If a man receive circumcision on the sabbath day, that the law of Moses may not be broken; are you angry at me because I have healed the whole man on the sabbath day?

“Circumcision was given for three reasons; first, as a sign of Abraham’s great faith; secondly, to distinguish the Jews from other nations; thirdly, that the receiving of it on the organ of virility, might admonish us to observe chastity both of body and mind. And circumcision then possessed the same virtue that baptism does now; only that the gate was not yet open. Our Lord concludes: If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at Me because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?”

“After the Evangelist has dealt with the urging by which Christ's kinsmen were inducing him to go up into Judea, and has set down Christ's reply, here he consequently deals with his going up; and first the delay of Christ's going up is set down; second, its order; third, the manner of the ascent. The delay indeed is set down when he says "when he had said these things," namely the things he had answered, "he himself remained in Galilee," not going up with his kinsmen for the feast day, so that his word might be verified, which he had said: "I will not go up to this feast day." Numbers 23:19: "God is not as man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed." But its order is set down when he says "but when his brethren," that is his kinsmen, "had gone up, then he himself also went up," etc. But this seems to be against what he had said above: "but I will not go up"; since the Apostle says, 2 Corinthians 1:19: "Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us... was not in him 'yes' and 'no,' but 'yes' was in him." I answer, saying first, that the feast of Tabernacles (Scenopegia) was celebrated for seven days, as has been said. But the Lord had said above: "but I will not go up to this feast," that is, to the beginning of the feast. But what is said here, "to the feast day," must be understood as to the intervening days, whence there follows: "but now, the feast day being in the midst." And thus it is clear that Christ's deed is not contrary to his word. Second, as Augustine says, these men wanted Christ to go up into Judea in order to seek temporal glory, and so he said to them: "I will not go up to this feast," in the manner in which you wish. But he himself went up to the feast, as one about to teach the crowds and instruct them concerning everlasting glory. Third, according to Chrysostom, because he had said above "I will not go up to this feast day," to suffer and die, as they themselves wished; and yet he himself went up to the feast, not in order to suffer, but in order to instruct others. The manner of the ascent is shown to be not in the open, but as it were in secret. And of this there is a threefold reason. One, according to Chrysostom, lest, by laying bare his divinity too much, his incarnation should be less certain, as has been said above, and so as to take away the shame of hiding, for just men, when they cannot publicly restrain their persecutors; and therefore he says "as it were in secret," to show that this was done by dispensation. Isaiah 45:15: "Truly you are a hidden God." Another reason, according to Augustine, namely so that it might be understood that Christ is hidden in the figures of the Old Testament. Isaiah 8:17: "I have waited for the Lord, who hides his face," that is, his manifest knowledge, "from the house of Jacob"; whence also "even to this present day a veil is placed over their heart," as is said in 2 Corinthians 3:15. Therefore all the things that were said to that ancient people were shadows of the good things to come, as is said in Hebrews 10:1. Therefore, so as to show that even the feast itself was a figure, he therefore went up in secret. Scenopegia, as has been said, was the feast of tents. He therefore celebrates this feast who understands himself to be a pilgrim in this world. Another reason is, so as to teach us that we ought to hide the good things we do, not seeking the favor of men, nor desiring the pomps of attending crowds, according to that saying, Matthew 6:1: "Take heed that you do not do your righteousness before men, in order to be seen by them." Consequently, when he says "the Jews therefore were seeking him at the feast day," he sets down the occasion of manifesting the origin of spiritual teaching, and he sets down two occasions: one caused by the dissension of the crowds, the other from their admiration, at the point "but now, the feast day being in the midst, Jesus went up into the temple," etc. The dissension of the crowds concerned their opinion about Christ; whence concerning this he does three things. First he sets forth that in which all agreed; second, that in which they differed, at the point "and there was much murmuring in the crowd about him"; third, whose opinion prevailed among them, at the point "yet no one spoke openly of him for fear of the Jews." Now all agreed in this, that they were seeking him at the feast day, and were saying: "Where is he?" It is clear that out of much hatred and enmity they did not even wish to name him. Genesis 37:4: "They hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him." But they differed, because some were seeking him out of a desire to learn, according to that saying, Psalm 68:33: "Seek him, and your soul shall live"; others were seeking him out of a desire to do him harm, according to that saying, Psalm 39:14: "They seek my soul, to take it away." And therefore "there was much murmuring" in the crowd, concerning the contention that was about him in the crowd. And although "murmur" is of neuter gender, yet Jerome puts it in the masculine, because ancient grammar had this usage, or so as to show that divine Scripture is not subject to the rules of Priscian. And there was dissension, because "some," from the crowd, namely those who had an upright heart, "said," of Christ, "that he is good." Psalm 72:1: "How good is God to Israel, to those who are upright of heart!" Lamentations 3:25: "The Lord is good to those who hope in him, to the soul that seeks him." "Others," namely those who were ill-disposed, "said, No," namely he is not good. But by this it is given to be understood that the multitude considered him good; but the chief priests considered him evil, and therefore they say, "but he seduces the crowds." Luke 23:2: "We have found this man subverting our nation"; Matthew 27:63: "We have remembered that that seducer said," etc. Now it must be known that to seduce is to lead aside. But a man can be led aside either from truth or from falsehood; and in either way someone can be called a seducer. Either insofar as he leads aside from the truth; and in this way it does not fit Christ, because he himself is the truth, etc., below, John 14:6. Or from falsehood; and in this way Christ is called a seducer; Jeremiah 20:7: "You have seduced me, O Lord, and I have been seduced; you were stronger than me, and you have prevailed." And would that we were all called and were such seducers, as Augustine says. But he is called a seducer more properly who seduces and deceives from the truth: because he is said to be led aside who is drawn away from the common way. But truth is the common way; whereas heresy and the way of the wicked are certain byways. But the opinion of the wicked, namely the chief priests, prevailed, whence there follows "yet no one spoke openly." And this, because the crowds were held in check by fear of the chief priests; because, as is said below, John 9:22, if anyone should confess him to be the Christ, he was put out of the synagogue. From which is clear the malice of those who ruled, by which they lay in wait for Christ, and of those who were subject, namely the people, because they did not have freedom to say what they felt. Consequently, when he says "but now, the feast day being in the midst, Jesus went up into the temple," the second occasion of manifesting the teaching is set down, which is taken from the admiration of the crowds: and first the matter of the admiration is set down; second, the admiration itself; and third, the reason for the admiration. Now the matter of the admiration is Christ's teaching; whence concerning this both the time and the place are set down. The time, when he says "but now, the feast day being in the midst," that is, when as many days of that feast remained as had passed; whence, since the feast was celebrated for seven days, this is said to have been on the fourth day. And indeed in the fact that he hid himself, there is an indication of Christ's humanity, and an instruction for our virtue, as has been said; but the fact that he made himself manifest, and they could not restrain him, is a showing-forth of his divinity. Now he went up in the middle time of the feast for this reason, that at the beginning of the feast all are more attentive to those things that belong to the feast — the good indeed to the worship of God, but others to vanities and gains. But around the middle of the time, once the things belonging to the feast are dispatched, they are more prepared for teaching. Therefore, so as to find them more attentive and more prepared for teaching, he did not go up in the first days. Likewise also because this fits the order of Christ's teaching: because he came, not at the end of the world, nor at the beginning, but in the middle of time, to instruct men concerning the kingdom of God, according to that saying, Habakkuk 3:2: "In the midst of the years you will make it known." Now the place of the teaching is shown when he says "in the temple," where he taught for two reasons: namely, so as to show that he was teaching the truth, which they could not slander, and which was necessary for all; below, John 18:20: "I have spoken nothing in secret"; second, because the temple, since it is a sacred place, is fitting for Christ's most holy teaching. Isaiah 2:3: "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths." But what Christ taught, the Evangelist passes over; because, as has been said, the Evangelists do not express all the deeds and words of the Lord, but those which produced commotion and contradiction among the people. And therefore here he makes mention of the commotion of the people arising from the teaching itself: namely because those who had before said "he seduces the crowds" were afterward, from the teaching itself, moved to admiration. And therefore, consequently, when he says "and the Jews marveled," their admiration is set down. Nor is it a wonder, because this is said in Psalm 118:129: "Wonderful are your testimonies." For the words of Christ are the words of divine wisdom. But the reason for the admiration is added when he says, "How does this man know letters, since he has not learned?" For they knew Jesus to be the son of a poor woman; and he was thought to be the son of a carpenter, who, living by his own labor, would not have applied himself to the study of letters, but rather to manual work; according to that saying, Psalm 87:16: "I am poor, and in labors from my youth." And therefore, when they hear him teaching and disputing, they marvel, saying, "How does this man know letters, since he has not learned?" A similar thing is found in Matthew 13:54: "Whence has this man this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son?" Having set down the place and occasions of manifesting the origin of spiritual teaching, here he consequently manifests the origin of that teaching itself, and first he shows that the origin of spiritual teaching is from God; second he invites them to receive it, at the point "on the last day of the great feast Jesus stood and cried out." Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows the origin of the teaching; second, the origin of the teacher, at the point "some of the Jerusalemites therefore said," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows the origin of the teaching; second he excludes an objection, at the point "did not Moses give you the law?" Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows the origin of the teaching; second he proves it, at the point "if anyone is willing to do his will, he shall know concerning the teaching." He says therefore, "Jesus answered them and said," as if to say: you marvel whence I have knowledge; but I say, that "my teaching is not mine." If he had said "the teaching that I speak is not mine," there would be no question; but the fact that he says "mine is not mine" seems to imply a contradiction. But this is resolved, because this can be said in many ways. Whence his teaching can in one way be called his, and in another way not his. For if it be understood of Christ the Son of God, then, since the teaching of anyone is nothing other than his word, but the Son of God is the Father's Word, it follows therefore that the Father's teaching is the Son himself. Now the same Word is his own by identity of substance. For what is yours, if not you yourself? But it is not his own by origin. For what is not yours more than you, if you belong to someone, whatever you are? As Augustine says. This therefore, briefly, seems to be what he said: "my teaching is not mine"; as if he were saying: I am not from myself. In which the Sabellian heresy is confounded, who dared to say that he who is the Son is the same as he who is the Father. Or: "my teaching," which I pronounce by a created word, "is not mine, but his who sent me," the Father's; that is, it is not mine from myself, but from the Father, because even the Son has knowledge, through eternal generation, from the Father; Matthew 2:27: "all things have been delivered to me by my Father." But if it be understood of Christ the Son of Man, then he says "my teaching," which I have according to my created soul, and utter with the mouth of my body, "is not mine," that is, it is not mine from myself, but from God: because every truth, by whomsoever it is spoken, is from the Holy Spirit. Thus therefore, according to Augustine, in Book I On the Trinity, in one respect he called the teaching his own, and in another respect not his own: according to the form of God it is his own, according to the form of a servant it is not his own. From which we have an example, that we should acknowledge all our knowledge, with thanksgiving, as being from God; 1 Corinthians 4:7: "What do you have that you have not received? But if you have received it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" Consequently, when he says "if anyone is willing to do his will, he shall know concerning the teaching," etc., he proves that his teaching is from God: and this in two ways. First from the judgment of those who rightly perceive; second from his own intention, at the point "he who speaks from himself seeks his own glory." Concerning the first it must be known, that one must stand by the judgment of him as to whether someone works well in some art, who is experienced in that art: just as, whether someone speaks French well, one must stand by the judgment of him who is skilled in the French language. According to this, then, the Lord says: one must stand by the judgment of him, as to whether my teaching is from God, who is experienced in divine matters, for such a one can rightly judge concerning these things; 1 Corinthians 2:14: "the natural man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God, but the spiritual man judges all things." And therefore he says: because you are alienated from God, therefore you do not know concerning the teaching whether it be from God. "But if anyone is willing to do his," that is God's, "will," this one can know whether this teaching is from God, "or whether I speak from myself." Now he indeed speaks from himself who says what is false; because, as is said below, John 8:44, "when he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own." Or otherwise, according to Chrysostom. For the will of God is peace, charity, and our humility; whence Matthew 5:9 it is said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." But the zeal of contention frequently perverts the mind of man, to such an extent that he considers the true to be false. Whence, once the spirit of contention is laid aside, the certainty of truth is more rightly held; Job 6:29: "Answer, I beseech you, without contention, and speaking that which is just, judge." And therefore the Lord says: if anyone wishes to judge rightly concerning my teaching, let