Sunday before Elevation

God's Son saw fit to become Son of man to make those of us who believe in him sons of God. He was delivered into the hands of sinful human beings to separate us from the company of sinful human beings and at the same time to free us from the power of malignant spirits. He was crucified and rose on the third day, so that he might grant us the virtue of suffering for him and the hope of rising and living with him.

The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again, &c. For on the day of the preparation at the ninth hour giving up the ghost, buried in the evening, early on the morning of the first day of the week He rose again.

One day and two nights also He lay in the sepulchre, because He joined the light of His single death to the darkness of our double death.

Possessing both natures, that is, the human and the divine, [Christ] endured the passion in his humanity, in order that without distinction he who suffered should be called both Lord of glory and Son of man, even as it is written: "Who descended from heaven."

Some people, certainly, find very surprising what the Lord said in the Gospel, "Nobody has ascended into heaven, except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven." How, they ask, can the Son of man be said to have come down from heaven, when it was here that he was taken on in the Virgin's womb? People who say this are not to be rejected but instructed. I think, you see, that they are raising this question out of piety but are not yet able to understand what they are inquiring about. They do not realize, I mean, that the divinity took on the humanity in such a way as to become one person, God and man; and that the humanity was attached to the divinity in such a way that Word, soul and flesh were the one Christ. And that is why it could be said, "No one has ascended into heaven, except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven."

As a human being he was on earth, not in heaven where he now is … although in his nature as Son of God he was in heaven, but as Son of man he was still on earth and had not yet ascended into heaven. In a similar way, although in his nature as Son of God he is the Lord of glory, in his nature as Son of man he was crucified.

Spiritual birth happens when human beings, being earthly, become heavenly. And this can only happen when they are made members of me. So that he may ascend who descended, since no one ascends who did not descend. Therefore everyone who needs to be changed and raised must meet together in a union with Christ so that the Christ who descended may ascend, considering his body (that is to say, his church) as nothing other than himself.

"And no man hath ascended into heaven, but He that came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven." Behold, He was here, and was also in heaven; was here in His flesh, in heaven by His divinity; yea, everywhere by His divinity. Born of a mother, not quitting the Father. Two nativities of Christ are understood: one divine, the other human: one, that by which we were to be made; the other, that by which we were to be made anew: both marvellous; that without mother, this without father. But because He had taken a body of Adam, for Mary was of Adam, and was about to raise that same body again, it was an earthly thing He had said in saying, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." But this was a heavenly thing, when He said, "Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he shall not see the kingdom of God." Come then, brethren! God has willed to be the Son of man; and willed men to be sons of God. He came down for our sakes; let us ascend for His sake. For He alone descended and ascended, He who saith, "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He who came down from heaven." Are they not therefore to ascend into heaven whom He makes sons of God? Certainly they are: this is the promise to us, "They shall be equal to the angels of God." Then how is it that no man ascends, but He that descended? Because one only descended, only one ascends. What of the rest? What are we to understand, but that they shall be His members, that one may ascend? Therefore it follows that "no man hath ascended into heaven, but He who came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven." Dost thou marvel that He was both here and in heaven? Such He made His disciples. Hear the Apostle Paul saying, "But our conversation is in heaven." If the Apostle Paul, a man, walked in the flesh on earth, and yet had his conversation in heaven, was the God of heaven and earth not able to be both in heaven and on earth?

Therefore, if none but He descended and ascended, what hope is there for the rest? The hope for the rest is this, that He came down in order that in Him and with Him they might be one, who should ascend through Him. "He saith not, And to seeds," saith the apostle, "as in many; but as in one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." And to believers he saith, "And ye are Christ's; and if Christ's, then are Abraham's seed." What he said to be one, that he said that we all are. Hence, in the Psalms, many sometimes sing, to show that one is made of many; sometimes one sings, to show what is made of many. Therefore was it only one that was healed in the pool; and whoever else went down into it was not healed. Now this one shows forth the oneness of the Church. Woe to them who hate unity, and make to themselves parties among men! Let them hear him who wished to make them one, in one, for one: let them hear him who says, Be not ye making many: "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. But neither he that planteth is anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." They were saying, "I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas." And he says, "Is Christ divided?" Be ye in one, be one thing, be one person: "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He who came down from heaven." Lo! we wish to be thine, they said to Paul. And he said to them, I will not that ye be Paul's, but be ye His whose is Paul together with you.

(De Pecc. mer. et remiss. c. xxxi) After taking notice of this lack of knowledge in a person, who, on the strength of his magisterial station, set himself above others, and blaming the unbelief of such men, our Lord says, that if such as these do not believe, others will: No one hath ascended into heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven. This may be rendered: The spiritual birth shall be of such sort, as that men from being earthly shall become heavenly: which will not be possible, except they are made members of Me; so that he who ascends, becomes one with Him who descended. Our Lord accounts His body, i. e. His Church, as Himself.

(ut sup.) Although He was made the Son of man upon earth, yet His Divinity with which, remaining in heaven, He descended to earth, He hath declared not to disagree with the title of Son of man, as He hath thought His flesh worthy the name of Son of God. For through the Unity of person, by which both substances are one Christ, He walked upon earth, being Son of God; and remained in heaven, being Son of man. And the belief of the greater, involves belief in the less. If then the Divine substance, which is so far more removed from us, and could for our sake take up the substance of man so as to unite them in one person; how much more easily may we believe, that the Saints united with the man Christ, become with Him one Christ; so that while it is true of all, that they ascend by grace, it is at the same time true, that He alone ascends to heaven, Who came down from heaven.

(Tr. xii. c. 8) But thou wonderest that He was at once here, and in heaven. Yet such power hath He given to His disciples. Hear Paul, Our conversation is in heaven. (Phil. 3:20) If the man Paul walked upon earth, and had his conversation in heaven; shall not the God of heaven and earth be able to be in heaven and earth?

If a man of set purpose descend naked to the valley, and there providing himself with clothes and armour, ascend the mountain again, he who ascended may be said to be the same with him who descended.

In the descending way, there is consummation in humility and beginning in love, while the opposite is true of the ascending way. Hence, in descending, we begin with the liveliness of desire and go to the humility of service. Wherefore Christ came to the humility of serving us. Wherefore also as the soul has Angels going up, so must it have them going down. Hence: "No one has ascended into heaven except Him who has descended from heaven."

The principle saving us is He who alone can enter heaven by Himself, and all others through Him; and this is Christ the Lord. Therefore He says: "And no one has ascended into heaven," that is, no one has the power of ascending thither; "except He who descended from heaven," through the assumption of humanity: "the Son of Man, who is in heaven," through the presence and immensity of the Divinity: therefore everyone who ascends and is saved, ascends through Him. Concerning this power of ascending and descending, Ephesians 4: "He who descended is the same one who also ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all things." Concerning His existence in heaven, in chapter 1: "The Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." He it is who makes one ascend from death to life: in chapter 8: "If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed."

But a question arises concerning what He says: "No one ascends into heaven except He who descended from heaven." Against this: All the saints ascend, and yet none of them descended. Likewise, the body of Christ ascended into heaven, and yet did not descend from heaven. Likewise it is objected: if this is understood of Christ, it is understood either according to the divine nature or the human. Not according to the human, because that nature did not descend from heaven, and moreover at that time, when he was speaking, it was not in heaven. It cannot be according to the divine, because it did not ascend, since it could not become greater nor did it change place.

Some respond that the exception here comprehends not only Christ, who is the head, but rather the whole body of Christ; and all those and only those who belong to his body ascend.

But this cannot stand, because the body did not descend from heaven. Therefore it must be understood that "to ascend" is here said by one's own power, not power given from elsewhere, and thus only Christ was able to do so.

To what is objected concerning the body, Augustine responds that it is no obstacle, because the body is like a garment; whence if someone descended naked from a mountain and ascended clothed, we say: no one ascended except he who descended; so also in the matter at hand.

To what is asked — according to which nature is this said? — I respond: It must be said that in that statement three things are said of one hypostasis: "to ascend" belongs to him by reason of the human nature; "to descend," by reason of the divine in relation to the human, because he humbled himself by assuming flesh; but "to be in heaven," as at that time, according to the divine nature purely. And thus the whole cannot be referred back to one nature, but to one hypostasis.

And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven —thus very clearly showing that no one at all had ascended into the upper place except the Lord Christ Himself.

For no man hath ascended up to heaven but He That came down from heaven the Son of man. For since the Word of God came down from heaven, He says that the son of man came down, refusing after the Incarnation to be divided into two persons, and not suffering certain to say that the Temple taken by reason of need of the Virgin is one Son, the Word again which appeared from God the Father another: save only as regards the distinction which belongs to each by nature. For as He is the Word of God, so Man too of a woman, but One Christ of both, Undivided in regard of Sonship and God-befitting Glory. For how does He clothe as its own the Temple of the Virgin, with what befitteth the bare Word Alone: and again appropriateth to Himself what befitteth the Flesh only? For now He saith that the Son of man hath come down from heaven: but at the time of His Passion, He feareth, and is sore afraid, and very heavy, and is recorded as Himself suffering the Sufferings which befitted His Human Nature only.

(xxvii. Mor. c. 8. al. 11.) For as much as we are made one with Him, to the place from which He came alone in Himself, thither He returns alone in us; and He who is ever in heaven, daily ascendeth to heaven.

"Descended from heaven" refers to his origin from the Spirit. For though Mary contributed to his growth in the womb and birth all that is natural to her sex, his body did not owe to her its origin. The "Son of man" refers to the birth of the flesh conceived in the Virgin; "who is in heaven" implies the power of his eternal nature—an infinite nature, which could not restrict itself to the limits of the body—of which it was itself the source and base. By the virtue of the Spirit and the power of God the Word, though he sojourned in the form of a servant, he was ever present as Lord of all within and beyond the circle of heaven and earth. So he descended from heaven and is the Son of man, yet is in heaven. For the Word made flesh did not cease to be the Word. As the Word, he is in heaven, as flesh he is the Son of man. As Word made flesh, he is at once from heaven, and Son of man and in heaven. For the power of the Word, abiding eternally without body, was present still in the heaven he had left. The flesh owed its origin to him and to no one else. So the Word made flesh, though he was flesh, nonetheless never ceased to be the Word.

It is not possible by the laws of bodies for the same object to remain and to descend. The one is the change of downward motion, the other the stillness of being at rest. The infant wails but is in heaven: the boy grows but remains ever the immeasurable God. By what perception of human understanding can we comprehend that he ascended where he was before, and he descended who remained in heaven? The Lord says, "What if you should behold the Son of man ascending to where he was before?" The Son of man ascends where he was before. Can sense apprehend this? The Son of man—who is in heaven—descends from heaven. Can reason cope with this? The Word was made flesh—can words express this? The Word becomes flesh, that is, God becomes man. The man is in heaven: the God is from heaven. He ascends who descended, but he descends and yet does not descend. He is as he ever was, yet he was not ever what he is. We pass in review of the causes, but we cannot explain the manner. We perceive the manner but cannot understand the causes. Yet, if we understand Christ Jesus even in this way, we shall know him. If we seek to understand him further, we shall not know him at all.

(de Trin. c. 16.) Or, His descending from heaven is the source of His origin as conceived by the Spirit: Mary gave not His body its origin, though the natural qualities of her sex contributed its birth and increase. That He is the Son of man is from the birth of the flesh which was conceived in the Virgin. That He is in heaven is from the power of His everlasting nature, which did not contract the power of the Word of God, which is infinite, within the sphere of a finite body. Our Lord remaining in the form of a servant, far from the whole circle, inner and outer, of heaven and the world, yet as Lord of heaven and the world, was not absent therefrom. So then He came down from heaven because He was the Son of man; and He was in heaven, because the Word, which was made flesh, had not ceased to be the Word.

If, again, he allege His own word when He said, "I and the Father are one," let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, "I and the Father am one, but are one." For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. He has Himself made this clear, when He spake to His Father concerning the disciples, "The glory which Thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that Thou hast sent me." What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are alI one body in respect of substance, or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of unity of mind? In the same manner the Son, who was sent and was not known of those who are in the world, confessed that He was in the Father in power and disposition. For the Son is the one mind of the Father. We who have the Father's mind believe so (in Him); but they who have it not have denied the Son. And if, again, they choose to allege the fact that Philip inquired about the Father, saying, "Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us," to whom the Lord made answer in these terms: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? " and if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage, as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word. For though Christ had spoken of Himself, and showed Himself among all as the Son, they had not yet recognised Him to be such, neither had they been able to apprehend or contemplate His real power. And Philip, not having been able to receive this, as far as it was possible to see it, requested to behold the Father. To whom then the Lord said, "Philip, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." By which He means, If thou hast seen me, thou mayest know the Father through me. For through the image, which is like (the original), the Father is made readily known. But if thou hast not known the image, which is the Son, how dost thou seek to see the Father? And that this is the case is made clear by the rest of the chapter, which signifies that the Son who "has been set forth was sent from the Father, and goeth to the Father."

And for this reason three seasons of the year prefigured the Saviour Himself, so that He should fulfil the mysteries prophesied of Him. In the Passover season, so as to exhibit Himself as one destined to be sacrificed like a sheep, and to prove Himself the true Paschal-lamb, even as the apostle says, "Even Christ," who is God, "our passover was sacrificed for us." And at Pentecost so as to presignify the kingdom of heaven as He Himself first ascended to heaven and brought man as a gift to God.

Since Nicodemus had said, "We know that Thou art a teacher come from God," on this very point He sets him right, all but saying, "Think Me not a teacher in such manner as were the many of the prophets who were of earth, for I have come from heaven (but) now. None of the prophets hath ascended up thither, but I dwell there." Seest thou how even that which appears very exalted is utterly unworthy of his greatness? For not in heaven only is He, but everywhere, and He fills all things; but yet He speaks according to the infirmity of His hearer, desiring to lead him up little by little. And in this place He called not the flesh "Son of Man," but He now named, so to speak, His entire Self from the inferior substance; indeed this is His wont, to call His whole Person often from His Divinity, and often from His humanity.

It is the Son, too, who ascends to the heights of heaven, [John 3:13] and also descends to the inner parts of the earth. [Ephesians 4:9]

It is the Son, too, who ascends to the heights of heaven, and also descends to the inner parts of the earth.

And this, apparently, has nothing in common with what preceded it. But if one carefully examines the thought of the Lord, it will turn out that this too is closely related to what came before. Since Nicodemus called the Lord a Teacher and a Prophet, He says: "Do not consider Me a prophet who is of the earth, sent by God to teach, but consider Me as having come down from above, as the Son, and not as being of the earth. None of the prophets ascended into heaven, but only I alone am to ascend, just as I also descended." Having heard that the Son of Man came down "from heaven," do not think that the flesh came down from heaven. Indeed, Apollinarius thought this way, that Christ, having a body from heaven, passed through the Virgin as through a channel. But since Christ, consisting of two natures, was one Hypostasis or one Person, the names of the Man are applied to the Word, and again the names of the Word are applied to the Man. So here also it is said that the "Son of Man" came down from heaven, because He is one Person and one Hypostasis. Then, lest you, having heard "who came down," should think that the One who came down is no longer in heaven, He says "who is in heaven." Therefore, having heard that I came down, do not think that I am not there; but I am both present here bodily and seated there with the Father in Divinity.

But when thou hearest that the Son of man came down from heaven, think not that His flesh came down from heaven; for this is the doctrine of those heretics, who held that Christ took His Body from heaven, and only passed through the Virgin.

Jesus replied. Here he answers the question. First, he lays down the causes of spiritual regeneration. Secondly, he explains what he says (3:16). Now there are two causes of spiritual regeneration, namely, the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, and his passion. So first, he treats of the incarnation; secondly, of the passion (3:14).

Here we should consider, first of all, how this answer of Christ is an adequate reply to the question of Nicodemus. For above, when the Lord was speaking of the Spirit, he said: you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. We understand by this that spiritual regeneration has a hidden source and a hidden end. Now the things in heaven are hidden from us: "Who will search out the things in heaven?" (Wis 9:16). Therefore, the sense of Nicodemus' question, How can all this happen? is this: How can something come from the secret things of heaven or go to the secret things of heaven? So before answering, the Lord expressed this interpretation of the question, saying, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?

And immediately he begins to show whose prerogative it is to ascend into heaven, namely, anyone who came down from heaven, according to the statement of Ephesians (4:10): "He who descended is he who ascended." This is verified even in natural things, namely, that each body tends to a place according to its origin or nature. And so in this way it can come about that someone, through the Spirit, may go to a place which carnal persons do not know, i.e., by ascending into heaven, if this is done through the power of one who descended from heaven: because he descended in order that, in ascending, he might open a way for us: "He ascends, opening the way before them" (Mi 2:13).

