Saturday of the 11th week after Pentecost

(Cont. Faust. xix. 29.) Behold now out of the books of Moses it is proved to the Jews that a wife may not be put away. For they thought that they were doing according to the purport of Moses' law when they did put them away. This also we learn hence by the testimony of Christ Himself, that it was God who made it thus, and joined them male and female; which when the Manichæans deny, they are condemned, resisting the Gospel of Christ.

(V. 4.) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? This is written in the beginning of Genesis. But in saying male and female, he pointed towards monogamous marriages. For he did not say males and females, which was sought after due to the repudiation of the former, but male and female, so that the bond of one spouse might be established.

But He so frames His answer as to evade their snare. He brings in the testimony of Holy Writ, and the law of nature, and opposing God's first sentence to this second, He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? This is written in the beginning of Genesis. This teaches that second marriages are to be avoided, for He said not male and females, which was what was sought by the putting away of the first, but, male and female, implying only one tie of wedlock.

See a teacher's wisdom. I mean, that being asked, Is it lawful? He did not at once say, It is not lawful, lest they should be disturbed and put in disorder, but before the decision by His argument He rendered this manifest, showing that it is itself too the commandment of His Father, and that not in opposition to Moses did He enjoin these things, but in full agreement with him.

But mark Him arguing strongly not from the creation only, but also from His command. For He said not, that He made one man and one woman only, but that He also gave this command that the one man should be joined to the one woman. But if it had been His will that he should put this one away, and bring in another, when He had made one man, He would have formed many Women.

But now both by the manner of the creation, and by the manner of lawgiving, He showed that one man must dwell with one woman continually, and never break off from her.

And see how He saith, "He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female," that is, from one root they sprung, and into one body came they together, "for the twain shall be one flesh."

After this, to make it a fearful thing to find fault with this lawgiving, and to confirm the law, He said not, "Sever not therefore, nor put asunder," but, "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

But if thou put forward Moses, I tell thee of Moses' Lord, and together with this, I rely upon the time also. For God at the beginning made them male and female; and this law is older (though it seem to have been now introduced by me), and with much earnestness established. For not merely did He bring the woman to the man, but also commanded to leave father and mother. And neither did He make it a law for him merely to come to the woman, but also "to cleave to her," by the form of the language intimating that they might not be severed. And not even with this was He satisfied, but sought also for another greater union, "for the twain," He saith, "shall be one flesh."

Then after He had recited the ancient law, which was brought in both by deeds and by words, and shown it to be worthy of respect because of the giver, with authority after that He Himself too interprets and gives the law, saying, "So that they are no more twain, but one flesh." Like then as to sever flesh is a horrible thing, so also to divorce a wife is unlawful. And He stayed not at this, but brought in God also by saying, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder," showing that the act was both against nature, and against law; against nature, because one flesh is dissevered; against law, because that when God hath joined and commanded it not to be divided, ye conspire to do this.

If then God created the male and female out of one, to this end that they should be one, why then henceforth were not they born man and wife at one birth, as it is with certain insects? Because God created male and female for the continuance of the species, yet is He ever a lover of chastity, and promoter of continence. Therefore did He not follow this pattern in all kinds, to the end that, if any man choose to marry, he may know what is, according to the first disposition of the creation, the condition of man and wife; but if he choose not to marry, he shall not be under necessity to marry by the circumstances of his birth, lest he should by his continence be the destruction of the other who was not willing to be continent; for which same cause God forbids that after being joined in wedlock one should separate if the other be unwilling.

There, while prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: "Moses," says He, "because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so" -for this reason, indeed, because He who had "made them male and female" had likewise said, "They twain shall become one flesh; what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Now, by this answer of His (to the Pharisees), He both sanctioned the provision of Moses, who was His own (servant), and restored to its primitive purpose the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was.

What then does Christ say? He shows that monogamy is the work and law of Him Who created us at the beginning. For at the beginning, He says, God joined together one man and one woman. So it is not right that one man should be joined to many women, or one woman to many men. But as they were joined together at the beginning, so they should remain, not sundering the marital union without good cause. Jesus did not say, "It is I Who made them male and female," not wanting to vex the Pharisees; but He phrased it more indefinitely, "He Who made them."

Therefore the answer follows: who answering said to them. The Lord gives the best manner of responding: because when someone asks in order to learn, the truth should be told at once; but to one who asks in order to bring a charge, the truth should not be said immediately, but first certain things should be said that cannot be denied. Therefore the Lord first inquires about the law; hence first he takes up the words of Scripture; secondly, he shows how they are relevant to the question; thirdly, he draws the principal conclusion. And regarding the first he does three things. First he shows the companionship of male and female, which God instituted; secondly, the affection which he implanted; thirdly, the manner in which he joined them. He intends to prove that the union of male and female was instituted by God. Have you not read that he who made man from the beginning made them male and female? For this is read in Genesis 1:27: and God created man to his image and likeness. This is not to be understood as some understood it, that first he made man male, and afterwards female, and then separated them; but first he made one man, and in him he made that from which the woman would come. But why did the Lord will it to be done in this way, namely that the multitude of men should come from man and woman? I answer, so that it would be signified that the form of marriage is from God. Likewise so that they would love each other more. But then Chrysostom asks why he does not always do it this way, that man and woman are born at the same time. He answers that if it were so, marriage would seem to be a necessity. And because the Lord wills that using marriage be lawful, or not using it, and that it not be necessary, he first created male and female, to signify that marriage was lawful; afterwards, however, he allowed a male to be born without a female, and conversely, so that they would have the free choice of both using marriage and not using it. According to this, a twofold error is excluded. For some said that marriage was not from God: and this is excluded, because if he made them male and female, and it is clear that he made nothing in vain, therefore neither any of these things, and not except for the companionship of marriage. Others said that if man had not sinned, God would not have made woman, but rather men would have been multiplied in another way; but this is nothing, because they were created before sin. And he says in the singular male and female, so that one man should have one woman.

(Gen. ad lit. ix. 19.) Whereas Scripture witnesses that these words were said by the first man, and the Lord here declares that God spake them, hence we should understand that by reason of the ecstasy which had passed upon Adam, he was enabled to speak this as a prophecy.

(Civ. Dei, xiv. 22.) For they are called one, either from their union, or from the derivation of the woman, who was taken out of the side of the man.

The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ's words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism - for that is what the words 'one flesh' would be in modern English. And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a sentiment but stating a fact - just as one is stating a fact when one says that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are one musical instrument. The inventor of the human machine was telling us that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined together in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally combined. The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the total union. The Christian attitude does not mean that there is anything wrong about sexual pleasure, any more than about the pleasure of eating. It means that you must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again.

I think there is also a confusion. We don't really want grief, in its first agonies, to be prolonged: nobody could. But we want something else of which grief is a frequent symptom, and then we confuse the symptom with the thing itself. I wrote the other night that bereavement is not the truncation of married love but one of its regular phases—like the honeymoon. What we want is to live our marriage well and faithfully through that phase too. If it hurts (and it certainly will) we accept the pains as a necessary part of this phase. We don't want to escape them at the price of desertion or divorce. Killing the dead a second time. We were one flesh. Now that it has been cut in two, we don't want to pretend that it is whole and complete. We will be still married, still in love. Therefore we shall still ache. But we are not at all—if we understand ourselves—seeking the aches for their own sake. The less of them the better, so long as the marriage is preserved. And the more joy there can be in the marriage between dead and living, the better.

It does really mean that a section of the human race is asking whether the primary relations of the two human sexes are particularly good for modern shops. The human race is asking whether Adam and Eve are entirely suitable for Marshall and Snelgrove. If this is not topsy-turvy I cannot imagine what would be. We ask whether the universal institution will improve our (please God) temporary institution. ... They do not ask if the means is suited to the end; they all ask (with profound and penetrating scepticism) if the end is suited to the means. They do not ask whether the tail suits the dog. They all ask whether a dog is (by the highest artistic canons) the most ornamental appendage that can be put at the end of a tail.

But Christ in his view of marriage does not in the least suggest the conditions of Palestine in the first century. He does not suggest anything at all, except the sacramental view of marriage as developed long afterwards by the Catholic Church. It was quite as difficult for people then as for people now. It was much more puzzling to people then than to people now. Jews and Romans and Greeks did not believe, and did not even understand enough to disbelieve, the mystical idea that the man and the woman had become one sacramental substance. We may think it an incredible or impossible ideal; but we cannot think it any more incredible or impossible than they would have thought it. In other words, whatever else is true, it is not true that the controversy has been altered by time. Whatever else is true, it is emphatically not true that the ideas of Jesus of Nazareth were suitable to his time, but are no longer suitable to our time. Exactly how suitable they were to his time is perhaps suggested in the end of his story.

So it is in this case of the sacrament of marriage. We may not believe in sacraments, as we may not believe in spirits, but it is quite clear that Christ believed in this sacrament in his own way and not in any current or contemporary way. He certainly did not get his argument against divorce from the Mosaic law or the Roman law or the habits of the Palestinian people. It would appear to his critics then exactly what it appears to his critics now; an arbitrary and transcendental dogma coming from nowhere save in the sense that it came from him. I am not at all concerned here to defend that dogma; the point here is that it is just as easy to defend it now as it was to defend it then. It is an ideal altogether outside time; difficult at any period; impossible at no period. In other words, if any one says it is what might be expected of a man walking about in that place at that period, we can quite fairly answer that it is much more like what might be the mysterious utterance of a being beyond man, if he walked alive among men.

Thus, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, an intelligent man in other matters, says that there is only a "theological" opposition to divorce, and that it is entirely founded on "certain texts" in the Bible about marriages. This is exactly as if he said that a belief in the brotherhood of men was only founded on certain texts in the Bible, about all men being the children of Adam and Eve. Millions of peasants and plain people all over the world assume marriage to be static, without having ever clapped eyes on any text. Numbers of more modern people, especially after the recent experiments in America, think divorce is a social disease, without having ever bothered about any text. It may be maintained that even in these, or in any one, the idea of marriage is ultimately mystical; and the same may be maintained about the idea of brotherhood. It is obvious that a husband and wife are not visibly one flesh, in the sense of being one quadruped. It is equally obvious that Paderewski and Jack Johnson are not twins, and probably have not played together at their mother's knee. There is indeed a very important admission, or addition, to be realised here. What is true is this: that if the nonsense of Nietzsche or some such sophist submerged current culture, so that it was the fashion to deny the duties of fraternity; then indeed it might be found that the group which still affirmed fraternity was the original group in whose sacred books was the text about Adam and Eve. Suppose some Prussian professor has opportunely discovered that Germans and lesser men are respectively descended from two such very different monkeys that they are in no sense brothers, but barely cousins (German) any number of times removed. And suppose he proceeds to remove them even further with a hatchet; suppose he bases on this a repetition of the conduct of Cain, saying not so much "Am I my brother's keeper?" as "Is he really my brother?" And suppose this higher philosophy of the hatchet becomes prevalent in colleges and cultivated circles, as even more foolish philosophies have done. Then I agree it probably will be the Christian, the man who preserves the text about Cain, who will continue to assert that he is still the professor's brother; that he is still the professor's keeper. He may possibly add that, in his opinion, the professor seems to require a keeper.

And that is doubtless the situation in the controversies about divorce and marriage to-day. It is the Christian church which continues to hold strongly, when the world for some reason has weakened on it, what many others hold at other times. But even then it is barely picking up the shreds and scraps of the subject to talk about a reliance on texts. The vital point in the comparison is this: that human brotherhood means a whole view of life, held in the light of life, and defended, rightly or wrongly, by constant appeals to every aspect of life. The religion that holds it most strongly will hold it when nobody else holds it; that is quite true, and that some of us may be so perverse as to think a point in favour of the religion. But anybody who holds it at all will hold it as a philosophy, not hung on one text but on a hundred truths. Fraternity may be a sentimental metaphor; I may be suffering a delusion when I hail a Montenegrin peasant as my long lost brother. As a fact, I have my own suspicions about which of us it is that has got lost. But my delusion is not a deduction from one text, or from twenty; it is the expression of a relation that to me at least seems a reality. And what I should say about the idea of a brother, I should say about the idea of a wife.

But before they make this attempt, it would be well to ask why such a dignity ever appeared or in what it consisted. And I fancy we shall find ourselves confronted with the very simple truth, that the dignity arose wholly and entirely out of the fidelity; and that the glamour merely came from the vow. People were regarded as having a certain dignity because they were dedicated in a certain way; as bound to certain duties and, if it be preferred, to certain discomforts. It may be irrational to endure these discomforts; it may even be irrational to respect them. But it is certainly much more irrational to respect them, and then artificially transfer the same respect to the absence of them. It is as if we were to expect uniforms to be saluted when armies were disbanded; and ask people to cheer a soldier's coat when it did not contain a soldier. If you think you can abolish war, abolish it; but do not suppose that when there are no wars to be waged, there will still be warriors to be worshipped. If it was a good thing that the monasteries were dissolved, let us say so and dismiss them. But the nobles who dissolved the monasteries did not shave their heads, and ask to be regarded as saints solely on account of that ceremony. The nobles did not dress up as abbots and ask to be credited with a potential talent for working miracles, because of the austerity of their vows of poverty and chastity. They got inside the houses, but not the hoods, and still less the haloes. They at least knew that it is not the habit that makes the monk. They were not so superstitious as those moderns, who think it is the veil that makes the bride.

(interlin.) Or, one flesh, that is in carnal connection.

"What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder." God "has joined" in making one flesh of man and woman; this no man can put asunder, unless perhaps God alone. Man "puts asunder" when we dismiss our first wife in desire of a second; God, who also had joined together, puts asunder, when by consent for God's service, we so have our wives as though not having them.

(Vers. 5, 6.) And he said: Because of this, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Likewise, he said, a man must be united to his wife, not wives. And the two will become one flesh. The reward of marriage is for two to become one flesh. Chastity joined to the spirit makes one spirit.

Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate. God has joined, by making one flesh of man and woman: this the man cannot separate, unless perhaps by the power of God alone. Man separates, when, due to desire for a second spouse, he dismisses the first. God separates, who had also joined, when by consent due to the service of God (because time is limited) we have wives as though we have none (I Cor. VII).

In like manner He says his wife, and not wives, and adds expressly, and they twain shall be one flesh. For it is the reward of marriage that one flesh, namely in the offspring, is made of two.

But since the Apostle understands the words, "And they twain shall be one flesh," of Christ and the church, we must say that Christ keeping the saying, "What God hath joined together let not man put asunder," did not put away His former wife, so to speak—that is, the former synagogue—for any other cause than that that wife committed fornication, being made an adulteress by the evil one, and along with him plotted against her husband and slew Him, saying, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, crucify Him, crucify Him." It was she therefore who herself revolted, rather than her husband who put her away and dismissed her; wherefore, reproaching her for falling away from him, it says in Isaiah, "Of what kind is the bill of your mother's divorcement, with which I sent her away?" And He who at the beginning created Him "who is in the form of God" after the image, made Him male, and the church female, granting to both oneness after the image. And, for the sake of the church, the Lord—the husband—left the Father whom He saw when He was "in the form of God," left also His mother, as He was the very son of the Jerusalem which is above, and was joined to His wife who had fallen down here, and these two here became one flesh. For because of her, He Himself also became flesh, when "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us," and they are no more two, but now they are one flesh, since it is said to the wife, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members each in his part;" for the body of Christ is not something apart different from the church, which is His body, and from the members each in his part. And God has joined together these who are not two, but have become one flesh, commanding that men should not separate the church from the Lord. And he who takes heed for himself so as not to be separated, is confident as one who will not possibly be separated and says, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?"

For when the soul hath intercourse with the body, this intercourse is adultery and fornication; but if the body be united unto the soul in one agreement, and be raised above from below in a right union, it is the intercourse which is according unto the law, which is implanted naturally in the person of each one of us by the Creator. For behold the connection which men have with women according to nature was ordained by the command of the Creator at the beginning, and when it taketh place according to the will of the Creator, it is called lawful connection; but if it be performed in any other way it is called adultery and fornication, and as in a mystery this parable is depicted in reference unto the soul and body. For if the soul hath intercourse with the body it is fornication, but if the body hath intercourse with the soul, it is an union according to the law, and towards this meaning also inclineth the words of the Book which saith, "A man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife." Now it doth not say concerning the woman that she shall leave her parents, and cleave unto the man, although according to the custom of the world women do actually leave their natural parents, and cleave unto their husbands, and it appeareth that, according to custom, the opposite of the words of the Book are done in nature; so therefore that which is said of the man is a parable which is based on the body, which shall leave everything in which it hath gratification, and shall be united unto the soul. For if the Book had said, "A woman shall leave her parents, and cleave unto a man," it would have taught that the soul should have intercourse with the body, but now that it hath spoken concerning the man, "He shall leave his parents and be united unto his wife," the words indicate to us a mystery of doctrine, and exhort the body to deny itself its pleasures, and to hate its lusts, and to have connection with the soul in all good things.

If then because the wife is made of the man, and both one of one flesh, a man shall leave his father and his mother, then there should be yet greater affection between brothers and sisters, for these come of the same parents, but man and wife of different. But this is saying too much, because the ordinance of God is of more force than the law of nature. For God's precepts are not subject to the law of nature, but nature bends to the precepts of God. Also brethren are born of one, that they should seek out different roads; but the man and the wife are born of different persons, that they should coalesce in one. The order of nature also follows the appointment of God. For as is the sap in trees, so is affection in man. The sap ascends from the roots into the leaves, and passes forth into the seed. Therefore parents love their children, but are not so loved of them, for the desire of a man is not towards his parents, but towards the sons whom he has begot; and this is what is said, Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.

For by the wholesome design of God it was ordained that a man should have in the woman a part of his own body, and should not look upon as separate from himself that which he knew was formed out of himself.

The Apostle says that this is a mystery in Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:32.); for the Lord Jesus Christ left His Father when He came down from heaven to earth; and He left His mother, that is, the synagogue, because of its unbelief, and clave unto His wife, that is, the Holy Church, and they two are one flesh, that is, Christ and the Church are one body.

Let them see to that, who, among the rest of their perversities, teach the disjoining of the "one flesh in twain; " denying Him who, after borrowing the female from the male, recombined between themselves, in the matrimonial computation, the two bodies taken out of the consortship of the self-same material substance.

What kind of yoke is that of two believers, (partakers) of one hope, one desire, one discipline, one and the same service? Both (are) brethren, both fellow servants, no difference of spirit or of flesh; nay, (they are) truly "two in one flesh." Where the flesh is one, one is the spirit ton.

The goodness of wedded union is of such importance to God that He even permitted women to leave their parents and to cleave to their husbands. But why is it written in Genesis (Gen. 2:24) that Adam said, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother," while here Christ says that it was God Who said, "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother." We say, therefore, that what Adam spoke, he spoke from God, so that the speech of Adam is of God.

