going out of the house, sat beside the sea, and many crowds gathered to him.

For when he says on that day (unless perhaps day, in the manner of the Scriptures, signifies "time"), he sufficiently indicates either that this was done as a consequence or that not many things could be interposed, especially because Mark too keeps that order (See Mk 4:1–34). But Luke, after what he narrates about the mother and brothers of the Lord, passes on to something else, nor by that transition does he make any connection (See Lk 8:22–25) by which he might seem to contradict this order.

Of all these things, then, which Matthew narrated that the Lord spoke, those which Mark and Luke said with him have no question of contradiction; and those which he himself alone said are much more without controversy. Nor in the order itself, although one keeps it somewhat different from another—partly of the things done, partly of his own recollection—do I see in what or to whom anyone contradicts.

42. 89. Matthew, then, goes on: and it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, he went on from there. And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues (Mt 13:53–54), and the rest, up to where he says, and he did not do many powers there, because of their unbelief (Mt 13:58). From the foregoing discourse of parables he so passes on that he does not show the necessity of a consequent order, especially because Mark, from those parables (See Mk 4:35–5:17), tending not to that which this one does, but to something else, into which Luke too so connected the narration (See Lk 8:22–37) that it is shown more credibly that this was rather done as a consequence which those two continuously subjoin—namely about the boat in which Jesus was sleeping, and about that miracle of the demons cast out among the Gerasenes. Which two Matthew already above, recalling them, interposed (See Mt 8:23–34). Now, then, let us see whether the things which the Lord said in his own country, or which were said to him, agree with the other two, Mark and Luke. For John, far off in the diverse and dissimilar places of his narration, mentions that such things either were said to the Lord or that he said such things (See Jn 6:22–72) as the other three here recalled.

42. 90. And Mark indeed mentions here almost all the same things which Matthew does, except that he says the Lord was called by his fellow citizens the carpenter and the son of Mary, not, as Matthew does, the carpenter's son (See Mk 6:1–6).

Nor is it to be wondered at, since both could have been said; for they believed him a carpenter for the same reason that they believed him the carpenter's son (See Mt 13:55). But Luke indicates the same thing done more broadly and mentions more things there (See Lk 4:16–30); nor does he insert it long after his baptism and temptation, without doubt anticipating what was done afterward, with many things interposed.

Whence anyone may observe—what is very necessary for this so great question, which, with God's help, we have undertaken to unravel, concerning the agreement of the evangelists—that, not being ignorant that they passed over something, or not being ignorant how the order of the things done stood, they rather kept another order, that of their own recollection.

Which can be most evidently understood from this: that Luke, before he narrated that the Lord did anything at Capernaum, anticipated this passage which we are now considering, where his fellow citizens both were astounded at the power of his might in him and despised the lowliness of his lineage. For he says that he said this to them: You will surely say to me: 'Physician, cure yourself; as great things as we have heard done at Capernaum, do here too in your own country (Lk 4:23),' when, according to Luke's own narration, nothing is yet read that he had done at Capernaum. Which, because it is not long, and is very easy, and is very necessary, we insert in full, to show by what occasion, and how, he came to narrating this.

After he had indicated the Lord baptized and tempted, he goes on thus: and when all the temptation was finished, the devil departed from him for a time. And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report went out through the whole region about him. And he taught in their synagogues and was magnified by all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and entered, according to his custom, on the Sabbath day into the synagogue, and rose to read. And there was handed to him the book of the prophet Isaiah, and when he had unrolled the book, he found the place where it was written: 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me;

he has sent me to preach the Gospel to the poor, to proclaim to the captives release and to the blind sight, to send away the broken in release, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of recompense (Isa 61:1–2).' And when he had folded the book, he gave it back to the minister and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed upon him. And he began to say to them that today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your ears. And all bore testimony to him and marveled at the words of grace that proceeded from his mouth, and said: 'Is this not the son of Joseph?' And he said to them: 'You will surely say to me this similitude: Physician, cure yourself; as great things as we have heard done at Capernaum, do here too in your own country (Lk 4:21–23),' and the rest, until he completes that whole passage of his narration. What, then, is more evident than that he, knowing it, anticipated this in narrating—since surely both he himself knows that great things had already been done by him at Capernaum, and he himself mentions things which he surely knows he has not yet narrated? For he has not advanced so far from his baptism that he should be thought to have forgotten that he has not yet mentioned anything of those things which had been done at Capernaum; for he has only just begun, after the baptism, to narrate something about the Lord.

43. 91. Matthew goes on: at that time Herod the tetrarch heard the fame of Jesus and said to his servants: 'This is John the Baptist; he himself has risen from the dead, and therefore powers work in him' (Mt 14:1–2). Mark says this same thing and in the same way (See Mk 6:14–16), but not in the same order. For after the Lord sent the disciples, saying to them that they should carry nothing on the way except a staff only, that discourse being ended, as much as was mentioned by him, he subjoined this too, no necessity being made, however, by which we would be compelled to understand that this too was done as a consequence, just as neither did Matthew. For he said at that time, not "on that day" or "hour,"

except that Mark says not what Herod said, but: they said, he says, that John the Baptist has risen from the dead (Mk 6:14). But Matthew, about Herod himself: he said, he says, to his servants. Luke too, keeping the same order of narrating which Mark does, and he too not indeed compelling us to believe that this was also the same order of the things done, mentions this same thing thus: now Herod the tetrarch heard, he says, all the things that were being done by him, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had risen from the dead, but by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the ancient prophets had risen. And Herod said: 'John I beheaded; but who is this of whom I hear such things?' And he sought to see him (Lk 9:7–9).

In these words Luke too attests to Mark, at least in this, that others said, not Herod, that John had risen from the dead. But because he mentioned Herod perplexed, and afterward set down his words thus, saying, John I beheaded; but who is this of whom I hear such things?, it must be understood either that, after this perplexity, he confirmed in his own mind what was being said by others, when he said to his servants, as Matthew narrates: and he said to his servants: 'This is John the Baptist; he himself has risen from the dead, and therefore powers work in him (Mt 14:2),' or that these words are to be pronounced so as to indicate him still perplexed. For if he said, "Is this perhaps," or, "Is this by chance John the Baptist?", there would be no need to admonish anything about the pronunciation, by which he is understood as doubting and perplexed.

Now, because those words are lacking, it can be pronounced in either way: so that we take him either as confirmed and believing, from the words of others, to have said it, or as still, as Luke mentions, perplexed—especially because Mark too, who had said above that it was said by others that John had risen from the dead, nevertheless at the end is not silent that Herod himself said: this John, whom I beheaded, has risen from the dead (Mk 6:16). Which words likewise can be pronounced in two ways, so that they are understood either of one confirming or of one doubting. But since Luke, after he mentioned this, passes on to something else, those two, Matthew and Mark, narrate, on this occasion, how John was killed by Herod.

44. 92. Matthew, then, goes on and says: for Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother's wife (Mt 14:3), and the rest, up to that place where he says, and his disciples, coming, took his body and buried it, and coming announced it to Jesus (Mt 14:12). Mark narrates this similarly (See Mk 6:17–29). But Luke recalls it not in the same order, but around the very baptism by which the Lord was baptized (See Lk 3:15–20). Whence it is understood that he himself too, on the occasion, anticipated this, so as to narrate there what was done much later. For when he had mentioned John's words about the Lord, that the winnowing fan is in his hand, and he will cleanse his threshing floor, he will store the wheat in his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire,

he immediately subjoined what John the Evangelist most openly sets forth was not done immediately, when he mentions that, after Jesus was baptized, he went into Galilee, when he made wine from water, and thence, after a few days' dwelling in Capernaum, returned to the land of Judea and there baptized many around the Jordan, before John was sent into prison (See Jn 2:1–12; 3:22–24). But who that is less learned in these writings would not think that, as it were, after those words about the winnowing fan and the cleansed threshing floor, Herod was immediately offended by John and put him in prison (See Lk 3:17–20)? But that these things were not narrated in the order in which they were done, we have both already proved elsewhere, and in this very place not anyone else, but the same Luke, proves it. For if, after those words, John was immediately put into prison, how, after the very mention of John put into prison, was Jesus baptized, according to Luke's own narration? Accordingly it is manifest that, on the occasion, recalling it, he anticipated it, and before many things which, before this happened to John, he was about to narrate as done, he set this, anticipated, in his narration. But neither did those two, Matthew and Mark, set down in their narration about John put into prison in that order of things (See Mt 4:12; Mk 1:14) in which it appears done even in their writings. For they too said that, John being handed over, the Lord went into Galilee, and after many things which he did in Galilee they come to Herod's admonition or perplexity, that John, whom he beheaded, had risen from the dead, and on this occasion they narrate all the things that happened concerning John, imprisoned and killed (See Mt 14:1–12; Mk 6:14–29; Lk 9:7–9).

45. 93. Matthew, then, goes on, when he had said that it was announced to Christ that John was killed, and thus weaves his narrative: and when Jesus had heard it, he says, he withdrew from there in a boat into a desert place apart. And when the crowds had heard it, they followed him on foot from the cities. And going out, he saw a great crowd and had pity on it and cured their sick (Mt 14:13–14). He mentions that this was done immediately after the passion of John. Whence, after these things, were done those things which were narrated first, by which Herod, moved, said: John I beheaded. For those latter things must be understood, which the fame carried to Herod, so that he was moved and perplexed who this could be of whom he heard such things, when he himself had killed John.

But Mark, after he narrated the passion of John, mentions that the disciples who were sent returned to Jesus and reported to him all the things they had done and taught, and that the Lord said to them (which he alone mentions) that they should rest a little in the desert, and that he went up with them into a boat and went, and that the crowds, seeing this, came there before them, on whom the Lord had pity and taught them many things; and that, the hour now advancing, it came about that from five loaves and two fishes all who were present were fed (See Mk 6:30–44; Mt 14:14; Lk 9:12). Which miracle all four evangelists mentioned. Luke too, who had already narrated, far above, about John's passion (See Lk 3:19–20), on the occasion which we have just spoken of, after he mentioned that perplexity of Herod about the Lord, who he might be, immediately subjoins this which Mark does—that is, that the apostles returned to him and narrated to him whatever they had done, and that, taking them, he withdrew into a desert place, and that the crowds followed him there, and that he spoke about the kingdom of God and healed those who needed cure (See Lk 9:10–17). And thence he too, the day declining, mentions the miracle done about the five loaves.

45. 94. But John, who is far distant from those three evangelists in this, that he dwells more on the discourses which the Lord held than on the deeds which he marvelously did, after he mentioned that, leaving Judea, he went again into Galilee (See Jn 4:3)—which is understood to have been done then, when the other evangelists too say that, John being handed over, he went into Galilee (See Mt 4:12; Mk 1:14)—

after, then, John mentioned this, on his passage through Samaria he wove into his narrative many things which he spoke on the occasion of that Samaritan woman whom he found at the well (See Jn 4:5), and after two days he says that he went out thence into Galilee, then came into Cana of Galilee, where he had made wine from water, and healed the son of a certain royal official (See Jn 4:43–54). But the other things which the others said he did and said in Galilee, John is silent about; but indeed, what they were silent about, he says: that he went up at a feast day to Jerusalem and did there that miracle about the man who had been thirty-eight years in infirmity and had no man by whom he might be put down into the pool, in which those affected with various ailments were healed; and on this occasion he mentions that he spoke many things (See Jn 5:1–47).

After these things he says that he went away across the sea of Galilee, which is of Tiberias, and that a great multitude followed; then that he went up onto the mountain and there sat with his disciples, the Pasch, the feast day of the Jews, being near; then, his eyes lifted up and a very great multitude seen, that he fed it with five loaves and two fishes, which the other evangelists too say (See Jn 6:1–13; Mt 14:15–21; Mk 6:33–43; Lk 9:12–17).

And for this reason it is certain that he passed over the things by which those, in narrating, came to the mention of this miracle; nevertheless, as it were from another road of narration—since they too were silent about what this one said—both those three, who walked almost alongside one another, and this one, who, pursuing the heights of the Lord's discourses, flew round about, in a manner, through other things which they were silent about, met one another at this miracle about the five loaves, to be mentioned alike, this one about to fly back from them, not long after, into higher things.

46. 95. Matthew, then, goes on, and to the very deed about the five loaves he leads his narration, in order, thus: now when evening had come, his disciples came to him, saying: 'The place is desert, and the hour has now passed; dismiss the crowds, that, going into the villages, they may buy themselves food.' But Jesus said to them: 'They have no need to go; you give them to eat (Mt 14:15–16),' and the rest, up to where he says, and the number of those who ate was five thousand men, besides women and children (Mt 14:21).

This miracle, then (See Mk 6:33–44; Lk 9:12–17; Jn 6:5–13), which all four evangelists mention and which are thought to differ somewhat among themselves, must be considered and treated, so that from it, for the rest of such cases too, the rules of expressions may be learned, by which, though so diverse, the same meaning is nevertheless retained and the same truth of things preserved. And the consideration is to be begun, indeed, not from Matthew according to the order of the evangelists, but rather from John, by whom this narration is so expressed that he even named the disciples with whom the Lord spoke about this matter. For he says thus: when, therefore, Jesus had lifted up his eyes and seen that a very great multitude had come to him, he says to Philip: 'Whence shall we buy loaves, that these may eat?' But this he said, tempting him; for he himself knew what he was about to do. Philip answered him: 'Two hundred denarii worth of loaves are not enough for them, that each one may receive a little.' One of his disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, says to him: 'There is one boy here who has five barley loaves and two fishes; but what are these among so many?' Jesus, therefore, said: 'Make the men recline.' Now there was much hay in the place. The men, therefore, reclined, in number about five thousand. Jesus, then, took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, distributed them to those reclining, and likewise of the fishes as much as they wished. And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: 'Gather up the fragments that are left over, lest they perish.' They gathered them up, therefore, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments from the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten (Jn 6:5–13).

46. 96. Here it is not asked what this one said—of what sort the loaves were; for that they were barley loaves he was not silent, which the others were silent about. Nor is this asked, what this one did not say—that there were there also, besides the five thousand men, women and children, which Matthew says (See Mt 14:21). And it ought now to be altogether certain, and to be held as a rule in such questions, that no one ought to be troubled when something is said by one which is passed over by another. But it is asked how the things which they said are all true, lest, while one narrates the narration of another, one exclude something else. For if the Lord, according to John's narration, the crowds having been observed, asked Philip, tempting him, whence food could be given them, it can trouble us how that be true which the others narrated—that the disciples first said to the Lord that he should dismiss the crowds, so that they could buy themselves food from the nearby places, to whom he answered, according to Matthew: they have no need to go; you give them to eat (Mt 14:16). To which Mark and Luke too agree, only passing over what he says, they have no need to go. It is understood, then, that after these words the Lord looked upon the multitude and said to Philip what John mentions, but these others passed over. Then what Philip answered in John, this Mark mentions was answered by the disciples, wishing it to be understood that Philip answered this from the mouth of the others—although they could also most customarily put the plural number for the singular. So what Philip says—two hundred denarii worth of loaves are not enough for them, that each one may receive a little (Jn 6:7)—this is to say what Mark says: going, shall we buy two hundred denarii worth of loaves and give them to eat? (Mk 6:37) But that the same Mark mentions the Lord said, how many loaves do you have?, the others passed over. And what Andrew, in John, suggested about the five loaves and two fishes (See Jn 6:9), this the others, putting the plural number for the singular, reported from the person of the disciples. And Luke indeed compressed the answer of Philip and the answer of Andrew into one sentence. For what he says—we have no more than five loaves and two fishes—he reported as Andrew's answer; but what he added—unless perhaps we go and buy food for all this crowd (Lk 9:13)—seems to pertain to Philip's answer, except that he was silent about the two hundred denarii. Although this can be understood also in Andrew's own statement; for when he had said, there is one boy here who has five barley loaves and two fishes, he too added: but what are these among so many? (Jn 6:9) This is to say, unless perhaps we go and buy food for all this crowd.

46. 97. From which whole variety of words, but concord of things and meanings, it sufficiently appears that we are wholesomely taught to seek in words nothing but the intention of those speaking, which all truthful narrators ought to be watchful to make plain, when they narrate something about a man, or about an angel, or about God; for the intention of these can be brought forth in words, lest they differ among themselves in anything about it.

46. 98. Indeed, it ought not to be passed over to direct the reader's attention in this place, and toward the other such cases that may perhaps occur, that Luke said they were ordered to recline by fifties, but Mark, both by fifties and by hundreds (See Lk 9:14; Mk 6:40). This here does not trouble us for this reason, that one said a part, the other the whole.

For he who reported also about the hundreds reported what the other passed over; nothing, therefore, is contrary. But yet, if one mentioned only the fifties, the other only the hundreds, it would seem very much to be contrary; nor would it easily be discerned that both were said, but one mentioned by one, the other by the other; and yet, who would not confess that, more attentively considered, it ought to be found? This I have said for this reason, that there often arise some such things which seem, to those attending too little and judging rashly, contrary, and are not.

47. 99. Matthew goes on and says: and the crowd having been dismissed, he went up onto the mountain alone to pray. But when evening had come, he was there alone. But the boat in the midst of the sea was tossed by the waves. For the wind was contrary. But in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking upon the sea. And seeing him walking upon the sea, they were troubled, saying: 'It is a phantasm (Mt 14:23–26),' and the rest, up to where he says, they came and adored him, saying: 'Truly you are the Son of God (Mt 14:33).'

Mark too, after the narrated miracle of the five loaves, continues in the same way: and when evening had come, the boat was in the midst of the sea, and he was alone on the land. And he saw that they were toiling in rowing, for the wind was against them, and so on (Mk 6:47–48), in like manner, except that he said nothing about Peter walking on the water. But one must take care that this not be a stumbling block, what Mark said about the Lord when he was walking on the water: and he meant to pass by them (Mk 6:48). For how could they have understood this, except that he was going in another direction, meaning to pass them by as if they were strangers, since he was not recognized by them but was thought to be a ghost? And who is so dull that he would refuse to notice that this is to be referred to a mystical meaning? Yet when they were terrified and cried out, he came to their aid, saying: take heart, it is I; have no fear (Mk 6:50). How, then, did he mean to pass by those whom he so reassured in their fear, except that the intention of passing by served to draw out that cry which needed to be answered!

47. 100. John too lingers a little while with these. For after the narrated miracle of the five loaves, he likewise does not pass over in silence this matter of the struggling boat and of the Lord's walking upon the water, weaving it together thus: Jesus therefore, when he perceived that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, fled again to the mountain by himself. When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea. And getting into a boat, they came across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. The sea rose because a strong wind was blowing, and so on (Jn 6:15–18). Nothing here can seem contradictory, except that Matthew says that, having dismissed the crowds, he went up the mountain to pray there alone, while John says that he was on the mountain when he fed those same crowds with the five loaves.

But since John himself says that after that miracle he fled to the mountain lest he be seized by the crowds, who wanted to make him king, it is surely clear that they had come down from the mountain to the lower ground when those loaves were distributed to the crowds.

And therefore it is no contradiction that he went up the mountain again, as both Matthew and John say, except that Matthew said he went up, while John said he fled, which would be a contradiction only if in fleeing he did not go up.

Nor does this conflict, that Matthew said he went up the mountain alone to pray (Mt 14:23), while John said: when he perceived, he says, that they were about to come to make him king, he fled again to the mountain by himself (Jn 6:15). For the reason for fleeing is not contrary to the reason for praying, since indeed the Lord, by this very act of transfiguring the body of our lowliness into himself, so as to make it conformed to the body of his glory (See Phil 3:21), teaches this too: that this is for us a great reason for praying, when there is a reason for fleeing.

Nor is this in opposition, that Matthew said he first ordered the disciples to get into the boat and go before him across the strait until he should dismiss the crowds (See Mt 14:22), and then, having dismissed the crowds, went up the mountain alone to pray; whereas John first records that he fled alone to the mountain, and then says: when evening came, he says, his disciples went down to the sea, and getting into a boat (Jn 6:16–17), and so on.

For who does not see that John, recapitulating, afterward related as done by the disciples what Jesus had already ordered before he fled to the mountain, just as in speech one is wont to return in some way to something passed over? But because that return, made especially in the brevity and point of a moment, is not noted, those who hear it generally suppose that what is said afterward was also done afterward. So too those whom he had said got into the boat and came across the sea to Capernaum, he says the Lord came to them as they toiled on the sea, walking upon the water, which surely happened earlier, during that very voyage by which they were coming to Capernaum.

47. 101. Luke, however, after the narrated miracle of the five loaves, proceeds to something else and departs from this sequence. For he records nothing about that boat or about the Lord's way upon the water, but, having said: and they all ate and were satisfied, and what was left over of the fragments was taken up, twelve baskets, he then added: and it happened that, as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him; and he asked them, saying: 'Who do the crowds say that I am?' (Lk 9:17–18)

thereupon narrating something else, not what those three related, who told of the Lord coming, walking upon the water, to the disciples as they sailed.

Nor should it be supposed that it was on that mountain to which Matthew said he went up to pray alone that he said to the disciples: who do the crowds say that I am? (Lk 9:18)

(For Luke seems on this point to agree with Matthew, since he said as he was praying alone, where the other had said he went up the mountain alone to pray (Mt 14:23)), but it was altogether elsewhere, when he was praying alone and the disciples were with him, that he asked this.

