Matthew 10:32–11:1

The prize is superior insofar as it comes from God. It is not the same thing to acknowledge in a human manner and to be acknowledged in God's manner.… The believer then must acknowledge God with both heart and mouth. "For one believes with one's heart and so is justified, and one confesses with his one's lips and so is saved."

No doubt he must very soon realise that his own faith is in direct opposition to the assumptions on which all the conversation of his new friends is based. I don't think that matters much provided that you can persuade him to postpone any open acknowledgment of the fact, and this, with the aid of shame, pride, modesty and vanity, will be easy to do. As long as the postponement lasts he will be in a false position. He will be silent when he ought to speak and laugh when he ought to be silent. He will assume, at first only by his manner, but presently by his words, all sorts of cynical and sceptical attitudes which are not really his. But if you play him well, they may become his. All mortals tend to turn into the thing they are pretending to be. This is elementary.

This He says in conclusion, because it behoves them after being confirmed by such teaching, to have a confident freedom in confessing God.

This teaches us, that in what measure we have borne witness to Him upon earth, in the same shall we have Him to bear witness to us in heaven before the face of God the Father.

Having, you see, cast out the fear and distress that was agitating their soul; by what follows He also encourages them again, casting out fear by fear; and not by fear only, but also by the hope of great prizes; and He threatens with much authority, in both ways urging them to speak boldly for the truth; and saith further,

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in Heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in Heaven."

Thus not from the good things only, but also from the opposites, doth He urge them; and He concludes with the dismal part.

And mark His exact care; He said not "me," but "in me," implying that not by a power of his own, but by the help of grace from above, the confessor makes his confession. But of him that denies, He said not, "in me," but "me;" for he having become destitute of the gift, his denial ensues.

"Why then is he blamed," one may say, "if being forsaken, he denies?" Because the being forsaken is the fault of the forsaken person himself.

But why is He not satisfied with the faith in the mind, but requires also the confession with the mouth? To train us up to boldness in speech, and a more abundant love and determination, and to raise us on high. Wherefore also He addresses Himself to all. Nor doth He at all apply this to the disciples only in person, for not them, but their disciples too, He is now rendering noble hearted. Because he that hath learnt this lesson will not only teach with boldness, but will likewise suffer all things easily, and with ready mind. This at any rate brought over many to the apostles, even their belief in this word. Because both in the punishment the infliction is heavier, and in the good things the recompense greater. I mean, whereas he that doeth right hath the advantage in time, and the delay of the penalty is counted for gain by the sinner: He hath introduced an equivalent, or rather a much greater advantage, the increase of the recompenses. "Hast thou the advantage," saith He, "by having first confessed me here? I also will have the advantage of thee, by giving thee greater things, and unspeakably greater; for I will confess thee there." Seest thou that both the good things and the evil things are there to be dispensed? Why then hasten and hurry thyself? and why seek thy rewards here, thou who art "saved by hope?" Wherefore, whether thou hast done anything good, and not received its recompense here, be not troubled (for with increase, in the time to come, the reward thereof awaits thee): or whether thou hast done any evil, and not paid the penalty, be not easy; for there will vengeance receive thee, if thou turn not and amend.

And the Lord himself too gave a most beautiful distinction concerning this in the Gospels, when he says: "whoever confesses in me before men, I also will confess in him before my Father, who is in heaven. But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny him before my Father". You have seen that of those who "confess in himself" he said "he confesses", as one who himself lives in them and works the works of life. But in those "who deny" he did not keep the same likeness of the word, so as to say that whoever denies in me, I too will deny in him, but "whoever denies me before men, I too will deny him before my Father", to show that he who indeed "denies" is outside of himself, whereas he who "confesses" is in himself.

It should be known that not even Pagans can deny the existence of God, but the infidels may deny that the Son as well as the Father is God. The Son confesses men before the Father, because by the Son we have access to the Father, and because the Son saith, Come, ye blessed of my Father. (Mat. 25:34.)

Or, He confesses Jesus who by that faith that worketh by love, obediently fulfils His commands; he denies Him who is disobedient.

Figuratively; Christ is the head, the Apostles the hairs, who are well said to be numbered, because the names of the saints are written in heaven.

Here is to be understood that confession of which the Apostle speaks, With the heart men believe unto justification, with the month confession is made unto salvation. (Rom. 10:10.) That none therefore might suppose that he could be saved without confession of the mouth, He says not only, He that shall confess me, but adds, before men; and again, He that shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

And thus He will deny the man that hath denied Him, in that he shall not have access to the Father through Him, and shall be banished from seeing either the Son or the Father in their divine nature.

He, moreover, affirms also that to no man is the Father known, but to His Son; and promises that, as the Son of the Father, He will confess those who confess Him, and deny those who deny Him, before His Father.

If to flee, how to suffer? If to suffer, how to flee? In fact, what utter inconsistency in the decrees of One who commands to flee, and yet urges to suffer, which is the very opposite! "Him who will confess Me, I also will confess before My Father." How will he confess, fleeing? How flee, confessing? "Of him who shall be ashamed of Me, will I also be ashamed before My Father.

"Whosoever therefore shall confess in Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father Who is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father Who is in heaven." He exhorts them to bear witness even unto martyrdom. For belief only within one's soul does not suffice; He desires also the belief confessed with the tongue. He did not say, "Whosoever shall confess Me," but "in Me" (ostis omologesei en emoi), that is, in My strength. For he who confesses does so aided by the grace which is from above. But as for him who denies, Christ did not say "in Me," but "whosoever shall deny Me," showing that he denies because he does not have the aid from above. Therefore everyone who confesses that Christ is God will find Christ giving confession of him to the Father, that he is a true servant. But those who deny will hear the words "I do not know you."

So everyone who acknowledges me before men I will acknowledge before my Father. Here he touches on the advantage which accrues from acknowledging him; secondly, the loss which comes from denying him (v. 33).

He says, therefore: Thus I will that you suffer and die. Why? Certainly for your benefit, because he that acknowledges me before men... And he crushes the error of the one who said that it is not necessary to confess the faith except before God in the heart but not with the tongue before men. This is false, because "one believes with the heart unto righteousness, but confession is made with the mouth unto salvation" (Rom 10:4). I will acknowledge him before my Father, namely, when I shall have access to the Father, when it will be said: "Come, you blessed of my Father..." (Mt 25:34). But they could say: You are on earth, so this has little value; therefore, he adds, who is in heaven, and he has power.