Some have fallen into error because of his saying, the One who came down from heaven, the Son of Man. For since Son of Man designates human nature, which is composed of soul and body, then because he says that the Son descended from heaven, Valentinus wanted to maintain that he even took his body from heaven and thus passed through the Virgin without receiving anything from her, as water passes through a pipe; so that his body was neither of an earthly substance nor taken from the Virgin. But this is contrary to the statement of the Apostle, writing to the Romans (1:3): "who was made from the seed of David according to the flesh."

On the other hand, Origen said that he descended from heaven as to his soul, which, he says, had been created along with the angels from the very beginning, and that later this soul descended from heaven and took flesh from the Virgin. But this also conflicts with the Catholic faith, which teaches that souls do not exist before their bodies.

Therefore, we should not understand that the Son of Man descended from heaven according to his human nature, but only according to his divine nature. For since in Christ there is one suppositum, or hypostasis, or person of the two natures, the divine and human natures, then no matter from which of these two natures this suppositum is named, divine and human things can be attributed to him. For we can say that the Son of Man created the stars and that the Son of God was crucified. But the Son of God was crucified, not according to his divine nature, but according to his human nature; and the Son of Man created the stars according to his divine nature. And so in things that are said of Christ, the distinction is not to be taken with respect to that about which they are said, because divine and human things are said of God and man indifferently; but a distinction must be made with respect to that according to which they are said, because divine things are said of Christ according to his divine nature, but human things according to his human nature. Thus, to descend from heaven is said of the Son of Man, not according to his human nature, but according to his divine nature, according to which it was appropriate to him to have been from heaven before the incarnation, as is said, "Heaven belongs to the Lord" (Ps 113:16).

He is said to have come down, but not by local motion, because then he would not have remained in heaven; for nothing which moves locally remains in the place from which it comes down. And so to exclude local motion, he adds, who lives in heaven. As if to say: He descended from heaven in such a way as yet to be in heaven. For he came down from heaven without ceasing to be above, yet assuming a nature which is from below. And because he is not enclosed or held fast by his body which exists on earth, he was, according to his divinity, in heaven and everywhere. And therefore to indicate that he is said to have come down in this way, because he assumed a human nature, he said, the Son of Man came down, i.e., insofar as he became Son of Man.

Or it can be said, as Hilary does, that he came down from heaven as to his body: not that the material of Christ's body came down from heaven, but that the power which formed it was from heaven.

But why does he say, No one has gone up to heaven except the Son of Man, who lives in heaven? For have not Paul and Peter and the other saints gone up, according to 2 Corinthians (5:1): "We have a house in the heavens." I answer that no one goes up into heaven except Christ and his members, i.e., those believers who are just. Accordingly, the Son of God came down from heaven in order that, by making us his members, he might prepare us to ascend into heaven: now, indeed, in hope, but later in reality. "He has raised us up, and has given us a place in heaven in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:6).

It was good that the Lord ordained that, by the lifting up of the brazen serpent, the wounds of those who were bitten should be healed; for the brazen serpent is a type of the cross.… In the same way, the world was crucified in its allurements. Therefore not a real but a brazen serpent was hung. This is so because the Lord took on himself the likeness of a sinner in his body but, in actuality, was without sin. In this way, he imitated a serpent through the deceitful appearance of human weakness, so that when he laid aside the slough of the flesh, he might destroy the cunning of the true serpent.

The cross is raised and appears above the earth, which until recently malice had kept hidden. It is raised, not to receive glory (for with Christ nailed to it what greater glory could it have?) but to give glory to God who is worshiped on it and proclaimed by it.… It is not surprising that the church rejoices in the cross of Christ and robes herself in festal clothes, revealing her bridal beauty as she honors this day. Nor is it surprising that this great throng of people has gathered together today to see the cross exposed aloft and to worship Christ whom they see raised upon it. For the cross is exposed in order to be raised and is raised to be exposed. What cross? The cross, which a little while ago was hidden in a place called The Skull but now is everywhere adored. This is what we rejoice over today; this is what we celebrate; this is the point of the present feast; this is the manifestation of the mystery.… For this hidden and life-giving cross had to be exposed, set on high like a city on a hill or a lamp on a stand, for all the world to see.

Let me try to explain, as far as the Lord enables me to, what these signs mean. The rod stands for the kingdom, the snake for mortality. It was by the snake that humanity was given death to drink. The Lord was prepared to take this death on himself. So when the rod came down to earth it had the form of a snake because the kingdom of God, which is Jesus Christ, came down to earth. He put on mortality, which he also nailed to the cross.… In his mercy God provided a remedy, a remedy that restored health at the time but also foretold the wisdom that was to come in the future.… Whoever has been bitten by the snakes of sin need only gaze on Christ and will have healing for the forgiveness of sins. And so, brothers, it is the mortality that the Lord took on himself that the church must go on experiencing as his body, of which he is the head, as man, in heaven. So the church experiences mortality, which was inflicted through the seduction of the serpent. We owe death to the sin of the first persons, but afterward we shall reach eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. But when does the church arrive at life and return to the kingdom? At the end of the world. That is why he took it by the tail, which is the end, in order to restore his rod to its original condition.

He endured death, then; but death He hanged on the cross, and mortal men are delivered from death. The Lord calls to mind a great matter, which was done in a figure with them of old: "And as Moses," saith He, "lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up; that every one who believeth on Him may not perish, but have everlasting life." A great mystery is here, as they who read know. Again, let them hear, as well they who have not read as they who have forgotten what perhaps they had heard or read. The people Israel were fallen helplessly in the wilderness by the bite of serpents; they suffered a great calamity by many deaths: for it was the stroke of God correcting and scourging them that He might instruct them. In this was shown a great mystery, the figure of a thing to come: the Lord Himself testifies in this passage, so that no man can give another interpretation than that which the truth indicates concerning itself. Now Moses was ordered by the Lord to make a brazen serpent, and to raise it on a pole in the wilderness, and to admonish the people Israel, that, when any had been bitten by a serpent, he should look to that serpent raised up on the pole. This was done: men were bitten; they looked and were healed. What are the biting serpents? Sins, from the mortality of the flesh. What is the serpent lifted up? The Lord's death on the cross. For as death came by the serpent, it was figured by the image of a serpent. The serpent's bite was deadly, the Lord's death is life-giving. A serpent is gazed on that the serpent may have no power. What is this? A death is gazed on, that death may have no power. But whose death? The death of life: if it may be said, the death of life; ay, for it may be said, but said wonderfully. But should it not be spoken, seeing it was a thing to be done? Shall I hesitate to utter that which the Lord has deigned to do for me? Is not Christ the life? And yet Christ hung on the cross. Is not Christ life? And yet Christ was dead. But in Christ's death, death died. Life dead slew death; the fullness of life swallowed up death; death was absorbed in the body of Christ. So also shall we say in the resurrection, when now triumphant we shall sing, "Where, O death, is thy contest? Where, O death, is thy sting?" Meanwhile brethren, that we may be healed from sin, let us now gaze on Christ crucified; for "as Moses," saith He, "lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth on Him may not perish, but have everlasting life." Just as they who looked on that serpent perished not by the serpent's bites, so they who look in faith on Christ's death are healed from the bites of sins. But those were healed from death to temporal life; whilst here He saith, "that they may have everlasting life." Now there is this difference between the figurative image and the real thing: the figure procured temporal life; the reality, of which that was the figure, procures eternal life.

(de Pecc. mer. et remiss. c. xxxii) Many dying in the wilderness from the attack of the serpents, Moses, by commandment of the Lord, lifted up a brazen serpent: and those who looked upon it were immediately healed. The lifting up of the serpent is the death of Christ; the cause, by a certain mode of construction, being put for the effect. The serpent was the cause of death, inasmuch as he persuaded man into that sin, by which he merited death. Our Lord, however, did not transfer sin, i. e. the poison of the serpent, to his flesh, but death; in order that in the likeness of sinful flesh, there might be punishment without sin, by virtue of which sinful flesh might be delivered both from punishment and from sin.

(Tr. xii. c. 11) As then formerly he who looked to the serpent that was lifted up, was healed of its poison, and saved from death; so now he who is conformed to the likeness of Christ's death by faith and the grace of baptism, is delivered both from sin by justification, and from death by the resurrection: as He Himself saith; That whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. What need then is there that the child should be conformed by baptism to the death of Christ, if he be not altogether tainted by the poisonous bite of the serpent?

(Tr. xii. c. 11) But there is this difference between the figure and the reality, that the one recovered from temporal death, the other from eternal.

With the wonderful skill of heavenly teaching, the Lord directs our attention to the teacher of the Mosaic law and to the spiritual meaning of his law, by recalling some of the ancient history and explaining that it happened as a figure of his own passion and of human salvation.

The sins that drag down soul and body to destruction at the same time are appropriately represented by the serpents, not only because they were fiery and poisonous [and] artful at bringing about death, but also because our first parents were led into sin by a serpent. And from being immortal they became mortal by sinning. The Lord is aptly made known by the bronze serpent, since he came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Just as the bronze serpent had the likeness of a fiery serpent but had absolutely none of the strength of harmful poison in its members—rather by being lifted up it cured those who had been stricken by the [live] serpents—so the Redeemer of the human race did not clothe himself in sinful flesh but in the likeness of sinful flesh, in order that by suffering death on the cross in [this likeness] he might free those who believed in him from all sin and even from death itself.Just as those who looked at the bronze serpent that had been lifted up as a sign were cured at that time from temporal death and the wounds that the serpents' bites had caused, so too those who look at the mystery of the Lord's passion by believing, confessing [and] sincerely imitating it are saved forever from every death they have incurred by sinning in mind and body.

He introduces the teacher of the Mosaic law, to the spiritual sense of that law; by a passage from the Old Testament history, which was intended to be a figure of His Passion, and of man's salvation.

Here the second point is touched upon, namely how the Son of God saves, namely through His passion. Therefore He says: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert": Numbers 21: "Moses made a bronze serpent and set it up as a sign; those who had been struck, looking upon it, were healed." "So must the Son of Man be lifted up," namely on the gibbet of the cross, so that all who look upon Him through faith may be healed.

Chrysostom asks concerning what he says: "As Moses lifted up," etc.: why, when expressing the passion, did he not say "to hang on the cross," so as to speak more plainly?

I respond: It must be said that the Lord was revealing the mystery of the passion to Nicodemus as something honorable, as something credible, as something hidden: as something honorable, lest the man, still carnal, should despise and recoil from it; therefore he said "to be lifted up," not "to be hung." As something credible, so that he might give assent; therefore through the preceding marvelous figure he intimates the marvelous effect of the passion. Also as something hidden, so that he might hold it more dearly; and therefore he does not explain it but leaves him a place for meditating, and through this for making progress and for arriving at the gift of understanding.

That the Jews would fasten Christ to the cross. In Isaiah: "I have spread out my hands all day to a people disobedient and contradicting me, who walk in ways that are not good, but after their own sins." Also in Jeremiah: "Come, let us cast the tree into His bread, and let us blot out His life from the earth." Also in Deuteronomy: "And Thy life shall be hanging (in doubt) before Thine eyes; and Thou shall fear day and night, and shalt not trust to Thy life." Also in the twenty-first Psalm: "They tore my hands and my feet; they numbered all my bones. And they gazed upon me, and saw me, and divided my garments among them, and upon my vesture they cast a lot. But Thou, O Lord, remove not Thy help far from me; attend unto my help. Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only one from the paw of the dog. Save me from the mouth of the lion, and my lowliness from the horns of the unicorns. I will declare Thy name unto my brethren; in the midst of the Church I will praise Thee." Also in the cxviiith Psalm: "Pierce my flesh with nails through fear of Thee." Also in the cxlth Psalm: "The lifting up of my hands is an evening sacrifice." Of which sacrifice Sophonias said: "Fear from the presence of the Lord God, since His day is near, because the Lord hath prepared His sacrifice, He hath sanctified His elect." Also in Zechariah: "And they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced." Also in the eighty-seventh Psalm: "I have called unto Thee, O Lord, the whole day; I have stretched out my hands unto Thee." Also in Numbers: "Not as a man is God suspended, nor as the son of man does He suffer threats." Whence in the Gospel the Lord says: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in the Son may have life eternal."

Him should not perish but have eternal life. Having explained sufficiently, and set before him the reason, why His Word of teaching does not run forth into the boundless and supernatural, but descends again to those things that were typically done by Moses of old, knowing that he could by leadings by means of figures scarce arrive at knowledge of the truth, rather than by the exactitude of spiritual inspirations, He saith He must surely be lifted up, as the serpent was by Moses, showing that search of history is most necessary, and all but saying to this man of no understanding, Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me. For serpents were springing upon them of Israel in the wilderness, and they, falling like ears of corn, and not a little distressed at this danger unexpectedly visiting them, with most piteous cry called for salvation from above and from God. But He, since He was Good and full of compassion, as God, commands Moses to set up a brazen serpent; and commands them therein to have a forethought of the salvation by faith. For the remedy to one bitten, was to look at the serpent put before him, and faith along with the sight wrought deliverance at the last extremity to the beholders. So much for the history. But it represents in act as it were in a type, the whole Mystery of the Incarnation. For the serpent signifies bitter and manslaying sin, which was devouring the whole race upon the earth, manifoldly biting the soul of man, and infusing the varied poison of wickedness. And no otherwise could we escape it thus conquering us, save by the succour alone which is from heaven. The Word of God then was made in the likeness oj sinful flesh, that He might condemn sin in the flesh, as it is written, and to those who gaze on Him with more steadfast faith, or by search into the Divine doctrines, might become the Giver of unending salvation. But the serpent being fixed upon a lofty base, signifies that Christ was altogether clear and manifest, so as to be unknown to none, or His being lifted up from the earth, as Himself says, by His Passion on the Cross.

This story is a type of the whole mystery of the incarnation. For the serpent signifies bitter and deadly sin, which was devouring the whole race on the earth … biting the Soul of man and infusing it with the venom of wickedness. And there is no way that we could have escaped being conquered by it, except by the relief that comes only from heaven. The Word of God then was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, "that he might condemn sin in the flesh," as it is written. In this way, he becomes the Giver of unending salvation to those who comprehend the divine doctrines and gaze on him with steadfast faith. But the serpent, being fixed upon a lofty base, signifies that Christ was clearly manifested by his passion on the cross, so that none could fail to see him.

It was shown by the brazen [serpent], which by its nature cannot suffer, that he would suffer on the cross, who by his nature cannot die.

Now, he says, the stars are the gods of destruction, which impose upon existent things the necessity of alterable generation. These, he says, Moses denominated serpents of the wilderness, which gnaw and utterly ruin those who imagined that they had crossed the Red Sea. To those, then, he says, who of the children of Israel were bitten in the wilderness, Moses exhibited the real and perfect serpent; and they who believed on this serpent were not bitten in the wilderness, that is, (were not assailed) by (evil) powers. No one therefore, he says, is there who is able to save and deliver those that come forth from Egypt, that is, from the body and from this world, unless alone the serpent that is perfect and replete with fulness. Upon this (serpent), he says, he who fixes his hope is not destroyed by the snakes of the wilderness, that is, by the gods of generation. (This statement) is written, he says, in a book of Moses. This serpent, he says, is the power that attended Moses, the rod that was turned into a serpent. The serpents, however, of the magicians-(that is,) the gods of destruction-withstood the power of Moses in Egypt, but the rod of Moses reduced them all to subjection and slew them. This universal serpent is, he says, the wise discourse of Eve. This, he says, is the mystery of Edem, this the river of Edem; this the mark that was set upon Cain, that any one who findeth him might not kill him. This, he says, is Cain, whose sacrifice the god of this world did not accept. The gory sacrifice, however, of Abel he approved of; for the ruler of this world rejoices in (offerings of) blood. This, he says, is he who appeared in the last days, in form of a man, in the times of Herod, being born after the likeness of Joseph, who was sold by the hand of his brethren, to whom alone belonged the coat of many colours. This, he says, is he who is according to the likeness of Esau, whose garment-he not being himself present-was blessed; who did not receive, he says, the benediction uttered by him of enfeebled vision. He acquired, however, wealth from a source independent of this, receiving nothing from him whose eyes were dim; and Jacob saw his countenance, as a man beholds the face of God. In regard of this, he says, it has been written that "Nebrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord." And there are, he says, many who closely imitate this (Nimrod): as numerous are they as the gnawing (serpents) which were seen in the wilderness by the children of Israel, from which that perfect serpent which Moses set up delivered those that were bitten. This, he says, is that which has been declared: "In the same manner as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so also must the Son of man be lifted up." According to the likeness of this was made in the desert the brazen serpent which Moses set up. Of this alone, he says, the image is in heaven, always conspicuous in light.