For this cause a man shall leave father and mother. Here he presents the affection which he implanted. And he said. Who said? He who made them. But this does not seem right, because it seems that Adam said it. Augustine says that the Lord sent a deep sleep upon Adam and took one of his ribs. This sleep was an ecstasy; hence there he revealed many good things; hence the Lord also revealed to him what is said here; hence above at 10:20 it was said: for it is not you who speak, but the spirit of your Father who speaks in you. Because therefore Adam spoke at God's command, it is said that God spoke; hence 2 Esdras 4: a man leaves his father, who nourished him. And cleaves to his wife. What is the reason? A brother and sister are born of one, and they separate; but a husband and wife are from different families, and yet they do not separate. Chrysostom says that this is from divine ordinance. Likewise, naturally every cause has a return to its effect, as sap from the root to the branches; hence fathers love their children more than conversely; therefore husband and wife, although they are from different families, are nevertheless united in one effect. And the two shall be in one flesh. Jerome says: namely in the flesh of offspring. And this is the fruit of marriage. Chrysostom explains: in one flesh, i.e., in one carnal affection, just as in spiritual affection there is unity, as in Acts 4:32: and the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul. Or the two shall be in one flesh, i.e., in one carnal act. The Philosopher says that man and woman in that act are always related in such a way that just as active and passive power are always joined in an effect, so in that act action and passion are joined.

Of the Sacrament of matrimony there are three goods, namely fidelity, offspring, and the Sacrament. And there are twelve impediments, which impede marriage from being contracted and dissolve one already contracted.

The Church neither ought nor is able to annul a marriage that has been legitimately contracted, because those whom God has joined together no man, however great his power, can separate, since all remain to be judged by the judgment of God himself.

That conjugal chastity is to be approved according to the evangelical law is shown by authority, as follows. Matthew 19, the Lord responding to the question put to him concerning marriage: Have you not read, that he who made men from the beginning made them male and female: and afterward: What God has joined together, let not man separate? The joining therefore of male and female according to the undivided companionship of life is from the institution of God and approved in the law of the Gospel by the judgment of Christ: and according to this the act of conjugal chastity is understood: therefore this virtue and its act is consonant with divine law.

Conjugal chastity accords with the law of grace by reason of the Lord's definition, not only through the deed by which He was present at the wedding, but also through the word by which He authoritatively defined it, Matthew 19: What God has joined together, let not man separate.

The real situation is skilfully concealed by saying that the question of Mr A.'s "right" to desert his wife is one of "sexual morality". Robbing an orchard is not an offense against some special morality called "fruit morality". It is an offense against honesty. Mr A.'s action is an offense against good faith (to solemn promises), against gratitude (toward one to whom he was deeply indebted) and against common humanity.

Our sexual impulses are thus being put in a position of preposterous privilege. The sexual motive is taken to condone all sorts of behaviour which, if it had any other end in view, would be condemned as merciless, treacherous and unjust.

Architecture is a very good test of the true strength of a society, for the most valuable things in a human state are the irrevocable things--marriage, for instance. And architecture approaches nearer than any other art to being irrevocable, because it is so difficult to get rid of. You can turn a picture with its face to the wall; it would be a nuisance to turn that Roman cathedral with its face to the wall. You can tear a poem to pieces; it is only in moments of very sincere emotion that you tear a town-hall to pieces. A building is akin to dogma; it is insolent, like a dogma. Whether or no it is permanent, it claims permanence like a dogma.

They are trying to break the vow of the knight as they broke the vow of the monk. They recognise the vow as the vital antithesis to servile status; the alternative and therefore the antagonist. Marriage makes a small state within the state, which resists all such regimentation. That bond breaks all other bonds; that law is found stronger than all later and lesser laws. They desire the democracy to be sexually fluid, because the making of small nuclei is like the making of small nations. Like small nations, they are a nuisance to the mind of imperial scope. In short, what they fear, in the most literal sense, is home rule.

What is respected, in short, is fidelity to the ancient flag of the family, and a readiness to fight for what I have noted as its unique type of freedom. I say readiness to fight, for fortunately the fight itself is the exception rather than the rule. The soldier is not respected because he is doomed to death, but because he is ready for death; and even ready for defeat. The married man or woman is not doomed to evil, sickness or poverty; but is respected for taking a certain step for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness or in health. But there is one result of this line of argument which should correct a danger in some arguments on the same side.

Anyhow, to vary the legendary symbolism, it never seems to occur to the king in this fairy tale that the gold crown on his head is a less, and not a more, sacred and settled ornament than the gold ring on the woman's finger.

So the unfortunate man, who cannot tolerate the woman he has chosen from all the women in the world, is not encouraged to return to her and tolerate her, but encouraged to choose another woman whom he may in due course refuse to tolerate. And in all these cases the argument is the same; that the man in the intermediate state is unhappy. Probably he is unhappy, since he is abnormal; but the point is that he is permitted to loosen the universal bond which has kept millions of others normal. Because he has himself got into a hole, he is allowed to burrow in it like a rabbit and undermine a whole countryside.

One word should be added to this hasty sketch of the elements of the case. I have deliberately left out the loftiest aspect and argument, that which sees marriage as a divine institution; and that for the logical reason that those who believe in this would not believe in divorce; and I am arguing with those who do believe in divorce. I do not ask them to assume the worth of my creed or any creed; and I could wish they did not so often ask me to assume the worth of their worthless, poisonous plutocratic modern society. But if it could be shown, as I think it can, that a long historical view and a patient political experience can at last accumulate solid scientific evidence of the vital need of such a vow, then I can conceive no more tremendous tribute than this, to any faith, which made a flaming affirmation from the darkest beginnings, of what the latest enlightenment can only slowly discover in the end.

But if my association of divorce with slavery seems only a far-fetched and theoretical paradox, I should have no difficulty in replacing it by a concrete and familiar picture. Let them merely remember the time when they read "Uncle Tom's Cabin," and ask themselves whether the oldest and simplest of the charges against slavery has not always been the breaking up of families.

While free love seems to me a heresy, divorce does really seem to me a superstition. It is not only more of a superstition than free love, but much more of a superstition than strict sacramental marriage; and this point can hardly be made too plain. It is the partisans of divorce, not the defenders of marriage, who attach a stiff and senseless sanctity to a mere ceremony, apart from the meaning of the ceremony. It is our opponents, and not we, who hope to be saved by the letter of ritual, instead of the spirit of reality. It is they who hold that vow or violation, loyalty or disloyalty, can all be disposed of by a mysterious and magic rite, performed first in a law-court and then in a church or a registry office. There is little difference between the two parts of the ritual; except that the law court is much more ritualistic. But the plainest parallels will show anybody that all this is sheer barbarous credulity. It may or may not be superstition for a man to believe he must kiss the Bible to show he is telling the truth. It is certainly the most grovelling superstition for him to believe that, if he kisses the Bible, anything he says will come true. It would surely be the blackest and most benighted Bible-worship to suggest that the mere kiss on the mere book alters the moral quality of perjury. Yet this is precisely what is implied in saying that formal re-marriage alters the moral quality of conjugal infidelity. It may have been a mark of the Dark Ages that Harold should swear on a relic, though he were afterwards foresworn. But surely those ages would have been at their darkest, if he had been content to be sworn on a relic and forsworn on another relic. Yet this is the new altar these reformers would erect for us, out of the mouldy and meaningless relics of their dead law and their dying religion.

A man's dealings with women can be purely physical (they cannot really, of course: but I mean he can refuse to take other things into account, to the great damage of his soul (and body) and theirs); or 'friendly'; or he can be a 'lover' (engaging and blending all his affections and powers of mind and body in a complex emotion powerfully coloured and energized by 'sex'). This is a fallen world. The dislocation of sex-instinct is one of the chief symptoms of the Fall. The world has been 'going to the bad' all down the ages. The various social forms shift, and each new mode has its special dangers: but the 'hard spirit of concupiscence' has walked down every street, and sat leering in every house, since Adam fell. We will leave aside the 'immoral' results. These you desire not to be dragged into. To renunciation you have no call. 'Friendship' then? In this fallen world the 'friendship' that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favourite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This 'friendship' has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails. Later in life when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can only rarely occur: two minds that have really a primarily mental and spiritual affinity may by accident reside in a male and a female body, and yet may desire and achieve a 'friendship' quite independent of sex. But no one can count on it. The other partner will let him (or her) down, almost certainly, by 'falling in love'. But a young man does not really (as a rule) want 'friendship', even if he says he does. There are plenty of young men (as a rule). He wants love: innocent, and yet irresponsible perhaps. Allas! Allas! that ever love was sinne! as Chaucer says. Then if he is a Christian and is aware that there is such a thing as sin, he wants to know what to do about it.

There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes 'love' — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, 'service', courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned 'his divinity' = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril. But combined and harmonized with religion (as long ago it was, producing much of that beautiful devotion to Our Lady that has been God's way of refining so much our gross manly natures and emotions, and also of warming and colouring our hard, bitter, religion) it can be very noble. Then it produces what I suppose is still felt, among those who retain even vestigiary Christianity, to be the highest ideal of love between man and woman. Yet I still think it has dangers. It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly 'theocentric'. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man's eye off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of 'true love', as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a 'love' that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).

Women really have not much part in all this, though they may use the language of romantic love, since it is so entwined in all our idioms. The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point – and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him. But this is their natural avenue to love. Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing) she may actually 'fall in love'. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit. And then things are going to happen: and they may be very painful and harmful, if things go wrong. Particularly if the young man only wanted a temporary guiding star and divinity (until he hitches his waggon to a brighter one), and was merely enjoying the flattery of sympathy nicely seasoned with a titillation of sex – all quite innocent, of course, and worlds away from 'seduction'.

You may meet in life (as in literature) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton — I don't refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy 'conquests', or even enjoy the giving of pain – but these are abnormalities, even though false teaching, bad upbringing, and corrupt fashions may encourage them. Much though modern conditions have changed feminine circumstances, and the detail of what is considered propriety, they have not changed natural instinct. A man has a life-work, a career, (and male friends), all of which could (and do where he has any guts) survive the shipwreck of 'love'. A young woman, even one 'economically independent', as they say now (it usually really means economic subservience to male commercial employers instead of to a father or a family), begins to think of the 'bottom drawer' and dream of a home, almost at once. If she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really end on the rocks. Anyway women are in general much less romantic and more practical. Don't be misled by the fact that they are more 'sentimental' in words – freer with 'darling', and all that. They do not want a guiding star. They may idealize a plain young man into a hero; but they don't really need any such glamour either to fall in love or to remain in it. If they have any delusion it is that they can 'reform' men. They will take a rotter open-eyed, and even when the delusion of reforming him fails, go on loving him. They are, of course, much more realistic about the sexual relation. Unless perverted by bad contemporary fashions they do not as a rule talk 'bawdy'; not because they are purer than men (they are not) but because they don't find it funny. I have known those who pretended to, but it is a pretence. It may be intriguing, interesting, absorbing (even a great deal too absorbing) to them: but it is just plumb natural, a serious, obvious interest; where is the joke?

They have, of course, still to be more careful in sexual relations, for all the contraceptives. Mistakes are damaging physically and socially (and matrimonially). But they are instinctively, when uncorrupt, monogamous. Men are not. .... No good pretending. Men just ain't, not by their animal nature. Monogamy (although it has long been fundamental to our inherited ideas) is for us men a piece of 'revealed' ethic, according to faith and not to the flesh. Each of us could healthily beget, in our 30 odd years of full manhood, a few hundred children, and enjoy the process. Brigham Young (I believe) was a healthy and happy man. It is a fallen world, and there is no consonance between our bodies, minds, and souls.

However, the essence of a fallen world is that the best cannot be attained by free enjoyment, or by what is called 'self-realization' (usually a nice name for self-indulgence, wholly inimical to the realization of other selves); but by denial, by suffering. Faithfulness in Christian marriage entails that: great mortification. For a Christian man there is no escape. Marriage may help to sanctify & direct to its proper object his sexual desires; its grace may help him in the struggle; but the struggle remains. It will not satisfy him – as hunger may be kept off by regular meals. It will offer as many difficulties to the purity proper to that state, as it provides easements. No man, however truly he loved his betrothed and bride as a young man, has lived faithful to her as a wife in mind and body without deliberate conscious exercise of the will, without self-denial. Too few are told that — even those brought up 'in the Church'. Those outside seem seldom to have heard it. When the glamour wears off, or merely works a bit thin, they think they have made a mistake, and that the real soulmate is still to find. The real soul-mate too often proves to be the next sexually attractive person that comes along. Someone whom they might indeed very profitably have married, if only —. Hence divorce, to provide the 'if only'. And of course they are as a rule quite right: they did make a mistake. Only a very wise man at the end of his life could make a sound judgement concerning whom, amongst the total possible chances, he ought most profitably to have married! Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world, or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one) both partners might have found more suitable mates. But the 'real soul-mate' is the one you are actually married to. You really do very little choosing: life and circumstance do most of it (though if there is a God these must be His instruments, or His appearances). It is notorious that in fact happy marriages are more common where the 'choosing' by the young persons is even more limited, by parental or family authority, as long as there is a social ethic of plain unromantic responsibility and conjugal fidelity. But even in countries where the romantic tradition has so far affected social arrangements as to make people believe that the choosing of a mate is solely the concern of the young, only the rarest good fortune brings together the man and woman who are really as it were 'destined' for one another, and capable of a very great and splendid love. The idea still dazzles us, catches us by the throat: poems and stories in multitudes have been written on the theme, more, probably, than the total of such loves in real life (yet the greatest of these tales do not tell of the happy marriage of such great lovers, but of their tragic separation; as if even in this sphere the truly great and splendid in this fallen world is more nearly achieved by 'failure' and suffering). In such great inevitable love, often love at first sight, we catch a vision, I suppose, of marriage as it should have been in an unfallen world. In this fallen world we have as our only guides, prudence, wisdom (rare in youth, too late in age), a clean, heart, and fidelity of will.....

My own history is so exceptional, so wrong and imprudent in nearly every point that it makes it difficult to counsel prudence. Yet hard cases make bad law; and exceptional cases are not always good guides for others.

[...]

Out of the darkness of my life, so much frustrated, I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament. .... There you will find romance, glory, honour, fidelity, and the true way of all your loves upon earth, and more than that: Death: by the divine paradox, that which ends life, and demands the surrender of all, and yet by the taste (or foretaste) of which alone can what you seek in your earthly relationships (love, faithfulness, joy) be maintained, or take on that complexion of reality, of eternal endurance, which every man's heart desires.

God has joined by making man and woman one flesh; this then man may not put asunder, but God only. Man puts asunder, when from desire of a second wife the first is put away; God puts asunder, who also had joined, when by consent for the service of God we so have our wives as though we had them not. (1 Cor. 7:29.)

And accordingly, those whom God "from the beginning" conjoined, "two into one flesh," man shall not at the present day separate. The apostle, too, writing to the Ephesians, says that God "had proposed in Himself, at the dispensation of the fulfilment of the times, to recall to the head" (that is, to the beginning) "things universal in Christ, which are above the heavens and above the earth in Him.

Therefore, since they have become one flesh, joined together by means of marital relations and physical affection, just as it is accursed to cut one's own flesh, so is it accursed to separate husband and wife. He did not say, "Let not Moses put asunder," so as not to scandalize them, but simply "Let not man," showing the gap between God Who joins together and man who dissolves.

Understand this also, that "he that is joined unto the Lord is of one spirit with Him" (I Cor. 6:17) and a union takes place between the believer and Christ. For we have all become one body with Him and we are, each one of us, members of Christ. So indeed no one can separate such a union, as Paul said, Who can separate us from the love of Christ? For what God has joined together, nothing can separate, as Paul says, neither man nor any other created thing, not angels, principalities, or powers (See Rom. 8:38-39).

Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. Then he draws the principal conclusion: what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder, because it was done by God's will. If it is from God, man cannot separate; because if God joined, let God separate. For separation can be made by God or by man: and this either for pleasure, or to have some other woman, and this does not avail; or by mutual consent, so that one may serve God more freely, and so it is from God.

(Verse 8.) He said to them: because Moses allowed you to divorce your wives due to the hardness of your hearts, but it was not like that from the beginning. This is what he meant: Can God be opposed to himself, so that he would command one thing before and then nullify his own command with a new one? It should not be understood this way. Rather, Moses, seeing that because of the desire for second wives, who were either richer, younger, or more beautiful, the first wives were being killed or leading a bad life, preferred to tolerate discord rather than continue with hatred and murders (Deut. XXIV). At the same time, consider that God did not allow it because of the hardness of your hearts, but Moses did, so that, according to the Apostle's counsel (1 Corinthians 7), it may be a human choice, not a commandment from God.

What He says is to this purpose. Is it possible that God should so contradict Himself, as to command one thing at first, and after defeat His own ordinance by a new statute? Think not so; but, whereas Moses saw that through desire of second wives who should be richer, younger, or fairer, that the first were put to death, or treated ill, he chose rather to suffer separation, than the continuance of hatred and assassination. Observe moreover that He said not God suffered you, but, Moses; showing that it was, as the Apostle speaks, a counsel of man, not a command of God. (1 Cor. 7:12.)

Nevertheless, unspeakable wisdom maketh a defense even for these things, and saith, "Moses for the hardness of your hearts" thus made the law. And not even him doth He suffer to remain under accusation, forasmuch as He had Himself given him the law; but delivers him from the charge, and turns the whole upon their head, as everywhere He doth.

For again when they were blaming His disciples for plucking the ears of corn, He shows themselves to be guilty; and when they were laying a transgression to their charge as to their not washing their hands, He shows themselves to be the transgressors, and touching the Sabbath also: both everywhere, and here in like manner.

Then because the saying was hard to bear, and brought on them much blame, He quickly directs back His discourse to that ancient law, saying as He had said before also, "But in the beginning it was not so," that is, God by His acts at the beginning ordained the contrary. For in order that they may not say, Whence is it manifest, that "for our hardness Moses said this?" hereby again He stoppeth their mouths. For if this were the primary law, and for our good, that other would not have been given at the beginning; God in creating would not have so created, He would not have said such things.

Therefore said He well, Moses suffered, not commanded. For what we command, that we ever wish; but when we suffer, we yield against our will, because we have not the power to put full restraint upon the evil wills of men. He therefore suffered you to do evil that you might not do worse; thus in suffering this he was not enforcing the righteousness of God, but taking away its sinfulness from a sin; that while you did it according to His law, your sin should not appear sin.

There, while prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: "Moses," says He, "because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so" -for this reason, indeed, because He who had "made them male and female" had likewise said, "They twain shall become one flesh; what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So true, moreover, is it that divorce "was not from the beginning," that among the Romans it is not till after the six hundredth year from the building of the city that this kind of "hard-heartedness" is set down as having been committed.

