Chapter XII.—Concerning the Words Ascribed to John by All the Four Evangelists Respectively.

25. Moreover, Matthew makes up his account of John in the following manner:—Now in those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judæa, and saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is He that is spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.287    Matt. iii. 1–3. Mark also and Luke agree in presenting this testimony of Isaiah as one referring to John.288    Mark i. 3; Luke iii. 4. Luke, indeed, has likewise recorded some other words from the same prophet, which follow those already cited, when he gives his narrative of John the Baptist. The evangelist John, again, mentions that John the Baptist did also personally advance this same testimony of Isaiah regarding himself.289    John i. 23. And, to a similar effect, Matthew here has given us certain words of John which are unrecorded by the other evangelists. For he speaks of him as “preaching in the wilderness of Judæa, and saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand;” which words of John have been omitted by the others. In what follows, however, in immediate connection with that passage in Matthew’s Gospel,—namely, the sentence, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight,”—the position is ambiguous; and it does not clearly appear whether this is something recited by Matthew in his own person, or rather a continuance of the words spoken by John himself, so as to lead us to understand the whole passage to be the reproduction of John’s own utterance, in this way: “Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; for this is He that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah,” and so on. For it ought to create no difficulty against this latter view, that he does not say, “For I am He that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah,” but employs the phraseology, “For this is He that was spoken of.” For that, indeed, is a mode of speech290    Reading solet quippe esse talis locutio, etc. Some codices give solet quippe esse quasi de aliis locutio = a mode of speech as if other persons were meant. which the evangelists Matthew and John are in the habit of using in reference to themselves. Thus Matthew has adopted the phrase, “He found291    Invenit. a man sitting at the receipt of custom,”292    Matt. ix. 9. instead of “He found me.” John, too, says, “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true,”293    John xxi. 24. instead of “I am,” etc., or, “My testimony is true.” Yea, our Lord Himself very frequently uses the words, “The Son of man,”294    Matt. ix. 6, xvi. 27. or, “The Son of God,”295    John v. 25. instead of saying, “I.” So, again, He tells us that “it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day,”296    Luke xxiv. 46. instead of saying, “It behoved me to suffer.” Consequently it is perfectly possible that the clause, “For this is He that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah,” which immediately follows the saying, “Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” may be but a continuation of what John the Baptist said of himself; so that only after these words cited from the speaker himself will Matthew’s own narrative proceed, being thus resumed: “And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair,” and so forth. But if this is the case, then it need not seem wonderful that, when asked what he had to say regarding himself, he should reply, according to the narrative of the evangelist John, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness,”297    John i. 23. as he had already spoken in the same terms when enjoining on them the duty of repentance. Accordingly, Matthew goes on to tell us about his attire and his mode of living, and continues his account thus: And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins, and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Mark also gives us this same statement almost in so many words. But the other two evangelists omit it.

26. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative, and says: Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized by him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance; and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. For now the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be hewn down and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He that is to come after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire: whose fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His floor, and gather His wheat into the garner; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.298    Matt. iii. 4–12. This whole passage is also given by Luke, who ascribes almost the same words to John. And where there is any variation in the words, there is nevertheless no real departure from the sense. Thus, for example, Matthew tells us that John said, “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father,” where Luke puts it thus: “And begin not to say, We have Abraham to our father.” Again, in the former we have the words, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance;” whereas the latter brings in the questions put by the multitudes as to what they should do, and represents John to have replied to them with a statement of good works as the fruits of repentance,—all which is omitted by Matthew. So, when Luke tells us what reply the Baptist made to the people when they were musing in their hearts concerning Him, and thinking whether He were the Christ, he gives us simply the words, “I indeed baptize you with water,” and does not add the phrase, “unto repentance.” Further, in Matthew the Baptist says, “But he that is to come after me is mightier than I;” while in Luke he is exhibited as saying, “But one mightier than I cometh.” In like manner, according to Matthew, he says, “whose shoes I am not worthy to bear;” but according to the other, his words are, “the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose.” The latter sayings are recorded also by Mark, although he makes no mention of those other matters. For, after noticing his attire and his mode of living, he goes on thus: “And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose: I have baptized you with water, but He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.” In the notice of the shoes, therefore, he differs from Luke in so far as he has added the words, “to stoop down;” and in the account of the baptism he differs from both these others in so far as he does not say, “and in fire,” but only, “in the Holy Spirit.” For as in Matthew, so also in Luke, the words are the same, and they are given in the same order, “He shall baptize you in the Spirit and in fire,”—with this single exception, that Luke has not added the adjective “Holy,”299    Greek and Latin Bibles now, however, add the word Holy in Luke. [The variation does not occur in early Greek mss.—R.] while Matthew has given it thus: “in the Holy Spirit and in fire.”300    Matt. iii. 3–12; Mark i. 6–8; Luke iii. 7–17. The statements made by these three are attested by the evangelist John, when he says: “John bears witness301    Perhibet. of Him, and cries, saying, This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me; for He was before me.”302    John i. 15. For thus he indicates that the thing was spoken by John at the time at which those other evangelists record him to have uttered the words. Thus, too, he gives us to understand that John was repeating and calling into notice again something which he had already spoken, when he said, “This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me.”