Now, He suffered all these things for us; and He suffered them really, and not in appearance only, even as also He truly rose again. But not, as some of the unbelievers, who are ashamed of the formation of man, and the cross, and death itself, affirm, that in appearance only, and not in truth, He took a body of the Virgin, and suffered only in appearance, forgetting, as they do, Him who said, "The Word was made flesh; " and again, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up; " and once more, "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto Me." The Word therefore did dwell in flesh, for "Wisdom built herself an house." The Word raised up again His own temple on the third day, when it had been destroyed by the Jews fighting against Christ. The Word, when His flesh was lifted up, after the manner of the brazen serpent in the wilderness, drew all men to Himself for their eternal salvation.

Let them not therefore ascribe to the law the unbelief of certain [among them]. For the law never hindered them from believing in the Son of God; nay, but it even exhorted them so to do, saying that men can be saved in no other way from the old wound of the serpent than by believing in Him who, in the likeness of sinful flesh, is lifted up from the earth upon the tree of martyrdom, and draws all things to Himself, and vivifies the dead.

After having spoken of the very great benefaction that had come to man by Baptism, He proceeds to mention another benefaction, which was the cause of this, and not inferior to it; namely, that by the Cross. As also Paul arguing with the Corinthians sets down these benefits together, when he says, "Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" for these two things most of all declare His unspeakable love, that He both suffered for His enemies, and that having died for His enemies, He freely gave to them by Baptism entire remission of their sins.

But wherefore did He not say plainly, "I am about to be crucified," instead of referring His hearers to the ancient type? First, that you may learn that old things are akin to new, and that the one are not alien to the other; next, that you may know that He came not unwillingly to His Passion; and again, besides these reasons, that you may learn that no harm arises to Him from the Fact, and that to many there springs from it salvation. For, that none may say, "And how is it possible that they who believe on one crucified should be saved, when he himself is holden of death?" He leads us to the ancient story. Now if the Jews, by looking to the brazen image of a serpent, escaped death, much rather will they who believe on the Crucified, with good reason enjoy a far greater benefit. For this takes place, not through the weakness of the Crucified, or because the Jews are stronger than He, but because "God loved the world," therefore is His living Temple fastened to the Cross.

And it seems that the type and sign, which was erected to counteract the serpents which bit Israel, was intended for the salvation of those who believe that death was declared to come thereafter on the serpent through Him that would be crucified, but salvation to those who had been bitten by him and had betaken themselves to Him that sent His Son into the world to be crucified. For the Spirit of prophecy by Moses did not teach us to believe in the serpent, since it shows us that he was cursed by God from the beginning; and in Isaiah tells us that he shall be put to death as an enemy by the mighty sword, which is Christ.

For tell me, was it not God who commanded by Moses that no image or likeness of anything which was in heaven above or which was on the earth should be made, and yet who caused the brazen serpent to be made by Moses in the wilderness, and set it up for a sign by which those bitten by serpents were saved? Yet is He free from unrighteousness. For by this, as I previously remarked, He proclaimed the mystery, by which He declared that He would break the power of the serpent which occasioned the transgression of Adam, and [would bring] to them that believe on Him [who was foreshadowed] by this sign, i.e., Him who was to be crucified, salvation from the fangs of the serpent, which are wicked deeds, idolatries, and other unrighteous acts. Unless the matter be so understood, give me a reason why Moses set up the brazen serpent for a sign, and bade those that were bitten gaze at it, and the wounded were healed; and this, too, when he had himself commanded that no likeness of anything whatsoever should be made.

I say nothing of what was figured by this cure. Thus, too, the golden Cherubim and Seraphim were purely an ornament in the figured fashion of the ark; adapted to ornamentation for reasons totally remote from all condition of idolatry, on account of which the making a likeness is prohibited; and they are evidently not at variance with this law of prohibition, because they are not found in that form of similitude, in reference to which the prohibition is given.

Christ Himself (they say further) in His gospel imitates Moses' serpent's sacred power, in saying: "And as Moses upreared the serpent in the desert, so it behoveth the Son of man to be upreared." Him they introduce to bless their eucharistic (elements).

Having spoken before about regeneration through baptism, he then speaks also of the benefaction accomplished for us through the cross. For the cross and death are the cause of the grace bestowed upon us through baptism, since in baptism we portray the death of the Lord. He does not say directly that I will be crucified, but recalls the serpent and the ancient history (Num. 21:5–9), and in this way accomplishes several things at once: on the one hand, He teaches us that the old is akin to the new and that the Lawgiver of the Old and New Testaments is one and the same, although Marcion, Manes, and the rest of the assembly of such heretics reject the Old Testament, saying that it is the legislation of an evil demiurge (craftsman); on the other hand, He teaches that if the Jews escaped death by looking upon the bronze image of the serpent, then all the more shall we escape the death of the soul by looking upon the Crucified One and believing in Him. Compare, if you will, the type with the reality. There, a likeness of a serpent, having the appearance of a serpent but not having its venom: so too here, the Lord is Man, but free from the venom of sin, having come in the likeness of sinful flesh, that is, in the likeness of flesh subject to sin, but He Himself is not sinful flesh. Then, those who looked were delivered from bodily death, while we are delivered from spiritual death. Then, the one hung up healed from the bites of serpents, but now Christ heals the wounds inflicted by the dragon of the mind. When you hear "must be lifted up," understand it thus: to be hung. For He was hung on high, so that He who sanctified the earth by walking upon it might also sanctify the air. Understand "to be lifted up" also thus: to be glorified. For the cross truly became the exaltation and glory of Christ. By that in which He seemed condemned, He condemned the prince of this world. I will explain a little. Adam died justly, because he sinned. The Lord died not by a debt of justice, because He did not sin. Before the crucifixion of the Lord, death justly held dominion over men. But since the Lord was found to be without sin, what could the devil find in Him deserving of death? And since He was put to death unjustly, He conquered the one who killed Him, and in this way also freed Adam from the death that was justly inflicted upon him as one who had sinned. And in another way. Two things dominated over the human race: pleasure and sorrow. The Lord, having passed through both, proved unconquerable. The tempter first approached Him on the mountain with the offer of pleasure (Matt. 4:3, 6, 9); but, finding Him unconquerable through this, he employed great cunning, bringing sorrow, so that at least through it he might master Him, and for this he raised up everything against Him: the denial of the disciples, the mockery of the soldiers, the blasphemy of the passersby, death at the hands of the Jews, but even in this he found Him unconquerable. For the sorrow on the cross could not arouse in the Lord hatred toward those who crucified Him, but He continued to love them and prayed for them, saying: "Father, do not hold this sin against them" (Luke 23:34). Do you see how He conquered by that through which He appeared to have been conquered? Thus, the cross became both His exaltation and His glory.

(in loc.) See then the aptness of the figure. The figure of the serpent has the appearance of the beast, but not its poison: in the same way Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, being free from sin. By Christ's being lifted up, understand His being suspended on high, by which suspension He sanctified the air, even as He had sanctified the earth by walking upon it. Herein too is typified the glory of Christ: for the height of the cross was made His glory: for in that He submitted to be judged, He judged the prince of this world; for Adam died justly, because he sinned; our Lord unjustly, because He did no sin. So He overcame him, who delivered Him over to death, and thus delivered Adam from death. And in this the devil found himself vanquished, that he could not upon the cross torment our Lord into hating His murderers: but only made Him love and pray for them the more. In this way the cross of Christ was made His lifting up, and glory.

Here he mentions the mystery of the passion, in virtue of which baptism has its efficacy: "We who have been baptized into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his death" (Rom 6:3). And with regard to this he does three things. First, he gives a symbol for the passion. Secondly, the manner of the passion. Thirdly, the fruit of the passion.

He takes the symbol from the old law, in order to adapt to the understanding of Nicodemus; so he says, Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert. This refers to Numbers (21:5) when the Lord, faced with the Jewish people saying, "We are sick of this useless food," sent serpents to punish them; and when the people came to Moses and he interceded with the Lord, the Lord commanded that for a remedy they make a serpent of bronze; and this was to serve both as a remedy against those serpents and as a symbol of the Lord's passion. Hence it says that this bronze serpent was lifted up as a sign (Nm 21:9).

Now it is characteristic of serpents that they are poisonous, but not so the serpent of bronze, although it was a symbol of a poisonous serpent. So, too, Christ did not have sin, which is also a poison: "Sin, when it is fully developed, brings forth death" (Jas 1:15); but he had the likeness of sin: "God sent his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3). And thus Christ had the effect of the serpent against the insurgence of inflamed concupiscences.

He shows the manner of the passion when he says, so must the Son of Man be lifted up: and this refers to the lifting up of the cross. So below (12:34) when it says, "The Son of Man must be lifted up," it also has, "He said this to indicate the manner of his death."

He willed to die lifted up, first of all, to cleanse the heavens: for since he had cleansed the things on earth by the sanctity of his life, the things of the air were left to be cleansed by his death: "through him he should reconcile all things to himself, whether on earth or in the heavens, making peace through his blood" (Col 1:20). Secondly, to triumph over the demons who prepare for war in the air: "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2). Thirdly, he wished to die lifted up to draw our hearts to himself: "I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to myself" (below 12:32). And fourthly, because in the death of the cross he was lifted up in the sense that there he triumphed over his enemies; so it is not called a death, but a lifting up: "He will drink from the stream on the way, therefore he will lift up his head" (Ps 109:7). Fifthly, he willed to die lifted up because the cross was the reason for his being lifted up, i.e., exalted: "He became obedient to the Father even to death, the death of the cross; on account of which God has exalted him" (Phil 2:8).

"That everyone who believes in Him may not perish, but may have eternal life": in chapter 11: "He who believes in Me, even if he shall have died, shall live; and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall not die forever." He most fittingly describes the passion in relation to the figure, so that it may become more credible; and most fittingly did the figure precede, because, just as there they were not healed by the serpent unless they looked upon it, so neither are they healed through Christ unless they believe in Him.

The question concerns what he says: "That everyone who believes in him may not perish." Therefore no one who has faith will be condemned, however wicked he may be. If you say that this is understood of formed faith, then according to this no one who has formed faith can be condemned.

I respond: It must be said that here he speaks of true faith; but true faith excludes a twofold pretense. For faith is feigned either because one believes but does not love, or because one believes and loves but does not persevere. True faith, therefore, is that which loves what it believes and perseveres; and everyone such will be saved.

Seest thou the cause of the Crucifixion, and the salvation which is by it? Seest thou the relationship of the type to the reality? there the Jews escaped death, but the temporal, here believers the eternal; there the hanging serpent healed the bites of serpents, here the Crucified Jesus cured the wounds inflicted by the spiritual dragon; there he who looked with his bodily eyes was healed, here he who beholds with the eyes of his understanding put off all his sins; there that which hung was brass fashioned into the likeness of a serpent, here it was the Lord's Body, builded by the Spirit; there a serpent bit and a serpent healed, here death destroyed and a Death saved. But the snake which destroyed had venom, that which saved was free from venom; and so again was it here, for the death which slew us had sin with it, as the serpent had venom; but the Lord's Death was free from all sin, as the brazen serpent from venom. For, saith Peter, "He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth." And this is what Paul also declares, "And having spoiled principalities and powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it." For as some noble champion by lifting on high and dashing down his antagonist, renders his victory more glorious, so Christ, in the sight of all the world, cast down the adverse powers, and having healed those who were smitten in the wilderness, delivered them from all venomous beasts that vexed them, by being hung upon the Cross. Yet He did not say, "must hang," but, "must be lifted up"; for He used this which seemed the milder term, on account of His hearer, and because it was proper to the type.

Now the fruit of Christ's passion is eternal life; hence he says, so that everyone who believes in him, performing good works, may not be lost, but have eternal life. And this fruit corresponds to the fruit of the symbolic serpent. For whoever looked upon the serpent of bronze was freed from poison and his life was preserved. But he who looks upon the lifted up Son of Man, and believes in the crucified Christ, he is freed from poison and sin: "Whoever believes in me will never die" (below 11:26), and is preserved for eternal life. "These things are written that you may believe... and that believing you may have life in his name" (below 20:31).

Truly through the Son of God shall the world have life; for for no other cause came He into the world, except to save the world. God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

For He came down and died, and by that death delivered us from death: being slain by death, He slew death. And you know, brethren, that this death entered into the world through the devil's envy. "God made not death," saith the Scripture, "nor delights He in the destruction of the living; but He created all things to be." But what saith it here? "But by the devil's envy, death entered into the whole world." To the death offered for our entertainment by the devil, man would not come by constraint; for the devil had not the power of forcing, but only cunning to persuade. Hadst thou not consented, the devil had brought in nothing: thy own consenting, O man, led thee to death. Of the mortal are mortals born; from immortals we are become mortals. From Adam all men are mortal; but Jesus the Son of God, the Word of God, by which all things were made, the only Son equal with the Father, was made mortal: "for the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

He endured death, then; but death He hanged on the cross, and mortal men are delivered from death. The Lord calls to mind a great matter, which was done in a figure with them of old: "And as Moses," saith He, "lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up; that every one who believeth on Him may not perish, but have everlasting life." A great mystery is here, as they who read know. Again, let them hear, as well they who have not read as they who have forgotten what perhaps they had heard or read. The people Israel were fallen helplessly in the wilderness by the bite of serpents; they suffered a great calamity by many deaths: for it was the stroke of God correcting and scourging them that He might instruct them. In this was shown a great mystery, the figure of a thing to come: the Lord Himself testifies in this passage, so that no man can give another interpretation than that which the truth indicates concerning itself. Now Moses was ordered by the Lord to make a brazen serpent, and to raise it on a pole in the wilderness, and to admonish the people Israel, that, when any had been bitten by a serpent, he should look to that serpent raised up on the pole. This was done: men were bitten; they looked and were healed. What are the biting serpents? Sins, from the mortality of the flesh. What is the serpent lifted up? The Lord's death on the cross. For as death came by the serpent, it was figured by the image of a serpent. The serpent's bite was deadly, the Lord's death is life-giving. A serpent is gazed on that the serpent may have no power. What is this? A death is gazed on, that death may have no power. But whose death? The death of life: if it may be said, the death of life; ay, for it may be said, but said wonderfully. But should it not be spoken, seeing it was a thing to be done? Shall I hesitate to utter that which the Lord has deigned to do for me? Is not Christ the life? And yet Christ hung on the cross. Is not Christ life? And yet Christ was dead. But in Christ's death, death died. Life dead slew death; the fullness of life swallowed up death; death was absorbed in the body of Christ. So also shall we say in the resurrection, when now triumphant we shall sing, "Where, O death, is thy contest? Where, O death, is thy sting?" Meanwhile brethren, that we may be healed from sin, let us now gaze on Christ crucified; for "as Moses," saith He, "lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth on Him may not perish, but have everlasting life." Just as they who looked on that serpent perished not by the serpent's bites, so they who look in faith on Christ's death are healed from the bites of sins. But those were healed from death to temporal life; whilst here He saith, "that they may have everlasting life." Now there is this difference between the figurative image and the real thing: the figure procured temporal life; the reality, of which that was the figure, procures eternal life.

Thus did God love the human race, that He gave His only begotten Son for the life of the world. For unless the Father had delivered life, we would not have life; and unless that life itself had died, death would not have been slain. Indeed, the Lord Christ Himself is life, of whom the evangelist John says: This is the true God, and eternal life. He also, by the Prophet, threatened death with death, saying: I will be your death, O death; I will be your sting, O hell! As if He were saying: By dying, I will slay you, I will consume you, I will take away all your power, I will rescue the captives you held. You wished to hold the innocent; it is just that you lose those you wished to hold.

Our Redeemer and Maker, who was Son of God before the ages, became Son of man at the end of ages. Thus the one who, through the power of his divinity, had created us to enjoy the happiness of everlasting life, might himself restore us, through the weakness of our humanity, to recover the life we had lost.

Note here, that the same which he before said of the Son of man, lifted up on the cross, he repeats of the only begotten Son of God: viz. That whosoever believeth in Him, &c. For the same our Maker and Redeemer, who was Son of God before the world was, was made at the end of the world the Son of man; so that He who by the power of His Godhead had created us to enjoy the happiness of an endless life, the same restored us to the life we have lost by taking our human frailty upon Him.