For Luke said he was alone, not without the disciples, as Matthew and John say, when they departed from him to go before him across the sea (See Mt 16:13; Mk 8:27). For he most plainly added: the disciples were with him. Accordingly he said alone, that is, without the crowds, who did not dwell with him.

48. 102. Matthew continues, saying: and when they had crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret. And when the men of that place recognized him, they sent into all that region and brought to him all who were sick, and begged him that they might only touch the fringe of his garment. And as many as touched it were made well (Mt 14:34–36). Then there came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: 'Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread (Mt 15:1–2),' and so on down to where he says: but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man (Mt 15:20).

Mark too records these things without any question of contradiction (See Mk 6:53–56, 7:1–23): for whatever is said in a different manner by another does not depart from the same meaning. John, however, after that boat to which the Lord came walking upon the sea, once they had gone out onto the land, in his usual way, intent on the Lord's discourse, records that he, taking occasion from the bread, spoke many and especially divine things; and after that discourse his narration is borne sublimely on again to one thing after another (See Jn 6:22–72). Yet in the fact that he departs from these others, his transition to other matters is in no way opposed to the sequence of theirs. For what prevents us from understanding both that those were healed by the Lord of whom Matthew and Mark narrate, and that to those who followed him across the sea he spoke these things which John proclaims, since indeed Capernaum, to which, according to John, they are said to have crossed over, is near the lake of Gennesaret, to which land, according to Matthew, they are said to have gone out?

49. 103. Matthew then continues, after that discourse of the Lord in which he dealt with the Pharisees about unwashed hands, and weaves together his narration thus, preserving the order, so far as the transition itself indicates, of the very events that followed: And going out from there, he says, Jesus withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from those borders came out and cried, saying to him: 'Have mercy on me, Lord, son of David; my daughter is severely vexed by a demon.' But he did not answer her a word (Mt 15:21–25), and so on down to where he says: 'O woman, great is your faith; be it done for you as you wish.' And her daughter was healed from that hour (Mt 15:28).

This account of the Canaanite woman Mark too records, preserving the same order of events and raising no question of contradiction, except that he says the Lord was in a house when this same woman came to him pleading for her daughter (See Mk 7:24–30). Matthew could indeed easily be understood to have been silent about the house yet to have recorded the same event; but since he says the disciples thus urged the Lord: send her away, for she is crying after us (Mt 15:23), this seems to mean nothing other than that the woman uttered her pleading words behind the Lord as he walked. How then was it in a house, unless we are to understand that Mark indeed said she entered where Jesus was, since he had said beforehand that he was in a house? But since Matthew says he did not answer her a word (Mt 15:23), he gave us to recognize that, in that silence which both passed over, Jesus had gone out of that house, and so the rest is woven together, which now is in no respect discordant. For what Mark records, that the Lord answered her about the children's bread not being thrown to the dogs, was said after those things which Matthew did not pass over in silence had been interposed, that is, that the disciples asked him on her behalf, and that he answered that he had been sent only to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel, and that she came, that is, drew near, and worshiped him, saying: Lord, help me (Mt 15:25), and then afterward was said what both evangelists record.

50. 104. Matthew continues, narrating thus: and when Jesus had passed on from there, he came along the Sea of Galilee, and going up the mountain he sat down there. And great crowds came to him, bringing with them the mute, the blind, the lame, the maimed, and many others, and they put them down at his feet, and he healed them, so that the crowds marveled to see the mute speaking, the lame walking, the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel. But Jesus, calling his disciples together, said: 'I have compassion on the crowd, because they have now continued with me three days and have nothing to eat (Mt 15:29–32),' and so on down to where he says: now those who had eaten were four thousand men, besides children and women (Mt 15:38). This other miracle of the seven loaves and a few fish Mark too records, in almost the same order, except that he interposes what no one else mentions, about the deaf man (See Mk 7:31–37, 8:1) whose ears the Lord opened, spitting on his fingers and saying: Ephphatha, that is, be opened (Mk 7:34).

50. 105. It will surely not be out of place to point out, in this miracle of the seven loaves which the two evangelists Matthew and Mark recorded (See Mt 14:15; Mk 6:35; Lk 9:12; Jn 6:5), that if some one of them had told it who had not told of those five loaves, he would be thought to contradict the rest. For who would not suppose that it was one and the same event, and that it had not been narrated wholly and truthfully either by him or by the others or by all, but that either he, being mistaken, had recorded seven loaves instead of five, or they five instead of seven, or that both had lied or been deceived by forgetfulness?

One would think the same a contradiction about the twelve baskets and the seven hampers, and the same about the five thousand and the four thousand who were fed. But because those who narrated the miracle of the seven loaves did not pass over in silence that of the five, this troubles no one, and all understand that both happened.

We have said this so that, wherever a similar deed of the Lord is found which in some point seems so to conflict with another evangelist that it cannot be resolved at all, nothing else may be understood than that both happened and that the one was recorded by the one and the other by the other, just as we pointed out concerning those who reclined in groups of a hundred and of fifty; for if we did not find both of these together in one writer, we would suppose that the several writers had said contradictory things.

51. 106. Matthew continues and says: and having dismissed the crowd, he got into the boat and came to the region of Magadan (Mt 15:39), and so on down to where he says: an evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah (Mt 16:4). This same Matthew has already said this elsewhere too (See Mt 12:39). Hence again and again it must be kept in mind that the Lord often said the same things, so that what cannot be resolved when a contradiction exists may be understood to have been said twice. Mark too, keeping this same order, after that miracle of the seven loaves, subjoins the very thing Matthew does, except that Matthew did not say Dalmanutha, which is read in some manuscripts, but Magadan (See Mk 8:10–12). But there is no doubt that the same place is meant under either name. For most manuscripts of Mark too have only Magadan. Nor let this be a stumbling block, that Mark does not say it was answered to those seeking a sign from heaven, the same thing that Matthew says about Jonah, but says the Lord answered: no sign shall be given to it. For we must understand the sort they were seeking, that is, from heaven; but he omitted to mention about Jonah, which Matthew recorded.

52. 107. Matthew continues: and leaving them he went away. And when his disciples had come across the strait, they had forgotten to bring bread. And he said to them: 'Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 16:6),' and so on down to where he says: then they understood that he had not said to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 16:12). These same things Mark too sets out, and in the same order (Mt 16:13–14).

53. 108. Matthew continues: now Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, and he asked his disciples, saying: 'Who do men say that the Son of man is?' And they said: 'Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets (Mt 16:13–14),' and so on down to where he says: and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt 16:19). Mark narrates this in almost the same order, but he has interposed first the matter of the blind man given sight, which he alone records (See Mk 8:22–29), about the one who said to the Lord: I see men like trees, walking (Mk 8:24). Luke, however, after that miracle of the five loaves, recalls and inserts this (See Lk 9:18–20), the order of which recollection, as we have already shown above, in no way conflicts with the order of these others. But this can be a stumbling block: that Luke said the Lord asked his disciples who men said that he was at the time when he was praying alone and they too were present, whereas Mark says they were asked this by him on the way (See Mk 8:27); yet it is a stumbling block only to one who has never prayed on the way.

53. 109. I recall that I have already said this too, lest anyone suppose that Peter received his name here, where he says to him: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:18). For he did not receive this name except where John records that it was said to him: you shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter (Jn 1:42). Hence neither in that place where Mark, naming the twelve disciples one by one, said that James and John were called the sons of thunder (Mk 3:16–19), is it to be supposed that Peter received his name, because Mark said there that he imposed on him the name by which he should be called Peter; for he said this by way of recollection, not because it then happened.

54. 110. Matthew continues and says: then he commanded his disciples to tell no one that he was Jesus Christ. From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and scribes (Mt 16:20–21), and so on down to where he says: you are not on the side of the things that are God's, but of those that are man's (Mt 16:23). Mark and Luke append these things in the same order; but Luke is silent about Peter, that he contradicted the passion of Christ (See Mk 8:30–33; Lk 21–22).

Where these same three subjoin how the Lord commanded that whoever wishes should come after him, how they agree with each other.

55. 111. Matthew continues: Then Jesus said to his disciples: 'If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me (Mt 16:24),' and so on down to where he says: and then he will repay each one according to his work (See Mk 8:34–38). Mark too subjoins this, preserving the same order (See Mk 3:16–19); but he does not say anything about the Son of man coming with his angels to repay each one according to his work. He records, however, that the Lord said this too: for whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of man also will be ashamed when he comes in his glory with the holy angels (Mk 8:38). This can be understood to belong to the same meaning by which Matthew said that he will repay each one according to his work. Luke too appends the same things, in the same order, in a not very different manner of words, yet most similar in the same truth of meaning (See Lk 9:23–26).

56. 112. Matthew continues: 'truly I say to you, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom (Mt 16:28).' And after six days Jesus took Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart (Mt 17:1), and so on down to where he says: tell no one the vision until the Son of man is raised from the dead (Mt 17:9). This vision of the Lord on the mountain before the three disciples, Peter, James, and John, where also the testimony of the Father's voice was borne to him from heaven, is recorded by the three evangelists in the same order and to altogether the same meanings (See Mk 8:39, 9:1–9; Lk 9:27–36); but the rest, differing according to those kinds of expression without any diversity of meaning, which we have demonstrated in many places above, can be seen by readers.

56. 113. But that Mark says it happened after six days, as Matthew does, while Luke says after eight, if this is a stumbling block to any, they are not to be despised but to be instructed by a reason given (See Mk 9:2; Mt 17:1; Lk 9:28). For when we announce days, saying 'after so many days,' sometimes we do not count in the day on which we are speaking and the day on which the very thing is to be that we are foretelling or promising, but the days in between, after which, fully and entire, that thing is to be.

This Matthew and Mark did: excepting the day on which Jesus was speaking these things and the day on which he showed the vision mentioned on the mountain, and looking to the days in between, they said: after six days;

whereas the other, counting in the boundary days, that is, the first and the last, said: after eight days, by that manner of speaking in which the part is mentioned for the whole.

56. 114. Likewise, what Luke says about Moses and Elijah: and it happened that, as they were parting from him, Peter said to Jesus: 'Master, it is good for us to be here (Lk 9:33),' and so on, is not to be thought contrary to what Matthew and Mark joined together, that Peter suggested this as if Moses and Elijah were still speaking with the Lord (See Mt 17:10–13). For they did not expressly state that it was then; rather they were silent about what this writer added, namely, that as those two were parting, Peter suggested to the Lord the making of three tents. Luke also added that, as they entered into the cloud, a voice came from the cloud, which the others did not state, yet neither did they contradict it.

57. 115. Matthew continues: and the disciples asked him, saying: 'Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?' And he answered and said to them: 'Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished; so also the Son of man is to suffer at their hands.' Then the disciples understood that he had spoken to them about John the Baptist (Mt 17:10–13). This same thing Mark too records, preserving this order, and with some diversity of words. Nowhere, however, did he depart from the truth of the same meaning (See Mk 9:10–12); but he did not add that the disciples understood that the Lord had meant John in saying that Elijah had already come.

58. 116. Matthew continues and says: and when he had come to the crowd, a man came up to him, falling on his knees before him and saying: 'Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and suffers terribly (Mt 17:14),' and so on down to where he says: but this kind is not cast out except by prayer and fasting (Mt 17:8). This Mark and Luke too record, and in the same order, without any question of contradiction (Mk 9:16–18; Lk 9:38–43).

59. 117. Matthew continues, saying: and as they were dwelling in Galilee, Jesus said to them: 'The Son of man is to be handed over into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise.' And they were greatly grieved (Mt 17:21–22). This Mark and Luke record in the same order (See Mk 9:23–31; Lk 9:44–45).

60. 118. Matthew continues: and when they had come to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said to him: 'Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?' He said: 'Yes (Mt 17:23–24),' and so on down to where he says: you will find a stater; take it and give it to them for me and for yourself (Mt 17:26). This he alone records, and once it is interposed he follows the same order in which Mark and Luke too walk along with him alike.

61. 119. This same Matthew, then, continues and says: at that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: 'Who, do you think, is greater in the kingdom of heaven?' And Jesus, calling a little child, set him in their midst and said: 'Truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Mt 18:13),' down to where he says: so also my heavenly Father will do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your hearts (Mt 18:35).

Of this somewhat longer discourse of the Lord, Mark, following the same order, set down not all but certain parts, and he also inserted certain things himself which Matthew does not say (See Mk 9:33–49). But the whole discourse, as far as we have undertaken to consider it, is interrupted by Peter alone, asking how often he ought to forgive his brother.

For the Lord was speaking such things that it is sufficiently clear that this too, which Peter asked and to which he was answered, belongs to the same discourse. Luke, however, records nothing in this preserved order except that about the little child whom he set before the disciples to be imitated, when they were thinking about their own greatness (See Lk 9:46–48). For if he said any other like things which are also set down in this discourse, he recalled them as said elsewhere and on other occasions, just as John records as said by the Lord after the resurrection the matter of the forgiveness of sins, that they will be retained if they retain them for anyone, and forgiven if they forgive them for anyone (See Jn 20:23), whereas Matthew remembers that the Lord said this in this discourse, the same thing which Matthew himself attests was also said earlier to Peter (See Mt 18:18). We ought therefore to remember that Jesus often said the same things in several places, lest we anywhere be troubled if the order of the sayings is thought by some to be contradictory, as we have so often pointed out, so that it need not be necessary to keep noting this.

62. 120. Matthew continues, narrating thus: and it happened that, when Jesus had finished these discourses, he departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And great crowds followed him, and he healed them there. And the Pharisees came up to him, testing him and saying: 'Is it lawful for a man to dismiss his wife for any cause?' (Mt 19:13) and so on down to where he says: let him who is able to receive it, receive it (Mt 19:12). This Mark too records, keeping the same order (See Mk 10:1–12). We must surely take care that it not seem contradictory that this same Mark says the Pharisees were asked by the Lord what Moses had commanded them, and that they thus answered his question about the bill of divorce permitted them (See Gen 1:12; Deut 24:1), whereas Matthew said that, in response to the words of the Lord by which he had shown that from the Law God had joined the male and the female and therefore they ought not to be separated by man, they returned the answer: why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to dismiss her? To whom he again said: because of the hardness of your heart Moses permitted you to dismiss your wives; but from the beginning it was not so (Mt 19:7–8). For Mark too does not pass over this answer of the Lord, but places it after they had answered his question about the bill of divorce.

62. 121. In this matter, in the order or manner of words, we ought to understand that it makes no difference to the truth of the thing whether, when the Lord was forbidding separation and confirming his judgment from the Law, they themselves brought up the question about the bill of divorce permitted them through that same Moses through whom this too was written, that God joined the male and the female (See Gen 2:24), or whether they answered this same thing to him as he was questioning them about the command of Moses. For his intention was such that he would not give them the reason why Moses had permitted that unless they themselves had first mentioned it, which intention of his is signified by the question that Mark set down; and their own intention was, from the authority of Moses, since he commanded a bill of divorce to be given, as it were to conclude that he would without doubt forbid separation; for it was to say this that they had come, even testing him. This intention of theirs is so expressed by Matthew that he does not record that they were questioned, but that they brought up of their own accord the command of Moses, by which they might as it were convict the Lord, who was forbidding the separation of spouses. Since therefore the intention of the speakers, which the words ought to serve, has been shown by each evangelist, it makes no difference how diverse the manner of narrating was between the two, so long as neither departed from the same truth.

62. 122. This too can be understood: that, as Mark says, the Lord, when they first questioned him about dismissing a wife, in turn questioned them as to what Moses had commanded them; and when they had answered that Moses had permitted to write a bill of divorce and to dismiss her, he answered them concerning the very Law given through Moses, how God had instituted the marriage of male and female, saying the things which Matthew sets down, that is: have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female? (Mt 19:4) and so on; and that, having heard these things, they repeated what they had answered to his first question, saying: why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to dismiss her? (Mt 19:7) Then Jesus showed the cause to be the hardness of their heart, which Mark, for the sake of brevity, sets down earlier, as returned to that former answer of theirs which Matthew omitted, judging that nothing is lost to the truth in whatever place that answer was returned in the very same words which they had said twice, since the Lord returned it in those very words.

63. 123. Matthew continues: then little children were brought to him, that he might lay his hands on them and pray. But the disciples rebuked them (Mt 19:13), and so on down to where he says: for many are called, but few are chosen (Mt 20:16). Mark kept this order with Matthew, but Matthew alone interposes the matter of the laborers hired for the vineyard (See Mk 10:13–31).

Luke, however, having recorded what he said to them when they were asking among themselves who was the greater, added the account of the one whom they saw casting out demons though he did not follow them; and from there he now departs from these two, where he says that he set his face to go to Jerusalem (See Lk 9:46, 51), and after much intervening matter he again meets them in recording this rich man (See Lk 18:18–30), to whom it is said: sell all that you have (Lk 18:22), whom these now record in the order in which they proceed together.

For there too Luke, before he makes mention of the rich man, does not omit the matter of these little children, just as these others do. As to that rich man, then, who asks what good thing he is to do that he may obtain eternal life, there can seem to be some difference, in that according to Matthew it is said: why do you ask me about the good? (Mt 13:17) but according to the others: why do you call me good? (Mk 10:18; Lk 18:19) For why do you ask me about the good? can rather be referred to what the questioner said: what good thing shall I do? For there he both named the good and it is a question, whereas Good Teacher is not yet a question. Most fittingly, then, both are understood to have been said: why do you call me good, and: do you ask me about the good?

64. 124. Matthew continues and says: and going up to Jerusalem, Jesus took the twelve disciples aside privately and said to them: 'Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and will hand him over to the gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and on the third day he will rise.' Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, worshiping him and asking something of him (Mt 20:17–20), and so on down to where he says: as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mt 20:28).

Mark too keeps this order with him, reporting that the sons of Zebedee said what Matthew expressed as having been said not by themselves but through their mother, since she had brought their wish to the Lord. Hence Mark briefly intimated that it was rather they than she who said what was said (See Mk 10:32–45). Finally, the Lord too, both according to Matthew and according to Mark, answered them rather than their mother. Luke, however, after he has recorded from the same order what the Lord foretold to the twelve disciples about his passion and resurrection (See Lk 18:31–34), omits the things which these record, after which, with intervening matter, they met him at Jericho. But what Matthew and Mark said about the rulers of the gentiles, who lord it over their subjects, that it would not be so among them, but that he who would be greater would be the servant even of the others, Luke too says something of this kind, but not in that place; and the order itself indicates that the same meaning was again said by the Lord (See Mt 20:25; Mk 10:42; Lk 22:24–27).

65. 125. Matthew continues: and as they were going out from Jericho, a great crowd followed him. And behold, two blind men sitting by the road heard that Jesus was passing by, and they cried out, saying: 'Lord, have mercy on us, son of David (Mt 20:29–30),' and so on down to where he says: and immediately they saw and followed him (Mt 20:34). This Mark too records, but as done with one blind man (See Mk 10:46–52). This question is resolved in the same way as that about the two who were afflicted by a legion of demons in the region of the Gerasenes was resolved (See Mt 8:28; Mk 5:1; Lk 8:27). For that one of the two blind men whom he just now interposed was very well known and most famous in that city is sufficiently clear from this also, that Mark recorded both his name and his father's name (See Mk 10:46; Lk 8:41), which does not readily occur among so many healed by the Lord above, except when he expressed by name Jairus the ruler of the synagogue, whose daughter Jesus raised (See Mk 5:22–43). In which case too this sense appears all the more, since that ruler of the synagogue was surely a man of note in that place. Without doubt, therefore, this Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, cast down from some great prosperity, was a man of most well-known and most famous misery, since he sat not only blind but also a beggar. This, then, is why Mark wished to record him alone, whose receiving of sight won for this miracle a fame as bright as his calamity was well known.

65. 126. Luke, however, though the deed was done in altogether the same manner, is to be understood as recording a like miracle, and a like manner of the same miracle, with a different blind man (See Lk 18:35–43).

For he says this happened as Jesus was drawing near to Jericho (See Lk 18:35), but these others say it was as he was going out from Jericho (See Mk 10:46; Mt 20:29).

But the name of the city and the likeness of the deed persuade one to think that it happened only once,

yet that the evangelists are opposed to each other in this, that one says as he was drawing near to Jericho,

the others as he was going out from Jericho — this surely persuades no one, except those who would more readily believe the Gospel to be lying than that Jesus did two similar miracles in a similar way.

But what is more credible, or rather what is true, both every faithful son of the Gospel most easily sees, and every contentious person, at least once he has been admonished, answers himself either by keeping silent or, even if he is unwilling to keep silent, by thinking it over.

66. 127. Matthew continues and says: and when he had drawn near to Jerusalem and had come to Bethphage at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them: 'Go into the village that is opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her (Mt 21:1–2),' and so on down to that place where he says: blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest (Mt 21:9). This too Mark narrates, keeping the same order (See Mk 11:1–20). Luke, however, lingers at Jericho, recording certain things which these omitted, about Zacchaeus the chief of the publicans, and certain things said in parables (See Lk 19:1–38).