AGAINST NOVATIAN. — His disciples say to Jesus, “Lord, do you want us to say that fire should come down from heaven and consume them, as Elijah did?” And the Lord answered them, saying, “You do not know of what spirit you are. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy souls, but to save them” (Luke 9:54–56). Although it was certainly fitting to take revenge on the Samaritans who did not receive him, nevertheless the Lord, who came to grant mercy, removed the sentence, so that those who were corrected afterwards might be changed. And the prophet Elisha, angered at the boys who insulted him, took vengeance on them with God as judge, so that in that place they were eaten by bears, where there is said to be no forest (2 Kings 2:23–24); but the Lord spared the prostitute who was brought before him, namely the one whom the leaders of the Jews said they had caught in adultery (Jn. 8:11), so that, since a loving declaration had begun, he might teach that she was not to be condemned, but pardoned. For the Law given through Moses, because it had justice directed to revenge, exercised severity in its beginnings. It took funeral revenge on the man who went out to gather wood on the sabbath (Num. 15:32–36); and similarly took punishment on the son of the Egyptian woman who had blasphemed God (Lev. 24:10–14); and in the matter of the molten calf struck the sons of Israel (Exod. 32:27). Each Law, then, in its very beginnings shows its full character: the old Law, because it was more ready to punish, appeared harsher in its early days, so that by instilling fear it might make its hearers diligent and watchful. But the new Law, because it is loving and inclined easily to mercy, showed its beginnings as most gentle and most compassionate, so that by this very charm and love it might call all to forgiveness. Afterwards, however, even that Law which seemed harsher, on account of the frailty of the human race, not only softened its severity, but also showed itself humane and loving, and this Law which seemed gentle at times took vengeance. For Ananias and his wife Sapphira were struck down by God (Acts 5:5, 10). And Elymas the magician, unbelieving and opposing the law of God, was blinded by the judgment and power of the Lord (Acts 13:8–11). And King Herod, because he did not give honor to the God of heaven, was struck by an angel of God and, swelling with worms, breathed his last (Acts 12:23). Lest, because mercy is preached, people should think there is absolutely no punishment and that they may sin with freedom, fear was imposed, showing that forgiveness of sins is given for this purpose: that, as if brought to life from the dead, they should afterwards abstain from the contrary things, so that it may be brought about that no one departs from here with guilt, because there will be a coming to judgment. For the sentence in which each person dies is what is credited to him. Since, therefore, the new Law has the fullness of mercy, lest it be treated with contempt by lovers of sin, it took vengeance on the above-mentioned persons. The old Law, though given for vengeance, nevertheless pardoned some, lest it be called wholly cruel; but it took vengeance on many, because its disposition is ready to punish. Without doubt, then, the grace of the new Law is greater than that of the old. If, therefore, the grace is greater, how is it denied that this Law can grant what that Law granted, which had less grace? For the former was more inclined to severity. Therefore, if that Law is proved to have forgiven the repentant, how can it be that this Law, which is gentle, does not receive the repentant? For even the Jews were called sons of God, who, as we read on the authority of the apostle Paul, were baptized through Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 10:2). Indeed, they are known to have been purified as they were about to receive the Law, so that afterwards they might give an account of the Law they had received, and if they sinned, they might reform themselves through repentance; as the Lord says through the prophet Isaiah, “Do penance, you who err, and be converted” (Isa. 45:22). But perhaps, on the contrary, it is said: Repentance indeed was preached, but not remission. If, therefore, repentance has been preached by God, there will be fruit for those doing repentance. For the Lord would not admonish this in vain. Moreover, since the Lord knew that remission of sins must be given to the converted, he commanded this; for he said, “I do not desire the death of the sinner, only that he be converted and live” (Ezek. 18:32). And therefore there is fruit of repentance, as has become clear, for those who are converted to God. Therefore, the assertion wickedly fabricated by Novatian is excluded, by which he overturns the meaning of the Lord’s words, saying, “The Lord said, Whoever shall deny me, I also will deny him” (Matt. 10:33); so that if any Christian, for whatever reason, has denied, he can no longer return, or certainly, if he does return, he is in no way received. And where, then, is the repentance that has been enjoined? When the Savior, after having pronounced this sentence, did not deny the apostle Peter who had denied him. Why? Because, with repentance following, he wept bitterly over his sin (Matt. 26:75), knowing, of course, that forgiveness is granted to those who are converted, and that they are reformed through repentance. But Novatian pretends that repentance is to be done. Because he does not openly dare to deny that repentance should be granted, being limited by the Law, he strives subtly to frustrate it. For when he says that whoever has denied will by no means have pardon, but will himself be denied before the angels of God, how does he not deceitfully profess that repentance is to be done? From this his fraud clearly appears, when he adds, saying, “Whoever shall sin against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither here nor in the future” (Matt. 12:32). Although one cause is that by which there is sin against the Holy Spirit, and another to deny the Lord Jesus, Novatian, nevertheless, in order to deny pardon for this sin, wants there to be one and the same meaning for the one who denies the Lord and for the one who sins against the Holy Spirit, so that by this fudging he may cut off the fruit of repentance. For if denying the Lord is the same as having sinned against the Holy Spirit, there is no pardon to be hoped for by those who deny, nor any fruit of repentance; because this sin, neither here nor in the future, the Lord’s oracles have promised to remit. From this it becomes clear that Novatian speaks deceitfully when he says that penance must be done. For why should one repent, if it is denied that the sin can be removed? For the sighs, tears, and weeping of repentance obtain this: that it both merits pardon and restoration. Therefore David, repenting and confessing his sin, both obtained forgiveness (2 Kings 12:13) and was restored to his former state; for he remained king and afterwards prophesied. This is clearly proven: for in the fiftieth Psalm he repented, and afterwards, having suffered persecution from his son, he prophesied. For the third Psalm according to the historical order is after the fiftieth. But perhaps it will be said that a king had to be forgiven, whereas the lowly must not be forgiven, although it seems that it is rather more difficult to forgive those who are more powerful. For God does not regard the person of a man (Rom. 2:11). The higher one is, the more, even if his sin is slight, it is a grave crime. For just as humility in a powerful man is lofty and noble, so also his fault must be regarded as a crime. Except for those sins which are clearly unlawful for all, not everything is permitted to the powerful that is allowed to the lowly. For it is disgraceful for a man of rank to bargain in trade, and entering a tavern is noteworthy. For senators, lending at interest is a disgrace. If therefore in these lesser matters they are found worthy of censure, how much more must they be held guilty if they sin? From this, then, it appears that David sinned very grievously, and in fact in a twofold way. Yet, when he turned back, he obtained forgiveness for both murder and adultery, and what is more, he was reformed with tears. For when he was rebuked by the prophet Nathan, he did not dare hide his sin, but confessed it, saying, I have sinned against the Lord. Then the prophet answered and said, The Lord has taken away your sin, and you shall not die, because you have repented. And because he is afterwards found to have prophesied, there is no doubt that he was restored. For also Ahab, rebuked by the prophet because of the death of Naboth, went about weeping, and tore his garments, and girded himself with sackcloth; and the word of the Lord came by the hand of His servant Elijah concerning Ahab, and the Lord said: Have you seen how Ahab is moved before my face? I will not bring the evil upon him in his days (1 Kings 21:27–29). And when the Ninevites wept for their sins, with death awaiting, their life was restored (Jonah 3:10). See how great is the progress of repentance. But perhaps it may be said in reply: Repentance was granted indeed, but not for the crime of idolatry; although these sins are grave, the crime of idolatry is greater. Nevertheless, Novatian’s assertion is rightly overthrown in no small part, since two grave crimes appear to have been granted to repentance. For if fornication ought not to be forgiven, as Novatian thinks, how much less murder or adultery? Yet here his vanity is evident, since those sins which are more serious are shown to have been forgiven. Therefore now it must be asked whether God has promised that forgiveness can be granted even to idolaters. For whatever has not been lawfully granted here cannot be granted in the future. For here, as the Lord said, sins are either bound or loosed (Matt. 16:19); but in the future there will be nothing else but reward or condemnation. For everyone who is lawfully rejected here cannot be chosen or judged worthy in the future. Let us therefore hear what the Lord says about idolaters to the prophet Jeremiah: Go and say, he says, Return to me, backsliding Israel, says the Lord, and I will not set my face against you: for I am merciful, says the Lord, and I will not be angry with you forever. Nevertheless acknowledge your iniquity: you have acted wickedly, and have scattered your ways to strangers under every green tree (Jer. 3:12–13). See what God promises to those who, after their fall, turn back to Him, that after apostasy He will forgive their sins when they return. And again God says through Jeremiah: My delicate ones have walked rough ways, they were led as a flock plundered by enemies. Be steadfast, children, and cry out to God; your memory will be remembered in your captivity. For as your mind was to stray from God, being converted you will seek Him ten times as much. For He who brought evils upon you will bring upon you eternal joy with your salvation (Baruch 4:26–29). O the mercy of God! How He calls upon those who have fallen to rise up again! How He urges them, after the error of idols, to return to Him! Like a kindly father, He promises His children everlasting joy of salvation if they correct themselves. Likewise in the same prophet among other things: And I will restore them to this land, and I will build them up and not destroy; and I will plant them and not pluck them up (Jer. 24:6). Since He had threatened and said, Whoever sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out, sinners against God might despair of themselves, as though those who had sacrificed to idols, once uprooted, could not be planted again; He encourages them that, if they repent, they can be restored to their former state. For the sentence remains only if the sin is not corrected. Therefore it was proclaimed to the Ninevites that after three days their city would be overthrown. Why after three days, except that either they might repent and the sentence be lifted, or, remaining as they were, they would perish more justly? This is what He said through the prophet, I do not will the death of the dying, only that he should turn back and live. Therefore it came about that, though the Ninevites were destined to die because of their sins, they were forgiven when repentance followed. For what reason do we find the ark being built for a hundred years in the time of Noah (Gen. 5:31; 7:6), if not that, seeing and hearing what was coming, they might change themselves? For God wills no one to perish. Therefore it is that we read in Solomon: For, he says, the Most High has mercy on those who repent (Sirach 12:3). And again, You have mercy on all, because You can do all things, and You overlook the sins of men for the sake of repentance (Wis. 11:24). In this sense the Lord also, grieving over the treachery of the Jews, says: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you; how often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” (Matt. 23:37)! Therefore the Lord always, throughout the whole Law, urges sinners to turn back to Him, not wishing His workmanship to be accountable to destruction; since there was no other reason for the giving of the Law than that men might be turned from error to the truth. Yet in such a way that in the New Testament the Author of the Law appears more merciful, because at the time when He agreed to reveal the mystery of His Son, our Lord, He willed to be more generous and abundant in mercy, so that there might be more grace when the Son preached than there had been when the servants preached. And not without reason: for it was fitting that greater gifts should be bestowed through the Son than through the servants. Accordingly, to those who turn to Him in faith He grants all sins together, without any preceding cry of penance. Therefore the Apostle Paul says: “For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance” (Rom. 11:29). Afterwards, however, if they sin, they can deserve pardon through penance; so that, because they have sinned after receiving free mercy, they may no longer obtain it freely, but may reach forgiveness with intervening groans and tears. For it is impossible for a man not to sin. Therefore the Apostle John says: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:8). Therefore David deserved pardon and renewal when he confessed his sin. John the Apostle is certainly speaking to Christians. For he says in what follows: “My little children, I write these things to you so that you may not sin; and if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 2:1). He says this so that, if we sin after Baptism, we may humbly ask the Advocate to plead with the Father for us. For if among our ancestors penance had its place, how can it be that in this time it has no place, when the preaching shows greater mercy? And He who had mercy on His enemies by calling them to grace, will He not have mercy on His friends now that they are His, along with a reward? For the tribulation of the heart is the reward of the repentant. If what you say were true, men would grieve that they have been made friends from being enemies. Or what sort of person must He be thought to be, if He gave mercy to enemies who do not repent, but did not give it to friends who do? Moreover, since the Lord knows that the Devil exalts himself and rages more fiercely against the friends and servants of God, where the Apostle Peter says: “Be watchful and sober, because your adversary the Devil, like a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8), since, then, the Lord knows that we have a dreadful and powerful adversary, if we are overcome by him, He wills us to flee to His help, grieving that we have been cast down, so that, restored by His power, we may fight back bravely. For just as, unless those days which the Lord mentions were shortened (Matt. 24:22), no flesh would be saved, so also, if repentance is denied to men, no one can be saved. For “no one,” he says, “can boast that he has a pure heart” (Prov. 20:9); and elsewhere, “No one is without stain, not even an infant of one day” (Job 14:4). Who then will be able to escape, if repentance is denied? And where is that saying of the Lord, that “there will be joy in heaven over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:7)? “But more serious crimes,” you say, “must not be forgiven, fornication and idolatry.” And where is the saying of the Lord in which He promises that all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven to men, “but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven to men” (Matt. 12:31)? He declares that absolutely all sins can be forgiven, except one. Now choose, Novatian, of whom you wish this to be understood: of those who do not yet believe, or of those who already believe. If of unbelievers, how is forgiveness of sins given, when it is clear that all, before they believe, sin against God and against the Holy Spirit? For some call the deeds of the Lord magical arts, assigning the work of the Holy Spirit to demons. But if you wish it to be said of believers, your statement is excluded, since He says that all sins will be forgiven: “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him.” Therefore, whether one sins against God or against Christ, it will be forgiven to men. For He has included all sins, except that against the Holy Spirit. Therefore He does not wish that sin which is committed against God to be understood as the same as that against the Holy Spirit; for if this were so, He would not have excepted it. Since therefore He signifies another kind of sin when the Holy Spirit is blasphemed (for this saying refers to the person, not to the nature, of the Holy Spirit), all sins will be forgiven, either to those who already believe through penance, or to those who shall believe through Baptism. But that the Jews sinned against the Holy Spirit has another cause, belonging to that time. Therefore He shows that this will not be forgiven them, neither here nor in the future. For they did not sin against the Holy Spirit through error, but through hatred. Knowing and understanding that the works they saw in the deeds of the Saviour were of God, in order to turn the people away from faith in Him, they pretended that these were of the prince of demons. Therefore it is that the Lord says to them: “You have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves do not enter, and you hinder those who are entering” (Luke 11:52) Therefore this statement is made against the spiteful, for whom no remedy can be found so that they may be saved. For nothing is more serious than this crime: it pretends that what one knows to be true is false. For the Jews, who appeared to be under God’s law and to whom the promise of Christ had been made, seeing the great works and understanding that this was what God had promised, were blinded by envy so that they denied this was so; and not only did they deny it, but they also persecuted it even to death. It is therefore not right that this sin should ever be forgiven to those who, with their own conscience as witness, dared to resist the God to whom they said they were devoted. Now there are different reasons why one sins against God or against Christ. Either someone, envying another’s happiness, rises up against the Creator out of the pain of his own abasement; or, having suddenly suffered some adverse event, stirred to anger, he becomes disrespectful toward his Father. But the incarnation of Christ itself also provokes offense. For while people are ignorant of the mystery of the incarnate Christ, they blaspheme, considering it unworthy that the Son of God, who is of incorporeal and simple nature, should be said to have been born in the manner of men. They therefore blaspheme because they are ignorant of the mystery. Wherefore a helping hand must be extended to such people when they are converted, because they oppose the truth in such a way that they think they are acting for the truth. A person of this kind, once tortured and torn by the nails, declares to be true what he had persecuted. The aforementioned Jews, however, thought one thing and did another, and without judge and executioner they are always tormented by their own conscience as witness. For the one who, through error, has been an enemy of the truth, when he is converted rejoices that he has come to know the truth; but the spiteful man has nothing to correct: for if he were to turn back, he would begin to say that true which he previously did not know to be false. But as for an injury being done to the Holy Spirit, no cause exists: for his office produces no offense, since he appears in the power of signs and wonders. For who would dare hiss against him, seeing the dead raised? Or who would be angry with him, when through his effect he sees the paralyzed running, the blind receiving sight, the deaf hearing? Or how could he not love him, whom he sees casting out unclean spirits, cleansing lepers, and at the same time healing all diseases? The Jews preferred to do him an injury, saying that his work was the work of demons, provided only that, acting out their envy and hatred against the Savior, they could satisfy them. For this reason he shows that this sin is forgiven them neither here nor in the future. But Novatian says, More serious crimes are proved by name to be forgiven, that is, idolatry and fornication after the washing. For this reason, he says, all sins are forgiven at once in Baptism, so that thereafter, if they commit anything serious, they may in no way obtain pardon; because after the Holy Spirit has been received, nothing that is against the Holy Spirit ought to be committed. Who would deny that one ought never to sin, if it were possible? But since God knows the human race is weak, he has always followed them with saving remedies so that, after sins, they might have a way to be restored. If, however, the Spirit once given forbids repentance to be granted to those who sin, there is no providence in the New Testament, and