Saturday of the 11th week after Pentecost

As if to say, The sheep hear not them, but Me they hear; for I am the Door, and whoever entereth by Me not falsely but in sincerity, shall by perseverance be saved.

For if you believe that father Bacchus can give a good vintage, but cannot give relief from sickness; if you believe that Ceres can give good crops, Aesculapius health, Neptune one thing, Juno another, that Fortune, Mercury, Vulcan, are each the giver of a fixed and particular thing,-this, too, you must needs receive from us, that souls can receive from no one life and salvation, except from Him to whom the Supreme Ruler gave this charge and duty. The Almighty Master of the world has determined that this should be the way of salvation,-this the door, so to say, of life; by Him alone is there access to the light: nor may men either creep in or enter elsewhere, all other ways being shut up and secured by an impenetrable barrier.

By this, then, which the Lord hath explained, that He Himself is the door, let us find entrance to what He has set forth, but not explained. And indeed who it is that is the Shepherd, although He hath not told us in the lesson we have read to-day, yet in that which follows He very plainly tells us: "I am the good Shepherd." And although He had not said so, whom else but Himself ought we to have understood in those words where He saith, "He that entereth in by the door is the Shepherd of the sheep. To Him the porter openeth: and the sheep hear His voice: and He calleth His own sheep by name, and leadeth them out."

But what is this, "He shall go in and out, and find pasture"? To enter indeed into the Church by Christ the door, is eminently good; but to go out of the Church, is certainly otherwise than good. Such a going out could not then be commended by the good Shepherd, when He said, "And he shall go in and out, and find pasture." There is therefore not only some sort of entrance, but some outgoing also that is good, by the good door, which is Christ. But I am better pleased that the Truth Himself, like a good Shepherd, and therefore a good Teacher, hath in a certain measure reminded us how we ought to understand His words, "He shall go in and out, and find pasture," when He added in the sequel, "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." For He seems to me to have meant, That they may have life in coming in, and have it more abundantly at their departure. For no one can pass out by the door-that is, by Christ-to that eternal life which shall be open to the sight, unless by the same door-that is, by the same Christ-he has entered His church, which is His fold, to the temporal life, which is lived in faith.

(Tr. xlv. c. 15) What is this, shall go in and out? To enter into the Church by Christ the Door, is a very good thing, but to go out of the Church is not. Going in must refer to inward cogitation; going out to outward action; as in the Psalm, Man goeth forth to his work. (Ps. 103:23)

"I am the door." Here it is noted that whoever enters through him enters unto salvation. Therefore he says: "I am the door," through which, namely, one enters unto salvation; and the reason is added: "If any man enter in by me, he shall be saved"; concerning which entrance, Matthew 7: "Enter ye in at the strait gate. How strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life!" because Christ was poor and lowly. Through this small door the rich, full of riches, do not enter; on account of which it is said in Matthew 19: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven." This entrance is through faith and the Sacrament of Baptism; since the former is the gate of the virtues, and the latter of the Sacraments. He who enters in this way shall be saved; Mark, last chapter: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." "And he shall go in and go out and find pasture; he shall go in" through contemplation, which calls back to interior things; "and he shall go out" through action; Numbers 27: "Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, provide a man who may go in and go out before them." Or, as Augustine explains, "he shall go in" to the contemplation of the Divinity, "he shall go out" to the sight of the humanity, "and shall find pasture," because he is nourished in all things: the intellect in the contemplation of the Divinity, and the senses in the contemplation of the humanity; concerning which pastures, Ezekiel 34: "I will feed them upon the mountains of Israel; in the most fertile pastures I will feed them."

It is asked concerning what he says, that "he will go out and will find pasture."

Against this: "No one putting his hand to the plow should look back"; therefore no one who enters will go out.

It must be said that there is a twofold going out: one contrary to entering, and this is a going out from the Church through unbelief; and concerning this the objection is raised, and concerning this Augustine says: "To enter the Church is good, but to go out is the worst"; and concerning this, First John two says: "They went out from us, but they were not of us." The other is from contemplation to action; and this is not of regression, but of exercise. Concerning this the Psalm says: "Man goes forth to his work and to his labor until the evening."

Therefore, however much one may be illuminated by the light of nature and acquired knowledge, one cannot enter into oneself so as within oneself to delight in the Lord, except through the mediation of Christ, who says: I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and go out, and shall find pastures. But to this door we do not draw near unless we believe in him, hope in him, and love him. It is necessary, therefore, if we wish to re-enter into the enjoyment of Truth as into paradise, that we enter through faith, hope, and charity in the mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ, who is as the tree of life in the midst of paradise.

The figure of the six seraphic wings intimates six stairlike illuminations, which begin from creatures and lead all the way to God, to whom no one rightly enters except through the Crucified. For he who does not enter through the door but climbs up another way, that one is a thief and a robber. If anyone indeed through this door enters, he shall go in and go out and shall find pasture.

These six considerations having therefore been traversed, as if they were the six steps of the throne of the true Solomon, by which one arrives at peace, where the true peaceful one rests in a peaceful mind as in an interior Jerusalem; and as if also the six wings of the Cherub, by which the mind of the true contemplative, filled with the illumination of supernal wisdom, may be borne upward; and as if also the first six days, in which the mind must be exercised, so that it may at last arrive at the sabbath of rest; after our mind has contemplated God outside itself through vestiges and in the vestiges, within itself through the image and in the image, above itself through the similitude of the divine light shining upon us and in that light itself, insofar as is possible according to the state of wayfaring and the exercise of our mind; when at last in the sixth step it has arrived at this point, that it contemplates in the first and highest principle and the mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ, those things whose likenesses can in no way be found in creatures, and which exceed all keenness of the human intellect: it remains that, in contemplating these things, it should transcend and pass beyond not only this sensible world, but also itself; in which passing over, Christ is the way and the door, Christ is the ladder and the vehicle, as it were the mercy seat placed upon the ark of God and the mystery hidden from the ages.

