Chapter V.—Of the Statement Which John Made Concerning the Man Who Cast Out Devils Although He Did Not Belong to the Circle of the Disciples; And of the Lord’s Reply, “Forbid Them Not, for He that is Not Against You is on Your Part;” And of the Question Whether that Response Does Not Contradict the Other Sentence, in Which He Said, “He that is Not with Me is Against Me.”

6. Mark proceeds as follows: “In those days again,1106    Iterum, inserted. [The Greek text, according to the best mss. reads: “when there was again a great multitude.” So Revised Version. Augustin’s text is: “In those days again, when there was a great multitude.”—R.] the multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat;” and so on, down to the words, “John answered Him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, and he followeth not us; and we forbade him.1107    The words, “because he followeth not us,” are omitted. [So the Vulgate and old Latin text; but the best Greek mss. omit the clause, “and he followeth not us,” inserting the last clause, “because he followeth not us,” as in Luke ix. 49.—R.] But Jesus said, Forbid him not; for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me; for he that is not against you is on your side.”1108    Mark viii. 1-ix. 39. Luke relates this in similar terms, with this exception, that he does not insert the clause, “for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me.” Consequently, there is nothing here to raise the question of any discrepancy between these two. We must see, however, whether this sentence must be supposed to stand in opposition to another of the Lord’s sayings, namely, the one to this effect, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.”1109    Matt. xii. 30. For how was this man not against Him, who was not with Him, and of whom John reported that he did not unite with them in following Him, if he is against Him who is not with Him? Or if the man was against Him, how does He say to the disciples, “Forbid him not; for he that is not against you is on your side”? Will any one aver that it is of consequence to observe that here He says to the disciples, “He that is not against you is on your side;” whereas, in the other passage, He spoke of Himself in the terms, “He that is not with me is against me”? That would make it appear, indeed, as if it were possible for one not to be with Him, although he was associated with those disciples of His who are, so to speak, His very members. Besides, how would the truth of such sayings as these stand then: “He that receiveth you receiveth me;”1110    Matt. x. 40. and “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me”?1111    Matt. xxv. 40. Or is it possible for one not to be against Him, although he may be against His disciples? Nay; for what shall we make then of words like these: “He that despiseth you, despiseth me;”1112    Luke x. 16. and, “Inasmuch as ye did it not unto the least of mine, ye did it not unto me;”1113    Matt. xxv. 45. and, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me,”1114    Acts ix. 4.—although it was His disciples that Saul was persecuting? But, in good truth, the sense intended to be conveyed is just this, that, so far as a man is not with Him, so far is he against Him; and again, that, so far as a man is not against Him, so far is he with Him. For example, take this very case of the individual who was working miracles in the name of Christ, and yet was not in the company of Christ’s disciples: so far as this man was working miracles in His name, so far was he with them, and so far he was not against them.1115    [The correct reading in Luke ix. 50: “For he that is not against you is for you,” gives the key to the meaning. See commentaries in loco.—R.] But, inasmuch as they had prohibited the man from doing a thing in which, so far forth, he was really with them, the Lord said to them, “Forbid him not.” For what they ought to have forbidden was what was outside their fellowship, so that they might bring him over to the unity of the Church, and not a thing like this, in which he was at one with them, that is to say, so far as he commended the name of their Master and Lord in the casting out of devils. And this is the principle on which the Catholic Church acts, not condemning common sacraments among heretics; for in these they are with us, and they are not against us. But she condemns and forbids division and separation, or any sentiment adverse to peace and truth. For therein they are against us, just because they are not with us in that, and because, not gathering with us, they are consequently scattering.

CAPUT V.

De quo suggessit Joannes, quod in nomine ejus ejiceret daemonia non sociatus discipulis, et dixit, Nolite prohibere eos: qui enim contra vos non est, pro vobis est; quomodo non repugnet illi sententiae ubi ait, Qui non est mecum, adversus me est.

6. Sequitur Marcus: «In illis diebus iterum cum turba multa esset , nec haberent quod manducarent,» etc., usque ad illud ubi ait, «Respondit illi Joannes dicens: Magister, vidimus quemdam in nomine tuo ejicientem daemonia, qui non sequitur nobiscum, et prohibuimus eum. Jesus autem ait: Nolite prohibere eum: nemo est enim qui faciat virtutem in nomine meo, et possit cito male loqui de me; qui enim non est adversum vos, pro vobis est» (Marc. VIII, 1; IX, 39). Hoc Lucas similiter narrat (Luc. IX, 49, 50), nisi quod ipse non dicit, «Nemo est enim qui faciat virtutem in nomine meo, et possit cito male loqui de me:» nulla est ergo inter eos quaestio cujusquam repugnantiae. Sed videndum est ne hoc illi sententiae Domini putetur contrarium ubi ait, Qui mecum non est, adversus me est; et qui mecum non colligit, spargit (Matth. XII, 30, et Luc. XI, 23). Quomodo enim iste non erat adversus eum, qui cum illo non erat, de quo Joannes suggessit quod cum illis eum non sequebatur, si adversus illum est qui non est cum illo? aut si adversus illum erat, quomodo dicit discipulis, Nolite prohibere: qui enim non est adversus vos, pro vobis est? An hoc interesse aliquis dicet, quia hic discipulis ait, Qui non est adversus vos, pro vobis est; ibi autem de seipso locutus est, Qui mecum non est, adversus me est? Quasi vero possit cum illo non esse qui discipulis ejus tanquam membris ejus sociatur: alioquin quomodo verum erit, Qui vos recipit, me recipit (Matth. X, 40); et, Quando uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis (Id. XXV, 40)? aut potest etiam non esse adversus eum, qui fuerit adversus discipulos ejus? Nam ubi erit illud, Qui vos spernit, me spernit (Luc. X, 16); et, Quando uni ex minimis meis non fecistis, neque mihi fecistis (Matth. XXV, 45); et, Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris (Act. IX, 4)? cum discipulos ejus persequeretur? Sed nimirum hoc vult intelligi, in tantum cum illo non esse aliquem, in quantum est adversus illum; et in tantum adversus illum non esse, in quantum cum illo est. Exempli gratia, sicut iste ipse qui in nomine Christi virtutes faciebat et in societate discipulorum Christi non erat, in quantum operabatur virtutes in illius nomine, in tantum cum ipsis erat, et adversus eos non erat; in quantum vero eorum societati non adhaerebat, in tantum cum ipsis non erat, et adversus eos erat. Sed quia illi hoc eum facere prohibuerant, in quo cum ipsis 1220 erat, dixit eis Dominus, Nolite prohibere. Illud enim prohibere debuerunt, quod extra eorum erat societatem, ut illi unitatem Ecclesiae suaderent; non illud in quo cum illis erat, nomen scilicet Magistri et Domini eorum in daemoniorum expulsione commendans. Sicut catholica Ecclesia facit, non improbans in haereticis Sacramenta communia; in his enim nobiscum sunt, et adversus nos non sunt: sed improbat et prohibet divisionem ac separationem, vel aliquam adversam paci veritatique sententiam; in hoc enim adversus nos sunt, quia in hoc nobiscum non sunt, et nobiscum non colligunt, et ideo spargunt.