Here the third point is touched upon, namely the motivating reason for saving in this way; and this was the immensity of divine love toward lost mankind. On account of which He says: "For God so loved the world," that is, worldly and sinful man: that "He gave His Only-begotten Son": Ephesians 2: "God, who is rich in mercy, on account of His exceeding charity with which He loved us, when we were dead in sins, made us alive together with Christ." Therefore exceeding, because He gave more than was necessary: Romans 8: "He who did not spare even His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all." He gave Him, I say, for all as regards sufficiency, but as regards efficacy, for the elect and for believers. Therefore He adds: "That everyone who believes in Him" may not "perish, but may have eternal life." The passion avails none but believers, because, as it is said in Hebrews 11, "without faith it is impossible to please God."

But as soon as you look at any real Christian writings, you find that they are talking about something quite different from this popular religion. They say that Christ is the Son of God (whatever that means). They say that those who give Him their confidence can also become Sons of God (whatever that means). They say that His death saved us from our sins (whatever that means).

To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set—or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.

Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is.

He desireth to show openly herein, that He is God by Nature, since one must needs deem that He Who came forth from God the Father, is surely God also, not having the honour from without, as we have, but being in truth what He is believed to be. With exceeding skill does He say this, having joined therewith the love of God the Father to us, well and opportunely coming to discourse thereon. For He shames the unbelieving Nicodemus, yea rather, He shows that he is ungodly also. For the not coming readily to believe, when God teaches anything, what else is it, than laying upon the Truth a charge of falsehood? Besides this, in saying that He was given for the life of the world, He persuades him to consider seriously, of how great punishment they will be in danger, who from their mad folly, have made of no account so wondrous grace of God the Father. For God, says He, so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son.

Let the Christ-opposing heretic again hear, and let him come forward and say, what is the greatness of the Love of God the Father, or how we should reasonably marvel at it. But he will say that the marvel of the love is seen, in His giving His Son for us, and that the Only Begotten. In order then that the great love of God the Father may remain and be preserved, let Him be held to be Son not a creature, I mean Son of the Essence of the Father, that is to say, Consubstantial with Him Who begat Him, and God verily and in truth. But if, according to thy speech, o thou, He possesseth not the being of the Essence of God the Father, He will also lose the being by Nature Son and God, and the wide-spread marvel of the Love of God will at length come to nought: for He gave a creature for creatures, and not truly His Son. Vainly too will the blessed Paul trouble us, saying, He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God? For confessedly he that despised trampleth under foot, but not the Very Son, but a fellow servant of Moses, if indeed creature be always akin to creature, in respect at least of having been made, even if it surpass the glory of another, in the excellences of being greater or better. But the word of Paul is true; and a severer penalty shall he pay who hath trodden under foot the Son, not as though he were transgressing against a creature, or one of the fellow servants of Moses. Great then and above nature is the Love of the Father, Who for the life of the world gave His Own Son and Who is of Himself.

Abraham had many servants. Why did he [God] not tell him to offer up one of them as a sacrifice? It was only because his love would not be shown in a servant. His son was thus needed, so that through him Abraham's love would be revealed. God had servants like this, but he did not show his love through any of them for his creatures, but rather through his Son, so that through him his love toward us might be proclaimed.…From [the time of] Abraham, the symbols of the wood and of the lamb began to take shape. Isaac was a symbol of the lamb [caught] in the tree, and Jacob showed the wood that was life-giving for water. Thus wood was esteemed as worthy for him to hang upon it, because not a bone in him was broken. As for the earth, its fruits are stimulated by wood, and for the sea, its treasures are taken by means of wood. This is also the case for the body and the soul. Thus it [the wood of the cross] was carved by the fury of the savage crowd. It was like a mute person in its silence, but in its use it bore fruit exalting the status of human beings.

Let us praise the Son first of all, venerating the blood that expiated our sins. He lost nothing of his divinity when he saved me, when like a good physician he stooped to my festering wounds. He was a mortal man, but he was also God. He was of the race of David but Adam's creator. He who has no body clothed himself with flesh. He had a mother who, nonetheless, was a virgin. He who is without bounds bound himself with the cords of our humanity. He was victim and high priest—yet he was God. He offered up his blood and cleansed the whole world. He was lifted up on the cross, but it was sin that was nailed to it. He became as one among the dead, but he rose from the dead, raising to life also many who had died before him. On the one hand, there was the poverty of his humanity; on the other, the riches of his divinity. Do not let what is human in the Son permit you wrongfully to detract from what is divine. For the sake of the divine, hold in the greatest honor the humanity, which the immortal Son took on himself for love of you.

God, who loved the world, gave his only begotten Son as a manifest token of his love. If the evidence of his love is this, that he bestowed a creature on creatures, gave a worldly being on the world's behalf, granted one raised up from nothing for the redemption of objects equally raised up from nothing, such a cheap and petty sacrifice is a poor assurance of his favor toward us. Gifts of price are the evidence of affection: the greatness of the surrender is evidence of the greatness of the love. God, who loved the world, gave no adopted son but his own, his only begotten [Son]. Here is personal interest, true sonship, sincerity; not creation, or adoption, or pretence. Here is the proof of his love and affection, that he gave his own, his only begotten Son.

(vi. de Trin. c. 40) If it were only a creature given up for the sake of a creature, such a poor and insignificant loss were no great evidence of love. They must be precious things which prove our love, great things must evidence its greatness. God, in love to the world, gave His Son, not an adopted Son, but His own, even His Only Begotten. Here is proper Sonship, birth, truth: no creation, no adoption, no lie: here is the test of love and charity, that God sent His own and only begotten Son to save the world.

The sum of all is God, the Lord of all, who from love of his creatures has delivered his Son to death on the cross. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son for it. Not that he was unable to save us in another way, but in this way it was possible to show us his abundant love abundantly, namely, by bringing us near to him by the death of his Son. If he had anything more dear to him, he would have given it to us, in order that by it our race might be his. And out of his great love he did not even choose to urge our freedom by compulsion, though he was able to do so. But his aim was that we should come near to him by the love of our mind. And our Lord obeyed his Father out of love for us.

What He saith, is of this kind: Marvel not that I am to be lifted up that ye may be saved, for this seemeth good to the Father, and He hath so loved you as to give His Son for slaves, and ungrateful slaves. Yet a man would not do this even for a friend, nor readily even for a righteous man; as Paul has declared when he said, "Scarcely for a righteous man will one die." Now he spoke at greater length, as speaking to believers, but here Christ speaks concisely, because His discourse was directed to Nicodemus, but still in a more significant manner, for each word had much significance. For by the expression, "so loved," and that other, "God the world," He shows the great strength of His love. Large and infinite was the interval between the two. He, the immortal, who is without beginning, the Infinite Majesty, they but dust and ashes, full of ten thousand sins, who, ungrateful, have at all times offended Him; and these He "loved." Again, the words which He added after these are alike significant, when He saith, that "He gave His Only-begotten Son," not a servant, not an Angel, not an Archangel. And yet no one would show such anxiety for his own child, as God did for His ungrateful servants.

His Passion then He sets before him not very openly, but rather darkly; but the advantage of the Passion He adds in a clearer manner, saying, "That every one that believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." For when He had said, "must be lifted up," and alluded to death, lest the hearer should be made downcast by these words, forming some mere human opinions concerning Him, and supposing that His death was a ceasing to be, observe how He sets this right, by saying, that He that was given was "The Son of God," and the cause of life, of everlasting life. He who procured life for others by death, would not Himself be continually in death; for if they who believed on the Crucified perish not, much less doth He perish who is crucified. He who taketh away the destitution of others much more is He free from it; He who giveth life to others, much more to Himself doth He well forth life. Seest thou that everywhere there is need of faith? For He calls the Cross the fountain of life; which reason cannot easily allow, as the heathens now by their mocking testify. But faith which goes beyond the weakness of reasoning, may easily receive and retain it. And whence did God "so love the world"? From no other source but only from his goodness.

In His address to Nicodemus He says: "So God loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." And again: "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

The love of God for the world is great and extended so far that He gave not an angel, not a prophet, but His Son, and moreover His Only-Begotten (1 John 4:9). If He had given even an angel, that deed would not have been small. Why? Because an angel is His faithful and obedient servant, while we are enemies and apostates. But now, when He gave His Son, what surpassing love He showed! Again, if He had many sons and gave one, even that would have been a very great thing. But now He gave His Only-Begotten. Can His goodness then be worthily praised? The Arians say that the Son is called Only-begotten because He alone was produced and created by God, while everything else was then created by Him. The answer to them is simple. If He had been called Only-begotten without the word "Son," then your subtle invention would have had a basis. But now, since He is called both Only-begotten and Son, the word "Only-begotten" cannot be understood as you understand it, but rather that He alone was begotten of the Father. Note, I ask you, that just as above He said that the Son of Man came down from heaven, not meaning that His flesh did come down from heaven, but He attributed what belongs to God to the man on account of the unity of the Person and the unity of the Hypostasis, so here again He attributes what belongs to the man to God the Word. "God gave," He says, "His Son to death." Although God remained impassible, yet since by Hypostasis One and the Same was both God the Word and Man subject to suffering, it is said that the Son is given over to death, who indeed also suffered in His own flesh. What is the benefit of the Son being given? It is great and inconceivable for man — that everyone who believes in Him should receive two blessings: one, that he should not perish; the other, that he should have life, and moreover eternal life. The Old Testament promised long life to those who pleased God in it, but the Gospel rewards such people with life not temporal, but eternal and indestructible.

(in loc.) As He said above, that the Son of man came down from heaven, not meaning that His flesh did come down from heaven, on account of the unity of person in Christ, attributing to man what belonged to God: so now conversely what belongs to man, he assigns to God the Word. The Son of God was impassible; but being one in respect of person with man, who was passible, the Son is said to be given up to death; inasmuch as He truly suffered, not in His own nature, but in His own flesh. From this death follows an exceeding great and incomprehensible benefit: viz. that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. The Old Testament promised to those who obeyed it, length of days: the Gospel promises life eternal, and imperishable.

Above, the Lord assigned as the cause of spiritual regeneration the coming down of the Son and the lifting up of the Son of Man; and he set forth its fruit, which is eternal life. But this fruit seemed unbelievable to men laboring under the necessity of dying. And so now the Lord explains this. First, he proves the greatness of the fruit from the greatness of God's love. Secondly, he rejects a certain reply (v 17).

Here we should note that the cause of all our good is the Lord and divine love. For to love is, properly speaking, to will good to someone. Therefore, since the will of God is the cause of things, good comes to us because God loves us. And God's love is the cause of the good of nature: "You love everything which exists" (Wis 11:25). It is also the cause of the good which is grace: "I have loved you with an everlasting love, and so I have drawn you" i.e., through grace (Jer 31:3). But it is because of his great love that he gives us the good of glory. So he shows us here, from four standpoints, that this love of God is the greatest.

First, from the person of the one loving, because it is God who loves, and immeasurably. So he says, For God so loved: "He has loved the people; all the holy ones are in his hand" (Dt 33:3). Secondly, from the condition of the one who is loved, because it is man, a bodily creature of the world, i.e., existing in sin: "God shows his love for us, because while we were still his enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" (Rom 5:8). Thus he says, the world. Thirdly, from the greatness of his gifts, for love is shown by a gift; as Gregory says: "The proof of love is given by action." But God has given us the greatest of gifts, his Only Begotten Son, and so he says, that he gave his Only Begotten Son. "God did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for all of us" (Rom 8:32).

He says his Son, i.e., his natural Son, consubstantial, not an adopted son, i.e., not those sons of which the Psalmist says: "I said: You are gods" (Ps 81:6). This shows that the opinion of Arius is false: for if the Son of God were a creature, as he said, the immensity of God's love through the taking on of infinite goodness, which no creature can receive, could not have been revealed in him. He further says Only Begotten, to show that God does not have a love divided among many sons, but all of it is for that Son whom he gave to prove the immensity of his love: "For the Father loves the Son, and shows him everything that he does" (below 5:20).

Fourthly, from the greatness of its fruit, because through him we have eternal life. Hence he says, so that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life, which he obtained for us through the death of the cross.

But did God give his Son with the intention that he should die on the cross? He did indeed give him for the death of the cross inasmuch as he gave him the will to suffer on it. And he did this in two ways. First, because as the Son of God he willed from eternity to assume flesh and to suffer for us; and this will he had from the Father. Secondly, because the will to suffer was infused into the soul of Christ by God.

Note that above, when the Lord was speaking about the coming down which belongs to Christ according to his divinity, he called him the Son of God; and this because of the one suppositum of the two natures, as was explained above. And so divine things can be said about the suppositum of the human nature, and human things can be said about the suppositum of the divine nature, but not with reference to the same nature. Rather, divine things are said with reference to the divine nature, and human things with reference to the human nature. Now the specific reason why he here calls him the Son of God is that he set forth that gift as a sign of the divine love, through which the fruit of eternal life comes to us. And so, he should have been called by that name which indicates the power that produces eternal life; and this power is not in Christ as Son of Man but as Son of God: "This is the true God and eternal life," as we read in 1 John (5:20); "In him was life" (above 1:4).

Note also that he says, should not perish. Someone is said to be perishing when he is hindered from arriving at the end to which he is ordained. But the end to which man is ordained is eternal life, and as long as he sins, he turns himself from that end. And although while he is living he cannot entirely perish in the sense that he cannot be restored, yet when he dies in sin, then he entirely perishes: "The way of the wicked will perish" (Ps 1:7).

He indicates the immensity of God's love in saying, have eternal life: for by giving eternal life, he gives himself. For eternal life is nothing else than enjoying God. But to give oneself is a sign of great love: "But God, who is rich in mercy, has brought us to life in Christ" (Eph 2:5), i.e., he gave us eternal life.

"For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world through Him may be saved." So far, then, as it lies in the physician, He is come to heal the sick. He that will not observe the orders of the physician destroys himself. He is come a Saviour to the world: why is He called the Saviour of the world, but that He is come to save the world, not to judge the world? Thou wilt not be saved by Him; thou shalt be judged of thyself.

(Tr. xii. c. 12) For why is He called the Saviour of the world, but because Ho saves the world? The physician, so far as his will is concerned, heals the sick. If the sick despises or will not observe the directions of the physician, he destroys himself.

He shows that our damnation is not on the part of God, when he says: and it should be continued thus from the preceding: I have truly said that God gave His Son, "that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life," not, I say, that he be condemned. "For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world," namely by condemning it, "but that the world might be saved through Him": 1 John 3: "In this we have known the love of God, that He first loved us and sent His Son as a propitiation for our sins," therefore for the purpose of propitiation, not for condemnation.

But a question arises concerning what he says, that "he did not send his Son into the world to judge." Against this: It is stated in chapter 5: "The Father has given all judgment to the Son."

I respond: There is a twofold coming: the first and the second, the first of mercy, the second of justice. In the first he came to propitiate, not to judge, but in the second he will come to judge.

My argument, accordingly, good reader, holds sure that he never wrought for the punishment of man but for his benefit, and he himself elsewhere exclaims: For the Father hath not sent the Son to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.

Having plainly called Himself the Son of God the Father, He thought not good to leave the word without witness, but brings forward proof from the quality, so to say, of the things themselves, making the hearers more steadfast unto faith. For I was not sent, saith He, like the law-expounder Moses, condemning the world by the law, nor introducing the commandment unto conviction of sin, nor do I perform a servile ministry, but I introduce loving-kindness befitting the Master: I free the embondaged, as Son and Heir of the Father, I transform the law that condemneth into grace that justifieth, I release from sin him that is holden with the cords of his transgressions, I am come to save the world, not to condemn it. For it was right, it was right, saith He, that Moses, as a servant, should be a minister of the law that condemns, but that I as Son and God should free the whole world from the curse of the law and, by exceedingness of lovingkindness, should heal the infirmity of the world. If then the grace that justifieth is better than the commandment that condemneth, how is it not meet to conceive that He surpasseth the measure of the servant Who introduceth so God-befitting authority, and releaseth man from the bonds of sin?

