will you fear the definition of the synod? And what answer will be available to you at the A fearful judgment seat of Christ?
20. And I think that no one among you will dare to oppose, saying that one thing is commanded by the Pope, and another by the Patriarch. For he commands the definition to be kept, and the other commands that [the doctrine that] the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son be expressed by voice. Perhaps someone thinking mistakenly might say that these things are not the same, but it is clear that they are the same. For the definition determines that one must believe that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, and the most holy Pope Callistus requires this very thing to be proclaimed by voice. What difference, then, is there? Or how is it not necessary to express in speech that which one believes? For with the heart, says Paul—he who ascended into the third heaven, who heard ineffable words which it is not permitted for a man to speak, the teacher of the inhabited world, the sword of the Spirit, the vessel of election—with the heart, he says, one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. And Christ promises that those who confess Him before men, He will confess before the Father. And Christ is the Truth. Therefore, he who does not confess the truth in all things, B and especially in the dogmas of the Church, does not confess Christ Himself; and he who does not confess Christ denies Christ; and he who denies Christ will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. For this reason, we are all accustomed, when we see Christ Himself during the divine solemnities of the Mass and the mysteries, to say not only, "I believe, O Lord," but, "I believe, O Lord, and I confess." For faith which is not confessed is not faith, but rather, as another might say, a fraud, having first drunk of error itself and leading others into error. Hence it is sufficiently clear that he who believes in his heart but does not confess with his mouth what he believes will never attain salvation, of which may it be granted to us all to be heirs by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
TO THE EXPOSITION OF THAT TEXT OF THE GOSPEL BY GEORGIUS TRAPEZUNTIUS: "THUS I WILL HIM TO REMAIN," ETC. AND THAT ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST IS NOT YET DEAD. TO SIXTUS IV, SUPREME PONTIFF.
(Monumenta SS. Patrum orthodoxographa. Basle, 1559, folio. Latin only.)
Recently, most holy Father, when I was reading that passage of the Gospel of John, in which Peter asked the Son of God about him, saying, "Lord, but what of this man?" and heard: "If I will him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"—first there occurred to me the things I have discussed elsewhere concerning the word "so" and the word "if"; then I began to consider whether the Son of Thunder is dead or still lives. For although one might say either one, from the bosom of the Church... C
A in which he dwells by divine mercy, one could show that he remains even now willingly and with his whole soul. I revoke, I cast out, I reject, and I pray that what has been said be considered as not said. I would wish that what has been said here, be as if it were said in all the things which I have touched upon or might touch upon, whether in Greek or in Latin. For it is in my mind, unless old age delays or illness hinders or the condition of meager fortune recalls me, to treat of certain places of Scripture as God shall inspire. But some things at one time, others at another; now, however, relying on the intercession of John himself, of whom we are about to speak, we shall endeavor to treat clearly, as much as God shall grant, of the little question which seems to take its origin from the words of the Gospel.
Many times after the resurrection, the Lord appeared to the disciples in diverse ways, and oftener He ate and drank with them, and presented also His side and hands and feet, B not only to the eyes, but even to the touch, so that He might demonstrate everywhere that He was the same who had risen, who had been crucified, and who had consorted with them before the passion. Finally, according to the Gospel of John, Jesus appeared on the shore to them as they were fishing, and asked whether they had any relish. As they denied it, He ordered them to cast the net into the right side of the boat; which done, one hundred and fifty-three great fish were caught. That this indeed pertains sacramentally to the future rest of the saints is clear. For both the size and the multitude and the certain number of the fish, and their dragging through the waves of the sea, finally safer to the shores, and the distance of two hundred cubits from the shore, and the casting of the net to the right, and the number of C seven disciples—all these things are narrated diligently, not without great mystery, and they seem to signify openly the future life of the triumphant Church with the Lord. It was indeed certainly that of him who was loved by Christ more than others, who leaned upon the Lord's breast and from thence drew the most profound sacraments, to whom the Lord himself dying commended the Mother, the Mistress of the world, so that just as He founded the beginning of His Gospel in the eternal generation of the Son of God, crying out like thunder: *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God*, just so might He place the summits through the mystical prayer of the future life of the saints, to which the saints, tossed by the sea and the waves, might be able to arrive more safely.