Then the Lord, turning every accusation upon their own head, defends Moses by saying, "Moses did not set this law in contradiction to God, but rather he addressed this law to your depravity, so that when you in your licentiousness desired to come together with other women, you would not put to death your first wife." For the Israelites, being cruel, would have murdered their wives if they were constrained to keep them. So Moses provided in the law for a writ of divorce to be given to those wives who were hated by their husbands.

And he said to them. Here he answers the objection. And first he presents the answer; secondly the confirmation, because the Lord proves that a wife should not be put away from the authority of God, which is greater; therefore against the authority of God there is no authority of Moses. But against this: did not the Lord give the law through Moses? See, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 7:25: concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel. Hence sometimes he was saying what he had received from the Lord, sometimes from his own divinely inspired judgment: so also Moses. But this he permitted, not because he had heard it from the Lord, but from divine inspiration, yet not confirmed by authority. Because of the hardness of your hearts he permitted you to put away your wives. They had said that Moses commanded; but he did not command, but permitted. Concerning their hardness, Acts 7:51: stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. Here there is usually a question, whether those who put away their wives sin mortally. Some said that those who put them away sinned mortally. For permission is taken in four ways. Something is said to be permitted when the contrary is not commanded, as a lesser good is permitted because a greater good is not commanded, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 7:6: I speak by way of indulgence. Likewise sometimes by the privation of prohibition; and so venial sins are permitted. But sometimes by the privation of impediment: and so all the evils that are done in the present life are sometimes also said to be permitted, because punishment is not applied. Therefore certain things were permitted to the Jews which were mortal sins, because punishment was not inflicted on them. But this has a place in worldly matters: for so we see that according to human laws simple fornication is not punished; hence if the Old Law only looked to the present life, the solution is good. But because although according to the letter it pertains to the present life, yet according to the substance it pertains also to eternal life, Exodus 15:25: I gave them my precepts; and the Lord says to the young man below in the same chapter: if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments; therefore others say that it would have been poorly provided for that people if they did not know what was a sin, since nevertheless it is written, Isaiah 58:1: declare to the people their sins. Therefore Chrysostom says that he removed from the sin the guilt of sin. And although it was something disordered, he did not wish it to be imputed to them as guilt, as the Lord commanded Hosea to take a wife of fornication: hence the permission was not from a precept, but to avoid a greater evil. But from the beginning it was not so. Hence it was something actual, not instituted from the beginning: hence for many years no one put away his wife.

To commit adultery is to have relations with a woman who is not one's proper spouse. A man commits adultery if he brings another woman in, instead of the one to whom he was lawfully bound. The law forbade obvious adultery, which is when another man seduces the woman in the house. But the Savior includes also that adultery that has not become known to everyone or that has not been proven as having occurred physically, because it is still adultery. Moreover, Christ agrees that the unfaithful wife has rebelled because she herself has destroyed the natural yoking and is no longer treated as a wife by her husband.

If a layman divorces his own wife, and takes another, or one divorced by another, let him be suspended.

A person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. "For whosoever puts away his wife," says He, "and marries another, commits adultery;" [Matthew 19:9] not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race.

(De Conjug. Adult. ii. 9.) For a reunion of the wedlock, even after actual commission of adultery, is neither shameful nor difficult, where there is an undoubted remission of sin through the keys of the kingdom of heaven; not that after being divorced from her husband an adulteress should be called back again, but that after her union with Christ she should no longer be called an adulteress.

Christianity teaches that marriage is for life. There is, of course, a difference here between different Churches: some do not admit divorce at all; some allow it reluctantly in very special cases. It is a great pity that Christians should disagree about such a question; but for an ordinary layman the thing to notice is that the Churches all agree with one another about marriage a great deal more than any of them agrees with the outside world. I mean, they all regard divorce as something like cutting up a living body, as a kind of surgical operation. Some of them think the operation so violent that it cannot be done at all; others admit it as a desparate remedy in extreme cases. They are all agreed that it is more like having both you legs cut off than it is like dissolving a business partnership or even deserting a regiment. What they all disagree with is the modern view that it is a simple readjustment of partners, to be made whenever people feel they are no longer in love with one another, or when either of them falls in love with someone else.

Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, "Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;" and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming, renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion, while she devotes herself assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than impertinent trifling. "He that taketh a woman that has been put away," it is said, "committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress," that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband. What, then, is the law? In order to check the impetuosity of the passions, it commands the adulteress to be put to death, on being convicted of this; and if of priestly family, to be committed to the flames. And the adulterer also is stoned to death, but not in the same place, that not even their death may be in common. And the law is not at variance with the Gospel, but agrees with it. How should it be otherwise, one Lord being the author of both? She who has committed fornication liveth in sin, and is dead to the commandments; but she who has repented, being as it were born again by the change in her life, has a regeneration of life; the old harlot being dead, and she who has been regenerated by repentance having come back again to life. The Spirit testifies to what has been said by Ezekiel, declaring, "I desire not the death of the sinner, but that he should turn." Now they are stoned to death; as through hardness of heart dead to the law which they believed not. But in the case of a priestess the punishment is increased, because "to whom much is given, from him shall more be required."

I say this in passing, to point out that while I do not dream of suggesting that there are only happy marriages, there will quite certainly, as things work nowadays, be a very large number of unhappy and unjust divorces. They will be cases in which the innocent partner will receive the real punishment of the guilty partner, through being in fact and feeling the faithful partner. For instance, it is insisted that a married person must at least find release from the society of a lunatic; but it is also true that the scientific reformers, with their fuss about "the feeble-minded," are continually giving larger and looser definitions of lunacy. The process might begin by releasing somebody from a homicidal maniac, and end by dealing in the same way with a rather dull conversationalist. But in fact nobody does deny that a person should be allowed some sort of release from a homicidal maniac. The most extreme school of orthodoxy only maintains that anybody who has had that experience should be content with that release. In other words, it says he should be content with that experience of matrimony, and not seek another. It was put very wittily, I think, by a Roman Catholic friend of mine, who said he approved of release so long as it was not spelt with a hyphen.

To put it roughly, we are prepared in some cases to listen to the man who complains of having a wife. But we are not prepared to listen, at such length, to the same man when he comes back and complains that he has not got a wife. Now in practice at this moment the great mass of the complaints are precisely of this kind. The reformers insist particularly on the pathos of a man's position when he has obtained a separation without a divorce. Their most tragic figure is that of the man who is already free of all those ills he had, and is only asking to be allowed to fly to others that he knows not of. I should be the last to deny that, in certain emotional circumstances, his tragedy may be very tragic indeed. But his tragedy is of the emotional kind which can never be entirely eliminated; and which he has himself, in all probability, inflicted on the partner he has left. We may call it the price of maintaining an ideal or the price of making a mistake; but anyhow it is the point of our whole distinction in the matter; it is here that we draw the line, and I have nowhere denied that it is a line of battle. The battle joins on the debatable ground, not of the man's doubtful past but of his still more doubtful future. In a word, the divorce controversy is not really a controversy about divorce. It is a controversy about re-marriage; or rather about whether it is marriage at all.

While free love seems to me a heresy, divorce does really seem to me a superstition. It is not only more of a superstition than free love, but much more of a superstition than strict sacramental marriage; and this point can hardly be made too plain. It is the partisans of divorce, not the defenders of marriage, who attach a stiff and senseless sanctity to a mere ceremony, apart from the meaning of the ceremony. It is our opponents, and not we, who hope to be saved by the letter of ritual, instead of the spirit of reality. It is they who hold that vow or violation, loyalty or disloyalty, can all be disposed of by a mysterious and magic rite, performed first in a law-court and then in a church or a registry office. There is little difference between the two parts of the ritual; except that the law court is much more ritualistic. But the plainest parallels will show anybody that all this is sheer barbarous credulity. It may or may not be superstition for a man to believe he must kiss the Bible to show he is telling the truth. It is certainly the most grovelling superstition for him to believe that, if he kisses the Bible, anything he says will come true. It would surely be the blackest and most benighted Bible-worship to suggest that the mere kiss on the mere book alters the moral quality of perjury. Yet this is precisely what is implied in saying that formal re-marriage alters the moral quality of conjugal infidelity. It may have been a mark of the Dark Ages that Harold should swear on a relic, though he were afterwards foresworn. But surely those ages would have been at their darkest, if he had been content to be sworn on a relic and forsworn on another relic. Yet this is the new altar these reformers would erect for us, out of the mouldy and meaningless relics of their dead law and their dying religion.

(ord.) He says this to the terror of him that would take her to wife, for the adulteress would have no fear of disgrace.

(Verse 9.) But I say to you, that whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. And he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery. Only fornication is what overcomes a wife's affection: indeed, when she divides one flesh into another, and separates herself from her husband through fornication, she should not be held: lest she also make her husband subject to a curse, as Scripture says: Whoever holds onto an adulteress, is foolish and wicked. Therefore, whenever there is fornication, or even suspicion of fornication, the wife is freely dismissed. And because it could happen that someone falsely accuses the innocent person and implicates them in an old crime due to a second marriage, the husband is commanded to divorce the first wife so that he does not have a second wife while the first one is still alive. For what he says is as follows: If you divorce your wife not for lust but for injury, why do you expose yourself to the danger of unhappy previous marriages by entering into new ones? Moreover, because it could happen that, according to the same law, a wife could also give a divorce to her husband, the same caution is prescribed so that she does not marry a second man. And because a prostitute, and one who has once been an adulteress, does not fear disgrace, the same caution is prescribed for the husband, that if he marries such a woman, he is subject to the crime of adultery.

It is fornication alone which destroys the relationship of the wife; for when she has divided one flesh into two, and has separated herself by fornication from her husband, she is not to be retained, lest she should bring her husband also under the curse, which Scripture has spoken, He that keepeth an adulteress is a fool and wicked. (Prov. 18:23.)

For it might be that a man might falsely charge an innocent wife, and for the sake of another woman might fasten an accusation upon her. Therefore it is commanded so to put away the first, that a second be not married while the first is yet alive. Also because it might happen that by the same law a wife would divorce her husband, it is also provided that she take not another husband; and because one who had become an adulteress would have no further fear of disgrace, it is commanded that she many not another husband. But if she do marry another, she is in the guilt of adultery; wherefore it follows, And whoso marrieth her that is put away, committeth adultery.

"But I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and marry another, committeth adultery." For since he had stopped their mouths, He then gives the law with His own authority, like as touching the meats, like as touching the Sabbath.

For with regard to the meats likewise, when He had overcome them, then, and not till then, He declared unto the multitude, that, "Not that which goeth in defileth the man;" and with regard to the Sabbath, when He had stopped their mouths, He saith, "Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath day;" and here this self-same thing.

Concerning chastity, He uttered such sentiments as these: "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart before God." And, "If thy right eye offend thee, cut it out; for it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into everlasting fire." And, "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, committeth adultery." And, "There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying." So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God.

Perhaps some one will say, that Jesus in thus speaking, suffered wives to be put away for the same cause that Moses suffered them, which He says was for the hardness of the hearts of the Jews. But to this it is to be answered, that if by the Law an adulteress is stoned, that sin is not to be understood as the shameful thing for which Moses suffers a writing of divorcement; (Deut. 24:1.) for in a cause of adultery it was not lawful to give a writing of divorcement. But Moses perhaps calls every sin in a woman a shameful thing, which if it be found in her, a bill of divorcement is written against her. But we should enquire, If it is lawful to put away a wife for the cause of fornication only, what is it if a woman be not an adulteress, but have done any other heinous crime; have been found a poisoner, or to have murdered her children? The Lord has explained this matter in another place, saying, Whoso putteth her away, except for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery, (Mat. 5:32.) giving her an opportunity of a second marriage.

Therefore said He well, Moses suffered, not commanded. For what we command, that we ever wish; but when we suffer, we yield against our will, because we have not the power to put full restraint upon the evil wills of men. He therefore suffered you to do evil that you might not do worse; thus in suffering this he was not enforcing the righteousness of God, but taking away its sinfulness from a sin; that while you did it according to His law, your sin should not appear sin.

For as he is cruel and unjust that puts away a chaste wife, so is he a fool and unjust that retains an unchaste; for in that he hides the guilt of his wife, he is an encourager of foulness.

For every thing by whatsoever causes it is created, by the same is it destroyed. It is not matrimony but the will that makes the union; and therefore it is not a separation of bodies but a separation of wills that dissolves it. He then who puts away his wife and does not take another is still her husband; for though their bodies be not united, their wills are united. But when he takes another, then he manifestly puts his wife away; wherefore the Lord says not, Whoso putteth away his wife, but, Whoso marrieth another, committeth adultery.

There is then but one carnal cause why a wife should be put away, that is, fornication, and but one spiritual, that is, the fear of God. But there is no cause why while she who has been put away is alive, another should be married.

"Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?" And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?" And he said, "The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." And I said to him, "What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way."

But, however, since Patience takes the lead in every species of salutary discipline, what wonder that she likewise ministers to Repentance, (accustomed as Repentance is to come to the rescue of such as have fallen, ) when, on a disjunction of wedlock (for that cause, I mean, which makes it lawful, whether for husband or wife, to persist in the perpetual observance of widowhood), she waits for, she yearns for, she persuades by her entreaties, repentance in all who are one day to enter salvation? How great a blessing she confers on each!The one she prevents from becoming an adulterer; the other she amends.

But I say to you, Christ says, that it is good to divorce as an adulteress a wife who has committed fornication, but if one divorces a wife who has not committed fornication, he becomes in part the cause of adultery for her if she should marry again.

And I say to you etc. Here he introduces the law. First for the husband; secondly for the wife. He says therefore whosoever shall put away his wife etc. But fornication is excepted. But see that fornication is twofold, namely corporal and spiritual. Hence one can put away for either, as is found in 1 Corinthians 7:11: if one is an unbeliever and the other a believer, the believer can put away the unbeliever. It should be noted that by no subsequent impediment can the bond of marriage be dissolved, because it signifies the union of Christ and the Church: hence since the union of Christ and the Church cannot be dissolved, neither can the union of marriage. But on account of fornication one can be separated from the common life, and he ought not to keep her with him, lest he seem to be a consenter to the wickedness; but for other faults he cannot, as for drunkenness. Likewise if she wishes to lead a man to unbelief, he can put her away. But why is mention made more of corporal fornication than of spiritual? Because it is against the fidelity of marriage: and faith need not be kept with one who breaks faith. Another reason is one which Origen gives, because above at 5:32 the Lord said, he who puts away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, makes her to commit adultery, and therefore he gives her an occasion for committing adultery; but after she has sinned, he does not give her an occasion for committing adultery, and therefore afterwards he can put her away, but not before. And he who shall marry another, commits adultery. But why not, unless he marries another? Because the same thing is bound by those things by which it is loosed. Hence when a man has a separated wife, and no other, the hope still remains that they can be reunited, either through a similar fault, or through a consent of minds; but when he has married another, then he has totally separated his heart and consent from her. Another reason is that if apart from fornication he could put away his wife, it would sometimes happen that a man would impute a crime to his wife, so as to be separated from her and joined to another; therefore the Lord willed that he should not have another. Hence he expressly forbids that a man should have different wives, because having dismissed one and taken another, he commits adultery. And he who shall marry her that is put away, commits adultery. Here he sets forth the law regarding the woman: hence he does not wish that a dismissed wife have a husband. But why does he forbid the man from contracting with her, and not the woman? I answer that women are more headlong toward evil. Jeremiah 3:3: you have had the forehead of a harlot. Therefore by this prohibition she would be headlong into greater evils. Therefore he commands the man not to contract, but does not forbid the woman. But what then? Was it not lawful for a woman who was repudiated to take another husband? Some say no, because the bond still remained: and they cite what is found in Deuteronomy 24, that she could not return to the former husband, because she was defiled; but if she had not sinned, she could return. Others say that she could marry another, but not this one, because if she could return to him, he would more easily repudiate her. What then do you say, that she is defiled? I say that she is defiled to him, because she cannot return to him. Or it can be understood of legal uncleanness, because a priest could not have her.

(Verse 11.) He said to them: Not everyone can understand this word, but only those to whom it is given. No one should think that under this word, either fate or fortune is introduced: these are the virgins to whom it has been given by God, or whom certain circumstances have brought to this, but it has been given to those who have asked, who have desired, who have worked to receive it. For everyone who asks will receive, and the one who seeks will find, and to the one who knocks, it will be opened (Matthew 7:8 and Luke 11:10).

But let none think, that wherein He adds, save they to whom it is given, that either fate or fortune is implied, as though they were virgins only whom chance has led to such a fortune. For that is given to those who have sought it of God, who have longed for it, who have striven that they might obtain it.

What then saith Christ? He said not, "yea, it is easier, and so do," lest they should suppose that the thing is a law; but He subjoined, "Not all men receive it, but they to whom it is given," raising the thing, and showing that it is great, and in this way drawing them on, and urging them.

But see herein a contradiction. For He indeed saith this is a great thing; but they, that it is easier. For it was meet that both these things should be done, and that it should be at once acknowledged a great thing by Him, that it might render them more forward, and by the things said by themselves it should be shown to be easier, that on this ground too they might the rather choose virginity and continence.

And if it is of free choice, one may say, how doth He say, at the beginning, "All men do not receive it, but they to whom it is given?" That thou mightest learn that the conflict is great, not that thou shouldest suspect any compulsory allotments. For it is given to those, even to the willing.

But He spake thus to show that much influence from above is needed by him who entereth these lists, whereof He that is willing shall surely partake. For it is customary for Him to use this form of speech when the good work done is great, as when He saith, "To you it is given to know the mysteries."

And that this is true, is manifest even from the present instance. For if it be of the gift from above only, and they that live as virgins contribute nothing themselves, for nought did He promise them the kingdom of Heaven, and distinguish them from the other eunuchs.

But He said unto them, Not all can receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Since the disciples had said that it would be better not to enter into marriage, the Lord says that virginity is a great thing but not everyone can achieve it, but only those with whom God acts in synergy. "They to whom it is given" refers to those with whom God acts in synergy. It is given to those who ask. For He says, "Ask, and it shall be given you. For everyone that asketh receiveth" (Lk. 11:9).

Who said to them: he approves the opinion of the disciples. And first by words; secondly by deeds, at then were little children presented to him. And first he approves continence; secondly he assigns the differences among the continent, at for there are eunuchs etc.; thirdly the difficulty, at he that can take, let him take it. He says therefore who said to them: all men take not this word. You say that it is not expedient to marry: this is true for some, but it is not true for all, because not all have so great a virtue that they abstain; but they to whom it is given, because it is given to some not from their own doing, but by a gift of grace. Wisdom 8:21: I knew that I could not otherwise be continent, except God gave it. For that a man living in the flesh should live apart from the flesh is not of man but of God; 1 Corinthians 7:7: I would that all men were even as myself; but every one has his proper gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. And because they might believe that all could be continent, therefore he says for there are eunuchs etc.