That it is impossible to attain to God the Father, except by His Son Jesus Christ. In the Gospel: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh to the Father but by me." Also in the same place: "I am the door: by me if any man shall enter in, he shall be saved." Also in the same place: "Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see the things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." Also in the same place: "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life: he that is not obedient in word to the Son hath not life; but the wrath of God shall abide upon him." Also Paul to the Ephesians: "And when He had come, He preached peace to you, to those which are afar off, and peace to those which are near, because through Him we both have access in one Spirit unto the Father." Also to the Romans: "For all have sinned, and fail of the glory of God; but they are justified by His gift and grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus." Also in the Epistle of Peter the apostle: "Christ hath died once for our sins, the just for the unjust, that He might present us to God." Also in the same place: "For in this also was it preached to them that are dead, that they might be raised again." Also in the Epistle of John: "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same also hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath both the Son and the Father."

That it is impossible to attain to the Father but by His Son Jesus Christ. In the Gospel according to John: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Also in the same place: "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved."

After His usual manner, He moulds the form of His speech to a spiritual application as though it arose naturally from the course of His story, and seems to treat things which are simple to look at and contain nothing difficult of comprehension, as images of things more obscure. For the thieves, He saith, and robbers, violently breaking into the enclosures of the sheep, do not enter by the door, but leap in by some other way, and by getting over the wall of the fold put themselves in danger. For perhaps, or rather very probably, one who is robbing in this way and rashly practising villainy may be detected and caught; but they who enter by the door itself, effect an entrance without risk, being manifestly not mean in conduct, nor yet unknown to the lord of the sheep. For he who standeth at the doors openeth to them and they run in: moreover, saith He, such as these shall be together with the sheep in great security, having effected an entrance very lawfully as it were and without guile, and without incurring any suspicion of being robbers. This therefore is the part of the story which is typical; and passing over to what is thereby intimated for our spiritual profit, we say this, that they who without the Divine sanction and will proceed to take the leadership of the people, as though altogether refusing the entrance by the Door, will perhaps also perish, doing violence to the Divine decree, at least by the motive of their endeavours. But they who are allotted a God-given leadership, and come to it by Christ, with great security and grace they will govern the most sacred fold, escaping so entirely from the anger which falls on the others that they even receive honour for their work: they will obtain crowns from above such as they do not yet dare to hope for; because their aim is not at all in any way to grieve their flocks, but rather to benefit them: they will do things well-pleasing to the Lord of the flock, and love by all means to keep safe those who belong to Him. By these words also the Lord greatly troubles the obstinate Pharisees, saying that they will certainly not be kept safe, but will utterly fall from the leadership in which they now are; and very justly, since they suppose they will possess it firmly, not by God's approval, but by their own folly. Bat herein I cannot help admiring the incomparable love for men shown by the Saviour. For the Lord is really compassionate and merciful, offering to all a way of salvation, and in divers manners inviting to it even the very obstinate and hardened. And I will take the proof of my assertion once more from the thing itself. For when He fails, either by marvellous deeds or by the longing which yearns and hopes for the glory which shall be hereafter, to persuade the Pharisees to receive His teaching; He sternly proceeds to that, by which it was likely they would be especially troubled, so that henceforth they might look upon obedience as an inevitable necessity. For knowing them to be attached to the glory of being leaders, and to eagerly reckon upon no ordinary gain from thence, He says they will be deprived of it, and will be utterly despoiled of that which was so highly valued, and which was then in their possession; unless they will yield themselves to willingly listen to Him, and seek pardon at His hands.

We are Christians and Catholics not because we worship a key, but because we have passed a door; and felt the wind that is the trumpet of liberty blow over the land of the living.

He is the Way, because he leads us through himself. He is the Door who lets us in, the Shepherd who makes us dwell in green pastures, bringing us up by waters of rest and leading us there. He protects us from wild beasts, converts the erring, brings back what was lost and binds up what was broken. He guards the strong and brings them together into the fold beyond with words of pastoral knowledge.

Where do you pasture your sheep, O good Shepherd who carries all your flock on your shoulders? For the one lamb that you took up is the entire human race, which you raised on your shoulders. Show me then the place of pasture, make known to me the waters of rest, lead me out to the good grass, call me by name that I, your sheep, may listen to your voice and may your call be the gift of eternal life.… "Show me, then," she says, "where you feed," so that I may find the pasture of salvation and be filled with the food of heaven which all people must eat if they would enter into life.

"If anyone enters through me, he will be saved, and will go in and go out, and will find pastures." For he will go in to faith, but will go out from faith to sight, from belief to contemplation, and will find pastures in eternal refreshment. His sheep therefore find pastures, because whoever follows him with a simple heart is nourished by the food of eternal greenness. But what are the pastures of these sheep, if not the inner joys of ever-verdant paradise? For the pastures of the elect are the present countenance of God, which when it is beheld without failing, the mind is satisfied without end by the food of life. In these pastures those have rejoiced in the fullness of eternity who have already escaped the snares of pleasurable temporality. There are the hymn-singing choirs of angels, there is the fellowship of the heavenly citizens. There is the sweet solemnity of those returning from the sad labor of this pilgrimage. There are the foreseeing choirs of prophets, there is the judging number of apostles, there is the victorious army of innumerable martyrs, the more joyful there as they were more harshly afflicted here; there is the constancy of confessors, consoled by the reception of their reward; there are faithful men whom the pleasure of the world could not soften from the strength of their manliness; there are holy women who conquered both the world and their sex; there are children who here transcended their years by their conduct; there are the elderly whom age rendered weak here, yet the power of good works did not abandon.