But Peter, when the keys of the kingdom of D heaven were commended to him, having been constituted the head of the whole Church, is more openly then either restored or confirmed. For lest perhaps someone, because he had denied the Lord three times, might think that he had lost the headship of the Church itself, he is asked three times whether he loved the Lord; who, having now become much more prudent and more exalted by the grace of the Savior, is not carried off by presumption, lest he should again be prostrated by a denial, lest there should be need again for tears and bitter weeping to drive away the sin, but he answered three times that he loved Him with a pious confession; but he says that He Himself knows what he loves, to whom nothing can be hidden. Thus the Lord, by the triple interrogation and the triple confession of love by Peter,
A sought to heal the wound of the denial, which, having been brought to a scar by Peter’s weeping, is to be believed. For then, by the force of that interrogation and the virtue of most humble confession, no one doubted that the scar itself was also abolished; and therefore, to him as one now whole and humbly open, the Church is commended, that he should shepherd the sheep and lambs of the Lord. This commendation of the militant Church, made then to Peter, is known to be made to his successors as well. For as the sheep and lambs, that is to say in faith, both old and new, are to endure by succession unto the day of the Lord’s advent in glory, so in the same way must he remain to whom the commendation was made. Therefore, with Peter proposed to the universal Church, his death is also fittingly predicted to him, so that from this he might learn that his whole life, too, must be expressed for the Lord according to his strength B for two reasons: because he was constituted the universal shepherd and the chief vicar of Christ, and because he was to glorify God by the gallows of the cross, of which the one follows from the other. For if the servant is not greater than the master, the client must undergo the patron’s labors. And he who takes upon himself the labors of the master ought not to refuse a similar death; wherefore the imitation of his whole life is also necessary according to one’s strength, which is clearly expressed by the words of the Gospel. For with the death of the cross and the stretching of his hands placed before the eyes of Peter, it is immediately said to him, "Follow me," that is, "You who are to follow me in death, you shall also follow the traces of my living in it."
Peter, therefore, was following the Lord, and while he was following, he saw John (for he was the disciple whom Jesus loved) following also. And moved too much by the curiosity of the human mind, by which we seek things foreign rather than our own (for he was not yet entirely perfect), he dares to ask the Lord by what death John would die, saying: "Lord, what of this man?" But the Lord both rebukes this curiosity and C does not indicate that John would die before the end of this age (as I judge), saying: "If I want him to remain until I come, what is it to you?" Hence a small question arises, easy in its nature, but difficult due to the variety of opinions. For many contend that John is already dead; some think he will die in the final times with Enoch and Elijah. Following this, we shall openly demonstrate that the very fact is signified by this place in the Gospel, and is confirmed by other reasons, and more significantly proved by the authority and testimony of John himself in the Apocalypse and of the Gospel, and is thus demonstrated: "If (he says) I want him to remain until I come, what is it to you?" In Greek, if the word is expressed word for word, it is not written "So I want him to remain," but "If I want him to remain." But because the particle 'si' [if], among us as among the Greeks, when joined with an indicative verb is taken affirmatively, but with a subjunctive is taken suspensively and dubitatively—though here it is joined to the indicative—therefore the Fathers interpreted it not as 'si' but as 'sic', lest the particle, owing to the double power it possesses in both the Latin and Greek D languages, might confuse those who are not learned in them. For they expressly said that no one should doubt that the Greek particle there was also posited no otherwise than affirmatively. But concerning the double power of the 'si' particle, it has been discussed more broadly by us elsewhere and is widely known. For who has not seen that one thing is signified when it is said, *Si amo te, non detraho tibi* [If I love you, I do not slander you], and another: *Si amarem te, non detraherem tibi* [If I loved you, I would not slander you]? The one affirms love and confirms the will not to slander; the other, by contrast, either suspends love and makes it doubtful, or entirely denies it, and the more the (love) is denied as greater, the more the will to slander is asserted. Item: *Si me audisset, doctior esset* [If he had listened to me, he would be more learned]: for they signify that he is not learned, since he did not listen. Conversely: *Si multos audivi doctos, si multa legi, si multa scripsi, cur me imperitum putas?