From these things it is gathered that the voice of the turtledove is also the preaching of chastity. For in the beginning this voice was not heard on earth, but rather that one: "Increase and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen 1:28). In vain indeed would the voice of chastity have sounded, when the homeland of those rising again had not yet been revealed: in which far more happily "men will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Lk 20:35-36). You would say that there was a time for that voice, when every barren woman in Israel was subject to a curse, when the Patriarchs themselves had several wives at the same time, when a brother was compelled by the law to raise up offspring for a brother who had died without children. But when the commendation of those eunuchs "who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God" (Mt 19:12) sounded from the mouth of the heavenly turtledove; and likewise the counsel of another, that same most chaste turtledove, concerning virgins everywhere prevailed (1 Cor 7:25), then for the first time it could be truly said, that "the voice of the turtledove has been heard in our land."

That widowed continence according to the evangelical law ought to be vowed is shown by authority, as follows. Matthew 19: There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven; he who can receive it, let him receive it: but to make oneself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is done most especially through a vow of continence, and this is proposed to all who wish to undertake it: therefore anyone who wills can vow continence according to the evangelical law.

Christ after a clear allusion to the eunuchs of eastern courts, said there would be eunuchs of the kingdom of heaven. If this does not mean the voluntary enthusiasm of virginity, it could only be made to mean something much more unnatural or uncouth. It is the historical religion that humanises it for us by experience of Franciscans or of Sisters of Mercy. The mere statement standing by itself might very well suggest a rather dehumanised atmosphere; the sinister and inhuman silence of the Asiatic harem and divan. This is but one instance out of scores; but the moral is that the Christ of the Gospel might actually seem more strange and terrible than the Christ of the Church.

The cause in one item he assigns nature; in the next violence, and in the last his own choice, in him, namely, that determined to be so from hope of the kingdom of heaven.

There are three kinds of eunuchs, two carnal and the third spiritual. One group are those who are born this way. Another are those who are made into eunuchs by captivity or for pleasuring older women. The third are those who "have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven" and who become eunuchs for Christ though they could be whole men. The last group are promised the reward. The other two, for whom chastity is not a matter of willing but necessity, are due nothing at all. We can put it another way. There are eunuchs from birth who are of a rather frigid nature and not inclined to lust. There are others who are made eunuchs by men, those who are made so by philosophers, others who are made weak toward sex from their worship of idols, and still others who by heretical persuasion feign chastity so as to falsely claim the truth of religion. None of the above is receptive to the kingdom of heaven. Only the person who for Christ seeks chastity wholeheartedly and cuts off sexual impurity altogether [is the genuine eunuch]. So he adds, "He who is able to receive this, let him receive it," so that each of us should look to his own strength as to whether he can carry out the commands of virginity and chastity. Chastity in itself is agreeable and alluring; but one must look to one's strength so that "he who is able to receive this may receive it." It is as if the Lord with his words were urging on his soldiers to the reward of chastity with these words: He who is able to receive this let him receive it; he who is able to fight, let him fight and conquer.

(Verse 12.) For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it. There are three types of eunuchs: those who are eunuchs from birth, those who are made eunuchs by men, and those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Some are born eunuchs, others are made eunuchs by men, and others choose to be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. And those who can accept it should accept it. A reward is promised to these people, but to the previous ones, for whom the necessity of chastity is not voluntary, nothing is owed at all. We can say differently. There are eunuchs who are born from their mother's womb, who are of a colder nature and do not desire lust. And there are others who are made by humans: whom either philosophers make, or they are softened into women because of the worship of idols: or they pretend chastity due to heretical persuasion, in order to lie about the truth of religion. But none of them will inherit the kingdom of heaven unless he has castrated himself for the sake of Christ. Therefore, it is concluded: He who is able to receive this, let him receive it; so that each person may consider his own abilities, whether he can fulfill the commands of virginity and chastity. For chastity is enticing in itself, attracting anyone to itself. But one's abilities must be considered, so that he who is able to receive it, may receive it. It is like the voice of the Lord urging and inciting his soldiers to the reward of chastity. Let whoever is able to understand, understand; let whoever is able to fight, fight, overcome and triumph.

He speaks of three kinds of eunuchs, of whom two are carnal, and one spiritual. One, those who are so born of their mother's womb; another, those whom enemies or courtly luxury has made so; a third, those who have made themselves so for the kingdom of heaven, and who might have been men, but become eunuchs for Christ. To them the reward is promised, for to the others whose continence was involuntary, nothing is due.

(cf. Orig. in loc.) Or we may say otherwise. The eunuchs from their mothers' wombs are they whose nature is colder, and not prone to lust. And they that are made so of men are they whom physicians made so, or they whom worship of idols has made effeminate, or who from the influence of heretical teaching pretend to chastity, that they may thereupon claim truth for their tenets. But none of them obtain the kingdom of heaven, save he only who has become a eunuch for Christ's sake. Whence it follows, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it; let each calculate his own strength, whether he is able to fulfil the rules of virginity and abstinence. For in itself continence is sweet and alluring, but each man must consider his strength, that he only that is able may receive it. This is the voice of the Lord exhorting and encouraging on His soldiers to the reward of chastity, that he who can fight might fight and conquer and triumph.

For since to speak of virginity seemed to be grievous, by the constraint of this law He drove them to this desire. Then to show the possibility of it, He saith, "There are some eunuchs, who were so born from their mother's womb, there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men, and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven's sake," by these words secretly leading them to choose the thing, and establishing the possibility of this virtue, and all but saying, Consider if thou wert in such case by nature, or hadst endured this selfsame thing at the hands of those who inflict such wanton injuries, what wouldest thou have done, being deprived indeed of the enjoyment, yet not having a reward? Thank God therefore now, for that with rewards and crowns thou undergoest this, which those men endure without crowns; or rather not ever this, but what is much lighter, being supported both by hope, and by the consciousness of the good work, and not having the desire so raging like waves within thee.

For the excision of a member is not able to quell such waves, and to make a calm, like the curb of reason; or rather, reason only can do this.

For this intent therefore He brought in those others, even that He might encourage these, since if this was not what He was establishing, what means His saying concerning the other eunuchs? But when He saith, that they made themselves eunuchs, He means not the excision of the members, far from it, but the putting away of wicked thoughts. Since the man who hath mutilated himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul saith, "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." And very reasonably. For such a one is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manichaeans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves amongst the Greeks. For to cut off our members hath been from the beginning a work of demoniacal agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the work of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security, as being irresponsible; and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members, and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds.

These are the ordinances of the devil, bringing in, besides the things which we have mentioned, another wicked doctrine also, and making way beforehand for the arguments concerning destiny and necessity even from hence, and everywhere marring the freedom given to us of God, and persuading us that evil deeds are of nature, and hence secretly implanting many other wicked doctrines, although not openly. For such are the devil's poisons.

Therefore I beseech you to flee from such lawlessness. For together with the things I have mentioned, neither doth the force of lust become milder hereby, but even more fierce. For from another origin hath the seed that is in us its sources, and from another cause do its waves swell. And some say from the brain, some from the loins, this violent impulse hath its birth; but I should say from nothing else than from an ungoverned will and a neglected mind: if this be temperate, there is no evil result from the motions of nature.

Having spoken then of the eunuchs that are eunuchs for nought and fruitlessly, unless with the mind they too practise temperance, and of those that are virgins for Heaven's sake, He proceeds again to say, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it," at once making them more earnest by showing that the good work is exceeding in greatness, and not suffering the thing to be shut up in the compulsion of a law, because of His unspeakable gentleness. And this He said, when He showed it to be most possible, in order that the emulation of the free choice might be greater.

For as the deed without the will does not constitute a sin; so a righteous act is not in the deed unless the will go with it. That therefore is honourable continence, not which mutilation of body of necessity enforces, but which the will of holy purpose embraces.

For they are born such, just as others are born having six or four fingers. For if God according as He formed our bodies in the beginning, had continued the same order unchangeably, the working of God would have been brought into oblivion among men. The order of nature is therefore changed at times from its nature, that God the framer of nature may be had in remembrance.

Thus in the Revelation of John it is said: "These are they which have not defiled their clothes with women," -indicating, of course, virgins, and such as have become "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." Therefore they shall be "clothed in white raiment," that is, in the bright beauty of the unwedded flesh.

Further, if we set down in order the higher and happier grades of bodily patience, (we find that)it is she who is entrusted by holiness with the care of continence of the flesh: she keeps the widow, and sets on the virgin the seal and raises the self-made eunuch to the realms of heaven. That which springs from a virtue of the mind is perfected in the flesh; and, finally, by the patience of the flesh, does battle under persecution.

If, then he shows plainly that even wives themselves are so to be had as if they be not had, on account of the straits of the times, what would be his sentiments about these vain appliances of theirs? Why, are there not many, withal, who so do, and seal themselves up to eunuchhood for the sake of the kingdom of God, spontaneously relinquishing a pleasure so honourable, and (as we know) permitted? Are there not some who prohibit to themselves (the use of) the very "creature of God," abstaining from wine and animal food, the enjoyments of which border upon no peril or solicitude; but they sacrifice to God the humility of their soul even in the chastened use of food? Sufficiently, therefore, have you, too, used your riches and your delicacies; sufficiently have you cut down the fruits of your dowries, before (receiving) the knowledge of saving disciplines.

How many are there who from the moment of their baptism set the seal (of virginity) upon their flesh? How many, again, who by equal mutual consent cancel the debt of matrimony-voluntary eunuchs for the sake of their desire! after the celestial kingdom! But if, while the marriage-tie is still intact, abstinence is endured, how much more when it has been undone! For I believe it to be harder for what is intact to be quite forsaken, than for what has been lost not to be yearned after.

This (even) broader assertion we make: that even if the Paraclete had in this our day definitely prescribed a virginity or continence total and absolute, so as not to permit the heat of the flesh to foam itself down even in single marriage, even thus He would seem to be introducing nothing of "novelty; "seeing that the Lord Himself opens "the kingdoms of the heavens" to "eunuchs," as being Himself, withal, a virgin; to whom looking, the apostle also-himself too for this reason abstinent-gives the preference to continence.

But (now), when the "extremity of the times" has cancelled (the command) "Grow and multiply," since the apostles (another command), "It remaineth, that both they who have wives so be as if they have not," because "the time is compressed; and "the sour grape" chewed by "the fathers" has ceased "to set the sons' teeth on edge," for, "each one shall die in his own sin; "and "eunuchs" not only have lost ignominy, but have even deserved grace, being invited into "the kingdoms of the heavens: " the law of succeeding to the wife of a brother being buried, its contrary has obtained-that of not succeeding to the wife of a brother.

is it that He Himself withal should set upon His own official chair men who were mindful rather to enjoin-(but) not likewise to practise-sanctity of the flesh, which (sanctity) He had in all ways recommended to their teaching and practising?-first by His own example, then by all other arguments; while He tells (them) that "the kingdom of heavens" is "children's; " while He associates with these (children) others who, after marriage, remained (or became)virgins; " while He calls (them) to (copy) the simplicity of the dove, a bird not merely innocuous, but modest too, and whereof one male knows one female; while He denies the Samaritan woman's (partner to be) a husband, that He may show that manifold husbandry is adultery; while, in the revelation of His own glory, He prefers, from among so many saints and prophets, to have with him Moses and Elias -the one a monogamist, the other a voluntary celibate (for Elias was nothing else than John, who came "in the power and spirit of Elias" ); while that "man gluttonous and toping," the "frequenter of luncheons and suppers, in the company of publicans and sinners," sups once for all at a single marriage, though, of course, many were marrying (around Him); for He willed to attend (marriages) only so often as (He willed) them to be.

How long shall we allege "the flesh," because the Lord said, "the flesh is weak? " But He has withal premised that "the Spirit is prompt," in order that the Spirit may vanquish the flesh-that the weak may yield to the stronger. For again He says, "Let him who is able to receive, receive (it); " that is, let him who is not able go his way.

These things, my brother, seem to you perhaps harsh and not to be endured; but recall that God has said, "He who receives it, let him receive it," that is, let him who does not receive it go his way.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs by men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. There are few, He says, who can achieve this virginity. For there are some who are eunuchs from their mother's womb, that is, by their physical temperament are never aroused towards sexual intercourse, so they are chaste without thereby deriving any profit. And there are those who have been made eunuchs by men. Those who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake are not those who have castrated themselves (for that is an accursed deed), but those who exercise self-control. You may also understand it this way. He is a eunuch by nature who, on account of his physical temperament, is not easily aroused to carnal pleasures. He who is made a eunuch by men is he who is guided by human teaching to cut off the burning of carnal desires. He who makes himself a eunuch is he who is instructed by no one else but by himself, and who, self-taught, inclines towards chastity. So this one is best who is guided not by another but by himself to the kingdom of heaven. Christ wants us of our own free will to practice virtue, saying, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." For Christ neither demands virginity, nor dissolves marriage, but He puts virginity first.

Hence he distinguishes that there is continence in some from nature, sometimes from violence, sometimes from the will. Therefore he touches on three kinds of eunuchs: for some by nature who were born so from their mother's womb. Just as some are born deformed from a defect of the hand, so also some without genitals: and this from God's providence, because if all things happened according to the common course of nature, everything would be attributed to nature, and not to divine providence; hence Wisdom 8:8: she knows signs and wonders before they are done. Likewise some by violence, as those who are castrated by tyrants or barbarians, or who are castrated for the guarding of women. Who were made so by men, whom the cruelty of men castrated, or the care of women. And Jerome says he knows this, because boys were taken and castrated and placed in the house of Nebuchadnezzar. But some by the will, as he says, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. Some misunderstood this word, saying that the genitals should be cut off, and certain men are read to have done this, among whom Origen is said to have been. But this has been condemned, and such persons should be separated from the clergy. Hence occasion is given to the error of the Manichaeans, who said that bodily creation was the cause of evil. Likewise occasion is given to the error of the pagans, because some castrate themselves in their sacrifices. Likewise the act is not useful, because such persons, even if they lack the act, are nevertheless not free from concupiscence. Hence Sirach 20:2: the lust of a eunuch shall deflower a young maiden. Therefore it is better for a man to put a bridle on himself than to cut off a member, so as to restrain evil thoughts and desires. Isaiah 1:16: take away the evil of your thoughts from your hearts. Who have made themselves eunuchs, i.e., have given themselves to perpetual chastity, and this for the kingdom of heaven. For sometimes a member is understood by its act, as above at 18:9: if your eye scandalize you, pluck it out and cast it from you. So here the genital members are taken for the act. Hence he castrates himself who dedicates himself to chastity. Or, according to Jerome, those who keep continence were born with a coldness of nature, so that they are not moved to that act. Hence they are called eunuchs on account of the act of eunuchs, which they have on account of the nature they have from the womb. Because some have a certain disposition to some virtue naturally, as Job to mercy, who says in chapter 31:18: from my infancy mercy grew up with me. But some by the will, either through pretense, or taught by heretics, one is made so by men. 2 Timothy 3:5: having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. But some for the reward of eternal life. The first two, namely those who are castrated either naturally or by violence, do not have the merit of eternal life, but only the third group. But is it true of the first that they do not merit? I say that they merit as to the will, although they do not merit as to the act; because although they cannot do it, they can nevertheless will to be able to do it. He that can take, let him take it. Having set forth the difference of continence, here an exhortation is given, as Jerome says. The Lord does as a general does in an army, who when a city is to be taken says: whoever enters the city, this or that will be given to him, as David said to Joab. So he who can take and be continent, let him take it, and not draw back. The Apostle, 1 Corinthians 12:31: be zealous for the better gifts. But what is it that he says? Is not everyone bound to preserve virginity? It seems so, because man is bound to better things. It must be said that it is not a precept but a counsel, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 7:25: concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel. But what then? Is not man bound to better things? I say that a distinction must be made, namely what is better as to the act or as to the affection. One is not bound to what is better as to the act, but as to the affection, because every rule and every act is determined to something finite and certain: and if one is bound to the better, one is bound to the uncertain. Hence as to exterior acts, because one is not bound to the uncertain, one is not bound to what is better; but as to the affection, one is bound to what is better. Hence he who does not always wish to be better, could not wish without contempt. But what is it that he says, he that can take, let him take it? For either by natural power, and thus no one can; or by the power of grace, and thus anyone can, because it is said in Luke 11:9: ask, and you shall receive. Likewise the grace of God can do all things. I say that the word can includes the power of the will: for there is a firm will and a weak will. For it is certain that a man who has a firm will does not fear many impulses; but when he does not, he falls from an easy impulse. Hence he who can take by the firmness of will, let him take it, and not from nature but from God. Hence we counsel that he who has this from God should take it and be continent. Or he who can according to the opportunity of the time or the condition of the time, as Abraham: hence the celibacy of John is not preferred to the marriage of Abraham. Likewise according to condition; because one who is married cannot be continent; hence some are excluded either by reason of time or of condition.

You see the Trinity coeternal and perfect. The Scripture speaks of Jesus as perfect God and perfect man. It speaks of the Father, and the Holy Spirit, who was shown to be a cooperator, when in a bodily form as a dove He descended upon Christ.

Or, He is anointed all over with spiritual oil, and heavenly virtue, that He might enrich the poverty of man's condition with the everlasting treasure of His resurrection.

(Orat. 2. cont. Arian.) He says this to explain to us the cause of the revelation made to the world, and of His taking upon Him the human nature. For as the Son, though He is the giver of the Spirit, does not refuse to confess as man that by the Spirit He casts out devils, so, inasmuch as He was made man, He does not refuse to say, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me.

(non occ.) Or, He came to heal the broken hearted, i. e. to afford a remedy to those that have their heart broken by Satan through sin, because beyond all other things sin lays prostrate the human heart.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, etc. Speaking previously about the calling of the Gentiles and the confirmation of the Church through the prophet, the Savior, among other things, said: I am the Lord, in its time I will do this swiftly (Isaiah 60), and immediately he added this, which has been read here: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. Not because the Lord God has a Lord God, but because, according to the dispensation of the assumed flesh, He says those things which are humble. To whom the Psalmist had already said: You loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions (Psalm 45). For when companions are mentioned, understand it to mean the nature of the flesh, by which God has us as companions of His substance. And because it was a spiritual anointing, and by no means of a human body, as it was with the priests of the Jews, therefore He is remembered as having been anointed above His companions, that is, other saints. This anointing was fulfilled at that time when He was baptized in the Jordan, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove and remained on Him. Therefore, He was anointed with the oil of the spirit and heavenly power, so that He might enrich the poverty of human condition with the treasure of the eternal resurrection, remove the captivity of the mind, and enlighten the blindness of souls. Blessed are the poor, he says, because yours is the kingdom of God (Luke 6). And again: If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed (John 8). And again: Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life (ibid.).