(super Ezek. Hom. xiii.) Shall go in, i. e. to faith: shall go out, i. e. to sight: and find pasture, i. e. in eternal fulness.

And by war he means the war that is in the body, because its frame has been made out of hostile elements; as it has been written, he says, "Remember the conflict that exists in the body." Jacob, he says, saw this entrance and this gate in his journey into Mesopotamia, that is, when from a child he was now becoming a youth and a man; that is, (the entrance and gate) were made known unto him as he journeyed into Mesopotamia. But Mesopotamia, he says, is the current of the great ocean flowing from the midst of the Perfect Man; and he was astonished at the celestial gate, exclaiming, "How terrible is this place! it is nought else than the house of God, and this (is) the gate of heaven." On account of this, he says, Jesus uses the words, "I am the true gate." Now he who makes these statements is, he says, the Perfect Man that is imaged from the unportrayable one from above. The Perfect Man therefore cannot, he says, be saved, unless, entering in through this gate, he be born again. But this very one the Phrygians, he says, call also Papa, because he tranquillized all things which, prior to his manifestation, were confusedly and dissonantly moved. For the name, he says, of Papa belongs simultaneously to all creatures -celestial, and terrestrial, and infernal-who exclaim, Cause to cease, cause to cease the discord of the world, and make "peace for those that are afar off," that is, for material and earthly beings; and "peace for those that are near," that is, for perfect men that are spiritual and endued with reason. But the Phrygians denominate this same also "corpse"-buried in the body, as it were, in a mausoleum and tomb. This, he says, is what has been declared, "Ye are whited sepulchres, full," he says, "of dead men's bones within," because there is not in you the living man. And again he exclaims, "The dead shall start forth from the graves," that is, from the earthly bodies, being born again spiritual, not carnal. For this, he says, is the Resurrection that takes place through the gate of heaven, through which, he says, all those that do not enter remain dead. These same Phrygians, however, he says, affirm again that this very (man), as a consequence of the change, (becomes) a god. For, he says, he becomes a god when, having risen from the dead, he will enter into heaven through a gate of this kind. Paul the apostle, he says, knew of this gate, partially opening it in a mystery, and stating "that he was caught up by an angel, and ascended as far as the second and third heaven into paradise itself; and that he beheld sights and heard unspeakable words which it would not be possible for man to declare."

The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest is better; to whom the holy of holies has been committed, and who alone has been trusted with the secrets of God. He is the door of the Father, by which enter in Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the prophets, and the apostles, and the Church. All these have for their object the attaining to the unity of God. But the Gospel possesses something transcendent [above the former dispensation], viz., the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection. For the beloved prophets announced Him, but the Gospel is the perfection of immortality. All these things are good together, if ye believe in love.

(Hom. lix. 3) Or, He refers to the Apostles who went in and out boldly; for they became the masters of the world, none could turn them out of their kingdom, and they found pasture.

Wherefore He, being the true Prophet, said, 'I am the gate of life; he who entereth through me entereth into life,' there being no other teaching able to save. Wherefore also He cried, and said, 'Come unto me, all who labour,' that is, who are seeking the truth, and not finding it; and again, 'My sheep hear my voice;' and elsewhere, 'Seek and find,' since the truth does not lie on the surface.

Whoever enters through Me, the door, and is brought to the Father, and becomes His sheep, that one will be saved, and not only will be saved, but will also receive great fearlessness, like both Lord and Master. For this is what is meant by the words "and will go in and go out." So too the apostles boldly went in and came out before rulers, and came out joyful and unconquerable (Acts 5:41). "And shall find pasture," that is, abundant food. And in another way: since our man is twofold, according to the expression of the Apostle Paul, "the inner and the outer" (Rom. 7:22; 2 Cor. 4:16), it can be said that he enters who cares for the inner man, and he again goes out who "puts to death the members which are on the earth" and "the deeds of the flesh" in Christ (Rom. 8:13). Such a one shall find pasture both in the age to come, according to what is said: "The Lord shepherds me, and I shall not want" (Ps. 22:1).

The door admits the sheep into the pasture; And shall go in and out, and find pasture. What is this pasture, but the happiness to come, the rest to which our Lord brings us?

Or, to go in is to watch over the inner man; to go out, (Colos. 3) to mortify the outward man, i. e. our members which are upon the earth. He that doth this shall find pasture in the life to come.

I am the door. Here he clarifies his explanation: first, of the door; secondly, of the thief (v 10). Concerning the first, he does two things: first, he repeats what he intends to explain; and secondly, he gives the explanation (v 9).

He repeats what he had already said, namely, I am the door: "If she is a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar" (Song 8:9), that is, let us grant her an incorruptible power.

He explains this when he says, if any one enters by me, he will be saved. First, he shows that the purpose of a door, which is to keep the sheep safe, applies to himself; secondly, he mentions the manner in which they are kept safe (v 9b).

The door safeguards the sheep by keeping those within from going out, and by protecting them from strangers who want to come in. And this applies to Christ, for he is our safeguard and protection. And this is what he says: if any one, not with insincerity, enters, into the fellowship of the Church and of the faithful, by me, the door, he will be saved, i.e., if he perseveres: "For there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12); "We shall be saved by his life" (Rom 5:10).