it will seem that better provision was made for those of old, to whom this remedy was by no means denied. And how is grace greater in the New than in the Old? For such a view belongs to an enemy, who, knowing that people cannot otherwise be provided for so as to attain salvation than by the intervention of repentance, grants the Holy Spirit in such a way that, if any injury be done to him through some fear or through some error, then satisfaction has no place for the reforming of a person: this is to have sought an opportunity to destroy people, not to save them. But perish the thought, since the Lord says, The Son of Man came not to destroy souls, but to save (Luke 9:56). For if, when we sin against one another, God has commanded that our sins be forgiven one another, if we turn back, seventy times seven (Matt. 18:22), how much more does he himself, if one sins against him, forgive those who are converted? For he wills every sinner to be converted. Therefore the Apostle proves that forgiveness was granted to fornicators and the unclean, saying, Lest, when I come again, my God should humble me among you, and I should mourn for many of those who have sinned before, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication which they have committed (2 Cor. 12:21). He proves that some have done penance, for whom he does not grieve, but rejoices; but he indicates that some have not done penance for their fornication, and therefore he says that he mourns for them as not belonging to life, because they have not done penance. For if, in the case of such a crime, penance were to be done continually throughout this life, he would not say that he mourns for them because they have not done penance, but because they are not doing it. But knowing that penance both begins and is completed here, he says, because they have not done penance. For this is what he wanted, that when he came to them he might have peace in communion with them. Here, then, it has been proved that those who have committed fornication are to be admitted to communion after they have done penance. For they cannot be admitted to communion as long as they continue to commit the sin; but they are to be admitted when they cease from it, in accordance with the judgment of the Church. Now it remains to see whether we can prove that idolatry in particular can be forgiven. For we read in the Apocalypse of the blessed Apostle John that penance is preached even for idolatry. For the bishops, whom he calls angels, that is, messengers, as also the blessed Apostle Paul says, You received me as an angel of God (Gal. 4:14), are admonished to grant penance to those who sin, and not to allow those who cause scandals in the Church to be in no way admonished, since they too belong to the Church. He therefore says, And to the angel of the Church in Pergamum write: Therefore says he who has the sharp two-edged sword, I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is; and you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to place a stumbling block before the eyes of the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed, and to commit fornication; so you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Likewise, do penance. (Rev. 2:12-16) He says that this is the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which was also that of Balaam, that is, idolatry and fornication, for which he commands that penance be done. And because he speaks to the people of the Church, he shows this by saying, “These things says the Spirit to the Churches.” And as for what the fruit of penance is, he indicates it therefore: “To the one who conquers,” he says, “I will give to eat of the manna which is hidden”; (Rev. 2:17) so that by penance he may, as it were, conquer sins. For what is it to repent, if not to be grieved for past deeds, and from this time to abstain from those things which one has committed? “And to the angel of the Church in Thyatira write: These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like Tyrian brass: I know your works, and love, and faith, and ministry, and patience, and your works, the last of which are better than the first. But I have against you that you allow the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and teaches and seduces my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent, and she was not willing to do penance for her fornication. Behold, I will cast her into a bed; and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they do penance for their deeds; and I will kill her children with death; and all the Churches shall know that I am he who searches reins and hearts; and I will give to each of you according to his works. But to you I say, and to the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not have this doctrine and do not know the depths of Satan, as they say, I will put upon you no other burden; only hold fast what you have until I come. But to the one who conquers and keeps my works unto the end, I will give authority over the nations” (Rev. 2:12–26). Under a single letter given to the Church of Thyatira he confuses and utterly rejects the double error of the Novatian heresy: for he promises fruit even to those doing penance on account of idolatry, and in one Church he shows that the wicked do not contaminate the good, though they were of one and the same communion; for he was not writing to those placed outside the Church when he said, “He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.” (Rev. 2:29) In a similar way the Apostle Paul says, “For we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law” (Rom. 3:19). And in another place, “For what have I to do with judging those who are outside?” (1 Cor. 5:12). Therefore, men of one and the same Church he partly calls to penance, and partly praises, saying, “But to you I say, and to the rest who are in Thyatira, whoever of you do not have this doctrine, that is, of idolatry, hold fast what you have until I come”; (Rev. 2:24-25) that is, persevere unto the end, because “he who perseveres unto the end, this one shall be saved” (Matt. 10:22). Likewise, the one who perseveres in evil shall be condemned. And therefore, just as the righteousness of the righteous will not free him on the day when he goes astray, so the iniquity of the unrighteous will not harm him when he is converted. Therefore it was said, “He who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out”; (Exod. 22:20) but if he is converted, “he shall surely live.” So also is that saying of the Lord, “Whoever denies me, I will deny him” (Matt. 33). But if he is converted, he cannot be denied by the one whom he confesses. From this it is that he said in the Psalm, “In your sight no living man shall be justified” (Ps. 142:2). For this sentence is assigned to a man in which he dies. For since within the Church the wicked were to be with the good until the judgment of God, God himself indicated this, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, which gathers fish of every kind. When it was full, they brought it to shore; and they chose the good into their vessels, but cast the bad away. So it shall be at the end of the age: the angels will come out and will separate from the kingdom of God all offenses and those who do iniquity” (Matt. 13:47–49). This situation is also signified in that man who was found among the guests not having a wedding garment (Matt. 22:12–13): he shows that he alone was cast out from the company of the Church, because the crime of his unworthiness did not defile the others; and because this unworthiness of his was made evident by the fact that he did not have a wedding garment, he was revealed to the others. For they saw that he was clothed differently among them. From this comes what the Apostle Paul says: “In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay” (2 Tim. 2:20). He set this forth because of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who, though they were of the Church, held a perverse opinion about the resurrection; just as some of the Church of the Corinthians denied the resurrection. But Novatian says that this great house is to be understood as the world, not the Church, so that he may not be forced to acknowledge in one Church the wicked with the good, the clean with the unclean. I think this can be easily refuted. For in one house all are under one name: although they differ in conduct, yet in profession they are all counted under the one name of their master. But this world contains men of diverse professions, so that utterly unlike people profess that they have different gods and lords. You see, therefore, that this could not have been said of the world, but of the Church, in which, living under one name, they differ in their deeds. I note that Novatian was not ignorant of this, but because he had no just grounds for the complaints of his secession, and would have been openly ashamed, he forged certain arguments for himself through a bad interpretation of the Law, by which he might try to excuse and cover the envious will of his resentment. Finally, he replies to what we have said, saying, “Nor do I refuse that penance be done for the idolatry committed, but I do not dare to grant remission, because this crime must be forgiven by him against whom it has been committed.” He replies therefore with deceit. For he is exposed by his own interpretations, through which his fraud appears. For when he says, “It is written.” Whoever denies me, I also will deny him, and the one whose words these are cannot lie; he shows that the repentance which he says must be done is empty and fruitless. For if a sentence has been passed, and he who passed it does not deceive, why do you compel a man to be tortured with mourning and groans, when you either deny or openly profess that you do not know the outcome of this matter? For whoever gives counsel to someone gives it precisely in order to declare what benefit may come from it. But because you, Novatian, profess this deceitfully, in order to dupe human minds, you say that repentance must be done. For knowing that this cannot be openly denied, you act subtly, because you cut off repentance not by word but by intention. You certainly say that everyone who sacrifices to idols sins against the Holy Spirit, and you insist by the words of the law that this sin is not forgiven either here or in the future. How then do you say that repentance must be done for this offense, except because you deceive, as I showed above? But you are accustomed to try to cover this fraud with another trick, saying that the apostle Peter also spoke in the same sense to Simon: “Repent of this wickedness of yours, if perhaps it may be forgiven you” (Acts 8:22). But when the apostle Peter looked upon the man’s old and venomous and intensely bitter hatred, he therefore gave him an answer worded in doubt. For which mortal ever sinned in such a way as to want to buy the gift of God with money? This answer, then, was given to ill will, not to error. For this is what has no remedy; because it is neither error, nor is there any necessity by which it might be excused so as to be able through tears to attain forgiveness. If, therefore, any are found in such a case, let them hear what Simon heard. For this reason the apostle Peter answered him doubtfully, saying, “For I see that you are in the anger of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” (Acts 8:23) If then in so grave a case, one which seems without remedy, the answer was given in doubtful terms, it is not doubtful that those who sin against God through some error or necessity can be forgiven, if they perform suitable repentance. For this has been granted to ecclesiastical law by its author: that it may both impose repentance and, after repentance, may receive back. And there is still something that Novatian criticizes: “Why,” he says, “do they hand over the body of the Lord to those whom they know to be sinners?” As though those who are judges could also be accusers. But if they are accused and exposed, they can be cast out. For what judge assumes the role of accuser? For if the Lord himself endured Judas, whom he knew to be a thief, and to carry off what was put in the money bag (Jn. 12:6), nor did he cast out the one who had not been accused, we ought to make use of this example, so that it is not permitted to cast out anyone who has not been publicly detected. For it does not suit a just man to accuse anyone. Therefore Matthew says: “Joseph, being a just man and not willing to expose her, wanted to dismiss her secretly” (Matt. 1:19). Therefore Judas, though he was among the disciples, did not stain them with his contagion, since they, of course, were opposed to his thefts; and when he received the Eucharist among them, he did not defile the innocent. Nor did the Lord deny his body to him whom he knew to be a robber; for, according to the Apostle, “He who receives unworthily receives a sword unto himself” (1 Cor. 11:27). Therefore the Lord did not turn his eyes away from him. For sinners defile only those who consent to their evil deeds. Where it is said, “You saw a thief, and you ran with him” (Ps. 49:18). From this comes the reason why the Apostle reproves the people of Corinth, because they did not correct or avoid him who openly had his father’s wife, so that he might amend himself, saying, “Do you not know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:1, 6). Since there was no leader or bishop of the Church there, it belonged to the people to correct the man whom they saw behaving among them in such shameful and obscene ways. And therefore the Apostle rebukes them as if they were consenting to his crime. For in this matter there was no need of an accuser or of witnesses; he was publicly keeping his stepmother in the place of a wife. And so, as far as our cause is concerned, we have set forth our position, not accusing others, but defending ourselves. But I appeal to the conscience of the Novatians, who always accuse us, whether he knows all those who are with him to be saints. He is so angry with us that he even denies that we are Christians, though he knows that we have been initiated in the same faith on which he prides himself. Certainly it is profession and life that make a Christian. If, then, you see a man profess the same things as you do, and his life is not unlike yours, why do you deny that he is what you are? Surely, “whoever says ‘Lord Jesus’ says it in the Holy Spirit” (see 1 Cor. 12:3); for he speaks truth. For all truth is from God. Why do you not agree with the one who speaks truth, but deny? You contradict the one who confesses God, not with reason, but in madness. Do you not appear to be an enemy of God, when you resist one who speaks true things about him? Does a pagan, hearing someone say that idols are gods, deny that he is a pagan? Why then do you deny that the man is a Christian whom you hear profess the words of the full faith, when you read, “With the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10)? But you, as an enemy, in your anger fail to see that you oppose God; you deny that the one who confesses this has salvation, though the Lord says, “Whoever confesses me, I also will confess him” (Luke 12:8). Did he say, “If Novatian confesses me”? But you establish it in such a way that you seem to defend this: that he is saved who is not only a Christian, but who is also a Novatian. Yet if confession made in Christ gives salvation, then wherever and among whoever this confession is whole, it possesses salvation. Therefore, if the handing down of this confession has been corrupted among us, or its sense altered, you rightly accuse us. For if this remains in us as it does in you, by denying us you seem also to deny yourself. But you accuse the ministers of faith: grant that what you say is true, even though you cannot prove it. Those who heard it from them, did they hear truth or falsehood? For if a flawed man has spoken the truth, it will not cease to be true because it was spoken by a flawed man; for the cause of one’s conduct is one thing, and the cause of one’s profession another. Does not the persecutor, out of hatred for the Christian name, persecute the profession, not the conduct? First of all, knowing that this benefits religion, when we confess that we are Christians, the sacrilegious man believes what we confess, though he does not wish to hear it, because he does in fact hear it. But you, although you bear the same profession and seal, do not believe us who confess what you yourself confess. If you knew that we were reborn in some way different from that in which you were reborn, then you would rightly not believe that we are what you are. Why then do I suffer persecution from a sacrilegious man, if I am not what you are? For if I professed concerning myself what you say about me, I would not suffer persecution. And in the end, I must be believed about myself, not you. For the judge seeks my own profession, not yours about me. Why then do you deny me when I confess, though it is true, when in this case not another’s testimony, but my own profession is required, either for me or against me? I was unwilling, for the sake of the name, to have you tortured against me, so that it might appear, if you too were to deny the one confessing the truth against me, to whom belief would be given. For you propose this deceitfully, so that you may seem to have a just cause for schism. For you are not ignorant that in this matter my own testimony about myself is required, not another’s; and that what I have confessed is held to be true, not what someone else has denied. It is clear that those are free who, out of love for Christ and without scrutinizing the deeds of men, press forward to obtain faith in him: approving in them only what they know to be useful for themselves, that is, to obtain the tradition of the faith which is of Christ. For whoever thinks that, besides the sacrament, something else is necessary for a man in this matter, does an injury to the tradition; for he thinks too little of the grace of God. For whenever he denies that the gift of God can profit one who is devoted to him unless some human merit is present, he makes man either superior or equal to the tradition itself, whereas man’s merit is far removed from such a role. As the apostle Paul says about this same matter: I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. Therefore neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6–7). How then can anything be hoped for from man in this matter, since the words which are handed on have been given? Let us see then what advantage there will be if he is of good merit, or what disadvantage if he is of bad merit. One comes, desiring to hear the words of God, to which, by lending faith, he believes he will receive salvation. What difference does it make in this matter whether the one who delivers the solemn words is of good or bad life, since what is sought is the devoted faith of the recipient, so that he may with his whole mind believe what he hears? If the one who delivers them is of bad life, will he create an obstacle for the recipient, so that he will not believe what he hears and ought to believe, so that his sin might enter the other’s heart so that he does not believe? Or will God, who is just, despise one devoted to him because of the sin of that man whom he himself allows to be in office? Nor does man judge in this way, although it is clear that he frequently errs or is partial. If it were so, and a man were conducting his own case, would he not say to God: Who this man is whose fault makes you despise me, I do not know. I approached him on your account, because he was said to be your priest: I sought you, I desired you, I believed in you, I hoped for nothing from the man: why then should his sins harm me, whom I would not have known unless I had sought you? If his good deeds could profit me, it might perhaps seem just that his evil deeds should harm me. But just as, if I had believed his good deeds with hesitation, they would have profited me nothing, so also his evil deeds ought to harm me nothing, if I believe rightly. For I entrusted faith to his words, which are said to be given by you, and which are inspired by you, spoken by you, and promise you: to him I believed nothing about himself nor about his deeds; but I joined myself to the faith which is from you. According to this, the case of the believer is sound. Consider bishops after the manner of advocates: if an advocate is of bad life, will the judgment be against the client he has taken up? This is the advocate’s office, that according to the order of law he should plead the case of his client: can his life, if it is shameful, harm his client’s case? For the advocate’s person can neither harm nor profit; for as the case is, so will the judgment be upon it. So it is also with those who wish to become Christians: they come to the bishop, they declare to him their vows: he recites the words of ecclesiastical law. If the vows are true, they are received by the Judge: in what way then can he either harm or profit, since he does not even know the case of his client? For it is known to God alone the Judge, with what mind each one approaches. It is therefore the bishop’s task to perform the office delegated to him; but it is the Judge’s to accept or to reject the case of the petitioner. For he himself is found to have said: Daughter, your faith has made you whole (Matt. 9:22). You see then that each one is saved by his own faith, not by anyone’s assistance. For God has decreed this for faith, that if it does not doubt, it may obtain everything it wills. Yet you, not as a friend but as if an enemy of Christ, have gathered a people under your own name, so that they are not Christians unless they are also Novatianists; whereas the Apostle condemns anyone who says that he is of Paul or of some other (1 Cor. 3:4). But you, judging yourself superior, have placed your own name above the name of Christ, as though his name were not sufficient to guard his Church.

