30th Sunday after Pentecost

Jesus says to her: Woman, why do you weep? Thus he manifested himself through appearance; he also manifests himself through conversation: whence: Jesus says to her: Woman, why do you weep? as if to say: do not weep. Whom do you seek? She was seeking him whom the bride also sought in Song of Songs 3: "On my bed by night I sought him whom my soul loves"; as if to say: you ought not to seek him among the dead, because "rising from the dead, he dies no more; death shall no longer have dominion over him," Romans 6. But not yet does she recognize him through conversation: whence he says: She, supposing that he was the gardener, because she had come into the garden so early in the morning: says to him: Lord, if you have carried him away, that is, Jesus. She had made no mention of Jesus to him with whom she was speaking, and only said him; because, as Gregory says, "the force of love is accustomed to do this in the soul: that it believes no one else is ignorant of him whom it always thinks about." Tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away. It was not enough for her to see him, unless she should take him away, according to that verse of Song of Songs 3: "I held him and would not let him go, until I brought him into the house of my mother and into the chamber of her who bore me": therefore she wished to take him away.

Question. There is a question about the fact that the Lord did not immediately manifest himself to the woman in his own appearance, but appeared as if he were a gardener. Gregory responds that the reason for this was Mary's manner of seeking. "For because Mary loved and doubted, she saw and did not recognize." Bernard, however, gives the reason that this was to inflame her more ardently: whence he says: "O delightful spectacle of loving-kindness! He himself who is sought and desired hides himself and manifests himself; he hides himself so that he may be sought more ardently, and once sought may be found with joy, and once found may be held with solicitude, and once held may not be released."

As it was still dark, and the night had not yet wholly passed away, she sees Jesus, Who stood near her, but dimly, and knows not Who He is, being unable to distinguish the Form of His Body or His Features, but hears Him say, Woman, why weepest thou? The Saviour's words are indeed words of courtesy, still such as to arouse in her the suspicion that they were most like the words of one of the gardeners. It follows, too, that the Lord, when He thus spake, was not in point of fact asking her the reason for her weeping, nor desirous to learn of whom she was in search; but was rather anxious to stop her lamentations, just as, indeed, were the two blessed angels, for it was in their company that He spake. Why, then, weepest thou, O woman? He says; Whom seekest thou? That is to say, wipe away thy tears, as thou hast the object of thy search. I, He says, am He Who is the occasion of thy mourning, as having been dead, and as having suffered a dreadful fate, and as having also been taken away out of the tomb. But, as I am alive and am here, give up thy lamentations, and contrariwise be of good cheer. He asked the question, then, wishing to end her sorrow. For it was meet that the Lord should be our restorer in this way also. For by Adam's transgression, as in the firstfruits of the race, the sentence went forth to the whole world: Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return; and to the woman in special: In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. To be rich in sorrow, then, as by way of a penalty, was the fate of woman. It was, therefore, necessary that by the mouth of Him That had passed sentence of condemnation, the burden of that ancient curse should be removed, our Saviour Christ now wiping away the tears from the eyes of the woman, or rather of all womankind, as in Mary the firstfruits. For she, first of women, being offended at the death of the Saviour, and grieving thereat, was thought worthy to hear the voice that cut short her weeping; the power of the word, in fact, extending also to the whole race of women, if indeed they be pained by the outrages against Christ, and honour faith in Him, and almost fall to quoting that saying in the Psalms: Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate Thee? And am I not grieved with those that rise up against Thee? I hate therm with a perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

While, however, our Lord Jesus Christ says this to put a stop to her weeping, she, supposing the speaker to be one of the gardeners, undertook very readily to transfer the remains to another place, if only it were shown her where he had laid Him. For, not yet apprehending the great mystery of the Resurrection, she was disturbed by suspicions of this kind. For the feminine mind is slow-witted and ill-prepared to readily comprehend even what is not very difficult, far less miracles which baffle description.

On the third day the friends of Christ coming at daybreak to the place found the grave empty and the stone rolled away. In varying ways they realised the new wonder; but even they hardly realised that the world had died in the night. What they were looking at was the first day of a new creation, with a new heaven and a new earth; and in a semblance of the gardener God walked again in the garden, in the cool not of the evening but the dawn.

Be the first to see the stone taken away, and perhaps you will see the angels and Jesus himself. Say something. Hear his voice. If he says to you, "Do not touch me," stand far away. Reverence the Word, but do not grieve because he knows those to whom he appears first.

He said to her: "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?" The cause of her grief is asked so that her desire might be increased, so that when she named the one she sought, she might burn more ardently in love for him.

She, supposing that he was the gardener, said to him: "Lord, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Perhaps this woman did not err even in erring, who believed Jesus to be the gardener. For was he not spiritually a gardener to her, who was planting the flourishing seeds of virtues in her heart through his love?

But what is it that, seeing him whom she believed to be the gardener, to whom she had not yet said whom she was seeking, she says: "Lord, if you have taken him away"? For as if she had already said from whose desire she was weeping, she speaks of him whom she had not mentioned. But the force of love is accustomed to do this in the soul: that it believes no one else is ignorant of him whom it always thinks about. Rightly this woman does not say whom she seeks, and yet says: "If you have taken him away," because she does not think him unknown to another, whom she thus continuously mourns with desire.

(Hom. xxv.) Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? He asks the cause of her grief, to set her longing still more. For the mere mentioning His name whom she sought would inflame her love for Him.

(Hom. xxv.) Perhaps, however, the woman was right in believing Jesus to be the gardener. Was not He the spiritual Gardener, who by the power of His love had sown strong seeds of virtue in her breast? But how is it that, as soon as she sees the gardener, as she supposes Him to be, she says, without having told Him who it was she was seeking, Sir, if Thou hast borne Him hence? It arises from her love; when one loves a person, one never thinks that any one else can be ignorant of him.

When Mary Magdalene had seen the Lord and thought that he was the gardener … she was mistaken, indeed, in her vision, but the very error had its prototype. Truly, indeed, Jesus was the gardener of his paradise, of his trees of paradise. "She thought that he was the gardener" and wanted to fall at his feet. What does the Lord say to her? "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father." Do not touch me. You do not deserve to touch the one you looked for in a grave. Do not touch me whom you only suppose, but do not believe, has arisen. Do not touch me, for to you I have not yet ascended to my Father. When you believe that I have ascended to my Father, then, it will be your privilege to touch me.

And our Lord acted this way so that when she suddenly sees the one who she thought was beyond hope of ever seeing again because she still thought he was dead, she might not be overcome with emotion and think that he was some demonic apparition. He also wanted her first to speak to him gradually, as to a man, and after she had realized that she was speaking to a real man, she might finally understand who he was and at the same time might believe and admire the greatness of the event.

Perhaps He appeared to the Angels in a wondrous form, but to Mary not in such a form, but in a humble and ordinary one, which is why she supposed Him to be the gardener, namely of the garden in which the tomb was. For this reason she also says, "Sir, if you have carried Him away," that is, if you have stolen Him. And she does not say "Jesus," but "Him," speaking as if to one who knows what the matter is about. So then, if you have carried Him away, that is, taken and stolen Him from here, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him and move Him to another place, where He will be buried magnificently. Perhaps she was afraid that the Jews would also abuse His dead body, and therefore she wished that it be moved to another place, unknown to them.

She was afraid that the Jews might vent their rage even on the lifeless body, and therefore wished to remove it to some secret place.

2507 The words of Christ are now given: Woman, why are you weeping? First we see Christ's question; then Mary's answer.

2508 Concerning the first, note that Mary was advancing step by step: for the angels asked her why she was weeping, but Christ asked her whom she was looking for, for her weeping was caused by the desire which led her to look. Christ asked her whom she was looking for in order to increase this desire, for when she spoke of the one she was seeking, her love burned more intensely, and so she would continue to seek him: "Seek his presence continually" (Ps 105:4); "But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day" (Prv 4:18).

2509 When the Evangelist says, Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, we see Mary's answer: first, whom she thought was questioning her; then her response.

2510 Mary thought the gardener was speaking to her, because she knew that the guards had already fled, frightened by the earthquake and the sight of the angels, and that the only one who would be there would be the one taking care of it, the gardener. As Gregory says: "This woman, in erring did not err, when she thought that Christ was a gardener, for he planted the seeds of virtue in her heart by the strength of his love." "I will water my orchard and drench my garden plot" (Sir 24:31).

2511 Mary said to Jesus, Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me. She calls him Sir in order to gain his good‑will. But since this "gardener" had just arrived, and Mary had not told him whom she was looking for, why does she say, if you have carried him away? Who was him? We should say that the force of love usually causes the lover to think that no one would be ignorant of the one who is always in his thoughts. For example, we read in Luke that our Lord asked [on the road to Emmaus] "What is this conversation which your are holding with each other as your walk?" And one of the disciples answered, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days" (Lk 24:17).

2512 When Mary says, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away, she shows a wonderful courage which would not be driven off by the sight of a dead person, and she would have tried to carry the body away even though it was beyond her strength. But this is what 1 Corinthians (13:7) says, "Love hopes all things." She wanted to take him so the Jews would not violate the dead body and to carry it to another secret grave.

Jesus says to her: Mary. He manifested himself to the exterior sense; here he manifests himself to the interior sense by calling her by name: whence: Jesus says to her: Mary. Gregory: "After he called her by the common designation of her sex and was not recognized, he calls her by name, so that she might recognize him by whom she is recognized." She, having turned, namely through the captivation of the intellect: Apocalypse 1: "I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me"; says to him: Rabboni, which is interpreted master. Having turned, not in body, because she had already turned in body before, but in heart: whence Augustine: "Then," he says, "turned in body, she supposed what was not; now turned in heart, she recognized what was." Moreover, recognizing him, she calls him master, because she was accustomed to call him thus: above in the eleventh chapter, Martha said to Mary: "The Master is here and calls for you."

He invites the recognition of the woman, whose mind had already been enlightened, and, allowing her to gaze upon Him without let or hindrance (for indeed she loved Him ardently), He almost rebukes her for having been so slow to perceive that He was Christ, for there is some such implied meaning in His calling her by name. She understood at once, and at the sight of Him casts aside the suspicions she felt at first, and offers Him the usual tribute of respect, calling Him Rabboni, that is to say, Master; and, with her mind full of a heavenly joy, ran eagerly to touch the holy Body, and to gain blessing therefrom.

Jesus says to her: "Mary." After he called her by the common word for her sex, and was not recognized, he calls her by name. As if he openly said to her: Recognize him by whom you are recognized. To the perfect man also it is said: "I know you by name," because "man" is the common word for all of us, but "Moses" is proper, to whom it is rightly said that he is known by name, as if the Lord openly said to him: I do not know you generally as the rest, but specially.

Therefore Mary, because she is called by name, recognizes her author, and immediately calls him rabbi, that is, teacher, because he himself was the one who was being sought outwardly, and he himself was the one who was teaching her inwardly to seek.

(Hom. xxv.) Our Lord, after calling her by the common name of her sex, and not being recognised, calls her by her own name: Jesus saith unto her, Mary; as if to say, Recognise Him, who recognises thee. Mary, being called by name, recognises Him; that it was He whom she sought externally, and He who taught her internally to seek: She turned herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

But how was it that, "She turned herself, and saith," if so be that He was speaking to her? It seems to me, that after having said, "Where have ye laid him?" she turned to the Angels to ask why they were astonished, and that then Christ, by calling her by name, turned her to Himself from them, and revealed Himself by His Voice; for when He called her "Mary," then she knew Him; so that the recognition was not by His appearance, but by His Voice. And if any say, "Whence is it clear that the Angels were awestruck, and that on this account the woman turned herself," they will in this place say, "whence is it clear that she would have touched Him, and fallen at His feet?" Now as this is clear from His saying, "Touch Me not," so is the other clear from its saying, that she turned herself.

He who searches the hearts And grabs them by the reins, Knowing that Mary would recognize his voice, Like a shepherd, called his crying lamb, Saying, "Mary." She at once recognized him and spoke: "Surely my good shepherd calls me In order that from this time forward he may number me among the ninety nine lambs; For I see behind the one who is calling me The bodies of the saints, the ranks of the just, Therefore, then, I do not say, 'Who are you who calls me?' For I clearly know who it is who is calling me; It is he, as he said ahead of time, My Lord, he Who offers resurrection to the fallen."