The way the sheep are safeguarded is set forth when he says that he will go in and out and find pasture. This statement can be explained in four ways. First of all, according to Chrysostom, it simply affirms the security and freedom of those who cling to Christ. For one who enters some other way than by the door does not have free entry and exit; but one who does enter by the door has free exit, because he can leave freely. Therefore, when he says, he will go in and out, the meaning is that the Apostles adhering to Christ enter with security by living with the faithful, who are within the Church, and with unbelievers who are outside, when they became masters of the whole world and no one wished to cast them out: "Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh appoint a man over the congregation, who shall go out before them and come in before them…that the congregation of the Lord may not be as sheep which have no shepherd" (Num 27:16). And find pasture, find delight in converting others, and find joy even when persecuted by unbelievers for the name of Christ: "Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name," as we read in Acts (5:41).

Secondly, this can be explained as Augustine does in his Commentary on John. Two things are incumbent upon anyone who acts well, namely to be well-ordered to the things that are within him, and to those that are without. Within a person is the spirit, and without is the body: "Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day" (2 Cor 4:16). Therefore, a person who clings to Christ will go in through contemplation, to protect his conscience - "When I enter my house," i.e., my conscience, "I shall find rest with her," i.e., with wisdom (Wis 8:16) - and out, namely, by good actions, to tame the body - "Man goes forth to his work and to his labor until the evening" (Ps 104:23) - and find pasture, in a clean and sincere conscience - "I will appear before your sight: I will be satisfied when your glory appears" (Ps 16:15). Again, by his actions he will find pasture, i.e., fruit - "He shall come home with shouts of joy, bringing his sheaves with him" (Ps 126:6).

The third explanation is also Augustine's as well as that given by Gregory in his Commentary on Ezekiel. The meaning, then, is this. Such a one will go in, i.e., into the Church, by believing - "I shall go over into the place of the wonderful tabernacle" (Ps 41:5), and this is to enter the Church Militant; and out, from the Church Militant into the Church Triumphant - "Go forth, O daughters of Zion, and behold King Solomon, with the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of the wedding" (Song 3:11); and find pasture, that is, the pastures of doctrine and grace in the Church Militant - "He makes me lie down in green pastures"; and the pastures of glory in the Church Triumphant: "I will feed them with good pasture" (Ez 34:14).

Fourthly, there is an explanation found in the work, On the Spirit and the Soul, which has been incorrectly attributed to Augustine. Here it is said that such a one will go in, that is, the saints will go in to contemplate the divinity of Christ, and out, to consider his humanity; and they will find pasture in both, because in both they will taste the joys of contemplation: "Your eyes shall see the king in his beauty" (Is 33:17).

The thief cometh not but for to steal, and to kill. As if He said, And well may the sheep not hear the voice of the thief; for he cometh not but for to steal: he usurpeth another's office, forming his followers not on Christ's precepts, but on his own. And therefore it follows, and to kill, i. e. by drawing them from the faith; and to destroy, i. e. by their eternal damnation.

(Tr. xlv. 15) But He Himself explains it more satisfactorily to me in what follows: The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and for to kill: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. By going in they have life; i. e. by faith, which worketh by love; by which faith they go into the fold. The just liveth by faith. And by going out they will have it more abundantly: (Heb. 10:38) i. e. when true believers die, they have life more abundantly, even a life which never ends. Though in this fold there is not wanting pasture, then they will find pasture, such as will satisfy them. To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise. (Luke 23:43)

"The thief cometh not, but for to steal." Here it is noted that Christ himself enters as the true shepherd, not as a thief; on account of which he says: "The thief cometh not, but for to steal," by extorting temporal goods; "and to kill," by temporally afflicting his subjects; "and to destroy," by casting them down to hell through evil example. "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly," that is, to preserve life as a shepherd; that "they might have life," namely, the life of grace, concerning which life, above in chapter 6: "This is the bread descending from heaven, which giveth life unto the world"; "and that they might have it more abundantly," namely, the life of glory, concerning which, below in chapter 17: "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." This is called abundant, because it is said in Luke 6: "Good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom."

[On how conversion revealed the true value of existence, which his former pessimism had been unable to perceive]

I have, almost all my life, been quite unable to feel that horror of nonentity, of annihilation, which, say, Dr. Johnson felt so strongly. I felt it for the very first time only in 1947. But that was after I had long been re-converted and thus begun to know what life really is and what would have been lost by missing it.

The Biological sort which comes to us through Nature, and which (like everything else in Nature) is always tending to run down and decay so that it can only be kept up by incessant subsidies from Nature in the form of air, water, food, etc., is Bios. The Spiritual life which is in God from all eternity, and which made the whole natural universe, is Zoe. Bios has, to be sure, a certain shadowy or symbolic resemblance to Zoe: but only the sort of resemblance there is between a photo and a place, or a statue and a man. A man who changed from having Bios to having Zoe would have gone through as big a change as a statue which changed from being a carved stone to being a real man.

And that is precisely what Christianity is about. This world is a great sculptor's shop. We are the statues and there is a rumour going round the shop that some of us are some day going to come to life.

While Our Saviour Christ was saying He Himself was the Door, and teaching that it was His both to admit those whom He would and to keep outside him who is unfit and quite useless for shepherd's work; and moreover, in addition to this, had denounced as thieves and robbers those who were self-appointed to an honour not given them from above; the wretched Pharisees again were taking counsel, deliberating Who this Man was that showed so much boldness, and considering whether He ought not Himself perhaps to be numbered among those whose coming He reproved: for they thought that He too was a false shepherd and a false teacher, as merely self-consecrated by His own determination; not that being God He had been made Man, according to the ancient declaration of the inspired Scripture. And it is indeed probable that even when they had gathered a true knowledge of Him, they rejected it as something which was intolerable to their unbelief, and refused to consider anything which was not in harmony with their own pleasure and their own dear delight; and this was to be leaders of the people and to be spoken of accordingly. When therefore He knew that such were their thoughts and that they so whispered one to another, He did not wait for them to express these ideas more openly, but answered them as was fitting, and declares that the question ought to be decided by testing their actions, as to who was the shepherd, and who was the thief; saying that it would be by no means difficult to thus discriminate, if any one would consider the object and behaviour of each. For the thief cometh, He says, for the destruction of the sheep, since the desire of taking plunder undoubtedly leads to this issue; but the really good shepherd will come without bringing any harm into the sheepfold, but rather will work for their advantage, and whatever he may understand to be for their greatest good, that he will zealously labour for.