For why should you skulk withal, when you contaminate your own conscience by your neighbour's ignorance? If you are not unknown to be a Christian, you are tempted, and you act as if you were not a Christian against your neighbour's conscience; if, however, you shall be disguised withal, you are the slave of the temptation. At all events, whether in the latter or the former way, you are guilty of being "ashamed of God." But "whosoever shall be ashamed of Me in the presence of men, of him will I too be ashamed," says He, "in the presence of my Father who is in the heavens."

I refer to the bird which is peculiar to the East, famous for its singularity, marvelous from its posthumous life, which renews its life in a voluntary death; its dying day is its birthday, for on it it departs and returns; once more a phoenix where just now there was none; once more himself, but just now out of existence; another, yet the same. What can be more express and more significant for our subject; or to what other thing can such a phenomenon bear witness? God even in His own Scripture says: "The righteous shall flourish like the phoenix; " that is, shall flourish or revive, from death, from the grave-to teach you to believe that a bodily substance may be recovered even from the fire. Our Lord has declared that we are "better than many sparrows: " well, if not better than many a phoenix too, it were no great thing. But must men die once for all, while birds in Arabia are sure of a resurrection?

But whoever denies me before men in word, as Peter, or in action, as those of whom it says in Titus (1:16): "Some profess with their mouth that they know God, but in their deeds they deny him." I also will deny them, when he will say, as above (7:23): "I have never known you," i.e., I have never approved you.

The unbelievers' disagreement with the believers will produce a distinction. Now since the unbelievers think that peacemaking is their proper duty, they say, "Do not believe that it is best under all circumstances to be saved, for you owe it as a duty to be at peace with all." But there are some who are preparing for battle against our peace, and you should not let their false peace rule. For the only true concord is according to God … and this above all is peace.

(Quæst. in Matt. q. 3.) Otherwise; I am come to set a man against his father; for he renounces the Devil, who was his son; the daughter against her mother, that is, the people of God against the city of the world, that is, the wicked society of mankind, which is spoken of in Scripture under the names of Babylon, Egypt, Sodom, and other names. The daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, that is, the Church against the Synagogue, which according to the flesh, brought forth Christ the spouse of the Church. They are severed by the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And a man's foes are they of his household, those, that is, with whom he before lived as intimates.

It is so in another way with that magnificent menace about bringing into the world a sword to sunder and divide. Nobody could have guessed then either how it could be fulfilled or how it could be justified. Indeed some freethinkers are still so simple as to fall into the trap and be shocked at a phrase so deliberately defiant. They actually complain of the paradox for not being a platitude.

It is just here that Buddhism is on the side of modern pantheism and immanence. And it is just here that Christianity is on the side of humanity and liberty and love. Love desires personality; therefore love desires division. It is the instinct of Christianity to be glad that God has broken the universe into little pieces, because they are living pieces. It is her instinct to say "little children love one another" rather than to tell one large person to love himself. This is the intellectual abyss between Buddhism and Christianity; that for the Buddhist or Theosophist personality is the fall of man, for the Christian it is the purpose of God, the whole point of his cosmic idea. The world-soul of the Theosophists asks man to love it only in order that man may throw himself into it. But the divine centre of Christianity actually threw man out of it in order that he might love it. The oriental deity is like a giant who should have lost his leg or hand and be always seeking to find it; but the Christian power is like some giant who in a strange generosity should cut off his right hand, so that it might of its own accord shake hands with him. We come back to the same tireless note touching the nature of Christianity; all modern philosophies are chains which connect and fetter; Christianity is a sword which separates and sets free. No other philosophy makes God actually rejoice in the separation of the universe into living souls. But according to orthodox Christianity this separation between God and man is sacred, because this is eternal. That a man may love God it is necessary that there should be not only a God to be loved, but a man to love him. All those vague theosophical minds for whom the universe is an immense melting-pot are exactly the minds which shrink instinctively from that earthquake saying of our Gospels, which declare that the Son of God came not with peace but with a sundering sword. The saying rings entirely true even considered as what it obviously is; the statement that any man who preaches real love is bound to beget hate. It is as true of democratic fraternity as of divine love; sham love ends in compromise and common philosophy; but real love has always ended in bloodshed. Yet there is another and yet more awful truth behind the obvious meaning of this utterance of our Lord. According to Himself the Son was a sword separating brother and brother that they should for an æon hate each other. But the Father also was a sword, which in the black beginning separated brother and brother, so that they should love each other at last.

Instead of looking at books and pictures about the New Testament I looked at the New Testament. There I found an account, not in the least of a person with his hair parted in the middle or his hands clasped in appeal, but of an extraordinary being with lips of thunder and acts of lurid decision, flinging down tables, casting out devils, passing with the wild secrecy of the wind from mountain isolation to a sort of dreadful demagogy; a being who often acted like an angry god--and always like a god. Christ had even a literary style of his own, not to be found, I think, elsewhere; it consists of an almost furious use of the a fortiori. His "how much more" is piled one upon another like castle upon castle in the clouds. The diction used about Christ has been, and perhaps wisely, sweet and submissive. But the diction used by Christ is quite curiously gigantesque; it is full of camels leaping through needles and mountains hurled into the sea. Morally it is equally terrific; he called himself a sword of slaughter, and told men to buy swords if they sold their coats for them. That he used other even wilder words on the side of non-resistance greatly increases the mystery; but it also, if anything, rather increases the violence. We cannot even explain it by calling such a being insane; for insanity is usually along one consistent channel. The maniac is generally a monomaniac. Here we must remember the difficult definition of Christianity already given; Christianity is a superhuman paradox whereby two opposite passions may blaze beside each other. The one explanation of the Gospel language that does explain it, is that it is the survey of one who from some supernatural height beholds some more startling synthesis.

(interlin.) Or connect it with what has gone before, As the fear of death ought not to draw you away, so neither ought carnal affection.

(interlin.) Otherwise; He means, I am not come among men to strengthen their carnal affections, but to cut them off with the sword of the Spirit; whence it is rightly added, And a man's foes are they of his household.

Mystically; A sword is the sharpest of all weapons, and thence it is the emblem of the right of authority, the impartiality of justice, the correction of offenders. The word of God, we may remember, is likened to a sword; (Eph. 6:17. Heb. 4:12.) so here the sword that is sent upon the earth is His preaching poured into the heart of man.

(Verse 34) Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth: I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Above, he had said: What I tell you in the dark, say in the light; and what you hear in your ear, preach on the housetops. Now he explains what follows after preaching. By the faith of Christ, the whole world is divided against itself: every household had both unbelievers and believers, and therefore a good war was sent, so that a bad peace would be broken. It is written that in Genesis God did a certain thing against the rebellious men who had been moved from the East and were hastening to build a tower (Gen. XI) through which they might penetrate the heights of heaven, in order to divide their languages. Therefore, in the psalm, David prays: Disperse, O Lord, the nations who desire war (Ps. LXVII, 32).

He had before said, What I say to you in darkness, that speak ye in the light; He now tells them what will follow upon that preaching, saying, Think not that I am come to send peace upon earth; I am not come to send peace, but a sword.

For in the matter of belief in Christ, the whole world was divided against itself; each house had its believers and its unbelievers; and therefore was this holy war sent, that an unholy peace might be broken through.

Again, He sets forth the things that are more painful, and that with great aggravation: and the objection they were sure to meet Him with, He prevents them by stating. I mean, lest hearing this, they should say, "For, this then art Thou come, to destroy both us, and them that obey us, and to fill the earth with war?" He first saith Himself, "I am not come to send peace on earth."

How then did He enjoin them to pronounce peace on entering into each house? And again, how did the angels say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace"? And how came all the prophets too to publish it for good tidings? Because this more than anything is peace, when the diseased is cut off, when the mutinous is removed. For thus it is possible for Heaven to be united to earth. Since the physician too in this way preserves the rest of the body, when he amputates the incurable part; and the general, when he has brought to a separation them that were agreed in mischief. Thus it came to pass also in the case of that famous tower; for their evil peace was ended by their good discord, and peace made thereby. Thus Paul also divided them that were conspiring against him. And in Naboth's case that agreement was at the same time more grievous than any war. For concord is not in every case a good thing, since even robbers agree together.

The war is not then the effect of His purpose, but of their temper. For His will indeed was that all should agree in the word of godliness; but because they fell to dissension, war arises. Yet He spake not so; but what saith He? "I am not come to send peace;" comforting them. As if He said, For think not that ye are to blame for these things; it is I who order them so, because men are so disposed. Be not ye therefore confounded, as though the events happened against expectation. To this end am I come, to send war among men; for this is my will. Be not ye therefore troubled, when the earth is at war, as though it were subject to some hostile device. For when the worse part is rent away, then after that Heaven is knit unto the better.

And these things He saith, as strengthening them against the evil suspicion of the multitude.

And He said not "war," but what was more grievous than it, "a sword." And if there be somewhat painful in these expressions, and of an alarming emphasis, marvel not. For, it being His will to train their ears by the severity of His words, lest in their difficult circumstances they should start aside, He fashioned His discourse accordingly; lest any one should say it was by flattery He persuaded them, and by concealing the hardships; therefore even to those things which merited to be otherwise expressed, He gave by His words the more galling and painful turn. For it is better to see persons' gentleness in things, than in words.

Let the diligent reader of Scripture inquire how the Savior can say: "I came not to send peace upon the earth, but a sword", while now the angels at his nativity sing: "on earth peace". For in another place too it is said in his own person: "My peace I give to you, peace I leave to you: not as this world gives peace, do I give peace". Let him then see whether what we bring forward can resolve the question. If it had been written: "on earth peace", and the sentence had ended at that point, the question would rightly arise. But now that which is added — that is, what is said after "peace": "among men of good will" — resolves the question. The peace too which the Lord does not give "upon the earth" is not the "peace of good will". For he does not say simply: "I came not to send peace", but with an addition: "upon the earth"; nor did he, on the contrary, say: "I came not to send peace upon the earth of good will".

"I have not come to cast peace upon the earth," why then dost thou hasten to have peace with the children of the earth? I cry War, and yet thou hastenest to peace; I preach Division, and thou hastenest to strengthen concord. I have come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the bridegroom against the bride, and thou hastenest to salute the children of thy house, and to sew together with thy folly the rent which I have made in the world. I have rent this garment of concord because it was woven wholly of error, and in its place I have woven another garment of heavenly peace; do thou also weave this garment, and hasten not to sew an old garment. I have put an end to the world which was wont to increase wickedness in every man, and I have scattered that brotherhood which was assembled for the gathering together of sins; hasten thou not to become a companion of those who work iniquity.

Or, He confesses Jesus who by that faith that worketh by love, obediently fulfils His commands; he denies Him who is disobedient.

For no other mutual rights can be preserved between those who are at war in their creeds.

But who shall produce these results with the sword, and not their opposites rather-deceit, and harshness, and injury-which, it must be confessed, are the proper business of battles? Let us see, therefore, whether that is not some other sword, which has so different an action. Now the Apostle John, in the Apocalypse, describes a sword which proceeded from the mouth of God as "a doubly sharp, two-edged one." This may be understood to be the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law and the gospel-sharpened with wisdom, hostile to the devil, arming us against the spiritual enemies of all wickedness and concupiscence, and cutting us off from the dearest objects for the sake of God's holy name. If, however, you will not acknowledge John, you have our common master Paul, who "girds our loins about with truth, and puts on us the breastplate of righteousness, and shoes us with the preparation of the gospel of peace, not of war; who bids us take the shield of faith, wherewith we may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the devil, and the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which (he says) is the word of God." This sword the Lord Himself came to send on earth, and not peace. If he is your Christ, then even he is a warrior. If he is not a warrior, and the sword he brandishes is an allegorical one, then the Creator's Christ in the psalm too may have been girded with the figurative sword of the Word, without any martial gear.