Some indeed say that because this woman approached him and touched him just as she had done before, without thinking anything of it, that she did not believe that this act of resurrection was worthy of the glorious and sublime divinity. Rather [they say] she still thought the same as she did earlier, that he would be characterized by his humility and humanity as when he was with his disciples. And so when our Savior asks why she is acting this way, as if he was still earthbound, because he had not yet ascended to his Father, it is as if he said, Do not touch me with too much curiosity.… Perhaps indeed he also knew that every fiber of her being wanted to hold on to these divine feet with joy and emotion as a friend of God because Matthew also records others, besides Mary, who seized his feet and adored him. But others say that he was raising her to a higher and more sublime way of thinking. Because [they say] when Mary approached him with more fervent desire and to ask something concerning the divine, she did so because she wanted the reason for his resurrection revealed to her and so she returned to touch him.… And so Jesus, as one who knows the hidden things of the heart, says to her, "Do not touch me, because I have not yet ascended to my Father." [He says this] because he had promised to his disciples, once he had ascended into heaven, that the Holy Spirit would come who would lead them to perfection by teaching and revealing to them what was hidden.… Then [i.e., at that time] he had said, "I still have many things to teach you but you cannot bear them now, but when the Spirit of truth comes, he will lead you into all truth." This is why [now] he says, "Do not touch me," that is, do not probe, do not seek the reason for what you came to ask. Do not touch me. The time has not yet come because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But I will ascend, and when I do, the Spirit will come and teach you as he also promised to me. It is obvious that Mary, [once she recognized him], wanted to learn, because she addressed him not as "Lord" [as she had done earlier] but as "Rabboni," that is, teacher.… She was anxious to learn. But, as one who directs his words with understanding to teach, Jesus deflects her [question] as being inappropriate.… [The Gospel] testifies to this desire of Mary, the sister of Martha, to know when, instead of listening to Martha's instruction, she should remain close to Jesus, who said concerning her, "Mary has chosen the better share, which will not be taken away from her."

The intention of the woman is full of love; but she cannot conceive of anything lofty. And since she herself could not think of anything lofty, the Lord by His voice makes Himself known to her. For He uttered only her name and thereby imparted knowledge, just as He sometimes made the Jews recognize Him, and at other times was present among them, and they did not recognize Him. So also in speech, when He willed, then He made Himself known. In like manner now too, when He willed, He made Mary recognize Him by His voice. Without doubt, He had also spoken aloud to her before: "Woman, why are you weeping?" But Mary did not recognize Him, for it was not the will of Jesus. But when He willed it, she recognized Him by His voice. "She turned and said to Him." How is this? She was speaking with Him and saying, "Tell me where you have laid Him"; and now the Evangelist says that she "turned"? It seems to me that after she said "where you have laid Him," she turned toward the Angels, perhaps intending to ask them what they were marveling at. Then Christ, calling her by name, astonished her with His voice and turned her from them to Himself, and she, recognizing Him now, said, "Teacher!"

2513 Next the Evangelist shows Mary recognizing Christ. The Evangelist uses the name Mary, while before he had used the general word "woman," (v 13;15). He calls her by her own name to show that she was well known to the saints ‑ "He determines the number of the stars, he gives to them their names" (Ps 147:4); "I know you by name" (Ex 33:12) ‑ and to indicate that although all things are moved by God with a general motion, yet a special grace is needed for a person's justification.

The effect of her being called by Christ was that she turned and said to him in Hebrew, Rabboni! (which means Teacher).

2514 Wasn't Mary always looking at Christ when he was speaking to her? According to Augustine, this present turning refers to her interior state of mind: before, although she was facing Christ, she thought he was someone else, the gardener; but now her heart was turned and she recognized him for what he was.

Or, one could say that, as was said, she thought he was someone else, and so while she was talking to him she did not look at him but was concerned with the Christ she carried in her heart, and was looking about for some trace of him.

Christ called her by her own name, Mary: This was like saying: Where are you looking? Recognize him who has recognized you. As soon as she heard her name she recognized him, and said, Rabboni, which means Teacher, for this was what she used to call him. We can understand from this that the cause of our justification and of our profession of faith is to have been called by Christ.

For Christ's purpose in the incarnation was to pave for us the road to heaven. Mark how he says, "I go up to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

What does this mean, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father"? If she could not touch him as he was standing on earth, would she be able to touch him seated in heaven? As though he was saying, "Do not touch me now; touch me then, when I have ascended to the Father." Your graces will recall yesterday's reading, when the Lord appeared to the disciples and they thought they were seeing a spirit. But wishing to relieve them of this mistaken idea, he offered himself to their touch. What did he say? It was yesterday. There was a sermon about it. "Why are you troubled, and why are thoughts coming up into your hearts? See my hands and my feet; feel and see." He had not already ascended to the Father, had he, when he said feel and see, offering himself to his disciples to be touched, not just touched but felt, to produce faith in the real flesh of his real body, to present the solid reality of truth even to the human touch? So he offers himself to the hands of the disciples to be felt, but he says to the woman, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father." What can it mean? Could men only touch him on earth, while women had to touch him in heaven, "for I have not yet ascended to my Father"? So what can touching be, but believing? We touch Christ, you see, by faith, and it is better not to touch him with the hand and to touch him with faith than to feel him with the hand and not touch him with faith. It was not a great matter to touch Christ; the Jews touched him when they seized him, they touched him when they bound him, touched him when they hung him up; they touched him, and by touching him in a bad way, they lost what they touched. Just you touch by faith, O Catholic church; see that you touch by faith. If you have thought of Christ only as a man, you have touched him on earth. If you have believed Christ is Lord, equal to the Father, then you have touched him when he has ascended to the Father.

What is "Touch me as I ascended to the Father"? Touch me as equal to the Father. What is "Touch me as equal to the Father"? Touch me as God, that is believe in me as God.

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; to my God, and your God." There are points in these words which we must examine with brevity indeed, but with somewhat more than ordinary attention. For Jesus was giving a lesson in faith to the woman, who had recognized Him as her Master, and called Him so in her reply; and this gardener was sowing in her heart, as in His own garden, the grain of mustard seed. What then is meant by "Touch me not"? And just as if the reason of such a prohibition would be sought, He added, "for I am not yet ascended to my Father." What does this mean? If, while standing on earth, He is not to be touched, how could He be touched by men when sitting in heaven? For certainly, before He ascended, He presented Himself to the touch of the disciples, when He said, as testified by the evangelist Luke, "Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have;" or when He said to Thomas the disciple, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and put forth thy hand, and thrust it into my side." And who could be so absurd as to affirm that He was willing indeed to be touched by the disciples before He ascended to the Father, but refused it in the case of women till after His ascension? But no one, even had any the will, was to be allowed to run into such folly. For we read that women also, after His resurrection and before His ascension to the Father, touched Jesus, among whom was Mary Magdalene herself; for it is related by Matthew that Jesus met them, and said, "All hail. And they approached, and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him." It remains, therefore, that some sacred mystery must lie concealed in these words; and whether we discover it or utterly fail to do so, yet we ought to be in no doubt as to its actual existence. Accordingly, either the words, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father," had this meaning, that by this woman the Church of the Gentiles was symbolized, which did not believe on Christ till He had actually ascended to the Father, or that in this way Christ wished Himself to be believed on; in other words, to be touched spiritually, that He and the Father are one. For He has in a manner ascended to the Father, to the inward perception of him who has made such progress in the knowledge of Christ that he acknowledges Him as equal with the Father: in any other way He is not rightly touched, that is to say, in any other way He is not rightly believed on. But Mary might have still so believed as to account Him unequal with the Father, and this certainly is forbidden her by the words, "Touch me not;" that is, Believe not thus on me according to thy present notions; let not your thoughts stretch outwards to what I have been made in thy behalf, without passing beyond to that whereby thou hast thyself been made. For how could it be otherwise than carnally that she still believed on Him whom she was weeping over as a man? "For I am not yet ascended," He says, "to my Father:" there shalt thou touch me, when thou believest me to be God, in no wise unequal with the Father. "But go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father." He saith not, Our Father: in one sense, therefore, is He mine, in another sense, yours; by nature mine, by grace yours. "And my God, and your God." Nor did He say here, Our God: here, therefore, also is He in one sense mine, in another sense yours: my God; under whom I also am as man; your God, between whom and you I am mediator.

(Tr. cxxi. 3) But if standing upon the earth, He is not touched, how shall He be touched sitting in heaven? And did He not before His ascension offer Himself to the touch of the disciples: Handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones? (Luke 24:39) Who can be so absurd as to suppose that He was willing that disciples should touch Him before He ascended to His Father, and unwilling that women should till after? Nay, we read of women after the resurrection, and before He ascended to His Father, touching Him, one of whom was Mary Magdalene herself, according to Matthew. Either then Mary here is a type of the Gentile Church, which did not believe in Christ till after His ascension: or the meaning is that Jesus is to be believed in, i. e. spiritually touched, in no other way, but as being one with the Father. He ascends to the Father mystically, as it were, in the mind of him who hath so far advanced as to acknowledge that He is equal to the Father. But how could Mary believe in Him otherwise than carnally, when she wept for Him as a man?

(i. de Trin) Touch is as it were the end of knowledge; and He was unwilling that a soul intent upon Him should have its end, in thinking Him only what He seemed to be.

(Tr. cxxi) He does not say, Our Father, but, My Father and your Father: Mine therefore and yours in a different sense; Mine by nature, yours by grace. Nor does He say, Our God, but, My God—under Him I am man—and your God; between you and Him I am Mediator.

Jesus says to her. Here upon Mary, now knowing him, is enjoined the publication of the manifestation: and first he corrects her; second, he sends her to announce. He corrects her in this that he says: Do not touch me: and he gives the reason: For I have not yet ascended to my Father.

But this text seems to contain falsity and doubtfulness: first, because the other Evangelists say that "the women approached and held his feet." Likewise, what kind of reason is this: For I have not yet ascended to my Father? On the contrary, this is a reason why she ought to have touched him, because if he had ascended, she could not touch him. On this account, this text is expounded in multiple ways. Augustine expounds it concerning the touch of the heart or of faith: whence he says: "Do not touch me, that is, do not believe in me in the way you still understand. For how did she not still believe in him carnally, she who wept for him as a man? And the following text says this: For I have not yet ascended to my Father, that is, to equality with the Father in your heart." According to Gregory, it is understood concerning bodily touch: but the Lord does not prohibit this, as he says, "because he shrank from the touch of women, since it is written: The women approached and held his feet;" but in this he wished to show her unworthy to touch him as one not rightly believing, or not fully: and he proves this through the following text: "For I have not yet ascended to the Father. In our heart, Jesus ascends to the Father when he is believed to be equal to the Father." According to Chrysostom, it is understood concerning bodily touch: and the Lord does not prohibit touching, but intimates that he is to be touched with greater reverence than when he was passible: and the following reason indicates this, in which the Lord says: I have not yet ascended, but nevertheless I am preparing myself for the ascension, and therefore I am not with you as before. This can also be explained in another way: because Mary was burning to see the Lord, whence she had also searched most diligently, she wished to fall upon his feet with kisses and not let him go; but the Lord rebuked her, showing that this is not the place of enjoyment and of touching Christ, but with the Father, whence he says: Do not touch me, that is, do not wish to enjoy me by touching me here: for I have not yet ascended, where is the place of enjoyment, where you will never be frustrated; but now it is necessary to be separated bodily. Whence he sends her to announce what she had seen.

But go to my brothers, namely the Apostles, of whom it is said in the Psalm: "I will declare your name to my brothers: in the midst of the Church I will praise you"; and tell them, announce the truth of the rising Christ, which consists in the dignity of glorification, by which he was now fit to go into heaven; therefore he says: Tell them: I ascend: Ephesians 4: "He who descended, he himself is the one who ascended above all the heavens." The truth of Christ's resurrection also consists in the excellence of the Divinity: whence he says: To my Father and your Father, not in the same way mine as yours: whence Gregory says: "Mine by nature, yours by grace." The truth of Christ's resurrection also consists in the excellence of the humanity, and he touches upon this when he says: My God and your God: Augustine says: "My God, under whom I too am man, your God, between whom and himself I am Mediator."

Question. Whether Mary believed Christ to be God? And that she did, it seems, because above in chapter 11 Martha said: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And also, how would her sins have been forgiven without right faith? But Gregory and Augustine seem to say the contrary, on the text: For I have not yet ascended to my Father, as was explained above. The response is that Mary before the passion believed Christ to be God, yet she loved him most vehemently in the flesh: and therefore in the passion she conceived so great a sorrow that, now overwhelmed, she thought of nothing except his humanity and death, and therefore did not recall the works of his Majesty, but only the sufferings of his humanity.

Question. What does it mean when he says: I ascend to the Father, since the Father is everywhere? The response is that this is understood causally, because he was making or was about to make himself believed to be equal to the Father in all things: therefore he is said to ascend, etc. Or to the place where the Father is more manifestly revealed in his works: whence he is said to sit at the right hand, that is, among the greater goods.

as often as He wished, He at once vanished from them, how by way of instructing her He said to Mary: Touch me not, teaching her by these words that intercourse between immortals and mortals is not fitting, but rather intercourse with immortals must be in heaven. Wherefore also He directed her to go away and tell the disciples: I ascend into heaven into which ye also are to ascend.