This then is one aim of the passage under consideration, and no mean one. A second besides this, revolving through the same circuit, and introducing a consideration akin to those above, will be given from love of learning. The Saviour saw that Nicodemus was cleaving to the law of Moses, and was fast held to the more ancient commandment, and was somehow startled at the new Birth through the Spirit, shrinking from the new and Gospel polity, supposing it seems that this would be more burdensome than the things already enjoined. Being therefore not ignorant, as God, of the fear which from his ignorance had sprung upon him, by using one short argument, He frees him from all trouble on this score, and shows that the commandment of Moses, by reason of its condemning the world, is harder to be borne, and introduces Himself as a mild Judge, saying, For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

For there are two Advents of Christ, that which has been, and that which is to be; and the two are not for the same purpose; the first came to pass not that He might search into our actions, but that He might remit; the object of the second will be not to remit, but to enquire. Therefore of the first He saith, "I came not to condemn the world, but to save the world"; but of the second, "When the Son shall have come in the glory of His Father, He shall set the sheep on His right hand, and the goats on His left." And they shall go, these into life; and these into eternal punishment. Yet His former coming was for judgment, according to the rule of justice. Why? Because before His coming there was a law of nature, and the prophets, and moreover a written Law, and doctrine, and ten thousand promises, and manifestations of signs, and chastisements, and vengeances, and many other things which might have set men right, and it followed that for all these things He would demand account; but, because He is merciful, He for a while pardons instead of making enquiry. For had He done so, all would at once have been hurried to perdition. For "all," it saith, "have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Seest thou the unspeakable excess of His lovingkindness?

Yet if He "came not to judge the world," how is "he that believeth not judged already," if the time of "judgment" has not yet arrived? He either means this, that the very fact of disbelieving without repentance is a punishment, (for to be without the light, contains in itself a very severe punishment,) or he announces beforehand what shall be. For as the murderer, though he be not as yet condemned by the decision of the judge, is still condemned by the nature of the thing, so is it with the unbeliever. Since Adam also died on the day that he ate of the tree; for so ran the decree, "In the day that ye eat of the tree, ye shall die"; yet he lived. How then "died" he? By the decree; by the very nature of the thing; for he who has rendered himself liable to punishment, is under its penalty, and if for a while not actually so, yet he is by the sentence.

Lest any one on hearing, "I came not to judge the world," should imagine that he might sin unpunished, and should so become more careless, Christ stops such disregard by saying, "is judged already"; and because the "judgment" was future and not yet at hand, He brings near the dread of vengeance, and describes the punishment as already come. And this is itself a mark of great lovingkindness, that He not only gives His Son, but even delays the time of judgment, that they who have sinned, and they who believe not, may have power to wash away their transgressions.

He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." Moreover, when John (the Baptist) was asked what he happened to know of Jesus, he said: "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand.

Since there are two comings of Christ, one that has already taken place and another that is future, concerning the first coming he says that the Son was not sent to judge the world (for if He had come for this purpose, all would have been condemned, since all have sinned, as Paul also says (Rom. 3:23)), but He came primarily to save the world. Such was His purpose. But in practice, it turned out that He condemns those who did not believe. The Law of Moses came primarily for the exposure of sin (Rom. 3:20) and the condemnation of transgressors. For it pardoned no one, but as soon as it found someone sinning in anything, it immediately imposed punishment as well. Thus, the first coming did not have as its purpose to judge, except for those who in practice did not believe, for they are already condemned; but the second coming will be expressly for the purpose of judging all and rendering to each according to his deeds.

Here the Lord excludes an objection that might be made. For in the old law it was promised that the Lord would come to judge: "The Lord will come to judge" (Is 3:14). So someone might say that the Son of God had not come to give eternal life but in order to judge the world. The Lord rejects this. First, he shows that he has not come to judge. Secondly, he proves it (v 18).

So he says: The Son of God has not come to judge, because God did not send his Son, referring to his first coming, into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him. The same thing is found below (12:47): "I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world."

Now man's salvation is to attain to God: "My salvation is in God" (Ps 61:8). And to attain to God is to obtain eternal life; hence to be saved is the same as to have eternal life. However, because the Lord says, "I did not come to judge the world," men should not be lazy or abuse God's mercy, or give themselves over to sin: because although in his first coming he did not come to judge but to forgive, yet in his second coming, as Chrysostom says, he will come to judge but not to forgive. "At the appointed time I will judge with rigor" (Ps 74:3).

However, this seems to conflict with what is said below (9:39): "I came into this world to judge." I answer that there are two kinds of judgment. One is the judgment of distinction, and the Son has come for this in his first coming; because with his coming men are distinguished, some by blindness and some by the light of grace. The other is the judgment of condemnation; and he did not come for this as such.

(de Doctr. Christ. i. 22.) Or otherwise; You are commanded to love God with all thy heart, that your whole thoughts—with all thy soul, that your whole life—with all thy mind, that your whole understanding—may be given to Him from whom you have that you give. Thus He has left no part of our life which may justly be unfilled of Him, or give place to the desire after any other final good; but if aught else present itself for the soul's love, it should be absorbed into that channel in which the whole current of love runs. For man is then the most perfect when his whole life tends towards the life unchangeable, and clings to it with the whole purpose of his soul.

(De Doctr. Christ. i. 30. et 26.) But since the Divine substance is more excellent and higher than our nature, the command to love God is distinct from that to love our neighbour. But if by yourself, you understand your whole self, that is both your soul and your body, and in like manner of your neighbour, there is no sort of things to be loved omitted in these commands. The love of God goes first, and the rule thereof is so set out to us as to make all other loves center in that, so that nothing seems said of loving yourself. But then follows, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself, so that love of yourself is not omitted.

But affectual charity is not so: for it draws its order from the first things. For it is wisdom, through which certainly each thing savors as it is: so that, for example, what is of greater value by nature, the affection itself also feels to be of greater value; lesser things less, the least things least. And that order of charity truth makes; but this order the charity of truth claims for itself. For charity is true in this also, that those who are in greater need receive first: and in turn in this truth appears dear, if we hold in affection the order which truth holds by reason. If therefore you love the Lord your God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength (Mt 22:37); and leaping beyond that love of love, with which actual charity is content, by a more fervent affection, you receive at close range the divine love itself, toward which that is a step, having received the Spirit in fullness, and wholly catch fire: God surely savors to you, even if not altogether worthily as he is (which indeed is impossible for every creature), yet certainly as your capacity for savoring is. Then you will also savor to yourself as you are, when you perceive that you have absolutely nothing for which you may love yourself except insofar as you are God's: since you have poured out the whole of that for which you love, into him. You will savor, I say, to yourself as you are, when by the very experience of your love, and the affection which you will have toward yourself, you find that you are worthy of nothing that might be loved by you yourself, except on account of him, without whom you yourself are nothing.

Because love is the weight of the mind and the origin of every mental affection, which easily turns back upon itself but with difficulty tends toward one's neighbor and with still greater difficulty is raised up to God, it follows that although four things are to be loved from charity, nevertheless a twofold commandment is given: one which directs us toward God, and another which directs us toward our neighbor.

And because all precepts are referred either to God or to neighbor, as to the end and to that which is ordered to the end; hence it is that in these two commandments is enclosed the collection of the commandments and the comprehension of all the Scriptures. And charity itself is the root, form, and end of the virtues, joining all things with the ultimate end and binding all things to one another simultaneously and in order; therefore it is the weight of ordered inclination and the bond of perfect binding, order indeed preserving with respect to the diverse objects of love as regards both affection and effect, unity however having in habit as regards one end and one principal beloved, which is the reason for loving with respect to all other things.

The incarnate Word restores no one unless he both conceives it by believing in his heart and brings forth outwardly what is believed by confessing with due confession; of this kind is truthful confession full of truth, which is not only speculative truth but also practical. This moreover is that in which the whole person is conformed to truth according to the understanding of reason, according to the delight of the will, and according to the adherence of virtue, so that it may be with the whole heart, the whole soul, and the whole mind, and may be from a pure heart, a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith: and such is a confession that is whole, pleasing, and intrepid: so that it may be whole by reason of Him of whom it is; pleasing by reason of Him before whom it is made; intrepid by reason of him by whom that confession must be made. Since therefore the fainthearted person is not fit for this unless he is confirmed by the hand of grace from above, therefore for this purpose the Sacrament of confirmation was divinely instituted as immediately following baptism.

But if they shall so love God with the whole heart, the whole mind, the whole soul, that yet the whole heart, the whole mind, the whole soul shall not suffice for the worthiness of that love: assuredly they shall so rejoice with the whole heart, the whole mind, the whole soul, that the whole heart, the whole mind, the whole soul shall not suffice for the fullness of that joy.

Not yet therefore, Lord, have I said or conceived how greatly those Blessed ones of yours shall rejoice. Surely they shall rejoice as much as they shall love; they shall love as much as they shall know. How much shall they know you and how much shall they love you? Certainly neither eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has it ascended into the heart of man in this life, how much they shall know and love you in that life.

"Which is the first and great commandment in the Law?" The Lord responds: "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two the whole Law and the Prophets depend." Augustine shows that in this word: "But it is good for me to adhere to God," the whole of what is said is contained: "You shall love the Lord your God," etc. For we ought to love God, because this is just, holy, easy, and sweet. Whence Augustine: "Lord, who are you to me? And who am I to you, that you command me to love you, and if I do not love you, you threaten me with immense miseries?"

According to this threefold progress, our mind has three principal aspects. One is toward exterior corporeal things, according to which it is called animality or sensuality; another within itself and in itself, according to which it is called spirit; the third above itself, according to which it is called mind. From all of which it ought to dispose itself for ascending into God, so that it may love Him with all its mind, with all its heart, and with all its soul, in which consists the perfect observance of the Law and, together with this, Christian wisdom.

And to me in particular there came back the memory of a corrugated iron hut used as an R.A.F. chapel — a few kneeling airmen — and a young chaplain uttering the prayer, 'Teach us, O Lord, to love the things Thou standest for.' He was perfectly sincere, and I willingly believe that the things in question included something more and better than 'the Western values', whatever those may be.

And yet... his words seemed to me to imply a point of view incompatible with Christianity or indeed with any serious Theism whatever. God is not, for it, the goal or end. He is (and how fortunate!) enlightened; has, or 'stands for', the right ideals. He is valued for that reason. He ranks, admittedly, as a leader. But of course a leader leads to something beyond himself. That something else is the real goal. This is miles away from 'Thou hast made us for Thyself and our heart has no rest till it comes to Thee.' The Maenads were more religious.

Some writers use the word charity to describe not only Christian love between human beings, but also God's love for man and man's love for God. About the second of these two, people are often worried. They are told they ought to love God. They cannot find any such feeling in themselves. What are they to do? The answer is the same as before. Act as if you did. Do not sit trying to manufacture feelings. Ask yourself, 'If I were sure that I loved God, what would I do?' When you have found the answer, go and do it.

Here is the paradox of Christianity. As practical imperatives for here and now the two great commandments have to be translated "Behave as if you loved God and man." For no man can love because he is told to. Yet obedience on this practical level is not really obedience at all. And if a man really loved God and man, once again this would hardly be obedience; for if he did, he would be unable to help it. Thus the command really says to us, "Ye must be born again." Till then, we have duty, morality, the Law. A schoolmaster, as St. Paul says, to bring us to Christ. We must expect no more of it than of a schoolmaster; we must allow it no less. I must say my prayers today whether I feel devout or not; but that is only as I must learn my grammar if I am ever to read the poets.

And now that I come to think of it, there's no practical problem before me at all. I know the two great commandments, and I'd better get on with them. Indeed, H's death has ended the practical problem. While she was alive I could, in practice, have put her before God; that is, could have done what she wanted instead of what He wanted; if there'd been a conflict. What's left is not a problem about anything I could _do_. It's all about weights of feelings and motives and that sort of thing. It's a problem I'm setting myself. I don't believe God set it me at all.

Therefore the first commandment teaches every kind of godliness. For to love God with the whole heart is the cause of every good. The second commandment includes the righteous acts we do toward other people. The first commandment prepares the way for the second and in turn is established by the second. For the person who is grounded in the love of God clearly also loves his neighbor in all things himself. The kind of person who fulfills these two commandments experiences all the commandments.

Or, with all thy heart, i. e. understanding; with all thy soul, i.e. thy will; with all thy mind, i.e. memory; so you shall think, will, remember nothing contrary to Him.

What then saith Christ? Indicating from what they were led to this; from having no charity, from pining with envy, from being seized by jealousy, He saith, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

But wherefore "like unto this?" Because this makes the way for that, and by it is again established; "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light;" and again, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." And what in consequence of this? "They are corrupt, and become abominable in their ways." And again, "The love of money is the root of all evils; which while some coveted after they have erred from the faith;" and, "He that loveth me, will keep my commandment."

However, now as he responds, he says, "Love the Lord your God with your whole heart, your whole soul and your whole mind." This is the greatest and the first commandment. His statement contains something necessary for us to know, since it is the greatest. The others—even to the least of them—are inferior to it.

Worthy is he, confirmed in all his gifts, who exults in the wisdom of God, having a heart full of the love of God, and a soul completely enlightened by the lamp of knowledge and a mind filled with the word of God. It follows then that all such gifts truly come from God. He would understand that all the law and the prophets are in some way a part of the wisdom and knowledge of God. He would understand that all the law and the prophets depend upon and adhere to the principle of the love of the Lord God and of neighbor and that the perfection of piety consists in love.

Or otherwise; With all thy heart, that is, in all recollection, act, thought; with all thy soul, to be ready, that is, to lay it down for God's religion; with all thy mind, bringing forth nothing but what is of God. And consider whether you cannot thus take the heart of the understanding, by which we contemplate things intellectual, and the mind of that by which we utter thoughts, walking as it were with the mind through each expression, and uttering it.

But the Lord so answers him, as at once to lay bare the dissimulation of his enquiry, Jesus saith unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Thou shalt love, not 'fear,' for to love is more than to fear; to fear belongs to slaves, to love to sons; fear is in compulsion, love in freedom. Whoso serves God in fear escapes punishment, but has not the reward of righteousness because he did well unwillingly through fear. God does not desire to be served servilely by men as a master, but to be loved as a father, for that He has given the spirit of adoption to men. But to love God with the whole heart, is to have the heart inclined to the love of no one thing more than of God. To love God again with the whole soul is to have the mind stayed upon the truth, and to be firm in the faith. For the love of the heart and the love of the soul are different. The first is in a sort carnal, that we should love God even with our flesh, which we cannot do unless we first depart from the love of the things of this world. The love of the heart is felt in the heart, but the love of the soul is not felt, but is perceived because it consists in a judgment of the soul. For he who believes that all good is in God, and that without Him is no good, he loves God with his whole soul. But to love God with the whole mind, is to have all the faculties open and unoccupied for Him. He only loves God with his whole mind, whose intellect ministers to God, whose wisdom is employed about God, whose thoughts travail in the things of God, and whose memory holds the things which are good.

Accordingly, the divine law enjoins duties in respect of both these attributes: Thou shalt love God, and, Thou shalt fear God. It proposed one for the obedient man, the other for the transgressor.

To recapitulate, then: Shall that very flesh, which the Divine Creator formed with His own hands in the image of God; which He animated with His own afflatus, after the likeness of His own vital vigour; which He set over all the works of His hand, to dwell amongst, to enjoy, and to rule them; which He clothed with His sacraments and His instructions; whose purity He loves, whose mortifications He approves; whose sufferings for Himself He deems precious;-(shall that flesh, I say), so often brought near to God, not rise again? God forbid, God forbid, (I repeat), that He should abandon to everlasting destruction the labour of His own hands, the care of His own thoughts, the receptacle of His own Spirit, the queen of His creation, the inheritor of His own liberality, the priestess of His religion, the champion of His testimony, the sister of His Christ! We know by experience the goodness of God; from His Christ we learn that He is the only God, and the very good. Now, as He requires from us love to our neighbour after love to Himself, so He will Himself do that which He has commanded.

Thus, "love covers the multitude of sins; " and loving God, to wit, with all its strength (by which in the endurance of martyrdom it maintains the fight), with all its life (which it lays down for God), it makes of man a martyr.

And we know the quality of the hortatory addresses of carnal conveniences, how easy it is to say, "I must believe with my whole heart; I must love God, and my neighbour as myself: for `on these two precepts the whole Law hangeth, and the prophets, 'not on the emptiness of my lungs and intestines.