27. If now the question is asked, as to which of the words we are to suppose the most likely to have been the precise words used by John the Baptist, whether those recorded as spoken by him in Matthew’s Gospel, or those in Luke’s, or those which Mark has introduced, among the few sentences which he mentions to have been uttered by him, while he omits notice of all the rest, it will not be deemed worth while creating any difficulty for oneself in a matter of that kind, by any one who wisely understands that the real requisite in order to get at the knowledge of the truth is just to make sure of the things really meant, whatever may be the precise words in which they happen to be expressed. For although one writer may retain a certain order in the words, and another present a different one, there is surely no real contradiction in that. Nor, again, need there be any antagonism between the two, although one may state what another omits. For it is evident that the evangelists have set forth these matters just in accordance with the recollection each retained of them, and just according as their several predilections prompted them to employ greater brevity or richer detail on certain points, while giving, nevertheless, the same account of the subjects themselves.

28. Thus, too, in what more pertinently concerns the matter in hand, it is sufficiently obvious that, since the truth of the Gospel, conveyed in that word of God which abides eternal and unchangeable above all that is created, but which at the same time has been disseminated303    Dispensato. throughout the world by the instrumentality of temporal symbols, and by the tongues of men, has possessed itself of the most exalted height of authority, we ought not to suppose that any one of the writers is giving an unreliable account, if, when several persons are recalling some matter either heard or seen by them, they fail to follow the very same plan, or to use the very same words, while describing, nevertheless, the self-same fact. Neither should we indulge such a supposition, although the order of the words may be varied; or although some words may be substituted in place of others, which nevertheless have the same meaning; or although something may be left unsaid, either because it has not occurred to the mind of the recorder, or because it becomes readily intelligible from other statements which are given; or although, among other matters which (may not bear directly on his immediate purpose, but which) he decides on mentioning rather for the sake of the narrative, and in order to preserve the proper order of time, one of them may introduce something which he does not feel called upon to expound as a whole at length, but only to touch upon in part; or although, with the view of illustrating his meaning, and making it thoroughly clear, the person to whom authority is given to compose the narrative makes some additions of his own, not indeed in the subject-matter itself, but in the words by which it is expressed; or although, while retaining a perfectly reliable comprehension of the fact itself, he may not be entirely successful, however he may make that his aim, in calling to mind and reciting anew with the most literal accuracy the very words which he heard on the occasion. Moreover, if any one affirms that the evangelists ought certainly to have had that kind of capacity imparted to them by the power of the Holy Spirit, which would secure them against all variation the one from the other, either in the kind of words, or in their order, or in their number, that person fails to perceive, that just in proportion as the authority of the evangelists [under their existing conditions] is made pre-eminent, the credit of all other men who offer true statements of events ought to have been established on a stronger basis by their instrumentality: so that when several parties happen to narrate the same circumstance, none of them can by any means be rightly charged with untruthfulness if he differs from the other only in such a way as can be defended on the ground of the antecedent example of the evangelists themselves. For as we are not at liberty either to suppose or to say that any one of the evangelists has stated what is false, so it will be apparent that any other writer is as little chargeable with untruth, with whom, in the process of recalling anything for narration, it has fared only in a way similar to that in which it is shown to have fared with those evangelists. And just as it belongs to the highest morality to guard against all that is false, so ought we all the more to be ruled by an authority so eminent, to the effect that we should not suppose ourselves to come upon what must be false, when we find the narratives of any writers differ from each other in the manner in which the records of the evangelists are proved to contain variations. At the same time, in what most seriously concerns the faithfulness of doctrinal teaching, we should also understand that it is not so much in mere words, as rather truth in the facts themselves, that is to be sought and embraced; for as to writers who do not employ precisely the same modes of statement, if they only do not present discrepancies with respect to the facts and the sentiments themselves, we accept them as holding the same position in veracity.304    Or, as abiding by the same truth—in eadem veritate constitisse approbamus.