But go unto My brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.

CHAPTER I. That the Son is by Nature God, even though we find Him calling the Father His God.

For reasons which we have given, Christ suffers not Mary to touch Him, though, in her love of God, she greatly yearned for this boon; but still rewards her for her watchful care, and doubly requites her for her passionate faith and love for Him, showing that those who are diligent in His service meet with a recompence. And, what was even yet more glorious, she achieved the deliverance of woman from the frailties of old; for in her first----I mean in Mary----all womankind, so to speak, are crowned with a double honour. For though at first she thus lamented, and made Christ an occasion for weeping, she turned her mourning into joy when she was told to forbear from tears by Him, Who, by His own sentence of old, had made woman easy to be overcome by the attacks of sorrow. For God had said to the woman: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children; but just as He once made her subject unto sorrow in Paradise, when she hearkened to the voice of the serpent, and ministered to the devil's wiles, so now again in a garden He bids her refrain from weeping. Releasing her from that curse which bound her unto sorrow, He bids her be the first messenger of tidings of great joy, and proclaim |662 to the disciples His journey heavenward; that as the first woman, the mother of all mankind, was condemned for listening to the devil's voice, and through her the whole race of women, so also this woman, in that she had hearkened to our Saviour's words, and announced tidings fraught with life eternal, might deliver the entire race of women from the charge of old. The Lord, therefore, grants unto Mary that, besides being delivered from tears, and from a heart ever prone to sorrow, her feet also should be beautiful. For, as the Prophet exclaims: How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things! while the feet of that woman of old time were not beautiful, for no good tidings did she bring when she enticed our forefather to transgress the Divine command. That Mary is worthy our admiration we may infer, from the fact that she was deemed worthy of mention in prophecy. For what said the Prophet concerning her, and the women with her, who announced unto the holy disciples the Resurrection of the Saviour? Ye women, who come from the sight, come hither; for it is a people that hath not understanding. For this Divine prophecy bids these women, true lovers of Christ, come, as it were, with quickened steps, that they may tell what they themselves have seen, and condemns the insensibility of the Jews in that they laughed to scorn the words of our Saviour Christ Himself concerning the Resurrection.

And though there were also other women there (for this the other Evangelists are pleased to record), and the wise John made mention only of Mary, we shall yet find no discrepancy in the accounts of these holy men. For it is probable that John made mention only of Mary Magdalene, because her love for Christ was more impassioned, and she outran the others, so that she first saw the tomb, and was in the garden, and visited every place that was nigh unto the sepulchre, to search for the Body; for she thought, in fact, that the Lord had been taken away. For results are always ascribed to those who take the lead in counsel and action, though there may be others who co-operate in both.

Therefore, to her honour and glory and perpetual renown, the Saviour vouchsafed unto Mary the duty of proclaiming to the brethren the tidings contained in His words: I ascend unto My Father and your Father, and My God and your God; and do thou for thy part accept this great and profound mystery, not suffering thine heart to vault over the measure of the truth of the Divine doctrines. Observe how the Only-begotten Word of God came among us, that we also might be even as He is, so far as is possible for our nature to attain thereto, and so far as relates unto our new creation by grace. For He humbled Himself that He might exalt that which was by nature lowly to His own high station; and wore the form of a servant, though He was by Nature Lord and Son of God, that He might uplift that which was by nature enslaved to the dignity of Sonship, in conformity with His own Likeness, and in His Image. How, and in what sense, then, He, becoming one of us as Man, in order that we also might be like Him, that is, Gods and Sons, receives our attributes into Himself, and gives back unto us His own, you may well be anxious to inquire. I will explain, then, as far as I am able: In the first place, then, though we are servants by rank and nature (for creatures are subject to their Creator), He calls us His brethren, and designates God the common Father of Himself and us; and, making humanity His own, by taking our likeness upon Him, He calls our God His God, though He is His Son by Nature; that, as we mount up to His exceeding great dignity of station by likeness to Him (for it is not because we are by nature sons of God that we are so called, for He cries in our hearts by His own Spirit, Abba, Father), so also He, since He took our form----for He became Man, according to the Scriptures----might have God for His God, though He was truly God by Nature, and proceeded from Him. Be not, therefore, offended, though you hear Him calling God His God, but rather contemplate His words in a teachable spirit, and attentively consider their true meaning. For He says that God is both His Father and our God; and both sayings are true. For, in very truth, the God of the universe is Christ's Father, but not ours by nature; but rather our God as our Creator and Sovereign Lord. But the Son, as it were, blending Himself with us, vouchsafes to our nature the dignity that is in a special and peculiar sense His own, calling Him That begat Him the common Father of us all; while, on the other hand, He receives into Himself, by taking upon Him our likeness, that which belonged to our nature. For He calls His Father His God, being unwilling, through His inherent love and mercy toward mankind, to dishonour our likeness that He had taken upon Himself. If, then, you choose in ignorance to cavil at this saying, and it seem intolerable to you that the Lord should say that God the Father was His God, you will then, in your perversity, be bringing a charge against the scheme for your own redemption; and when you ought to be offering up thanksgiving you will be dishonouring your Benefactor, and be foolishly objecting to the manner in which He manifested His love towards you. For if He humbled Himself, despising shame, and became a Man for your sake, on your head is the charge of humiliation, and to Him Who chose to undergo this for your sake, exceeding great is the honour due. And I am amazed that you have ears merely for the eclipse of glory (for He humbled Himself for our sake), and consider not its restoration, and, regarding only the degradation, reflect not upon the exaltation. For how was He humiliated, if you do not regard Him as perfect, as being God? And in what sense was He degraded, if you do not take into account the lofty attributes of His ineffable Nature? Therefore, when He was perfect and all-sufficient as God, He humbled Himself for your sake, transforming Himself to your likeness; and though He was high exalted as the Son of God, and of the very Essence of the Father, He degraded Himself, being mulcted of the attributes of Divine glory, so far as His Nature admitted. As therefore, now, He is at the same time God and Man, being high exalted because of His parentage (for He is God of God and truly Begotten of His Father), and also made lowly for our sake (for He became Man for us); be of a tranquil mind when you hear Him saying: I ascend unto My Father and your Father, and My God and your God. For it was very meet and right that, as being by Nature God and Son of God, He should call Him That begat Him His Father; and that, as being Man, even as we are men. He should call God His God.

Jesus saith to her, Touch Me not; for I am not yet ascended unto My Father.

The meaning of this saying is not easily understood by the vulgar, for a mystery underlies it; but we must probe it for our advantage. For the Lord will vouchsafe unto us the knowledge of His own Words. For He repulses the woman as she was running up to Him, and though she longed to embrace His Feet, He suffered her not; and, in explanation of His reason for so doing, said: For I am not yet ascended unto My Father. We must inquire into the meaning of this saying. For what if He were not yet ascended to His Father? How could this reason suffice to render it improper for those that loved Him to touch His holy Body? Would it not be blameworthy for any one to imagine that the Lord shrank from the pollution of the touch, and thus spake that He might be pure when He ascended to the Father in heaven? Would not such a man stand convicted of great folly and madness? For the Nature of God can never be polluted. For just as the light of the sun's ray, when it strikes upon a dunghill or any other earthly impurities, suffers no stain----for it remains as it is, that is, undefiled, and partakes in no degree of the ill odour of the objects that it encounters----even so the all-holy Nature of God can never admit of the blemish of defilement. What, then, is the reason why Mary was prevented from touching Him, when she drew near and yearned so to do? What can the Lord mean when He says: For I am not yet ascended unto My Father? We must investigate this according to the best of our ability. We say, therefore, that the reasons for our Saviour's sojourn amongst us were manifold and diverse, but this one the principal of all, which is indicated in His own words: For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Therefore, before the saving Cross and the Resurrection from the dead, while as yet His providential scheme had not received its appropriate fulfilment, He mingled both with the just and the unjust, and ate with publicans and sinners, and allowed any that so willed to come to Him and touch His holy Body, that He might sanctify all men and call them to a knowledge of the truth, and might bring back to health those who were diseased and enfeebled by the constant practice of sin. Therefore also, in another place, He said unto them: They that are whole have no need of a physician; but they that are sick. Therefore, before His Resurrection from the dead, He had intercourse indiscriminately with the righteous and with sinners, and never frightened away any that came unto Him. Moreover, when He was once reclining at the house of a Pharisee, a woman came in unto Him weeping, who was a sinner in the city, as is written, and let down her wanton locks, scarcely released from the service of her past sins, and wiped His Feet therewith; and we see that He did not stop her. Again, when He was on His way to bring back to life the daughter of the leader of the Synagogue, once more a woman came near unto Him, who had an issue of blood, and touched the border of His garment; and we find that He was in nowise offended, but rather vouchsafed unto her the comforting assurance: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace. But at that time, by His Providence, men who were still unclean, and who were polluted both in mind and body, were suffered without let or hindrance to touch the holy Flesh Itself of our Saviour Christ, and to gain every blessing thereby; but when, after having completed the scheme of our redemption, He had both suffered the Cross itself, and death thereon, and had risen again to life, and shown that His Nature was superior to death, henceforward, instead of granting them a ready permission, He hinders those who come to Him from touching the very Flesh of His holy Body; thereby giving us a type of the holy Churches, and the mystery concerning Himself, just as also the Law given by the all-wise Moses itself did, when it represented the slaughter of the lamb as a figure of Christ; for no uncircumcised person, said the Law, shall eat thereof, meaning by uncircumcised impure----and humanity may justly be deemed impure in its own nature. For what is the nature of man, as compared with God's inherent purity? We may not, therefore, while we remain uncircumcised, that is, impure, touch the holy Body, but only when we have been made pure by the true circumcision of the Spirit. For circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, as Paul saith. And we cannot be spiritually circumcised if the Holy Spirit hath not taken up His abode in us by faith and Holy Baptism. Surely, therefore, it was meet that Mary should for a while be restrained from touching His sacred Body, as she had not yet received the Spirit. For even though Christ was risen from the dead, still the Spirit had not yet been given to humanity by the Father through Him. For when He ascended to God the Father, He sent the Spirit down to us; wherefore also He said: It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter cannot come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. As, therefore, the Holy Spirit had not yet been sent down unto us, for He had not yet ascended to the Father, He repulses Mary as not yet having received the Spirit, saying: Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended unto the Father; that is to say, I have not yet sent down unto you the Holy Spirit. Hence the type is applicable to the Churches. Therefore, also, we drive away from the Holy Table those who are indeed convinced of the Godhead of Christ, and have already made profession of faith, that is, those who are already catechumens, when they have not as yet been enriched with the Holy Spirit. For He does not dwell in those who have not received Baptism. But when they have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, then indeed there is nothing to hinder them from touching Our Saviour Christ. Therefore, also, to those who wish to partake of the blessed Eucharist, the ministers of Divine mysteries say, "Holy things to the holy," teaching that participation in holy things is the due reward of those who are sanctified in the Spirit.

What is the difference if he was not yet ascended to his Father? How could this reason suffice to render it improper for those that loved him to touch his holy body? Would it not be blameworthy for anyone to imagine that the Lord shrank from the pollution of the touch and said this so that he might be pure when he ascended to the Father in heaven? Would not such a person stand convicted of great foolishness and madness? For the nature of God can never be polluted. For just as the light of the sun's ray, when it strikes on a manure pile or any other earthly impurities, suffers no stain, for it remains as it is, that is, undefiled, and it partakes in no degree of the ill odor of the objects that it encounters, even so the all-holy nature of God can never admit of the blemish of defilement. Why then was Mary prevented from touching him when she drew near and yearned to do so?…We say that the reasons for our Savior dwelling among us were many and diverse, but there is one overriding principle, indicated in his own words: "For I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." Therefore, before the saving cross and the resurrection from the dead, while as yet his providential scheme had not received its appropriate fulfillment, he mingled both with the just and the unjust, and ate with publicans and sinners and allowed any that wanted to come to him and touch his holy body so that he might sanctify all who came and call them to a knowledge of the truth and might bring back to health those who were diseased and enfeebled by the constant practice of sin. … At that time, by his providence, people who were still unclean and who were polluted both in mind and body were allowed without hindrance to touch the holy flesh itself of our Savior Christ and to gain every blessing from it. But after he completed the plan of our redemption, having suffered death on the cross and rising to life again, he showed that his nature was superior to death. And so, from then on, instead of granting them access, he hinders those who come to him from touching the very flesh of his holy body. In this way he gives us a type of the holy churches and the mystery concerning himself, just as also the law given by the all-wise Moses itself did when it represented the slaughter of the lamb as a figure of Christ. For "no uncircumcised person," said the Law, "shall eat thereof," meaning by uncircumcised someone who is "impure." And humanity may justly be deemed impure in its own nature. For what is the nature of a human being, as compared with God's inherent purity? We may not, therefore, while we remain uncircumcised, that is, impure, touch the holy body, but only when we have been made pure by the true circumcision of the Spirit.… As, therefore, the Holy Spirit had not yet been sent down to us, for he had not yet ascended to the Father, he repulses Mary as not yet having received the Spirit, saying, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to the Father"; that is to say, I have not yet sent down to you the Holy Spirit. And so, the type is applicable to the churches.… Therefore, also, to those who wish to partake of the blessed Eucharist, the ministers of divine mysteries say, "Holy things to the holy," teaching that participation in holy things is the due reward of those who are sanctified in the Spirit.