Therefore let us now pass as from another image to the truer matter to which the force of the words applies, and let us again consider the Pharisees, how they at that time were acting like false shepherds and false teachers towards such as were, cheated by them; and then let us consider what Christ came to give, and what happiness He came to bring us. They certainly never scrupled to speak falsely, and feigning themselves to be sent from God, they prophesied (according to that which is written) out of their own hearts, and not out of the mouth of the Lord; and besides these, that Theudas also, and Judas of Galilee, drawing away people after them, were destroyed together with those who had been led to join them: but Our Lord Jesus Christ came to bestow upon us eternal life, out of the love which He had towards us. And their aims being so opposite, and the manner of their coming so different, how can it be explained except that their dispositions and offices were of opposite character? Therefore by the test of their behaviour in office we ought to discern. He says, on the one hand what they were, and on the other what He was. For thus it was possible perhaps to persuade the rulers not to think unreasonably of Him any longer by supposing Him to be one of the false shepherds, or one of those who climb up some other way into the sheepfold: but that rather Christ, the Door and the Porter and the Shepherd, had come, not only that the sheep may have life, saith He, but also something more; for besides the restoration to life of those who believe in Him, there is also the certain hope of being blessed with all good things. And probably the word more refers also to this life, meaning what is more abundant or more honourable, and implying the most perfect participation of the Spirit, although very secretly. For the restoration to life is common to both saints and sinners, to both Greeks and Jews, as well as ourselves, for: The dead shall arise, and they that are in the tombs shall awake, and they that are in the earth shall rejoice, according to the sure promise of the Saviour. But the participation of the Holy Spirit is not thus common to all, being the more than life, as it were something beyond that which is common to all; and will be bestowed only upon those who are justified by faith in Christ: and the Divine Paul also will prove this to us, saying: Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall all sleep, hut we-shall not all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For indeed all shall rise from the dead, because this is granted to all nature, through the grace of the Resurrection; and in One, that is, Christ, Who was the first and foremost to break down the dominion of death and attain eternal life, the common lot of humanity was changed and made incorruptible, even as also in one, that is, the first Adam, it was condemned to death and corruption. But there will be at that time an important difference among those who are raised, and very widely distinct will be their destiny. For those who have gone to their rest with faith in Christ, and who have received the earnest of the Spirit in the appointed time of their bodily life, will obtain the most perfect grace, and will be changed to the glory which shall be given from God. But those who have not believed the Son, and have deemed such an excellent reward of no account, shall be once more condemned by His voice, and, sharing with the rest in nothing save in the restoration to life, shall pay the penalty of such prolonged unbelief. For they shall depart down into Hades to be punished, and shall feel unavailing remorse. For, saith He, there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth.

My first religion was pure Paganism, which among sincere men is more shortly described as extreme fear. Then there succeeded a state of mind which is quite real, but for which no proper name has ever been found. The ancients called it Stoicism, and I think it must be what some German lunatics mean (if they mean anything) when they talk about Pessimism. It was an empty and open acceptance of the thing that happens--as if one had got beyond the value of it. And then, curiously enough, came a very strong contrary feeling--that things mattered very much indeed, and yet that they were something more than tragic. It was a feeling, not that life was unimportant, but that life was much too important ever to be anything but life. I hope that this was Christianity.

In considering the war of the Albigensians, we come to the breach in the heart of Europe and the landslide of a new philosophy that nearly ended Christendom for ever. In that case the new philosophy was also a very new philosophy; it was pessimism. It was none the less like modern ideas because it was as old as Asia; most modern ideas are. It was the Gnostics returning; but why did the Gnostics return? Because it was the end of an epoch, like the end of the Empire; and should have been the end of the Church. It was Schopenhauer hovering over the future; but it was also Manichaeus rising from the dead; that men might have death and that they might have it more abundantly.

(Hom. lix. 1) The thief cometh not but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy; this was literally fulfilled in the case of those movers of seditiona, whose followers were nearly all destroyed; deprived by the thief even of this present life. But came, He saith, for the salvation of the sheep; That they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly, in the kingdom of heaven. This is the third mark of difference between Himself, and the false prophets.

Since those who joined Theudas and Judas and the other rebels were killed and perished, He added: "The thief comes only to steal, kill, and destroy," calling them and those like them thieves. "But I," He says, "have come that they may have life." They killed and destroyed their followers, but I came so that they might live and have something more, namely: the communion of the Holy Spirit, by which one must also understand the Kingdom of Heaven. Thus, in Christ all have life, for all shall rise and live; but the righteous shall also receive something more, namely: the Kingdom of Heaven.

Mystically, the thief is the devil, steals by wicked thoughts, kills by the assent of the mind to them, and destroys by acts.

Now he considers the thief. First, he mentions the mark of the thief; secondly, he says that he himself has the opposite characteristic, I came that they may have life.