* [If I have heard many learned men, if I have read much, if I have written much, why do you consider me unskilled?] There is no need to say more about a manifest thing, of which books and volumes of the ancients are full. The Greek conjunction *ἐάν* also has the same powers. The witness is Priscian, most excellent of all grammarians, and no less skilled in Greek letters than in Latin, as he was Greek by nation. For he was from Caesarea, a Cappadocian, and he learned both Greek and Latin not in Italy, but in Athens. In his books *On Construction*, where he discusses the subjunctive mood and the particle *si*, he says it possesses the selfsame powers as the Greek *ἐάν*, and shows this with examples both Latin and Greek. But the Greek speech itself also makes this clear, so that there is no need for examples. Let it be said to someone eating meat on the Sabbath: "Do you eat meat on the Sabbath?" He replies, *Ἐὰν φάγω, τί πρὸς σέ;* [If I eat, what is it to you?]. It is clear that he asserts that he is eating. But if he were to say, *Si comederem, quid ad te?* [If I were to eat, what would it be to you?], he would not at all admit to eating, but would put it under a condition as if by denying it. This cannot be clearly perceived in the Greek language. But it is so hidden that it escapes even the more learned of this age unless they have inspected the properties of the Latin language. The reason for this is because the subjoining words are distinguished by a certain minute difference in writing from the indicative ones. For the first person of the present indicative is the same in voice and spelling as the subjunctive. As in the proposed, "I want him to remain," *θέλω αὐτὸν μένειν*, that *θέλω* [thelō] can be said in Latin as both "I want" [volo] and "I would want" [vellem]. But "I would want" does not fit in any way, for it is entirely alien to the facts. Wherefore no one ever thought of it. For which reasons, both by the authority of those who translated it, and by the custom of many centuries, and by the property of the Greek speech itself, and because the thing itself does not allow for a dubitative voice in a disjunctive [sense], the Lord, affirming, said: "Thus I want him to remain until I come, what is it to you?" But perhaps someone will say that no one has ever dared to interpret these words of the Lord otherwise than affirmatively; but that "until I come" does not signify that final advent of the Lord: for nature concedes that the advent of the Lord can also be called that by which each one is called, so that he asserts that he wants John to live thus until he comes, that is, until he has called him to himself through death.
A Once this statement is divided, it is first clear that the Lord said that John should live until he comes. It must therefore be asked: does the expression "until I come" signify the end of this age, or does it point to the limit of his living in this age? Certainly, if anyone considers this, it will be seen to be far from the truth. For he who says this says nothing else but that, so it might be put more plainly and before one's eyes, "I want him to live until he dies"; but if such an exposition were connected, it would be absurd in itself. Let it therefore be connected and said: "Thus I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?" That is, "I want him to live until he dies, what is that to you?" I will speak openly what has just come to mind. Certainly, a man—I do not say learned and serious, but even moderately educated and rather light—if he were given power over the life of some man, and if asked he replied in this way, he would be thought to have paid little attention. How then could anyone believe that God spoke in such a way with His own mouth? But, he will say, He wished to rebuke the disciple for his curiosity. I believe this, and we read that this very thing pleased Cyril—a man outstanding in doctrine, great in holiness, and grave in prudence and eloquence—and that the expression "what is that to you?" clearly shows it. But in rebuking Peter, He also wished to reveal the mystery that John would not die until the very end of this age. For if He had wished only to rebuke him for curiosity, that final remark, "what is that to you?" or "Why do you seek what is not yours?" would have been enough and more than enough, just as when He replied to all of them asking if He would restore the kingdom to Israel that year, He was very mild in His rebuke: "It is not for you to know times or moments." B Now, however, He does not merely rebuke when He has added more vehemently, "what is that to you?"; rather, He also asserted that John would live until the end of this life, saying: "I want him to remain until I come." Thus He both revealed the condition of John's life and rebuked Peter's curiosity.