Hence there follows the response: Jesus said to him: thou shalt love the Lord thy God, etc. And he not only responds to the proposed question, but teaches the truth. And first he teaches what is the first commandment; secondly, what is similar to it; thirdly, he assigns the reason. The second is at and the second is like to this, etc. The third at on these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. He says, therefore, thou shalt love the Lord thy God, etc. This is written in Deuteronomy 6:5. Likewise, the Lord through Moses says in Deuteronomy 10:14: what doth the Lord require of thee, but that thou fear and love him? Therefore he commands two things, namely, fear and love. And why does the Lord not respond about fear, as about love? It must be said that some fear God who fear to suffer from him, as those who fear the punishment of hell, or who fear to lose something that they have from God; and this is servile fear, because one loves that in which one fears to be punished. But another fears God himself for his own sake, who fears to offend him; and such fear is from love, and one fears from this, that one loves; therefore the principle is love; 1 John 4:16: God is charity, and he that abideth in charity abideth in God, and God in him. And therefore he says, thou shalt love the Lord; not fear, because God is to be loved as the first lovable object, because he himself is the first end, but whatever other things are loved are loved for the sake of the end. He, therefore, who loves God as the end, loves with his whole heart; Joel 2:12: be converted to me with all your heart. And however much you may strive, you will not be able to comprehend him, because God is greater than the whole heart. But what does it mean when he says, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy mind? Chrysostom explains it thus: because in love there are two things: one which is the principle; the second which is the effect and sequel of love. The principle of love is twofold. For love can arise from passion, and from the judgment of reason: from passion, when a man does not know how to live without that which he loves; from reason, according as he loves as reason dictates. He says, therefore, that one loves with his whole heart who loves in a carnal way; one who loves from the judgment of reason, with his soul. And we ought to love God in both ways: in a carnal way, so that the heart is carnally affected toward God; hence in Psalm 83:3: my heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God. The third is the sequel of love, because what I love, I gladly see, gladly think about, gladly do what pleases it; John 14:23: he that loveth me will keep my word; and I refer everything to him; Psalm 83:2: how lovely are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts. My soul longeth and fainteth for the courts of the Lord. And we can add what Mark adds, and with all thy strength, because he who loves God transfers his whole self into him, and expends his strength upon him. Augustine distinguishes between heart and soul and mind according to the three things that proceed from them. From the heart come forth thoughts, as is found above at 15:19; from the soul, life proceeds; from the mind, knowledge and understanding. Hence what he says, with thy whole heart, is to be understood as meaning that we should refer all our thoughts to him; with thy whole soul, that our whole life; with all thy mind, that all our knowledge be referred to him, i.e., that you take your knowledge captive in obedience to him; 2 Corinthians 10:5: bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ. A certain magisterial Gloss explains that the soul is the image of God according to its powers, according to memory, understanding, and will, such that what is said with the heart is referred to understanding; what is said with the soul, to the will; what is said with the mind, to memory, so that one may live perfectly for God. Origen explains it thus: thou shalt love God with thy whole soul, so that you may be ready to lay down your soul for him if it is necessary; John 13:37: I will lay down my life for thee. But there is a difference between mind and heart. For mind is so called from measuring; heart is taken for the simplicity of the intellect; but mind refers to expression, because through speech the intellect or thought is measured: hence he means that in our speech and in our meditations we should love God totally.

Before his passion, the doctors of the Law asked Christ which was the greatest and first commandment. He said (Mt 22:37): "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and all your mind; this is the greatest and first commandment." And that is truly the greatest, most noble and most beneficial of all the commandments, as has adequately been shown. For in this commandment all the other commandments are fulfilled.

But to fulfill this commandment of love perfectly, four things are required. The first is the recollection of the divine benefits, because all that we have, whether our soul or body or exterior things, we have them all from God. Therefore we must serve him with all this and love him with a perfect heart. A man would be extremely ungrateful if, after thinking of all the benefits he received from someone, he did not love him. With this in mind, David said (1 Chron 29:14): "All belongs to you. What we received from you we give to you." Therefore in his praise it is said (Sir 47:10): "With all his heart he praised the Lord, and loved the God who made him."

The second is consideration of the divine excellence. For God is greater than our hearts (1 Jn 3); so if we serve him with our whole heart and strength we still fall short (Sir. 43:32-33): "When you praise the Lord, exalt him as much as you can, for he will surpass even that. When you exalt him put forth all your strength and do not grow weary, for you cannot praise him enough."

The third is renunciation of worldly and earthly things. For it is a big offense against God to equate him with anything else (Is 40:18): "To whom can you compare God?" We liken other things to God when we love temporal and corruptible things along with God. But this is altogether impossible. So it is said (Is 28:20): "The bed is too short to stretch out in it, and the covering is too short to wrap oneself in it." There the heart of man is compared to a cramped bed and a short cover. For the human heart is cramped with regard to God, so that when you take into your heart things other than him you push him out. For he cannot endure any bed-fellow in the soul, just like a husband with a wife. And so he himself states (Ex 20:5): "I, Yahweh your God am a jealous God." For he does not want us to love anything as much as him or besides him.

The fourth is complete avoidance of sin. For no one can love God when he is living in sin (Mt 6:24): "You cannot serve God and mammon." So, if you are living in sin, you do not love God. But that man loved God who said (Is 38:3): "Remember how I walked before you faithfully with a perfect heart." Also Elijah said (1 Kg 18:21): "For how long will you go on limping with two opinions?" As a lame person bends this way and that, so a sinner wavers between sinning and seeking God. Therefore the Lord said (Joel 2:12): "Turn to me with all your heart."

But against that command, two kinds of people sin: (1) those who avoid one kind of sin, such as unchastity, while falling into another, such as usury. But they are still condemned, because "whoever offends in one point is guilty of breaking the whole law" (Jm 2:10). (2) Then there are those who confess some sins, and others not, or they split their confession between two or more confessors. But these do not merit, and rather sin by doing so, because they intend to deceive God and they are making a rift in the sacrament.

Against the first group someone said, "It is unholy to hope for half-pardon from God." As for the second group (Ps 61:9): "Pour out your hearts before him," because in confession all is to be revealed.

It has now been shown that man must give himself to God. Now we have to see what is in him that he owes to God. Man owes God four things: his heart, his soul, his mind and his strength. And so it is said (Mt 22:37): "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and all your strength." The "heart" here stands for intention. Intention has the power of drawing all actions under its sway, so that any good works done with a bad intention are turned into bad works (Lk 11:34): "If your eye", that is, your intention, "is evil, your whole body will be dark;" that is, the totality of your good works will be dark. Therefore, in whatever we do our intention should be set on God. The Apostle says (1 Cor 10:31): "Whether you eat or drink or do any other thing, do all for the glory of God."

But a good intention is not enough, but there must also be a good will, which is indicated by the term "soul". For it often happens that someone acts with a good intention, but to no avail, because a good will is missing. For example, someone may steal to feed the poor; his intention is right, but he is lacking the requisite good will. So no evil can be excused because it is done with a good intention (Rm 3:8): "Those who [say we] say 'Let us do evil so that good may come' are justly condemned." A good will accompanies an intention when the will itself harmonizes with the divine will, and that we ask every day: "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." And (Ps 39:9): "I delight to do your will, my God." That is why it is said "with all your soul." For the soul is often used in Scripture for the will, as in (Heb 10:38): "If he shrinks back, my soul", that is, my will, "has no pleasure in him."

But sometimes a good intention and good will are present, but there is some sin in the intellect. Therefore the whole intellect must be given to God. The Apostle says (2 Cor 10:5): "taking every intellect [thought] captive to obey Christ." For many do not sin by deed, but they like to think much about sins. Against them it is said (Is 1:16): "Remove the evil of your thoughts [deeds]." There are also many who trust in their own wisdom and refuse to accept the Faith; such are not giving their minds to God. Against them it is said (Prov 3:5): "Do not rely on your own perception."

But that is not enough. One must give God all one's power and strength (Ps 58:10 Vulgate): "I will guard my strength with you." For there are some who use their strength to sin, thereby displaying their power. Against these it is said (Is 5:22): "Woe to you who are heroes at drinking wine, valiant men at mixing strong drink." Others show their power or strength to hurt their neighbors, whereas they should have displayed it by helping them (Prov 24:11): "Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter."

So to love God, the following must be given to God: intention, will, mind and strength.

This he adds since the Pharisees have asked truly "What is the greatest commandment in the law?" The Lord himself responds to them and teaches us. Not only is the greatest commandment to love the Lord, but as well it is the first commandment. It is first, however, not in the order of the Scriptures but in the order of virtue. And as this comes from such a source, it must be adhered to, since as with many established commands, Christ says that it is the first and greatest command that "you love the Lord your God with your whole heart and your whole mind and your whole soul," and the second, however, "is like unto" the first; and accordingly, this similitude is also great, "that you love your neighbor as you love yourself." This is how we understand the second one, while another may be third in magnitude and order, or a fourth, and so in order we number the commands of the law, accepting this as wisdom from God, who orders them even to the least. Such is the task of no one else but Christ alone, since he is "the power of God and the wisdom of God."

If the Lord had given no answer to the Pharisee who thus tempted Him, we should have judged that there was no commandment greater than the rest. But when the Lord adds, This is the first and great commandment, we learn how we ought to think of the commandments, that there is a great one, and that there are less down to the least. And the Lord says not only that it is a great, but that it is the first commandment, not in order of Scripture, but in supremacy of value. They only take upon them the greatness and supremacy of this precept, who not only love the Lord their God, but add these three conditions.

Having stated this, he adds, this is the greatest and the first commandment. Greatest in capacity: for this is the one in which all are contained, because in this the love of neighbor is contained, according to what is said in 1 John 4:21: he who loveth God, loveth also his brother; and therefore it is the greatest. Likewise, it is first in origin, greatest in dignity and capacity. Not first in Scripture, because in Scripture the first commandment was, the Lord thy God is one God, Deuteronomy 6:4. And why? Because every inclination of the appetitive power is in love: therefore we have the commandment that we should worship God in love; Romans 13:10: love is the fulfilling of the law; Ephesians 3:17: rooted and founded in charity.

(de Doctr. Christ. i. 30.) It is clear that every man is to be regarded as a neighbour, because evil is to be done to no man. Further, if every one to whom we are bound to show service of mercy, (vid. Rom. 13:10.) or who is bound to show it to us, be rightly called our neighbour, it is manifest that in this precept are comprehended the holy Angels who perform for us those services of which we may read in Scripture. Whence also our Lord Himself would be called our neighbour; for it was Himself whom He represents as the good Samaritan, who gave succour to the man who was left half-dead by the way.

(de Trin. viii. 6.) He that loves men ought to love them either because they are righteous, or that they may be righteous; and so also ought he to love himself either for that he is, or that he may be righteous. And thus without peril he may love his neighbour as himself.

(de Doctr. Christ, i. 22.) But if even yourself you ought not to love for your own sake, but because of Him in whom is the rightful end of your love, let not another man be displeased that you love even him for God's sake. Whoso then rightly loves his neighbour, ought to endeavour with him that he also with his whole heart love God.

So it is necessary that you also receive in this way the command that you love your neighbor as yourself (Mt 22:39), even if it is not so openly expressed. Or do you not finally judge it sufficient for fulfilling this commandment concerning love of neighbor, if you perfectly observe that which is rightly prescribed to every man by the law of nature: "What you do not wish done to you, do not do to another"? (Tob 4:16.) And likewise: "Whatever you wish that men should do to you, do also to them" (Mt 7:12).

"Which is the first and great commandment in the Law?" The Lord responds: "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two the whole Law and the Prophets depend." Augustine shows that in this word: "But it is good for me to adhere to God," the whole of what is said is contained: "You shall love the Lord your God," etc. For we ought to love God, because this is just, holy, easy, and sweet. Whence Augustine: "Lord, who are you to me? And who am I to you, that you command me to love you, and if I do not love you, you threaten me with immense miseries?"

You are told to love your neighbors as yourself. How do you love yourself? When I look into my own mind, I find that I do not love myself by thinking myself a dear old chap or having affectionate feelings. I do not think that I love myself because I am particularly good, but just because I am myself and quite apart from my character. I might detest something which I have done. Nevertheless, I do not cease to love myself. In other words, that definite distinction that Christians make between hating sin and loving the sinner is one that you have been making in your own case since you were born. You dislike what you have done, but you don't cease to love yourself. You may even think that you ought to be hanged. You may even think that you ought to go to the police and own up and be hanged. Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good as far as it can be obtained. It seems to me, therefore, that when the worst comes to the worst, if you cannot restrain a man by any method except by trying to kill him, then a Christian must do that. That is my answer. But I may be wrong. It is very difficult to answer, of course.

I said in a previous chapter that chastity was the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. But I am not sure I was right. I believe there is one even more unpopular. It is laid down in the Christian rule, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as theyself.' Because in Christian morals 'thy neighbor' includes 'thy enemy', and so we come up against this terrible duty of forgiving our enemies...

We might try to understand exactly what loving your neighbor as yourself means. I have to love him as I love myself. Well, how exactly do I love myself?

Now that I come to think of it, I have no exactly got a feeling of fondness or affection for myself, and I do not even always enjoy my own society. So apparently 'Love your neighbour' does not mean 'feel fond of him' or 'find him attractive'. I ought to have seen that before, because, of course, you cannot feel fond of a person by trying. Do I think well of myself, think myself a nice chap? Well, I am afraid I sometimes do (and those are, no doubt, my worst moments) but that is not why I love myself. In fact it is the other way round: my self-love makes me think myself nice, but thinking myself nice is not why I love myself. So loving my enemies does not apparently mean thinking them nice either. That is an enormous relief. For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do...

Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment - even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged...

I imagine somebody will say, 'Well, if one is allowed to condemn the enemy's acts, and punish him, and kill him, what difference is left between Christian morality and the ordinary view?' All the difference in the world. Remember, we Christians think man lives for ever. Therefore, what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into a heavenly or hellish creature. We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating. We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it. In other words, something insude us, the feeling of resentment, the feeling that wants to get one own's back, must be simply killed... Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves - to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. That is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not.

I admit that this means loving people who have nothing lovable about them. But then, has oneself anything lovable about it? You love it simply because it is yourself. God intends us to love all selves in the same way and for the same reason: but He has given us the sum ready worked out in our own case to show us how it works. We have then to go on and apply the rule to all the other selves. Perhaps it makes it easier if we remember that that is how He loves us. Not for any nice, attractive qualities we think we have, but just because we are the things called selves.

Even the New Testament bids me love my neighbor "as myself," which would be a horrible command if the self were simply to be hated. Yet our Lord also says that a true disciple must "hate his own life." We must not explain this apparent contradiction by saying that self-love is right up to a certain point and wrong beyond that point. The question is not one of degree. There are two kinds of self-hatred which look rather alike in their earlier stages, but of which one is wrong from the beginning and the other right to the end...

Now, the self can be regarded in two ways. On the one hand, it is God's creature, an occasion of love and rejoicing; now, indeed, hateful in condition, but to be pitied and healed. On the other hand, it is that one self of all others which is called I and me, and which on that ground puts forward an irrational claim to preference. This claim is to be not only hated, but simply killed... The Christian must wage endless war against the clamor of the ego as ego: but he loves and approves selves as such, though not their sins. The very self-love which he has to reject is to him a specimen of how he ought to feel to all selves; and he may hope that when he has truly learned (which will hardly be in this life) to love his neighbor as himself, he may then be able to love himself as his neighbor: that is, with charity instead of partiality.

If we were perfected, prayer would not be a duty, it would be delight. Some day, please God, it will be. The same is true of many other behaviours which now appear as duties. If I loved my neighbour as myself, most of the actions which are now my moral duty would flow out of me as spontaneously as song from a lark or fragrance from a flower. Why is this not so yet? Well, we know, don't we? Aristotle has taught us that delight is the "bloom" on an unimpeded activity. But the very activities for which we were created are, while we live on earth, variously impeded: by evil in ourselves or in others. Not to practise them is to abandon our humanity. To practise them spontaneously and delightfully is not yet possible. This situation creates the category of duty, the whole specifically _moral_ realm.

It exists to be transcended.

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no _ordinary_ people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.

And yet Eros is in a sense right to make this promise. The event of falling in love is of such a nature that we are right to reject as intolerable the idea that it should be transitory. In one high bound it has overleaped the massive wall of our selfhood; it has made appetite itself altruistic, tossed personal happiness aside as a triviality and planted the interests of another in the centre of our being. Spontaneously and without effort we have fulfilled the law (towards one person) by loving our neighbour as ourselves. It is an image, a foretaste, of what we must become to all if Love Himself rules in us without a rival. It is even (well used) a preparation for that.

I pointed out in the chapter on Forgiveness that our love for ourselves does not mean that we like ourselves. It means that we wish our own good. In the same way Christian Love (or Charity) for our neighbours is quite a different thing from liking or affection. We 'like' or are 'fond of' some people, and not of others. It is important to understand that this natural 'liking' is neither a sin nor a virtue, any more than your likes and dislikes in food are a sin or a virtue. It is just a fact. But, of course, what we do about it is either sinful or virtuous.