He says that those who do not enter by the door, i.e., those who have come independently of me, are thieves and robbers; and they are evil. For in the first place, the thief comes only to steal, i.e., to usurp what is not his; these are the agitators and heretics, who fasten on to those who belong to Christ: "He lies in ambush to catch the ones who are poor" (Ps 9:4). Secondly, the thief comes to kill, and he kills by bringing in perverse teachings and evil practices: "As robbers lie in wait for a man…they murder on the way" (Hos 6:9). Thirdly, the thief comes to destroy, by casting into everlasting destruction: "My people have been lost sheep" (Jer 50:6). But these traits are not in me.

I came that they may have life. This is like saying: The above have not come in by me, otherwise they would do as I do. But they do the contrary, because they steal, and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, that is, the life of righteousness, by entering into the Church Militant through faith: "My righteous one shall live by faith" (Heb 10:38). We read of this life in 1 John (3:14) that "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren." And have it abundantly, that is, have eternal life, when they leave the body. We read below of this life: "This is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God" (17:3).

As far as possible, therefore, let the bishop make the offence his own, and say to the sinner, Do thou but return, and I will undertake to suffer death for thee, as our Lord suffered death for me, and for all men. For "the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep; but he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, that is, the devil, and he leaveth the sheep, and fleeth, and the wolf seizes upon them." We must know, therefore, that God is very merciful to those who have offended, and hath promised repentance with an oath. But he who has offended, and is unacquainted with this promise of God concerning repentance, and does not understand His long-suffering and forbearance, and besides is ignorant of the Holy Scriptures, which proclaim repentance, inasmuch as he has never learned them from you, perishes through his folly. But do thou, like a compassionate shepherd, and a diligent feeder of the flock, search out, and keep an account of thy flock.

The Lord Jesus is speaking to His sheep-to those already so, and to those yet to become such-who were then present; for in the place where they were, there were those who were already His sheep, as well as those who were afterwards to become so: and He likewise shows to those then present and those to come, both to them and to us, and to as many also after us as shall yet be His sheep, who it is that had been sent to them. All, therefore, hear the voice of their Shepherd saying, "I am the good Shepherd." He would not add "good," were there not bad shepherds. But the bad shepherds are those who are thieves and robbers, or certainly hirelings at the best.

We understand the Lord Christ as the door, and also as the Shepherd; but who is to be understood as the doorkeeper? For the former two, He has Himself explained: the doorkeeper He has left us to search out for ourselves. And what doth He say of the doorkeeper? "To him," He saith, "the porter [doorkeeper] openeth." To whom doth he open? To the Shepherd. What doth he open to the Shepherd? The door. And who is also the door? The Shepherd Himself.

In respect, then, of the profound nature of this question, I shall tell you what I think. Perhaps we ought to understand the Lord Himself as the doorkeeper: for the shepherd and the door are in human respects as much different from each other as the doorkeeper and the door; and yet the Lord has called Himself both the Shepherd and the door. Why, then, may we not understand Him also as the doorkeeper? For if we look at His personal qualities, the Lord Christ is neither a shepherd, in the way we are accustomed to know and to see shepherds; nor is He a door, for no artisan made Him: but if, because of some point of similarity, He is both the door and the Shepherd, I venture to say, He is also a sheep. True, the sheep is under the shepherd; yet He is both the Shepherd and a sheep. Where is He the Shepherd? Look, here thou hast it; read the Gospel: "I am the good Shepherd." Where is He a sheep? Ask the prophet: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter." Ask the friend of the bridegroom: "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world."

But what are we to say of the hireling? He is not mentioned here among the good. "The good Shepherd," He says, "giveth His life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the Shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth; and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep." The hireling does not here bear a good character, and yet in some respects is useful; nor would he be called an hireling, did he not receive hire from his employer. Who then is this hireling, that is both blameworthy and needful? There are some in office in the church, of whom the Apostle Paul saith, "Who seek their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's." What means that, "Who seek their own"? Who do not love Christ freely, who do not seek after God for His own sake; who are pursuing after temporal advantages, gaping for gain, coveting honors from men. When such things are loved by an overseer, and for such things God is served, whoever such an one may be, he is an hireling who cannot count himself among the children.

But give heed to the fact that even the hirelings are needful. For many indeed in the Church are following after earthly profit, and yet preach Christ, and through them is heard the voice of Christ; and the sheep follow, not the hireling, but the Shepherd's voice speaking through the hireling. Hearken to the hirelings as pointed out by the Lord Himself: "The scribes," He saith, "and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: do what they say; but do not what they do." What else said He but, Listen to the Shepherd's voice speaking through the hirelings? For sitting in Moses' seat, they teach the law of God; therefore God teacheth by them. But if they wish to teach their own things, hear them not, do them not.

Who is the hireling that seeth the wolf coming, and fleeth? He that seeketh his own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's. He is one that does not venture plainly to rebuke an offender. Look, some one or other has sinned-grievously sinned; he ought to be rebuked, to be excommunicated: but once excommunicated, he will turn into an enemy, hatch plots, and do all the injury he can. At present, he who seeketh his own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's, in order not to lose what he follows after, the advantages of human friendship, and incur the annoyances of human enmity, keeps quiet and does not administer rebuke. See, the wolf has caught a sheep by the throat; the devil has enticed a believer into adultery: thou holdest thy peace-thou utterest no reproof. O hireling, thou hast seen the wolf coming and hast fled! Perhaps he answers and says: See, I am here; I have not fled. Thou hast fled, because thou hast been silent; thou hast been silent, because thou hast been afraid. The flight of the mind is fear. Thou stoodest with thy body, thou fleddest in thy spirit.