But this saying went out among the disciples that that disciple does not die. The report went out to the disciples. From whom did it go out? Through whom was it spread? Who preached it to all the disciples? Certainly only two had heard this word of the Lord, Peter and John; it is not to be believed that the Lord repeated to the others what Peter and John had received more privately. John, however—being endowed above all with the purity of both body and spirit and supreme in other virtues, which is perceived both by the love of the Lord and the commendation of His Mother—would by no means have preached to his companions that which he saw pertaining to his own glory as if he were boasting. It remains, therefore, that what the Lord said about John was recounted to the brethren by Peter. But it is unspeakable to say that Peter said otherwise than he had heard. What, therefore, did Peter report to the brethren? That which the Lord said about John: "Thus I want him to remain until I come." That was understood by Peter and by all the others in the same way, that that disciple does not die. Wherefore I myself would also think I were at fault if I did not understand this word of the Lord as all the disciples understood it then. For I could easily believe that, although the apostles reached the final [stage] of this life on that day on which these things were done, they were much more sublime than all their successors. For faith in Christ crucified and raised from the dead, strengthened by the grace and doctrine of the Savior, elevated them greatly from day to day. C But that day on which the Lord performed these things was the third of His appearances. For although He manifested Himself often, as much to women as to men, and differently to others, sometimes in greater, sometimes in smaller numbers, we say that He appeared on the third day now, because on three days especially He appeared more openly, more expressively, and more miraculously: first on the very day of the resurrection, then on the octave of the resurrection; thirdly, when He placed Peter over the Church and pronounced on the death of John, revealing two sacraments to the disciples.
But is what follows perhaps drawn to another meaning? By no means. For what follows? "And Jesus did not say to him that he does not die, but, 'Thus I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?'" Perhaps someone will think that the evangelist is clearly contradicting those who might judge that he would not die until the end of this age, when he writes: "Jesus did not say to him that he does not die," until the final times, that is (for this is how it must always be supplied), and he will exclaim that it has been explained by Him what is being asked, and that it ought not be changed. But I, in view of the highest modesty and virginal humility with which John completely trampled upon human glory, would believe that he wrote it in such a way as to have pointed with his finger to the truth while rejecting the empty glory of this age. For he does not deny the fact, but the formulation and the words. Let everything be brought before the eyes. What did Jesus say? "Thus I want him to remain until I come." Jesus said it in affirmation, and who will deny it? What of the disciples? How did they understand it when it went out in public, that John does not die? I hold to the affirmation of the Lord and the opinion of all the apostles that he does not die. What of John afterwards? Not so much endowed with virginal modesty and humility as he was a friend of the truth, what does he say? "But Jesus did not say to him that he does not die." For Jesus did not utter this word, but used other words. Which ones? "Thus I want him to remain until I come." I observe that John did not stop there, "Jesus did not say to him that he does not die." He would have stopped there if he had wished to deny the fact itself. D But he added, "But—supply—he said: Thus I want him to remain until I come." He is therefore making a comparison of the discourse and the words, not of the facts. For if he had wished to make a comparison of the facts, he would only have written: "He did not say to him that he does not die." For this, once said, immediately shows that he does die. But he says, "He did not say that he does not die, but he said, 'Thus I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?'" It is therefore clear that he is making a comparison of the words, not of the facts, although I do not doubt that he is speaking of the facts as well. For one discourse denies death altogether, which, because it is false, he did not say, "He does not die"; the other shows when he is to die; for "until"