Natural liking or affection for people makes it easier to be 'charitable' towards them. It is, therefore, normally a duty to encourage our affections—to 'like' people as much as we can (just as it is often our duty to encourage our liking for exercise or wholesome food)—not because this liking is itself the virtue of charity, but because it is a help to it. On the other hand, it is also necessary to keep a very sharp look-out for fear our liking for some one person makes us uncharitable, or even unfair, to someone else. There are even cases where our liking conflicts with our charity towards the person we like. For example, a doting mother may be tempted by natural affection to 'spoil' her child; that is, to gratify her own affectionate impulses at the expense of the child's real happiness later on.

But though natural likings should normally be encouraged, it would be quite wrong to think that the way to become charitable is to sit trying to manufacture affectionate feelings. Some people are 'cold' by temperament; that may be a misfortune for them, but it is no more a sin than having a bad digestion is a sin; and it does not cut them out from the chance, or excuse them from the duty, of learning charity.

We make our friends; we make our enemies; but God makes our next-door neighbour. Hence he comes to us clad in all the careless terrors of nature; he is as strange as the stars, as reckless and indifferent as the rain. He is Man, the most terrible of the beasts. That is why the old religions and the old scriptural language showed so sharp a wisdom when they spoke, not of one's duty towards humanity, but one's duty towards one's neighbour. The duty towards humanity may often take the form of some choice which is personal or even pleasurable. That duty may be a hobby; it may even be a dissipation. We may work in the East End because we are peculiarly fitted to work in the East End, or because we think we are; we may fight for the cause of international peace because we are very fond of fighting. The most monstrous martyrdom, the most repulsive experience, may be the result of choice or a kind of taste. We may be so made as to be particularly fond of lunatics or specially interested in leprosy. We may love negroes because they are black or German Socialists because they are pedantic. But we have to love our neighbour because he is there—a much more alarming reason for a much more serious operation. He is the sample of humanity which is actually given us. Precisely because he may be anybody he is everybody. He is a symbol because he is an accident.

In the feverish summer of this fanaticism there arose the phrase that this or that part of England is being "built over." Now, there is not the slightest objection, in itself, to England being built over by men, any more than there is to its being (as it is already) built over by birds, or by squirrels, or by spiders. But if birds' nests were so thick on a tree that one could see nothing but nests and no leaves at all, I should say that bird civilization was becoming a bit decadent. If whenever I tried to walk down the road I found the whole thoroughfare one crawling carpet of spiders, closely interlocked, I should feel a distress verging on distaste. If one were at every turn crowded, elbowed, overlooked, overcharged, sweated, rack-rented, swindled, and sold up by avaricious and arrogant squirrels, one might at last remonstrate. But the great towns have grown intolerable solely because of such suffocating vulgarities and tyrannies. It is not humanity that disgusts us in the huge cities; it is inhumanity. It is not that there are human beings; but that they are not treated as such. We do not, I hope, dislike men and women; we only dislike their being made into a sort of jam: crushed together so that they are not merely powerless but shapeless. It is not the presence of people that makes London appalling. It is merely the absence of The People.

Therefore, I dance with joy to think that my part of England is being built over, so long as it is being built over in a human way at human intervals and in a human proportion. So long, in short, as I am not myself built over, like a pagan slave buried in the foundations of a temple, or an American clerk in a star-striking pagoda of flats, I am delighted to see the faces and the homes of a race of bipeds, to which I am not only attracted by a strange affection, but to which also (by a touching coincidence) I actually happen to belong. I am not one desiring deserts. I am not Timon of Athens; if my town were Athens I would stay in it. I am not Simeon Stylites; except in the mournful sense that every Saturday I find myself on the top of a newspaper column. I am not in the desert repenting of some monstrous sins; at least, I am repenting of them all right, but not in the desert. I do not want the nearest human house to be too distant to see; that is my objection to the wilderness. But neither do I want the nearest human house to be too close to see; that is my objection to the modern city. I love my fellow-man; I do not want him so far off that I can only observe anything of him through a telescope, nor do I want him so close that I can examine parts of him with a microscope. I want him within a stone's throw of me; so that whenever it is really necessary, I may throw the stone.

Perhaps, after all, it may not be a stone. Perhaps, after all, it may be a bouquet, or a snowball, or a firework, or a Free Trade Loaf; perhaps they will ask for a stone and I shall give them bread. But it is essential that they should be within reach: how can I love my neighbour as myself if he gets out of range for snowballs? There should be no institution out of the reach of an indignant or admiring humanity. I could hit the nearest house quite well with the catapult; but the truth is that the catapult belongs to a little boy I know, and, with characteristic youthful 'selfishness, he has taken it away.

Or otherwise; That the second command is like the first signifies that the obligation and merit of both are alike; for no love of God without Christ, or of Christ without God, can profit to salvation. It follows, On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

Nor did He only teach the first and great commandment, but added that there was a second like unto the first, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. But if Whoso loveth iniquity hath hated his own soul, (Ps. 11:5.) it is manifest that he does not love his neighbour as himself, when he does not love himself.

But who loves man is as who loves God; for man is God's image, wherein God is loved, as a King is honoured in his statue. For this cause this commandment is said to be like the first.

Are we to paint ourselves out that our neighbours may perish? Where, then, is (the command), "Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself? " "Care not merely about your own (things), but (about your) neighbour's? " No enunciation of the Holy Spirit ought to be (confined) to the subject immediately in hand merely, and not applied and carried out with a view to every occasion to which its application is useful.

Secondly, he presents the second commandment: and the second is like to this: thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. He wished to signify that there is an order among the commandments. And what is the reason? It is certain that the commandments concern acts of the virtues; but the virtues have an order, because one depends on another, and as the virtues, so also the commandments. But why does he say it is like the first? Because when a man is loved, since man is made in the likeness of God, God is loved in him; therefore it is like the first commandment, which is about the love of God. But what does he understand by the name of neighbor, when he says, thou shalt love thy neighbor? This is sufficiently indicated in the parable of Luke 10:36, where it is asked, which of these, in thy opinion, was neighbor to him? And the answer is, he that showed mercy to him. Hence whoever ought to show mercy to us, or we ourselves to others, is contained under the name of neighbor. But there is no rational creature to whom we should not show mercy, and conversely: and therefore under the name of neighbor are contained both man and angel. And what he says, as thyself, is not to be understood as meaning as much as yourself, because this would be against the order of charity; but as thyself, i.e., for the same end as yourself, or in the same manner as yourself. For the same end, because you should not love yourself for your own sake, but for the sake of God; so also your neighbor. The Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10:31: do all to the glory of God. Likewise, in loving yourself, you love yourself in that you wish yourself good, and such good as is according to you and the law of God, and this is the good of justice. So also you should wish good justice for your neighbor; hence you should love him either because he is just, or because he may become just. Likewise, you should love him in the same manner as yourself, because when I say I love this person, I say I wish him good. Hence the act of love bears on two things: either on the one who is good, or on the good itself which I wish for him; hence I love this person because I wish him to be good for me. Hence someone loves temporal goods because he knows them to be good for himself; but others love something because it is good in itself: thus you should love yourself, and also your neighbor.

When Christ was asked which is the greatest commandment, he gave two answers to the one question. The first was "You shall love the Lord your God," which we have talked about. The second was "and your neighbor as yourself." At this point we should point out that whoever observes this fulfills the whole law. The Apostle said (Rm 13:10): "The fulfilment of the law is love."

There are four motives for loving our neighbor: The first is divine love, since it is said (1 Jn 4:20): "If anyone says that he loves God, while he hates his brother, he is a liar." For anyone who says he loves someone, while hating his son or his members, he is lying. But all of us faithful are sons and members of Christ. The Apostle says (1 Cor 12:27): "You are the body of Christ, and each of you a member of it." Therefore anyone who hates his neighbor does not love God.

The second motive is the divine precept. For when Christ was going away, he stressed this commandment to his disciples above all other commandments, saying (Jn 15:12): "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." For no one is observing the divine commandments if he hates his neighbor. So the sign of observing the divine law is love of neighbor. So the Lord said (Jn 13:35): "By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." He does not point to raising the dead or any other glaring sign, but this is the sign: "if you have love for one another." The blessed John weighed this well when he said (1 Jn 3:14), "We know that we have been transferred from death to life." Why? "Because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love remains in death."

The third motive is our sharing in the same nature, as it is said (Sir 13:19): "Every animal loves its like." Since all men are alike in nature, they should love one another. So to hate one's neighbor is not only against the divine law, but also against the law of nature.

The fourth motive is the advantages it brings. For everything that one person has is useful to another through charity. For this is what unites the Church and makes everything common (Ps 118:63): "I am a companion of all who fear you and keep your precepts."

So "Love your neighbor as yourself." That is the second commandment of the Law, and it concerns love of neighbor. We have discussed the fact that we must love our neighbor. Now we must turn to the way we must love him, and that is indicated in the words "as yourself". Regarding this, there are five points we must observe in loving our neighbor:

The first is that we must love him really as ourselves. We do this if we love him for his own sake, not because of our own interest. Here recall that there are three kinds of love. The first is utilitarian (Sir 6:10): "he is a friend at table, but will not be around on the day of need." That is certainly not true love. It vanishes when the advantage vanishes. In that case we do not wish good for our neighbor, but rather our own advantage. There is another love directed at what is pleasurable. This too is not true love, because when the pleasure vanishes it vanishes. In that case we do not wish good primarily for our neighbor, but rather we want his good for ourselves. The third kind of love is for the sake of virtue, and only that is true love. For then we do not love our neighbor in view of our own good, but for his own good.

The second point is that we must love ordinately, that is, we must not love him above God or as much as God, but along with him in the way you must love yourself (Sg 2:4 Vulgate): "He ordered love in me." The Lord taught this order (Mt 10:37): "Whoever loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter above me is not worthy of me."

The third point is that we must love our neighbor in practice. For you do not only love yourself, but you also take care to provide for yourself and avoid evil. You must do the same for your neighbor (1 Jn 3:18): "Let us not love in words or with our tongue, but in deed and in truth." But certainly the worst people are those who love with their mouth but do harm in their hearts. The Apostle says (Rm 12:9): "love without pretense".

The fourth point is that we must persevere in loving our neighbor, just as you persevere in loving yourself (Prov 17:17): "A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity;" that is, he loves in bad times as much as he does in good times. Moreover, a friend is really proven in a time of adversity.

But note that two things help preserve friendship. The first is patience: "A quarrelsome man enkindles strife," as it is said (Prov 26:21). The second is humility, which causes the former, that is patience (Prov 13:10 Vulgate): "Among the proud there is always strife." For anyone who thinks big about himself and despises another cannot endure the latter's shortcomings.

The fifth point is that we must love with justice and holiness, so that we do not love to bring him to sin, because you should not love yourself that way, since by doing so you lose God. Thus it is said (Jn 15:9): "Remain in my love." This is the love spoken of (Sir 24:24 Vulgate): "I am the mother of beautiful love."

"Love your neighbor as yourself." This precept the Jews and Pharisees badly understood, believing that God commanded them to love their friends and hate their enemies. Therefore, by "neighbors" they understood only friends. Christ meant to repudiate this understanding when he said (Mt 5:44): "Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you." Note that whoever hates his brother is not in the state of salvation (1 Jn 2:9): "He who hates his brother is in the darkness."

We must be aware, however, of texts to the contrary. For the saints hated some people (Ps 138:22): "I hated them with perfect hatred." And in the Gospel (Lk 14:26): "If anyone does not hate his father and mother and wife and sons and brothers and sisters, even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple." We should realize that in all that we do, what Christ did should be our example. For God loves and hates. In any man two things should be considered: his nature and the wrong. What is of nature in man should be loved, what is wrong should be hated. So if anyone wished a person to be in hell, he would be hating his nature, but if he wished him to be good, he would be hating the sin, which should always be hated (Ps 5:7): "You hate all who do evil." And (Wis 11:25), "Lord, you love all that exists, and hate nothing which you have made." See, then, what God loves and hates: He loves what is of nature and hates what is wrong.

We should realize, however, that sometimes a person can do evil without sinning, that is, when he does evil so that he may desire good, because God also does this. For instance, when a man is sick and is converted to good, whereas while he was well he was evil. In the same way someone can be converted to good when he meets adversity, after being evil while living in prosperity, according to the text (Is 28:19): "Terror alone shall convey the message." Another case is to desire the evil of a tyrant destroying the Church, in as much as you desire the good of the Church through the destruction of the tyrant; thus (2 Mac 1:17): "Blessed in every way be God who has punished the wicked." And all must want this not just by willing it, but also by doing it. For it is not a sin justly to hang the evil; for they are ministers of God who do this, according to the Apostle (Rm 13), and these people are acting in love, because punishment is given at times to castigate evil, and at times for the sake of a greater and divine good. For the good of a city is a greater good than the life of one man. But note that it is not enough not to wish evil, but one must also wish good, that is the correction of the sinner and eternal life.

For someone can wish the good of another in two ways. One way is general, in so far as the person is a creature of God and is capable of partaking in eternal life. The other way is special, in so far as the person is a friend or companion. No one is excluded from a general love, for everyone should pray for everyone, and help anyone in extreme need. But you are not held to be familiar with everyone, unless he asks pardon, because then he would be your friend; and if you refused him you would be hating a friend. Thus it is said (Mt 6:14-15): "If you forgive people their sins, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you yours; but if you do not forgive them, neither will your Father forgive you your sins." And in the Lord's Prayer it is said (Mt 6:9): "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

It has been said that you sin if you do not forgive someone who asks for pardon. It is of perfection if you recall him to yourself, although you are not held to do this. But there are many reasons why you should bring him back to yourself. The first is to preserve your own status. For different statuses have different signs, and no one should throw off the sign of his own status. The highest status of all is to be a son of God. The sign of this status is to love your enemy (Mt 5:44-45): "Love your enemies, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." For if you love your friend, this is not a sign of divine sonship, for even the Publicans and Gentiles do this, as it is said (Mt 5).

The second is the winning of victory, something everyone naturally desires. Therefore either you should be good to the one who offended you so as to win him over to love you, and then you have won, or the other person should lead you to hate him, and then you have lost (Rm 12:21): "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

The third is gaining an advantage. In this way you acquire many friends (Rm 12:20): "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him to drink. By so doing you pile up coals of fire on his head." Augustine says, "There is no greater incentive to love than to love first. For no one is so hard that, even if he does not want to show love, he would refuse to repay it." For it is said (Sir 6:15): "Nothing can compare with a faithful friend." And (Prov 16:7): "When Yahweh is pleased with a man's ways, even his enemies will be at peace with him."

The fourth is that by so doing your prayers will easily be heard. Thus, on the passage (Jer 15:1) "If Moses and Samuel stood before me," Gregory says that he made special mention of them because they prayed for their enemies. Likewise Christ said (Lk 23:34): "Father, forgive them." And blessed Stephen, by praying for his enemies, brought a great advantage to the Church, because this converted Paul.

The fifth is the avoidance of sin, which we should desire very much. For sometimes we sin and don't even look for God. Then God draws us to himself by sickness or something similar (Hos 2:6): "Therefore I will hedge her way with thorns." Paul was also treated this way (Ps 118:176): "I wandered like a lost sheep. Look for your servant, Lord." And (Sg 1:3): "Draw me after you." We gain this if we draw our enemy after ourselves, first by forgiving him, for it is said (Lk 6:36): "By the measure you measure out, it shall be measured back to you." And (Lk 6:37): "Forgive, and you shall be forgiven." And (Mt 5:7): "Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy." And there is no greater mercy than to forgive one who has offended you.

(Quaest. Ev. i. 33.) Hang, that is, refer thither as their end.

(de Trin. viii. 7.) Since there are two commandments, the love of God and the love of our neighbour, on which hang the Law and the Prophets, not without reason does Scripture put one for both; sometimes the love of God; as in that, We know that all tilings work together for good to them that love God; (Rom. 8:28.) and sometimes the love of our neighbour; as in that, All the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. (Gal. 5:14.) And that because if a man love his neighbour, it follows therefrom that he loves God also; for it is the selfsame affection by which we love God, and by which we love our neighbour, save that we love God for Himself, but ourselves and our neighbour for God's sake.

