2 Forefeast of the Holy Theophany

God, therefore, is uniquely good, and this he cannot lose. He is good. He is not good by sharing in any other good, because the good by which he is good is himself. But, when a finite human being is good, his goodness derives from God, because he cannot be his own good. All who become good do so through his Spirit. Our nature has been created to attain to him through acts of its own will. If we are to become good, it is important for us to receive and hold what he gives, who is good in himself.

But Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Because he had called the teacher good and had not confessed him as God or the Son of God, he learned that, although a holy man, in comparison to God, no one is good, about whom it is said, "Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good" (Psalm 106). However, the one God who is good is not to be understood as the Father alone, but also the Son who says, "I am the good shepherd" (John 10); and also the Holy Spirit, because the Father will give the good Spirit from heaven to those asking him (Luke 11), that is, the one and indivisible Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is the only and one God, who is good. Therefore, the Lord does not deny that he is good, but signifies that he is God; he does not deny that he is a good teacher, but testifies that no teacher is good except God. This is the chastity of youthful innocence, which is set before us to be imitated if we want to enter the kingdom of God. It should indeed be noted that justice, kept to the time of the law, not only conferred the good things of the earth but also eternal life to its practitioners.

(ubi sup.) But by this one God, who is good, we must not only understand the Father, but also the Son, who says, I am the good Shepherd; (John 10:11) and also the Holy Ghost, because it is said, The Father which is in heaven will give the good Spirit to them that ask him. (Luke 2:15. Vulg.) For the One and Undivided Trinity itself, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the Only and One good God. The Lord, therefore, does not deny Himself to be good, but implies that He is God; He does not deny that He is good Master, but He declares that no master is good but God.

The rich man called Jesus "good," as if he were offering him a favor, just as some favor others with honorary titles. [The Lord] fled from that by which people favored him, so that he might show that he had received this goodness from the Father through nature and generation, and not [merely] in name. "Only one is good," [he said], and did not remain silent, but added, "the Father," so that he might show that the Son is good in just the way that the Father is good.

The words, "None is good" are a reply to the young ruler who was testing him and had borne witness to his goodness as a human being. Consummate goodness, he meant, belongs to God alone, though the word "good" can be derivatively applied to human beings.

He who is by nature God of God must possess the nature of his origin, which God possesses. The indistinguishable unity of a living nature cannot be divided by the birth of a living nature. But the troublers of church unity, under cover of the saving confession of the gospel faith, are subversively trying to take captive the truth by undermining it. By forcing their own interpretations on words spoken with other meanings and intentions, they are robbing the Son of his distinctive unity [with the Father].

A complete understanding of the reply must come from the reason that prompted the question, for the answer will be directed to the matter that led to the inquiry.… He voiced his objection to the title of "good master" in such a way as to challenge the faith of the questioner rather than the designation of himself as a master or as good.

They affirm, then, concerning the substance of the seed which is a cause of all existent things, that it is none of these, but that it produces and forms all things that are made, expressing themselves thus: "I become what I wish, and I am what I am: on account of this I say, that what puts all things in motion is itself unmoved. For what exists remains forming all things, and nought of existing things is made." He says that this (one) alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour is declared concerning this (one): "Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens, who causeth His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sendeth rain upon saints and sinners." But who the saintly ones are on whom He sends the rain, and the sinners on whom the same sends the rain, this likewise we shall afterwards declare with the rest. And this is the great and secret and unknown mystery of the universe, concealed and revealed among the Egyptians. For Osiris, (the Naassene) says, is in temples in front of Isis; and his pudendum stands exposed, looking downwards, and crowned with all its own fruits of things that are made. And (he affirms) that such stands not only in the most hallowed temples chief of idols, but that also, for the information of all, it is as it were a light not set under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, proclaiming its message upon the housetops, in all byways, and all streets, and near the actual dwellings, placed in front as a certain appointed limit and termination of the dwelling, and that this is denominated the good (entity) by all. For they style this good-producing, not knowing what they say. And the Greeks, deriving this mystical (expression) from the Egyptians, preserve it until this day. For we behold, says (the Naassene), statues of Mercury, of such a figure honoured among them.

Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour. He considered it to be absurd that tinder the (category of a) creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship-that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues. For if He is a Mediator, He has been, he says, liberated from the entire nature of the Evil Deity. Now, as he affirms, the Demiurge is evil, and his works. For this reason, he affirms, Jesus came down unbegotten, in order that He might be liberated from all (admixture of) evil. And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states, and as Himself acknowledges: "Why call ye me good? there is one good," These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles. And he transferred the philosophy invented by that (ancient speculator) into his own system of thought, and (out of Empedocles) constructed his (own) impious heresy. But I consider that this has been sufficiently refuted by us, and that I have not omitted any opinion of those who purloin their opinions from the Greeks, and act despitefully towards the disciples of Christ, as if they had become teachers to them of these (tenets). But since it seems that we have sufficiently explained the doctrines of this (heretic), let us see what Carpocrates says.

The question is something like a priest who, while inwardly despising his bishop, yet continues to address him openly as "bishop." Whereupon the bishop answers, "To you I am not the bishop; you may leave my presence."

There is no other secondary goodness existing in the Son than that which is in the Father. So the Savior himself rightly says in the Gospel that "none is good save one, God the Father." The purpose of this statement is to make it understood that the Son is not of some other ancillary "goodness," but of that alone which is in the Father; whose image he is rightly called. For he neither springs from any other source than from original goodness itself (if that were so, there would seem to be a different goodness in the Son from that which is in the Father), nor has the goodness that is in him any dissimilarity or divergence from that of the Father. Accordingly we ought not to imagine that there is some kind of blasphemy in the saying that "none is good save one, God the Father." These words are not to be taken as a denial that either Christ or the Holy Spirit is good. But, as we said before, the original goodness must be believed to reside in God the Father, and from him both the Son and Holy Spirit undoubtedly draw into themselves the nature of that goodness existing in the font from which the one is born and the other proceeds. If then there are any other things called good in the Scriptures such as an angel, or a man, or a servant, or a treasure, or a good heart, or a good tree, all these are so called by an inexact use of the word, since the goodness contained in them is accidental and not essential.

The good, then, is the same as the one who incomparably is. Over against good is evil or wickedness. Over against the one who incomparably is, is merely that which is not. So it follows that evil and corruption are, finally, that which becomes nothing. This, perhaps, is what has led some to affirm that the devil is not created by God. In respect that he is the devil he is not the work of God, but he who is the devil is a created being, and as a creature nonetheless remains a work of God, since there is nothing created that is not created by God. Think of it this way: A murderer is not a work of God insofar as he murders, while we may still say that insofar as he is a human being, God made him.

"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.

And why did Christ answer him thus: "No one is good"? Because he approached Christ as a mere man and as one of many teachers. Christ speaks as if to say: "If you consider Me good as a mere teacher, then in comparison with God no man is good; if you acknowledge Me as good as God, then why do you call Me merely a teacher?" By such words Christ wishes to convey a higher understanding of Himself, so that the man might recognize Him as God. Moreover, for the correction of the young man, the Lord also gives him another lesson: if he wishes to converse with someone, he should speak without flattery, and should know the one root and source of goodness to be God alone, and render Him due honor.

Therefore the Lord intended by these words to raise the mind of the young man, so that he might know Him to be God. But He also implies another thing by these words, that when you have to converse with a man, you should not flatter him in your conversation, but look back upon God, the root and fount of goodness, and do honour to Him.

The rich man asked the good teacher what he should do to gain eternal life. He regarded the good teacher as a man and nothing more (as distinct from the assumption that He is good as God incarnate). Hear the good teacher respond to him: if he wishes to enter into life, he should keep the commandments; that he should remove from himself the bitterness of malice and wickedness; that he should not kill, or commit adultery, or steal, or bear false witness, in order that dry land may appear and bring forth the honor of mother and father and the love of our neighbor.