A I come, I wish him to remain so, and to live, and—to be understood—to escape deceit, and at last to intrude into error; then it is inferred: "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren" (Luke 22:31). Where two greatest mysteries are openly expressed: first, that the faith of Peter alone and of his successors, that is, of the Roman Church, of which city it is established that Peter was the bishop, shall not fail; second, that the faith of the others shall fail at some point. Wherefore He says, "Thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." He said "at some point," however, to show that no one of the apostles, confirmed by the grace of the Holy Spirit, would err, but his successors, for whose confirmation Peter—that is, his successors—are commanded to turn themselves; which is perfected in reality: for often the other B Churches of the world have been confirmed by the Roman, but it itself has never been confirmed by others. But also the times of the primacy of Peter, if considered, increase the admiration and make the faith of the matter firmer. The keys are promised when he himself had confessed the Son of the living God before the others; the grace of a faith that would not fail he received, as if by a testament, when [the Lord] was setting out for the cross, the authority to tend sheep and lambs simply all, after the resurrection, a little before the Lord was to ascend into heaven. Why these things? So that we might show that the death of Peter and the kind of death had indeed to be predicted, but the death of John, unless someone thinks it was for the future in the extremes of this age with the apostles, was not to be written down. To what purpose C indeed would he die, when the Lord came to him under this common condition, if it were to be written? For a reproach of the curiosity of Peter? But he is refuted by a single word, so that he might not seek after things that are not his own, so that the questioning Peter might be satisfied. But he is rebuked, and indeed vehemently. For what is sharper than to hear when seeking: "What is it to thee?" Why, however, by affirming, did he introduce this common condition of our mortality as more certain and inevitable for all, unless the Lord had determined otherwise for his nature? Therefore, if the Scriptures relate nothing in vain and without cause, the whole of this passage in which it is written here about John, there can be found no cause unless that the Lord wished to preserve him until the extreme times, it is clear that John is not yet dead. D But perhaps someone will doubt: If nothing is written without a cause, and much less is anything done, why must it be thought that John has not yet yielded to nature, when the surer cause of this is not even brought forward, and there are many things in the Scriptures whose causes we are ignorant of? That we are ignorant of the causes of many things, no one will deny. For the cause of the death in John being deferred, who can clearly perceive and doubt? Certainly no one. For Scripture cries out that Enoch and Elijah were translated to other places, to a longer life, of which translation the cause was at first indeed unknown; yet they believed, because it was expressly stated. Thus these things must be accepted by us, so that we must firmly believe, even if
we see no cause for this particular thing after the incarnation of the Word, as indeed with many other matters, and the cause of almost everything has become known to us. For the devil will use all his strength in the last times, on account of our sins, so that even the elect, if it were possible, might be pushed into error. For when the man of iniquity shall have been revealed (for we are all of free will), we might perish, deceived by his prestigious miracles, had not the Lord provided in a twofold manner: first, by the premonition of the Scriptures, which loudly proclaim and brand his fabrications and impiety; secondly, by the miracles, doctrine, and prophecies of so many holy men whom He is to send a short time before the power and false doctrine of that impiety arrive, so that, moved by the authority by which they most greatly influence us, and—having been reserved B from the most ancient times, and as if immediately from the beginning of the triple order of things, times, and ages, for this divine ministry, as is written—we might believe with sincere and integral faith in their very preachings, as to who they are and why they have come, warned, taught, and confirmed by the Scriptures that they are to come in the times of the Antichrist. For it was fitting to send one of those who were before the law, one who was under the law, and a third who had heard and conversed with Christ Himself, and it was much more necessary to provide against the Antichrist (who will feign that he is Christ the Son of God) than against any of the most ancient ones. He reserved, therefore, two from the ancients; He also reserved, therefore, one from the apostles. Three, then, are reserved against the Antichrist, that by the testimony of such great men—confirmed by miracles—men of that age might be recalled from incredible and unheard-of impiety for the sake of the truth. But the testimony of John, as I judge it, will be of much greater dignity, which is easily perceived if we institute an argument, as it were. Let the impious say that the Antichrist is the Messiah and the Son of God; the ancient witnesses deny it, and assert that Christ came in the times of Tiberius Augustus, though the impious, contending, might wickedly reply that they were not in Jerusalem at that time and therefore falsely testify to what they did not see. But John will cry out that he saw Him, and heard Him, and touched Him, and conversed with Him, and stood by Him hanging on the cross, and looked upon the blood and water flowing from the side of the dead One, and after the resurrection ate and drank with Him, and saw and touched the hands and feet of the Crucified. He will also narrate miracles, many more than he wrote, if indeed the world can then contain them, and he