And because all precepts are referred either to God or to neighbor, as to the end and to that which is ordered to the end; hence it is that in these two commandments is enclosed the collection of the commandments and the comprehension of all the Scriptures. And charity itself is the root, form, and end of the virtues, joining all things with the ultimate end and binding all things to one another simultaneously and in order; therefore it is the weight of ordered inclination and the bond of perfect binding.

"Which is the first and great commandment in the Law?" The Lord responds: "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two the whole Law and the Prophets depend." Augustine shows that in this word: "But it is good for me to adhere to God," the whole of what is said is contained: "You shall love the Lord your God," etc. For we ought to love God, because this is just, holy, easy, and sweet. Whence Augustine: "Lord, who are you to me? And who am I to you, that you command me to love you, and if I do not love you, you threaten me with immense miseries?"

The Church is a union of rational men united in harmonious and uniform adherence to divine peace. And love is born of obedience to the Law. And the Law itself commands love. And this can be proved in the Saviour's own words: "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." And so it is fitting that those who obey the Law be loving also. "By this will all men know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." And the Apostle writes: "For God is a God of peace, not of disorder."

For sacred Scripture is principally concerned with the works of reparation. Whence it treats chiefly of faith, hope, and charity, through which virtues the soul must be reformed, and most especially of charity. Of which the Apostle says that it is the end of the commandment, insofar as it proceeds from a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned. It is the fullness of the Law, as the same Apostle says. And our Savior asserts that the whole Law and the Prophets depend on the two precepts of the same, namely the love of God and of neighbor; which two are intimated in the one Spouse of the Church, Jesus Christ, who is at once neighbor and God, at once brother and lord, at once also king and friend, at once the uncreated and incarnate Word, our maker and remaker, as the Alpha and the Omega; who is also the supreme hierarch, purging and illuminating and perfecting the spouse, namely the whole Church and every holy soul.

Interlin.: Or, "with all thy heart," i.e. understanding; "with all thy soul,"i.e. thy will; "with all thy mind," i.e. memory; so you shall think, will, remember nothing contrary to Him. If the Lord had given no answer to the Pharisee who thus tempted Him, we should have judged that there was no commandment greater than the rest. But when the Lord adds, "This is the firstand great commandment," we learn how we ought to think of the commandments, that there is a great one, and that there are less down to the least. And the Lord says not only that it is a great, but that it is the first commandment, not in order of Scripture, but in supremacy of value. They only take upon them the greatness and supremacy of this precept, who not only love the Lord their God, but add these three conditions. Nor did He only teach the first and great commandment, but added that there was a second like unto the first, "Thou shalt love thyneighbour as thyself:" But if "Whoso loveth iniquity hath hated his own soul," it is manifest that he does not love his neighbour as himself, when he does not love himself.

But His commandments, and the sum of them, are, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thy neighbor as thyself." If therefore to love God is to love one's neighbor, "For if thou lovest me," He saith, "O Peter, feed my sheep," but to love one's neighbor worketh a keeping of the commandments, with reason doth He say, "On these hang all the law and the prophets."

So therefore what He did before, this He doth here also. I mean, that both there, when asked about the manner of the resurrection, He also taught a resurrection, instructing "For charity envieth not." By this He shows Himself to be submissive both to the law and to the prophets.

But His commandments, and the sum of them, are, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thy neighbor as thyself." If therefore to love God is to love one's neighbor, "For if thou lovest me," He saith, "O Peter, feed my sheep," but to love one's neighbor worketh a keeping of the commandments, with reason doth He say, "On these hang all the law and the prophets."

After this you ask how it is that "all the law and the prophets depend upon these two commands." For it seems that the texts show us that whatever was written in Exodus or Leviticus or Numbers or Deuteronomy depend "upon these two commands." But how is the law which regards lepers or the continual flow of blood or the menstruation of women dependent "upon these two commands"? And still further, how does the prophecy about captured Jerusalem, or the vision of Egypt in Isaiah and the other prophets, or the vision of Tyre or whatever may be prophesied about Tyre or the king of Tyre, or Isaiah's vision of the four-footed beasts in the wasteland "depend upon these two commands"?It seems to me that the answer is something like this. He who fulfills all that is written concerning the love of God and neighbor is worthy to receive the greatest thanks from God. Concerning this it has been argued that "the utterance of wisdom [comes] through the Holy Spirit," after which follows "the utterance of knowledge" which is "according to the Spirit."

Or, because he that has fulfilled the things that are written concerning the love of God and our neighbour, is worthy to receive from God the great reward, that he should be enabled to understand the Law and the Prophets.

For to these two commandments belongs the whole decalogue; the commandments of the first table to the love of God, those of the second to the love of our neighbour.

Consequently, he assigns the reason why these two are the greatest commandments: on these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. The whole teaching of the law and the prophets depends on these. For the end in things to be desired is related as a principle in speculative matters: for science proceeds from principles to conclusions, and thus the whole science is judged from its principles, just as in all practical matters everything depends on the end. Because, therefore, love is the end -- 1 Timothy 1:5: the end of the commandment is charity -- therefore all other things depend on these, and this is the exposition of Augustine. Origen explains it thus: in these, i.e., in the observance of these, depends the understanding of the law and the prophets, because he who observes these merits the understanding of the law and the prophets; Sirach 2:10: ye that fear the Lord, love him, and your hearts shall be enlightened. Psalm 118:104: by thy commandments I have had understanding, therefore have I hated every way of iniquity.

Then since He had answered, He asks also in turn, "What think ye of Christ, whose Son is He? They say unto Him, The Son of David."

See after how many miracles, after how many signs, after how many questions, after how great a display of His unanimity with the Father, as well in words, as in deeds; after having praised this man that said, that there is one God, He asks the question, that they may not be able to say, that He did miracles indeed, yet was an adversary to the law, and a foe to God.

Therefore, after so many things, He asks these questions, secretly leading them on to confess Him also to be God. And the disciples He asked first what the others say, and then themselves; but these not so; for surely they would have said a deceiver, and a wicked one, as speaking all things without fear. So for this cause He inquires for the opinion of these men themselves.

For having asked them first, since they answered not the truth concerning Him (for they said He was a mere man), to overthrow their mistaken opinion, He thus introduces David proclaiming His Godhead. For they indeed supposed that He was a mere man, wherefore also they said, "the Son of David;" but He to correct this brings in the prophet witnessing to His being Lord, and the genuineness of His Sonship, and His equality in honor with His Father.

The Jews tempted Christ, supposing Him to be mere man; had they believed Him to be the Son of God, they would not have tempted Him. Christ therefore, willing to show that He knew the treachery of their hearts, and that He was God, yet would not declare this truth to them plainly, that they might not take occasion thence to charge Him with blasphemy, and yet would not totally conceal this truth; because to that end had He come that He should preach the truth; He therefore puts a question to them, such as should declare to them who He was; What think ye of Christ? whose Son is He?

I suppose that He formed this question, not only against the Pharisees, but also against the heretics; for according to the flesh He was truly David's Son, but his Lord according to His Godhead.

What think you of Christ: whose son is he? This question was most difficult and fitting. Most difficult, because it is found in Isaiah 53:8: who shall declare his generation? It was also fitting, because they held the opinion that he was a mere man and did not believe him to be God, because otherwise they would not tempt him, since it is written in Deuteronomy 6:16: thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Therefore, in order to show that he is God, he says, what think you of Christ? There follows the response: they say to him: David's. For Christ had a twofold generation: one according to the flesh, another according to his divinity, according to which he is the Son of God the Father, of which it is said in Psalm 2:7: the Lord hath said to me: thou art my Son, etc. Therefore they respond about the generation according to the flesh, when they say, David's. Jeremiah 23:5: I will raise up to David a just branch. And Romans 1:3: who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh. And they responded insufficiently, because they knew him insufficiently.

This passage is out of the 109th Psalm. Christ is therefore called David's Lord, not in respect of His descent from him, but in respect of His eternal generation from the Father, wherein He was before His fleshly Father. And he calls Him Lord, not by a mere chance, nor of his own thought, but by the Holy Spirit.

And that they may not say, that it was in flattery he so called Him, and that this was a human judgment, see what He saith, "How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord?" See how submissively He introduces the sentence and judgment concerning Himself. First, He had said, "What think ye? Whose Son is He?" so by a question to bring them to an answer. Then since they said, "the Son of David," He said not, "And yet David saith these things," but again in this order of a question, "How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord?" in order that the sayings might not give offense to them. Wherefore neither did He say, What think ye of me, but of Christ. For this reason the apostles also reasoned submissively, saying, "Let us speak freely of the Patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried."

And He Himself too in like manner for this cause introduces the doctrine in the way of question and inference, saying, "How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool;" and again, "If David then call Him Lord, how is He then his Son," not taking away the fact that He is his Son, away with the thought; for He would not then have reproved Peter for this, but to correct their secret thoughts. So that when He saith, "How is He his Son?" He meaneth this, not so as ye say. For they said, that He is Son only, and not also Lord. And this after the testimony, and then submissively, "If David then call Him Lord, how is He his Son?"

It is very worthy for us to consider that our Savior willingly proposed to the Pharisees his question about the Christ, hoping that they might respond in a fitting manner. They were not able to respond adequately. Nonetheless it was the will of the Savior to enter into dialogue with his audacious proponents, the Pharisees, with their many propositions, and similarly with the Sadducees, who placed before him the question of the seven brothers and their one wife. The Pharisees and Sadducees asked their many questions to tempt Jesus, not to learn from him. They appeared to be well-prepared doctors of the law but were not. This is why the Lord chose to put his own questions to those who were professing to have knowledge of the law: that these matters might be argued openly before the people. The Lord did not give clear responses to his questioners even though he himself responded to all their questions. It was entirely appropriate that the Lord himself, in accordance with the custom of dining with the doctors, show and hand over true divine teaching. They nevertheless did not recognize him as the prophet who was the pinnacle of all prophets.

Then he objects in order to give them to understand the other generation: how then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: the Lord said to my Lord: sit on my right hand? Psalm 109:1. It is found in the law that the father is greater than the son. Therefore the son is not lord of the father. Therefore either Christ is not the son of David, or there is something in him greater than David, since he calls him Lord. But perhaps they would say that David was deceived: which he removes, because he says this in the spirit; hence, holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, 2 Peter 1:21.

(ap. Anselm.) That it is by the Father that the enemies are put under the Son, denotes not the Son's weakness, but the union of His nature with His Father. For the Son also puts under Him the Father's enemies, when He glorifies His name upon earth.

This question is still available for us against the Jews; for these who believe that Christ is yet to come, assert that He is a mere man, though a holy one, of the race of David. Let us then thus taught by the Lord ask them, If He be mere man, and only the Son of David, how does David call Him his Lord? To evade the truth of this question, the Jews invent many frivolous answers. They allege Abraham's steward, he whose son was Eliezer of Damascus, and say that this Psalm was composed in his person, when after the overthrow of the five kings, the Lord God said to his lord Abraham, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. Let us ask how Abraham could say the things that follow, and compel them to tell us how Abraham was born before Lucifer, and how he was a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, for whom Melchisedech brought bread and wine, and of whom he received tithes of the spoil?

For God puts Christ's enemies as a footstool beneath His feet, for their salvation as well as their destruction.

That He says, Sit thou on my right hand, is not to be taken as though God had a body, and either a right hand or a left hand; but to sit on the right hand of God is to abide in the honour and equality of the Father's majesty.

But till is used for indefinite time, that the meaning be, Sit Thou for ever, and for ever hold thine enemies beneath thy feet.

Therefore, (as they further hold, ) those other words, "Before the morning star did I beget thee from the womb," are applicable to Hezekiah, and to the birth of Hezekiah.

But we can see three things in this authority from the Psalm. First, pre-eminence over the saints; equality with the Father; and dominion over the rebellious. Pre-eminence over the saints, when it says, the Lord said to my Lord. The Lord, namely, the Father, to the Lord, namely, the Son: for the Son himself has dominion over all the saints: for no saint is illuminated except by the true light: and he is the true light; John 1:4: the life was the light of men. If, therefore, he is the one by participation in whom all the saints receive light, he has pre-eminence over all the saints in that it says: with thee is the principality in the day of thy strength, in the brightness of the saints, etc.; hence he is originally the brightness of all the saints. Likewise, equality with the Father is touched upon when it says, sit on my right hand: not that these are local seats, but metaphorically, because the more honorable place is to sit on the right. For to speak is to emit a word. That the Lord said, therefore, sit on my right hand, what else is it than that by begetting me, the Word, he gave me power, equality, and authority? It can also be explained of temporal things, i.e., in the better goods, but this is not to the purpose. For the Lord is always seen on the right, as in Mark 16:5: they saw a young man sitting on the right side. And Stephen, Acts 7:55, saw Jesus sitting on the right hand of the power of God. And what will happen to his enemies? All will be subjected to him; hence he adds, till I make thy enemies thy footstool. These are either the utterly faithless, or those who refused to obey and submit; hence he will make them thy footstool. For a footstool is what is placed under the feet; and that which is under the feet is totally subjected to one, but not that which is in the hand. Some are made a footstool for punishment, others for salvation: for punishment, those who refuse to do his will; for salvation, those who do his will. But the Arians object: therefore he is not equal to the Father. I say that both are read, both that he is subject to the Father and that he is equal to the Father; 1 Corinthians 15:25: for he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet. Likewise, Christ will subject all things to himself; Philippians 3:21: he will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory. Hence he says that to demonstrate the unity of power: hence all things that the Father can do, the Son can also do. But what does it mean when he says, till I make thy enemies thy footstool? Therefore it seems that after he has subjected his enemies, he will no longer sit on the right. It must be said that "until" sometimes implies a determinate time, sometimes an infinite time. Here it implies an infinite time. But someone might say: do not many rebel against Christ? Indeed, it is true that many rebel, and therefore there could be doubt about the time when many would rebel: therefore Christ wished to express this.

Here then there is need for caution, lest Christ himself be thought to have denied that he was the Son of David. He did not deny that he was the Son of David, but he probed his detractors on the particular way this can be. You have said that Christ is the Son of David. I do not deny it. But "if David thus calls him Lord, how is he his Son?" Tell me how he could be his son who is also his Lord? They did not answer him but were dumbfounded.Let us then answer them by the explanation given by Christ himself. Where given? Through his apostle. By what source can we prove that Christ himself has explained it? The apostle says, "Would you receive a proof of Christ who speaks in me?" So it is through the apostle's voice that Christ has allowed this question to be solved. In the first place, do you remember what Christ said, speaking by the apostle to Timothy? "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel." So it is easy to see that Christ is the Son of David. But how is he also David's Lord? Let the apostle again tell us of the one who, "though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Acknowledge David's Lord. If you acknowledge David's Lord, our Lord, the Lord of heaven and earth, the Lord of the angels, equal with God, in the form of God, how is he David's Son? Note what follows. The apostle shows you David's Lord by saying, "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." And how is he David's Son? "But he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in human form, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God has also highly exalted him." Christ "of the seed of David," the Son of David, rose again because "he emptied himself." How did he empty himself? By taking upon himself that which he was not, not by losing that which he was. He emptied himself. He "humbled himself." Though he was God, he appeared as a man. He was despised as he walked on earth, he who made the heaven. He was despised as though a mere man, as though of no power. He was not only despised but also killed! He was that stone that was laid aside on the ground, which the Jews stumbled against and were shaken. And what does he himself say? "He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls, it shall grind him to powder." First he was laid low, and they stumbled against him. He shall come from above, and he will "grind" them that have been shaken "to powder." Thus you have heard that Christ is both David's Son and David's Lord: David's Lord always, David's Son in time. David's Lord, born of the substance of his Father; David's Son, born of the Virgin Mary, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Let us hold fast both. The one of them will be our eternal habitation; the other is our deliverance from our present exile.

(ap. Anselm.) He concludes from this authority, If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son?

"If David then call Him Lord, how is He then his Son," not taking away the fact that He is his Son, away with the thought; for He would not then have reproved Peter for this, but to correct their secret thoughts. So that when He saith, "How is He his Son?" He meaneth this, not so as ye say. For they said, that He is Son only, and not also Lord. And this after the testimony, and then submissively, "If David then call Him Lord, how is He his Son?"

But, nevertheless, even when they had heard these things, they answered nothing, for neither did they wish to learn any of the things that were needful. Wherefore He Himself addeth and saith, that "He is his Lord." Or rather not even this very thing doth He say without support, but having taken the prophet with Him, because of His being exceedingly distrusted by them, and evil reported of amongst them.

If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? Therefore he is both Lord and son, because he is son according to the flesh, since he drew his origin from him, and Lord according to his divinity.