(Tr. xlvi. 1) Our Lord has acquainted us with two things which were obscure before; first, that He is the Door; and now again, that He is the Shepherd: I am the good Shepherd. (c. xlvii. 1, 3). Above He said that the shepherd entered by the door. If He is the Door, how doth He enter by Himself? Just as He knows the Father by Himself, and we by Him; so He enters into the fold by Himself, and we by Him. We enter by the door, because we preach Christ; Christ preaches Himself. A light shows both other things, and itself too. (Tr. xlvi. 5). There is but one Shepherd. For though the rulers of the Church, those who are her sons, and not hirelings, are shepherds, they are all members of that one Shepherd. (Tr. xlvii. 3). His office of Shepherd He hath permitted His members to bear. Peter is a shepherd, and all the other Apostles: all good Bishops are shepherds. But none of us calleth himself the door. He could not have added good, if there were not bad shepherds as well. They are thieves and robbers; or at least mercenaries.

(Tr. xlvii) Christ was not the only one who did this. And yet if they who did it are members of Him, one and the same Christ did it always. He was able to do it without them; they were not without Him.

(de Verb. Dom. Serm. 1) All these however were good shepherds, not because they shed their blood, but because they did it for the sheep. For they shed it not in pride, but in love. Should any among the heretics suffer trouble in consequence of their errors and iniquities, they forthwith boast of their martyrdom; that they may be the better able to steal under so fair a cloak: for they are in reality wolves. But not all who give their bodies to be burned, are to be thought to shed their blood for the sheep; rather against the sheep; for the Apostle saith, Though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (1 Cor. 13:3) And how hath he even the smallest charity, who does not love connection (convictus) with Christians? to command which, our Lord did not mention many shepherds, but one, I am the good Shepherd.

(de Verb. Dom. Serm. xlix) He seeketh therefore in the Church, not God, but something else. If he sought God he would be chaste; for the soul hath but one lawful husband, God. Whoever seeketh from God any thing beside God, seeketh unchastely.

(de Verb. Dom. Serm. xlix.) The wolf is the devil, and they that follow him; according to' Matthew, Which come to you in sheeps' clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matt. 7:15)

(Tr. xlvi. 8) Lo, the wolf hath seized a sheep by the throat, the devil hath enticed a man into adultery. The sinner must be excommunicated. But if he is excommunicated, he will be an enemy, he will plot, he will do as much harm as he can. Wherefore thou art silent, thou dost not censure, thou hast seen the wolf coming, and fled. Thy body has stood, thy mind has fled. For as joy is relaxation, sorrow contraction, desire a reaching forward of the mind; so fear is the flight of the mind.

(Tr. xlvi. 7) But if the Apostles were shepherds, not hirelings, why did they flee in persecution? And why did our Lord say, When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another? (Mat. 10:23) Let us knock, then will come one, who will explain.

(ad Honor. Ep. clxxx.) A servant of Christ, and minister of His Word and Sacraments, may flee from city to city, when he is specially aimed at by the persecutors, apart from his brethren; so that his flight does not leave the Church destitute. But when all, i. e. Bishops, Clerics, and Laics, are in danger in common, let not those who need assistance be deserted by those who should give it. Let all flee together if they can, to some place of security; but, if any are obliged to stay, let them not be forsaken by those who are bound to minister to their spiritual wants. Then, under pressing persecution, may Christ's ministers flee from the place where they are, when none of Christ's people remain to be ministered to, or when that ministry may be fulfilled by others who have not the same cause for flight. But when the people stay, and the ministers flee, and the ministry ceases, what is this but a damnable flight of hirelings, who care not for the sheep?

(Tr. xlvi. 1) On the good side are the door, the porter, the shepherd, and the sheep; on the bad, the thieves, the robbers, the hirelings, the wolf.

(de Verb. Dom. s. xlix) We must love the shepherd, beware of the wolf, tolerate the hireling. For the hireling is useful so long as he sees not the wolf, the thief, and the robber. When he sees them, he flees.

(Tr. xlvi. 5) Indeed he would not be an hireling, did he not receive wages from the hirer. (c. 6). Sons wait patiently for the eternal inheritance of their father; the hireling looks eagerly for the temporal wages from his hirer; and yet the tongues of both speak abroad the glory of Christ. The hireling hurteth, in that he doeth wrong, not in that he speaketh right: the grape bunch hangeth amid thorns; pluck the grape, avoid the thorn. Many that seek temporal advantages in the Church, preach Christ, and through them Christ's voice is heard; and the sheep follow not the hireling, but the voice of the Shepherd heard through the hireling.

For the sake of his flock the shepherd was sacrificed as though he were a sheep. He did not refuse death. He did not destroy his executioners as he had the power to do, for his passion was not forced on him. He laid down his life for his sheep of his own free will. "I have the power to lay it down," he said, "and I have the power to take it up again." By his passion he made atonement for our evil passions, by his death he cured our death, by his tomb he robbed the tomb, by the nails that pierced his flesh he destroyed the foundations of hell.Death held sway until Christ died. The grave was bitter, our prison was indestructible, until the Shepherd went down and brought to his sheep confined there the good news of their release. His appearance among them gave them a pledge of their resurrection and called them to a new life beyond the grave. "The good Shepherd lays down his life for his sheep" and so seeks to win their love.

"I am the good shepherd." The Lord showed himself to be the good shepherd with regard to the good shepherd's entrance; here he shows secondly with regard to the good shepherd's affection; and he does this indeed in the following manner. First, Christ's friendship toward his sheep is shown; second, his diligence; third, his providence; fourth, his munificence; fifth, from this, the discord of the Jews.

First, therefore, Christ's true friendship toward the sheep is shown in comparison to the love of hirelings, which is not true love. Therefore he says: "I am the good shepherd," and he shows this: "the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep," from the vehement love which he has for them; whence he himself said below in the fifteenth chapter: "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." Such a shepherd was Paul, who said in Second Corinthians twelve: "Most gladly will I spend and be spent for your souls." Not so the hireling; on account of which he says:

It is asked concerning what he says: "The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep."