will attest with his own ears that he heard that voice saying: "Lazarus, come out," and that he saw the four-day-dead man leap out from the sepulcher and with his own hands untie the bandages with which the body of Lazarus was bound. These, and other such things, he will affirm with miracles. Three, therefore, C in those times will stand against falsehood: that just Enoch, whose justice shone forth before the flood, when no other commandment existed for men than that which is implanted in the breasts of individuals; the prophet Elias, who even restored the dead to life by prayer and shone forth under the law; and John the evangelist, whom the Lord loved most of all, the most holy of the apostles, whom the Lord (as I judge) did not place as pastor over the universal Church only so that He might commend the virgin Mother to the virgin disciple, but also so that He might commit the Church to Peter at that time (whom He destined for a swifter martyrdom) and to John afterwards in the times of the Antichrist. And thus, the Church would be commended to two disciples—of whom one loved Christ most of all and the other was most loved by Him—one at the very beginning of the Gospel, the other at the end, and both during the greatest persecutions. It is added that all the apostles ended their lives in martyrdom, so that no one can doubt that they were most truthful witnesses, who, just as the Lord, confirmed their testimony by their death. For Christ our Lord, the Son of God, was a high priest as a man, as the Psalmist sings: "You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech";* and a king; for it is said in His person: "But I am appointed king by Him upon Sion His holy mountain";* and Pilate wrote in the title: "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews"; and He was the first and greatest martyr; for when the Jews would accept neither His own testimony concerning Himself, that He was the Son of God, nor that of His Father, who testified by unheard-of miracles that He was His Son, He proved His testimony by His death. We certainly know that the Jews rightly understood the words of the Lord by which He called God his omnipotent Father. Whence they said that He ought to die according to the law, because He made Himself the Son of God. For it cannot be understood in any other way that He proclaimed God to be His Father; therefore He says: "I have manifested your name to men."* For before the coming of the Word in the flesh, they held with a great mystery that God is Father in such a way that He has a Son begotten from His own substance, equal in nature and consubstantial; but because death is of all things the most terrible, and a man sound of mind cannot be led to believe that in the very terror of death anyone would lie either regarding himself or another, for this reason they are truly called martyrs, who by their own death demonstrated their preaching to be true. But the first martyr, Christ, when He was about to deliver His spirit to God, cried out with a loud voice: "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." This testimony, through blood and death, all the apostles followed the Lord in giving concerning their own preaching. Why should John alone be deprived of this glory? Is it because he was loved more than the others? Rather the contrary; because he was loved most, for that reason the martyrdom that began from Christ will be brought to its conclusion in him. And just as the Church, beginning, was committed to the one who loved more, so at its end will it be committed to the one who was more loved. Thus, someone might ask; yet it seems incredible that, in such a length of time, the beloved discip-
disciple A should still be held in the chains of the body, and not have been released from this prison in the Lord, but should have been tossed for so very long a time in this desire for release. For it is not to be believed that John desired release any less than Paul, who says: *I desire to be released and to be with Christ*; as if the Lord could not grant beatitude to him as well, and to Enoch and Elijah, even before death—though not a beatitude equal to that which those who have been released will possess, yet one so great that he might hear and see those things which *eye has not seen, nor have they ascended into the heart of man*. That this can happen while the soul is still held in the body, he himself testifies, saying: *Whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not; God knows*. Add that for this very brief space of time, in eternity, the crown of martyrdom will shine, and having earned this by his future preaching, it will shine all the more brightly. Certainly, it is a wonder indeed that those who contend that he is dead are unable to explain in what death he fell asleep, nor do they claim that his relics have been seen anywhere. It is surely not probable that while the death is recounted and the relics are shown of so many saints of such great brilliance who have hidden themselves in the desert, yet for John, the most famous of the apostles—who is universally acknowledged to have lived in the light of Asia and (as they say) to have departed from this life there—neither his death is explained nor has his lifeless body ever been seen. But it is worth the effort to touch briefly and with the tips of one’s fingers (as they say) upon what is reported.