(ubi sup.) But observe that the righteousness of the law, when kept in its own time, conferred not only earthly goods, but also eternal life on those who chose it. Wherefore the Lord's answer to one who enquires concerning everlasting life is, Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill; for this is the childlike blamelessness which is proposed to us, if we would enter the kingdom of heaven.

I who write this have greatly loved the total devotion of which the Lord spoke when he once said to the rich young man: "Go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and come, follow me." I have so loved it that I have indeed acted upon it myself, not by my own strength but by his assisting grace. The apostles were the first to follow in the practice of this complete self-giving. One who gives up both what one owns and what one desires to own, gives up the whole world.

Go, sell whatever you have, and give, etc. Whoever wishes to be perfect ought to sell what he has, and not sell part of it like Ananias and Sapphira, but sell everything, and when he has sold it, give everything to the poor, and thus prepare for himself a treasure in the kingdom of heaven. Nor is this sufficient for perfection unless, after despising riches, he follows the Savior, that is, having forsaken evil, he does good. For it is easier to despise a purse than a will. Many, leaving behind riches, do not follow the Lord. However, he follows the Lord who is His imitator and walks in His footsteps. For he who says he believes in Christ ought to walk as He walked.

(ubi sup.) For God loves those who keep the commandments of the law, though they be inferior; nevertheless, He shows to those who would be perfect the deficiency of the law, for He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. Wherefore there follows: And said unto him, One thing thou lackest; go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me; (Matt. 5:17) for whosoever would be perfect ought to sell all that he has, not a part, like Ananias and Sapphira, but the whole.

Again, Mark 10: Go, sell whatever you have and give to the poor: The Gloss: "Not a part, as Ananias did"; but he who gives everything, reserving nothing for himself, most fully does what the Lord counsels, reserving nothing for himself, neither in common nor in particular; and he who does this acts most perfectly: therefore etc.

What that man heard, most beloved, we, too, have heard. The gospel of Christ is in heaven, but it does not cease to speak on earth. Let us not be dead to him, for he thunders. Let us not be deaf, for he shouts. If you are unwilling to commit to full obedience, do what you can. But here is the radical divine requirement: "Sell all that you have, and give to the poor; and come, follow me." The lesser road of the law says: You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not seek false witness, you shall not steal, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself."

He exercises the duties of goodness when he opens the treasures of heaven and becomes himself a guide to them. He abhors whatever is offered to him merely as a man. Yet he makes it clear that he is no stranger to those qualities attributed to God. While recognizing the one God as good, he himself speaks of and performs those very actions which are characteristic of the incomparable power, goodness and nature of God.

This is why those who are rich find it hard to enter the kingdom of heaven. For it is a kingdom which desires for its citizens a soul that soars aloft free from all ties and hindrances. "Go your way," the Lord said, "and sell" not a part of your substance but "all that you have, and give to the poor";46 not to your friends or kinsfolk or relatives, nor to your wife or to your children.… When once you have put your hand to the plough, you must not look back. When once you stand on the housetop, you must think no more of your clothes within. To escape your Egyptian mistress, you must abandon the cloak that belongs to this world. Even Elijah, in his quick translation to heaven could not take his mantle with him, but left in the world the garments of the world.

(in Evan. tom. xv. 14) For in that He loved, or kissed him, He appears to affirm the truth of his profession, in saying that he had fulfilled all those things; for on applying His mind to him, He saw that the man answered with a good conscience.

(Cat. in Marc. Oxon.) It is worthy of enquiry, however, how He loved a man, who, He knew, would not follow Him? But this is so much as to say, that since he was worthy of love in the first instance, because he observed the things of the law from his youth, so in the end, though he did not take upon himself perfection, he did not suffer a lessening of his former love. For although he did not pass the bounds of humanity, nor follow the perfection of Christ, still he was not guilty of any sin, since he kept the law according to the capability of a man, and in this mode of keeping it, Christ loved himq.

On account of this passion, having heard the Lord's words, "Go, sell... and give to the poor," he "went away sorrowful." Note here that the Lord did not say: sell what you have bit by bit and give it away, but sell it all at once and give it away, and only to the poor, not to flatterers and not to the debauched; then: "follow Me," that is, adopt every other virtue as well, for there are many who, though not covetous, are not humble, or though humble, are not sober, or have some other vice. Therefore the Lord does not say merely "sell and give to the poor," but "come, follow Me, taking up the cross," which means to be ready to die for His sake.