him do his will; that is, let him lay aside the anger, envy, and hatred which he has toward me without cause. And there is nothing to prevent him from knowing whether it be from God, or whether I speak from myself, that is, that they are the words of God which I speak. Or otherwise, according to Augustine. The will of God is that we do his works, just as it is the will of the master of a household that his laborers do his work. Now the work of God is that we believe in him whom he himself has sent; above, John 6:29: "this is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." Therefore he says, "if anyone is willing to do his," namely God's, "will," that is, to believe in me, this one will know whether my teaching is from God. Isaiah 7:9, according to another reading: "unless you believe, you shall not understand." Consequently, when he says "he who speaks from himself seeks his own glory," he proves the same thing from his own intention. And he sets down a twofold intention, by which is understood a twofold origin of teaching. Now it has been said that some speak from themselves, but others speak not from themselves. Now whoever strives to speak the truth speaks not from himself. All knowledge of truth is from another: either by way of instruction, as from a teacher; or by way of revelation, as from God; or by way of discovery, as from the things themselves, because, as is said in Romans 1:20: "the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." Thus therefore, in whichever of these ways some knowledge is had, it is not from the man himself. But he speaks from himself who has received the things he says neither from things nor from human teaching, but from his own heart; Jeremiah 23:16: "they speak the vision of their own heart"; Ezekiel 13:3: "Woe to the foolish prophets who prophesy out of their own heart." Thus therefore, to fabricate something from oneself is for the sake of human glory: because, as Chrysostom says, whoever wishes to teach some doctrine of his own wants this for no other reason than that he may acquire glory. And this is what the Lord says, proving that his teaching is from God. "He who speaks from himself," apart from the sure knowledge of truth which is from another, this one seeks his own glory, for the sake of which, and for the sake of pride, heresies and false opinions are introduced. And this befits Antichrist; 2 Thessalonians 2:4: "who opposes and is lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshiped." "But he who seeks the glory of him who sent him," as I seek — below, John 8:50: "I do not seek my own glory" — "this one is truthful, and there is no injustice in him." I am truthful, because my teaching contains the truth; there is no injustice in me, because I do not usurp another's glory. And, as Augustine says, he offered us a great example of humility, in that, being found in the condition of a man, he seeks the glory of the Father, not his own: which you, O man, ought to do. When you do something good, you seek your own glory; when you do something evil, you contrive a slander against God. But it is clear that he was not seeking his own glory; because if he had not been an adversary to the chief priests, they would not have persecuted him. Thus therefore Christ, and whoever seeks the glory of God, has indeed in his intellect knowledge — Matthew 20:16: "Master, we know that you are truthful" — and therefore he says here "this one is truthful"; but in effect a right intention, whence he says "and there is no injustice in him." For injustice is that a man usurp to himself what belongs to another; but glory belongs properly to God alone: whoever therefore seeks glory for himself is unjust. Consequently, when he says "did not Moses give you the law?" he excludes an objection. For someone could say to Christ, that his teaching was not from God for this reason, that he broke the Sabbath, according to that saying below, John 9:16: "this man is not from God, who does not keep the Sabbath." And this he intends to exclude; whence concerning this he does three things. First he excuses himself, arguing from the side of the accusers; second their wicked response is shown, at the point "the crowd answered," etc.; third he excuses himself by an argument, at the point "Jesus answered and said to them: I have done one work, and you all marvel." He says therefore: granted, as you say, that my teaching is not from God, because I do not keep the law, breaking the Sabbath; nevertheless you have no cause for accusing, since you are in a like fault. Whence he says, "did not Moses give you," that is, your people, "the law? And yet none of you keeps," that is, observes, "the law"; Acts 7:53: "you received the law by the ordinance of angels, and you have not kept it." Whence also Peter, Acts 15:10: "this is a burden which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear." If therefore you do not keep the law, why, on account of a transgression of it, do you wish to kill me? For you do not do this for this reason, but out of hatred: otherwise, if you were acting out of zeal for the law, you yourselves would keep it; Wisdom 2:12: "let us lie in wait for the just one, because he is not useful to us, and is contrary to our works, and reproaches us with the sins of the law"; and there follows: "let us condemn him to a most shameful death." Or it may be said, that you do not keep the law which Moses gave you: and this is clear in the fact that you wish to kill me, which is