Almost everyone who has spoken on this matter B reports that, after John felt that his final day had arrived, he ordered his disciples to make a grave, into which he descended alive and fully clothed, and commanded them to depart and leave him lying in the grave, awaiting the Lord. They obeyed him, and returning the next day, they did not find him. Who, from this story, does not understand that, out of humility, he obtained this from the Lord, so that he would not be proclaimed as having been snatched up alive into heaven? For if he knew beforehand that he was about to die, why did he wish to be buried alive in this way, and not wait for his lifeless body to be buried in the tomb? I will say openly what I think. Unless we believe that he did this out of humility, as we have said, his wanting to be buried in this manner would appear childish. But that he was not found the next day, is that not an insoluble argument that he was translated alive from there to another place? In every way, yes. For which reasons, if no other cause worthy of the evangelical sacraments can be found as to why the Lord spoke this here concerning the life and death of John, and the evangelist reiterated it; if the final times will be in need of witnesses who might bear testimony that Christ has already come long ago; if the testimony of some apostle on this matter is more excellent; if it is certain that all the apostles fell asleep in martyrdom, [but] John was seen by no one as lifeless; if, moreover, it was said affirmatively by the Lord: *I will him to remain until I come*, and this cannot be rightly understood of [the] natural condition [of man]; if all the apostles and disciples of the Lord understood His words in such a way as to believe that he would not die until the final times; if, finally, John himself, very modestly C discussing the words and the matter, did not deny it: who would doubt that the most beloved disciple of Christ, the other son of the Virgin Mary due to his affection on account of [his] virginity, to whom she was commended as a mother to a son, who thundered the eternal generation of the Word to men, to whom the state of the Church militant was revealed—who, I ask, would doubt that this evangelist, this apostle, this prophet will also obtain the crown of martyrdom in the final times, so that both he who loved most, and he who was most loved by the Lord, might preside over the Church, one at its beginning, the other at its end? "So be it," they say; "but many doctors of the Church, both Oriental and Occidental, have written that he is already dead, and their authority is not to be opposed." Let it be so, indeed. For the Scripture is an abyss, as we said at the beginning, and some understand individual things in one way, and others in another, and all, receiving them, disagree, or contradict either the Evangelical Scripture or each other. Yet in this question, if the aforementioned passage of the Gospel and the reasons are alone considered, the articles of faith are not contradicted; the contradiction remains only in the matter itself. And I believe that if anyone, having cast aside all preoccupation and contention, considers the things themselves with an upright mind, he will come to our side. Indeed, I am more certain that when I have finished dealing with the third point, all will undoubtedly come to our side. For there is no authority of others compared to the authority of Scripture. Yet it is not right to accuse the Fathers if they wrote otherwise, if the passages of Scripture which we bring forward did not occur to them when they were writing. For we have nothing that we have not received, and the Spirit blows where He wills. Wherefore it is foolish, if you have received, to boast as if you had not received. But now, let us listen to the Scripture speaking on the matter proposed.