And when he has sold it, to give it to the poor, not to stage-players and luxurious persons.

But because there are many poor who are not humble, but are drunkards or have some other vice, for this reason He says, And come, follow me.

Such, O my soul, are the miseries that attend on riches. They are gained with toil and kept with fear. They are enjoyed with danger and lost with grief. It is hard to be saved if we have them; and impossible if we love them; and scarcely can we have them, but we shall love them inordinately. Teach us, O Lord, this difficult lesson: to manage conscientiously the goods we possess, and not covetously desire more than you give to us.

And looking around, Jesus said to His disciples: How difficult it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom, etc. It is clear indeed that those who strive here to multiply riches neglect to seek the joys of another life: but there is much difference between having and loving riches. Many indeed, having them, do not love; many, not having them, love. Similarly, others both have and love. Others rejoice neither to have nor to love the riches of the world, whose state is safer, because they can say with the Apostle: For to us the world is crucified, and we to the world (Gal. V). Hence Solomon does not say, he who has, but he who loves riches will not enjoy their fruits (Eccl. V). And the Lord Himself, explaining to the disciples who were amazed at the words of this sentence, added saying:

But there is a great difference between having riches, and loving them; wherefore also Solomon says not, He that hath silver, but, He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied, with silver. (Eccl. 5:10)

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.

The dangers of apparent self-sufficiency explain why Our Lord regards the vices of the feckless and dissipated so much more leniently than the vices that lead to worldly success. Prostitutes are in no danger of finding their present life so satisfactory that they cannot turn to God: the proud, the avaricious, the self-righteous, are in that danger.

The rich man "went away sad," as you have heard, and the Lord says: "With what difficulty will they who have riches enter the kingdom of God!" At length the disciples became very sad when they heard this and they said: "If this is so, who then can be saved?" Rich and poor, listen to Christ: I am speaking to God's people. Most of you are poor, but you too must listen carefully to understand. And you had best listen even more intently if you glory in your poverty. Beware of pride, lest the humble rich surpass you. Beware of wickedness, lest the pious rich confound you. Beware of drunkenness, lest the sober excel you.

Again, "Don't sail on land" is a Pythagorean saw, and shows that taxes and similar contracts, being troublesome and fluctuating, ought to be declined. Wherefore also the Word says that the tax-gatherers shall be saved with difficulty.

Let this teach the prosperous that they are not to neglect their own salvation, as if they had been already foredoomed, nor, on the other hand, to cast wealth into the sea, or condemn it as a traitor and an enemy to life, but learn in what way and how to use wealth and obtain life.

Note what kind of riches it is that God loves. Note what wealth does he demand that we should store up for children. Note what possessions he especially orders us to guard: faith, fear of God, modesty, holiness, and discipline. Nothing earthly, nothing base, nothing perishable or transitory.

For as it is disagreeable to walk among thistles with naked feet, so also it is hard for such to enter the kingdom of God. But by all these the repentance of the rich is rendered difficult.

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.

It is not wealth in itself that is evil, but those who hoard it are evil and worthy of condemnation, for one ought not to have it, that is, to keep it for oneself, but to put it to good use. It is called wealth precisely because it is meant for beneficial use, not for hoarding. Therefore it is difficult for those who hoard and lock it away to "enter the Kingdom of God." And the word "difficult" here means the same as impossible. It is indeed exceedingly difficult for a rich man to be saved.

He says not here, that riches are bad, but that those are bad who only have them to watch them carefully; for He teaches us not to have them, that is, not to keep or preserve them, but to use them in necessary things.