But in case anyone, from simplicity or perverse ingenuity, should suppose that Christ is but equal in honor to righteous people … it is well to make this distinction beforehand, that the name of the Father is one, but the power of his operation is many. And Christ himself, knowing this, has spoken unerringly, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father." He does not say, "to our Father," but distinguishing and saying first what was proper to himself, "to My Father," which was by nature. Then he adds, "and your Father," which was by adoption. For however high the privilege we have received of saying in our prayers, "Our Father," who art in heaven, yet this gift is one of loving-kindness. For we call him Father, not as having been by nature begotten of our Father who is in heaven but having been transferred from servitude to sonship by the grace of the Father, through the Son and Holy Spirit. We are permitted to speak this way because of the ineffable loving-kindness [of our Father].

The Father, having begotten the Son, remained the Father and is not changed. He begat Wisdom yet did not lose wisdom himself. He begat power yet did not become weak. He begat God but did not lose his own Godhead. Neither did he lose anything himself by diminution or change. He who was begotten does not lack anything either. Perfect is he who begat, perfect is that which was begotten: God was he who begat, God is he who was begotten; God of all himself, yet giving the Father the title as his own God. For he is not ashamed to say, "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." But in case you might think that he is a Father of the Son in the same way that he is Father of creation, Christ drew a distinction in what follows. For he did not say, "I ascend to our Father," lest the creatures should be made fellows of the Only Begotten. Instead, he said, "My Father and your Father." He is in one way mine, by nature. He is, in another way, yours, by adoption. And again, "to my God and your God," in one way mine, as his true and only-begotten Son, and in another way yours, as his workmanship. The Son of God then is very God, ineffably begotten before all ages.

He said, "Do not touch me," first of all, because this body was [like] a first-flowering fruit from Sheol that our Lord, as priest, was preserving carefully from contact with any [human] hand, so as to offer it to the [only] hand capable of receiving such a gift and capable of paying the price for an offering such as this. Second, [he did not want anyone to touch him] in order to show that this body was [already] glorified and magnified. Thus he showed them that, while he had been a servant, everyone had power over him, since even tax collectors and sinners used to come and touch him. But when he was made Lord, fear of him was over everyone like [the fear of] God. Even kings and nobles convince us [of this], for those who see [them] are afraid to touch them.

To give you the explanation in one sentence: You are to apply the loftier expressions to the Godhead and to that nature in him that is superior to sufferings and bodily experiences. But all that is lowly should be applied to the composite condition of him who for your sakes made himself of no reputation and was incarnate.

Now that the words addressed to Mary are not applicable to the Godhead of the Only Begotten, one may learn from the intention with which they were uttered. For he who humbled himself to a level with human littleness is the one who spoke these words. … He from whom we were formerly alienated by our revolt has become our Father and our God. Accordingly in the passage cited above the Lord brings the good news of this benefit. And the words are not a proof of the degradation of the Son but the good news of our reconciliation to God. For that which has taken place in Christ's humanity is a common boon bestowed on humankind generally. For as when we see in him the weight of the body that naturally gravitates to earth ascending through the air into the heavens, we believe according to the words of the apostle that we also "shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." Even so, when we hear that the true God and Father has become the God and Father of our Firstfruits, we no longer doubt that the same God has become our God and Father too, inasmuch as we have learned that we shall come to the same place where Christ has entered for us as our forerunner.

He becomes the firstborn of the new creation of men and women in Christ by the twofold regeneration, reborn by holy baptism and by that birth that is the consequence of the resurrection from the dead. In both alike he becomes for us the Prince of life, the firstfruits and the firstborn. This firstborn, then, also has brothers. This is who he is referring to when he says to Mary, "Go and tell my brothers, I go to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." In these words he sums up the whole aim of his dispensation as man. For humanity rebelled against God and "served those that by nature were no gods." And even though they were the children of God, they became attached to an evil father falsely so called. Therefore, the mediator between God and man, having assumed the firstfruits of all human nature, sends to his brothers the announcement of himself not in his divine character but in that which he shares with us. He says, "I am departing in order to make that true Father, from whom you were separated, to be your Father; and to make that true God from whom you had rebelled to be your God. And I am doing this in my own person. For by those firstfruits that I have assumed, I am in myself presenting all humanity to its God and Father."Since, then, the firstfruits made the true God to be its God and the good Father to be its Father, the blessing is secured for human nature as a whole, and by means of the firstfruits the true God and Father becomes Father and God of all men and women. Now "if the firstfruits are holy, the lump also is holy." But where the firstfruits, Christ, is—and the firstfruits is none other than Christ—there also are those who are Christ's, as the apostle says.

Now indeed what the woman did is not added by the evangelist, but it is indicated by what she heard. To whom it is said: "Do not touch me; for I have not yet ascended to my Father." For in these words it is shown that Mary wished to embrace the feet of him whom she recognized. But the teacher says to her: "Do not touch me." Not because the Lord after the resurrection refused the touch of women, since of the two coming to his tomb it is written: "They approached, and held his feet."

But the reason why she should not touch him is also added when he continues: "For I have not yet ascended to my Father." For in our heart Jesus ascends to the Father when he is believed to be equal to the Father. For whoever does not believe him equal to the Father, in his breast the Lord has not yet ascended to the Father. Therefore that person truly touches Jesus who believes the Son to be coeternal with the Father. For in the heart of Paul, Jesus had already ascended to the Father when the same Paul was saying: "Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God." Hence John also touched our Redeemer with the hand of faith, who says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him." Therefore that person touches the Lord who believes him equal to the Father in eternity of substance.

But perhaps someone is troubled by the silent question of how the Son can be equal to the Father. In this matter, what human nature cannot grasp by wondering, it remains that it should know this to be credible from another wonder. For it has something by which it may briefly answer itself on these matters. For it is established that he himself created the mother in whose virgin womb he was to be created from humanity. What wonder then if he is equal to the Father, who is prior to his mother? With Paul also attesting, we have learned that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Therefore whoever thinks the Son is lesser detracts particularly from the Father, whose wisdom he confesses to be unequal to him. For what powerful man would calmly bear it if someone said to him: "You are indeed great, but nevertheless your wisdom is less than you"? The Lord himself also says: "I and the Father are one." And again he says: "The Father is greater than I." Of whom it is also written that he was subject to his parents. What wonder then if from his humanity he asserts himself less than the Father in heaven, from which he was also subject to his parents on earth?

From which humanity it is now said to Mary: "Go to my brothers and tell them: I ascend to my Father and your Father, my God and your God." Since he says "my" and "your," why does he not say "our" in common? But speaking distinctly he indicates that he has the same Father and God differently than we do. "I ascend to my Father," namely by nature; "and your Father," by grace. "To my God," because I descended; "to your God," because you will ascend. For because I too am man, God is mine; because you are freed from error, God is yours. Therefore distinctly is he my Father and God, because he whom he begot as God before the ages, he created as man with me at the end of the ages.

(Hom. xxv.) The Evangelist does not add what she did upon recognising Him, but we know from what our Lord said to her: Jesus saith unto her, Touch Me not. Mary then had tried to embrace His feet, but was not allowed. Why not? The reason follows: For I am not yet ascended to My Father.

(de Trin.) Heretics, among their other impieties, misinterpret these words of our Lord's, and say, that if His Father is their Father, His God their God, He cannot be God Himself. But though He remained in the form of God, He took upon Him the form of a servant; and Christ says this in the form of a servant to men. And we cannot doubt that in so far as He is man, the Father is His Father in the same sense in which He is of other men, and God His God in like manner. Indeed He begins with saying, Go to My brethren. But God can only have brethren according to the flesh; the Only-Begotten God, being Only-Begotten, is without brethren.

And that He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son, He [shows when He] says, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." And again, "When all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall He also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." Wherefore it is one [Person] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [Person] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject [to the former].

Since, again, some who are reckoned among the orthodox go beyond the pre-arranged plan for the exaltation of the just, and are ignorant of the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption, they thus entertain heretical opinions. For the heretics, despising the handiwork of God, and not admitting the salvation of their flesh, while they also treat the promise of God contemptuously, and pass beyond God altogether in the sentiments they form, affirm that immediately upon their death they shall pass above the heavens and the Demiurge, and go to the Mother (Achamoth) or to that Father whom they have feigned. Those persons, therefore, who disallow a resurrection affecting the whole man, and as far as in them lies remove it from the midst [of the Christian scheme], how can they be wondered at, if again they know nothing as to the plan of the resurrection? For they do not choose to understand, that if these things are as they say, the Lord Himself, in whom they profess to believe, did not rise again upon the third day; but immediately upon His expiring on the cross, undoubtedly departed on high, leaving His body to the earth. But the case was, that for three days He dwelt in the place where the dead were, as the prophet says concerning Him: "And the Lord remembered His dead saints who slept formerly in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them, to rescue and save them." And the Lord Himself says, "As Jonas remained three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth." Then also the apostle says, "But when He ascended, what is it but that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth?" This, too, David says when prophesying of Him, "And thou hast delivered my soul from the nethermost hell;" and on His rising again the third day, He said to Mary, who was the first to see and to worship Him, "Touch Me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to the disciples, and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father, and unto your Father."

If, then, the Lord observed the law of the dead, that He might become the first-begotten from the dead, and tarried until the third day "in the lower parts of the earth;" then afterwards rising in the flesh, so that He even showed the print of the nails to His disciples, He thus ascended to the Father;-[if all these things occurred, I say], how must these men not be put to confusion, who allege that "the lower parts" refer to this world of ours, but that their inner man, leaving the body here, ascends into the super-celestial place? For as the Lord "went away in the midst of the shadow of death," where the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up [into heaven], it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God. "For no disciple is above the Master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his Master." As our Master, therefore, did not at once depart, taking flight [to heaven], but awaited the time of His resurrection prescribed by the Father, which had been also shown forth through Jonas, and rising again after three days was taken up [to heaven]; so ought we also to await the time of our resurrection prescribed by God and foretold by the prophets, and so, rising, be taken up, as many as the Lord shall account worthy of this [privilege].

Some assert, that she asked for spiritual grace, because she had heard Him when with the disciples say, "If I go to the Father, I will ask Him, and He shall give you another Comforter." But how could she who was not present with the disciples have heard this? Besides, such an imagination is far from the meaning here. And how should she ask, when He had not yet gone to the Father? What then is the sense? Methinks that she wished still to converse with Him as before, and that in her joy she perceived nothing great in Him, although He had become far more excellent in the Flesh. To lead her therefore from this idea, and that she might speak to Him with much awe, (for neither with the disciples doth He henceforth appear so familiar as before,) He raiseth her thoughts, that she should give more reverent heed to Him. To have said, "Approach Me not as ye did before, for matters are not in the same state, nor shall I henceforth be with you in the same way," would have been harsh and high-sounding; but the saying, "I am not yet ascended to the Father," though not painful to hear, was the saying of One declaring the same thing. For by saying, "I am not yet ascended," He showeth that He hasteth and presseth thither; and that it was not meet that One about to depart thither, and no longer to converse with men, should be looked on with the same feelings as before.

"Go and say unto the brethren, that I go unto My Father, and your Father, unto My God and your God." Yet He was not about to do so immediately, but after forty days. How then saith He this? With a desire to raise their minds, and to persuade them that He departeth into the heavens. But the, "To My Father and your Father, to My God, and your God," belongs to the Dispensation, since the "ascending" also belongs to His Flesh. For He speaketh these words to one who had no high thoughts. "Is then the Father His in one way, and ours in another?" Assuredly then He is. For if He is God of the righteous in a manner different from that in which He is God of other men, much more in the case of the Son and us. For because He had said, "Say to the brethren," in order that they might not imagine any equality from this, He showed the difference. He was about to sit on His Father's throne, but they to stand by. So that albeit in His Subsistence according to the Flesh He became our Brother, yet in Honor He greatly differed from us, it cannot even be told how much.