After these things he too meets them in recording this colt on which Jesus sat. Nor let it be a stumbling block that Matthew says both a donkey and a colt, while the rest are silent about the donkey. Indeed, that rule too is to be recalled which we suggested above concerning those who reclined in groups of fifty and of a hundred when the crowds were fed with the five loaves (See Mk 6:40; Lk 9:1–4). Once this is suggested, it ought no longer to disturb the reader, not even if Matthew had been silent about the colt in the way that the others were silent about the donkey, so that it would seem most contradictory that one said a donkey, the others the colt of a donkey; how much less ought one to be disturbed because one so recorded the donkey, about which the rest are silent, that yet he did not pass over in silence the colt, about which they spoke. Where, then, both can be understood to have happened, there is no contradiction, not even if one records one thing and another another, how much less when one records one and another both.

66. 128. John too, though he is silent about how the Lord sent his disciples to bring him these animals, nevertheless briefly interposes this matter of the colt, with the testimony of the prophet as well (See Jn 12:14–15; Zech 9:9), which Matthew adduces. In this prophetic testimony too the somewhat diverse wording of the evangelists does not depart from the same meaning; but it can be a stumbling block that Matthew adduces it so as to say that the prophet mentioned a donkey (See Mt 21:5), whereas neither what John interposes nor the manuscripts of the customary ecclesiastical translation have it so.

The cause of this seems to me to be that Matthew is reported to have written his Gospel in the Hebrew language. Now it is clear that that translation which is called the Septuagint in some places differs from what those who know that language, and who have each translated the same Hebrew books, find in the Hebrew.

If, again, the cause of this divergence be sought — why so great an authority as the translation of the Septuagint differs in many places from that truth which is found in the Hebrew manuscripts — I think nothing more probable occurs to me

than that those Seventy translated by the same Spirit by which the very things they were translating had been spoken — which is confirmed by that marvelous agreement of theirs which is celebrated.

Therefore they too, by varying some things in their wording and yet not departing from that same will of God whose words those were and which the words ought to serve, wished to demonstrate nothing other than this very thing which we now marvel at in the concordant diversity, so to speak, of the four evangelists, by which it is shown to us that there is no falsehood if anyone narrates something in a manner so diverse that he does not depart from the will of him with whom one must be in accord and in agreement.

To know this is useful both for conduct, for the sake of avoiding and judging falsehoods, and for faith itself, lest we suppose that truth is, as it were, fortified by consecrated sounds, as though God commended to us the words to be spoken on account of a thing in the same way as he commends the thing itself; whereas rather the thing that is to be spoken is so to be preferred to the words by which it is to be spoken that we ought not to seek the latter at all, if we could know it without them, just as God knows it, and his angels in him.

67. 129. Matthew continues and says: and when he had entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred, saying: 'Who is this?' And the crowds said: 'This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth of Galilee.' And Jesus entered the temple of God and cast out all who were selling and buying in the temple (Mt 21:10–12), and so on down to that place where he says: but you have made it a den of robbers (Mt 21:13). All record this matter of the crowds of sellers driven out of the temple (See Mk 11:15–17; Lk 19:45–46; Jn 2:1–17), but John in a far different order. For after the testimony of John the Baptist concerning Jesus, when he had recorded that he had gone into Galilee, when he turned water into wine, and then, after the mention of a few days at Capernaum, he says that he went up to Jerusalem, when it was the Passover of the Jews, and, having made a whip of cords, drove the sellers out of the temple. Hence it is clear that this was done by the Lord not once but twice, but that the first was recorded by John, this last by the other three.

On the withered fig tree, how Matthew is not opposed to the rest, and especially to Mark, regarding the order of the narration.

68. 130. Matthew continues: and the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them. But when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things he did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying: 'Hosanna to the son of David,' they were indignant and said to him: 'Do you hear what these are saying?'

But Jesus said to them: 'Yes. Have you never read that 'out of the mouth of infants and nurslings you have perfected praise'?' And leaving them he went out of the city to Bethany and stayed there. But in the morning, returning to the city, he was hungry; and seeing a single fig tree by the road, he came to it and found nothing on it but leaves only, and he said to it: 'May fruit never be born of you forever'; and immediately the fig tree withered. And the disciples, seeing it, marveled, saying: 'How did it wither at once?' But Jesus answered and said to them: 'Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not waver, you will not only do this to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Take yourself up and cast yourself into the sea,' it will be done; and all things whatever you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive (Mt 21:14–22).'

68. 131. This Mark too says consequently, but he does not keep the same order (See Mk 11:11–17). For first, what Matthew said — that he entered the temple and cast out the sellers and buyers — Mark does not record, but says that, having looked round at everything, since it was now evening, he went out to Bethany with the twelve, and that on another day, as they were going out from Bethany, he was hungry and cursed the fig tree, which Matthew too records. And the same Mark subjoins that he came to Jerusalem, and when he had entered the temple, he cast out the sellers and buyers, as though it were done on a second day, not the first. But because Matthew connects it thus: and leaving them he went out of the city to Bethany (Mt 21:17), from where, returning to the city in the morning, he records that he cursed the tree, it is more probably believed that Matthew rather kept the order of time regarding the sellers and buyers driven out of the temple.

For when he says: and leaving them he went out, who can be understood to have been left, except those with whom he was speaking above, who were indignant that the children were crying out: hosanna to the son of David? (Mt 21:15) Mark therefore omitted what was done on the first day, when he entered the temple, and inserted it by way of recollection, when he had said that he found nothing on the fig tree but leaves (See Mk 11:13), which was done on the second day, as both attest.

But that the disciples marveled that the tree had withered, and that the Lord answered them about faith and about a mountain being moved into the sea, he says was not on that second day, on which he said to the tree: let no one ever again eat fruit of you forever (Mk 11:14), but on the third day. For on that very second day the same Mark recorded the sellers driven out of the temple, which had been done on the first day, and which he had omitted.

On that very second day, then, he says that, evening having come, he went out of the city, and that as he was passing by in the morning the disciples saw the fig tree withered from the roots, and that Peter, recollecting, said to him: Rabbi, behold, the fig tree which you cursed has withered (Mk 11:21), and that then he answered them about the power of faith. Matthew, however, relates this whole matter as if it were done on the second day — that is, both the saying to the tree, may fruit never be born of you forever (Mt 21:19), and that it withered immediately, and that, the disciples seeing this and marveling, that answer about the power of faith was given.

Hence it is understood that Mark indeed recorded on the second day what he had omitted as done on the first day — namely, the sellers and buyers driven out of the temple — whereas Matthew, when he had recorded what was done on the other day concerning the cursed tree, when he was returning in the morning from Bethany to the city, omitted the things which Mark recorded — that he came into the city and went out in the evening, and that in the morning, as they were passing by, the disciples marveled that the tree was withered; and to what had been done on the second day, on which the tree was cursed, he joined what was done on the third day, that the disciples marveled at its withering and heard from the Lord about the power of faith,

joining these things in such a way that, unless we are compelled by Mark's narration to attend to where and what Matthew omitted, it could not be recognized. For when Matthew had said: and leaving them he went out of the city to Bethany and stayed there. But in the morning, returning to the city, he was hungry, and seeing a single fig tree by the road, he came to it and found nothing but leaves only, and he said to it: 'May fruit never be born of you forever'; and immediately the fig tree withered,

having omitted the rest that belonged to the same day, he immediately added: and the disciples, seeing it, marveled, saying: 'How did it wither at once?' (Mt 21:17–20). What they saw on one day they marveled at on another day. But it is understood that it did not wither then, when they saw it, but immediately when it was cursed. For they saw it not withering but utterly withered, and so understood that it had withered at once at the word of the Lord.

69. 132. Matthew continues and says: and when he had come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, saying: 'By what authority do you do these things, and who gave you this authority?' Jesus answered and said to them: 'I also will ask you one question; and if you tell me, I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, where was it from?' (Mt 21:23–25), and so on down to where he says: neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things (Mt 21:27). This whole matter the other two, Mark and Luke, set forth in nearly the same number of words (See Mk 11:27–33; Lk 19:47–48, 20:18).

Nor do they seem to differ from each other at all in order, except in what I spoke of above, that Matthew, having omitted certain things belonging to the other day, weaves his narration in such a way that, unless one attends, it might be thought that he is still occupied in the second day, while Mark is in the third. Luke, however, did not subjoin this as though following the days in order, but, when he had recorded the buyers and sellers driven out of the temple, omitted that he went out to Bethany and returned to the city, and what was done concerning the fig tree, and that, the disciples marveling, an answer was given about the power of faith,

and, these things omitted, he brought in the matter, saying: and he was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the leaders of the people sought to destroy him, and could not find what they might do to him; for all the people hung upon him, listening to him. And it happened on one of the days, as he was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the Gospel, that the chief priests and the scribes came together with the elders and said, speaking to him: 'Tell us, by what authority do you do these things?' (Lk 19:47–48, 20:12), and the rest which those two also record. Hence it appears that nothing in them is contradictory even in the order itself, since what he says was done on one of the days is understood to be that day on which they too related that this was done.

70. 133. Matthew continues: but what do you think? A man had two sons, and going to the first he said: 'Son, go, work today in my vineyard.' But he answered and said: 'I will not'; yet afterward, moved by repentance, he went. And going to the other he said the same; but he answered and said: 'I go, sir'; and he did not go (Mt 21:28–30), and so on down to where he says: and whoever falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will crush him (Mt 21:44). Mark and Luke do not record this matter of the two sons who were commanded to go and work in the vineyard, but what Matthew next narrates about the vineyard let out to husbandmen, who persecuted the servants sent to them and afterward killed the beloved son and cast him out of the vineyard (See Mk 12:1–11; Lk 20:9–18), those two also do not pass over in silence, keeping the same order, that is, after the Jews, questioned about the baptism of John, said they did not know, and he answered them: neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things (Mt 21:27).

70. 134. No question of any contradiction therefore arises here, except that Matthew, when he had said that the Lord asked the Jews: when the lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those husbandmen? subjoins that they answered and said: he will wretchedly destroy those wretches and will let out the vineyard to other husbandmen, who will render him the fruit in their seasons (Mt 21:40–41). Mark records this as answered not by them, but that the Lord, speaking consequently after his question, in some way answered himself. For he says thus: what then will the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others (Mk 12:9). But it can easily be understood either that their utterance was subjoined in such a way that there was not interposed 'they said' or 'they answered,' yet it was understood, or else that this answer was attributed rather to the Lord because, when they said what was true, he too answered this concerning them, he who is the truth (Jn 14:6; 1 Jn 5:6).

70. 135. But this is more of a stumbling block, that Luke not only does not say they answered this — attributing these words too, like Mark, to the Lord — but even relates that they returned the contrary answer, saying: God forbid. For he narrates thus: what then will the lord of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others. And hearing this, they said: 'God forbid.' But he looked at them and said: 'What then is this that is written: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner'?' (Lk 20:15–17; Ps 118:22 (117:22); Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:7).

How, then, according to Matthew, did those to whom he was speaking these things say: he will wretchedly destroy those wretches and will let out the vineyard to other husbandmen, who will render him the fruit in their seasons (Mt 21:41), when according to Luke they contradicted such words, saying: God forbid? And indeed what the Lord said next, about the stone rejected by the builders and made the head of the corner, was brought in so that by this testimony those who contradicted the parable might be confuted. For Matthew too records this as said to those who were contradicting, when he says: have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner'? (Mt 21:42) For what is have you never read except that they had answered something that was contrary? Mark too signifies this, who relates these very words thus: and have you not read this Scripture: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner'? (Mk 12:10) Which meaning, according to Luke, appears more clearly said in its place after their contradiction, by which they said: God forbid. For it amounts to the same thing, as he too sets it down: what then is this that is written: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner'? (Lk 20:17) For this is the intention of the meaning that he conveys, whether by have you never read, or have you not read this, or what then is this that is written.

70. 136. It remains, therefore, that we understand that, among the people who were listening, some answered what Matthew records, saying: they say to him: 'He will wretchedly destroy those wretches and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen' (Mt 21:41), but others answered what Luke did not pass over in silence, that is: God forbid. To these, then, who had given that answer to the Lord, those others answered: God forbid; but it was the answer of those to whom these said: God forbid.

For this reason it was attributed to the Lord both by Mark and by Luke, because, as I have said, through them the truth itself spoke, whether through those who did not know, if they were evil — as through Caiaphas, who, not knowing what he said, prophesied because he was high priest (See Jn 11:49–51) — or through those who knew and now understood and believed.

For there too was that multitude through whom the prophecy had already been fulfilled, when, meeting him with great festivity as he came, they cried out: blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Mt 21:9; Ps 118:26 (117:26)).

70. 137. Nor let it be a stumbling block that the same Matthew said the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the Lord and asked by what authority he was doing these things and who had given him this authority, when he in turn asked them about the baptism of John, where it was from, from heaven or from men (See Mt 21:23–27); and when they answered that they did not know, he said: neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things (Mt 21:27).

For from there he continued, speaking without break, and said: but what do you think? A man had two sons (Mt 21:28), and the rest, and according to Matthew the discourse is woven together without the interposition of any thing or person down to where the vineyard let out to husbandmen is recorded. For it can be supposed that he said all these things to the chief priests and elders of the people, by whom he had been questioned about his authority.

And if these had questioned him as testers and enemies, the answer cannot be understood as coming from those who had believed and had borne to the Lord that clear testimony from the prophet, who even now could have answered, not in ignorance but in belief: he will wretchedly destroy those wretches and will let out the vineyard to other husbandmen (Mt 21:41). This ought not at all to disturb us, so that we should suppose on that account that there were no believers in that multitude which was then listening to the parables of the Lord.

For the same Matthew, for the sake of brevity, passed over what Luke does not pass over — namely, that this parable was spoken not to those alone who had asked about his authority, but to the people. For he says thus: and he began to speak this parable to the people: 'A man planted a vineyard (Lk 20:9),' and the rest. In this people, then, it is to be understood that there could also have been those who listened to him as those did to whom they had said: blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Mt 21:9; Lk 19:28), and that they, or some of them, were the ones who answered: he will wretchedly destroy those wretches and will let out the vineyard to other husbandmen (Mt 21:41).

Mark and Luke attributed their answer to the Lord not only because he himself had said this, since he is the truth (See Jn 14:6; 1 Jn 5:6) — which often speaks even through the evil and the ignorant, by a certain hidden prompting moving a person's mind, not by the merit of his holiness but by the right of his own power — but also because they could have been such that they were now reckoned, as it were, members in the very body of the Lord, so that their utterance was rightly attributed to him whose members they were, since he had already baptized more than John and had crowds of disciples (See Jn 6:2), as the evangelists themselves often attest, and from whom were also those five hundred brethren to whom the apostle Paul records that he appeared after the resurrection (See 1 Cor 15:6); especially since, according to the same Matthew, it was not said: they say to him: 'He will wretchedly destroy those wretches,' in such a way that in the word illi the plural number is to be taken, as though that answer were of those who had craftily questioned him about his authority, but they say to him was said, that is, 'they to the Lord himself,' with a singular pronoun, not a plural, which appears in the Greek manuscripts without any scruple of ambiguity.

70. 138. There is a certain discourse of the Lord in the evangelist John, where what I am saying can more easily be understood. Jesus therefore said, he says, to those Jews who had believed in him: 'If you continue in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.' And they answered him: 'We are the seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to anyone. How do you say: 'You will be free'?' Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin; and the slave does not remain in the house forever. But the son remains forever; if therefore the Son sets you free, you will be truly free. I know that you are sons of Abraham, but you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you (Jn 8:31–37).'

He surely would not have said to those who had already believed in him, to whom he had said: if you continue in my word, you will truly be my disciples, the words: you seek to kill me; but because he had said this to those who had already believed in him, while that multitude was present which had more enemies,

even though the evangelist does not state who those were who answered, from this very fact — that they answered, and that they then deserved to hear from him what they did — it sufficiently appears which words are to be attributed to which persons. As, therefore, in this multitude according to John there were those who had already believed in Jesus, and there were also those who were seeking to kill him, so in that multitude of which we are now speaking there were those who had craftily questioned the Lord by what authority he did those things (See Mt 21:23; Mk 11:28; Lk 20:2), and there were also those who had cried out, not craftily but faithfully: blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Mt 21:45–46, 22:13).

And on this account there were those who would say: he will destroy them and will let out his vineyard to others (Mt 21:41; Mk 12:9; Lk 20:16). Which utterance is rightly understood to have been the Lord's own as well, whether on account of the truth or on account of the unity of his members with their head. There were also those who would say to those answering such things: God forbid (Lk 20:16), because they understood that the parable was spoken against themselves.

71. 139. Matthew continues: and when the chief priests and the Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them, and seeking to seize him, they feared the crowds, since they held him as a prophet. And Jesus answered and again spoke to them in parables, saying: 'The kingdom of heaven has become like a king who made a marriage feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who had been invited to the marriage; and they would not come (Mt 21:45–46; 22:14),' and so on down to where he says: for many are called, but few are chosen (Mt 22:14).

This parable of those invited to the marriage Matthew alone narrates. Luke too records something of the kind (Lk 14:16–24); but it is not the same, as the order itself indicates, although that too bears some resemblance. But that after that parable about the vineyard and the slain son of the householder Matthew subjoins that the Jews perceived that the whole thing had been said against them, and began to contrive a plot, this Mark and Luke too attest, keeping the same order (See Mk 12:12; Lk 20:19); but from there they proceed to something else, subjoining from this point what Matthew too, after this parable about the marriage which he alone interposed, inserted in order.

On the coin to be rendered to Caesar, whose image it bears, and on the woman who had married seven brothers, how these three agree.

72. 140. Matthew therefore continues: then the Pharisees went away and took counsel how to entrap him in his speech. And they send to him their disciples with the Herodians, saying: 'Teacher, we know that you are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and you care for no one, for you do not regard the person of men; tell us, therefore, what you think: is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?' (Mt 22:15–17) and so on down to where he says: and the crowds, hearing it, marveled at his teaching (Mt 22:33). These two answers of the Lord — one about the coin, concerning the tribute to be rendered to Caesar, the other about the resurrection, concerning that woman who had married seven brothers in succession — Mark and Luke narrate in like manner, and they differ in no respect of order (See Mk 12:13–27; Lk 20:20–40). For after that parable about the hirers of the vineyard and about the Jews, against whom it was spoken, preparing their plot, which all three recorded, these two, Mark and Luke, omit the parable about those invited to the marriage, which Matthew alone interposed, and now follow him in narrating these two matters, about the tribute of Caesar and about the woman of seven husbands one by one, in altogether the same order without any question of contradiction.

73. 141. Matthew therefore continues and says: but the Pharisees, hearing that he had imposed silence on the Sadducees, gathered together, and one of them, a doctor of the Law, asked him, testing him: 'Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?' Jesus said to him: 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (Deut 6:5).' This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18).' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the prophets (Mt 22:34, 40). This Mark too records, preserving the same order (See Mk 12:28–34). Nor let it be a stumbling block that Matthew says the one by whom the Lord was questioned was a tester, while Mark passes over this and at the end concludes thus, that the Lord said to him, when he had answered wisely: you are not far from the kingdom of God (Mk 12:34).

For it can be that, although he came as a tester, he was nevertheless corrected by the Lord's answer. Or at least we may take the testing itself not as evil, as of one wishing to deceive an enemy, but rather as cautious, as of one wishing further to make trial of someone unknown to him. For not in vain is it written: he who believes too readily is light of heart and will be diminished (Sir 19:4).

73. 142. Luke, however, interposes something of the kind not in this order, but far elsewhere (See Lk 10:25–37). But whether he recalls this, or whether it is another with whom the Lord dealt in like manner about these two commandments, is altogether uncertain; yet from this it also rightly seems to be another, not only because of the great difference of order, but because he too is said to have answered the Lord's question and in his answer to have mentioned these two commandments;

and when the Lord had said to him: do this, and you will live (Lk 10:28), that he might do what he himself had answered was great in the Law, the evangelist continues and says: but he, wishing to justify himself, said: 'And who is my neighbor?' (Lk 10:29). Then the Lord told the story of the man who was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among robbers.

Hence, because he was described as a tester, and he himself answered the two commandments, and after the Lord's admonition, saying: do this, and you will live, he is not commended as good, when it is said of him: but he, wishing to justify himself,

whereas the one whom Matthew and Mark record in a like order is so well commended that the Lord said to him: you are not far from the kingdom of God (Mk 12:34), it is more probably believed that this one is another, not that one.

74. 143. Matthew continues: now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them, saying: 'What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?' They say to him: 'David's.' He says to them: 'How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying: 'The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'? If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son?' And no one could answer him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day to question him any further (Mt 22:41–46).

This Mark too records consequently and in the same order (See Mk 12:35–37). Luke also is silent only about the one who questioned the Lord as to which was the first commandment in the Law (Lk 20:41–44); but, this omitted, he too preserves the same order, and likewise narrates that the Lord asked the Jews this about the Christ, how he is the son of David. Nor does it matter to the meaning that, according to Matthew, when Jesus had asked what they thought about the Christ, whose son he was, they answered: David's. Then at last he brought in how David called him Lord. But according to those two, Mark and Luke, they are found neither to have been questioned nor to have answered. For we ought to understand that, after their answer, the saying of the Lord himself was conveyed by the two evangelists as having been spoken by him in the hearing of those whom he wished to instruct usefully by his teaching and to estrange from the doctrine of the scribes, who about the Christ understood only this, that he had been made according to the flesh from the seed of David, but did not understand him to be God, on account of which he was the Lord of David himself. Therefore, as though concerning those who were in error, the Lord, making his discourse to these whom he wished to be freed from their error, is recorded according to these two evangelists, so that what was said to them: how do you say, as Matthew narrates, is to be taken thus, not as said to those, but rather as said about those to the ones whom he wished to instruct.