against the law; Exodus 20:13: "You shall not kill." Or otherwise, according to Augustine: you do not do the law, because I myself am contained in the law; above, John 5:46: "if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me." But you wish to kill me. Consequently, the wicked response of the crowd is set down, when he says, "the crowd answered, and said: You have a demon." Now the crowd truly answers things that do not pertain to order, but to disturbance, as Augustine says: for they say that he has a demon who casts out demons, Matthew 12:24. And therefore, consequently, when he says "I have done one work, and you all marvel," the Lord, tranquil in his own truth, confutes them, excusing himself by an argument; and first he reminds them of the deed on account of which they are disturbed; second he shows that they ought not to be disturbed, at the point "therefore Moses gave you circumcision"; third he brings them to just judgment, at the point "do not judge according to appearance," etc. Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: "I have done one work, and you all marvel." He did not return reviling for reviling, nor did he repel them, because "when he was reviled, he did not revile in return"; but he reminds them of the deed concerning the healing of the paralytic, at which they all marveled, not with the admiration of devotion, according to that saying, Isaiah 60:5: "you shall see and abound, and your heart shall marvel and be enlarged," but with the admiration of disturbance, according to that saying, Wisdom 5:2: "seeing it they shall be troubled with terrible fear, and shall marvel at the suddenness of the unlooked-for salvation." If therefore you marvel because of one work, that is, are disturbed with disturbance, what would you do if you saw all my works? For, as Augustine says, it was his works that they were seeing in the world: all the sick also are healed by him; Psalm 106:20: "he sent his word, and healed them"; Wisdom 16:12: "neither herb nor poultice healed them, but your word, O Lord, which heals all things." Therefore you are disturbed for this reason, that you see only one work, and not all. Consequently, when he says "therefore Moses gave you circumcision," he convicts them of unjust disturbance, and first he sets down the commandment given to them by Moses; second, their deed; and third he argues from both. Now the commandment of Moses is concerning circumcision; and therefore he says, "therefore," that is, to signify my works, "Moses gave you circumcision." For circumcision was given as a sign, as is had in Genesis 17:2: "it shall be to you a sign of the covenant between me and you": for it signified Christ; and therefore it was always given in the member of generation, because from Abraham, according to the flesh, Christ was to descend, who effects spiritual circumcision, that is, of mind and body. Or it was done in that member for this reason, that it was given against original sin. But that Moses gave circumcision is not expressly found, except Exodus 17:44: "every bought slave shall be circumcised." And although Moses gave circumcision, it was not as though instituting it: because he himself was not the first to receive the commandment of circumcision, but Abraham, as is had in Genesis 17:10. Now the deed of the Jews is that they circumcised on the Sabbath; and this is what he says, "and you circumcise on the Sabbath," etc. And this for this reason, because it was commanded to Abraham that the child be circumcised on the eighth day; Genesis 21:4: "he circumcised him on the eighth day, as God had commanded him." But from Moses it had been commanded them that they should do no work on the Sabbath day. Now it happened sometimes that the eighth day, of necessity, fell on the Sabbath day; and thus, circumcising the child on that very day, they broke the commandment of Moses, for the sake of the commandment of the fathers. And therefore from these things the Lord argues, when he says, "if a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses may not be broken; are you angry at me, because I made a man completely whole on the Sabbath?" Here it must be noted, that this argument has its force from these three considerations, of which two are express, but the third is understood. For we see, first, that although the commandment of Abraham was earlier, nevertheless the commandment of Moses concerning the observance of the Sabbath did not take precedence over the earlier one, namely the commandment concerning circumcision; Galatians 3:17: "now this I say, that the covenant confirmed by God, the law, which was made four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul." And therefore from this he argues: because although in human laws later things take precedence over earlier ones, nevertheless in divine matters the earlier things are of greater authority. And therefore the commandment given to Abraham concerning circumcision is not prejudiced by the commandment of Moses concerning the observance of the Sabbath. Much less, therefore, is it prejudiced in my case, who do what was disposed by God, before the constitution of the world, concerning the salvation of men, figured in the Sabbath. Another consideration is, that the Jews had a commandment that they should not work on the Sabbath; and yet the Jews did work those things that pertained to a particular salvation. He says therefore: if you, to whom it is commanded that you do nothing on the Sabbath, receive circumcision on