Of those passages which refer to the period after the resurrection, there are several which pertain to his human nature.… Other passages speak of Christ's dual nature, such as, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." "My God and your God," is to be understood more in an abstract way, as though he were ranking himself with us. Those passages, in general, that are sublime must be assigned to the divine nature, which is superior to passion and body. And those passages that are humble must be ascribed to the human nature. And those passages that are common must be attributed to the compound being, that is, the one Christ, who is God and man. And it should be understood that both [the human and divine] belong to one and the same Jesus Christ, our Lord. For if we know what is proper to each, and perceive that both are performed by one and the same, we shall have the true faith and shall not go astray.

The Son of man and Son of God, therefore, dearly beloved, then attained a more excellent and holier fame when he returned to the glory of the Father's majesty. In an incomprehensible way, he began to be nearer to the Father in respect of his Godhead after having become distanced in respect of his manhood. A better instructed faith then began to draw closer to a conception of the Son's equality with the Father without the necessity of handling the corporeal substance in Christ. As a result of this [substance], he is less than the Father, since, while the nature of the glorified body still remained, the faith of believers was called on to touch not with the hand of flesh but with the spiritual understanding the Only Begotten, who was equal with the Father. And this is why the Lord said to Mary Magdalene (who represents the church), when she hurriedly approached and touched him, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father," that is, I would not have you come to me as to a human body or recognize me by fleshly perceptions. I want you to wait for higher things. I prepare greater things for you. When I have ascended to my Father, then you shall handle me more perfectly and truly, for you shall grasp what you cannot touch and believe what you cannot see.

But after he had destroyed his enemies through his passion, the Lord, who is mighty in battle and strong, required a purification that could be given to him by his Father alone. And this is why he forbids Mary to touch him.

It belongs to the resurrection that one should be on the first day in the paradise of God, and it belongs to the resurrection when Jesus appears and says, "Do not touch me. For I am not yet ascended to my Father," but the perfection of the resurrection was when he came to the Father.

Also, when our Lord Jesus Christ Himself was talking with the woman of Samaria by the well alone, "His disciples came" and found Him talking with her, "and wondered that Jesus was standing and talking with a woman." [John 4:27] Is He not a rule, such as may not be set aside, an example, and a pattern to all the tribes of men? And not only so; but also, when our Lord was risen from the place of the dead, and Mary came to the place of sepulture, she ran and fell at the feet of our Lord and worshipped Him, and would have taken hold of Him. But He said to her: "Touch Me not; for I am not yet ascended to My Father." [John 20:17] Is it not, then, matter for astonishment, that, while our Lord did not allow Mary, the blessed woman, to touch His feet, yet you live with them, and are waited on by women and maidens, and sleep where they sleep, and women wash your feet for you, and anoint you!

Carried away by the warmth of her affection and by her fervent love, The maiden hurried, wanting to take hold of him, Who is not containable, who fills all creation. But the Creator did not fault her eagerness; Instead, he elevated her to the divine, saying, "Do not touch me; or do you consider me merely mortal? I am God, do not touch me. O holy woman, lift up your eyes and consider the heavens; Seek me there, For I am ascending to my Father, Whom I have not left. For I exist simultaneously with him And share the same throne and honor with him, I Who offer resurrection to the fallen."

Now, does this mean I ascend as the Father to the Father, and as God to God? Or does it mean I ascend as the Son to the Father and as the Word to God? This is also why this Gospel, at the very end, intimates that these things were ever written … "that you might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Wherever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views at that point, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel. For these things certainly are not written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Father but the Son.

But not so; Jesus saith unto her, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren" (and even in this He proves Himself to be the Son; for if He had been the Father, He would have called them His children, (instead of His brethren), "and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." Now, does this mean, I ascend as the Father to the Father, and as God to God? Or as the Son to the Father, and as the Word to God? Wherefore also does this Gospel, at its very termination, intimate that these things were ever written, if it be not, to use its own words, "that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? " Whenever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel, and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views therein, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel.

How blind, to be sure, is the man who fails to perceive that by the name of Christ some other God is implied, if he ascribes to the Father this name of Christ! For if Christ is God the Father, when He says, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God," He of course shows plainly enough that there is above Himself another Father and another God.

It is the custom of our Lord that, while his providence is preparing something, he seems to do something else according to the sense of his words. For instance, this is how he acted with the woman who suffered from hemorrhages. He asked, "Who touched me?" He certainly knew the answer. However he seemed to ask as if he did not know, so that the woman who had touched him might be afraid and manifest the miracle and show her faith though which, since it was adequate, she had received her healing.… And it is the same here as well. He first showed himself to the woman after his resurrection and was about to ascend into heaven, and by now he wanted to teach the disciples that they did not only have to believe in resurrection, because their sight testified to the reality of the facts, but also so that they might know he was not going to remain on earth after his resurrection but would also ascend into heaven to receive greater glory with his Father. Since this is so, it seems he says these things to the woman and forbids her to touch him as if she was not supposed to come into contact with his body in the same way anymore, since he was now provided with a different and much more powerful body. But this is the real meaning: Through what he said he wanted both to teach his disciples about his resurrection and his ascension. And this is evident from the fact that he showed himself again to the disciples who were in doubt, and he ordered them to touch the wounds on his body in the spots of the nails. So this is not the reason he kept the woman from coming into contact with him. And we cannot say that she was prevented because she was a woman; indeed, he allowed her to touch his feet many times. If she could not touch him because she was a woman, he would have forbidden her to do so even before. If he had forbidden the woman because his body had been transformed into a better state, he would have not allowed the disciples to confirm with their touch their faith in his resurrection. And then, if she also, by any chance, had doubted, like them, wouldn't he have allowed her to confirm her faith through the contact with him? If someone says that he did not care about the faith of this woman or her unbelief, this is quite foolish. But since he had allowed her to come to him then, is it possible that the reward that he gave her for her faith was the privation of contact with him? And does this not look hateful, especially to educated people? Therefore, with his words he revealed two things: first, that his body after the resurrection was in a stronger and more excellent condition than before and therefore was not to be exposed to any human contact; second, that he would be assumed into heaven, to be connected forever with the Father in honor.

For the human being who died rises up on the third day. But when Mary strives with longing to touch his holy limbs, he objected and says to her, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, my God and your God.' " God the Word, who comes from heaven and lives in the bosom of the Father, did not utter the phrase "I have not yet ascended to my Father." The Wisdom that embraces all things that exists did not say it either. This was spoken by the very human being who was formed out of all kinds of limbs, who had been raised from the dead and who after death had not yet ascended to his Father but reserved for himself the firstfruit of his passage.

She desires to approach Him, to interact with Him as before, and perhaps to embrace Him as a beloved one. But He elevates her thought, so that she might think something higher and attend to Him with greater reverence. "Do not touch Me," that is, circumstances are no longer in their former state, and I shall no longer interact with you as before. Although He did not say this in words, such is the meaning of the words "I ascend to My Father." I hasten there. And since I hasten there and no longer have such a body as to interact with people, one must be more reverent toward Me, beyond ordinary conversation and touching, that is, interaction. See then how many thoughts the Evangelist expressed briefly. The Lord said: "Do not touch Me." Then, as if someone asked: "Why?" "Because," He answers, "My body is no longer such as is proper to earthly life, but such as befits heaven and the dwellings on high." Then the questioner, as it were, continues: "Why then do You walk on earth, when You have such a body?" "Because," He answers, "I have not yet ascended to My Father, but I shall ascend." For He expresses this in the further words: "Go to My brethren and tell them: I ascend to My Father and your Father," although He would ascend not immediately, but after forty days. Why then does He speak thus? In order to raise up her mind and to persuade her that He is ascending to the heavens, and thereby to comfort her. Having called the disciples brothers, He adds "and your Father." God is Father to us as well, but by grace, whereas to the Lord He is Father by nature. Conversely, He is God to us by nature, but God to the Lord by His humanity. For He became His God when He took upon Himself human nature.

2515 Next, the Evangelist shows Mary receiving instructions from Christ: one of them is negative, the other positive, go to my brethren.

2516 He does two things about the first: he states the prohibition, and then gives the reason for it. Christ warns Mary not to touch him, saying, Do not hold me. Even though we do not read here that Mary wanted to touch Christ, Gregory says we can see from this that Mary fell at the feet of Christ and wanted to grasp the one she had recognized. He adds the reason, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. It seems from this that after his resurrection, Christ did not want to be touched before he ascended. But the opposite is found in Luke (24:39): "Handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones." It is no answer to say that Christ wanted to be touched by his disciples, but not by the women, for we see in Matthew (28:9), that Mary Magdalene and other women came to him and did grasp him by his feet. Therefore, we should understand, according to the letter of the text, that Mary saw angels at two times: the first time was with the other women, when she saw one angel sitting on the stone, as Matthew (28:2) says, and Mark (16:5); the second time was when she returned and saw two angels inside the tomb, as John (20:12) says. Similarly, she also saw Christ two times: first in the garden, when she thought he was the gardener, as we just saw; secondly, she saw him when she was running with the other women to tell the disciples what they had seen (in order to strengthen them in their faith in the resurrection). It was this second time that they approached and held Christ's feet, as Matthew (28:9) and Mark (16:9) say.

2517 There are two mystical reasons why Christ did not want to be touched. First, because this particular woman signified the Church of the Gentiles, which was not to touch Christ by faith until he had ascended to the Father: "A congregation of people will surround you; for their sakes return on high" [Ps 7:8]. The other reason is given by Augustine in his work on The Trinity. It is that touch is the last stage of knowledge: when we see something, we know it to a certain extent, but when we touch it our knowledge is complete. Now this particular woman had some faith in Christ, which was that he was a holy man; and this was why she called him Teacher. But she had not yet reached the point of believing that he was equal to the Father and one with God. Thus Christ says, Do not hold me, that is, do not allow what you now believe of me to be the limit of your faith, for I have not yet ascended to my Father, that is, in your heart, because you do not believe that I am one with him - yet she did believe this later. In a way Christ did ascend to the Father within her when she had advanced in the faith to the point of believing that he was equal to the Father.

2518 Or, we could say, with Chrysostom, that after this woman saw that Christ had arisen, she thought he was in the same state as he was before, having a life subject to death. She wanted to be with him as she was before his passion, and in her joy thought there was nothing extraordinary about him, although Christ's flesh had become much better by arising. To correct this impression Christ said, Do not hold me. It was like saying: Do not think that I have a mortal life, and can associate with you as before: "Even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer" (2 Cor 5:16). This is what he adds when he says, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Accordingly, this statement does not give the reason for his prohibition, but an answer to an implicit question. It was like saying: Although you see me remaining here, it is not because my flesh is not glorified but because I have not yet ascended to my Father. For before he ascended he wanted to strengthen in the hearts of the apostles their faith in his resurrection and in his divinity.

2519 After this he gives his positive directions, go to my brethren, that is the apostles, because they are his brethren by his having the same nature: "He had to be made like his brethren in every respect" (Heb 2:17); and they are his brethren by being adopted through grace, because they are the adopted children of his Father, of whom he is the natural Son.

Notice the three privileges given to Mary Magdalene. First, she had the privilege of being a prophet because she was worthy enough to see the angels, for a prophet is an intermediary between angels and the people. Secondly, she had the dignity or rank of an angel insofar as she looked upon Christ, on whom the angels desire to look. Thirdly, she had the office of an apostle; indeed, she was an apostle to the apostles insofar as it was her task to announce our Lord's resurrection to the disciples. Thus, just as it was a woman who was the fist to announce the words of death, so it was a woman who would be the first to announce the words of life.

2520 And say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father. "I go to the Father" (14:12); "He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens" (Eph 4:10). Arius based his error on these words, my Father and your Father. He took it to mean that God is the Father of the Son in the same way that he is our Father, and that he is the God of the Son in the same way that he is our God. The answer to this is that the meaning of these words must be gathered from the circumstances in which they were spoken. Christ said before, go to my brethren. But Christ had these brethren insofar he had a human nature, and in his human nature he is subject to the Father as a creature to the Creator, for the body of Christ is something created.