75. 144. Matthew continues, keeping the order of the narration thus: then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: 'On the seat of Moses the scribes and Pharisees have sat down; therefore observe and do all things whatever they tell you; but do not act according to their works, for they say and do not do' (Mt 23:13), and so on down to where he says: you will not see me from now on, until you say: 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Mt 23:39).' Luke too records that the Lord had a similar discourse against the Pharisees and scribes and doctors of the Law, but in the house of a certain Pharisee who had invited him to a meal (See Lk 11:37–52). To narrate which, he had departed from Matthew around that place where both had recorded what was said by the Lord about the sign of Jonah of three days and nights, and about the queen of the South, and about the Ninevites, and about the unclean spirit that returns and finds the house cleansed (See Lk 11:29–36; Mt 12:39–45).

After which discourse Matthew says: while he was still speaking to the crowds, behold, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to him (Mt 12:46). Luke, however, in that discourse of the Lord, having recorded certain things too which Matthew omitted as having been said by the Lord, departs from the order (See Lk 2:49–50) which he had kept with Matthew, thus: and as he was speaking, he says, a certain Pharisee asked him to dine with him, and he went in and reclined. But the Pharisee began to think within himself and to say why he had not been washed before the meal. And the Lord said to him: 'Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and the dish (Lk 11:37–39).'

And from here he now says the rest against the same Pharisees and scribes and doctors of the Law, such things as Matthew says in this place which we have now undertaken to consider (See Lk 11:37–52). Although, therefore, Matthew records these things in such a way that, though he does not name the house of that Pharisee, neither does he state the place where they were said, so that anything should conflict with that house,

yet because the Lord had already come into Jerusalem from Galilee, and after his arrival the foregoing matters down to this discourse are so woven together that they are probably taken to have been done in Jerusalem, while Luke narrates that while the Lord was still making his way to Jerusalem, it seems to me that there are two similar discourses, of which the one narrated the one and the other narrated the other.

75. 145. Surely it must be considered how it was said here: you will not see me from now on, until you say: 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Mt 23:39),' when according to the same Matthew they had already said this (See Mt 21:9). For Luke too says that this was answered by the Lord to those who had warned him to go away from there, since Herod wished to kill him. There too he records that, against Jerusalem itself, those very words were said by him which Matthew has here.

For it is narrated thus according to Luke: on that very day some of the Pharisees came, saying to him: 'Go out and depart from here, for Herod wishes to kill you.' And he said to them: 'Go, tell that fox: 'Behold, I cast out demons and accomplish cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I am perfected'; nevertheless I must walk today and tomorrow and the following day, for it cannot be that a prophet perish outside Jerusalem.

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you, how often I have wished to gather your children as a bird gathers her nest under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house will be left to you. But I say to you that you will not see me until it comes, when you will say: 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord' (Lk 13:31–35).

To this narration of Luke it does not seem opposed that the crowds said, as the Lord came to Jerusalem: blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Mt 21:9, 23:39; Lk 13:35); for according to Luke's order he had not yet come there and it had not yet been said. But since he does not say that he then departed from there, so as to come only at the time when this would be said (for he continues on his journey until he comes to Jerusalem,

and what he says: behold, I cast out demons and accomplish cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I am perfected (Lk 13:32), is understood to have been said by him mystically and figuratively — for he did not suffer on that day which is the third from this day, since he immediately says: I must walk today and tomorrow and the following day (Lk 13:33)), this surely compels us to understand mystically too what he says: you will not see me until it comes, when you will say: 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Lk 13:35),'

signifying this of that coming of his by which he is to come in glory, so that what he says: I cast out demons and accomplish cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I am perfected, may be referred to his body, which is the Church. For demons are cast out when the gentiles, having left their ancestral superstitions, believe in him; and cures are accomplished when men live according to his precepts, after they have renounced the devil and this world, until the end of the resurrection, by which, as it were on the third day, it will be perfected — that is, the Church will be brought to angelic fullness through the immortality of the body as well. Wherefore this order of Matthew is by no means to be thought to have departed to anything else; but Luke is rather to be understood either to have anticipated what was done in Jerusalem and to have interposed it by way of recollection, before his narration brought the Lord to Jerusalem, or to have related that, as he was now drawing near to that city, he answered such things to those warning him to beware of Herod as Matthew says he spoke even to the crowds, when he had already arrived in Jerusalem and all those things had been done which were narrated above.

76. 146. Matthew continues and says: and Jesus went out from the temple and was going away. And his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered and said to them: 'Do you see all these things? Truly I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down (Mt 24:1–2).' Mark too records this in nearly the same order, after a certain digression made for this purpose, to record the matter of the widow who put two small coins into the treasury, which Luke alone records along with him (See Mk 12:41–44, 13:12; Lk 21:14). For according to Mark too, after the Lord dealt with the Jews as to how they should take the Christ to be the son of David, the things are narrated which he says about being on guard against the Pharisees and their hypocrisy (See Mk 12:35–40). Which place Matthew followed out most fully and narrated more things said there. And therefore, after that same place which Mark touched briefly and Matthew set out copiously, Mark brought in nothing further, as I said, than the matter of that poorest and most bountiful widow, and then subjoined the things by which he might again cohere with Matthew, speaking about the future overthrow of the temple. Luke too, after that matter about the Christ, how he was the son of David, records a few things about being on guard against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. From there, like Mark, he proceeds to the widow who put two small coins into the treasury. Then he subjoins about the future overthrow of the temple what Matthew and Mark do (See Lk 20:45–47; 21:1–16).

77. 147. Matthew continues, saying: and as he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying: 'Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the consummation of the age?' And Jesus answered and said to them: 'See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying: I am the Christ, and they will lead many astray' (Mt 24:4–5), and so on down to where he says: and these will go into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life (Mt 25:40; Mk 13:4–37; Lk 21:7–36). Now let us consider this lengthy discourse of the Lord according to the three evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke. For, keeping the same order, they weave these things together alike. Here indeed each says some things proper to himself, in which no suspicion of contradiction is to be feared; but about those things which they say alike, we must see that they nowhere be thought to be opposed to one another. For it cannot be said, if anything of the kind occurs, that it is something else said in like manner by the Lord elsewhere, since the narration of all three is occupied with the same place of all the events and times. Surely the fact that they do not all preserve the same order of the same sayings spoken by the Lord pertains in no way to the matter, either of understanding or of conveying it, so long as the things related as said by him are not opposed to one another.

77. 148. What Matthew therefore says: and this Gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come (Mt 24:14), Mark too records in the same order thus: and the Gospel must first be preached to all the nations (Mk 13:10). He did not say: and then the end will come, but this is what he signifies by saying first, that is: and the Gospel must first be preached to all the nations, because they had asked about the end. When therefore he says: the Gospel must first be preached to all the nations, he surely signifies first, before the end comes.

77. 149. Likewise, what Matthew says: when therefore you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place — let the reader understand (Mt 24:15), Mark says thus: but when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not — let the reader understand (Mk 13:14). In which change of word he set forth the same meaning; for it is where it ought not because it ought not to be in the holy place. Luke, however, does not say: when you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, or where it ought not, but says: but when you see Jerusalem surrounded by an army, then know that its desolation has drawn near (Lk 21:20). Then, therefore, the abomination of desolation will be in the holy place.

77. 150. But what Matthew says: then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let him who is on the housetop not come down to take anything from his house, and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak (Mt 24:16–18), Mark too records in nearly the same number of words (See Mk 13:14–16). Luke, however, says: then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains (Lk 21:21).

This much like those two, but the rest otherwise. For he continues and says: and let those who are in the midst of it depart, and let those who are in the country not enter it, for these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled (Lk 21:21–22).

It seems quite different, what those two said: and let him who is on the housetop not come down to take anything from his house (See Mk 13:15; Mt 24:17), and what this one says: and let those who are in the midst of it depart,

unless perhaps because there will be great confusion, with so great a danger pressing, that those whom the siege has shut in — which he signifies by saying: those who are in the midst of it — will be on the housetop, astonished and wishing to see what threatens or by what way they must escape.

But how does he say: let them depart, when above he said: but when you see Jerusalem surrounded by an army? For what follows: let those who are in the country not enter it, seems to belong to a fitting admonition, and it can be observed that those who are outside should not enter it; but those who are in the midst, how should they depart from an army when the city is already surrounded?

Or is to be in the midst of it this: when the danger will so press that one cannot escape in a temporal way to preserve the present life, and since then the soul ought to be ready and free, and not occupied and weighed down by fleshly desires — this is what is signified by what was said by the other two: on the housetop, or upon the housetop, so that what this one says, let them depart, that is, let them no longer be held by desire for this life, but be ready to migrate into another life;

this those two said: let him not come down to take anything from his house, that is, let him be inclined by no affection toward the flesh, as though about to receive some advantage from it,

and what this one says, let those who are in the country not enter it, that is, let those who by a good purpose of heart have already been placed outside it not again desire it with fleshly longing — this those said: and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his garment, as though to be wrapped again in the cares of which he had been stripped?

77. 151. But what Matthew says: pray that your flight be not in winter or on the Sabbath (Mt 24:20), of this Mark said part and was silent about part: but pray, he says, that it be not in winter (Mk 13:18). Luke did not say this, yet he alone said something by which he seems to me to have illuminated this very meaning which these others set down obscurely. For he says: but take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and the cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly. For like a snare it will come upon all who sit upon the face of the whole earth. Watch therefore at all times, praying that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that are to come (Lk 21:34–36).

This is understood to be the flight which Matthew records, which ought not to be in winter or on the Sabbath. Now to winter belong the cares of this life, which Luke set down openly, but to the Sabbath belong dissipation and drunkenness. For sad cares are like winter, whereas dissipation and drunkenness submerge and overwhelm the heart with fleshly gladness and luxury — an evil signified by the name of the Sabbath for this reason, that it was then, as it is now too, the worst custom of the Jews to abound in delights on that day, while they are ignorant of the spiritual Sabbath;

or if something else is to be understood in those words according to Matthew and Mark, let Luke too have said something else, provided only that no question of contradiction be raised. For we have not now undertaken to expound the Gospels, but to defend them against the calumnies of falsehood or deceit.

But the other things which Matthew set down in this discourse in common with Mark raise no question; and as for the things he has in common with Luke, Luke set them down not in this discourse, whose order agrees with this one, but elsewhere he either recalls such things and inserts them by anticipation, so as to record beforehand what was afterward said by the Lord, or he gives us to understand that they were said twice by the Lord, both now according to Matthew and then according to himself.

78. 152. Matthew continues: and it happened, when Jesus had finished all these discourses, that he said to his disciples: 'You know that after two days the Passover will take place, and the Son of man will be handed over to be crucified' (Mt 26:1–2). To this the other two, Mark and Luke, bear witness, not departing from the same order. Nor do they convey this as said by the Lord; for they omitted to intimate this. Yet in his own person Mark too says: now the Passover and the unleavened bread were two days off (Mk 14:1), and Luke: now the feast of unleavened bread, which is called the Passover, was drawing near (Lk 22:1). It was, then, drawing near in such a way that it was two days off, as the other two more openly agree. John, however, mentioned the nearness of that same feast in three places, while in the two earlier places he was narrating certain other things, but in the third place his narration appears to be occupied with those very times of which the three others too give intimation, that is, of the Lord's passion now impending (See Jn 11:55, 12:1, 13:1).

78. 153. But this can seem, to those who look at it without sufficient care, to be contradictory: that Matthew and Mark, after they had said the Passover would be two days off, then recorded that Jesus was in Bethany, where the account of that precious ointment is given (See Mt 26:6; Mk 14:3), whereas John says that six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, as he is about to narrate the same matter of the ointment (See Jn 12:1).

How, then, according to those two, was the Passover going to be two days off, when, after they had said this, they are found with John in Bethany narrating that matter of the ointment which he too narrates, while he himself says the Passover would be six days off? But those who are thus troubled do not understand that Matthew and Mark set down by recapitulation what had been done in Bethany about the ointment — not after that announcement of theirs about the two days, but as already done before, when there were still six days to the Passover. For neither of them, when he had said the Passover would be two days off, so subjoined the account of that deed in Bethany as to say: 'after these things, when he was in Bethany';

but Matthew indeed says: now when Jesus was in Bethany (Mt 26:6), and Mark: when he was at Bethany (Mk 14:3), which is surely understood to have been even before those things were said which were said two days before the Passover. As therefore is gathered from John's narration, six days before the Passover he came to Bethany; there that supper took place where the mention of the precious ointment is made; from there he came to Jerusalem, sitting on the donkey,

and then afterward are done the things which they narrate as done at Jerusalem after this arrival of his. From that day, therefore, on which he came to Bethany and that matter of the ointment took place, down to the day on which all these things were done and said, we understand — though the evangelists do not record it — that four days were spent, so that the day arrived which the two defined as two days before the Passover. Luke, however, when he says: the feast of unleavened bread was drawing near (Lk 22:1), did not state the two days, but this nearness which he recorded we ought to take as within that interval of two days. John, again, when he says: the Passover of the Jews was near (Jn 11:55), does not wish these two days to be understood, but six days before the Passover.

Accordingly, when he had recorded certain things after this saying, then, now wishing to show how near the Passover was when he had said it, he says: Jesus therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany, where Lazarus had been dead, whom Jesus raised. And they made him a supper there (Jn 12:1–2). This is what Matthew and Mark record by recapitulation, when they had already said the Passover would be two days off. By recapitulation, therefore, they return to that day in Bethany which was six days before the Passover, and narrate what John narrates about the supper and the ointment,

from where he was to come to Jerusalem and, when the things narrated there had been done, to arrive at the day which was two days before the Passover. From this point these two digressed, in order to record by recapitulation what had been done before in Bethany about the ointment; and when the narration of this matter is completed, they return again to the point from which they had digressed, that is, to narrate now the discourse of the Lord which he had two days before the Passover.

For if we remove from the middle what they narrated of the deed done in Bethany, digressing from the order to recall and recapitulate it, and weave together the order itself, the discourse runs thus according to Matthew, with the Lord saying: you know that after two days the Passover will take place, and the Son of man will be handed over to be crucified. Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered together in the courtyard of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas. And they took counsel to seize Jesus by guile and to kill him. But they said: 'Not on the feast day, lest perhaps there be an uproar among the people (Mt 26:2–5).' Then one of the twelve, who is called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests (Mt 26:14), and so on.

For between what was said: lest there be an uproar among the people, and what was said: then one of the twelve, who is called Judas, went, there was interposed that matter of Bethany which they told by recapitulation (See Mt 26:6–13); which we have omitted in order to weave the narration together, so as to convey that the order of times is not contradictory. According to Mark, again, with that same supper at Bethany, which he too interposed by recapitulation, likewise omitted, the order of the narration runs thus: now the Passover and the unleavened bread were two days off, and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might seize him by guile and kill him. For they said: 'Not on the feast day, lest perhaps there be an uproar of the people (Mk 14:1–2).' And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests, that he might betray him (Mk 14:10), and so on.

Here too, between what was said: lest perhaps there be an uproar of the people, and what we have joined to it: and Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, there is placed that matter of Bethany which they told by recapitulation. Luke, indeed, omitted the very event done in Bethany (See Lk 22:1). We have said these things on account of the six days before the Passover which John mentioned (Jn 12:1) when he narrated the event done in Bethany, and the two days before the Passover which Matthew and Mark mentioned, when, after this saying of theirs, they recorded that very thing in Bethany which John records.

79. 154. Matthew continues from the place where we had made an end of the narration to be considered, and says: then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered together in the courtyard of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and took counsel to seize Jesus by guile and to kill him. But they said: 'Not on the feast day, lest perhaps there be an uproar among the people.' Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to him having an alabaster jar of precious ointment, and poured it over the head of him as he reclined (Mt 26:3–7), and so on down to where he says: what she has done will be told in memory of her (Mt 26:13). Now let us consider the matter of the woman and the precious ointment which took place in Bethany. For although Luke records a similar deed and the name agrees of the man with whom the Lord was dining — for he too says it was Simon (Lk 7:36–50) —

yet, since it is not against nature or against the custom of men that, if one man can have two names, much more two men can have one name, it is rather to be believed that this Simon was another, not the leper, in whose house this was done in Bethany. For neither does Luke say the event he narrates was done in Bethany, and although he does not record the city or village where it was done, yet his narration does not seem to be occupied with the same place. I therefore think nothing else is to be understood than that the woman who, as a sinner, came to the feet of Jesus and kissed them and washed them with tears and wiped them with her hair and anointed them with ointment — to whom the Lord, employing the likeness of the two debtors, said that many sins were forgiven her because she loved much — was indeed not a different woman then, but that this same Mary did this twice: once, namely, what Luke narrated, when, first approaching with that humility and those tears, she earned the remission of her sins. For this John too, although he did not narrate how it was done as Luke did, yet commended this same Mary by mentioning it, when he had now begun to speak of the raising of Lazarus, before he came to Bethany. Which he there narrates thus: now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister Martha. And it was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick (Jn 11:1, 2). In saying this John bears witness to Luke, who narrated that this was done in the house of a certain Pharisee, Simon (See Lk 7:36–50); so then Mary had already done this. But what she did again in Bethany is another thing, which does not pertain to Luke's narration, but is narrated alike by the three, namely John, Matthew, and Mark (See Mt 26:6–13; Mk 14:3–9).

79. 155. Among these three, then — Matthew, Mark, and John — let us attend to how this agrees, concerning whom there is no doubt that they narrate the same event done in Bethany, where also the disciples, as all three record, murmured against the woman as though over the waste of most precious ointment. As to the fact, then, that Matthew and Mark say the Lord's head was anointed with that ointment, but John his feet, it is shown by that rule which we set forth when he fed the crowds with the five loaves that there is no contradiction.

For there, because there was not lacking one to record that they reclined both in fifties and in hundreds, while another said fifties (See Mk 6:40; Lk 9:14), it could not seem contradictory; but it could have seemed so if one had set down only hundreds, as another did fifties, and yet it would have had to be found that both took place.

By which example we ought to be instructed, as I admonished there, to understand that both took place even where the several evangelists record several things. Accordingly here too let us take it that the woman poured the ointment not only over the head but also over the feet of the Lord. Unless perhaps, because Mark records that the alabaster jar was broken and the head anointed (Mk 14:3), someone is so absurd and calumnious as to deny that anything could have remained in the broken vessel with which to anoint the feet as well.

But when this man contends that it was so broken that nothing remained in it, striving against the truth of the Gospel, how much better and more reverently will another contend that it was not so broken as to pour out the whole, striving for the truth of the Gospel.

But if that calumniator is so obstinately blind as to try to break the concord of the evangelists over the broken alabaster jar, let him first take it that the feet were anointed before the jar was broken, so that there remained intact whatever was used to anoint the head as well, where that breaking would pour out the whole. For we recognize that provision is made for us in order, from the head, but in order too we ascend from the feet to the head.

79. 156. The rest of this matter seems to me to have no question. For the fact that the others say the disciples murmured about the pouring out of the precious ointment, while John records Judas, and that because he was a thief (See Mt 26:8–9; Mk 14:4–5; Jn 12:4–6), I think it clear that by the name of the disciples this same Judas was signified, by that manner of speech which we suggested concerning Philip in the matter of the five loaves (See Jn 6:7), the plural number being used for the singular. It can also be understood that the other disciples too either felt this or said it, or were persuaded of it when Judas said it, and that Matthew and Mark expressed in words the will of them all, but that Judas said it because he was a thief, while the rest spoke out of care for the poor; and that John wished to record it of that one alone, whose habit of stealing he believed should be intimated on this occasion.

80. 157. Matthew continues: then one of the twelve, who is called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said to them: 'What are you willing to give me, and I will hand him over to you?' And they fixed for him thirty pieces of silver (Mt 26:14–16), and so on down to where he says: and the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them, and they prepared the Passover (Mt 26:19).

Nothing in this chapter can be thought contradictory to Mark and Luke, who narrate this same thing in like manner (See Mk 14:10–16; Lk 22:3–13); for what Matthew says: go into the city to a certain man and say to him: 'The Teacher says: My time is near; at your house I keep the Passover with my disciples (Mt 26:18),' he signifies the one whom Mark and Luke call the householder or master of the house, in which the upper room was shown to them, where they should prepare the Passover.

What Matthew therefore interposed, to a certain man, as it were in his own person, for the sake of brevity, he wished to convey that man by a shorthand. For if he were to say that the Lord said, 'Go into the city and say to it: The Teacher says, My time is near; at your house I keep the Passover,' it would be taken as though it were to be said to the city. And on this account he interposed, not in the person of the Lord, whose command he was narrating, but in his own, that the Lord ordered them to go to a certain man, lest he need to say the whole, since this seemed to him sufficient to convey the meaning of the one commanding.