Little children, how difficult it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God. Where it must be noted that he did not say, how impossible, but how difficult it is. For what is impossible cannot be done at all. What is difficult can be done with toil. For it can indeed be done, but with great labor, with the help of God's grace, that those who have riches, or trust in riches, divesting themselves of the fetters of avarice, may enter the gate of the heavenly kingdom: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle," etc. (Matt. XIX). If it is easier for a camel, with its large and enormous limbs, to penetrate the narrow eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, then no rich man shall enter the kingdom of God. And how is it that in the Gospel, Matthew, Zacchaeus, and Joseph, or in the Old Testament, many rich men entered the kingdom of God? Unless perhaps because they learned, by the inspiration of the Lord, to consider riches as nothing or to forsake them completely from their whole heart. For did David trust in the riches of his kingdom? Who also sings of himself: "For I am poor and needy" (Psalm XXIV); and exhorts others, "If riches increase, do not set your heart on them" (Psalm LXI). I believe he did not dare to say, do not receive them. Is it believable that Abraham preferred his wealth to the Lord, for whom 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 converted to Christ. For by the name of the camel, he wanted himself to be understood, who willingly bore the burdens of our humility and infirmity. For in whom is it more clearly understood than in him, what is written: "The greater you are, humble yourself in all things" (Eccli. III)? By the needle he signifies the nails, by the nails the sufferings endured in his passion. Therefore, he says the eye of the needle is the straits of his passion. By which torn, he condescended to mend, that is, to restore as it were, the garments of our nature; so that after the fall, being better reformed, we may rejoice at the testimony of the Apostle saying: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. III).

Therefore the Lord unfolds the words of His former saying to His astonished disciples, as follows: But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard it is for them that trust in their riches to enter the kingdom of God. Where we must observe that He says not, how impossible, but how hard; for what is impossible cannot in any way come to pass, what is difficult can be compassed, though with labour.

(ubi sup.) But the Lord said this to His disciples, who were poor and possessed nothing, in order to teach them not to blush at their poverty, and as it were to make an excuse to them, and give them a reason, why He had not allowed them to possess any thing. It goes on: And the disciples were astonished at his words; for it is plain, since they themselves were poor, that they were anxious for the salvation of others.

(ubi sup.) How then could either in the Gospel, Matthew and Joseph, or in the Old Testament, very many rich persons, enter into the kingdom of God, unless it be that they learned through the inspiration of God either to count their riches as nothing, or to quit them altogether. Or in a higher sense, it is easier for Christ to suffer for those who love Him, than for the lovers of this world to turn to Christ; for under the name of camel, He wished Himself to be understood, because He bore the burden of our weakness; and by the needle, He understands the prickings, that is, the pains of His Passion. By the eye of a needle, therefore, He means the straits of His Passion, by which He, as it were, deigned to mend the torn garments of our nature.

The Saviour by no means has excluded the rich on account of wealth itself, and the possession of property, nor fenced off salvation against them; if they are able and willing to submit their life to God's commandments, and prefer them to transitory objects, and if they would look to the Lord with steady eye, as those who look for the nod of a good helmsman, what he wishes, what he orders, what he indicates, what signal he gives his mariners, where and whence he directs the ship's course. For what harm does one do, who, previous to faith, by applying his mind and by saving has collected a competency? Or what is much less reprehensible than this, if at once by God, who gave him his life, he has had his home given him in the house of such men, among wealthy people, powerful in substance, and pre-eminent in opulence? For if, in consequence of his involuntary birth in wealth, a man is banished from life, rather is he wronged by God, who created him, in having vouchsafed to him temporary enjoyment, and in being deprived of eternal life. And why should wealth have ever sprung from the earth at all, if it is the author and patron of death?

But if one is able in the midst of wealth to turn from its power, and to entertain moderate sentiments, and to exercise self-command, and to seek God alone, and to breathe God and walk with God, such a poor man submits to the commandments, being free, unsubdued, free of disease, unwounded by wealth. But if not, "sooner shall a camel enter through a needle's eye, than such a rich man reach the kingdom of God."

Let then the camel, going through a narrow and strait way before the rich man, signify something loftier; which mystery of the Saviour is to be learned in the "Exposition of first Principles and of Theology."

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.