Here I endure the entire course (in question), the Lord Himself not appointing a different quarter of the world for my doing so. For what does He add after finishing with confession and denial? "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, but a sword,"-undoubtedly on the earth. "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." For so is it brought to pass, that the brother delivers up the brother to death, and the father the son: and the children rise up against the parents, and cause them to die. And he who endureth to the end let that man be saved. So that this whole course of procedure characteristic of the Lord's sword, which has been sent not to heaven, but to earth, makes confession also to be there, which by enduring to the end is to issue in the suffering of death.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Harmony is not always a good thing, while separation sometimes is. The sword, then, is the word of faith which severs our bond to our families and relatives when they hinder our piety towards God. For He does not tell us simply to separate ourselves from them, but only when they will not come with us, and especially when they hinder us in our faith.

Do not think I have come to bring peace on earth... Above he urged the disciples not to abandon preaching the truth either on account of reproaches or fear of death. Here he urges that they not cease even on account of personal attachment. First, he shows that the separation from personal attachment is close at hand for them; secondly, how they should act in this matter (v. 37). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he excludes a supposed intention; secondly, he proposes his own plan (v. 34b); thirdly, he explains (v. 35).

He says, therefore: They could think thus: Why is it, Lord, that so many things will happen to us? With your coming we believed that we would have peace. Therefore, he says, Do not think... But what is he saying? Is it not recorded in Luke (2:14) that at the Lord's birth the angels sang, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will"? And the first time the bishop turns toward the people he says, "Peace be to you," and above the Lord announced peace. So it must be said that there are two kinds of peace, namely, good and bad. By the word "peace" is signified concord. There is evil peace, about which Wisdom (14:22) says: "They live in great strife due to ignorance, and they call such great evils peace." That is the peace of personal affections. I have not come to bring such peace; hence Revelation (6:4): "Its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth." There is also a good peace, about which Ephesians (2:14) says: "He is our peace who made both one"; wherefore, the angels said: "And on earth peace to men of good will." Therefore, I have not come to bring peace but a sword. It is the function of a sword to divide. This sword is the word of God: "The word of God is living and efficacious, and more piercing than a two-edged sword" (Heb 4:12). Hence, too: "The sword of the spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph 6:17). That sword was brought to this earth. Some believed and some did not. Consequently, a war takes place, as it says in Galatians (4:9): "How are you turned again to the weak and needy elements, which you want to serve again...?" Hence he came to separate that division. Therefore, he came to bring a sword..., i.e., the word, but partly; because some believed, and this came from him, and some did not, and this was from their own wickedness. Yet this, too, is caused by him, because he permits it, as it says in Romans (1:26): "For this reason God gave them over to their wicked desires."

The hard sayings of our Lord are wholesome to those only who find them hard. There is a terrible chapter in M. Mauriac's Vie de Jesus. When the Lord spoke of brother and child against parent, the other disciples were horrified. Not so Judas. He took to it as a duck takes to water: "Pourquoi cette stupeur?, se demande Judas... aime dans le Christ cette vue simple, ce regard de Dieu sur l'horreur humaine." ("'Why this stupefaction?' asked Judas...He loved in Christ his simple view of things, his divine glance at human depravity.") For there are two states of mind which face the dominical paradoxes without flinching. God guard us from one of them.

The Lord himself proclaims peace, which is why the apostle Paul also admonishes peace and says, "For he is our peace." This means, of course, the peace of those who believe and receive. But in what way does he not bring peace to the earth? When the daughter believed and the father remained an unbeliever, "what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?" For the proclamation of peace caused a division. With a believing son and an unbelieving father there is necessarily strife. The peace that was proclaimed itself caused a division: a good division! For it is in peace that we are saved.

And so when we are renewed by the water of baptism through the power of the Word, we are separated from the sins and ancestors of our origin; we are cut away from the inordinate love of father and mother as if by an incision from God's sword, and we are divided from them. And as we shed our former self with its sins and unfaithfulness and are made new by the Spirit in mind and body, we will necessarily detest the habits of our old, inborn way of life.

The five inhabiting one house, whom He divides three against two, and two against three, we may explain thus; The three are the three parts of man, the body, the soul, and the will; for as the soul is bestowed in the body, so the will has power of using both in any way it chooses; and thence when a law is given it is given to the will. But this is only found in those who were first formed by God. By the sin and unbelief of the first parent, all the generations of men since have had sin for the father of their body, and unbelief for the mother of their soul. And as each man has his will within him, there are thus five in one house. When then we are renewed in the laver of baptism, by virtue of the word we are set apart from our original guilt, and severed, as it were, by the sword of God, from the lusts of this our father and mother, and thus there is great discord made in one house.

(Verse 35) For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household. This passage is written in almost the same words in the prophet Micah (Micah 7). And it should be noted whenever a testimony from the Old Testament is presented, whether the meaning alone or also the wording agrees.

These are almost the words of the Prophet Micah. (Mic. 7:6.) We should always take note when a passage is cited out of the Old Testament, whether the sense only, or the very words are given.

Wherefore neither with this was He satisfied, but unfolds also the very nature of the war, signifying it to be far more grievous even than a civil war; and He saith, "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

For not friends only, saith He, nor fellow citizens, but even kinsmen shall stand against one another, and nature shall be divided against herself. "For I am come," saith He, "to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." That is, not merely among those of the same household is the war, but among those that are dearest, and extremely near to each other. And this more than anything signifies His power, that hearing these things, they both accepted Him, and set about persuading all others.

Yet was it not He that did this: of course not: but the wickedness of the other sort: nevertheless He saith it is His own doing. For such is the custom of the Scripture. Yea, and elsewhere also He saith, "God hath given them eyes that they should not see:" and here He speaks in this way, in order that having, as I said before, exercised themselves in these words, they might not be confounded on suffering reproaches and insults.

But if any think these things intolerable, let them be reminded of an ancient history. For in times of old also this came to pass, which thing especially shows the old covenant to be akin to the new, and Him who is here speaking, the same with the giver of those commands. I mean that in the case of the Jews also, when each had slain his neighbor, then He laid aside His anger against them; both when they made the calf, and when they were joined to Baal Peor. Where then are they that say, "That God is evil, and this good?" For behold He hath filled the world with blood, shed by kinsmen. Nevertheless even this we affirm to be a work of great love towards man.

But someone could say: You have come to separate. Between whom have you come? Was it not between distant persons and strangers? He shows that it was not, but between those most closely united. For, he says, I have come to set a man against his father... For the closest union is twofold: one is the natural union; the other, domestic, or of the household; therefore, he brings a word against both. Natural friendship is based on a natural act, which is generation, or the union of man and wife; domestic or household, on kinship. Against the first, therefore, I have come to separate a man from his father.

But there is a question. It was stated above, "I have come not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it." But the Law commands that one honor his father... I answer that you are obliged to obey him, when it does not draw one from the love of God; but when it does draw one away, you are not bound to obey. And a daughter against a mother; and this is in regard to generation. And a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And in this the New Law shares with the Old, as it is recorded in Exodus (32:26): "Whoever is on the Lord's side, come to me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. And he said to them: 'Put every man his sword on his side..., and let him slay his brother and friend.'" And this was regarded as worthy of praise for the Levites, as it says in Deuteronomy (33:8): "Of Levi he said, 'Your perfection and doctrine from your holy man,'" and he continues: "He said to his father and mother, 'I regard them not'; he disavowed his brothers and ignored his children." But a question arises: Why does he list six persons, whereas Luke (12:53) lists only three? The answer is that it is the same in both accounts, because one's mother is mother-in-law of his wife.

(Mor. iii. 8.) For the subtle enemy when he sees himself driven out of the hearts of the good, seeks out those who most love them, and speaking by the mouth of those who are dearest, endeavours while the heart is penetrated by love, that the sword of conviction may pierce to the inmost bulwarks of virtue.

The new man finding his foes within, he seeks with joy to live in newness of spirit; they which are derived from the old stock, lust to remain in their old pleasures.

(Verse 34) Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth: I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Above, he had said: What I tell you in the dark, say in the light; and what you hear in your ear, preach on the housetops. Now he explains what follows after preaching. By the faith of Christ, the whole world is divided against itself: every household had both unbelievers and believers, and therefore a good war was sent, so that a bad peace would be broken. It is written that in Genesis God did a certain thing against the rebellious men who had been moved from the East and were hastening to build a tower (Gen. XI) through which they might penetrate the heights of heaven, in order to divide their languages. Therefore, in the psalm, David prays: Disperse, O Lord, the nations who desire war (Ps. LXVII, 32).

But if any think these things intolerable, let them be reminded of an ancient history. For in times of old also this came to pass, which thing especially shows the old covenant to be akin to the new, and Him who is here speaking, the same with the giver of those commands. I mean that in the case of the Jews also, when each had slain his neighbor, then He laid aside His anger against them; both when they made the calf, and when they were joined to Baal Peor. Where then are they that say, "That God is evil, and this good?" For behold He hath filled the world with blood, shed by kinsmen. Nevertheless even this we affirm to be a work of great love towards man.

Therefore, you see, implying that it was He who approved those other acts also, He makes mention also of a prophecy, which if not spoken for this end, yet involves the same meaning. And what is this?

"A man's foes shall be they of his own household."

For indeed among the Jews also something of the kind took place. That is, there were prophets, and false prophets, and the people was divided, and families were in dissension; and some believed the one, and some the other. Wherefore the prophet admonishes, saying, "Trust ye not in friends, have not hope in guides; yea, even of her that lieth in thy bosom beware, in respect of communicating aught to her:" and, "A man's enemies are the men that are in his own house."

And this He said, preparing him that should receive the word to be above all. For to die is not evil, but to die an evil death. On this account He said moreover, "I am come to cast fire upon the earth." And this He said, to declare the vehemence and warmth of the love which He required. For, because He loved us very much, so He will likewise be loved of us. And these sayings would strengthen the persons present also, and lift them higher. "For if those others," saith He, "are to despise kinsmen, and children, and parents, imagine what manner of men ye their teachers ought to be. Since neither will the hardships stop with you, but will also pass on to the rest. For since I am come bringing great blessings, I demand also great obedience, and purpose of heart."

Likewise he mentions those who pertain to the household, where he says, and a man's enemies will be those of his own household. And it says in Jeremiah (20:10): "For I hear many whisperings. Terror is on every side. 'Denounce him! Let us denounce him!' say all my familiar friends who were at peace with me." And notice that it is all in Micah (7:6): "The son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house."

Let a father say, "Love me." Let a mother say, "Love me." To these words I will say, "Be silent." But isn't what they are asking for just? Shouldn't I give back what I have received? The father says, "I fathered you." The mother says, "I bore you." The father says, "I educated you." The mother says, "I fed you." … Let us answer our father and mother when they justly say "love us." Let us answer, "I will love you in Christ, not instead of Christ. You will be with me in him, but I will not be with you without him." "But we don't care for Christ," they say. "And I care for Christ more than I care for you. Should I obey the ones who raised me and lose the One who created me?"

The measure of such love is this: its sweetness seizes the whole heart, and draws it completely from the love of all flesh and every sensual pleasure. Really this is what it means to love with the whole heart. If I prefer to the humanity of my Lord someone joined to me by ties of blood, or some sensual pleasure, this would obviously prove that I do not love with my whole heart since it is divided between its own interests and the love of the one who taught me as a man, both by his words and examples. Would I not seem to give my love partly to him and partly to my own? As he once said: "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." To put it briefly, to love with the whole heart means to put the love of his sacred humanity before everything that tempts us, from within or without. Among these temptations we must also count the glory of the world, because its glory is that of the flesh, and those who delight in it without a doubt are men of the flesh.

The rivalry between all natural loves and the love of God is something a Christian dare not forget. God is the great Rival, the ultimate object of human jealousy; that beauty, terrible as the Gorgon's, which may at any moment steal from me—or it seems like stealing to me—my wife's or husband's or daughter's heart. The bitterness of some unbelief, though disguised even from those who feel it as anti-clericalism or hatred of superstition, is really due to this.

(non occ.) It seems to happen in many cases that the parents love the children more than the children love the parents; therefore having taught that His love is to be preferred to the love of parents, as in an ascending scale, He next teaches that it is to be preferred to the love of children, saying, And whoso loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

But it is fitting to inquire how we are commanded to hate our parents and blood relatives, when we are ordered to love even our enemies? And certainly the Truth says concerning a wife: "What God has joined together, let not man separate." And Paul says: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church." Behold, the disciple preaches that a wife should be loved, while the Master says: "He who does not hate his wife cannot be my disciple." Does the judge announce one thing while the herald proclaims another? Or can we both hate and love at the same time? But if we weigh the force of the precept, we are able to do both through discernment, so that those who are joined to us by kinship of the flesh, and whom we recognize as our neighbors, we may love, and those whom we suffer as adversaries in the way of God we may disregard by hating and fleeing from them. For one who thinks carnally is loved, as it were, through hatred, when he brings wicked things upon us and is not heard. Moreover, so that the Lord might demonstrate that this hatred toward our neighbors does not proceed from lack of affection but from charity, He added immediately, saying: "And his own soul as well." Therefore we are commanded to hate our neighbors, and to hate our own soul. It is clear, then, that one ought to hate his neighbor by loving him, he who hates his neighbor just as he hates himself. For we truly hate our own soul well when we do not yield to its carnal desires, when we break its appetite, when we resist its pleasures. Therefore what is led to better things by being despised is loved, as it were, through hatred. Thus, thus indeed we ought to show the discernment of hatred toward our neighbors, so that we may both love in them what they are, and hold in hatred that by which they obstruct us on our journey to God.