For who does not know that no one speaks so as to say 'go to a certain man'? For if he were to say 'go to whomever,' or 'to anyone you please,' the expression could be complete, but the man to whom they were sent would not be definite, whereas Mark and Luke show that he was definite, although his name is not stated (See Mk 14:13; Lk 22:10). For the Lord knew to whom he was sending them. And so that those whom he was sending might be able to find him, he forewarned them what sign they should follow, about a man carrying a jar or jug of water, so that, following him, they might come to the house he wished.

Since therefore it could not be said here 'go to anyone you please,' which the completeness of the expression indeed admits, but which the truth of this matter that was being conveyed does not admit in this place, how much less could it be said here 'go to a certain man,' which can never at all be said by correct speech! But it is plainly clear that the disciples were sent by the Lord not to anyone whatever, but to a certain man, that is, to some definite person. Which the evangelist could rightly narrate to us in his own person, so as to say that he sent them to a certain man, that they should say to him, 'At your house I keep the Passover.' He could also have done it thus: he sent them to a certain man, saying, 'Go, say to him: At your house I keep the Passover.'

And on this account, when he had set down the words of the Lord saying, go into the city, he himself interposed to a certain man, not because the Lord said this, but that he himself might convey to us that there was, with his name unstated, a certain man in the city to whom the Lord's disciples were sent to prepare the Passover. And so, after this interposition of two words in his own person, he follows the order of the words of the Lord saying: and say to him: 'The Teacher says.'

For now if you ask to whom, it is rightly answered: to that certain man to whom the evangelist conveyed that he sent them, when in his own person he had interposed to a certain man. A less usual expression, indeed, but yet, understood thus, it is perfectly complete;

or, if the Hebrew language, in which Matthew is reported to have written, has some property such that even the whole, said in the person of the Lord, does not lack completeness of expression, let those see to it who know.

Surely it could be said so even in Latin, if one were to say: 'Go into the city to a certain man, whom the man who meets you carrying a jar of water will point out to you.' In this way the one commanding could be obeyed without ambiguity, just as also if he were to say: 'Go into the city to a certain man who lives in such and such a place, in such and such a house'; with the expression of the place and the designation of the house it could be understood, it could be done.

But with these and other such signs left unsaid, one who says 'go to a certain man, and say to him' cannot for this reason be heeded, because he wishes a definite person to be understood when he says 'to a certain man,' and does not express how he is to be recognized. But if we take that interposed phrase as said in the person of the evangelist, the expression will indeed be somewhat obscure by the necessity of brevity, but yet complete. As for the fact that Mark says a jar which Luke calls a jug, the one signified the kind of vessel, the other the measure, and each preserved the truth of the meaning.

80. 158. Matthew continues: now when evening had come, he reclined with the twelve disciples, and as they were eating he said: 'Truly I say to you that one of you will hand me over.' And being greatly grieved, they began each one to say: 'Is it I, Lord?' (Mt 26:20–22). And so on down to where he says: but Judas, who handed him over, answered and said: 'Is it I, Rabbi?' He said to him: 'You have said it (Mt 26:25).' In these things which we have now proposed for consideration the other evangelists too, who record such things, raise no question (See Mk 14:17–21; Lk 22:14–23; Jn 13:21–27).

1. 1. Now since the narration of all four is occupied with that place at which they must necessarily walk together to the end and not greatly diverge from one another, even if somewhere perhaps one records something which another omits, it seems to me that we can more readily demonstrate the agreement of all the evangelists if from this point on we weave together everything of all of them and arrange it into a single narrative and form. Thus, then, I think that what we have undertaken can be more conveniently and easily set forth if we approach the narration, recording all things with the attestation of those evangelists who, of all these things, each recorded what he could or what he wished, in such a way, however, that all these things were said by all of them — things which it must be demonstrated are in no point contradictory to one another.

1. 2. Let us therefore begin here, according to Matthew: now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it and broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: 'Take and eat; this is my body (Mt 26:26).' This Mark and Luke too record (See Mk 14:17–22; Lk 22:14–23). For the fact that Luke mentioned the cup twice — first before he gave the bread, then after he had given the bread — that which he said earlier he anticipated, as is his custom, while that which he set down in its own order he had not recorded earlier; and both joined together make this meaning, which is also theirs. John, however, said nothing in this place about the Lord's body and blood, but plainly attests that the Lord spoke about this much more fully elsewhere (See Jn 6:12–21). Now, when he had recorded that the Lord rose from supper and washed the disciples' feet, the reason also being given (See Jn 13:2–22) why he did this for them — in which the Lord had still obscurely signified, through the testimony of Scripture, that he was being betrayed by one who ate his bread (See Mt 22:21; Mk 14:17; Lk 22:14) — he comes to this place which the other three convey alike: when Jesus had said this, he says, he was troubled in spirit and testified and said: 'Truly, truly, I say to you that one of you will betray me.' The disciples therefore looked, as the same John subjoins, at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke (Jn 13:21–22). And being grieved, as Matthew and Mark say, they began to say to him one by one: 'Is it I?' (Mt 26:22; Mk 14:17). But he answered and said, as Matthew continues, he who dips his hand with me in the dish, he will betray me. And the same Matthew continues, subjoining thus: the Son of man indeed goes, as it is written of him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is handed over! It were good for that man if he had never been born (Mt 26:23–24; Mk 14:20–21). In these things Mark too agrees, in this order as well. Then Matthew subjoins: but Judas, who handed him over, answered and said: 'Is it I, Rabbi?' He said to him: 'You have said it (Mt 26:25).' Here too it is not stated whether it was he. For it can still be understood as though 'I did not say it'; and this too could have been so said by Judas, and answered by the Lord, that not all noticed.

1. 3. Then Matthew continues and inserts the mystery of the body and blood given by the Lord to the disciples, as Mark and Luke also do (See Mt 26:26–28; Mk 14:22–24; Lk 22:17–20). But when he had handed over the cup, he spoke again about his betrayer, which Luke follows out, saying: but behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. And indeed the Son of man goes according to what has been determined; nevertheless, woe to that man by whom he is handed over! (Lk 22:21–22) Here now it is to be understood that there follows what John narrates and these others omitted, just as John omitted certain things which they said. When therefore, after the cup had been handed over, the Lord had said what Luke sets down: but behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table, and so on, there is joined what is according to John: now there was reclining one of his disciples on the bosom of Jesus, whom Jesus loved; Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him and said to him: 'Who is it of whom he speaks?' And so, when he had leaned back on the breast of Jesus, he said to him: 'Lord, who is it?' Jesus answered: 'It is he to whom I shall give the dipped bread.' And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. And after the morsel, then Satan entered into him (Jn 13:23–27).

1. 4. Here we must see that John does not seem to be opposed not only to Luke, who had already said that Satan entered into the heart of Judas when he made the pact then with the Jews to betray him for money received (See Lk 22:3–5), but also to himself, because he had already said above, before he received that morsel: and when supper was ended, the devil having now put it into the heart of Judas to betray him (Jn 13:2). For how does he enter into the heart, except by putting wicked persuasions into the thoughts of the wicked? But now we ought to understand that Judas was more fully possessed by the devil, just as, on the contrary, in good, those who had already received the Holy Spirit, when after the resurrection he breathed on them, saying: receive the Holy Spirit (Jn 20:22), afterward received him more fully, surely, when he was sent from above on the day of Pentecost (See Acts 2:1–4). After the morsel, then, Satan entered into him: and, as John himself records continuously, Jesus said to him: 'What you are doing, do quickly.' But no one of those reclining knew for what purpose he said this to him. For some thought, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus said to him: 'Buy the things we need for the feast,' or that he should give something to the needy. When therefore he had received the morsel, he went out immediately. And it was night. When therefore he had gone out, Jesus says: 'Now the Son of man is glorified, and God is glorified in him. And God will glorify him in himself, and will glorify him at once (Jn 13:27–32).'

2. 5. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and, as I said to the Jews, 'Where I go, you cannot come,' so now I say to you. A new commandment I give you, that you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. Simon Peter says to him: 'Lord, where are you going?' Jesus answered: 'Where I go, you cannot follow me now; but you will follow afterward.' Peter says to him: 'Why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.' Jesus answered: 'Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow until you deny me three times (Jn 13:33–38).' This matter of the foretold denial of Peter is recorded not by John alone, from whose Gospel I have just now interposed these things, but also by the other three (See Mt 26:30–33; Mk 14:26–31; Lk 22:31–34). They do not, however, all come to record it from one and the same occasion of the discourse. For Matthew and Mark subjoin it in altogether the same order and in the same place of their narration, both of them, after the Lord had gone out from that house where they had eaten the Passover, while Luke and John subjoin it before he had gone out from there. But we could easily understand either that those two set it down by recapitulation, or that these set it down by anticipation, were it not that we are rather troubled by the fact that they prefix such diverse words, and indeed meanings, of the Lord, moved by which Peter would put forth that presumption of dying either with the Lord or for the Lord — so that they rather compel us to understand that he expressed his presumption three times at different points of Christ's discourse, and that he was answered three times by the Lord, that before the cock crow he would deny him three times.

2. 6. For it is not incredible that, at intervals of time somewhat separated, Peter was moved to presume as well as to deny, or that the Lord answered him something three times in like manner, since indeed even continuously, with no other things or words interposed, after the resurrection he asks him three times whether he loves him, and to him, answering this same thing three times, he himself likewise enjoins one and the same command three times about feeding his sheep (See Jn 21:15–17).

But that this is more credible — that Peter showed his presumption three times and heard from the Lord three times about his denying him three times — is proved from the very words of the evangelists, which record diversely, and as diverse, the things said by the Lord, thus. Behold, let us remember what I have just now interposed from the Gospel of John. He had certainly said this: little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and, as I said to the Jews, 'Where I go, you cannot come,' so now I say to you. A new commandment I give you, that you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. Simon Peter says to him: 'Lord, where are you going?'

Surely it is clear here that Peter was moved by those words to say: Lord, where are you going? because he had heard him saying: where I go, you cannot come. Jesus answered this same Peter: where I go, you cannot follow me now; but you will follow afterward. Then he said: why can I not, he says, follow you now? I will lay down my life for you (Jn 13:33–37). To this presumption the Lord answered with his coming denial. Luke, however, when he had recorded that the Lord said: Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, when once you have turned, strengthen your brothers, then subjoined that Peter answered: Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death.

And he said: 'I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow today until you have three times denied that you know me (Lk 22:31–34).' How different this is from that by which Peter was moved to presume, who does not see? But Matthew says: and when a hymn had been said, he says, they went out to the Mount of Olives. Then Jesus says to them: 'You will all be made to stumble because of me this night. For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered (Zech 13:17). But after I have risen, I will go before you into Galilee (Mt 26:30–32).' Mark says exactly the same (See Mk 14:26–28). What do these words or meanings have like those by which, according to John or according to Luke, Peter declared his presumption? And here too it continues thus: but Peter answered and said to him: 'Even if all are made to stumble because of you, I will never be made to stumble.' Jesus said to him: 'Truly I say to you that this night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.' Peter said to him: 'Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you.' And all the disciples said likewise (Mt 26:33–35; Jn 13:33–38; Lk 22:31–34).

2. 7. These things Mark too records in nearly the same words (See Mk 14:29–31), except that he expressed what the Lord said not in general but more precisely, as to how it would be: truly I say to you that you today, on this night, before the cock crows twice, will three times deny me (Mk 14:30). Since therefore all say that the Lord foretold that Peter would deny him before the cock crowed, but not all say how often the cock would crow, Mark alone narrated this more expressly. Hence to some he seems not to agree with the rest, because they attend too little, and their attention is especially clouded when they clothe themselves with a hostile mind against the Gospel.

For Peter's whole denial is a threefold denial. For he remained in the same trepidation of mind and purpose of lying until, admonished of what had been foretold to him, he was healed by bitter weeping (Mt 26:75) and grief of heart. But if this whole denial — that is, the threefold denial — were to begin after the first crowing of the cock, the three would seem to have spoken falsely, of whom Matthew said: truly I say to you that this night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times (Mt 26:34),

and Luke: I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow today until you have three times denied that you know me (Lk 22:34). And John: truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow until you deny me three times (Jn 13:38). For with different words and order of words they set forth the same meaning, that the Lord said that before the cock crowed Peter would deny him. Again, if he had completed the whole threefold denial before the cock began to crow, Mark would be found to have said in vain, in the person of the Lord: truly I say to you that you today, on this night, before the cock crows twice, will three times deny me (Mk 14:30).

For what was the point of saying before it crows twice, when, if that whole threefold denial were completed before the first crowing of the cock, it would be found completed at once both before the second and before the third and before all the crowings of the cock of that night, which would be proved completed before the first? But because that threefold denial was begun before the first crowing of the cock, those three attended not to when Peter would complete it, but to how great it would be and when it would begin — that is, that it would be threefold and before the cock crowed — although in his mind it can be understood as whole even before the first crowing of the cock. For although, in the words of the one denying, it was begun before the first crowing but completed, that whole threefold denial, before the second crowing of the cock, yet in the disposition of his mind and in Peter's fear it was wholly conceived before the first.

Nor does it matter at what intervals of delay it was uttered in three voicings, since his heart possessed it whole even before the first crowing of the cock, imbibed with so great a dread, namely, that he could deny the Lord not only once but again and a third time when questioned — so that, to those attending more rightly and carefully, it is as when one has already committed adultery with a woman in his heart who has looked at her to lust after her (See Mt 5:28).

Thus, whenever Peter uttered in words the fear which he had conceived in his mind so vehemently that it could endure even to the third denial of the Lord, the whole threefold denial is to be reckoned to that time when a fear sufficient for a threefold denial seized him. From which, even if those words of denial, his breast struck by questions, were to begin to burst forth after the first crowing of the cock, not even so would it be said absurdly and falsely that he denied three times before the cock crowed, since before the cock crowed so great a fear had besieged his mind as could carry it through to the third denial. Much less, therefore, ought it to disturb anyone that the threefold denial, begun even in the three voicings of the one denying before the cock crowed, was yet not completed before the first crowing of the cock.

It is as if it were said to someone: 'This night, before the cock crows, you will write me a letter in which you will revile me three times'; surely, if he began to write it before any crowing of the cock and finished it after the first crowing, it would not for that reason have to be said that the prediction was false. Mark, therefore, spoke more plainly of the intervals of the voicings themselves, who said in the person of the Lord: before the cock crows twice, you will three times deny me. That it happened so will appear when we come to that same place of the Gospel narration, so that there too it may be shown that the evangelists agree with one another.

2. 8. But if the very words altogether be sought which the Lord said to Peter, they cannot be found, and they are sought in vain, since his meaning, for the sake of knowing which the words are produced, can be perfectly clear even in the differing words of the evangelists.

Whether, then, Peter, moved at different points of the Lord's discourses, declared his presumption three times one by one, and three times the Lord foretold to him his denial — as is the more probable inquiry — or whether by some order of narration the records of all the evangelists can be brought into one, by which it is shown that the Lord once foretold to the presuming Peter that he would deny him, no contradiction of the evangelists can be detected here, as there is none.

3. 9. Now, then, so far as we can, let us follow the order itself drawn from all of them. Since therefore, according to John, this had been foretold to Peter, the same John continues and weaves together the discourse of the Lord saying: let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions (Jn 14:1–2),

and he narrates at length the rest of his discourse, splendid and most sublime (See Jn 14:1–31; 15:1–27; 16:1–33; 17:1–26), until continuously he comes to that place where the Lord says: righteous Father, the world has not known you, but I have known you, and these have known that you sent me; and I have made known to them your name, and will make it known, that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and I in them (Jn 17:25–26).

But when a dispute had arisen among them as to which of them seemed to be the greater, as Luke records, he said to them: 'The kings of the gentiles lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are called benefactors. But you are not so; rather, let him who is greater among you become as the younger, and the leader as one who serves. For who is greater, he who reclines or he who serves? Is it not he who reclines? But I am in your midst as one who serves. And you are those who have continued with me in my trials. And I appoint for you, as my Father appointed for me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in the kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'

And the Lord said to Simon, as Luke himself subjoins: 'Behold, Satan has demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, when once you have turned, strengthen your brothers.' He said to him: 'Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death.' And he said: 'I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow today until you have three times denied that you know me.' And he said to them: 'When I sent you without purse and bag and sandals, did you lack anything?' And they said: 'Nothing.' He said therefore to them: 'But now let him who has a purse take it, likewise also a bag, and let him who has none sell his tunic and buy a sword. For I tell you that this too which is written must yet be fulfilled in me: And he was reckoned among the unrighteous (Isa 53:12). For indeed the things that concern me have an end.' And they said: 'Lord, behold, here are two swords.' And he said to them: 'It is enough (Lk 22:24–38).'

And when a hymn had been said, as Matthew and Mark record, they went out to the Mount of Olives. Then Jesus says to them: 'You will all be made to stumble because of me this night. For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered. But after I have risen, I will go before you into Galilee.'

But Peter answered and said to him: 'Even if all are made to stumble because of you, I will never be made to stumble.' Jesus said to him: 'Truly I say to you that this night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.' Peter said to him: 'Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you.' And all the disciples said likewise (Mt 26:30–35). These things we have inserted according to Matthew, but Mark's are nearly the very same and the same number of words, except that there differs what we have already untangled above about the crowing of the cock (See Mk 14:26–31).

4. 10. Matthew therefore weaves the narration together and says: then Jesus came with them to an estate which is called Gethsemane (Mt 26:36). This Mark too says, and so does Luke, without expressly naming the estate (See Mt 26:38–46; Mk 14:32–42; Lk 22:39–46), when he says: and going out he went, according to his custom, to the Mount of Olives. And the disciples too followed him. And when he had come to the place, he said to them: 'Pray that you do not enter into temptation (Lk 22:39–40).'

This is the place whose name they said was Gethsemane. There we understand was the garden which John records, narrating thus: when Jesus had said these things, he went out with his disciples across the brook Kidron, where there was a garden, into which he entered, and his disciples (Jn 18:1). Then, according to Matthew: he said to the disciples: 'Sit here, while I go over there and pray.' And taking Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them: 'My soul is sorrowful even to death; remain here and watch with me.' And going forward a little, he fell on his face, praying and saying: 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.'

And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and he says to Peter: 'So, could you not watch one hour with me? Watch and pray, that you do not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.' Again, a second time, he went away and prayed, saying: 'My Father, if this cup cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.' And he came again and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. And leaving them, he again went away and prayed a third time, saying the same words. Then he came to his disciples and says to them: 'Sleep now and take your rest; behold, the hour has drawn near, and the Son of man is handed over into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go; behold, he who will hand me over has drawn near (Mt 26:36–46).'

4. 11. These things Mark too weaves together in exactly that manner and order, constraining certain sentences somewhat more briefly and opening up something more. For this discourse according to Matthew seems as it were contradictory to itself, in that after the third prayer he comes to his disciples and says to them: sleep now and take your rest; behold, the hour has drawn near, and the Son of man is handed over into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go; behold, he who will hand me over has drawn near.

For how, above, sleep now and take your rest, when he joins to it: behold, the hour has drawn near, and therefore says: rise, let us go? Moved by this apparent contradiction, those who read try to pronounce what was said, sleep now and take your rest, as though it were said by one reproaching, not by one permitting. Which would rightly be done, if it were necessary. But since Mark so recorded this that, when he had said: sleep now and take your rest, he added it is enough, and then brought in the hour has come; behold, the Son of man is handed over (Mk 14:41), it is surely understood that after what was said to them: sleep now and take your rest, the Lord was silent for a while, so that what he had permitted might come to pass, and then brought in: behold, the hour has drawn near. Therefore after those words, according to Mark, there is placed it is enough, that is, 'what you have rested' is now enough. But because the interposition itself of the Lord's silence is not recorded, on that account it constrains the understanding, so that in those words another way of pronouncing them is sought.

4. 12. Luke, however, omitted how often he prayed; he did indeed say, what those others passed over, both that as he prayed he was strengthened by an angel, and that, as he prayed more at length, his sweat became bloody and drops ran down to the ground (See Lk 22:41–44).

When therefore he says: and when he had risen from prayer and had come to his disciples (Lk 22:45), he did not express after which prayer; yet in no respect is he opposed to those two. John, on the other hand, after he says he entered the garden with his disciples, does not record what he did there until his betrayer came with the Jews to seize him (See Jn 18:1–11).

4. 13. These three, then, narrated the same matter just as even one man could three times, with some variety yet with no contradiction. Luke, however, opened up more plainly how far he had gone forward from them, that is, been drawn away, in order to pray, saying: about a stone's throw (Lk 22:41). Moreover, Mark first, in his own words, narrated that the Lord asked the same thing: that, if it could be done, that hour might pass from him (Mk 14:35), that is, the hour of the passion, which he soon signified by the name of the cup.

Then he expressed the very words of the Lord thus: Abba, Father, all things are possible to you; take this cup from me (Mk 14:36). To which words, if you join what those two said, and what Mark himself also set down above in his own person, the meaning is made clear thus: Father, if it can be done — for all things are possible to you — take this cup from me, lest anyone suppose that he diminished the Father's power when he said: if it can be done; for he did not say 'if you can do it,' but: if it can be done; and that can be done which he wills. So, then, it was said: if it can be done, as if it were said: 'if you will.'