29. With respect, then, to those comparisons which I have instituted between the several narratives of the evangelists, what do these present that must be considered to be of a contradictory order? Are we to regard in this light the circumstance that one of them has given us the words, “whose shoes I am not worthy to bear,” whereas the others speak of the “unloosing of the latchet of the shoe”? For here, indeed, the difference seems to be neither in the mere words, nor in the order of the words, nor in any matter of simple phraseology, but in the actual matter of fact, when in the one case the “bearing of the shoe” is mentioned, and in the other the “unloosing of the shoe’s latchet.” Quite fairly, therefore, may the question be put, as to what it was that John declared himself unworthy to do—whether to bear the shoes, or to unloose the shoe’s latchet. For if only the one of these two sentences was uttered by him, then that evangelist will appear to have given the correct narrative who was in a position to record what was said; while the writer who has given the saying in another form, although he may not indeed have offered an [intentionally] false account of it, may at any rate be taken to have made a slip of memory, and will be reckoned thus to have stated one thing instead of another. It is only seemly, however, that no charge of absolute unveracity should be laid against the evangelists, and that, too, not only with regard to that kind of unveracity which comes by the positive telling of what is false, but also with regard to that which arises through forgetfulness. Therefore, if it is pertinent to the matter to deduce one sense from the words “to bear the shoes,” and another sense from the words “to unloose the shoe’s latchet,” what should one suppose the correct interpretation to be put on the facts, but that John did give utterance to both these sentences, either on two different occasions or in one and the same connection? For he might very well have expressed himself thus, “whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose, and whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:” and then one of the evangelists may have reproduced the one portion of the saying, and the rest of them the other; while, notwithstanding this, all of them have really given a veracious narrative. But further, if, when he spoke of the shoes of the Lord, John meant nothing more than to convey the idea of His supremacy and his own lowliness, then, whichever of the two sayings may have actually been uttered by him, whether that regarding the unloosing of the latchet of the shoes, or that respecting the bearing of the shoes, the self-same sense is still correctly preserved by any writer who, while making mention of the shoes in words of his own, has expressed at the same time the same idea of lowliness, and thus has not made any departure from the real mind [of the person of whom he writes]. It is therefore a useful principle, and one particularly worthy of being borne in mind, when we are speaking of the concord of the evangelists, that there is no divergence [to be supposed] from truth, even when they introduce some saying different from what was actually uttered by the person concerning whom the narrative is given, provided that, notwithstanding this, they set forth as his mind precisely what is also so conveyed by that one among them who reproduces the words as they were literally spoken. For thus we learn the salutary lesson, that our aim should be nothing else than to ascertain what is the mind and intention of the person who speaks.

CAPUT XII. De verbis Joannis inter omnes quatuor.