Therefore, from this discernment of our hatred let us draw a pattern for hatred of our neighbor. Let anyone in this world be loved, even an adversary, but let not even a relative be loved who is opposed in the way of God. For whoever now desires eternal things, in the cause of God which he undertakes, must become estranged from father, from mother, from wife, from children, from relatives, from his very self, so that he may know God more truly the more he recognizes no one in God's cause. For the carnal affections greatly buffet the intention of the mind and obscure its vision; yet we do not suffer them as harmful if we hold them in check by suppressing them. Therefore, neighbors are to be loved, charity is to be extended to all, both relatives and strangers, yet for the sake of that same charity we must not be turned aside from love of God.

(Mor. iii. 8.) For the subtle enemy when he sees himself driven out of the hearts of the good, seeks out those who most love them, and speaking by the mouth of those who are dearest, endeavours while the heart is penetrated by love, that the sword of conviction may pierce to the inmost bulwarks of virtue.

For they who have esteemed domestic affection of relations higher than God, are unworthy to inherit good things to come.

(Verse 37.) Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. He who had previously stated: I did not come to bring peace, but a sword; and to divide people against father and mother, and mother-in-law, so that no one would put piety before religion, he added, saying, Whoever loves father or mother more than me. And in the Song of Songs we read: Set me as a seal upon your heart (Song 2:4). This order is necessary in every affection. Love after God the Father, love the mother, love the children. But if necessity comes, that the love of parents and children be compared to the love of God, and both cannot be preserved, let there be hatred towards one's own, and devotion towards God. Therefore, he did not forbid loving the father or mother, but specifically added: Whoever loves the father or mother more than me.

Because of what He had said, I am not come to send peace but a sword, &c. that none might suppose that family affection was banished from His religion, He now adds, He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. So in the Song of Songs we read, Order love in me. (c. 2:4.) For this order is needed in every affection; after God love thy father, thy mother, and thy children; but if a necessity should occur that the love of parents and children comes into competition with the love of God, and where both cannot be preserved, remember that hatred of our kindred becomes then love to God. He forbids not to love parent or child, but adds emphatically, more than me.

"He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that taketh not his cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

Seest thou a teacher's dignity? Seest thou, how He signifies himself a true Son of Him that begat Him, commanding us to let go all things beneath, and to take in preference the love of Him?

"And why speak I," saith He, "of friends and kinsmen? Even if it be thine own life which thou preferrest to my love, thy place is far from my disciples." What then? Are not these things contrary to the Old Testament? Far from it, rather they are very much in harmony therewith. For there too He commands not only to hate the worshippers of idols, but even to stone them; and in Deuteronomy again, admiring these, He saith, "Who said unto his father, and to his mother, I have not seen thee; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, and his own sons he disowned: he kept Thy oracles." And if Paul gives many directions touching parents, commanding us to obey them in all things, marvel not; for in those things only doth he mean us to obey, as many as do not hinder godliness. For indeed it is a sacred duty to render them all other honors: but when they demand more than is due, one ought not to obey. For this reason Luke saith, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple;" not commanding simply to hate them, since this were even quite contrary to the law; but "when one desires to be loved more than I am, hate him in this respect. For this ruins both the beloved himself, and the lover." And these things He said, both to render the children more determined, and to make the fathers more gentle, that would hinder them. For when they saw He had such strength and power as to sever their children from them, they, as attempting things impossible, would even desist. Wherefore also He leaves the fathers, and addresses His discourse to the children, instructing the former not to make the attempt, as attempting things impracticable.

Then lest they should be indignant, or count it hard, see which way He makes His argument tend: in that having said, "Who hateth not father and mother," He adds, "and his own life." For why dost thou speak to me of parents, saith He, and brothers, and sisters, and wife? Nothing is nearer than the life to any man: yet if thou hate not this also, thou must bear in all things the opposite of his lot who loveth me.

Seest thou how justly Christ said, "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me." For had she kept this law, she would not have transgressed so many laws, she would not have perpetrated this foul murder.

He is unworthy of the divine communion who prefers the carnal affection of kindred to the spiritual love of God.

If, therefore, He made them "His mother and His brethren" who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, that "whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him." Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offence, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it did not possess.

Now, whether they were baptized in any manner whatever, or whether they continued unbathed to the end-so that even that saying of the Lord touching the "one bath" does, under the person of Peter, merely regard us-still, to determine concerning the salvation of the apostles is audacious enough, because on them the prerogative even of first choice, and thereafter of undivided intimacy, might be able to confer the compendious grace of baptism, seeing they (I think) followed Him who was wont to promise salvation to every believer. "Thy faith," He would say, "hath saved thee; " and, "Thy sins shall be remitted thee," on thy believing, of course, albeit thou be not yet baptized. If that was wanting to the apostles, I know not in the faith of what things it was, that, roused by one word of the Lord, one left the toll-booth behind for ever; another deserted father and ship, and the craft by which he gained his living; a third, who disdained his father's obsequies, fulfilled, before he heard it, that highest precept of the Lord, "He who prefers father or mother to me, is not worthy of me."

For the completeness of so brief a prayer He added-in order that we should supplicate not touching the remitting merely, but touching the entire averting, of acts of guilt" Lead us not into temptation: "that is, suffer us not to be led into it, by him (of course) who tempts; but far be the thought that the Lord should seem to tempt, as if He either were ignorant of the faith of any, or else were eager to overthrow it. Infirmity and malice are characteristics of the devil. For God had commanded even Abraham to make a sacrifice of his son, for the sake not of tempting, but proving, his faith; in order through him to make an example for that precept of His, whereby He was, by and by, to enjoin that he should hold no pledges of affection dearer than God. He Himself, when tempted by the devil, demonstrated who it is that presides over and is the originator of temptation. This passage He confirms by subsequent ones, saying, "Pray that ye be not tempted; " yet they were tempted, (as they showed) by de-setting their Lord, because they had given way rather to sleep than prayer. The final clause, therefore, is consonant, and interprets the sense of "Lead us not into temptation; "for this sense is, "But convey us away from the Evil One."

For He was not able even without flight-a protection so base, and unworthy, and servile-to preserve in persecution such as He knew to be weak! Whereas in fact He does not cherish, but ever rejects the weak, teaching first, not that we are to fly from our persecutors, but rather that we are not to fear them. "Fear not them who are able to kill the body, but are unable to do ought against the soul; but fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell." And then what does He allot to the fearful? "He who will value his life more than Me, is not worthy of Me; and he who takes not up his cross and follows Me, cannot be My disciple." Last of all, in the Revelation, He does not propose flight to the "fearful," but a miserable portion among the rest of the outcast, in the lake of brimstone and fire, which is the second death.

"He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." Do you see when it is that we must hate our parents and children? When they want us to love them more than Christ. And why should I speak of father, mother, and children? Hear what is even greater than this:

He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. Here he shows how they should conduct themselves in that division. If you wish to receive the Lord's sword, it is important that you be separated from those he mentioned. But someone will say: I do not want to be separated from my father and those others; therefore, he says, He who loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me. The Lord's exhortation is that he be preferred to all familial love: first, he gives the exhortation; secondly, the advantage it brings (v. 40). And he mentions three degrees. For it is natural that a man love his father, but more natural that a father love his son; also it is much more natural that he love himself. Why then does a father love his son more, and not the son love the father more? Some give the reason that the father knows more about the son, if he is a son, than the son about the father. Also, the longer one clings to another, the more firmly established becomes the love. Another reason is that everyone loves himself more than someone else. But a son is a certain part separated from the father, whereas the father is not part of the son. Moreover it is natural for everyone to love what he has produced. But according to some there is a difference, because in some matters the son loves the father more; for the son's descent from the father is by nature, yet the son is by nature subject to the father; therefore, the father naturally loves the son, even a spiritual father, as it says in 1 Corinthians (4:14): "I do not write this to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children."

But sons are naturally subject to the father; therefore, they naturally honor the father and become more angry at an injury inflicted on their father than on themselves, and they desire their father's glory more than their own: "The glory of sons is their fathers" (Pr 17:6). Hence he who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, because he is God who must be loved above all else: "I will not show partiality to any person or use flattery toward any man" (Jb 32:21). For God is goodness itself; therefore, he must be loved more. Therefore, he is not worthy of me who loves father or mother more than me. And he who loves son or daughter more than me... Why does a son love his father? Because whatever the son has is from the father, for he has nourishment and teaching from his father. And the son cannot give this to the father; but what the son receives from the father he receives in greater abundance from God. For he also teaches us, as it says in Job (35:11): "Who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, and makes us wiser than the birds of the air." He also feeds us, as is said of Jacob in Genesis. Again, he preserves us forever. And a man gets this more from God than a son from his father. Therefore, God must always be loved more: "I know that my redeemer lives, and at the last he will raise me from the earth, and I shall again be surrounded by my skin and in my flesh I will see God" (Jb 19:25).

But how this very hatred of one's soul ought to be shown, Truth makes clear by adding: "He who does not carry his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple." For the cross is so called from torture. And we carry the Lord's cross in two ways: either when we afflict the flesh through abstinence, or when through compassion for our neighbor we consider his necessity as our own. For he who shows pain at another's necessity carries the cross in his mind. But it should be known that there are some who practice abstinence of the flesh not for God, but for vainglory. And there are many who bestow compassion on their neighbor not spiritually, but carnally, so that they favor him not toward virtue, but as if by pitying him toward sins. These therefore seem to carry a cross, but they do not follow the Lord. Hence this same Truth rightly says: "He who does not carry his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple." For to carry the cross and go after the Lord is to practice either abstinence of the flesh or compassion for one's neighbor out of zeal for eternal purpose. For whoever practices these things for a temporal purpose indeed carries the cross, but refuses to go after the Lord.

(Hom. in Ev. xxxii. 3.) The cross is so called from 1torment; and there are two ways in which we bear the Lord's cross; either when we afflict the flesh by abstinence; or when in compassion for our neighbour we make his afflictions our own. But it should be known that there are some who make a show of abstinence not for God, but for ostentation; and some there are who show compassion to their neighbour, not spiritually but carnally, not that they may encourage him in virtue, but rather countenancing him in faults. These indeed seem to bear their cross, but do not follow the Lord; therefore He adds, And followeth me

Or; They that are Christ's have crucified the body with its vices and lusts. (Gal. 5:24.) And he is unworthy of Christ who does not take up His cross, in which we suffer with Him, die with Him, are buried and rise again with Him, and follow his Lord, purposing to live in newness of spirit in this sacrament of the faith.

(Verse 38, 39.) And whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. In another Gospel it is written: Whoever does not take up their cross daily. Let us not think that the ardor of faith can be enough once and for all, the cross must always be carried, so that we may always teach ourselves to love Christ.

And not even simply to hate it was His command, but so as to expose it to war, and to battles, and to slaughters, and blood. "For he that beareth not his cross, and cometh after me, cannot be my disciple." Thus He said not merely that we must stand against death, but also against a violent death; and not violent only, but ignominious too.

And He discourses nothing as yet of His own passion, that when they had been for a time instructed in these things, they might more easily receive His word concerning it. Is there not, therefore, cause for amazement, how on their hearing these things, their soul did not wing its way from the body, the hardships being everywhere at hand, and the good things in expectation? How then did it not flee away? Great was both the power of the speaker, and the love of the hearers. Wherefore though hearing things far more intolerable and galling than those great men, Moses and Jeremiah, they continued to obey, and to say nothing against it.

"And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after Me, is not worthy of Me." Whoever, He says, does not renounce this present life and give himself over to shameful death, for this is what the cross signified to the ancients, is not worthy of Me. But since there are many who are crucified, such as robbers and thieves, He added, "and followeth after Me," that is, live according to My laws.