For Mark made clear in what sense if it can be done is to be taken, when he said: all things are possible to you. And the fact that they recorded that he said: yet not what I will, but what you will (which is just as much as if it were also said thus: nevertheless, not my will, but yours be done), sufficiently shows that if it can be done was said not from possibility but from the will of the Father, especially since Luke intimated this very thing more plainly; for he did not say: if it can be done, but: if you will (Lk 22:42). To which more open meaning what Mark set down is more openly joined, so that it is said thus: if you will — for all things are possible to you — take from me this cup.

4. 14. But that Mark himself records that he said not only Father but Abba, Father, this is Abba in Hebrew, which in Latin is Father. And perhaps the Lord said both on account of some mystery, wishing to show that he took on that sorrow in the person of his body, that is, the Church, to which he was made the cornerstone, as it came to him partly from the Hebrews, to whom belongs what he says Abba, partly from the gentiles, to whom belongs what he says Father (See Eph 2:11–22).

The apostle Paul too, not passing over this mystery, says: in whom we cry, Abba, Father (Rom 8:15), and again he says: God sent his Spirit into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father (Gal 4:6). For it was fitting that the good Teacher and true Savior, having compassion on the weaker, should show in himself that his martyrs ought not to despair if perchance some sorrow from human frailty should creep into their hearts at the time of the passion, since they would overcome it by setting the will of God before their own will, because he knows what is expedient for those for whom he provides.

About this whole matter there is now no time to discourse more fully; for the question now is of the agreement of the evangelists, in whose diversity of words we learn, to our profit, that nothing else is to be sought in words, for the hearing of the truth, than the meaning of the speaker. For Father is the same as Abba, Father, but for intimating the mystery Abba, Father is plainer, while for signifying the unity Father suffices.

And the Lord is indeed to be believed to have said Abba, Father; but yet the meaning would not shine forth unless, with the others saying 'Father,' it were shown that those two churches, from the Jews and from the Greeks, are so two that they are also one. From that understanding, therefore, was it said: Abba, Father, by which the same Lord says elsewhere: I have other sheep that are not of this fold,

meaning surely the gentiles, since he had sheep also among the people of Israel. But because he went on to add: I must bring them also, that there may be one flock and one shepherd (Jn 10:16), as much as Abba, Father means for the Israelites and the gentiles, so much does Father alone mean for the one flock.

5. 15. While he was therefore still speaking, as Matthew and Mark say, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now he who handed him over had given them a sign, saying: 'Whomever I kiss, it is he; seize him.' And immediately, going up to Jesus, he said: 'Hail, Rabbi,' and kissed him (Mt 26:47–49). And he said to him first what Luke says: Judas, do you hand over the Son of man with a kiss? (Lk 22:48)

Then what Matthew says: friend, for what have you come? (Mt 26:50) Then he said what John records: whom do you seek? They answered him: 'Jesus of Nazareth.' Jesus says to them: 'I am he.' Now Judas, who handed him over, was standing with them. When therefore he said to them: 'I am he,' they drew back and fell to the ground. Again, therefore, he questioned them: 'Whom do you seek?' And they said: 'Jesus of Nazareth.' Jesus answered: 'I told you that I am he. If therefore you seek me, let these go their way.' That the word might be fulfilled which he had said: 'Of those whom you have given me, I have lost none (Jn 18:9).'

5. 16. But seeing, as Luke says, those who were around him what was about to happen, they said to him: 'Lord, shall we strike with the sword?' And one of them struck, which all four say, the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. As Luke and John say, the right ear (Lk 22:49–51). He who struck, according to John, was Peter; and the one whom he struck was called Malchus (See Jn 18:10). Then what Luke says: Jesus answered and said: 'Permit even this far (Lk 22:52),' and he added what Matthew records: put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot ask my Father, and he will at once furnish me more than twelve thousand legions of angels? How then would the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must so come to pass? (Mt 26:52–54) To these words can be joined what John records that he said in that place: the cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it? (Jn 18:11) Then, as Luke says, he touched the ear of him who had been struck and healed him (See Lk 22:51).

5. 17. Nor let it be a stumbling block, as though it were contradictory, that Luke said the Lord answered the disciples asking whether they should strike with the sword: permit even this far, as though it were said after that striking, in such a way that what was done this far pleased him, but he did not wish more to be done — whereas in the words which Matthew set down it is rather understood that the whole deed by which Peter used the sword displeased the Lord.

For this is truer: that when they had asked him, saying: Lord, shall we strike with the sword? he then answered: permit even this far, that is, 'let not what is about to happen disturb you; they must be allowed to proceed this far, that is, to seize me and that the things written about me may be fulfilled.' But amid the delays of the words of those questioning the Lord and of him answering, Peter, in his eagerness to defend and in his greater agitation for the Lord, struck; but things that could happen at once could not also be said at once. For he would not say: but Jesus answered, unless he were answering their question, not Peter's deed.

For what he judged about Peter's deed, Matthew alone tells. Where also Matthew did not say: 'Jesus answered Peter: 'Put back your sword',' but said: then Jesus said to him: 'Put back your sword,' which the Lord clearly said after the deed. But what Luke set down: but Jesus answered and said: 'Permit even this far (Lk 22:51),' is to be taken as answered to those who had asked; but because, as we said, between the words of those questioning and of the Lord answering the striking was done with one blow, he judged that it should be narrated in this order, so that he inserted it even between the words of the question and of the answer. This, then, is not contradictory to what Matthew said: for all who take the sword will perish by the sword (Mt 26:52), that is, who will have used the sword. But it could seem contradictory if the Lord, by that answer, were shown to have approved a voluntary use of the sword, even up to one wound, and that not a fatal one. Although what was said to Peter too can be fittingly understood as a whole, so that both what Luke and what Matthew related are connected, as I recorded above: permit even this far; and: put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword, and so on. But how permit even this far is to be understood, I have already explained; and if it can be better understood otherwise, let it be so, provided only that the truth of the evangelists stands firm.

5. 18. Afterward Matthew continues and records that in that hour he said to the crowds: have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to seize me? Daily I sat among you teaching in the temple, and you did not seize me (Mt 26:55). Then he added also the words which Luke sets down: but this is your hour and the power of darkness (Lk 22:53). But all this happened, as Matthew says, that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left him and fled (Mt 26:56), as Mark too says. But a certain young man followed him, clothed in a linen cloth, as the same Mark records, and when they had seized him, leaving the linen cloth, he fled from them naked (Mk 14:50–52).

6. 19. But they, seizing Jesus, led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and elders had gathered (Mt 26:57), as Matthew says. But first he was led to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, as John says (See Jn 18:12–27). Mark and Luke, however, do not give the name of the high priest (See Mk 14:53–72; Lk 22:54–62). He was led bound, while there were present in that crowd the tribune and the cohort and the officers of the Jews, as John records. But Peter followed him at a distance, even into the courtyard of the high priest. And going inside, he sat with the officers, to see the end (Mt 26:58), as Matthew says. And he was warming himself at the fire (Mk 14:54), as Mark says in that place of the narration. This Luke too records, that Peter followed at a distance. And when a fire had been kindled in the middle of the courtyard and they were sitting around it, Peter was in the midst of them (Lk 22:54–55). And John says that Simon Peter and another disciple followed. Now that other disciple was known to the high priest, and he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, as John says. But Peter stood at the door outside, according to the same John. The other disciple, therefore, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper and brought Peter in (Jn 18:15–16), as the same John says. For so it came about that Peter too was inside, in the courtyard, as the others also say.

6. 20. But the chief priests and the whole council, as Matthew says, were seeking false testimony against Jesus, that they might put him to death, and they found none, though many false witnesses came forward (Mt 26:59–60). For their testimonies did not agree (Mk 14:56), as Mark says, recording the same place. But at last two false witnesses came, as Matthew says, and said: 'This man said: I can destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days (Mt 26:60–61).' Mark too records that others said: we heard him saying: 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days build another not made with hands.' And for this reason their testimony did not agree (Mk 14:58–59), as Mark says in the same place. And the high priest, rising, said to him: 'Do you answer nothing to the things these testify against you?' But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him: 'I adjure you by the living God to tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.' Jesus says to him: 'You have said it (Mt 26:62–64),' so Matthew. But Mark says the same things in other words (See Mk 14:60–61), except that he is silent that the high priest adjured him, but shows that what Jesus says to him: you have said it, means as much as if he said: I am he. For it follows, as the same Mark says: but Jesus said to him: 'I am he. And you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62).' This Matthew too says (See Mt 26:64), but he does not say that Jesus answered: 'I am he.' Then the high priest tore his garments, saying: 'He has blasphemed; what further need have we of witnesses?' Which Matthew records and continues: 'Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?' And they answered and said: 'He deserves death.' This Mark too attests. And Matthew continues: then they spat in his face and struck him with their fists. And others struck him on the face with the palms of their hands, saying: 'Prophesy to us, O Christ, who is it that struck you? (Mt 26:65–68).' This Mark too says; he also records that they covered his face (See Mk 14:63–65). Of these things Luke too attests (See Lk 22:63–65).

6. 21. These things the Lord is understood to have suffered until morning in the house of the high priest, to which he was first led, where Peter too was tested. But concerning Peter's testing, which took place amid these insults to the Lord, not all narrate in the same order; for Matthew and Mark first record the insults themselves, then the testing of Peter (See Mt 26:69–75; Mk 14:66–72); Luke, however, sets forth first the testing of Peter, then at last these insults to the Lord (See Lk 22:56–62); while John begins to tell the testing of Peter and interposes certain things about the insults to the Lord, and adds that from there he was sent to Caiaphas the high priest, and then recapitulates, to set forth the testing of Peter which he had begun, in the house to which he was first led, and returns to the order, where he shows how the Lord was led to Caiaphas (See Jn 18:15–28).

6. 22. Thus, then, Matthew continues: but Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him, saying: 'You too were with Jesus the Galilean.' But he denied it before them all, saying: 'I do not know what you are saying.' And as he was going out the gate, another servant girl saw him and said to those who were there: 'This man too was with Jesus the Nazarene.' And again he denied it with an oath: 'I do not know the man.' And after a little while those standing by came up and said to Peter: 'Truly you too are one of them; for your speech too makes you known.' Then he began to curse and to swear that he did not know the man. And immediately the cock crowed (Mt 26:69–74). So Matthew says. But it is understood that, after he had gone outside, when he had now denied once, the cock crowed first, which Matthew passes over and Mark says (See Mk 14:68).

6. 23. But he did not deny again outside, before the gate, but when he had returned to the fire; and when he had returned, there was no need to record. Mark, then, narrates it thus: and he went outside before the courtyard, and the cock crowed. But again, when the servant girl saw him, she began to say to those standing by: 'This man is one of them.' But he again denied it (Mk 14:68–70).

But this servant girl is not the same, but another, as Matthew says. Surely this too is understood, that in the second denial he was accosted by two, namely by the servant girl whom Matthew and Mark record, and by another whom Luke records. For Luke narrates this thus: but Peter followed at a distance. And when a fire had been kindled in the middle of the courtyard and they were sitting around it, Peter was in the midst of them. And when a certain servant girl saw him sitting by the light and had looked at him, she said: 'This man too was with him.' But he denied him, saying: 'Woman, I do not know him.' And after a little while another, seeing him, said: 'You too are one of them (Lk 22:54–58).'

This, then, which Luke says: and after a little while, Peter had already gone out the gate and the first cock had crowed, and he had already returned, so that, as John says, standing at the fire he denied again. For John, in Peter's first denial, not only is silent about the first crowing of the cock, like the rest except Mark, but also does not record that the servant girl recognized him sitting at the fire; for he says only this: the servant girl who kept the door therefore says to Peter: 'Are you too one of this man's disciples?' He says: 'I am not (Jn 18:17).'

Then he interposes the things that were done with Jesus in that same house, which he thought should be recorded. Narrating thus: now the servants and officers were standing at the coals, because it was cold, and warming themselves; and Peter too was with them, standing and warming himself (Jn 18:18).

Here, then, it is understood that Peter had already gone outside and returned; for at first he was sitting at the fire, but afterward, on returning, he had begun to stand.

But perhaps someone says: he had not yet gone out, but had risen to go out. This can be said by one who thinks that, outside before the gate, when questioned a second time, he denied. Let us therefore see what John says next: the high priest therefore, he says, questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. Jesus answered him: 'I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and in secret I have said nothing. Why do you question me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them. Behold, these know what I said.' But when he had said these things, one of the officers standing by gave Jesus a blow, saying: 'Is that how you answer the high priest?' Jesus answered him: 'If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike me?' And Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest (Jn 18:19–24).

Here surely it is shown that Annas was a high priest; for he had not yet been sent to Caiaphas when it was already said to him: is that how you answer the high priest? And these two, Annas and Caiaphas, as high priests, Luke too records at the beginning of his Gospel (See Lk 3:2). When these things have been said, John returns to what he had begun about Peter's denial, that is, to that same house where the things he narrated were done, and from which Jesus was sent to Caiaphas, to whom he was being led from the beginning, as Matthew said. Now John recorded these things which he interposed, recapitulating about Peter, and returning to that narration he says thus, so as to complete the threefold denial: now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him: 'Are you too one of his disciples?' He denied it and said: 'I am not (Jn 18:25).'

In this place, then, we find that Peter denied the second time not before the gate but standing at the fire, which could not happen unless he had already returned after he had gone outside. For the other servant girl did not see him outside when he had already gone out, but saw him as he was going out, that is, when he was rising to go out, she noticed him and said to those who were there, that is, who were together at the fire inside in the courtyard: and this man was with Jesus the Nazarene (Mt 26:71). But he who had gone outside, hearing this, returned and swore to them, as they pressed against him, that he did not know the man (See Mt 26:72).

For Mark too says thus about the same servant girl: and she began to say to those standing by: 'This man is one of them (Mk 14:69).' For she was speaking not to him, but to those who had remained there when he went out, yet in such a way that he could hear, from which, on returning and again standing at the fire, he resisted by denying their words. Then in what John says: they said: 'Are you too one of his disciples?' (Jn 18:25) — which we understand was said to him as he returned and stood — this too is confirmed, that not only that other servant girl, whom Matthew and Mark record in this second denial, but also another, whom Luke records, dealt thus with Peter,

whence John says: they said therefore to him. Wherefore, whether it was that, after the servant girl said to those who were with her in the courtyard when he went out, this man is one of them, he, on hearing this, returned, so as to clear himself, as it were, by denying — or, what is more credible, he did not hear what was said about him as he was going outside, and after he returned the servant girl and that other man whom Luke records said to him: are you too one of his disciples? And he said: I am not,

with that man of whom Luke speaks more insistently pressing and saying: you too are one of them, to whom Peter said: O man, I am not (Lk 22:58) — yet it is clearly gathered, when all the testimonies of the evangelists about this matter are compared, that Peter denied the second time not before the gate but inside in the courtyard at the fire, and that Matthew and Mark, who recorded that he had gone outside, for the sake of brevity were silent about his return.

6. 25. Now let us examine their agreement about the third denial, which we recall Matthew alone has already set forth. Mark therefore continues and says: And after a little while, those standing by said to Peter: 'Truly you are one of them, for you too are a Galilean.' But he began to call down curses and to swear: 'I do not know this man of whom you speak.' And immediately the cock crowed a second time (Mk 14:70–72). Luke, however, following, narrates this same thing thus: and after an interval of about one hour, a certain other man affirmed, saying: 'Truly this man too was with him, for he too is a Galilean.' And Peter said: 'Man, I do not know what you are saying.' And immediately, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed (Lk 22:59–60).

John, following, sets forth Peter's third denial thus: one of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of him whose ear Peter had cut off, says: 'Did I not see you in the garden with him?' Again, therefore, Peter denied it, and immediately the cock crowed (Jn 18:26–27). What, then, Matthew and Mark say, after a little while, how much time this was, Luke makes clear by saying: and after an interval of about one hour. But about this interval John is silent. Likewise, the fact that Matthew and Mark express in the plural, not the singular, those who dealt with Peter, while Luke says one, and John too one, namely a kinsman of him whose ear Peter had cut off,

it is easy to understand either that Matthew and Mark used the plural number for the singular by a customary expression, or that one especially, as knowing it and as having seen him, affirmed it, while the rest, following his confidence, pressed Peter at the same time, whence two evangelists set down the plural number by a shorthand, but the other two wished to signify only the one who was foremost in this.

Now, what Matthew asserts was said to Peter himself: truly you too are one of them, and your speech makes you known (Mt 26:73), just as John asserts was said to the same Peter: did I not see you in the garden with him? (Jn 18:26)

while Mark says that they spoke among themselves about Peter: truly he is one of them, for he too is a Galilean (Mk 14:70), just as Luke too says, not to Peter but about Peter: a certain other man affirmed, saying: 'Truly this man too was with him, for he too is a Galilean (Lk 22:59)' —

either we understand that those who say Peter was accosted kept to the meaning, for what was said about him in his presence meant as much as if it were said to him, or that it was done in both ways, and that some recorded the one manner, others the other. But we understand the crowing of the cock after the third denial to be the second, as Mark expressed it.

6. 26. Matthew therefore continues, saying thus: and Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which he had said: 'Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.' And going outside, he wept bitterly (Mt 26:75). Mark, however, says thus: Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said to him: 'Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.' And he began to weep (Mk 14:72). But Luke says thus: and the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, as he had said: 'Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.' And going outside, Peter wept bitterly (Lk 22:61–62).

John is silent about Peter's remembering and weeping (See Jn 18:27). Surely, in what Luke says, that the Lord turned and looked at Peter, how it is to be taken must be considered more carefully. For although even inner courtyards are spoken of, yet Peter was in the outer courtyard among the servants, who were warming themselves at the fire together. But it is not credible that the Lord was heard by the Jews there, so that that looking was bodily.

For when Matthew had said: then they spat in his face and struck him with their fists, and others struck him on the face with the palms of their hands, saying: 'Prophesy to us, O Christ, who is it that struck you?' he continued, saying: but Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard (Mt 26:67–69), which he would not say unless those things with the Lord were being done inside. And as far as is gathered in Mark's narration, they were being done not only in the inner parts but also in the upper parts of the house.

For after Mark narrated such things, he continued and said: and as Peter was below in the courtyard (Mk 14:66). As, therefore, by what Matthew said: but Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard (Mt 26:69), he shows that those things were being done inside, so by what Mark said: and as Peter was below in the courtyard, he shows that what he had said was done not only in the inner parts but also in the upper parts. How, then, did the Lord look at Peter with a bodily face? Wherefore it seems to me that that looking was done divinely, so that it came into his mind how often he had now denied and what the Lord had foretold to him, and thus, with the Lord mercifully looking on, he repented and wept to his profit.

As we say daily, 'Lord, look upon me,' and 'The Lord looked upon him' of one who has been freed from some danger or trouble by the divine mercy, and as it is said: look upon me and hear me (Ps 13:3 (12:4)), and: turn, O Lord, and deliver my soul (Ps 6:4 (6:5)), so I judge it was said: the Lord turned and looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord (Lk 22:61). Indeed, since in their narrations they are more often wont to set down Jesus than Lord, here Luke set down 'Lord,' saying: the Lord turned and looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, while Matthew and Mark, who were silent about that looking, said that he remembered not the word of the Lord but the word of Jesus, so that from this too we may understand that that looking was done by Jesus not with human eyes but divinely.

7. 27. Matthew therefore continues and says: but when morning had come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus, that they might put him to death. And they led him bound and handed him over to Pontius Pilate the governor (Mt 27:1–2). Mark likewise: and immediately in the morning, he says, the chief priests, taking counsel with the elders and scribes and the whole council, bound Jesus and led him away and handed him over to Pilate (Mk 15:1). Luke, however, after he had finished narrating Peter's denial, recapitulated the things that were done with the Lord, now, as it appears, around morning, and so wove the narration together: and the men who held him mocked him, beating him, and they blindfolded him and struck his face and questioned him, saying: 'Prophesy to us, who is it that struck you?' and, blaspheming, they said many other things against him. And when day came, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes gathered together, and they led him into their council, saying: 'If you are the Christ, tell us.' And he said to them: 'If I tell you, you will not believe me; and if I also question you, you will not answer me, nor release me. But from now on the Son of man will be sitting at the right hand of the power of God.' And they all said: 'Are you then the Son of God?' And he said: 'You say that I am.' And they said: 'What further need have we of testimony? For we ourselves have heard it from his own mouth.' And the whole multitude of them rose and led him to Pilate (Lk 22:63–71; 23:1).

All these things Luke narrated, where it is understood — what Matthew and Mark too narrated (See Mt 26:63; Mk 14:61) — that the Lord was questioned whether he was the Son of God, and that he said: I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mt 26:64), done now as day was breaking, when Luke says: and when day came (Lk 22:66);

and so he narrates similar things, even if he himself records something which they passed over. But we understand that during the night the dealing with the Lord through false witnesses, which Matthew and Mark briefly recorded (See Mt 26:60–61; Mk 14:56–59), was done, which Luke passed over, since he related the things that were done around morning. For they too, that is, Matthew and Mark, wove the narration together in the things that were done with the Lord up to morning (See Mt 26:59–75; Mk 14:55–72), but afterward returned to narrate Peter's denial, and when this was ended returned to morning, so as to weave the rest together from there, until they brought to a close the things that had been done with the Lord, but had not yet recorded what was done in the morning (See Mt 27:1; Mk 15:1). John too, when he had recorded the things that were done, in such part as seemed good, and the whole of Peter's denial, says: they led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas to the praetorium. And it was morning (Jn 18:28).