Release the broken into forgiveness. To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of retribution. The sacrifice, he says, to God, is a broken spirit; a contrite and humbled heart, O God, you will not despise (Psalm 50). And therefore he calls himself sent or anointed to heal the broken or contrite of heart; as also the Psalmist says of him: He heals the broken-hearted and binds up their wounds (Psalm 147). Or certainly to release the broken into forgiveness, to relieve those who had been oppressed by the heavy and unbearable weight of the law, and to admit them into the remission of spiritual grace. And this is to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. Then indeed the true year of Jubilee, that is, the year of liberty, was at hand, the time, namely, of the Church, which journeyed as a pilgrim in the body away from the Lord. About which the Psalmist sings: You crown the year of your goodness (Psalm 65). For it was not only that year in which the Lord preached that was acceptable but also this one in which the Apostle preaches saying: Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation (II Cor. 6). After the acceptable year of the Lord, he also proclaims the day of final retribution, saying: For the Son of Man is going to come in his glory with his angels, and then he will render to each according to his work (Matthew 16). Therefore, to evangelize all these things, he says he is sent because the Spirit of the Lord is upon him.

He is sent also to preach the Gospel to the poor, saying, Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven.

Or, because it is written, A broken and a contrite heart God will not despise. (Ps. 51:17.) He says therefore, that He is sent to heal the broken hearted, as it is written, Who heals the broken hearted. (Ps. 147:3.) It follows, And to preach deliverance to the captives.

Or, to set at liberty them that are bruised; i. e. to relieve those who had been heavy laden with the intolerable burden of the Law.

Here is noted the fittingness in the testimony. For it expresses four conditions of excellence that were in our Savior. For he is mediator, instructor, restorer, and rewarder: and these four are intimated in the passage set forth. First, therefore, he is intimated to be mediator through the mystery of the incarnation, when he says: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me: me — he indicates there the person of Christ in the assumed nature, upon whom the Holy Spirit rested, according to that passage of Isaiah eleven: "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him"; and John one: "Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining, this is he who baptizes." And therefore it is said in Acts ten: "Peter said: You know what took place throughout all Judea, beginning first from Galilee after the baptism which John preached — Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit" etc. Whence this is the Holy of Holies, in whose anointing the prophecy of Daniel nine must be fulfilled: "Let vision and prophecy be fulfilled, and let everlasting justice be fulfilled, and let the Holy of Holies be anointed." And note that human nature in Christ was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit and through his grace was united to the divine nature. And on account of these two things he says that the Spirit of the Lord is upon him and has anointed him. Or indeed he is said to be upon him with respect to the superexcellence of singular grace, on account of which it is said in John 3: "God does not give the Spirit by measure." He is truly said to have anointed him with respect to the prerogative of priestly and royal dignity. These things regard the assumed nature in Christ, and this was prefigured in the anointing of kings and priests in the Old Testament.

Second, it is indicated that he is the instructor through the office of preaching, in what follows: He has sent me to evangelize the poor. The Gospel is indeed a good announcement; whence in our translation it is said: He has sent me to announce to the meek. And with this agrees that passage in Nahum 1: "Behold, upon the mountains the feet of one evangelizing and announcing peace"; and Isaiah 52: "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of one announcing and preaching peace, announcing good, preaching salvation." Moreover, he is said to announce this especially to the poor, because he began his discourse to the poor: Matthew 5: "Blessed are the poor in spirit," and through the poor he preached poverty to others: Matthew 11: "The poor have the Gospel preached to them." Nor is this surprising, because it is said in the Psalm: "Because of the misery of the needy and the groaning of the poor, now I will arise," etc. To these indeed he announces salvation, because elsewhere: "He shall spare the poor and needy, and he shall save the souls of the poor," etc. And on this account he is said to be sent by the Spirit and by the Lord: Isaiah 48: "As the Lord and his Spirit have sent me." "In this therefore we have known the charity of God," because "he sent his Son," 1 John 4.

Third, it is indicated that he is the restorer through the remedy of the passion, when it is added: To heal the contrite: which indeed liberates from the evil of actual and original fault, from blindness of reason and infirmity of will. He indeed liberates from the evil of actual fault: on account of which it is said: To heal the contrite of heart, he sent, namely. For the cure of actual fault, contrition of penance is necessary together with the passion of Christ: the Psalm: "Who heals the contrite of heart." Or this is said because actual fault itself breaks the entire strength of the soul: Lamentations 2: "Your destruction is great like the sea," etc.; and Proverbs 15: "The tongue that is immoderate shall crush the spirit."

He also liberates from the evil of original sin: on account of which is added: And to preach release to the captives. By reason of original sin the human race was deservedly held captive by the devil: Isaiah fifty-two: "Shake yourself from the dust, arise, be seated, O Jerusalem: loose the bonds of your neck, O captive daughter of Sion. For thus says the Lord: You were sold for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money," etc.: whence Zechariah nine: "You also, by the blood of your covenant, have sent forth your prisoners out of the pit," etc. And this is what is said in Isaiah forty-nine: "I have given you as a covenant of the people, that you might say to those who are bound: Come forth; and to those who are in darkness: Be revealed"; and afterwards: "Indeed the captivity shall be taken from the strong one"; because "Christ ascending on high led captivity captive," Ephesians four. And this release was prefigured in Cyrus, who released the captivity of the children of Israel: Isaiah forty-five: "He shall let go my captivity, not for a price, nor for gifts."

He also liberates from blindness of reason: therefore is added: Sight to the blind, he sent me, namely, to preach: which he also did, as is said in Matthew eleven: "Go, report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind see," etc.; in which is signified the interior illumination. Whence John nine: "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see," that is, the gentiles, according to that passage of Isaiah forty-nine: "I have given you as a light to the nations." And this is what is said in Isaiah twenty-nine: "In that day the deaf shall hear the words of the book, and out of darkness and gloom the eyes of the blind shall see." And this David was asking: "Enlighten my eyes."

He also liberates from infirmity of the will: on account of which is subjoined: And to set at liberty those who are broken, in release, he sent, namely. The broken are those whose will has been weakened toward the good through sin, as are foolish sinners: Sirach twenty-one: "The heart of the fool is like a broken vessel"; and Isaiah fifty-eight: "Let free those who are broken." This breaking, however, is reparable while we live here, but becomes irreparable in death, according to that passage of Isaiah thirty: "It shall be broken as the potter's vessel is broken with an utter breaking, and there shall not be found among its fragments a shard in which a little fire may be carried from the hearth"; because it will not be receptive of grace. And this will be at the judgment, according to that passage of the Psalm: "You shall rule them with a rod of iron, and you shall break them like a potter's vessel." But now he grants release, which was prefigured in First Maccabees ten, where it is said that under Jonathan, the brother of Simon, many releases were made to the Jews.

1. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me. He has sent me to bring glad tidings to the meek, to heal the contrite of heart, and to preach release to the captives and opening to those who are shut up. As we consider some text that might introduce us into the Gospel of blessed Luke, none seems more fitting than that which blessed Luke himself reports Christ the Lord to have taken up at the beginning of his preaching, namely the proposed text, which is written in Luke chapter four and is taken from Isaiah chapter sixty-one.

2. This, however, according to the general sense, can apply to any teacher of Sacred Scripture; according to the special sense, to blessed Luke the Evangelist; according to the singular sense, to Christ himself, who is the font of truth and grace.

According to its general understanding, it is suggestive of the twofold person necessary for the work, namely the teacher and the hearer; according to its special understanding, of the twofold extrinsic cause, namely the efficient and the final; according to its singular understanding, of the twofold intrinsic cause, namely the material and the formal. With these six things known beforehand, entry into what follows will be sufficiently easy.

3. First, therefore, the proposed text according to the general sense indicates to us who and of what quality the teacher of this evangelical Scripture ought to be, adding nonetheless what kind of hearer he ought to have. The teacher of evangelical Scripture ought to be anointed with divine grace, directed by pure obedience, and inflamed with fraternal benevolence.

He ought to be anointed with divine grace, and this is noted when he says: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me. As a figure of this, in the Old Testament the Prophets were anointed; whence the Lord said to Elijah in 3 Kings chapter nineteen: You shall anoint Elisha, the son of Shaphat, as Prophet in your place; and of David it is said in 1 Kings chapter sixteen that after he was anointed, the Spirit of the Lord was directed upon him from that day and thereafter. For they were anointed for this reason, that they might receive the Spirit of the Lord, through whom the divine secrets are disclosed to us. If, therefore, the Scriptures must be expounded by the same Spirit by whom they were composed—and the holy men of God spoke by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—then for someone to be a suitable teacher of those things which were communicated through Christ and written through the Holy Spirit, it is necessary that he be anointed with supernal grace.

4. He ought also to be directed by pure obedience, and this is noted there: He has sent me to announce to the meek, by the example of Moses, to whom the Lord said in Exodus 3: Come, I will send you to Pharaoh, that you may bring forth my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt; and Moses said: Who am I, that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt? Moses, who was the lawgiver and the leader of the children of Israel out of Egypt, signifies the teacher of the divine law, who leads the people of the Lord out of the darkness of ignorance. To which office indeed no one ought to approach unless he is sent, nor ought he to seek it, but rather to refuse it, because no one ought to consider himself suitable for this office. For if he has not spoken with the Lord, he is unworthy; but if the Lord speaks to his heart, he finds himself, like Moses, to have become one of more impeded and slower tongue. And therefore, unable to express the divine mysteries which the Lord has opened to him, he ought not to presume upon those things unless directed by pure obedience.

5. He ought also to be inflamed with fraternal benevolence, which he notes when he says: That I might heal the contrite of heart and preach release to the captives and opening to those who are shut up; and this by the example of Paul, who says of himself in First Thessalonians 2: We became little ones in your midst, as if a nurse were to cherish her own children; so desiring you eagerly, we wished to deliver to you not only the Gospel of God, but also our own souls. For just as carnal offspring cannot be generated without carnal love, so neither can spiritual offspring without spiritual benevolence. Whence Gregory says: "He who does not have charity toward another ought by no means to assume the office of preaching"; moreover, to expound and teach the Gospel of God is to preach the divine word, and therefore the teacher ought to be inflamed with fraternal benevolence.

6. Moreover, this teacher, in order that the evangelical doctrine may have efficacy in him, ought to have a hearer who is humble, meek, and faithful.

For the hearer of evangelical doctrine ought to be gentle in address through the accommodation of hearing: on account of which he says: To announce, namely to the meek, not to the unruly. For only the meek rightly understand the divine and evangelical words: Sirach 5: Be meek to hear the word of God, that you may understand: and in the Psalm: He will teach the meek his ways. And therefore it is said in James 1: In meekness receive the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. For evangelical doctrine teaches a man to be a disciple of Christ, who says in Matthew 11: Learn from me, for I am meek. For disputation and contention are not fitting for evangelical disciples, but for Aristotelian ones: whence 2 Timothy 2: The servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but be gentle toward all, teachable, patient, etc. Whence Augustine in the second book of On Christian Doctrine: "It is necessary to grow gentle through piety and not to contradict divine Scripture, whether understood, if it strikes against some of our vices, or not understood, as though we could know something better and perceive more rightly; but rather to think and believe that what is written is better and truer."

7. He ought to be humble in affection through contrition of spirit: on account of which he says: To heal the contrite of heart. Sorrow indeed in the heart of a man will humble him, Proverbs 12: and such a one is fit for learning: Psalm: It is good for me that you have humbled me, that I may learn your justifications: Matthew 11: You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to little ones.

8. Lastly, he ought to be faithful in assent through the captivation of the intellect: which he notes when he says: And I would preach release to captives: 2 Corinthians 10: Bringing every intellect into captivity to the obedience of Christ. And this indeed is accomplished through true faith, without which it is impossible to understand the teachings of evangelical Scripture: Isaiah 7, according to another translation: Unless you believe, you will not understand. For if in learnable matters the learner must believe, how much more in divine things? And this captivation makes them free from sin: Acts 15: Purifying their hearts by faith: and John 1: He gave them the power to become sons of God, to those who believe in his name.

Thus therefore it is clear that this word, expounded generally, indicates and describes a twofold person, namely that of the good teacher and of the hearer.

9. But understood specially, according as it pertains to blessed Luke, it is indicative of a twofold extrinsic cause, namely the efficient and the final: of the efficient in that which he says: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me: but of the final in that which follows: To announce to the meek, etc.

10. Now the efficient cause is expressed quite perfectly: for the supreme efficient cause is intimated in what is said: The Spirit of the Lord. For he himself is the one of whom John sixteen says: When that Spirit of truth shall come, he will teach you all truth. Hence he himself is the one who spoke through the Evangelists and who spoke through blessed Luke, according to that passage of Matthew ten: It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you: and Luke twenty-one: I will give you a mouth and wisdom etc.

11. The lowest efficient cause is intimated in what he says: Upon me, that is, upon blessed Luke, of whom blessed Jerome says that "he died full of the Holy Spirit"; and therefore he was fit for writing the Gospel, according to what the Apostle says of him in Second Corinthians eight: We have sent our most dear brother, whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches. Hence that passage of Ecclesiasticus is fitting for him: In the midst of the church he opened his mouth etc.

12. The intermediate efficient cause is intimated when it says: Because the Lord has anointed me. For the anointing of grace disposes the soul to receive the teachings of truth from the supreme Teacher; hence First John two: His anointing will teach you concerning all things. For the Holy Spirit through grace taught the Evangelist, and he, having been instructed, taught the Church by writing the evangelical doctrine.

And thus in this work there was a threefold cause, namely the supreme, which is indeed the person of the Holy Spirit; the lowest, the Evangelist himself; and the intermediate, namely the grace of the Holy Spirit: all of which are understood in the authority set forth above, insofar as it is understood to be uttered by blessed Luke.

13. The final cause is also intimated quite perfectly in what follows, namely the first, the middle, and the last. The first is the manifestation of truth, the middle is the healing of infirmity, the third is the unlocking of eternity: the first pertains to preparing grace; the second, to grace making pleasing; the third, to consummating glory.

14. Therefore, first the first final cause of this doctrine is intimated, which is the manifestation of truth, in what he says: He has sent me to announce good tidings to the meek, according to that passage of the Psalm: They declared the works of God, and understood his deeds: hence from this it received its name, so that it is called Gospel, that is, good announcement: First John one: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life, and the life was manifested: and we have seen and do testify and announce to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us: and Isaiah fifty-two: How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who announces and preaches peace, who announces good tidings, who preaches salvation! This was first realized in the holy Evangelists.

15. The second indeed was the healing of our infirmity, which he touches upon when he says: To heal the contrite of heart. For the word of evangelical preaching brings about the effect and fruit of healing, according to that passage of Wisdom sixteen: For neither herb nor poultice healed them, but your word, O Lord, which heals all things. This fruit the Gospel of Luke well brings forth, concerning which Jerome says: "If we know Luke the physician, whose praise is in the Gospel, we observe likewise that all his words are medicine for the languishing soul." And this is the second purpose of blessed Luke, namely, that through the knowledge of truth we might come to the healing of infirmity.

16. The third and last was the unlocking of eternity, which is noted when it is said: To preach release to the captives and opening to those shut in. This is accomplished in the possession of eternal life, to which the evangelical doctrine exhorts as to the ultimate end: John twenty: These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name; and Mark, last chapter: Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature: whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved. This command the Evangelists fulfilled especially, who not only preached the Gospel by word to those present at that time, but also by writing to those present and future in all generations, so that they might make all saved.

Thus therefore the aforementioned word, understood specifically in the person of blessed Luke, is suggestive of a twofold extrinsic cause, namely the efficient and the final.

17. Understood singularly, however, of the Lord Jesus, of whom it was properly said, it is suggestive of a twofold intrinsic cause, namely the material and the formal; and this is evident as follows. For it is certain that the entire evangelical history revolves around Christ, either insofar as he is mediator, or insofar as he is preacher, or insofar as he is restorer, or insofar as he is triumpher. The mediator regards the mystery of the incarnation; the preacher, the teaching of instruction; the restorer, the remedy of the passion; the triumpher, the trophy of the resurrection. The first refers to the nature of Christ; the second, to his doctrine; the third, to his sacrifice; the fourth, to his victory. These four are touched upon distinctly and in order in the aforementioned discourse, according as it pertains to Christ.

18. Christ Jesus therefore intimates that he is the mediator when he says: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me. For he himself is the mediator, of whom Acts ten says: God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power; he anointed him, I say, not as other saints, but above others, according to that passage of the Psalm: God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions; in which anointing was accomplished the consummation of the prophecy of Daniel nine: Let the vision and prophecy be fulfilled, and let the Holy of Holies be anointed.

19. He intimates himself to be a preacher in what he adds: He has sent me to announce to the meek, according to what the Lord had promised to the children of Israel through Moses in Deuteronomy 18: I will raise up for them a prophet from the midst of their brethren, like unto you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all things that I shall command him. This was Christ, the Lord of all the Prophets, who says in John 15: All things whatsoever I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. And for this he was sent; whence it is said in Luke 4: To other cities also I must preach the kingdom of God, for therefore I am sent.

20. He also intimates himself to be a restorer in what he adds: To heal the contrite of heart. For he is the one of whom it is said in Acts 10: He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; whence of him it is said in the Psalm: Who heals the contrite of heart, etc. This moreover he did through the remedy of his passion: Isaiah 53: Truly he has borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows; but he was wounded for our iniquities, he was crushed for our sins, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, etc.

21. He also intimates, fourthly, himself to be a triumpher in what he says: To preach release to the captives and opening to those shut in; and this indeed he did in the triumph of his resurrection, according to what is said in Colossians 2 concerning Christ: Despoiling principalities and powers, he led them away confidently, openly triumphing over them in himself; and then, as it is said in the Psalm, ascending on high, he led captivity captive, he gave gifts to men.

Since therefore under this fourfold condition Christ the Lord is the object of faith and the subject of the Gospel, rightly in the proposed text the material cause, or subject, is designated.

22. But since "sciences are divided according to their subject matters," and the introduction of form follows the disposition of matter: since the subject of the Gospel is this one thing under a fourfold condition and intention, it is necessary that one book look principally to only one, and to the others consequently, while the whole of evangelical Scripture treats principally of these four. Therefore it is necessary that there be four Gospels, and that each of them be fourfold.