25. Matthaeus vero de Joanne ita contexit: In diebus autem illis venit Joannes Baptista praedicans in deserto Judaeae, et dicens: Poenitentiam agite, appropinquavit enim regnum coelorum. Hic est enim qui dictus est per Isaiam prophetam dicentem: Vox clamantis in deserto, Parate viam Domini, rectas facite semitas ejus (Id. III, 1-3). Marcus quoque et Lucas consentiunt hoc Isaiae testimonium esse de Joanne (Marc. I, 3, et Luc. III, 4). Nam plura verba etiam consequentia ex eodem propheta Lucas commemoravit, cum de Baptista Joanne narraret. Joannes autem evangelista ipsum Joannem Baptistam de seipso idem testimonium Isaiae protulisse commemorat (Joan. I, 23): sicut nunc Matthaeus dixit quaedam Joannis verba, quae alii non dixerunt. Praedicans, inquit, in deserto Judaeae, et dicens: Poenitentiam agite, appropinquavit enim regnum coelorum: haec verba Joannis alii praetermiserunt. Jam vero quod sequitur Matthaeus et adjungit, 1089Hic est enim qui dictus est per prophetam Isaiam dicentem: Vox clamantis in deserto, Parate viam Domini, rectas facite semitas ejus, ambigue positum est, nec elucet utrum ex persona sua idem Matthaeus hoc commemoraverit, an adhuc verba ejusdem Joannis secutus adjunxerit, ut totum hoc Joannes dixisse intelligatur, Poenitentiam agite, appropinquavit enim regnum coelorum: hic est enim qui dictus est per Isaiam prophetam, et caetera. Neque enim hoc movere debet quia non ait, Ego sum enim, qui dictus sum per Isaiam prophetam; sed ait, Hic est enim, qui dictus est. Solet quippe esse talis locutio et ipsorum Evangelistarum Matthaei et Joannis. Nam et Matthaeus dixit, Invenit hominem sedentem in telonio (Matth. IX, 9); nec dixit, Invenit me: et Joannes, Hic est, inquit, discipulus qui testimonium perhibet de his, et scripsit haec; et scimus quia verum est testimonium ejus (Joan. XXI, 24); non dixit, Ego sum, aut, Verum est testimonium meum. Dominus autem ipse saepissime dicit, Filius hominis (Matth. IX, 6, et XVI, 27), aut Filius Dei (Joan. V, 25); et non dicit, Ego: et, Oportebat, inquit, Christum pati et resurgere a mortuis tertio die (Luc. XXIV, 46); non ait, Oportebat me pati. Potuit ergo et Joannes Baptista, cum dixisset, Agite poenitentiam, appropinquavit enim regnum coelorum, de seipso adjungere quae sequuntur, Hic est enim qui dictus est per Isaiam prophetam, etc., ut post verba ejus Matthaeus ita narrationem contexat, Ipse autem Joannes habebat vestimentum de pilis camelorum, etc. Quod si ita est, non mirum si et interrogatus quid diceret de seipso, sicut narrat Joannes Evangelista, Ego, ait, vox clamantis in deserto (Joan. I, 23); sicut jam dixerat, praecipiens ut agerent poenitentiam. De vestitu ergo ejus et victu ita Matthaeus sequitur, dicens: Ipse autem Joannes habebat vestimentum de pilis camelorum, et zonam pelliceam circa lumbos ejus. Esca autem ejus erat locustae et mel silvestre. Hoc et Marcus dicit pene totidem verbis, caeteri autem duo tacent.