And he who does not take his cross... It has been said that one who loves father..., but I say more: he that loves himself more than me is not worthy of me, because nothing can fill one's whole affection but God. Therefore, Deuteronomy (6:5): "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength." Hence he says, he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. This tells us that one who is not prepared to suffer even death for the truth, and that worst of deaths, namely, the death of the cross, is not worthy of me. Indeed, he should even glory in the cross, as Paul: "Far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal 6:14). In these words Christ foretells his own death: "Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example to follow in his footsteps" (1 Pt 2:21). It is also explained another way, namely, that one who afflicts his flesh takes the cross, as is said in Galatians (5:24): "Those who belong to Christ crucify their flesh with its vices and desires." Again, the cross is carried in the heart, when one grieves over sin, as the Apostle said: "Who is scandalized, and I am not on fire?" Finally, all this is not enough, unless one follows the Lord. Hence, and follows me. If you fast, if you sympathize with your neighbor, but not for my sake, you are not worthy of me. For it is a great thing to follow the Lord, as it says in Sirach (33:8): "It is a great glory to follow the Lord."

Everyone who is perfect will be able to say: "My own vineyard I have not kept"; in that sense, indeed, in which the Savior speaks in the Gospel, "Whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it" (Mt 10:39). Fit indeed and worthy to be set as keeper in the vineyards is he whom the care of his own vineyard does not impede or delay from the diligence and solicitude of those committed to him; while he does not seek the things that are his own, nor what is useful to himself, but what is useful to many. For this reason indeed that care was entrusted to Peter in so many vineyards which were of the circumcision, because the man was prepared to go both "to prison and to death" (Lk 22:33), to such a degree was he not held back by love of his own vineyard, that is, of his own soul, from attending to the care of those entrusted to him. Deservedly also to Paul among the Gentiles was entrusted so vast a forest of vineyards, because he too was found to be by no means anxious in the custody of his own vineyard; so that he was prepared not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem "for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 21:13). Finally: "I fear none of these things," he says, "nor do I make my soul more precious than myself" (Acts 20:24). An excellent appraiser of things, who judges that nothing of his own should be preferred to himself.

If pain sometimes shatters the creature's false self-sufficiency, yet in supreme "Trial" or "Sacrifice" it teaches him the self-sufficiency which really ought to be his--the "strength, which, if Heaven gave it, may be called his own": for then, in the absence of all merely natural motives and supports, he acts in that strength, and that alone, which God confers upon him through his subjected will. Human will becomes truly creative and truly our own when it is wholly God's, and this is one of the many senses in which he that loses his soul shall find it. In all other acts our will is fed through nature, that is, through created things other than the self--through the desires which our physical organism and our heredity supply to us. When we act from ourselves alone--that is, from God in ourselves--we are collaborators in, or live instruments of, creation: and that is why such an act undoes with "backward mutters of dissevering power" the uncreative spell which Adam laid upon his species. Hence as suicide is the typical expression of the stoic spirit, and battle of the warrior spirit, martyrdom always remains the supreme enacting and perfection of Christianity.

Here Jesus calls the departure of life from the body the "loss of life," speaking figuratively. "He who finds his life" refers to anyone who too highly values transitory existence and as it were sells it at a profit. He will face the hands of death when he is sent to unremittable punishment and death.

I cannot see any Battersea here; I cannot see any London or any England. I cannot see that door. I cannot see that chair: because a cloud of sleep and custom has come across my eyes. The only way to get back to them is to go somewhere else; and that is the real object of travel and the real pleasure of holidays. Do you suppose that I go to France in order to see France? Do you suppose that I go to Germany in order to see Germany? I shall enjoy them both; but it is not them that I am seeking. I am seeking Battersea. The whole object of travel is not to set foot on foreign land; it is at last to set foot on one's own country as a foreign land. Now I warn you that this Gladstone bag is compact and heavy, and that if you utter that word 'paradox' I shall hurl it at your head. I did not make the world, and I did not make it paradoxical. It is not my fault, it is the truth, that the only way to go to England is to go away from it.

Here the stated doctrine and its meaning run along the same course. After he commands us to abandon everything that is most valuable in earthly life, he adds, "He who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." This is because those who belong to Christ have crucified their bodies with their sinful practices and pleasures. We are unworthy of Christ if we do not take up our own cross, by which we suffer, die and are buried and resurrected together with him. Only by this pledge of faith in the Spirit will he triumph in new life in us."He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it." This obviously means that through the power of the Word and separation from our old vices, we will receive spiritual profit in death and a fine exacted against our life. Therefore we must accept death in the reformation of our life. We are to fashion our vicious selves on the model of our Lord's cross, and we are to cling to an open profession of glory, even against persecutors and with disregard of things present.

Thus the gain of life brings death, the loss of life brings salvation; for by the sacrifice of this short life we gain the reward of immortality.

"He that findeth his life," saith He, "shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake, shall find it." Seest thou how great the damage to such as love it unduly? how great the gain to them that hate it? I mean, because the injunctions were disagreeable, when He was bidding them set themselves against parents, and children, and nature, and kindred, and the world, and their very soul, He sets forth the profit also, being very great. Thus, "These things," saith He, "so far from harming, will very greatly profit; and their opposites will injure;" urging them, as He ever doth, by the very things which they desire. For why art thou willing to despise thy life? Because thou lovest it? Then for that very reason despise it, and so thou wilt advantage it in the highest degree, and do the part of one that loves it.

And mark an instance of unspeakable consideration. For not in respect of our parents only doth He practise this reasoning, nor of our children, but with regard to our life, which is nearer than all; that the other point may thenceforth become unquestionable, and they may learn that they will in this way profit those of their kindred likewise, as much as may be; since so it is in the case even of our life, which is more essential to us than all.

Otherwise; He who seeks an immortal life, does not hesitate to lose his life, that is, to offer it to death. But either sense suits equally well with that which follows, And whoso shall lose his life for my sake shall find it.

The life in this place is not to be understood as the substance, (the soul,) but as this present state of being; and the sense is, He who findeth his life, i. e. this present life, he who so loves this light, its joys and pleasures, as to desire that he may always find them; he shall lose that which he wishes always to keep, and prepare his soul for eternal damnation.

That is, he who in confession of My name in time of persecution despises this temporal world, its joys, and pleasures, shall find eternal salvation for his soul.

In the same manner, therefore, we maintain that the other announcements too refer to the condition of martyrdom. "He," says Jesus, "who will value his own life also more than me, is not worthy of me," -that is, he who will rather live by denying, than die by confessing, me; and "he who findeth his life shall lose it; but he who loseth it for my sake shall find it." Therefore indeed he finds it, who, in winning life, denies; but he who thinks that he wins it by denying, will lose it in hell. On the other hand, he who, through confessing, is killed, will lose it for the present, but is also about to find it unto everlasting life. In fine, governors themselves, when they urge men to deny, say, "Save your life; "and, "Do not lose your life." How would Christ speak, but in accordance with the treatment to which the Christian would be subjected?

How shall we fashion to us friends from mammon, if we love it so much as not to put up with its loss? We shall perish together with the lost mammon. Why do we find here, where it is our business to lose? To exhibit impatience at all losses is the Gentiles' business, who give money the precedence perhaps over their soul; for so they do, when, in their cupidities of lucre, they encounter the gainful perils of commerce on the sea; when, for money's sake, even in the forum, there is nothing which damnation (itself) would fear which they hesitate to essay; when they hire themselves for sport and the camp; when, after the manner of wild beasts, they play the bandit along the highway. But us, according to the diversity by which we are distinguished from them, it becomes to lay down not our soul for money, but money for our soul, whether spontaneously in bestowing or patiently in losing.

"He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it." He who pampers his life in the flesh appears to "find his life," while in fact he is losing it by sending it to eternal punishment. But he who loses his life and dies, not as a thief or one who strangles himself, but for Christ's sake, he it is that saves his life.

But they could say: What shall we get from all this? So he shows them the punishment for those who do not obey; hence he says, He who finds his life [soul] shall lose it. Soul is taken for life. When one is in danger of losing his money, he says: I have lost my money; and if he is freed from danger, he says that he has found his money. In like manner if one is in bodily danger and is freed by some chance, he says that he has found his life. Therefore, one who finds his life and was in danger on my account and denies me to find his life, is not worthy of me. And he who loses his soul, i.e., life, i.e., if he exposes himself to death for my sake, will find it: "He that finds me shall find life and will draw salvation from the Lord" (Pr 8:35).

But concerning the apostles and prophets, according to the decree of the Gospel, thus do. Let every apostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goeth away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodgeth; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet.

"He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward." He who receives a prophet receives him who dwells in the prophet, and he becomes worthy of a prophet's reward by receiving the prophet because he is a prophet. And a like reward is allotted for receiving a righteous person. One who does this becomes righteous by honoring righteousness. In this way righteousness is attained through faith, taking on mercy as its duty. This happens when someone receives a righteous person and becomes a prophet himself by reason of his own reverence. He will receive the honor due to a righteous person and a prophet.

These words show that He has a Mediator's office, and since He came from God, when He is received by us, through Him God is transfused into us; and by this disposition of grace to have received the Apostles is no other than to have received God; for Christ dwells in them, and God in Christ.

(Verse 40.) Whoever receives you, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives the one who sent me. A most beautiful order. It sends for preaching, teaches not to fear dangers, and subjects one's feelings to religion. He had carried gold above, and had shaken off bronze from his belt. The condition of the evangelists is difficult. So, where does the income come from, where does the necessary sustenance come from? Hope moderates the severity of the commandments with the promises. Whoever receives you, he says, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives the one who sent me, so that in receiving the apostles, each of the believers may consider that they have received Christ.

The Lord when He sends forth His disciples to preach, teaches them that dangers are not to be feared, that natural affection is to be postponed to religion—gold He had above taken from them, brass He had shaken out of their purses—hard then surely the condition of the preachers! Whence their living? Whence their food and necessaries? Therefore He tempers the rigour of His precepts by the following promises, that in entertaining the Apostles each believer may consider that he entertains the Lord.

Now these things were enough to recommend men to receive them, their appointed healers. Yea, who would choose but receive with all readiness them that were so noble, such true heroes, and as lions running about the earth, and despising all that pertained to themselves, so that others might be saved? Yet nevertheless He proffers also another reward, indicating that He is caring here for the entertainers more than for the guests.

And the first honor He confers is by saying,

"He that receiveth you, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me."

With this, what may compare? that one should receive the Father and the Son!

Seest thou what mighty persuasions He used, and how He opened to them the houses of the whole world? Yea, He signified that men are their debtors: first, by saying, "The workman is worthy of his hire;" secondly, by sending them forth having nothing; thirdly, by giving them up to wars and fightings in behalf of them that receive them; fourthly, by committing to them miracles also; fifthly, in that He did by their lips introduce peace, the cause of all blessings, into the houses of such as receive them; sixthly, by threatening things more grievous than Sodom to such as receive them not: seventhly, by signifying that as many as welcome them are receiving both Himself and the Father; eighthly, by promising both a prophet's and a righteous man's reward: ninthly, by undertaking that the recompenses shall be great, even for a cup of cold water. Now each one of these things, even by itself, were enough to attract them. For who, tell me, when a leader of armies wounded in innumerable places, and dyed in blood, came in sight, returning after many trophies from war and conflict, would not receive him, throwing open every door in his house?

"He that receiveth you receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." He incites us to welcome those whom Christ sends, for he who honors a disciple of Christ, honors Christ Himself and, through Him, the Father as well. But we must welcome righteous men and prophets in the name of a righteous man and prophet, that is, because they are righteous men and prophets, and not because of any protection or aid of the sort which kings provide. But even if a man should have the appearance of a prophet but in conduct fall short, you should still receive him as a prophet. And God will reward you for having received a true prophet, for this is what it means "shall receive a righteous man's reward." Or you may understand it in another way, that he who receives a righteous man will himself be counted as a righteous man and will receive the reward which the righteous receive.

He who receives you, receives me. Here he offers a remedy. You say that we should do all this. How are we going to live? Favor us. As the Pope gives his representatives the power to grant favors, so the Lord gives a reward to those who receive them. And he mentions three. He says, therefore, he who receives you, receives me, because they will have God, because you are my members, because member of a member. But they could say: there is nothing great in receiving a poor man or you. But on the other hand, he that receives me, receives him that sent me, because, as it says in John (5:23): "He that honors my Father, honors me." It is no small thing to have God as a gift, as it was imputed to the praise of Abraham (Heb 13:2).