that very day, which is a certain particular salvation (whence also it was done in a particular member), and you do this, so that the law of Moses may not be broken (from which it is clear, that the things that pertain to salvation are not to be omitted on the Sabbath) — then much more ought a man to do, on that very day, those things that are for the salvation of all. You ought not, therefore, to be indignant at me, because I made a man completely whole on the Sabbath. The third consideration is, that both commandments were a figure: for "all these things happened to them in figure," 1 Corinthians 10:11. If therefore the figure, namely the commandment concerning the observance of the Sabbath, is not prejudicial to the figure, namely the commandment of circumcision, much less is it prejudicial to the truth. For circumcision itself prefigured the Lord, as Augustine says. Now he says "the whole man" for this reason, that, since the works of God are perfect, he was healed so as to be sound in body, and he believed so as to be sound in soul. Consequently, when he says "do not judge according to appearance," etc., he brings them back to a just examination of themselves: namely, that they should not judge according to appearance, but with just judgment. Now someone is said to judge according to appearance in two ways. For a judge judges according to what is alleged; 1 Samuel 15:7: "men see the things that appear." But in this there can be deception; and therefore he says "do not judge according to appearance," that is, according to that which immediately appears, but inquire diligently; Job 29:16: "the cause which I did not know, I searched out diligently"; Isaiah 11:3: "he shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes." Or otherwise, "do not judge according to appearance," that is, do not accept a person in judgment: for this is forbidden to all who judge; Exodus 23:6: "you shall not accept the person of the poor in judgment"; Malachi 2:9: "you accept faces in judgment." Now to accept a person in judgment is to set aside just judgment on account of love, or reverence, or fear, or the condition of the person, which do not pertain to the case. He says therefore "do not judge," as if to say: not because Moses has greater glory among you than I, should you pass sentence from the dignity of persons, but from the nature of things: because the things that I do are greater than the things that Moses did. But it must be noted, according to Augustine, that he does not judge partially who loves equally. For when we honor men in different ways according to their ranks, it is not to be feared that we are accepting a person.”

“If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision , &c. If circumcision, which in its own nature is a servile, troublesome, and tedious work, as well as one causing pain, is not only lawful, but even commanded to be done on the Sabbath ; why am not I equally allowed to heal on the Sabbath a man who has been paralysed for so many years, and with a word to restore him to health, and that too to the alone praise and glory of God ? For the law of piety and kindness is a law of nature, to which every law, human and divine, such as that of the Sabbath, should give way. Observe here, "the whole man .” For as Euthymius remarks, since his whole body was shattered by palsy, He rendered it entirely whole. Christ appositely compares the healing to circumcision, because as a superfluous part of the body is cut off by the one, so the palsy, which was attacking his whole body, was cut off by the other. But circumcision took place with pain and wounds, the healing by Christ with pleasure and complete health, for He healed the whole man, that is, body and soul together. Christ appears to have cut off from the soul of this sick man his vices and sins, and to have justified and sanctified him, as well as others who were healed by Him, just as circumcision by circumcising the flesh circumcised the soul also ; cut away from it original sin, and clothed it with the grace and righteousness of God”

“Judge not according to the appearance,.... Or through respect of persons, and so as to please men, the Scribes and Pharisees; who had condemned the action of Christ, in curing the diseased man on the sabbath day, and sought to kill him for it: but judge righteous judgment; give your sense and judgment of things, according to the truth and evidence of them; and do not find fault with that, which you yourselves allow of, and which Moses and his law, and your own practices, justify.”

“Every whit whole - The law of circumcision required the removal of a small portion of flesh, which was considered a blot and reproach among the Hebrews, because it confounded them with the nations who were not in covenant with God. Christ, to this, opposes the complete cure of the infirm man, who was diseased throughout his whole body: if the one was permitted on the Sabbath day, for the reason already alleged, surely the other had stronger reasons to recommend it. Some think that the original words, ὁλον ανθρωπον, should be translated, the whole man; and that the meaning is, that the blessed Savior made him whole both in body and soul. This makes the miracle the greater, and shows still more forcibly the necessity of doing it without delay. Battier ap. Wets. supposes that, instead of ὁλον, χωλον should be read - I have made a Maimed man whole; but there is no countenance for this reading in any of the MSS., versions, or fathers.”