26. Sequitur ergo Matthaeus, et dicit: Tunc exibat ad eum Jerosolyma, et omnis Judaea, et omnis regio circa Jordanem, et baptizabantur in Jordane ab eo, confitentes peccata sua. Videns autem multos Pharisaeorum et Saducaeorum venientes ad baptismum suum, dixit eis: Progenies viperarum, quis demonstravit vobis fugere a futura ira? Facite ego fructum dignum poenitentiae: et ne velitis dicere intra vos, Patrem habemus Abraham; dico enim vobis, quoniam potest Deus ex lapidibus istis suscitare filios Abrahae. Jam enim securis ad radicem arborum posita est: omnis ergo arbor quae non facit fructum bonum, excidetur, et in ignem mittetur. Ego quidem vos baptizo in aqua in poenitentiam: qui autem post me venturus est, fortior me est, cujus non sum dignus calceamenta portare; ipse vos baptizabit in Spiritu sancto et igni: cujus ventilabrum in manu sua, et permundabit aream suam, et congregabit triticum suum in horreum, paleas autem comburet igni inexstinguibili. Haec omnia dicit et Lucas, eadem pene verba Joannis exprimens. Et ubi aliquid varium est in verbis, ab eadem tamen 1090 sententia non receditur: velut cum dicit Matthaeus Joannem dixisse, Et ne velitis dicere intra vos, Patrem habemus Abraham; ille autem, Et ne coeperitis dicere, Patrem habemus Abraham. Iste, Ego quidem vos baptizo in aqua in poenitentiam; ille interponit interrogationem turbarum, quid facerent, et eis respondentem Joannem de bonis operibus, tanquam de fructibus poenitentiae, quod Matthaeus omisit: deinde in cordibus suis cogitantibus de illo utrum ipse esset Christus eum dicit respondisse, Ego quidem aqua baptizo vos; non dixit, in poenitentiam. Deinde Matthaeus, Qui autem, inquit, post me venturus est, fortior me est: ille vero, Venit autem, inquit, fortior me. Item Matthaeus, Cujus non sum, inquit, dignus calceamenta portare: ille autem, Cujus non sum dignus solvere corrigiam calceamentorum ejus. Quod et Marcus dicit, cum caetera taceat: nam post commemoratum habitum et victum ejus, secutus ait, Et praedicabat dicens: Venit fortior me post me, cujus non sum dignus procumbens solvere corrigiam calceamentorum ejus. Ego baptizavi vos aqua, ille vero baptizabit vos Spiritu sancto. De calceamentis ergo hoc a Luca distat, quod addidit, procumbens. De baptismo autem hoc ab utroque, quia non dixit, et igni, sed tantum, in Spiritu sancto. Sicut enim Matthaeus, ita et Lucas dixit, et eodem ordine, Ipse vos baptizabit in Spiritu et igni: nisi quod Lucas non addidit, sancto, , sicut Matthaeus dixit, in Spiritu sancto et igni (Matth. III, 3-12, Marc. I, 6-8, et Luc. III, 7-17). His tribus attestatur Joannes evangelista, cum dicit: Joannes testimonium perhibet de ipso, et clamat dicens, Hic erat quem dixi, Qui post me venit, ante me factus est, quia prior me erat (Joan. I, 15). Sic enim ostendit, tunc eum hoc dixisse, quando eum illi dixisse commemorant; repetisse autem et commemorasse quod jam dixisset, cum ait, Hic erat quem dixi, qui post me venit.

27. Si ergo quaeritur quae verba potius Joannes Baptista dixerit, utrum quae Matthaeus, an quae Lucas eum dixisse commemorat, an quae Marcus in ipsis paucis quae illum dixisse posuit, tacens caetera; nullo modo hinc laborandum esse judicat, qui prudenter intelligit ipsas sententias esse necessarias cognoscendae veritati, quibuslibet verbis fuerint explicatae. Quod enim alius alium verborum ordinem tenet, non est utique contrarium. Neque illud contrarium est, si alius dicit quod alius praetermittit. Ut enim quisque meminerat, et ut cuique cordi erat vel brevius vel prolixius, eamdem tamen explicare sententiam, ita eos explicasse manifestum est.