23. From which it is gathered that this book ought to have and does have four parts. In the first, he treats of the mystery of the incarnation up to the fourth chapter; in the second, of the magisterium of preaching up to the twenty-second; in the third, of the remedy of the passion, up to the twenty-fourth; in the fourth, of the trophy of the resurrection, up to the end of the entire book. - Although he intends all these conditions for the perfection of the history, he principally looks to the priesthood of Christ and the remedy of the passion: and this was owed to the physician. - Therefore from the proposed text, according as it pertains to Christ, the material cause or subject is gathered, and the formal cause, which is the ordering of parts and chapters and the manner of proceeding in the pursuit of the Scriptures.

24. Now these two things were most excellently prefigured in that living creature which Ezekiel saw, and which he says is fourfold, and again each of those having four faces, yet principally one. Of which the first was like a man, by which we understand the nature of Christ; another like a lion, by which we understand victory; another like an ox, by which we understand the victim; another like an eagle, by which we understand doctrine. Now these living creatures, according to all the Saints, designate the four Gospels, so that they figuratively express their matter and form: because one living creature is four-formed, inasmuch as concerning one Christ under a fourfold condition there are four Gospels, and again each of those has four faces, because each is fourfold. And again, one, namely the first, is like a man, although it has four faces, because the first, namely Matthew, principally pursues the mystery of the incarnation. The second is like a lion, because the one writing second, namely Mark, pursues the trophy of the resurrection, and from the same side, because they agree most greatly. The third is like an ox, because the one writing third, namely Luke, pursues the priesthood and the remedy of the passion. But the fourth is like an eagle, which has clear eyes, because the one writing fourth, namely John, pursues the evangelical teaching of Christ, which the others could not attain, and therefore it is described above them: Ezekiel 1: The face of the eagle was above.

And thus it is clear how the truth corresponds to the figure, and those six preambles to the doctrine are also clear, namely: what kind of teacher, what kind of hearer, what is the efficient cause, what is the end, what is the matter, and what is the form, and from this a certain general understanding of the entire Book.

Since therefore it was now necessary that He should manifest Himself to the Israelites, and that the mystery of His incarnation should now shine forth to those who knew Him not, and inasmuch as He was now anointed of God the Father for the salvation of the world, He very wisely orders this also, [viz. that His fame should now spread abroad.] And this favour He grants first to the people of Nazareth, because, humanly speaking, He had been brought up among them. Having entered, therefore, the synagogue, He takes the book to read: and having opened it, selected a passage in the prophets, which declares the mystery concerning Him. And by these words He most plainly Himself tells us by the voice of the prophet, that He both would be made man, and come to save the world. For we affirm, that the Son was anointed in no other way than by having become according to the flesh such as we are, and taken our nature. For being at once God and man, He both gives the Spirit to the creation in His divine nature, and receives it from God the Father in His human nature; while it is He Who sanctifies the whole creation, both as having shone forth from the Holy Father, and as bestowing the Spirit, Which He Himself pours forth, both upon the powers above as That Which is His own, and upon those moreover who recognised His appearing.

He plainly shews by these words that He took upon Him the humiliation and submission to the emptying (of His glory), and both the very name of Christ and the reality for our sakes: for the Spirit, He says, which by nature is in Me by the sameness of Our substance and deity, also descended upon Me from without. And so also in the Jordan It came upon Me in the form of a dove, not because It was not in Me, but for the reason for which He anointed Me. And what was the reason for which He chose to be anointed? It was our being destitute of the Spirit by that denunciation of old, "My Spirit shall not abide in these men, because they are flesh."

These words the incarnate Word of God speaks: for being very God of very God the Father, and having become for our sakes man without undergoing change, with us He is anointed with the oil of gladness, the Spirit having descended upon Him at the Jordan in the form of a dove. For in old time both kings and priests were anointed symbolically, gaining thereby a certain measure of sanctification: but He Who for our sakes became incarnate, was anointed with the spiritual oil of sanctification, and the actual descent of the Spirit, receiving It not for Himself, but for us. For inasmuch as the Spirit had taken its flight, and not made His abode in us because of our being flesh, the earth was full of grief, being deprived of the participation of God.

And He proclaimed also deliverance to captives, which also He accomplished by having bound the strong one, Satan, who in tyrant fashion lorded it over our race, and having torn away from Him us his goods.

As the words "He anointed Me" befit the manhood: for it is not the divine nature which is anointed, but that which is akin to us: so also the words "He sent Me" are to be referred to that which is human.

Those also whose heart was of old obscured by the darkness of the devil, He has illuminated by rising as some Sun of Righteousness, and making them the children no longer of night and darkness, but of light and day, according to Paul's word. And those who were blind—for the Apostate had blinded their hearts—have recovered their sight, and acknowledged the truth; and, as Isaiah says, "Their darkness has become light:" that is, the ignorant have become wise: those that once were in error, have known the paths of righteousness. And the Father also says somewhere unto the Son Himself, "I have given Thee for a covenant of kindred, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out the prisoners from their bonds, and from the guard-house those that sit in darkness." For the Only-begotten came into this world and gave a new covenant to His kindred, the Israelites, of whom He was sprung according to the flesh, even the covenant long before announced by the voice of the prophets. But the divine and heavenly light shone also upon the Gentiles: and He went and preached to the spirits in Hades, and showed Himself to those who were shut up in the guard-house, and freed all from their bonds and violence. And how do not these things plainly prove that Christ is both God, and of God by nature?

In like manner we confess Him to have been anointed, inasmuch as He took upon Him our flesh, as it follows, Because he hath anointed me. For the Divine nature is not anointed, but that which is cognate to us. So also when He says that He was sent, we must suppose Him speaking of His human nature. For it follows, He hath sent me to preach the gospel to the poor.

For perhaps to the poor in spirit He declares in these words, that among all the gifts which are obtained through Christ, upon them was bestowed a free gift. It follows, To heal the broken hearted. He calls those broken hearted, who are weak, of an infirm mind, and unable to resist the assaults of the passions, and to them He promises a healing remedy.

For the darkness which the Devil has spread over the human heart, Christ the Sun of Righteousness has removed, making men, as the Apostle says, children not of night and darkness, but of light and the day. (1 Thess. 5:5.) For they who one time wandered have discovered the path of the righteous. It follows, To set at liberty them that are bruised.

Our Savior, after reading this prophecy through in the synagogue one day to a multitude of Jews, shut the book and said, "This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." He began his own teaching from that point. He began to preach the gospel to the poor, putting in the forefront of his blessings: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Yes, he proclaimed forgiveness to those who were hampered by evil spirits and bound for a long time like slaves by demons. He invited all to be free and to escape from the bonds of sin, when he said, "Come to me, all you that labor, and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you."9To the blind he gave sight, giving the power of seeing to those whose bodily vision was destroyed. He showered those in ancient times who were blind in their minds to the truth with the vision of the light of true religion. The prophecy before us shows it to be essential that Christ himself should be the originator and leader of the gospel activity. The same prophet foretells that after him his own disciples should be ministers of the same system: "How beautiful are the feet of them that bring good tidings of good things, and of those that bring good tidings of peace." Here he says very particularly that it is the feet of those who publish the good news of Christ that are beautiful. For how could they not be beautiful, which in so small, so short a time have run over the whole earth and filled every place with the holy teaching about the Savior of the world?

And for this reason Gabriel says: "And to anoint the Most Holy." And the Most Holy is none else but the Son of God alone, who, when He came and manifested Himself, said to them, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me; " and so forth. Whosoever, therefore, believed on the heavenly Priest, were cleansed by that same Priest, and their sins were blotted out. And whosoever believe it not on Him, despising Him as a man, had their sins sealed, as those which could not be taken away; whence the angel, foreseeing that not all should believe on Him, said, "To finish sins, and to seal up sins." For as many as continued to disbelieve Him, even to the end, had their sins not finished, but sealed to be kept for judgment. But as many as will believe on Him as One able to remit sins, have their sins blotted out. Wherefore he says: "And to seal up vision and prophet."

(in Ps. 125.) The word captivity has many meanings. There is a good captivity, which St. Paul speaks of when he says, Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor. 10:5.) There is a bad captivity also, of which it is said, Leading captive silly women laden with sins. (2 Tim. 3:6.) There is a captivity present to the senses, that is by our bodily enemies. But the worst captivity is that of the mind, of which he here speaks. For sin exercises the worst of all tyrannies, commanding to do evil, and destroying them that obey it. From this prison of the soul Christ lets us free.

He says, "He sent me to preach the gospel to the poor." The "poor" stand for the Gentiles, for they are indeed poor. They possess nothing at all: neither God, nor the law, nor the prophets, nor justice and the rest of the virtues. For what reason did God send him to preach to the poor? "To preach release to captives." We were the captives. For many years Satan had bound us and held us captive and subject to himself. Jesus has come "to proclaim release to captives and sight to the blind." By his word and the proclamation of his teaching the blind see. Therefore his "proclamation" should be understood not only of the "captives" but also of the "blind.""To send broken men forth into freedom …" What being was so broken and crushed as man, whom Jesus healed and sent away? "To preach an acceptable year to the Lord." … But all of this has been proclaimed so that we may come to "the acceptable year of the Lord," when we see after blindness, when we are free from our chains, and when we have been healed of our wounds.

By the poor He means the Gentile nations, for they were poor, possessing nothing at all, having neither God, nor Law, nor Prophets, nor justice, and the other virtues.

For what had been so shattered and dashed about as man, who was set at liberty by Jesus and healed?

For they gave themselves up to be afflicted for the name of Christ, even though in their dungeon they enjoyed much consolation from their brethren; which, indeed, they shall return many fold, desiring to be set free from that most bitter captivity of the devil, especially remembering Him who said: "The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor; He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised; to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompense unto our God."

Hear now also the Son's utterances respecting the Father: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the gospel unto men." He speaks of Himself likewise to the Father in the Psalm: "Forsake me not until I have declared the might of Thine arm to all the generation that is to come.

That He might teach us to benefit and instruct first our brethren, then to extend our kindness to the rest of our friends.

But these things may be understood also of the dead, who being taken captive have been loosed from the dominion of hell by the resurrection of Christ. It follows, And recovering of sight to the blind.

Or, by the acceptable year of the Lord, he means this day extended through endless ages, which knows of no return to a world of labour, and grants to men everlasting reward and rest. It follows, And he closed the book, and he gave it again.

For not only was that year acceptable in which our Lord preached, but that also in which the Apostle preaches, saying, Behold, now is the accepted time. (2 Cor. 6:2.) After the acceptable year of the Lord, he adds, And the day of retribution; that is, the final retribution, when the Lord shall give to every one according to his work.

Finally, the rewarder is indicated through the judgment of retribution, in which there is made a universal conferral of good upon the good. On account of which he says: To preach the acceptable year of the Lord, namely to the good, concerning which in the Psalm: "You shall bless the crown of the year of your goodness," etc. This is the year signified in the jubilee; Leviticus 25: "In the year of jubilee all shall return to their possessions"; or also in the seventh year; Deuteronomy 15: "In the seventh year you shall make a remission." This year surpasses the year of merit, because the good shall be rewarded beyond what is condign; Sirach 33: "Why does one year surpass another, one day another day, one light another light from the sun?"

In this judgment also there is made an everlasting damnation upon the wicked; therefore it is added: And the day of retribution, in which he will repay each one according to his works; Isaiah 63: "The day of vengeance is in my heart, the year of my recompense has come." Concerning this day it is said in First Thessalonians 5: "The day of the Lord shall come as a thief in the night; for when they shall say: Peace and security," etc. This day, as Gregory says, we ought to fear with all the more solicitude, inasmuch as we cannot foresee it.

What does preaching the acceptable year of the Lord mean? It signifies the joyful tidings of his own advent, that the time of the Lord—yes, the Son—had arrived. For that was the acceptable year in which Christ was crucified on our behalf, because we then were made acceptable to God the Father as the fruit borne by him. That is why the Lord said, "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself." Truly he returned to life the third day, having trampled on the power of death. After that resurrection he said to his disciples, "All power has been given to me." That too is in every respect an acceptable year. In it we were received into his family and were admitted to him, having washed away sin by holy baptism, and been made partakers of his divine nature by the communion of the Holy Spirit. That too is an acceptable year, in which he manifested his glory by inexpressible miracles.

But all these things were mentioned first, in order that after the recovery of sight from blindness, after deliverance from captivity, after being healed of divers wounds, we might come to the acceptable year of the Lord. As it follows, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. Some say that, according to the simple meaning of the word, the Saviour preached the Gospel throughout Judæa in one year, and that this is what is meant by preaching the acceptable year of the Lord. Or, the acceptable year of the Lord is the whole time of the Church, during which while present in the body, it is absent from the Lord.

Because, in fact, as that Scripture had foretold, the Lord was both doing great things, and preaching greater.

To intimate the truth or firmness of the doctrine, there is added: And he began to say to them: Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing. Therefore that Scripture is said to have been fulfilled then, because, since those words pertained to Christ, no one in his own person could truly speak the aforesaid word except Christ, who read it in their hearing: below in the last chapter: "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which are written in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me." Whence Christ fulfilled all justice with regard to moral uprightness, according to that passage in Matthew three: "Thus it behooves us to fulfill all justice." He also fulfilled all Scripture by pouring forth God's truth, as in Matthew five: "Do you think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets? I came not to destroy, but to fulfill." And therefore it is said in Ephesians one: "Because he fulfilled all things in all." Whence the words and signs of the old law, being empty, he filled with truth and grace. As a sign of this, in John two, in the first sign, it is said: "Fill the water jars with water. And they filled them up to the brim."

(cont. Maximin. ii. 12.) For if He has aught less in His power than the Father has, then all that the Father has, are not His; for by begetting Him the Father gave power to the Son, as by begetting Him He gave all things which He has in His substance to Him whom He begot of His substance.

(De Trin. i. 8.) And because their substance is inseparable, it is enough sometimes to name the Father, sometimes the Son, nor is it possible to separate from either His Spirit, who is especially called the Spirit of truth.

(De Trin. vii. 3.) The Father is revealed by the Son, that is, by His Word. For if the temporal and transitory word which we utter both shows itself, and what we wish to convey, how much more the Word of God by which all things were made, which so shows the Father as He is Father, because itself is the same and in the same manner as the Father.

(Quæst. Ev. i. 1.) When He said, None knoweth the Son but the Father, He did not add, And he to whom the Father will reveal the Son. But when He said, None knoweth the Father but the Son, He added, And he to whom the Son will reveal him. But this must not be so understood as though the Son could be known by none but by the Father only; while the Father may be known not only by the Son, but also by those to whom the Son shall reveal Him. But it is rather expressed thus, that we may understand that both the Father and the Son Himself are revealed by the Son, inasmuch as He is the light of our mind; and what is afterwards added, And he to whom the Son will reveal, is to be understood as spoken of the Son as well as the Father, and to refer to the whole of what had been said. For the Father declares Himself by His Word, but the Word declares not only that which is intended to be declared by it, but in declaring this declares itself.

A beginning should be made from the center, that is, from Christ. For He Himself is the "Mediator between God and men," holding the central position in all things. Hence it is necessary to start from Him if a man wants to reach Christian wisdom, as it is proved in Matthew: for "no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and him to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him."

In this manner it is possible to find in the illumination of mechanical art, whose entire intention is directed toward the production of artifacts. In which we can perceive these three things, namely the generation and incarnation of the Word, the order of living, and the covenant of God and the soul. And this, if we consider the origin, the effect, and the fruit; or thus: the art of working, the quality of the artifact produced, and the usefulness of the fruit derived.

If we consider the origin, we shall see that the artificial product proceeds from the artisan by means of a likeness existing in his mind, through which the artisan conceives before he produces, and then produces as he has planned. Moreover, the artisan produces an exterior work conformed to the interior exemplar as closely as he can; and if he could produce such a product that would love and know him, he would certainly do so; and if that product were to know its maker, this would be by means of the likeness according to which it proceeded from the artisan; and if it had darkened eyes of knowledge, so that it could not raise itself above itself, it would be necessary, in order that it might be led to knowledge of its maker, that the likeness through which the product had been produced should condescend to that nature which could be grasped and known by it.

By this manner understand that from the supreme Artisan no creature proceeded except through the eternal Word, "in whom He disposed all things," and through whom He produced not only creatures having the nature of a vestige, but also of an image, so that they might be assimilated to Him through knowledge and love. And since through sin the rational creature had the eye of contemplation clouded over, it was most fitting that the eternal and invisible should become visible and assume flesh, in order to lead us back to the Father. And this is what is said in John fourteen: No one comes to the Father except through me; and Matthew eleven: No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. And therefore it is said the Word was made flesh. Considering therefore the illumination of mechanical art with respect to the production of the work, we shall behold therein the Word begotten and incarnate, that is, the Divinity and the humanity and the integrity of the whole faith.

But "no one is good," except His Father. It is this same Father of His, then who being one is manifested by many powers. And this was the import of the utterance, "No man knew the Father," who was Himself everything before the coming of the Son. So that it is veritably clear that the God of all is only one good, just Creator, and the Son in the Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen.

The one who sees the Son, who has the image of the Father in himself, sees the Father himself.… These things are to be understood in a manner befitting to God. He said, "Everything has been handed down to me" so that he might not seem to be a member of a different species or inferior to the Father. Jesus added this in order to show that his nature is ineffable and inconceivable, like the Father's. For only the divine nature of the Trinity comprehends itself. Only the Father knows his own Son, the fruit of his own substance. Only the divine Son recognizes the One by whom he has been begotten. Only the Holy Spirit knows the deep things of God, the thought of the Father and the Son.

So that it might not be supposed that anything in him is less than what is in God, Jesus said that everything was entrusted to him by his Father, that he alone was known to his Father and that his Father was known to him alone or to one to whom he himself had wished to reveal his Father. By this revelation Jesus showed that the same essence of both Father and Son existed in their knowledge of each other. One who could know the Son would also know the Father in his Son, because everything was handed down to him from the Father. Moreover, nothing else was handed down than what was known to the Father in the Son alone, but the things that belonged to the Father were known to be revealed in the Son alone. Thus in this mystery of mutual knowledge it is understood that nothing else existed in the Son than what was known to be in the Father.

Or that we may not think that there is any thing less in Him than in God, therefore He says this.

And also in the mutual knowledge between the Father and the Son, He teaches us that there is nothing in the Son beyond what was in the Father, for it follows, And none knoweth the Son but the Father, nor does any man know the Father but the Son.

For this mutual knowledge proclaims that they are of one substance, since He that should know the Son, should know the Father also in the Son, since all things were delivered to Him by the Father.

The Father entrusts. The Son receives. What is entrusted? All things have been entrusted to the Son, but this does not mean cosmically heaven and earth and the elements and the rest of nature which God himself made and established. Rather, it refers personally to the people who have access to the Father through the Son and who were formerly rebellious but afterward began to know God.