2521 Or, according to Augustine, Christ is speaking of himself and referring to each of his natures. I am ascending to my Father and your Father refers to his divine nature, and from this point of view he has as Father God, to whom he is equal and like in nature. Thus, the meaning is my Father by nature, and your Father by grace. It is saying in effect: the fact that you are adopted children by grace is due to me: "God sent forth his Son... so that we might receive adoption as sons" (Gal 4:4); "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first‑born among many brethren" (Rom 8:29). When he adds, to my God and your God, he is referring to his human nature. From this point of view God rules him; thus he says, my God, under whom I am a man. And your God, and between him and you I am the mediator: for God is our God because through Christ we are pleasing to him: "Having then been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained access by faith to this grace in which we stand; and we exult in the hope of the glory of the children of God" [Rom 5:1]; "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

He does not deny that He is good, but points to God. None is good then except he be full of goodness. But should it strike any one that it is said, none is good, let this also strike him, save God, and if the Son is not excepted from God, surely neither is Christ excepted from good. For how is He not good who is born from good? A good tree brings forth good fruits. (Matt. 7:17.) How is He not good, seeing that the substance of His goodness which He took unto Him from the Father has not degenerated in the Son which did not degenerate in the Spirit. Thy good spirit, he says, shall lead me into a land of uprightness. (Ps. 148:10.) But if the Spirit is good who received from the Son, verily He also is good who gave It. Because then it was a lawyer who tempted Him, as is plainly shown in another book, He therefore well said, None is good, save God, that He might remind him that it was written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God, (Deut. 6:16.) but he the rather gives thanks to the Lord that He is good. (Ps. 118.)

On this account also He replied to him, who had called Him Good Master, when seeking advice of Him how he might attain eternal life, "Why askest thou me about good? there is none good but One, that is, God." And yet the Lord Himself, in another place, calls man good: "A good man," He says, "out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things: and an evil man, out of the evil treasure of his heart, bringeth forth evil things." But because that man was seeking eternal life, and eternal life consists in that contemplation in which God is seen, not for punishment, but for everlasting joy; and because he did not understand with whom he was speaking, and thought Him to be only the Son of man: Why, He says, askest thou me about good? that is, with respect to that form which thou seest, why askest thou about good, and callest me, according to what thou seest, Good Master? This is the form of the Son of man, the form which has been taken, the form that will appear in judgment, not only to the righteous, but also to the ungodly; and the sight of this form will not be for good to those who are wicked. But there is a sight of that form of mine, in which when I was, I thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but in order to take this form I emptied myself. That one God, therefore, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who will not appear, except for joy which cannot be taken away from the just; for which future joy he sighs, who says, "One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord:" that one God, therefore, Himself, I say, is alone good, for this reason, that no one sees Him for sorrow and wailing, but only for salvation and true joy. If you understand me after this latter form, then I am good; but if according to that former only, then why askest thou me about good?

Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. Since he had called him a good teacher and had not confessed him as God or God's Son, he learns that compared to God, no mere human being is good. Of whom it is said: 'Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good' (Psalm 106). But God alone being good is not to be understood as the Father alone, but also the Son, who says: 'I am the good Shepherd.' Also the Holy Spirit, because the Father from heaven will give the good Spirit to those who ask Him (Luke 11). That is, the one and individual Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is the only one and good God. Therefore, the Lord does not deny being good but indicates being God. He does not deny being a good teacher but testifies that no teacher apart from God is good.

Secondly, as to the response, by which is shown where one must tend, it is added: But Jesus said: Why do you call me good? He says this not rebuking him as a liar, but because, calling him good, he was fixing his intention on the humanity. Whence Augustine, On the Trinity: "You call me, according to what you see, good master; the vision of this form will not be for the good of those who act wickedly"; as if to say: the goodness toward which you ought to tend is not in me insofar as I am man, but insofar as I am God. — And therefore he adds: No one is good except God alone: which he does not understand of goodness by participation, which is communicated to all by God, according to that passage in Genesis 1: "God saw all things that he had made, and they were very good"; but of goodness by essence, which makes the blessed and good, according to that passage in Exodus 33: "I will show you all good"; and this alone is to be desired, according to that passage in Proverbs 11: "The desire of the just is all good." This good is to be sought as the end of every good: whence Matthew 19: "Why do you ask me about the good? No one is good" etc., that is, the final good is in God alone, who is the end of all things, because "the good and the end are the same." And he himself says in Apocalypse 1: "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end"; and therefore Nahum 1: "The Lord is good and strengthening in the day of tribulation and knowing those who hope in him." From this good, goodness flows into us through the Holy Spirit; Wisdom 12: "O how good and sweet is your Spirit in us, O Lord"; and the Psalm: "How good is the God of Israel to those who are upright of heart." But this goodness of ours, compared to the divine goodness, is not goodness: whence Job 4: "Shall a man be justified in comparison with God, or shall he be purer than his Maker?" There the Gloss says: "Human justice, compared to the divine, is injustice." And therefore Job 25: "Can a man be justified when compared with God?" as if to say: no. Sirach 18: "God alone shall be justified and remains an unconquered king forever." Christ therefore, about to respond to a question useful for the salvation of the whole world, as the master of morals and of all moral philosophy, began from the highest good by essence, from which and according to which and toward which every good must be ordered; otherwise it ceases to be good.

What reply is made by the all-knowing One of whom it is written that he "takes the wise in their craftiness"? "Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God." You see how Christ proved immediately that the ruler was neither wise nor learned, although he was the ruler of a synagogue of the Jews. He says, "You did not believe that I am God, and the clothing of the flesh has led you astray. Why did you apply to me titles suitable to the supreme nature alone, while you still assume that I am a mere man like you and not superior to the limits of human nature?" In the nature that transcends all, God alone is found to be good by nature, that is, unchangeably good.… He says, "I do not seem to you to be truly God. Ignorantly and foolishly, you have applied to me the properties and virtues of the divine nature. Why do you then imagine that I, a mere man that never is invested with goodness but only gains it by the assent of the divine will, have the property of the unchangeable nature?" This was the meaning of what Christ spoke.

It is, of course, another matter if He does not wish to be prayed to, because He is the supremely and spontaneously good God! But who is this good God? There is, He says, "none but one." It is not as if He had shown us that one of two gods was the supremely good; but He expressly asserts that there is one only good God, who is the only good, because He is the only God.

"But," say they, "God is `good, 'and `most good, ' and `pitiful-hearted, 'and `a pitier, 'and `abundant in pitiful-heartedness, ' which He holds `dearer than all sacrifice, ' `not thinking the sinner's death of so much worth as his repentance', `a Saviour of all men, most of all of believers.

He comes to the Lord as to a mere man and teacher. Therefore the Lord, to show that one should not come to Him as to a mere man, said: "No one is good but God alone." You, He says, called Me "good," so why did you also add "teacher"? It seems you take Me for one of many. But if so, then I am not good, for among men properly no one is good; only God alone is good. Therefore, if you wish to call Me good, call Me good as God, and do not come to Me as to a mere man. But if you consider Me one of ordinary men, then do not call Me good. For God alone is truly good, is the fountain of goodness and the source of essential goodness. But we men, even if we are good, are not so of ourselves, but by participation in His goodness, and possess a goodness that is mixed and capable of inclining toward evil.

The Saviour then considering his meaning, because faith is the way to good works, passes over the question he asked, and leads him to the knowledge of faith; as if a man was to ask a physician, "What shall I eat?" and he was to show him what ought to go before his food. And then He sends him to His Father, saying, Why callest thou me good? not that He was not good, for He was the good branch from the good tree, or the good Son of the good Father.

Honour is concerned not only with paying respect, but also with giving bountifully. For it is honouring to reward deserts. Feed thy father, feed thy mother, and when thou hast fed them thou hast not requited all the pangs and agony thy mother underwent for thee. To the one thou owest all thou hast, to the other all thou art. What a condemnation, should the Church feed those whom thou art able to feed! But it may be said, What I was going to bestow upon my parents, I prefer to give to the Church. God seeks not a gift which will starve thy parents, but the Scripture says as well that parents are to be fed, as that they are to be left for God's sake, should they check the love of a devout mind.

(in Esai. cap. 1. 23.) Now we must not understand by thieves, only such as cut strips off hides, or commit robberies in the baths. But all such also as, when appointed leaders of legions, or installed governors of states or nations, are guilty of secret embezzlement, or violent and open exactions.

You know the commandments: You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness. Honor your father and your mother. This is the chastity of childlike innocence, which is proposed to us for imitation if we wish to enter the kingdom of God. It should indeed be noted that justice of the law, kept at its proper time, not only confers the goods of the earth but also eternal life.

Thirdly, as to the instruction, by which the salvific path is declared, he adds: You know the commandments: which is expressed more clearly in Matthew 19: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

He explains these things when he adds: Thou shalt not kill, through wrath; 1 John 3: "He who hates his brother is a murderer"; and therefore Matthew 5: "You have heard that it was said to the ancients: Thou shalt not kill." "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment." Thou shalt not commit adultery, through lust, for Deuteronomy 27: "Cursed is everyone who lies with the wife of his neighbor"; and Matthew 5: "You have heard that it was said to the ancients: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Thou shalt not steal, through avarice: Ephesians 4: "Let him who stole steal no more, but rather let him labor, working with his hands," etc. Thou shalt not bear false witness, through deceit; Proverbs 19: "A false witness shall not go unpunished, and he who speaks lies shall perish." Honor thy father and mother, namely through beneficence: Ecclesiasticus 3: "He who honors his father shall find joy in his children. And he who honors his mother shall live a longer life; and he who obeys his father shall bring comfort to his mother." Whence Ambrose says: "This is the first step of piety: for God willed these to be your authors. Honor them with dutiful service and refrain from insults; for the piety owed to parents must not be injured even by a look"; therefore Ecclesiasticus 3: "He who fears the Lord honors his parents and serves as though they were his masters those who begot him."

Note here that the Lord enumerates the commandments here in an orderly manner and sufficiently: in an orderly manner indeed, because it is prior to turn away from evil than to do good; and therefore he places the negative commandments before the affirmative. Sufficiently, because the commandments of the first tablet are not about things to be done, but rather direct us toward that highest good to be desired; while the last two concerning the coveting of a wife and of another's property are reduced to the prohibition of adultery and theft. Whence in this he sufficiently teaches us to turn away from every disorder with respect to our neighbor, both with respect to the irascible and the concupiscible, and with respect to the operative and the interpretive; and he also teaches perfect beneficence through the last commandment. And thus in these are contained the two precepts of the natural law, concerning the first of which, Tobit 4: "What you would hate to be done to you by another, see that you never do to another"; concerning the second, Matthew 7: "All things whatsoever you wish that men should do to you, do you also the same to them." In these is also sufficiently contained the commandment concerning the love of neighbor, about which it is said in Romans 13: "He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law."

The Law forbids first that into which we more easily fall, and then that into which few fall and infrequently: for example, adultery, since it is a fire from both the outside and the inside; murder, since anger is a great beast; while theft is less important, and one can fall into false witness infrequently. Therefore the first crimes are forbidden first, since we easily fall into them, although in other respects they are also more grievous. But these, that is, theft and false witness, the Law places in second rank, since they are committed infrequently and are less important. After these crimes, the Law placed the sin against parents. For although this sin is grievous, it does not often occur, since it is not often nor many, but rarely and few, that such bestial people are found who would dare to insult their parents.

The law first forbids those things to which we are most prone, as adultery for instance, the incitement to which is within us, and of our nature; and murder, because rage is a great and savage monster. But theft and bearing false witness are sins which men seldom fall into. And besides, the former also are the more grievous sins, therefore He places theft and bearing false witness in the second place, as both less common, and of less weight than the other.

Because sin against parents, although a great crime, very rarely happens, He places it last of all, Honour thy father and mother.

After instructing him in the knowledge of the faith, He adds, Thou knowest the commandments. As though He said, Know God first, and then will it be time to seek what thou askest.

But you may observe that these commandments consist in not doing certain things; that if thou hast not committed adultery, thou art chaste; if thou stealest not, honestly disposed; if thou bearest not false witness, truth-telling. Virtue then we see is rendered easy through the goodness of the Lawgiver. For He speaks of avoiding of evil, not practising of good. And any cessation from action is easier than any actual work.

(ex Apol. de sua fuga.) For when we despise the world, we must not imagine we have resigned any thing great, for the whole earth in comparison of the heaven is but a span long; therefore even should they who renounce it be lords of the whole earth, yet still it would be nothing worth in comparison of the kingdom of heaven.

The young man asked the Lord how to attain to eternal life and heard that he must sell all his goods and distribute them to the poor and have his treasure in heaven. Why else did he go away sad, except that he had, as the Gospel says, great riches? It is one thing not to wish to hoard up what one does not have. It is another thing to scatter what has been accumulated. The former is like refusing food; the latter, like cutting off a limb.

(in Reg. Brev. int. 92.) He does not tell us to sell our goods, because they are by nature evil, for then they would not be God's creatures; He therefore does not bid us cast them away as if they were bad, but distribute them; nor is any one condemned for possessing them, but for abusing them. And thus it is, that to lay out our goods according to God's command both blots out sins, and bestows the kingdom.

(in Reg. fus. disp. 3. ad int. 9.) When our Lord says, Give to the poor, it becomes a man no longer to be careless, but diligently to dispose of all things, first of all by himself if in any measure he is able, if not, by those who are known to be faithful, and prudent in their management; for cursed is he who doeth the work of the Lord negligently. (Jerem. 49, 10.)