28. Et in hoc satis apparet quod ad rem maxime pertinet, quoniam veritas Evangelii, verbo Dei, quod supra omnem creaturam aeternum atque incommutabile permanet, per creaturam temporalibus signis et linguis hominum dispensato, summum culmen auctoritatis obtinuit; non nos debere arbitrari mentiri quemquam, si pluribus rem quam audierunt vel viderunt reminiscentibus, non eodem modo atque eisdem verbis, eadem tamen res fuerit indicata; aut sive mutetur 1091 ordo verborum, sive alia pro aliis quae tamen idem valeant verba proferantur; sive aliquid vel quod recordanti non occurrit, vel quod ex aliis quae dicuntur possit intelligi, minus dicatur; sive aliorum quae magis dicere statuit narrandorum gratia, ut congruus temporis modus sufficiat, aliquid sibi non totum explicandum, sed ex parte tangendum quisque suscipiat; sive ad illuminandam declarandamque sententiam, nihil quidem rerum, verborum tamen aliquid addat, cui auctoritas narrandi concessa est; sive rem bene tenens non assequatur, quamvis id conetur, memoriter etiam verba quae audivit ad integrum enuntiare. Quisquis autem dicit Evangelistis certe per Spiritus sancti potentiam id debuisse concedi, ut nec in genere verborum, nec in ordine, nec in numero discreparent; non intelligit, quanto amplius Evangelistarum excellit auctoritas, tanto magis per eos fuisse firmandam caeterorum hominum vera loquentium securitatem: ut pluribus eamdem rem forte narrantibus, nullo modo quisquam eorum de mendacio recte arguatur, si ab altero ita discrepaverit, ut possit etiam Evangelistarum exemplo praecedente defendi. Cum enim fas non sit, Evangelistarum aliquem mentitum fuisse, vel existimare vel dicere; sic apparebit nec eum fuisse mentitum, cui recordanti tale aliquid acciderit, quale illis accidisse monstratur. Et quanto magis ad mores optimos pertinet cavere mendacium, tanto magis tam eminente auctoritate regi debebamus, ne putaremus esse mendacia, cum sic inter se variari aliquorum narrationes inveniremus, ut inter Evangelistas variatae sunt. Simul etiam, quod ad doctrinam fidelem maxime pertinet, intelligeremus non tam verborum quam rerum quaerendam vel amplectendam esse veritatem, quando eos qui non eadem locutione utuntur, cum rebus sententiisque non discrepant, in eadem veritate constitisse approbamus.

29. Quid ergo in his quae de narrationibus Evangelistarum collata proposui, putandum est esse contrarium? An quod alius dixit, cujus non sum dignus calceamenta portare; alii vero, corrigiam calceamenti solvere? Non enim verbis, aut verborum ordine, aut aliquo genere locutionis, sed etiam re ipsa videtur aliud esse calceamenta portare, aliud corrigiam calceamenti solvere. Merito ergo quaeri potest quid Joannes dixerit non se dignum esse; utrum calceamenta portare, an corrigiam calceamenti solvere. Si enim alterum horum dixit, ille verum videtur narrasse qui hoc potuit narrare quod dixit; qui autem aliud, etsi non est mentitus, certe vel oblitus, aliud pro alio dixisse putabitur. Omnem autem falsitatem abesse ab Evangelistis decet, non solum eam quae mentiendo promitur, sed etiam eam quae obliviscendo. Itaque si ad rem pertinet, aliquid aliud intelligere ex eo quod dictum est, calceamenta portare; et aliquid aliud ex eo quod dictum est, corrigiam calceamenti solvere: quid aliud accipiendum recte existimaveris, nisi Joannem utrumque dixisse, sive aliud alio tempore, sive contextim? Potuit enim sic dicere, Cujus non sum dignus corrigiam calceamenti solvere, nec calceamenta portare; 1092 ut unus Evangelistarum hinc aliud, alii vero aliud, omnes tamen verum narraverint. Si autem nihil intendit Joannes, cum de calceamentis Domini diceret, nisi excellentiam ejus et humilitatem suam; quodlibet horum dixerit, sive de solvenda corrigia calceamentorum, sive de portandis calceamentis, eamdem tamen sententiam tenuit, quisquis etiam verbis suis per calceamentorum commemorationem eamdem significationem humilitatis expressit, unde ab eadem voluntate non aberravit. Utilis igitur modus et memoriae maxime commendandus, cum de convenientia dicimus Evangelistarum, non esse mendacium, cum quisque etiam dicens aliquid aliud quod etiam ille non dixit de quo aliquid narrat, voluntatem tamen ejus hanc explicat, quam etiam ille qui ejus verba commemorat. Ita enim salubriter discimus, nihil aliud esse quaerendum, quam quid velit ille qui loquitur.