Here we understand either that there was some cause which compelled Caiaphas to be in the praetorium and not to be present, while the other chief priests were holding their examination of the Lord, or that the praetorium was in his house. Yet he was being led from the beginning to the very one to whom at the last he was brought. But because they were now bringing him as one already, as it were, convicted, and it had already seemed good to Caiaphas that Jesus should die, no delay was interposed but that he was handed over to Pilate to be put to death. The things, then, that were done with the Lord through Pilate, Matthew narrates thus.

7. 28. And first he ran on from there to record the end of Judas the betrayer, which he alone narrated, saying thus: then Judas, who had handed him over, seeing that he was condemned, was moved by repentance and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying: 'I have sinned in handing over innocent blood.' But they said: 'What is that to us? See to it yourself.' And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he withdrew, and going away he hanged himself with a noose. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said: 'It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood.' And taking counsel, they bought with them the potter's field, for the burial of strangers. For this reason that field has been called Akeldama, the Field of Blood, to this present day. Then was fulfilled what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying: 'And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him who was valued, whom the sons of Israel valued, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed for me (Mt 27:3–10).'

7. 29. But if anyone is troubled that this testimony is not found in the writing of the prophet Jeremiah, and therefore thinks that something must be detracted from the evangelist's trustworthiness, let him first know that not all the manuscripts of the Gospels have 'what was spoken through Jeremiah,' but only 'through the prophet.' We could therefore say that those manuscripts are rather to be believed which do not have the name of Jeremiah. For this was spoken through a prophet, but Zechariah; whence the manuscripts which have the name of Jeremiah are thought to be faulty, because they ought to have had either 'Zechariah' or no name, as some do, yet 'through the prophet' saying it, who is surely understood to be Zechariah. But let whoever pleases use that defense; as for me, the reason why it does not please me is this: that both more manuscripts have the name of Jeremiah, and those who have considered the Gospel more carefully in the Greek copies report that they have found it so in the older Greek ones; and there was no cause why this name should be added, so that a fault should arise; but there was surely a cause why it should be removed from some manuscripts, namely that bold inexperience should do this, being troubled by the question that this testimony was not found in Jeremiah.

7. 30. What, then, is to be understood, except that this was done by the more hidden counsel of God's providence, by which the minds of the evangelists were governed? For it could have happened that, in the mind of Matthew as he was writing the Gospel, Jeremiah occurred for Zechariah, as is wont to happen, which, however, he would without any doubt have corrected, at least when admonished by others who, while he was still living in the flesh, could read this, had he not reflected that it was not in vain that to his recollection, which was governed by the Holy Spirit, the name of one prophet occurred for another, except that the Lord so determined that it should be written.

But why the Lord so determined, that first most useful reason ought most easily to be considered: that by this too it was conveyed that all the holy prophets, speaking by one Spirit, stand in marvelous agreement among themselves, so that this is much more than if all the sayings of all the prophets were spoken by the one mouth of one man, and that therefore whatever the Holy Spirit said through them ought to be received without doubt, and the several sayings are of them all, and all the sayings are of each one.

Since therefore both the things spoken through Jeremiah are as much Zechariah's as Jeremiah's, and the things spoken through Zechariah are as much Jeremiah's as Zechariah's, what need was there for Matthew to correct it, when, reading over what he had written, he found one name occurring to him for another, and not rather, following the authority of the Holy Spirit, by whom he surely felt his mind to be governed more than we do, to leave this written as the Lord, by admonishing him, had determined for him — to instruct us that there is so great a concord of their words among the prophets that we should not absurdly, but most fittingly, ascribe to Jeremiah too what we find spoken through Zechariah?

For if today someone, wishing to report the words of one man, were to say the name of another by whom they were not spoken, who is nevertheless a very close friend and most intimately joined in familiarity with the one whose words he wished to report,

and immediately, recollecting that he had said one for another, were so to recover himself and correct himself as nevertheless to say, 'I spoke well,' looking to nothing else than that there is so great a concord between the two — namely, between the one whose words he wished to report and the other whose name occurred to him in place of the former's name — that for the latter to have said this is as if the former had said it,

how much more was this to be understood of the holy prophets, and especially to be commended, that we should receive the books of them all as one book of one author, in which no discrepancy of things should be believed, as none would be found, and in which there would be a greater constancy of truth than if one man, however learned, were to speak all those things?

What argument, therefore, unbelieving or unskilled men try to take from this, as though to show a discordance of the holy evangelists, this rather the faithful and learned ought to take up to show the unity even of the holy prophets.

7. 31. There is another reason, which seems to me to be treated more carefully at another time, lest we extend the discourse further than the necessity of finishing this work demands, why this name of Jeremiah in the testimony of Zechariah was permitted to remain thus, or rather was commanded by the authority of the Holy Spirit.

There is in Jeremiah the account that he bought a field from his cousin and gave him silver (See Jer 32:9–44), not indeed under this designation of price which is set down in Zechariah, thirty pieces of silver, yet the purchase of a field is not in Zechariah; but that the evangelist interpreted the prophecy about the thirty pieces of silver as applying to this, which has now been fulfilled concerning the Lord, that this was his price, is clear; but that what Jeremiah said about the field bought also pertains to this could here be mystically signified, so that the name of Zechariah, who spoke of thirty pieces of silver, should not be set down here, but that of Jeremiah, who spoke of the field bought,

so that, the Gospel being read and the name of Jeremiah found, but Jeremiah being read and the testimony about the thirty pieces of silver not found, yet the field bought being found, the reader may be admonished to compare the two and from there to draw out the meaning of the prophecy, how it pertains to what was fulfilled in the Lord.

For what Matthew added to this testimony, when he said: whom the sons of Israel valued, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed for me (Mt 27:9–10), is found neither in Zechariah nor in Jeremiah. Whence it is rather to be taken as inserted elegantly and mystically in the person of the evangelist himself, because by the Lord's revelation he had learned that a prophecy of this kind pertained to this matter which was done concerning the price of Christ. For the deed of the field bought is, in Jeremiah, ordered to be put into an earthen vessel, and here the potter's field is bought with the price of the Lord, and this for the burial of strangers, as for the abiding rest of those who, sojourning in this world, are buried together with Christ through baptism (See Col 2:12). For the Lord told Jeremiah that that purchase of the field signified this, that there would be an abiding for those freed from captivity in that land. These things I have thought worth, as it were, sketching out, while admonishing what in these prophetic testimonies, brought into one and compared with the Gospel narration, is to be sought more carefully and attentively. These things Matthew interposed about Judas the betrayer.

8. 32. Then he continues and says: but Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned him, saying: 'Are you the king of the Jews?' Jesus says to him: 'You say so.' And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then Pilate says to him: 'Do you not hear how many testimonies they bring against you?' And he did not answer him a word, so that the governor marveled greatly. Now at the solemn feast the governor was accustomed to release to the people one prisoner whom they wished. And he had then a notable prisoner, who was called Barabbas.

But Pilate, seeing that he was gaining nothing, but rather that an uproar was arising, took water and washed his hands before the people, saying: 'I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man; see to it yourselves.' And all the people answered and said: 'His blood be upon us and upon our children.' Then he released Barabbas to them; but Jesus he handed over to them, scourged, to be crucified (Mt 27:11–26). These things Matthew narrated as done concerning the Lord through Pilate.

8. 33. Mark too agrees in nearly the same words and matters (See Mk 15:2–15). But the words of Pilate, by which he answered the people asking that one prisoner be solemnly released, he reports thus: but Pilate answered them and said: 'Do you wish me to release to you the king of the Jews?' (Mk 15:9). Matthew, however, says thus: when therefore they had gathered, Pilate said: 'Whom do you wish me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?' (Mt 27:17).

There is no question that he is silent about their having asked that someone be released to them; but it can be asked which words Pilate said, whether those reported by Matthew or those reported by Mark. For one thing seems to be: whom do you wish me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ? Another: do you wish me to release to you the king of the Jews?

But because they called kings 'christs,' and he who said 'this one or that one' clearly asked whether they wished the king of the Jews, that is, the Christ, to be released to them, it makes no difference to the meaning that Mark was here silent about Barabbas, wishing to say only what pertained to the Lord, since indeed in their answer he too sufficiently showed whom they wished released to them: the chief priests, he says, stirred up the crowd, that he should rather release Barabbas to them. And he continues and says: but Pilate again answered and said to them: 'What then do you wish me to do with the king of the Jews?' (Mk 15:11–12).

Whence it now sufficiently appears that what Mark wishes to show by saying the king of the Jews is what Matthew does by saying Christ. For 'christs' were called only kings of the Jews; for in that place too Matthew says: Pilate says to them: 'What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?' (Mt 27:22).

Mark therefore continues: but they cried out again: 'Crucify him!' which the other says: they all say: 'Let him be crucified!' And Mark continues: but Pilate said to them: 'Why, what evil has he done?' But they cried out the more: 'Crucify him!' (Mk 15:13–14).

This Matthew did not say; but since he said: but Pilate, seeing that he was gaining nothing, but rather that an uproar was arising (Mt 27:24), he also said that he washed his hands before the people, to signify himself innocent of the blood of the righteous man, which likewise both Mark and the others pass over. Matthew too sufficiently shows that the governor dealt with the people that he might be released.

Which Mark briefly signified in what he reports that Pilate said: why, what evil has he done? Then he too thus concludes the things that were done with the Lord through Pilate: but Pilate, he says, wishing to satisfy the people, released Barabbas to them and handed over Jesus, scourged with whips, to be crucified (Mk 15:15). These things, done before the governor, Mark narrated.

8. 34. Luke narrates the things done before Pilate thus: and they began to accuse him, saying: 'We found this man perverting our nation and forbidding tribute to be given to Caesar and saying that he himself is Christ, a king (Lk 23:2).' This those two evangelists did not say, although they did say that they were accusing him.

So this one disclosed even the very charges which they falsely brought. But he was silent about what Pilate said to him: do you answer nothing? See in how many things they accuse you (Mk 15:4); but he plainly continues and says what those others too said: but Pilate questioned him, saying: 'Are you the king of the Jews?' And he answered and said: 'You say so (Lk 23:3).'

But Matthew and Mark recorded this before they said that Jesus was accosted, in that he did not answer them as they accused him (See Mt 27:11; Mk 15:2). Now it makes no difference to the truth in what order Luke related these things, just as it makes no difference if one is silent about something which another records,

as in what follows he says: but Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds: 'I find no cause in this man.' But they grew more insistent, saying: 'He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee even to here.' But Pilate, hearing of Galilee, asked whether the man were a Galilean, and when he learned that he was under Herod's authority, he sent him to Herod, who himself was also in Jerusalem in those days. Now Herod, seeing Jesus, was very glad. For he had been desiring for a long time to see him, because he heard many things about him, and he hoped to see some sign done by him. And he questioned him with many words. But he answered nothing. The chief priests and scribes too stood by, vehemently accusing him. But Herod with his army despised him and mocked him, clothing him in a white robe, and sent him back to Pilate. And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that same day; for before they had been enemies of one another (Lk 23:4–12). All these things — that is, that the Lord was sent by Pilate to Herod and what was done there — Luke alone indicates, even if he says something there similar to what may be found in other places of the narration in the others; but the rest wished to say only those things which were done before Pilate, until the Lord was handed over to be crucified.

Returning, then, to the things that were being done before the governor, from which he had digressed to narrate what was done before Herod, Luke continues thus: but Pilate, having called together the chief priests and the magistrates and the people, said to them: 'You have brought me this man as one perverting the people, and behold, I, examining him before you, have found no cause in this man of those things of which you accuse him (Lk 23:13–14).'

From this we understand that he passed over how he asked the Lord what he would answer his accusers. 'But neither did Herod, he says, for I sent you to him, and behold, nothing worthy of death has been done by him. I will therefore chastise him and release him.' Now he was obliged to release one to them at the feast. But the whole crowd cried out together, saying: 'Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas,' who had been put in prison for a certain insurrection made in the city and for murder. But Pilate spoke to them again, wishing to release Jesus. But they shouted back, saying: 'Crucify, crucify him!' And he said to them a third time: 'Why, what evil has this man done? I find no cause of death in him; I will therefore chastise him and release him.' But they pressed on with loud voices, demanding that he be crucified, and their voices grew strong (Lk 23:15–23).

Matthew sufficiently attested, in very few words, to this effort of Pilate by which he dealt with them rather often, wishing that Jesus be released, where he says: but Pilate, seeing that he was gaining nothing, but rather that an uproar was arising (Mt 27:24) — which he would not say unless Pilate had striven much, although he was silent about how often he tried to bring this about, to rescue Jesus from their fury.

And so Luke too concludes what was done before the governor: and Pilate, he says, adjudged that their petition be granted. And he released to them the one who had been put in prison for murder and insurrection, whom they asked for; but Jesus he handed over to their will (Lk 23:24–25).

8. 35. Now let us consider the same things according to John, that is, the things done through Pilate. And they themselves, he says, did not enter the praetorium, lest they be defiled, but might eat the Passover. Pilate therefore went out to them and said: 'What accusation do you bring against this man?' They answered and said to him: 'If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you (Jn 18:28–30).'

Here we must see that it is not contrary to what Luke says, that definite charges were brought against him, and he says what they were: and they began, he says, to accuse him, saying: 'We found this man perverting our nation and forbidding tribute to be given to Caesar and saying that he himself is Christ, a king (Lk 23:2).' But in what I have just now recorded according to John, the Jews seem to have been unwilling to state the charges, when Pilate had said to them: what accusation do you bring against this man? For they answered: if this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you,

namely, that, following their authority, he might cease to ask what was charged against him, but believe him guilty for this alone, that he had deserved to be handed over to him by them. We ought therefore to understand that both this was said and that which Luke recorded.

For many things were said and many answered, from which each of them plucked as much as seemed good and set down in his narration what he judged sufficient. For John too himself says certain things that were charged, which we shall see in their places. And so he continues: Pilate therefore said to them: 'Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law.' The Jews therefore said to him: 'It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,' that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled which he said, signifying by what death he was to die. Pilate therefore entered the praetorium again and called Jesus and said to him: 'Are you the king of the Jews?' Jesus answered: 'Do you say this of yourself, or did others tell you about me? (Jn 18:31–34).'

And this might seem not to agree with what is recorded by the others: Jesus answered: 'You say so (Mt 27:11; Mk 15:2; Lk 23:3),' were it not that in what follows he shows that this too was said. Whence he shows that the things he now says were rather passed over in silence by the other evangelists than not said by the Lord. Attend, then, to the rest. Pilate answered, he says: 'Am I a Jew? Your nation and the chief priests handed you over to me; what have you done?' Jesus answered: 'My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here.' Pilate therefore said to him: 'So you are a king?' Jesus answered: 'You say that I am a king (Jn 18:35–37).'

Behold, now we have come to what the other evangelists recorded. There follows, then, likewise, with the Lord still saying what the rest passed over in silence: 'For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.' Pilate says to him: 'What is truth?' And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and says to them: 'I find no cause in him. But you have a custom that I release one to you at the Passover. Do you wish, then, that I release to you the king of the Jews?' They all cried out again, saying: 'Not this man, but Barabbas.' Now Barabbas was a robber (Jn 18:37–40). Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. And the soldiers, plaiting a crown of thorns, put it on his head and clothed him in a purple robe. And they came to him and said: 'Hail, king of the Jews!' and they struck him with their hands. Pilate went outside again and says to them: 'Behold, I bring him out to you, that you may know that I find no cause in him.' Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And he says to them: 'Behold the man.' When therefore the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying: 'Crucify, crucify!' Pilate says to them: 'Take him yourselves and crucify him; for I find no cause in him.' The Jews answered him: 'We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God (Jn 19:1–7).'

This can agree with what Luke records as said in the accusation of the Jews: we found this man perverting our nation (Lk 23:2), so that there is added: because he made himself the Son of God. And so John continues and says: when therefore Pilate heard this saying, he was the more afraid. And he entered the praetorium again and says to Jesus: 'Where are you from?' But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate therefore says to him: 'Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to crucify you and power to release you?' Jesus answered: 'You would have no power at all against me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who handed me over to you has the greater sin.' From then on Pilate sought to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying: 'If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar (Jn 19:8–12).'

With this can agree what Luke narrates in the same accusation of the Jews thus: when they had said: we found this man perverting our nation, he added: and forbidding tribute to be given to Caesar and saying that he himself is Christ, a king (Lk 23:2). From this is resolved that question by which it could be thought that John said no charge was brought against the Lord by the Jews, when they answered and said to him: if this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you (Jn 18:30).

John therefore continues and says: Pilate, then, when he had heard these sayings, brought Jesus outside and sat on the judgment seat in a place called the Pavement, but in Hebrew Gabbatha. Now it was the preparation of the Passover, about the sixth hour. And he says to the Jews: 'Behold your king.' But they cried out: 'Away, away, crucify him!' Pilate said to them: 'Shall I crucify your king?' The chief priests answered: 'We have no king but Caesar.' Then therefore he handed him over to them to be crucified (Jn 19:13–16). These things John narrated as done through Pilate.

9. 36. It is now consequent that we see the very passion of the Lord according to the testimony of the four evangelists, which Matthew thus begins: then the soldiers of the governor, taking Jesus into the praetorium, gathered the whole cohort to him, and stripping him, they put a scarlet cloak around him, and plaiting a crown of thorns, they set it on his head and a reed in his right hand, and bending the knee before him, they mocked him, saying: 'Hail, king of the Jews (Mt 27:27–29).' This Mark, in the same place of the narration, says thus: but the soldiers led him inside into the courtyard of the praetorium, and they call together the whole cohort, and they clothe him with purple and put on him a plaited crown of thorns, and they began to salute him: 'Hail, king of the Jews,' and they struck his head with a reed and spat on him, and, bending their knees, they worshiped him (Mk 15:16–19). And so it is understood that what Matthew says, they put a scarlet cloak around him, is what Mark said: they clothe him with purple. For in place of the royal purple that scarlet cloak was used by the mockers, and there is a certain red purple very like scarlet. It can also be that Mark recorded the purple too which the cloak had, although it was scarlet. Luke passed this over. John, however, before he said that Pilate had handed him over to be crucified, recorded this, saying: then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him, and the soldiers, plaiting a crown of thorns, put it on his head and clothed him in a purple robe, and they came to him and said: 'Hail, king of the Jews,' and they struck him with their hands (Jn 19:13).

Whence it appears that Matthew and Mark recorded this by recapitulation, not that it was done then, when Pilate had already handed him over to be crucified; for John says clearly enough that these things were done before Pilate, whence these recalled what they had passed over. To this pertains also what Matthew says next: and spitting on him, they took the reed and struck his head. And after they had mocked him, they took off the cloak and put his own garments on him and led him away to crucify him (Mt 27:30–31). This, that they took off the cloak and put his own garments on him, is understood to have been done at the end, when he was already being led away. Mark says this thus: and after they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him and put his own garments on him (Mk 15:20).

10. 37. Matthew therefore continues: and as they were going out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name; this man they compelled to carry his cross (Mt 27:32). Mark too: and they lead him out, he says, to crucify him. And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross (Mk 15:20–21). This Luke says thus: and as they led him away, they seized a certain Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, and laid the cross on him to carry it after Jesus (Lk 23:26). But John narrates thus: but they took Jesus and led him out. And bearing his own cross, he went out to the place called of the Skull, in Hebrew Golgotha, where they crucified him (Jn 19:16–18). Whence it is understood that he himself carried the cross for himself when he was going out to the place mentioned. But that Simon was compelled on the way, of whom the three tell, to whom the cross was afterward given to carry up to the place. Thus we find that both happened: first what John said, then what the other three said.

11. 38. And so Matthew continues: and they came, he says, to the place called Golgotha, which is the place of the Skull. In this place they most plainly agree (See Mk 15:22; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:17). Then the same Matthew adds: and they gave him wine to drink, mixed with gall, and when he had tasted it, he would not drink (Mt 27:33–34). This Mark narrates thus: and they gave him wine mixed with myrrh to drink, and he did not take it (Mk 15:23). This is to be understood as what Matthew said: mixed with gall. For he put gall for bitterness, and wine mixed with myrrh is most bitter; although it can be that both gall and myrrh made the wine most bitter. As to what Mark says, he did not take it, it is understood: he did not take it to drink it. But he tasted it, as Matthew attests; so that what Matthew says, he would not drink, is what Mark said, he did not take it; but he was silent that he tasted it.

12. 39. Matthew continues: but after they had crucified him, they divided his garments, casting lots, and sitting down they kept watch over him (Mt 27:35–36). This same thing Mark says thus: and crucifying him, they divided his garments, casting lots for them, who should take what (Mk 15:24). This Luke says thus: but dividing his garments, they cast lots, and the people stood watching (Lk 23:34–35). It was said briefly by the three. But John sets this forth more distinctly, how it was done. The soldiers therefore, he says, when they had crucified him, took his garments and made four parts, a part for each soldier, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was seamless, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore to one another: 'Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,' that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: 'They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots (Jn 19:23–24; Ps 22:19 (21:19)).'

