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,^16031603     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.^16041604     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.”^16051605     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.”^16061606     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;”^16071607     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”?^16081608     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;”^16091609     Luke x. 16. and, “Inasmuch as ye did it not unto the least of mine, ye did it not unto me;”^16101610     Matt. xxv. 45. and, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me,”^16111611     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.^16121612     [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.