(Hom. de eleemos.) The merchant when he goes to the market, is not loth to, part with all that he has, in order to obtain what he requires, but thou art grieved at giving mere dust and ashes that thou mayest gain everlasting bliss.

Sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me. Whoever wishes to be perfect must sell, like Ananias and Sapphira, but sell everything; and when he has sold it, give everything to the poor, and so prepare a treasure for himself in the kingdom of heaven. And this does not suffice for perfection, unless after despising riches, he follows the Savior, that is, leaving behind evil, he does good. For it is easier to despise the purse than the will. Many, though they leave riches, do not follow the Lord. However, he follows the Lord who is his imitator, and walks in his footsteps. For whoever says he believes in Christ, ought to walk as He did.

Whoever then wishes to be perfect must sell all that he hath, not a part only, as Ananias and Sapphira did, but the whole.

Fourth, as regards the exhortation, by which the perfect path of poverty is urged, it is added: Having heard this, Jesus said to him: Yet one thing is lacking to you; The Gloss: "For perfection." Now that is perfect which lacks nothing: James 1: "That you may be perfect and entire, lacking in nothing." And this is done by perfectly fulfilling the divine will, not only by doing what is commanded and avoiding what is forbidden, but also by fulfilling the counsels, according to that in Romans 12: "That you may prove what is the good and well-pleasing and perfect will of God"; and above in chapter 6: "But everyone will be perfect if he is like his master," that is, Christ, who had absolutely nothing.

On account of which He adds: All things whatsoever you have, sell and give to the poor: The Gloss: "Not a part," as Ananias did, of whom it is said in Acts 5 that he "defrauded from the price of the field"; and this because "the kingdom of heaven, as Gregory says, is worth as much as you have." "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field," etc. And lest this seem burdensome, He adds: And you shall have treasure in heaven: Job 22: "He shall give flint for earth and golden torrents for flint"; and these are in eternal glory, where there are incorruptible treasures; Matthew 6: "Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither rust nor moth destroys, nor thieves dig through nor steal."

And "because, as the Gloss says, it does not suffice to leave one's possessions unless one follows the Lord by imitating Him"; therefore He adds: And come, follow me, through the utmost harshness of life: according to that in 1 Peter 2: "Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example," etc. Through the utmost destitution of possessions. For to the disciple wishing to follow Him out of cupidity and saying: "Master, I will follow you wherever you go," He responds: "Foxes have dens, and the birds of the sky have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head," Matthew 8. Through the utmost humility of heart; Sirach 23: "It is a great glory to follow the Lord"; and John 8: "He who follows me does not walk in darkness." And concerning these things, above in chapter nine: "If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." To follow therefore Christ is to configure oneself perfectly to him, according to that passage in Job 23: "My foot has followed his steps; I have kept his way and have not turned aside from it," etc.

(Hom. 22. in 1 ad Cor.) God might indeed feed the poor without our taking compassion upon them, but He wishes the givers to be bound by the ties of love to the receivers.

(Hom. 32. in 1. ad Cor.) But it is asked, how does Christ acknowledge the giving all things to the poor to be perfection, whereas St. Paul declares this very thing without charity to be imperfect. Their harmony is shown in the words which succeed, And come, follow me, which betokens it to be from love. For herein shall all men know that ye are my, disciples, if ye have love one toward another. (John 13:35.)

"My work was my subsistence." Nay, but "all things are to be sold, and divided to the needy." "But provision must be made for children and posterity.

When the young man said that he had kept all these things from his youth, the Lord proposes to him the summit of everything: non-possessiveness. See, the Laws prescribe a truly Christian way of life. "Sell all that you have," He says. For if anything remains, you are a slave to it. And "distribute" not to wealthy relatives, but "to the poor." In my opinion, the word "distribute" also expresses the idea that one should disperse possessions with discernment, and not haphazardly. And since alongside non-possessiveness a person must also have all the other virtues, the Lord said, "and follow Me," that is, in all other respects as well be My disciple, always follow Me — and not in such a way that you follow today but not tomorrow.

Hence when he says, All that thou hast, He inculcates the most complete poverty. For if there is any thing left over or remaining to thee, thou art its slave.

Together with poverty must exist all the other virtues, therefore He says, Come, follow me, that is, In all other things be My disciples, be always following Me.

Our Lord next declares, that though a man has kept the old covenant, he is not perfect, since he lacks to follow Christ. Thou yet lackest one thing, Sell all that thou hast, &c. As if He says, Thou askest how to possess eternal life; scatter thy goods among the poor, and thou shalt obtain it. A little thing is that thou spendest, thou receivest great things.

But Jesus, seeing him become sad, said: How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! It is clear indeed that those who strive to multiply their riches here, disdain to seek the joys of another life, but there is a difference between having wealth and loving wealth. Many indeed who have do not love. Many who do not have, love. Similarly, others both have and love, while others neither have nor love the riches of this world, whose state is safer, with the Apostle saying: The world is crucified to us, and we to the world (Gal. VI). Hence Solomon does not say, Whoever has, but Whoever loves riches, will not enjoy their fruit (Eccl. V). And the Lord Himself, according to Mark, with the disciples astonished at the words of this statement, further explained: Little children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God (Mark X)! And it is to be noted that He did not say, Impossible, but Difficult, that is, it is of the greatest labor for those who have wealth, or trust in wealth, stripping off the bonds of avarice, to enter the court of the heavenly kingdom.

Second, as regards the danger of human tenacity, it is added: But Jesus, seeing him made sad, on account of the disposition of pusillanimity; against which Ecclesiasticus 7 says: "Do not be faint-hearted in your soul. Do not despise praying and giving alms." — He said: How difficult it is for those who have riches to enter into the kingdom of God, on account of the vice of tenacity. The Gloss says: "Who have riches, that is, who possess them with love and place their trust in them." Whence it is said more expressly in Mark 10: "How difficult it is for those trusting in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!" And the reason for this is that those who embrace temporal things here as great things despise those eternal things; whence the Gloss says: "Those who devote themselves to multiplying riches despise the joys of the other life."

Moreover, those who love these temporal things are exposed to many darts of temptations: 1 Timothy, last chapter: "Those who wish to become rich fall into temptation and into the snare of the devil and into many useless and harmful desires, which plunge a man," etc.

Another reason is that those who are joined to these things by affection are not easily separated: whence also concerning such persons in the Psalm: "For our soul has been humbled in the dust, our belly has been glued to the earth." Whence Bernard: "The concupiscence of the world harms more than its substance. And this is the principal reason for fleeing riches: because they can scarcely or never be possessed without love. For the substance of this world is slimy and sticky, and the human heart easily clings to all things which it frequents." And therefore the Gloss: "Riches are despised with difficulty: therefore, of all courses, it is safer neither to have nor to love riches." In this he gives to understand four differences among men, which Bede explains, and which are found in the Gloss on the tenth chapter of Mark: "Many have and do not love; many do not have yet love; others have and love; but others rejoice in neither having nor loving, and these are the safest, because they can say with the Apostle: The world is crucified to me, and I to the world," Galatians 6.

The Christian view is that men were created to be in a certain relationship to God (if we are in that relation to Him, the right relation to one another will follow inevitably). Christ said it was difficult for "the rich" to enter the Kingdom of Heaven,1 referring, no doubt, to "riches" in the ordinary sense. But I think it really covers riches in every sense—good fortune, health, popularity, and all the things one wants to have. All these things tend—just as money tends—to make you feel independent of God, because if you have^them you are happy already and contented in this life. You don't want to turn away to anything more, and so you try to rest in a shadowy happiness as if it could last forever. But God wants to give you a real and eternal happiness. Consequently He may have to take all these "riches" away from you: if He doesn't, you will go on relying on them. It sounds cruel, doesn't it? But I am beginning to find out that what people call the cruel doctrines are really the kindest ones in the long run. I used to think it was a "cruel" doctrine to say that troubles and sorrows were "punishments." But I find in practice that when you are in trouble, the moment you regard it as a "punishment," it becomes easier to bear. If you think of this world as a place intended simply for our happiness, you find it quite intolerable: think of it as a place of training and correction and it's not so bad.

Imagine a set of people all living in the same building. Half of them think it is a hotel, the other half think it is a prison. Those who think it a hotel might regard it as quite intolerable, and those who thought it was a prison might decide that it was really surprisingly comfortable. So that what seems the ugly doctrine is one that comforts and strengthens you in the end. The people who try to hold an optimistic view of this world would become pessimists: the people who hold a pretty stern view of it become optimistic.

As the ruler therefore was too infirm of purpose, and could not be prevailed upon even to listen to the advice of selling his possessions, although it would have been good for him, and full of reward, our Lord lays bare the malady which has its lair in the rich, thus saying, "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And I say unto you, that it is easier for a camel to enter in through the eye of a needle, than a rich man into the kingdom of God." Now by a camel He means not the animal of that name, but a thick cable rather: for it is the custom of those well versed in navigation to call the thicker cables "camels."

Observe however, that He does not altogether cut away the hope of the rich, but reserves for them a place and way of salvation. For He did not say that it is impossible for a rich man to enter in, but that he does so with difficulty.

(Hom. 24. in 1 ad Cor.) Abraham indeed possessed wealth for the poor. And all they who righteously possess it, spend it as receiving it from God, according to the divine command, while those who have acquired wealth in an ungodly way, are ungodly in their use of it; whether in squandering it on harlots or parasites, or hiding it in the ground, but sparing nothing for the poor. (Hom. 18. in Joan.). He does not then forbid men to be rich, but to be the slaves of their riches. He would have us use them as necessary, not keep guard over them. It is of a servant to guard, of a master to dispense. Had he wished to preserve them, He would never have given them to men, but left them to remain in the earth.

(Hom. 80. in Matt.) There is no profit in riches while the soul suffers poverty, no hurt in poverty, while the soul abounds in wealth. But if the sign of a man waxing rich is to be in need of nothing, and of becoming poor to be in want, it is plain that the poorer a man is, the richer he grows. For it is far easier for one in poverty to despise wealth, than for the rich. Nor again is avarice wont to be satisfied by having more, for thereby are men only the more inflamed, just as a fire spreads, the more it has to feed upon. Those which seem to be the evils of poverty, it has in common with riches, but the evils of riches are peculiar to them.

"How hard it is for those who have riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God!" When all the saints heard this command, they thought they should withdraw from this hardness of riches. They parted with all their goods. By this distribution of their riches to the poor, they laid up for themselves eternal riches. They took up the cross and followed Christ. Some followed, being made perfect by martyrdom, even as I have already told you, while others by the practice of self-denial did not fall short of them in the life of the true philosophy. Know that this is a command of Christ our King and God that leads us from corruptible things and makes us partakers of everlasting things.

What am I to fasten on as the cause of this madness, except the weakness of faith, ever prone, to the concupiscences of worldly joys?-which, indeed, is chiefly found among the wealthier; for the more any is rich, and inflated with the name of "matron," the more capacious house does she require for her burdens, as it were a field wherein ambition may run its course. To such the churches look paltry. A rich man is a difficult thing (to find) in the house of God; and if such an one is (found there), difficult (is it to find such) unmarried.

After the rich man, having heard about the renunciation of wealth, became sorrowful, the Lord explains with a wondrous comparison "how hard it is for those who have riches to enter the Kingdom of God." He did not say that it is impossible for them (the rich) to enter, but "hard." For it is not impossible for such people to be saved. Having distributed their wealth, they can receive heavenly blessings. But to do the former is not easy, because wealth binds more firmly than glue, and for the one whom it has mastered, it is difficult to renounce it. Below the Lord explains how this becomes impossible.

Our Lord, seeing that the rich man was sorrowful when it was told him to surrender his riches, marvelled, saying, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! He says not, It is impossible for them to enter, but it is difficult. For they might through their riches reap an heavenly reward, but it is a hard thing, seeing that riches are more tenacious than birdlime, and hardly is the soul ever plucked away, that is once seized by them. But he next speaks of it as impossible. It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye. The word in the Greek answers equally to the animal called the camel, and to a cable, or ship rope. However we may understand it, impossibility is implied. What must we say then? First of all that the thing is positively true, for we must remember that the rich man differs from the steward, or dispenser of riches. The rich man is he who reserves his riches to himself, the steward or dispenser one who holds them entrusted to his care for the benefit of others.

Again, observe that He says, a rich man can not possibly be saved, but one who possesses riches hardly; as if he said, The rich man who has been taken captive by his riches, and is a slave to them, shall not be saved; but he who possesses or is the master of them shall with difficulty be saved, because of human infirmity. For the devil is ever trying to make our foot slip as long as we possess riches, and it is a hard matter to escape his wiles. Poverty therefore is a blessing, and as it were free from temptation.