13. 40. Matthew continues: and they put over his head the charge against him, written: 'This is Jesus, the king of the Jews (Mt 27:27).' But Mark, before he said this, says: now it was the third hour, and they crucified him (Mk 15:25). For he subjoins this when he had spoken of the dividing of the garments — a matter which is to be considered most carefully, lest it cause a great error. For there are those who think that the Lord was indeed crucified at the third hour, but that from the sixth hour darkness came over until the ninth, so that three hours are understood to have been completed from the time he was crucified until the darkness came.

And this could indeed be most rightly understood, were it not that John says that about the sixth hour Pilate sat on the judgment seat in a place called the Pavement, but in Hebrew Gabbatha (Jn 19:13). For it follows: now it was the preparation of the Passover, about the sixth hour. And he says to the Jews: 'Behold your king.' But they cried out: 'Away, away! Crucify him.' Pilate said to them: 'Shall I crucify your king?' The chief priests answered: 'We have no king but Caesar.' Then therefore he handed him over to them to be crucified (Jn 19:14–16).

If, therefore, about the sixth hour, with Pilate sitting on the judgment seat, he was handed over to the Jews to be crucified, how was he crucified at the third hour, as some, not understanding the words of Mark, have thought (See Mk 15:33)?

13. 41. For let us first see at what hour he could have been crucified; then we shall see why Mark said he was crucified at the third hour. It was about the sixth hour when he was handed over to be crucified by Pilate sitting, as has been said, on the judgment seat.

For it was not yet the full sixth hour, but about the sixth, that is, the fifth was completed and something of the sixth had begun to be. But these people would never say 'the fifth and a quarter' or 'the fifth and a third' or 'the fifth and a half' or anything of the kind. For the Scriptures have this custom, that they put the whole for the part, especially in matters of time, as about those eight days, after which they say he went up the mountain (Lk 9:28), of which, looking to the middle ones, Matthew and Mark said: after six days (Mt 17:1; Mk 9:1). Especially since the same John spoke so moderately that he did not say 'the sixth' but about the sixth (Jn 19:14).

But if he did not say it thus, but only said 'the sixth,' we could understand it as the Scriptures are wont to speak, as I have said, the whole for the part,

so that, the fifth completed and the sixth begun, these things were done which are narrated at the crucifixion of our Lord, until, the sixth completed, while he hung, the darkness came which three evangelists attest, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (See Mt 27:45; Mk 15:33; Lk 23:44).

13. 42. Let us now ask, consequently, why Mark said, when he had recorded that, crucifying him, they divided his garments, casting lots for them, who should take what, and went on to add: now it was the third hour, and they crucified him (Mk 15:24–25). He had certainly already said: and crucifying him, they divided his garments. So too the rest attest that, when he was crucified, his garments were divided. If Mark wished to record the time of that deed, it would suffice to say: now it was the third hour; why did he add: and they crucified him, unless because he wished to signify something by recapitulation, which would be found upon inquiry when the Scripture itself was read in those times in which it was known to the whole Church at what hour the Lord was hung upon the wood, whence the error of this one might be corrected or his falsehood refuted? But because he knew that the Lord was hung by the soldiers, not by the Jews, as John says most plainly (See Jn 19:23), he wished secretly to show that they rather crucified him who cried out that he be crucified than those who, according to their office, furnished service to their commander.

It is understood, then, that it was the third hour when the Jews cried out that the Lord be crucified (See Mt 27:22–23; Mk 15:13–14; Lk 23:21–23), and it is most truly shown that they crucified him then, when they cried out, especially because they did not wish to seem to have done this and on that account had handed him over to Pilate,

which their words sufficiently indicate according to John. For when Pilate had said to them: what accusation do you bring against this man? They answered and said to him: 'If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you.' Pilate said to them: 'Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law.' The Jews therefore said: 'It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death (Jn 18:29–31).' What, then, they especially did not wish to seem to have done, Mark shows that they did at the third hour, judging most truly that the tongue of the Jews was more the slayer of the Lord than the hands of the soldiers.

13. 43. But whoever says that it was not the third hour when the Jews first cried this out shows himself most insanely an enemy of the Gospel, unless perhaps he can resolve the same question otherwise; for he has no means of proving that it was not then the third hour, and therefore the truthful evangelist is rather to be believed than the contentious suspicions of men. 'Whence,' he says, 'do you prove that it was the third hour?' I answer: because I believe the evangelists. And if you too believe them, show how the Lord could be crucified both at the sixth hour and at the third. For about the sixth, that we must confess, we are pressed by John's narration; the third Mark records; and if each of us believes them, show how both could have happened otherwise, and I will most gladly acquiesce. For I love not my own opinion but the truth of the Gospel. And would that even more solutions of this question might be found by others! Until that is done, use this one with me, if you please. For if no other solution can be found, this alone will suffice; but if one can be found, when it has been shown, we shall choose it. Only do not think it a consequence that any one of all four evangelists lied, or erred at so great and so holy a height of authority.

13. 44. But if anyone says that he proves from this that it was not the third hour when the Jews cried that out — because, after the same Mark said: but Pilate again answered and said to them: 'What then do you wish me to do with the king of the Jews?' But they cried out again: 'Crucify him (Mk 15:12–13),' no interval of delay is interposed by the same Mark in his narration, and one comes at once to this, that the Lord was handed over to the cross by Pilate, which John records as done about the sixth hour — let him who says this understand that many things were passed over which were done in between, while Pilate was acting, seeking how he might rescue him from the Jews and strive most insistently, by whatever means he could, against their most insane will.

For Matthew says: Pilate says to them: 'What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?' They all say: 'Let him be crucified!' Then, we say, it was the third hour. But as Matthew continues and narrates: but Pilate, seeing that he was gaining nothing, but rather that an uproar was arising (Mt 27:22–24), we understand that in Pilate's efforts to rescue the Lord and in the uproar of the Jews striving against him the time of two hours was spent, and that the sixth had begun, before whose ending were done the things that are narrated from the time when Pilate handed over the Lord until the darkness came.

But what Matthew records above: now as he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying: 'Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for today I have suffered many things in a dream because of him (Mt 27:19)' — Pilate sat on the judgment seat afterward; but among the things which he narrated as done earlier, Matthew, recollecting what he said about Pilate's wife, wished to interpose it there, so as to lay the groundwork for the chief reason why Pilate was unwilling, even at the last, to hand him over to the Jews.

But Luke narrates that, when Pilate had said: I will therefore chastise him and release him, the whole crowd cried out: away with this man, and release to us Barabbas; but perhaps they had not yet said: crucify. But Pilate again, according to the same Luke, spoke to them, wishing to release Jesus. But they shouted back, saying: 'Crucify him.'

Then it is understood that it was the third hour. So, what Luke continues and says: but he said to them a third time: 'Why, what evil has this man done? I find no cause of death in him; I will therefore chastise him and release him.' But they pressed on with loud voices, demanding that he be crucified, and their voices grew strong (Lk 23:16),

he too sufficiently signifies that there was a great uproar; and after how much delay he said to them a third time: why, what evil has he done? one may understand, as much as is enough for tracking out the truth; and afterward, when he says: they pressed on with loud voices and their voices grew strong, who does not see that this was done because they saw that Pilate was unwilling to hand the Lord over to them? And he who was greatly unwilling for this surely did not yield in a moment of time, but at least two hours and something more passed in that hesitation.

13. 46. Question John too, and see how great was that hesitation of Pilate and his refusal of so foul a service. For he narrates these things much more fully, although he too surely does not say all the things in which two hours and something of the sixth flowed past.

Yet, when he had scourged Jesus and permitted him to be ill-treated by the soldiers with the mocking robe and many mockeries (See Jn 19:1–3) (I believe, that in this way at least he might soften their fury, lest they persist in raging even to death), Pilate went outside again and says to them: 'Behold, I bring him out to you, that you may know that I find no cause in him.' Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And he says to them: 'Behold the man,'

so that, seeing that, as it were, ignominious appearance, they might be appeased. But he adds and says: when therefore the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying: 'Crucify, crucify!'

Then, we say, it was the third hour. Attend to what follows: Pilate says to them: 'Take him yourselves and crucify him; for I find no cause in him.' The Jews answered him: 'We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.' When therefore Pilate heard this saying, he was the more afraid. And he entered the praetorium again and says to Jesus: 'Where are you from?'

But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate therefore says to him: 'Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to crucify you and power to release you?' Jesus answered: 'You would have no power at all against me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who handed me over to you has the greater sin.' From then on Pilate sought to release him (Jn 19:4–12).

In this, then, that Pilate sought to release him, how much time do we suppose was spent, how many things passed over which were either said by Pilate or contradicted by the Jews, until the Jews said what would move him and make him yield?

For it follows thus: but the Jews cried out, saying: 'If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.' Pilate therefore, when he had heard these sayings, brought Jesus outside and sat on the judgment seat in a place called the Pavement, but in Hebrew Gabbatha. Now it was the preparation of the Passover, about the sixth hour (Jn 19:12–14).

From that utterance of the Jews, then, by which they first said: crucify, when it was the third hour of the day, until this, that he sat on the judgment seat, through the intervening delays of Pilate's hesitation and of the tumultuous Jews, two hours passed, and, the fifth completed, something of the sixth had now begun. He says, then, to the Jews: 'Behold your king.' But they cried out: 'Away, crucify him!' (Jn 19:14–15). But not even now did Pilate, moved by fear of the accusation, easily yield. For then his wife had sent to him as he sat on the judgment seat, which Matthew anticipated (See Mt 27:19), who recorded only this before he came to that place of the narration, so as to set it there where he judged it opportune. And so, still trying whether he might gain anything, Pilate said to them: shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered: 'We have no king but Caesar.' Then therefore he handed him over to them to be crucified (Jn 19:15–16). And while he proceeds, and while he is crucified with two robbers, while his garments are divided and that tunic is cast for by lot, and amid these things he is mocked with various revilings (for at the same time, while those things were being done, revilings too were being cast), the sixth hour was completed and the darkness came which Matthew and Mark and Luke record (See Mt 27:45; Mk 15:33; Lk 23:44).

13. 47. Now, then, let impious obstinacy fall, and let it believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified both at the third hour by the tongue of the Jews and at the sixth by the hands of the soldiers, because in the tumult of the Jews and the heat of Pilate's dealings two hours and more passed from the utterance by which they said: crucify. But Mark himself, who is especially a follower of brevity, wished briefly to convey Pilate's will and effort for the Lord's life. For when he had said: but they cried out again: 'Crucify him!' — where he shows that they had already cried out, when they wished Barabbas to be released to them —

he added: but Pilate said to them: 'Why, what evil has he done?' In this way he briefly conveyed what was done over a long time. Yet he too, mindful of what he wished to be understood, did not say 'but Pilate said to them,' but said: but Pilate kept saying to them: 'Why, what evil has he done?'

For if he said 'said,' we would understand it as said once; but because he says kept saying, he sufficiently intimated to those who understand that it was said in many ways and often, until the sixth hour began.

Let us consider, then, how briefly Mark said this in comparison with Matthew, how briefly Matthew in comparison with Luke, how briefly Luke in comparison with John, while yet each recorded one thing and another, and finally how briefly John himself in comparison with the things that were done and the delays while they were being done; and let us believe, without the madness of resistance, that two hours and something could pass in that interval.

13. 48. But whoever says that Mark, if it were so, could have said, at the time when it was the third hour, when the voice of the Jews about crucifying the Lord had sounded, that it was the third hour, and could also say that they then crucified him, imposes laws too proudly on the narrators of the truth.

For he can in this way say that, if he himself were narrating these things, they ought to have been narrated by all in the same manner and order in which he narrated them. Let him therefore deign to have his own counsel overcome by the counsel of Mark the evangelist, who judged that this should be set in the place where it was suggested by divine inspiration. For their recollections were governed by the hand of him who governs the water, as it is written, however it pleased him (See Ps 29:3 (28:3); Ps 33:7 (32:7); Ps 77:17 (76:17); Mk 4:41; Lk 8:25).

For human memory floats through various thoughts, nor is it in anyone's power what and when something comes into his mind. Since therefore those holy and truthful men had committed the, as it were, chance occurrences of their recollections, for the sake of the order of the narration, to the hidden power of God, to whom nothing is by chance, no man ought to say — far cast out from the eyes of God and far sojourning abroad — 'In this place ought to have been set' what he greatly fails to understand why God wished to be set in that place:

for even if our gospel is veiled, the Apostle says, it is veiled in those who are perishing (2 Cor 4:3), and when he had said: to some we are the fragrance of life unto life, to others the fragrance of death unto death, he immediately added: and who is sufficient for these things? (2 Cor 2:16) That is, 'Who is sufficient to understand how justly it is done?' Which the same Lord says: I came that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind (Jn 9:30).

For this is that depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God (See Rom 11:33), by which from the same lump one vessel is made for honor and another for dishonor, and it is said to flesh and blood: O man, who are you to answer back to God? (Rom 9:20) Who, then, in this matter too, knows the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor (See Rom 11:34; Wis 9:13),

where he so governed the hearts of the remembering evangelists and exalted them at the summit of the Church with so great a height of authority that through these very things which can seem contradictory in them many were blinded, deservedly handed over to the desires of their heart and to a reprobate mind (Rom 1:24–28), and many were exercised to refine a devout understanding according to the hidden justice of the Almighty? For the prophet says to the Lord: your thoughts have become exceedingly deep; an unwise man does not know, and a fool does not understand these things (Ps 92:6–7 (91:6–7)).

13. 49. But I ask and admonish those who read these things, worked out by us with the Lord's help, that they remember this discourse, which I have thought to interpose in this place, in every similar difficulty of questions, lest the same things have to be repeated too often.

But anyone who, without the hardness of impiety, is willing to attend will easily see in how opportune a place Mark set this about the third hour, so that everyone may there recall at what hour the Jews crucified the Lord (See Mk 15:25–33) — they who wished to transfer the crime itself onto the Romans, whether the rulers or the soldiers, in the place where the deed of the soldiers, the servants, was recorded.

For he says: and crucifying him, they divided his garments, casting lots for them, who should take what (Mk 15:24). Who did this but the soldiers, as John makes clear (See Jn 19:23)? Therefore, lest anyone, turning the thought of so great a crime away from the Jews, should direct it upon those soldiers: now it was, he says, the third hour, and they crucified him, so that they are found rather to have crucified him whom the diligent inquirer will find could have cried out at the third hour that he be crucified, when he notices that what was done by the soldiers was done at the sixth hour.

13. 50. Although there are not lacking those who wish the preparation which John recorded, saying: now it was the preparation, about the sixth hour (Jn 19:14), to be understood as the third hour of the day, at which Pilate sat on the judgment seat, so that the same third hour seems to have been completed when he was crucified, and, while he hung on the wood, three other hours passed and he gave up his spirit, so that from the hour at which he died, that is, the sixth of the day, the darkness came until the ninth. For they say that on that day, which the day of the Sabbath followed, it was the preparation of the Passover of the Jews, because the Days of Unleavened Bread already began from that Sabbath;

but yet that the true Passover, which was now being carried out in the Lord's passion, not of the Jews but of the Christians, began to be prepared — that is, to have its preparation — from the ninth hour of the night, in that the Lord was being prepared to be killed by the Jews. For preparation is the meaning of 'parasceve.'

From that ninth hour of the night, then, until his crucifixion there falls the sixth hour of the preparation according to John and the third hour of the day according to Mark, so that Mark did not record by recapitulation that hour at which the Jews cried out: crucify, crucify! but said outright that it was the third hour at which the Lord was fixed to the wood. What faithful person would not favor this solution of the question, if only some point can be conjectured from the ninth hour of the night from which we may fittingly understand the preparation of our Passover, that is, the preparing of the death of Christ, to have begun?

For if we say it began when the Lord was seized by the Jews, it was still the early parts of the night; if when he was led to the house of Caiaphas's father-in-law, where he was heard by the chief priests, the cock had not yet crowed, which we gather from Peter's denial, which, when it was now being heard, took place; but if when he was handed over to Pilate, it is most plainly written that it was already morning.

It remains, then, that we understand this preparation of the Passover, that is, the preparing of the Lord's death, to have begun when all the chief priests, before whom he was first heard, answered and said: he deserves death, which is found in Matthew and Mark, so that they are understood to have spoken later, by recapitulation, of Peter's denial what had been done earlier.

For it is not absurdly conjectured that at the time when, as I said, they pronounced him deserving of death, it could have been the ninth hour of the night. From which hour until the hour at which Pilate sat on the judgment seat there was about the sixth hour, not of the day, but of the preparation, that is, of the immolation of the Lord, which is the true Passover,

so that, at the full sixth of that preparation, which fell at the full third of the day, the Lord was hung upon the wood. Whether, then, this be rather chosen as the understanding, or whether Mark recalled the third hour and wished to record it especially with reference to the condemnation of the Jews in the Lord's crucifixion,

at which they are understood to have been able to cry out that he be crucified, so that we should take it that they rather crucified him than those by whose hands he was hung upon the wood,

just as that centurion drew nearer to the Lord than those friends whom he sent (See Mt 8:5; Lk 7:1) — without doubt the question is resolved about the hour of the Lord's passion, which is especially wont both to stir up the impudence of the contentious and to disturb the inexperience of the weak.

14. 51. Matthew continues and says: then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left (Mt 27:28). And Mark likewise, and Luke (See Mk 15:27; Lk 23:33). Nor does John raise any question, although he did not call them robbers. For he says: and with him two others, one on this side and one on that, but Jesus in the middle (Jn 19:18). But it would be contradictory if, when they had said they were robbers, he said they were innocent.

15. 52. Matthew continues and says: but those passing by blasphemed him, wagging their heads and saying: 'You who destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself; if you are the Son of God, come down from the cross (Mt 27:29–40).' With this Mark agrees in nearly the same words (See Mk 15:29–30). Then Matthew continues and says: likewise also the chief priests, mocking him with the scribes and elders, said: 'He saved others, he cannot save himself. If he is the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let him deliver him now, if he wants him. For he said: 'I am the Son of God' (Mt 27:41–43).' Mark and Luke, although they use other words, yet agree to the same meaning, when one omits what another records (See Mk 15:31–32; Lk 23:35–37). For about the chief priests, that they insulted the crucified Lord, they likewise do not keep silent, although Mark was silent about the elders, while Luke, because he said 'rulers' and did not add 'of the priests,' rather embraced all the chief men by a general name, so that there both scribes and elders can be understood.

16. 53. Matthew continues and says: but the robbers too, who were fixed with him, reproached him (Mt 27:44). Nor does Mark differ, saying this same thing in other words (See Mk 15:32). But Luke can be thought to be contradictory, unless we do not forget a sufficiently customary kind of expression.

For Luke says: but one of the robbers who were hanging blasphemed him, saying: 'If you are the Christ, save yourself and us.' And he continues and weaves it together thus: but the other answered and rebuked him, saying: 'Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive what our deeds deserve; but this man has done nothing wrong.' And he said to Jesus: 'Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom.' And Jesus said to him: 'Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise (Lk 23:39–43).'

How, then, as Matthew says: the robbers who were fixed with him reproached him (Mt 27:44), or, as Mark says: and those who were crucified with him reviled him (Mk 15:32), since indeed one of them reviled him according to Luke's testimony, while the other both restrained him and believed in the Lord — unless we understand that Matthew and Mark, touching the place briefly, put the plural number for the singular,

just as in the Epistle to the Hebrews we read said in the plural: they stopped the mouths of lions (Heb 11:33), when Daniel alone is understood to be signified, and said in the plural: they were sawn in two (Heb 11:37), when it is handed down of Isaiah alone? In the Psalm too, what was said: the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers gathered together as one (Ps 2:2 (2:2)) and so on, is explained in the Acts of the Apostles as the plural number put for the singular (See Acts 4:26–27). For those who adduced the testimony of that same Psalm understood kings on account of Herod, rulers on account of Pilate.

But because pagans too are wont to calumniate the Gospel, let them see how their own authors spoke of Phaedras, Medeas, and Clytemnestras, when there was a single one of each. And what is more usual, for example, than that someone should say, 'The peasants too insult me,' even if one insults?

For then what Luke made clear about the one would be contradictory, if they had said that both robbers reviled the Lord; for so the one could not be understood under the plural number. But since it was said: the robbers, or: those who were crucified with him, and 'both' was not added, not only, if both had done it, could this be said, but even, because one did it, it could be signified, by the customary manner of expression, through the plural number.

17. 54. Matthew continues and says: now from the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour (Mt 27:45). This the other two attest (See Mk 15:3–36; Lk 25:44–45); but Luke adds also the cause of the darkness, that is, that the sun was darkened. Matthew continues: and about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying: 'Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?' That is: 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (See Ps 22:2 (21:2)). But some standing there and hearing it said: 'This man calls Elijah (Mt 24:46–47).'

Mark agrees in nearly the same words, yet to the same meaning not nearly but altogether (See Mk 15:34–35). Matthew continues: and immediately one of them, running, took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink (Mt 27:48). So Mark too says: but one ran and filled a sponge with vinegar and, putting it around a reed, gave it to him to drink, saying: 'Let be, let us see whether Elijah comes to take him down (Mk 15:36).'