(Verse 27.) Everything has been handed over to me by my Father. And understand mystically the One who hands over the Father and the One who receives the Son. Otherwise, if we want to feel according to our weakness, when the one receiving starts to have, the one giving will start to not have. However, everything that has been handed over to Him does not mean the heavens and the earth, and the elements, and the rest that He Himself made and created: but those who, through the Son, have access to the Father, and who previously were rebellious, began to feel God afterwards.

And no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal. Let Eunomius be ashamed of claiming to have such knowledge of the Father and the Son as they have of each other. But if he persists in this and consoles himself in his madness because it follows, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal. It is one thing to know by the equality of nature what you know, and another by the dignity of the revealer.

For if we conceive of this thing according to our weakness, when he who receives begins to have, he who gives begins to be without. Or when He says, All things are committed to him, He may mean, not the heaven and earth and the elements, and the rest of the things which He created and made, but those who through the Son have access to the Father.

Let the heretic Eunomius therefore blush hereat who claims to himself such a knowledge of the Father and the Son, as they have one of anothera. But if he argues from what follows, and props up his madness by that, And he to whom the Son will reveal him, it is one thing to know what you know by equality with God, another to know it by His vouchsafing to reveal it.

For since He had said, "I thank Thee, because Thou hast hid them, and hast revealed them unto babes;" to hinder thy supposing that as being Himself deprived of this power, and unable to effect it, so He offers thanks, He saith, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father." And to them that are rejoicing, because the devils obey them, "Nay, why marvel," saith He. "that devils yield to you? All things are mine; All things are delivered unto me."

But when thou hearest, "they are delivered," do not surmise anything human. For He uses this expression, to prevent thine imagining two unoriginate Gods. Since, that He was at the same time both begotten, and Lord of all, He declares in many ways, and in other places also.

Then He saith what is even greater than this, lifting up thy mind; "And no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, but the Son." Which seems indeed to the ignorant unconnected with what went before, but hath full accordance therewith. As thus: having said, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father," He adds, "And what marvel," so He speaks, "if I be Lord of all? I who have also another greater privilege, the knowing the Father, and being of the same substance." Yea, for this too He covertly signifies by His being the only one who so knew Him. For this is His meaning, when He saith, "No man knoweth the Father but the Son."

And see at what time He saith this. When they by His works had received the certain proof of His might, not only seeing Him work miracles, but endowed also in His name with so great powers. Then, since He had said, "Thou hast revealed them unto babes," He signifies this also to pertain to Himself; for "neither knoweth any man the Father," saith He, "save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son is willing to reveal Him;" not "to whomsoever He may be enjoined," "to whomsoever He may be commanded." But if He reveals Him, then Himself too. This however He let pass as acknowledged, but the other He hath set down. And everywhere He affirms this; as when He saith, "No man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

And thereby he establishes another point also, His being in harmony and of one mind with Him. "Why," saith He, "I am so far from fighting and warring with Him, that no one can even come to Him but by me." For because this most offended them, His seeming to be a rival God, He by all means doth away with this; and interested Himself about this not less earnestly, but even more so, than about His miracles.

But when He saith, "Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son," He means not this, that all men were ignorant of Him, but that with the knowledge wherewith He knows Him, no man is acquainted with Him; which may be said of the Son too. For it was not of some God unknown, and revealed to no man, that He was so speaking, as Marcion saith; but it is the perfection of knowledge that He is here intimating, since neither do we know the Son as He should be known; and this very thing, to add no more, Paul was declaring, when he said, "We know in part, and we prophesy in part."

Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for "no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach-that, of course, which He revealed to them.

With regard, however, to the Father, the very gospel which is common to us will testify that He was never visible, according to the word of Christ: "No man knoweth the Father, save the Son." For even in the Old Testament He had declared, "No man shall see me, and live.

With us, however, the Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded "the Father's bosom.

Wherefore? Because "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world" and, "I am the way: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me; " and, "No man can come to me, except the Father draw him; " and, "All things are delivered unto me by the Father; " and, "As the Father quickeneth (the dead), so also doth the Son; " and again, "If ye had known me, ye would have known the Father also.

He exults in spirit when He says to the Father, "I thank Thee, O Father, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent." He, moreover, affirms also that to no man is the Father known, but to His Son; and promises that, as the Son of the Father, He will confess those who confess Him, and deny those who deny Him, before His Father.

In His preceding words, He said to the Father, "Father, Thou hast revealed." Lest you think that He Himself does nothing and that everything is of the Father, He says, "All things have been given to Me and both the Father and I have the same authority." And when you hear "given" do not think that means given as to a servant or a subordinate, but rather as bestowed upon a son. It is because He was begotten of the Father that those things were given to Him. For if He were not begotten and yet were of the same essence as the Father, those things need not have been given to Him because He would have already possessed them. See what He says: all things have been given, not by a master, but by My Father. As, for example, when a handsome child is born of a handsome father, the child says, "I have been given, that is, I have inherited, my father's beauty." He says something great, "There is nothing marvelous in My being the Master of all things since I possess something even greater, that is, to know the Father, and knowing Him, to reveal Him to others." Consider, then: He said, above, that the Father has revealed the mysteries to babes, and here, that the Son reveals the Father. You see, then, the single power of the Father and the Son, since both the Father and the Son reveal.

All things have been delivered to me by my Father. He had given thanks to the Father, because he revealed his secrets to little ones. But someone might suppose that he himself could not reveal; hence he excludes this: first, he touches on the greatness of his own power; secondly, he invites people to himself, as though saying, "I am powerful" (v. 28).

First, he does two things: first, he states that he is equal to the Father; secondly, he applies it spiritually to what he said (v. 27b).

He says, therefore: Someone could ask whether he can do all things. He answers that all things have been delivered to me by my Father. But note the equality, although the origin is from the Father, which is against Sabellius. But what is meant by all things? This can be explained in three ways:

All things, i.e., above every creature, as below (28:18): "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Or all things, i.e., the elect and predestined, who have been given in a special way: "Yours they were and you have given them to me" (Jn 17:6). Likewise, all things, namely, intrinsic, i.e., every perfection of the godhead: "As the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself" (Jn 5:26). And we should not understand this in a bodily sense, because if he gave, he also kept it for himself. This explanation is Augustine's and Hilary's.

But someone could ask: How did he give? Therefore, he tells how, when he says, from my Father. Hence he received this by generation. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Now he adapts his statement in a specific way to his proposition not only that he is equal to the Father but also consubstantial. From the substance of the Father exceeds all understanding, since the very essence of the Father is said to be unknowable, as is the essence of the Son. Hence there the equality is noted and Arius answered, who said that the Father is invisible but the Son visible. And no one knows the Son except the Father. But what is this? Did not the saints know? It must be said that they knew him by attaining their goal or by faith, but not by comprehending. But does not the Holy Spirit know? Yes. But it should be noted that limiting statements are sometimes added to the essential divine names and sometimes to the personal names. And when they are added to the personal names, they do not exclude that which is the same by nature; hence terms added to the Father do not exclude the Son. Hence where it says, "honor and glory to the immortal King, the invisible and only God" (1 Tim 1:17), the others of the same nature are not excluded. Similarly, when he says, no one knows..., the Holy Spirit is not excluded, for he is the same in nature. But when he says, no one knows, it means no man except the Son. And thus it is shown that the Father knows the Son. But this is contrary to Origen. For the Son knows by comprehension. Therefore, because he knows perfectly and is knowable, he has the power to reveal, as the Father has; hence he says, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. For manifestation is by means of a word: "Father, I have manifested your name to men..." (Jn 17:6) and (1:18): "No one has ever seen God." But he knew him; therefore, he could manifest him. Consequently, what he had said of the Father he attributed to himself. For he had said, You have hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them to little ones. The Son also can do this, in as much as he has the same power.

Whence do we all thus labour, but that we are mortal men, bearing vessels of clay which cause us much difficulty. But if the vessels of flesh are straitened, the regions of love will be enlarged. To what end then does He say, Come unto me, all ye that labour, but that ye should not labour?

As to the other one, about the burden of our sins being intolerable, it might be clearer if we said 'unbearable', because that still has two meanings: you say 'I cannot bear it,' when you mean it gives you great pain, but you also say 'That bridge will not bear that truck' — not meaning 'That bridge will feel pain,' but 'If that truck goes on to it, it will break and not be a bridge any longer, but a mass of rubble.' I wonder if that is what the Prayer Book means; that, whether we feel miserable or not, and however we feel, there is on each of us a load which, if nothing is done about it, will in fact break us, will send us from this world to whatever happens afterwards, not as souls but as broken souls.

It would be a bold and silly creature that came before its Creator with the boast "I'm no beggar. I love you disinterestedly". Those who come nearest to a Gift-love for God will next moment, even at the very same moment, be beating their breasts with the publican and laying their indigence before the only real Giver. And God will have it so. He addresses our Need-love: "Come unto me all ye that travail and are heavy-laden," or, in the Old Testament, "Open your mouth wide and I will fill it."

Stand apart from the inclination to love sin and to love the flesh. Turn to deeds worthy of praise. Draw near to me, so that you may become sharers of the divine nature and partakers of the Holy Spirit. Jesus called everyone, not only the people of Israel. As the Maker and Lord of all, he spoke to the weary Jews who did not have the strength to bear the yoke of the law. He spoke to idolaters heavy laden and oppressed by the devil and weighed down by the multitude of their sins. To Jews he said, "Obtain the profit of my coming to you. Bow down to the truth. Acknowledge your Advocate and Lord. I set you free from bondage under the law, bondage in which you endured a great deal of toil and hardship, unable to accomplish it easily and accumulating for yourselves a very great burden of sins."

(Mor. xxx. 15.) For a cruel yoke and hard weight of servitude it is to be subject to the things of time, to be ambitious of the things of earth, to cling to falling things, to seek to stand in things that stand not, to desire things that pass away, but to be unwilling to pass away with them. For while all things fly away against our wish, those things which had first harassed the mind in desire of gaining them, now oppress it with fear of losing them.

He calls to Him those that were labouring under the hardships of the Law, and those who are burdened with the sins of this world.

(Verse 28, 29.) Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls. The weight of sin is heavy, and the prophet Zacharias testifies, saying, iniquity sits upon a talent of lead (Zacch. 5). And the Psalmist laments: My iniquities have overwhelmed me (Psalm 38:4). Certainly, it invites those who were oppressed under the heavy yoke of the Law to the grace of the Gospel.

That the burden of sin is heavy the Prophet Zachariah bears witness, saying, that wickedness sitteth upon a talent of lead. (Zech. 5:7.) And the Psalmist fills it up, Thy iniquities are grown heavy upon me. (Ps. 38:4)

Next, having brought them by His words to an earnest desire, and having signified His unspeakable power, He after that invites them, saying. "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Not this or that person, but all that are in anxiety, in sorrows, in sins. Come, not that I may call you to account, but that I may do away your sins; come, not that I want your honor, but that I want your salvation. "For I," saith He, "will give you rest." He said not, "I will save you," only; but what was much more, "I will place you in all security."

"Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Thus, "be not afraid," saith He, "hearing of a yoke, for it is easy: fear not, because I said, 'a burden,' for it is light."

And how said He before, "The gate is narrow and the way strait?" Whilst thou art careless, whilst thou art supine; whereas, if thou duly perform His words, the burden will be light; wherefore also He hath now called it so.

But how are they duly performed? If thou art become lowly, and meek, and gentle. For this virtue is the mother of all strictness of life. Wherefore also, when beginning those divine laws, with this He began. And here again He doeth the very same, and exceeding great is the reward He appoints. "For not to another only dost thou become serviceable; but thyself also above all thou refreshest," saith He. "For ye shall find rest unto your souls."

Even before the things to come, He gives thee here thy recompense, and bestows the prize already, making the saying acceptable, both hereby, and by setting Himself forward as an example. For, "Of what art thou afraid?" saith He, "lest thou shouldest be a loser by thy low estate? Look to me, and to all that is mine; learn of me, and then shalt thou know distinctly how great thy blessing." Seest thou how in all ways He is leading them to humility? By His own doings: "Learn of me, for I am meek." By what themselves are to gain; for, "Ye shall find," saith He, "rest unto your souls." By what He bestows on them; for, "I too will refresh you," saith He. By rendering it light; "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." So likewise doth Paul, saying, "For the present light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory."

And how, some one may say, is the burden light, when He saith, "Except one hate father and mother;" and, "Whosoever taketh not up his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me:" and, "Whosoever forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my disciple:" when He commands even to give up our very life? Let Paul teach thee, saying, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?" And that, "The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us." Let those teach thee, who return from the council of the Jews after plenty of stripes, and "rejoice that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for the name of Christ." And if thou art still afraid and tremblest at hearing of the yoke and the burden, the fear comes not of the nature of the thing, but of thy remissness; since if thou art prepared, and in earnest, all will be easy to thee and light. Since for this cause Christ also, to signify that we too must needs labor ourselves, did not mention the gracious things only, and then hold His peace, nor the painful things only, but set down both. Thus He both spake of "a yoke," and called it "easy;" both named a burden, and added that it was "light;" that thou shouldest neither flee from them as toilsome, nor despise them as over easy.

But if even after all this, virtue seem to thee an irksome thing, consider that vice is more irksome. And this very thing He was intimating, in that He said not first, "Take my yoke upon you," but before that, "Come, ye that labor and are heavy laden;" implying that sin too hath labor, and a burden that is heavy and hard to bear. For He said not only, "Ye that labor," but also, "that are heavy laden." This the prophet too was speaking of, when in that description of her nature, "As an heavy burden they weighed heavy upon me." And Zacharias too, describing her, saith she is "A talent of lead."

And this moreover experience itself proves. For nothing so weighs upon the soul, and presses it down, as consciousness of sin; nothing so much gives it wings, and raises it on high, as the attainment of righteousness and virtue.

And mark it: what is more grievous, I pray thee, than to have no possessions? to turn the cheek, and when smitten not to smite again? to die by a violent death? Yet nevertheless, if we practise self-command, all these things are light and easy, and pleasurable.

But whatever I may say, my speech will present no such proof as the actual trial. Wherefore I would there were present here with us some one of those who have attained unto that summit of self-restraint, and then you would know assuredly the delight thereof; and that none of those that are enamored of voluntary poverty would accept wealth, though ten thousand were to offer it.

But would these, say you, ever consent to become poor, and to cast away the anxieties which they have? And what of that? This is but a proof of their madness and grievous disease, not of anything very pleasurable in the thing. And this even themselves would testify to us, who are daily lamenting over these their anxieties, and accounting their life to be not worth living. But not so those others; rather they laugh, leap for joy, and the wearers of the diadem do not so glory, as they do in their poverty.

Again, to turn the cheek is, to him that gives heed, a less grievous thing than to smite another; for from this the contest hath beginning, in that termination: and whereas by the former thou hast kindled the other's pile too, by the latter thou hast quenched even thine own flames. But that not to be burnt is a pleasanter thing than to be burnt, surely plain to every man. And if this hold in regard of bodies, much more in a soul.

And whether is lighter, to contend, or to be crowned? to fight, or to have the prize? and to endure waves, or to run into harbor? Therefore also, to die is better than to live. For the one withdraws us from waves and dangers, while the other adds unto them, and makes a man subject to numberless plots and distresses, which have made life not worth living in thine account.

And if thou disbelievest our sayings, hearken to them that have seen the countenances of the martyrs in the time of their conflicts, how when scourged and flayed, they were exceeding joyful and glad, and when exposed upon hot irons, rejoiced, and were glad of heart, more than such as lie upon a bed of roses. Wherefore Paul also said, when he was at the point of departing hence, and closing his life by a violent death, "joy, and rejoice with you all; for the same cause also do ye joy, and rejoice with me." Seest thou with what exceeding strength of language he invites the whole world to partake in his gladness? So great a good did he know his departure hence to be, so desirable, and lovely, and worthy of prayer, that formidable thing, death.

But that virtue's yoke is sweet and light, is manifest many other ways also; but to conclude, if you please, let us look also at the burdens of sin. Let us then bring forward the covetous, the retailers and second-hand dealers in shameless bargains. What now could be a heavier burden than such transactions? how many sorrows, how many anxieties, how many disappointments, how many dangers, how many plots and wars, daily spring up from these gains? how many troubles and disturbances? For as one can never see the sea without waves, so neither such a soul without anxiety, and despondency, and fear, and disturbance; yea, the second overtakes the first, and again others come up, and when these are not yet ceased, others come to a head.

Or wouldest thou see the souls of the revilers, and of the passionate? Why, what is worse than this torture? what, than the wounds they have within? what, than the furnace that is continually burning, and the flame that is never quenched?

Or of the sensual, and of such as cleave unto this present life? Why, what more grievous than this bondage? They live the life of Cain, dwelling in continual trembling and fear at every death that happens; the kinsmen of the dead mourn not so much, as these do for their own end.

What again fuller of turmoil, and more frantic, than such as are puffed up with pride? "For learn," saith He, "of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Because long-suffering is the mother of all good things.

Fear thou not therefore, neither start away from the yoke that lightens thee of all these things, but put thyself under it with all forwardness, and then thou shalt know well the pleasure thereof. For it doth not at all bruise thy neck, but is put on thee for good order's sake only, and to persuade thee to walk seemly, and to lead thee unto the royal road, and to deliver thee from the precipices on either side, and to make thee walk with ease in the narrow way.

Since then so great are its benefits, so great its security, so great its gladness, let us with all our soul, with all our diligence, draw this yoke; that we may both here "find rest unto our souls," and attain unto the good things to come, by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and might, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

Now poverty is a light thing to those who possess it, and if a man were to call the poverty which is for the sake of God "riches," he would call it rightly, and even as it is. Therefore our Lord also lifted a heavy yoke from His disciples in that He made them destitute of the riches of the world, saying, "Come unto Me, all ye that are weary and are laden with heavy burdens, and I will give you rest." And who are these, unless it be those who are wearied by the superfluities of riches, and who bear the heavy yoke of the cares and anxieties of the world? And what weariness is so oppressive as this? For when thou hast come to enjoy thyself, thou art the more tired. The care for human riches is a path which hath no ending in this life, for however far a man may travel along it, it lengtheneth out before his footsteps, and there is nothing which breaketh it except death. And when a man hath gathered together riches and mammon that he may enjoy himself, and live daintily and luxuriously, his enjoyment is weariness, and if the enjoyment of the world be weariness, what shall weariness itself be called? And if the enjoyments and luxuries are heavy labours, what shall labour itself be called? For the world is heavy in all its conversation, but because of the love thereof they who carry its burdens perceive them not, and they stumble therein like blind men, but discern it not, and though they carry heavy burdens, they are light unto them, and they weary and exert themselves painfully after the merchandise of loss, but know not that it is loss. And because our Lord saw them in this empty labour, He cried unto them, saying, "Come unto Me, and I will give you rest, for in your weariness there is no rest. But your weariness begetteth weariness, and your labour bringeth forth labour, and your riches gather together poverty, and your rest is tribulation, and your enjoyment is affliction, and your refreshing is toil; for the path of the desire of riches which ye have trodden of your own freewill hath no end; but if ye will come to Me by My road it will come to an end."