But so that our Redeemer might show how great is the virtue in continence and in receiving the needy, he says: "He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." In these words it should be noted that he does not say "a reward from the prophet" or "a reward from the righteous man," but "he shall receive a prophet's reward" and "a righteous man's reward." For a reward from the prophet is one thing, and the prophet's reward is another; and a reward from the righteous man is one thing, and the righteous man's reward is another. For what does it mean to say "He shall receive a prophet's reward," except that he who sustains a prophet by his generosity, even though he himself does not have the gift of prophecy, will nevertheless have the rewards of prophecy before the almighty Lord? For perhaps this man is righteous, and the less he possesses in this world, the greater confidence he has in speaking for justice. When he who possesses something in this world sustains this man, and perhaps does not yet presume to speak freely for justice, he makes himself a sharer in that man's freedom of justice, so that he may receive equally with him the rewards of justice—he whom he helped by sustaining him, so that he might be able to speak that same justice freely. That man is full of the spirit of prophecy, but nevertheless needs bodily nourishment. And if the body is not refreshed, it is certain that the voice itself is diminished. Therefore, he who provides food to the prophet because he is a prophet gives strength to that man's prophecy for speaking. He will therefore receive a prophet's reward along with the prophet, because even if he was not full of the spirit of prophecy, he nevertheless displayed before God's eyes what he assisted. Hence it is said to Gaius through John concerning certain traveling brothers: "For they went forth for the name of Christ, taking nothing from the Gentiles. We therefore ought to receive such persons, that we may be fellow workers for the truth." For he who provides temporal assistance to those who have spiritual gifts becomes a fellow worker in those very spiritual gifts. For since few are those who receive spiritual gifts, and many are those who abound in temporal things, through this the rich insert themselves into the virtues of the poor: by providing comfort to those same holy poor from their riches.

(Hom. in Ev. xx. 12.) He says not, a reward from a prophet, or righteous man, but the reward of a prophet or righteous man. For the prophet is perhaps a righteous man, and the less he possesses in this world, the greater confidence has he in speaking in behalf of righteousness. He who hath of this world's goods, in supporting such a man, makes himself a free partaker in his righteousness, and shall receive the reward of righteousness together with him whom he has aided by supporting him. He is full of the spirit of prophecy, but he lacks bodily sustenance, and if the body be not supported, it is certain that the voice will fail. Whoso then gives a prophet food, gives him strength for speaking, therefore together with the prophet he shall receive the prophet's reward, when he shows before the face of God what bounty he showed him.

Or; Seeing beforehand that there would be many who would only glory in the name of Apostleship, but in their whole life and walk would be unworthy of it, He does not therefore deprive of its reward that service which might be rendered to them in belief of their religious life.

(Verse 41.) Whoever receives a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet's reward. And whoever receives a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive a righteous person's reward. Whoever receives a prophet because he is a prophet and understands him speaking of future things, he will receive a prophet's reward. Therefore, the Jews, understanding the prophets in a carnal way, will not receive the reward of the prophets. On another note: In every profession, there is a mixture of weeds with wheat. He had said earlier: Whoever receives you, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives the one who sent me. He had invited the disciples to the reception of the masters. The response of the believers could be hidden; therefore, we must receive both false prophets and the traitor Judas, and provide them with sustenance. The Lord, anticipating this, says that it is not the persons that should be received, but the names, and those who receive them should not lose their reward, even if the person received was unworthy.

Otherwise; To this His exhortation to the disciple to entertain his teacher, there might a secret objection arise among the faithful; then shall we have to support the false prophets, or Judas the traitor. To this end it is that the Lord instructs them in these words, that it is not the person but the office that they should look to; and that the entertainer loses not his reward, though he whom he entertains be unworthy.

Mystically; He who receives a prophet as a prophet, and understands him speaking of things to come, he shall receive reward of that prophet. The Jews therefore, who understand the prophets carnally, do not receive the prophet's reward.

But He holds out herewith another reward also.

"He," saith He, "that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward."

And as before He threatens punishment to such as do not receive them, here He defines also a certain refreshment for the good. And to teach thee His greater care for them, He said not simply, "He that receiveth a prophet," or "He that receiveth a righteous man," but subjoined, "in the name of a prophet," and, "in the name of a righteous man;" that is, if not for any worldly preferment, nor for any other temporal thing, he receive him, but because he is either a prophet or a righteous man, he shall receive a prophet's reward, and a righteous man's reward; such as it were meet for him to have, that hath received a prophet, or a righteous man; or, such as that other is himself to receive. Which kind of thing Paul also said: "That your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want."

But who now is like this? one may say. Therefore He added, "In the name of a disciple, and of a prophet, and of a righteous man;" to instruct thee that not for the worthiness of the visitor, but for the purpose of him that gives welcome, is His reward appointed. For though here He speak of prophets, and righteous men, and disciples, yet elsewhere He bids men receive the veriest outcasts, and punishes such as fail to do so. For, "Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me;" and the converse again He affirms with respect to the same persons.

This passage has a deeper meaning. One who has properly extracted the meaning of the apostle's writing, and has not misunderstood it is receiving the apostle as well as Christ who speaks and dwells in the apostle and is the source of the apostle's teaching. And since the divine mind of the Father is also in the Son, one who receives the word "of wisdom" and everything that is Christ is receiving God the Father of all things. The first part refers mystically to the new covenant, the last part to the old covenant. And if one believes that the prophets spoke wisely, not from their own understanding but because they were moved by the Holy Spirit, when one receives the meaning in them he possesses the prophetic Spirit and quite reasonably receives a prophet's reward. And if one who understands righteousness and unrighteousness (and does not live unrighteously himself) receives a righteous person, that one is not only hospitable but righteous in addition. That one receives a righteous person's reward.

Some understand by the prophet here, the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom Moses says, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you; (Deut. 18:18.) and the same also by the righteous man, because he is beyond comparison righteous. He then who shall receive a prophet or righteous man in the name of the prophet or righteous man, i. e. of Christ, shall receive reward from Him for love of whom he received Him.

The one who receives people sent by anyone gladly honors the one who sent them, and vice versa. Or alternately: the one who receives the apostles who preach the Trinity receives "the fullness of deity" itself. And I think it likely that even in our days we receive them in spirit, if we receive their counsels with an open mind.

Furthermore, something else will follow, namely, the reward of a prophet. Hence he who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward. There are two outstanding qualities in a prophet, namely, prophecy: "I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (Jl 3:28); and the gift of justice: "Whom God made our wisdom and justice" (1 Cor 1:30). He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet can be taken to mean he who receives a prophet in as much as he is a prophet, will receive the reward of a prophet. Or in another way: You say that we should receive the apostles, but some pseudo-apostles or pseudo-prophets will come. Therefore, he says: I am emphasizing not their reality but their name, because one who receives him in the name of a prophet, will have a reward. And which reward? The same as you would have if you received a true prophet. Furthermore, he makes no distinction about who he is, whether the one or the other. For he who receives a prophet, receives the reward of a prophet, because a prophet is thereby more inclined to do his work; for not only those who do, receive a reward, "but even those who consent to those doing it," as it says in Romans (1:32). Hence if you work together with a good one, you will receive a reward from that good one; if you minister the necessities of life, you receive a reward, because otherwise he could not fulfill his office. What follows is the same: He who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, or Elijah, I would be glad to receive him.

All around me as I write is a noise of Nature drinking: and Nature makes a noise when she is drinking, being by no means refined. If I count it Christian mercy to give a cup of cold water to a sufferer, shall I complain of these multitudinous cups of cold water handed round to all living things; a cup of water for every shrub; a cup of water for every weed? I would be ashamed to grumble at it. As Sir Philip Sidney said, their need is greater than mine--especially for water.

(non occ.) Note, that God looks more to the pious mind of the giver, than to the abundance of the thing given.

(ord.) Or, the least are they who have nothing at all in this world, and shall be judges with Christ.

For our external possessions, however small, are sufficient for the Lord. For he weighs the heart, not the substance; nor does he consider how much is offered in his sacrifice, but from how much it is brought forth. For if we weigh external substance, behold, our holy merchants purchased the perpetual life of angels by giving up their nets and boat. Indeed it has no estimation of price, yet the kingdom of God is worth as much as you have. For it was worth half his substance to Zacchaeus, because he reserved the other half to restore fourfold what he had unjustly taken. It was worth the abandoned nets and boat to Peter and Andrew; it was worth two small coins to the widow; it was worth a cup of cold water to another. The kingdom of God, therefore, as we said, is worth as much as you have.

Consider therefore, brothers, what is cheaper when purchased, what is more precious when possessed. But perhaps not even a cup of cold water is available to be offered to one in need; even then the divine word promises us security. For when the Redeemer was born, the citizens of heaven were revealed, who cried out: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will. For before the eyes of God the hand is never empty of a gift, if the treasury of the heart has been filled with good will.

He teaches that no deed of a good conscience is useless. It is no crime for a believer to have hope that transcends another's unbelief. For he foresaw that there would be many who glory merely in the name of apostleship but whose every action proves they are unworthy. They deceive and lie perpetually. And yet when we grant these people the favors that are due them because of their mere appearance of religiosity, he does not withhold from us the reward of doing his work and of hope. For even if they are the very least, that is, the worst sinners of all—for nothing is smaller than the "least"—nonetheless he decrees that we have duties toward them. These duties are light but not useless. They are represented by the phrase "cold water." For honor is to be paid not to the sins of the individual but to his status as a disciple. He grants his reward to the faith of the one who gives, not to the deceitfulness of the one who receives.

For though they were the very least, that is, the greatest of sinners, yet even small offices of mercy shown them, such as are denoted by the cup of cold water, should not be shown in vain. For the honour is not done to a man that is a sinner, but to his title of disciple.

(Verse 42.) And whoever gives a drink to one of these little ones, only a cup of cold water, in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he will not lose his reward. We read in the prophet David: To make excuses for sins (Ps CXL, 4): that many present their sins as if they were justifying circumstances, so that they may appear to sin out of necessity rather than by choice: The Lord, the searcher of hearts and reins, contemplates future thoughts in each one. He had said: Whoever receives you, receives me. But this commandment could be hindered by many false prophets and false teachers; he also addressed this scandal, saying: Whoever receives the righteous in the name of the righteous, will receive the reward of the righteous. Again, another could argue and say: I am prevented by poverty, thinness holds me back, so that I cannot be hospitable. And he dilutes this excuse with a very light commandment, so that we may offer a cup of cold water with all our heart. He said, cold waters are not hot, nor is there any lack of firewood in hot waters, lest it be an occasion for poverty and want. The Apostle also commanded such a thing to the Galatians, as we have said before: 'Let him who is catechized communicate his word to him who catechizes him in all good things' (Galatians 6:6), and he urges his disciples to provide refreshment to their teachers. Because anyone could feign poverty and evade the command, before he presents it, he solves the imminent question, saying: 'Do not be deceived, God is not mocked.' For whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. And this is the meaning: you argue in vain about poverty, when your conscience tells you otherwise: you can deceive me who encourages you; but know that as much as you sow, so shall you reap.

That none should say, I am poor and therefore cannot be hospitable, He takes away even this plea by the instance of a cup of cold water, given with good will. He says cold water, because in hot, poverty and lack of fuel might be pleaded. And whosoever shall give to drink to one of the least of these a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

Then, lest any one should allege poverty, He saith,

"Or whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward."

"Though a cup of cold water be thy gift, on which there is nothing laid out, even of this shall a reward be stored up for thee. For I do all things for the sake of you the receivers."

But who now is like this? one may say. Therefore He added, "In the name of a disciple, and of a prophet, and of a righteous man;" to instruct thee that not for the worthiness of the visitor, but for the purpose of him that gives welcome, is His reward appointed. For though here He speak of prophets, and righteous men, and disciples, yet elsewhere He bids men receive the veriest outcasts, and punishes such as fail to do so. For, "Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me;" and the converse again He affirms with respect to the same persons.

Since though he may be doing no such great work, he is a man, inhabiting the same world with thee, beholding the same sun having the same soul, the same Lord, a partaker with thee of the same mysteries, called to the same heaven with thee; having a strong claim, his poverty, and his want of necessary food.

The least of these, that is, not a prophet, or a righteous man, but one of these least.

Never is Christ without water: if, that is, He is Himself baptized in water; inaugurates in water the first rudimentary displays of His power, when invited to the nuptials; invites the thirsty, when He makes a discourse, to His own sempiternal water; approves, when teaching concerning love, among works of charity, the cup of water offered to a poor (child); recruits His strength at a well; walks over the water; willingly crosses the sea; ministers water to His disciples. Onward even to the passion does the witness of baptism last: while He is being surrendered to the cross, water intervenes; witness Pilate's hands: when He is wounded, forth from His side bursts water; witness the soldier's lance!

"And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward." Lest anyone use poverty as an excuse, He says, "If you give even a cup of cold water because he is My disciple, you will receive a reward even for this." He who gives a cup of cold water is also he who teaches one burning with the fire of anger and desire and causes him to be named a disciple of Christ. The teacher will not lose his reward.

Therefore, he adds, and whoever gives to one of these little ones, i.e., to believers, as it says below (25:40): "Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these, my least brethren, you did it to me"; as if to say: I do not care whether they were great or small. Someone could say: I am poor; I have nothing to give. So he adds, a cup of water. He does not say, "hot water" on account of a lack of wood, so that he could not have an excuse. Hence he wants to say: the slightest thing you do will have its reward. And he confirms this, saying, Amen, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward; Isaiah (40:10): "Behold, the Lord comes..., and his reward is with him, and his recompense before him."