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." This is great power. It has great weight in words. With what other words would he more vehemently express that a rich person must not boast in his riches than these by which a compassionate person is defined as against nature?… You can also understand it morally, about every sinner and haughty rich person. When he did not dare to raise his eyes to God, the tax collector, burdened with the awareness of his own sins, was like a camel. Through the help of his confession, he will pass more easily through the eye of a needle than the Pharisee will enter the kingdom of heaven. The Pharisee was arrogant in prayer, boasting of innocence, and overconfident of glory. He rebuked mercy, proclaimed himself, and accused another. He would rather confront the Lord than beg him. If anyone trembles at the camel, let him shudder at him whose deeds are uglier than a camel.

(de Quæst Evang. lib. ii. c. 42.) The name of "rich" he here gives to one who covets temporal things, and boasts himself in them. To such rich men are opposed the poor in spirit, of whom is the kingdom of heaven. Now mystically it is easier for Christ to suffer for the lovers of this world, than for the lovers of this world to be converted to Christ. For by the name of a camel He would represent Himself: for He voluntarily humbled Himself to bear the burdens of our infirmity. By the needle He signifies sharp piercings, and thereby the pangs received in His Passion, but by the form of the needle He describes the straitening of the Passion.

For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. If it is easier for a camel, which has enormous and huge limbs, to pass through the narrow eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, then no rich man will enter the kingdom of God. And how is it that both in the Gospel according to Matthew, Zacchaeus, and Joseph, as well as in the Old Testament, so many rich men of God have entered the kingdom? Unless perhaps they learned, by the Lord's inspiration, either to value riches at nothing or to leave them entirely? Did David, who sang about himself: "For I am poor and alone" (Ps. XXIV), trust in the riches of his kingdom? And he advises others: "If riches increase, do not set your heart on them" (Ps. LXI)? I believe he did not dare say "Do not accept them." Is it credible that Abraham preferred his possessions to the Lord, for whose sake he did not hesitate to strike his only heir? In a higher sense, it is easier for Christ to suffer for the lovers of the world than for the lovers of the world to be able to be converted to Christ. For by the name of the camel, He wished to be understood, because He voluntarily humbled Himself and bore the burdens of our weakness. In what indeed is it more clearly understood than in what is written of Him: "The greater you are, humble yourself in all things" (Eccli. III)? By the needle, he signifies the punctures, and by the punctures, the sufferings endured in His passion. Therefore, the eye of the needle denotes narrowness and sufferings. When it is split, He deigns somehow to mend, that is, to restore our nature's garments, so that after the fall we may be better reformed, as we rejoice in the testimony of the Apostle, who says: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Galat. III).

Third, as to the obstacle of tenacity itself, he adds: For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, although this is against nature, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, because this is against divine justice. For it is less impossible that a great thing should pass through a small needle than that a covetous and avaricious soul should enter into heaven, where there is a sufficiency of goods; because, as Ecclesiastes 5 says, "the covetous man shall not be satisfied with money, and he who loves riches shall not reap fruit from them," but rather indeed eternal destruction, because the weight of riches drags one downward: Ecclesiastes 5: "Riches kept to the harm of their owner. They perish in the worst affliction." Whence, as far as heaven is distant from earth, so far is the heart of the avaricious man, which is turned toward earthly things, distant from the kingdom of God, which is in heaven. On account of which, Isaiah 55: "As the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts." And it should be noted that the comparison of the avaricious man to a camel is apt, because the camel with its huge limbs is an enormous, monstrous, and hump-backed animal: so the avaricious man, joined by love to his possessions, is like a monstrous animal. Moreover, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom is compared to the eye of a needle on account of its narrowness and spirituality: whence Matthew 7: "Narrow is the gate and strait is the way that leads to life, and few enter through it." Whence the impossibility of the avaricious man entering the kingdom of heaven is greater than that of a camel passing through the eye of a needle. On account of which Bernard says: "It is necessary that we strive to enter through the narrow gate. Why, O camel, do you bear the hump? Why, O man of wealth, do you carry the purses of Judas the traitor? Not so, O impious one, not so shall you enter: the eye of a needle does not admit such burdens. But some excuse themselves saying: Are not Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the other Saints read to have possessed earthly riches? That suffices for us: for we are not better than the fathers."

"What shall we respond to the new imitators of the ancient Saints? Let them place calves upon the altar of the Lord, let them slaughter rams, let them sacrifice goats, because Abraham also did this. But just as the divine dispensation accommodated itself to those sacrifices for the peoples of that time, so also to carnal riches; where indeed the heavenly promise has sounded, it is necessary that spiritual things be compared with spiritual things, and that the sacrifice be changed, since the hope has been changed."

Only the Christian Church can offer any rational objection to a complete confidence in the rich. For she has maintained from the beginning that the danger was not in man's environment, but in man. Further, she has maintained that if we come to talk of a dangerous environment, the most dangerous environment of all is the commodious environment. I know that the most modern manufacture has been really occupied in trying to produce an abnormally large needle. I know that the most recent biologists have been chiefly anxious to discover a very small camel. But if we diminish the camel to his smallest, or open the eye of the needle to its largest--if, in short, we assume the words of Christ to have meant the very least that they could mean, His words must at the very least mean this--that rich men are not very likely to be morally trustworthy. Christianity even when watered down is hot enough to boil all modern society to rags. The mere minimum of the Church would be a deadly ultimatum to the world. For the whole modern world is absolutely based on the assumption, not that the rich are necessary (which is tenable), but that the rich are trustworthy, which (for a Christian) is not tenable. You will hear everlastingly, in all discussions about newspapers, companies, aristocracies, or party politics, this argument that the rich man cannot be bribed. The fact is, of course, that the rich man is bribed; he has been bribed already. That is why he is a rich man. The whole case for Christianity is that a man who is dependent upon the luxuries of this life is a corrupt man, spiritually corrupt, politically corrupt, financially corrupt. There is one thing that Christ and all the Christian saints have said with a sort of savage monotony. They have said simply that to be rich is to be in peculiar danger of moral wreck.

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.

It is utterly impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, whether you understand by "camel" the animal itself or some thick nautical rope. If it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved, and the first is impossible, then all the more impossible is it for a rich man to be saved. What then must we say? First of all, that it is truly impossible for a rich man to be saved. Do not tell me, if you please, that so-and-so, being rich, distributed what he had and was saved. For he was saved not in his wealth, but when he became poor; or he was saved as a steward, but not as a rich man. And a steward is one thing, a rich man another. The rich man hoards wealth for himself, while to the steward wealth is entrusted for others. Therefore the one you point to as well, if he was saved, was saved not with his wealth, but, as we said, either by renouncing all that he had, or by managing his possessions well, as a steward. Then observe also that it is impossible for a rich man to be saved, but difficult for one who has riches. The Lord speaks as if to say: whoever is possessed by wealth, whoever is its slave and subject, will not be saved; but whoever has wealth and keeps it under his own power, rather than being himself under its power, for such a one it is difficult to be saved because of human weakness. For it is impossible not to misuse what we have. Since, as long as we have wealth, the devil strives to ensnare us so that we use it contrary to the rules and law of stewardship — and it is difficult to escape his nets. Therefore poverty is a good thing, and it is almost free from temptation.

He therefore that made the original bodies out of nothing, and fashioned various forms of them, will also again revive and raise up those that are dead. For He that formed man in the womb out of a little seed, and created in him a soul which was not in being before—as He Himself somewhere speaks to Jeremiah, "Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee;" and elsewhere, "I am the Lord who established the heaven, and laid the foundations of the earth, and formed the spirit of man in him"—will also raise up all men, as being His workmanship; as also the divine Scripture testifies that God said to Christ, His only-begotten, "Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness. And God made man: after the image of God made He him; male and female made He them." And the most divine and patient Job, of whom the Scripture says that it is written, that "he was to rise again with those whom the Lord raises up," speaks to God thus: "Hast not Thou milked me like milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews. Thou hast granted me life and favour, and Thy visitation hath preserved my spirit. Having these things within me, I know that Thou canst do all things, and that nothing is impossible with Thee." Wherefore also our Saviour and Master Jesus Christ says, that "what is impossible with men is possible with God."

He said to them: What is impossible with men is possible with God. It is not to be understood in such a way that the greedy and the proud, who are signified by the name of that rich man, will enter the kingdom of heaven with their greed and pride, but it is possible for God that through His word (as we also see has been done and is done daily) they may be converted from the desire for temporal things to the love of eternal things, and from destructive pride to most salutary humility.

Therefore the Lord shows the remedy through the gift of his grace, when he adds: He said to them: The things that are impossible with men, through the power of their own strength, are possible with God, that is, are made possible through his help; which he says because, although it is difficult to despise these temporal things through the force of nature, it is nevertheless made easy through the gift of grace, according to that passage in Song of Songs, last chapter: "If a man should give all the substance of his house for love, he would despise it as nothing." Hence it is not to be understood that the Lord introduces a covetous man, remaining covetous, into heaven by his power, but that through the gift of grace he converts him from vice to virtue. Hence the Gloss: "God converts from the love of earthly things to the charity of eternal things, not that the proud and covetous enter." And this is of great power, that so great a change is made, that from the covetous one a charitable one is made, from the earthly one a heavenly one, from the rich a poor man, from the proud a humble one, from a son of perdition a son of the king, so that the words of the Psalm may be said: "This is the change of the right hand of the Most High"; because he it is who can give sufficiency of heart through grace, which cannot be given through money or any creature, according to that passage in 2 Corinthians 9: "God is able to make all grace abound in you, so that in all things always having all sufficiency," etc., because, as is said above in chapter one, "no word shall be impossible with God."

But in respect to His greatness, and His wonderful glory, "no man shall see God and live," for the Father is incomprehensible; but in regard to His love, and kindness, and as to His infinite power, even this He grants to those who love Him, that is, to see God, which thing the prophets did also predict. "For those things that are impossible with men, are possible with God." For man does not see God by his own powers; but when He pleases He is seen by men, by whom He wills, and when He wills, and as He wills. For God is powerful in all things, having been seen at that time indeed, prophetically through the Spirit, and seen, too, adoptively through the Son; and He shall also be seen paternally in the kingdom of heaven, the Spirit truly preparing man in the Son of God, and the Son leading him to the Father, while the Father, too, confers [upon him] incorruption for eternal life, which comes to every one from the fact of his seeing God. For as those who see the light are within the light, and partake of its brilliancy; even so, those who see God are in God, and receive of His splendour. But [His] splendour vivifies them; those, therefore, who see God, do receive life. And for this reason, He, [although] beyond comprehension, and boundless and invisible, rendered Himself visible, and comprehensible, and within the capacity of those who believe, that He might vivify those who receive and behold Him through faith. For as His greatness is past finding out, so also His goodness is beyond expression; by which having been seen, He bestows life upon those who see Him. It is not possible to live apart from life, and the means of life is found in fellowship with God; but fellowship with God is to know God, and to enjoy His goodness.

For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that "the things which are impossible with men are possible with God." While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point proeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence.

Neither the nature of any created thing, therefore, nor the weakness of the flesh, can prevail against the will of God. For God is not subject to created things, but created things to God; and all things yield obedience to His will. Wherefore also the Lord declares, "The things which are impossible with men, are possible with God." As, therefore, it might seem to the men of the present day, who are ignorant of God's appointment, to be a thing incredible and impossible that any man could live for such a number of years, yet those who were before us did live [to such an age], and those who were translated do live as an earnest of the future length of days; and [as it might also appear impossible] that from the whale's belly and from the fiery furnace men issued forth unhurt, yet they nevertheless did so, led forth as it were by the hand of God, for the purpose of declaring His power: so also now, although some, not knowing the power and promise of God, may oppose their own salvation, deeming it impossible for God, who raises up the dead; to have power to confer upon them eternal duration, yet the scepticism of men of this stamp shall not render the faithfulness of God of none effect.

It has learnt not to respect life; how much more food? [You ask] "How many have fulfilled these conditions? "But what with men is difficult, with God is easy. Let us, however, comfort ourselves about the gentleness and clemency of God in such wise, as not to indulge our "necessities" up to the point of affinities with idolatry, but to avoid even from afar every breath of it, as of a pestilence.

True enough; who can be ignorant of it? Who also can be unaware that "the things which are impossible with men are possible with God? " The foolish things also of the world hath God chosen to confound the things which are wise.

And grant that it be just as you think sufficient to meet each point is the divine declaration which has fore-run: "The foolish things of the world hath God elected to confound its wisdom; " and, "The things very difficult with men are easy with God." For if God is wise and powerful (which even they who pass Him by do not deny), it is with good reason that He lays the material causes of His own operation in the contraries of wisdom and of power, that is, in foolishness and impossibility; since every virtue receives its cause from those things by which it is called forth.