(non occ.) I will not only take from you your burden, but will satisfy you with inward refreshment.

Come, He says, not with the feet, but with the life, not in the body, but in faith. For that is a spiritual approach by which any man approaches God; and therefore it follows, Take my yoke upon you.

We are naturally obliged to state our opinion clearly to such people, and to reply: O, you! Why do you reason to your own perdition rather than your salvation? And why do you pick out for yourselves the obscure passages of inspired Scripture and then tear them out of context and twist them in order to accomplish your own destruction? Do you not hear the Savior crying out every day: "As I live … I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live" [Ezekiel 33:11]? Do you not hear Him Who says: "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" [Matthew 3:2]; and again: "Just so, I tell you, there is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents" (Luke 15:7, adapted)? Did He ever say to some: "Do not repent for I will not accept you," while to others who were predestined: "But you, repent! because I knew you beforehand"? Of course not! Instead, throughout the world and in every church He shouts: "Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28). Come, He says, all you who are burdened with many sins, to the One Who takes away the sin of the world; come all who thirst to the fountain which flows and never dies. - "Second Ethical Discourse"

He calls all mankind, not only the Jews, but also the Gentiles. By those "that labour" understand the Jews, who follow the strict observances of the law and labor in the occupation of fulfilling the commandments of the law. Those who are "heavy laden" are the Gentiles, who are oppressed by the burden of sins. To all these does Christ give rest. For to believe, to confess, and to be baptized, what labor is it? Is it not, rather, rest? For here in this life you are unburdened of the things which you did before your baptism, and there in the next life rest awaits you.

Come to me, all you... Come to my blessings. First, the invitation; secondly, the need for the invitation; thirdly, its utility. He says, therefore: Come to me. This is also the word of Wisdom: "Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my produce" (Sir 24:19). Hence, draw near to me, you untaught, because I want to communicate myself. But what is the need? Because without me men labor too much: all you who labor. In a special way this can be applied to the Jews, because they labored under the yoke of the Law and commandments, as it says in Acts (15:10): "This is a burden which neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear." Likewise, in general, to all who labor on account of human frailty: "I am poor and acquainted with labors from my youth" (Ps 88:15). And are heavy laden, namely, with sins: "My iniquities weigh like a burden too heavy for me" (Ps 38:4).

And what shall we get, if we come to you? I will give you rest [refresh you]. "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink" (Jn 7:37). Then he explains the invitation: first, he explains; secondly, he assigns the reason (v. 30). Having presented the invitation and its purpose, he now wants to explain what that invitation is, when he says, take my yoke upon you. But what is this? You say that you want to refresh us and lift our labor from us, and in the same breath you tell us to carry a yoke? We believed that it would not involve a yoke. Yes, without the yoke of sin: "For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken" (Is 9:4). Not that you are without God's law, but without the yoke of sin: "Let us cast off from us their yoke" (Ps 2:3); "Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled, because of your iniquity" (Hos 14:1); "Freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness" (Rom 6:18).

You are to "take my yoke upon you, and learn from me." You are not learning from me how to refashion the fabric of the world, nor to create all things visible and invisible, nor to work miracles and raise the dead. Rather, you are simply learning of me: "that I am meek and lowly in heart." If you wish to reach high, then begin at the lowest level. If you are trying to construct some mighty edifice in height, you will begin with the lowest foundation. This is humility. However great the mass of the building you may wish to design or erect, the taller the building is to be, the deeper you will dig the foundation. The building in the course of its erection rises up high, but he who digs its foundation must first go down very low. So then, you see even a building is low before it is high and the tower is raised only after humiliation.

Not to create a world, or to do miracles in that world; but that I am meek and lowly in heart. Wouldest thou be great? Begin with the least. Wouldest thou build up a mighty fabric of greatness? First think of the foundation of humility; for the mightier building any seeks to raise, the deeper let him dig for his foundation. Whither is the summit of our building to rise? To the sight of God.

When grace, justice, and wisdom have been perfectly attained, one ascends to the summit of evangelical perfection, which Christ Jesus taught by word and example, who specially professed himself the master of humility, in Matthew 11: Learn from me, etc. For humility is the gateway of wisdom, the foundation of justice, and the dwelling place of grace.

Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less do unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is 'humble and meek' and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.

He holds forth the inducements of a pleasant yoke, and a light burden, that to them that believe He may afford the knowledge of that good which He alone knoweth in the Father.

And what is more pleasant than that yoke, what lighter than that burden? To be made better, to abstain from wickedness, to choose the good, and refuse the evil, to love all men, to hate none, to gain eternal things, not to be taken with things present, to be unwilling to do that to another which yourself would be pained to suffer.

[Daniel 4:10] "'I saw, and behold there was a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was very great...'" It was not only of Nebuchadnezzar, King of the Chaldeans, but also of all impious men that the prophet says: "I beheld the impious man highly exalted and lifted up like the cedars of Lebanon" (Psalm 37:35). Such men are lifted up, not by the greatness of their virtues, but by their own pride; and for that reason they are cut down and fall into ruin. Therefore it is good to follow the teaching of our Lord in the Gospel: "Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart" (Matthew 11:29). But as for the fact that, according to Theodotion, he mentions his kutos or height - or else his kureia, as he himself later renders it, that is to say, his dominion (a word we have translated as "his appearance") - those same detractors of the historicity of this passage slanderously assert that Nebuchadnezzar's dominion never possessed the entire world. He did not rule over the Greeks or barbarians, or over all of the nations in the north and west, but only over the provinces of the East; that is to say, over Asia, not over Europe or Libya. Consequently all these slanders require to be understood as attributable to the devil, for actually we ourselves should accept all this as spoken by way of hyperbole, having in view the arrogance of the impious king, who in Isaiah (chap. 14) makes as great a boast as this, claiming that he possesses the very heaven itself, and the whole earth besides, as if it were a nest full of birds' eggs.

Such a spirit as this let us too acquire, and whatever we may suffer we shall bear it easily, and before the Kingdom, we shall reap here the gain accruing from lowliness of mind. Thus "learn," saith He, "of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Therefore in order that we may enjoy rest both here and hereafter, let us with great diligence implant in our souls the mother of all things that are good, I mean humility. For thus we shall be enabled both to pass over the sea of this life without waves, and to end our voyage in that calm harbor; by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and might for ever and ever. Amen.

Seest thou how everywhere practice is required, and the proof by works? "For by their fruits," saith He, "ye shall know them." And what commends our own life? Is it indeed a display of miracles, or the perfection of an excellent conversation? Very evidently it is the second; but as to the miracles, they both have their origin from hence, and terminate herein. For both He that shows forth an excellent life, draws to Himself this gift, and he that receives the gift, receives it for this end, that he may amend other men's lives. Since even Christ for this end wrought those miracles, that having made Himself thereby credible, and drawn men unto Him, He might bring virtue into our life. Wherefore also He lays more stress of the two on this. For He is not at all satisfied with the signs only, but He also threatens hell, and promises a kingdom, and lays down those startling laws, and all things He orders to this end, that He may make us equal to the angels.

And why say I, that Christ doth all for this object? Why, even thou, should one give thee thy choice, to raise dead men by His name, or to die for His name; which I pray thee, of the two wouldest thou rather accept? Is it not quite plain, the latter? and yet the one is a miracle, the other but a work. And what, if one offered thee to make grass gold, or to be able to despise all wealth as grass, wouldest thou not rather accept this latter? and very reasonably. For mankind would be attracted by this more than any way. For if they saw the grass changed into gold, they would covet themselves also to acquire that power, as Simon did, and the love of money would be increased in them; but if they saw us all contemning and neglecting gold, as though it were grass, they would long ago have been delivered from this disease.

Seest thou that our practice has more power to do good? By practice I mean, not thy fasting, nor yet thy strewing sackcloth and ashes under thee, but if thou despise wealth, as it ought to be despised; if thou be kindly affectioned, if thou give thy bread to the hungry, if thou control anger, if thou cast out vainglory, if thou put away envy. So He Himself used to teach: for, "Learn of me," saith He, "for I am meek and lowly in heart." He did not say, "for I fasted," although surely He might have spoken of the forty days, yet He saith not this; but, "I am meek and lowly in heart." And again, when sending them out, He said not, "Fast," but, "Eat of all that is set before you." With regard to wealth, however, He required of them great strictness, saying, "Provide not gold, or silver, or brass, in your purses."

And all this I say, not to depreciate fasting, God forbid, but rather highly to commend it. But I grieve when other duties being neglected, ye think it enough for salvation, having but the last place in the choir of virtue. For the greatest thing is charity, and moderation, and almsgiving; which hits a higher mark even than virginity.

The yoke of Christ is Christ's Gospel, which joins and yokes together Jews and Gentiles in the unity of the faith. This we are commanded to take upon us, that is, to have in honour; lest perchance setting it beneath us, that is wrongly despising it, we should trample upon it with the miry feet of unholiness; wherefore He adds, Learn of me.

We must learn then from our Saviour to be meek in temper, and lowly in mind; let us hurt none, let us despise none, and the virtues which we have shown in deed let us retain in our heart.

The yoke of Christ is humility and meekness. For he who humbles himself before all men has rest and remains untroubled; but he who is vainglorious and arrogant is ever encompassed by troubles as he does not wish to be less than anyone but is always thinking how to be esteemed more highly and how to defeat his enemies. Therefore the yoke of Christ, which is humility, is light, for it is easier for our lowly nature to be humbled than to be exalted. But all the commandments of Christ are also called a yoke, and they are light because of the reward to come, even though for a time they appear heavy.

Take, therefore, my yoke, namely, the gospel lessons. And he says, yoke, because just as a yoke fastens and joins the necks of oxen, so the doctrine of the gospel fastens the people to its yoke. And what is that? Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart. The whole Law consists in two things: meekness and humility. By meekness a man is rightly ordered to his neighbor; hence Psalm 132 (v. 1): "Remember, O Lord, David and all his meekness." By humility he is rightly ordered to himself and to God: "Upon whom will my spirit rest except on the calm and meek" (Is 66:2)? Hence humility makes a man capable of God. He had also said, "and I will refresh you." What is this refreshment? You will find rest for your souls. For the body is not refreshed, as long as it is afflicted, and when it is not afflicted any more, it is said to be refreshed. And just as hunger is to the body, so desire is to the mind; hence the achievement of desires is refreshing: "Who satisfies your desire with good" (Ps 103:5). And this rest is a rest of the soul: "I have labored little and found for myself much rest" (Sir 51:27). The meek are not at rest this way in the world; hence they will find eternal rest, namely, the fulfillment of desires.

If the yoke is easy and the burden light, why did he call "the way" "narrow"? It is narrow to the careless, for to the zealous the Lord's tasks are light. For even if they involve bodily suffering for a little while, yet the one who is now nourished with good hopes is the devout one who easily bears these pains.

So then they who with unfearing neck have submitted to the yoke of the Lord endure such hardships and dangers, that they seem to be called not from labour to rest, but from rest to labour. But the Holy Spirit was there who, as the outward man decayed, renewed the inward man day by day, and giving a foretaste of spiritual rest in the rich pleasures of God in the hope of blessedness to come, smoothed all that seemed rough, lightened all that was heavy. Men suffer amputations and burnings, that at the price of sharper pain they may be delivered from torments less but more lasting, as boils or swellings. What storms and dangers will not merchants undergo that they may acquire perishing riches? Even those who love not riches endure the same hardships; but those that love them endure the same, but to them they are not hardships. For love makes right easy, and almost nought all things however dreadful and monstrous. How much more easily then does love do that for true happiness, which avarice does for misery as far as it can?

Both harder and easier than what we are all trying to do. You have noticed, I expect, that Christ Himself sometimes describes the Christian way as very hard, sometimes as very easy. He says, 'Take up your Cross'—in other words, it is like going to be beaten to death in a concentration camp. Next minute he says, 'My yoke is easy and my burden light.' He means both. And one can just see why both are true.

Teachers will tell you that the laziest boy in the class is the one who works hardest in the end. They mean this. If you give two boys, say, a proposition in geometry to do, the one who is prepared to take trouble will try to understand it. The lazy boy will try to learn it by heart because, for the moment, that needs less effort. But six months later, when they are preparing for an exam, that lazy boy is doing hours and hours of miserable drudgery over things the other boy understands, and positively enjoys, in a few minutes. Laziness means more work in the long run. Or look at it this way. In a battle, or in mountain climbing, there is often one thing which it takes a lot of pluck to do; but it is also, in the long run, the safest thing to do. If you funk it, you will find yourself, hours later, in far worse danger. The cowardly thing is also the most dangerous thing.

It is like that here. The terrible thing, the almost impossible thing, is to hand over your whole self—all your wishes and precautions—to Christ. But it is far easier than what we are all trying to do instead.

Joseph asked Poemen, 'How should we fast?' Poemen said, 'I suggest that everyone should eat a little less than he wants, every day.' Joseph said to him, 'When you were a young man, didn't you fast for two days on end?' He said to him, 'That's right, I used to fast three days on end, even for a week. But the great hermits have tested all these things, and they found that it is good to eat something every day, but on some days a little less. They have shown us that this is the king's highway, for it is easy and light.'

Therefore let everyone who wants life and desires to see good days put down the yoke of iniquity and malice. The prophet says, "Let us burst their bonds and thrust their yoke from us." For unless one throws behind the yoke of iniquity, that is, the spark of all vices, one cannot take up the agreeable and light yoke of Christ. But if the yoke of Christ is so agreeable and light, how is it that divine religion seems so harsh and bitter to some people? It is bitter to some because the heart that has been tainted by earthly desires cannot love heavenly things. It has not yet come to Christ, so that it can take up his yoke and learn that he is gentle and humble of heart. Hence we observe, my dearest friends, from the teaching of our Lord, that unless a person is gentle and humble of heart, he or she cannot bear the yoke of Christ.

(Mor. iv. 33.) What burden is it to put upon the neck of our mind that He bids us shun all desire that disturbs, and turn from the toilsome paths of this world?

(Verse 30.) For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. How is the Gospel lighter than the Law, when in the Law murder is condemned, but in the Gospel anger is condemned? In what way is the grace of the Gospel easier, when in the Law adultery is punished, but in the Gospel lust is punished? In the Law there are many precepts, which the Apostle teaches cannot be fully fulfilled (Acts 15). In the Law, works are required, and whoever does them shall live. In the Gospel, the will is sought, and even if it does not have the desired effect, it does not lose the reward. The Gospel commands what we are able to do: that we do not desire, namely, this is within our power. When the law does not punish the will, it punishes the effect, so that you do not commit adultery. Imagine a virgin prostitute in persecution. This virgin is accepted according to the Gospel, since she does not sin by her own will, but she is rejected in the Law as if corrupted.

And how is the Gospel lighter than the Law, seeing in the Law murder and adultery, but under the Gospel anger and concupiscence also, are punished? Because by the Law many things are commanded which the Apostle fully teaches us cannot be fulfilled; by the Law works are required, by the Gospel the will is sought for, which even if it goes not into act, yet does not lose its reward. The Gospel commands what we can do, as that we lust not; this is in our own power; the Law punishes not the will but the act, as adultery. Suppose a virgin to have been violated in time of persecution; as here was not the will she is held as a virgin under the Gospel; under the Law she is cast out as defiled.

But how is Christ's yoke pleasant, seeing it was said above, Narrow is the way which leadeth unto life? (Mat. 7:14.) That which is entered upon by a narrow entrance is in process of time made broad by the unspeakable sweetness of love.

And so they upbraid the discipline of monogamy with being a heresy; nor is there any other cause whence they find themselves compelled to deny the Paraclete more than the fact that they esteem Him to be the institutor of a novel discipline, and a discipline which they find most harsh: so that this is already the first ground on which we must join issue in a general handling (of the subject), whether there is room for maintaining that the Paraclete has taught any such thing as can either be charged with novelty, in opposition to catholic tradition, or with burdensomeness, in opposition to the "light burden" of the Lord.

How is it then that he himself demands a high degree of strictness? He answers, "You have not yet had experience of things that are mine, and for this reason you think this way. But if you would take up my yoke and would believe in those things I give, you would find the greatest difference between the things that are from me and those that are from Moses. From me there is great, patient endurance and kindness. Seeing such a weight of sins—murders and self-love and things more unnamable than these—I am longsuffering and bear with those who do these things, not despising them but waiting for them to repent. If ever they should repent and change their ways, I immediately forgive them, not remembering their former acts. But the law of Moses is not like this. When you sin, it immediately punishes the sinner. It knows no repentance. It promises no remission. When I make demands about the covenant, I am not so much preoccupied with investigating the things that happened. For me, it is enough that a soul choose what is good with a genuine resolution. But the law goes overboard, both adding more punishments to the smaller ones and cursing the transgressors. Therefore my yoke is good on account of forgiveness, and my burden is light because it is not a collection of customs and various observances but decisions of the soul."

But do not wonder if I invite you to a yoke, because my yoke is not a burden. Why? For my yoke is easy and delightful: "How sweet are your words to my taste!" (Ps 119:103). And my burden is light. And these can be referred to two things: by the yoke the oxen are held, but the burden is carried; hence the yoke is referred to the negative precepts, the burden to the affirmative.

But this seems to be false, because the burden of the New Law seems very heavy, as was said above (5:21): "You have heard that it was said of old: You shall not kill. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to the judgment." So it seems that it is a heavier burden: "Narrow is the way, which leads to life." Likewise the Apostle in 2 Corinthians (11:23): "In many labors." Hence the yoke seems most burdensome. Therefore, three things must be considered: the effect of the teaching, the act and the circumstances. And in all three it is light.

The doctrine of Christ is light in its effect, because it changes the heart, in as much as it makes us love not temporal but spiritual things. For the person who loves temporal things finds it more a burden to lose a little than a person who loves spiritual things to lose much. The Old Law did not forbid those temporal things; therefore it was painful to lose them. But now, even though it is burdensome in the beginning, after a while it is light: "I will lead you in the paths of uprightness. When you walk, your steps will not be hampered" (Pr 4:11). Likewise, in regard to its act, the Law imposed a burden of external acts. But our law is solely in the will; hence Romans (14:17): "the kingdom of God is not food and drink." Again, the law of Christ brings joy; hence Romans (14:17): "Justice and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Likewise, in regard to circumstances there are many adversities; hence "All who desire to lead a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution" (2 Tim 3:12). But they are not burdensome, because they are seasoned with the condiment of love; for when a person loves someone, it is not a burden to suffer anything for him. Hence love makes easy all difficult and impossible things. Therefore, if one loves Christ properly, nothing is difficult for him; consequently, the New Law does not impose a burden.