(ubi sup.) Or else, after saying difficult, He then shows that it is impossible, and that not simply, but with a certain vehemence; and he shows this by an example, saying, It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

There is no compelling necessity for you to store up large earthly treasures for your children. You would do better to make your offspring treasures of God than make them richer in worldly goods.

This is evident from the example which the Lord adds, saying: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." By the name "camel" understand either the animal itself or a thick rope (cable) used on large ships. Thus, for a man, so long as he is rich, it is impossible to be saved.

It may be that by camel, we should understand the animal itself, or else that thick cable, which is used for large vessels.

And Jesus, looking at them, said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God." It is not to be understood that the greedy and proud, who were 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 see both to have been done and to be done daily, that they are converted from the greed for temporal things to the love of eternal things, and from pernicious pride to salutary humility.

It goes on; And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God; which we must not take to mean, that covetous and proud persons can enter into the kingdom of Heaven with their covetousness and pride, but that it is possible with God that they should be converted from covetousness and pride to charity and lowliness.

The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, instead of borrowing it from other impossibilities which in their turn depend upon others. It has no unless clause attached to it. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents.

"All agents" here includes God Himself. His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free-will and at the same time withhold free-will from it," you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can". It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

But the Lord replies, "Because what is impossible with men is possible with God." This again is full of great wisdom. For a man by himself working and toiling at freedom from passion achieves nothing. But if he plainly shows himself very desirous and earnest about this, he attains it by the addition of the power of God. For God conspires with willing souls. But if they abandon their eagerness, the spirit which is bestowed by God is also restrained. For to save the unwilling is the part of one exercising compulsion; but to save the willing, that of one showing grace.

(ubi sup.) And the reason why He says that this is the work of God is, that He may show that he who is put into this path by God, has much need of grace; from which it is proved, that great is the reward of those rich men, who are willing to follow the 1discipline of Christ.

Orthodox: The Lord God wishes nothing inconsistent with his nature, and is able to do all that he wishes, and what he wishes is appropriate and agreeable to his own nature.… Eranistes: Nothing is impossible to almighty God. Orthodox: Then according to your definition sin is possible to almighty God? Eranistes: By no means. Orthodox: Why? Eranistes: Because he does not wish it. Orthodox: Why does he not wish it? Eranistes: Because sin is foreign to his nature. Orthodox: Then there are many things which he cannot do, for there are many kinds of transgression. Eranistes: Nothing of this kind can be wished or done by God. Orthodox: Nor can those things which are contrary to the divine nature.… But not to be able in any of these respects is proof not of weakness, but of infinite power, and to be able would certainly be proof not of power but of impotence.

But with God this is possible. Christ said: "Make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth" (Lk. 16:9). Do you see how all things become possible when we hear the Word of God? "With men this is impossible," that is, it is impossible when we reason in human terms. Some are puzzled how Christ said that "all things are possible with God." Can He then also sin? To this we answer that when Christ says "all things," He means all things that have real existence, but sin is not something that has real existence: sin is something insubstantial, inoperative, or in other words, sin belongs not to strength but to weakness, as the Apostle also says: "Christ, when we were still weak... died" (Rom. 5:6), and David says: "Their sorrows shall be multiplied" (Ps. 16:4). Therefore sin, as a weakness, is impossible for God. But can God, they ask, also make what has been as though it had not been? To this we say: God is Truth, and to make what has been as though it had not been is a lie. How then would Truth produce a lie? For this He would first have to change His own Essence. To speak in this way would be to say that God can cease to be God.

Or we must understand that by, with man it is impossible, but not with God, He means, that when we listen to God, it becomes possible, but as long as we keep our human notions, it is impossible. There follows, For all things are possible with God; when He says all things, you must understand, that have a being; which sin has not, for it is a thing without being and substance. Or else: sin does not come under the notion of strength, but of weakness, therefore sin, like weakness, is impossible with God. But can God cause that not to have been done which has been done? To which we answer, that God is Truth, but to cause that what has been done should not have been done, is falsehood. How then can truth do what is false? He must first therefore quit His own nature, so that they who speak thus really say, Can God cease to be God? which is absurd.