This same John, at the end of the ninth chapter D of the Apocalypse, writes that it was said to him: *You must prophesy again to peoples, and nations, and tongues, and many kings*. This, certainly, cannot be said of the Gospel, even though [the] Apocalypse was written by him after [the Gospel]. For no one will ever call the Gospel a prophecy, nor was it written in many tongues, but only in Greek. Nor does it matter whether it reached many tongues through translation. For translations are not of the authors, but of the translators. But he himself is said to be about to prophesy to many peoples, nations, and kings in many tongues. It is added that, immediately at the beginning of the tenth chapter, it is told to him concerning the two witnesses, Enoch and Elijah. Hence it is clear that it was not said to him divinely regarding the three witnesses at the same time, but separately: at the end of the ninth [chapter] concerning himself, and immediately in the tenth concerning the others, since all things are known to the Lord, and He never resists the honorable desires of men, but always pursues them by favoring them no less than He had anticipated them. He prophesied, therefore, once concerning the universal state of the Church militant, in the Apocalypse; but he must prophesy again in many tongues to many kings, to many peoples,
A for if it were in the Gospel, it would not have been published by him in many tongues, nor did he himself preach to many peoples, but to the Greeks; and not to all the Greeks, but to the Asiatics alone; nor to many kings, for Asia was then subject to the Romans. It is clear that he will prophesy before the coming of the Antichrist, when that wicked man will come who will deceive many with his prestidigitations, and who will also use violence against the faithful, and other things of this kind. Enoch and Elias will do this in like manner. For this reason, the Scripture says they are not dead, but snatched away in the body, so that the faithful of that time may be able to believe the more easily that these are the very ones who were divinely reserved for preaching and prophesying with great splendor in the end times. For this very reason, and for the same cause, the reservation of John is recorded both through the explained passage of the Gospel, and much more expressly, significantly, and clearly through the Apocalypse. Nor would these things have sufficed, but the martyrdom of the very sons of Zebedee is proclaimed by the evangelists Matthew and Mark with great praise. For when both brothers, thinking that the kingdom of Christ would be in this life, had asked of him that one might sit at his right hand and the other at his left, and to this end had even employed the prayers of their mother (as another of the evangelists' writings has left), they heard first that they were ignorant of what they were asking, and then they were interrogated thus: "Can you drink the cup that I am to drink?" They answered: "We can." And the Lord [said] concerning both: "My cup you shall drink." Here, no one doubts that "cup" is used to signify violent death, that is, a mystery; whether it was so used in the tongue of the Jews and by the custom of Scripture, or otherwise, it does not matter. Thus says Matthew; but Mark adds to these: "And with the baptism with which I am baptized, to be baptized." And when they had replied: "We can," he similarly concludes: "My cup indeed you shall drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized you shall be baptized," understanding by "baptism" here the shedding of one's own blood. This James and John did not understand, for they still cultivated earthly things, namely fishing and nets. Therefore, thinking it was said of drinking and of aquatic baptism, they answered immediately that they could. And the Lord [said]: "My cup B indeed you shall drink and with the baptism with which I am baptized you shall be baptized," that is, I will pour out my blood for you and for other men, but you also shall pour out your own blood for the truth of your preaching. James indeed had already drunk this cup and been baptized, having been slain by Herod; John, however, had not. Who therefore denies that he is to drink it? For Christ our Lord said concerning both brothers: "My cup indeed you shall drink, and with my baptism you shall be baptized," that is, infused with your own blood, you shall die for the truth. Nor does it matter if anyone says that he was a martyr in spirit. For the Lord did not say, "You shall be ready to drink my cup and to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized," but he openly affirms the thing itself and the shedding of blood: "You shall drink and you shall be baptized," he says. But if the authority of anyone, however learned, disturbs some, let them know that John Chrysostom, whose authority has not undeservedly always been great in the Church, when he explains that passage of Matthew, "My cup indeed you shall drink," uses these words: "I proclaim to you truly great goods, for you shall be possessed of the crown of martyrdom and with a violent death, just as I, you shall depart from life." Furthermore, if it is to be permitted to interpret what the Scripture clearly proclaims not as it is said, but to refer it to the spirit and intention, I fear that most things, if shaken, would easily fall, if weakened, collapse, would be torn down and reduced to nothing, and would prepare and open the widest way for the Antichrist. C It must be believed, therefore, that John is still alive and will die by martyrdom in the end times; and this is not only to be believed, but also to be preached. For he who keeps silent about the sacraments of the Scriptures will not escape with impunity, especially that which, although I may say it is a matter of doubt among all, is still being turned over. And unless the preaching of this were very useful to Christians, I would not have believed it to have been written with such care. It was written, therefore, so that we might both know and preach it, and leave to posterity that which is constant and firm, which the Lord handed down and commended to us both through the Gospels and through the Apocalypse, so that by this forewarning and doctrine of Scripture the faithful of the future time may either be warned and keep their faith, or, having been made inexcusable on all sides, may hold their peace.