From this it seems that a prelate is bound to die for his subjects. But against this: To suffer martyrdom is a work of supererogation; but no one is bound to works of supererogation unless he has bound himself by a vow: therefore it seems that a prelate is not bound to this.

Likewise it seems that all are bound to this; 1 John 3: "We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."

It must be said that to die for the Lord's flock can be in three ways: either for promoting it from good to better, and thus it is a matter of supererogation with respect to all prelates; or for freeing it from imminent danger, and thus every prelate is bound, because he has undertaken the care of the Lord's flock, and "their blood will be required from his hand"; or for one constituted in the extremity of necessity, who cannot escape damnation unless a man exposes himself to death; and thus I say that it is a matter of necessity with respect to all, just as selling one's possessions and giving to the poor when they are in extreme necessity.

And the arguments run according to these ways.

He is called Jesus: Sometimes He calls Himself a shepherd, and says, "I am the good Shepherd." According to a metaphor drawn from shepherds, who lead the sheep, is hereby understood the Instructor, who leads the children-the Shepherd who tends the babes. For the babes are simple, being figuratively described as sheep. "And they shall all," it is said, "be one flock, and one shepherd." The Word, then, who leads the children to salvation, is appropriately called the Instructor (Paedagogue).

The divine Instructor is trustworthy, adorned as He is with three of the fairest ornaments-knowledge, benevolence, and authority of utterance;-with knowledge, for He is the paternal wisdom: "All Wisdom is from the Lord, and with Him for evermore;"-with authority of utterance, for He is God and Creator: "For all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made;"-and with benevolence, for He alone gave Himself a sacrifice for us: "For the good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep;" and He has so given it. Now, benevolence is nothing but wishing to do good to one's neighbour for his sake.

As then we say that it belongs to the shepherd's art to care for the sheep; for so "the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep;" so also we shall say that legislation, in as much as it presides over and cares for the flock of men, establishes the virtue of men, by fanning into flame, as far as it can, what good there is in humanity.

And if the flock figuratively spoken of as belonging to the Lord is nothing but a flock of men, then He Himself is the good Shepherd and Lawgiver of the one flock, "of the sheep who hear Him," the one who cares for them, "seeking," and finding by the law and the word, "that which was lost;" since, in truth, the law is spiritual and leads to felicity.

Feed us, the children, as sheep. Yea, Master, fill us with righteousness, Thine own pasture; yea, O Instructor, feed us on Thy holy mountain the Church, which towers aloft, which is above the clouds, which touches heaven. "And I will be," He says, "their Shepherd," and will be near them, as the garment to their skin. He wishes to save my flesh by enveloping it in the robe of immortality, and He hath anointed my body. "They shall call Me," He says, "and I will say, Here am I." Thou didst hear sooner than I expected, Master. "And if they pass over, they shall not slip," saith the Lord. For we who are passing over to immortality shall not fall into corruption, for He shall sustain us. For so He has said, and so He has willed. Such is our Instructor, righteously good. "I came not," He says, "to be ministered unto, but to minister." Wherefore He is introduced in the Gospel "wearied," because toiling for us, and promising "to give His life a ransom for many." For him alone who does so He owns to be the good shepherd. Generous, therefore, is He who gives for us the greatest of all gifts, His own life; and beneficent exceedingly, and loving to men, in that, when He might have been Lord, He wished to be a brother man; and so good was He that He died for us.

Having previously well and clearly shown how grievously those who lived in earlier times suffered from the hypocrisy of the false prophets and false shepherds, and having made manifest the advantages to be brought about by His own coming; having now also shown His own superiority by comparing the future destinies of the sheep, and being crowned as Conqueror by the votes of truth; He appropriately utters the words, I am the Good Shepherd. 'Certainly therefore,' He says, 'your plans against Me will be vain, since without being able to complain that I wish in any thing to damage the interests of the sheep, ye hesitate not to number Me with those who are wont to do this, and Him Who is truly good ye call evil, losing through your self-regard the ability to judge each matter fairly according to the injunction of the lawgiver.' Therefore He rebukes the rulers as unjust, as quite regardless of the words of Moses, as ignorant of the object of His coming, so that henceforth the prophet Isaiah may be acknowledged to speak truly concerning them, for he says: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that call sweet bitter, and bitter sweet; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. For indeed will they not be found to do this, who treat the True Light, that is, Our Lord Jesus Christ, as darkness, by scrupling not to reckon our Good Shepherd as one of the falsely-named shepherds, or perhaps daring to esteem Him even less honourable than they? For such as professed themselves utterers of the Divine Word, and exercised themselves under the guise of prophecy in robbing the understanding of the common people and in cunningly stealing them from the way of truth, and led their followers astray to do their own pleasure instead of God's,----such as these were held in high esteem by those who seemed to be in power at that time. Certainly Shemaiah the Salamite opposed his own falsehood to God's words, and made himself bold against the reputation of Jeremiah; for the latter was in bonds, and the former had honour from Zedekiah as a reward for his lies. And now the wretched Pharisees going far beyond similar impiety, and characterised by more daring insolence, do not assign to Christ even the position allowed to false teachers. For indeed what did they actually say to some who were listening with great pleasure to His discourse? He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye Him? Wherefore Himself also says concerning them, by the prophet Isaiah: Woe unto them! for they have fled from Me; wretched are they, for they have been impious towards Me: though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against Me. And again: Their rulers shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue. For are they not worthy of every punishment, who foolishly whet their tongue to such a sharpness as to dare to say against Christ such things as are not becoming in any way for us, but only for those who hold similar opinions, either to receive within the ears or heedlessly to repeat?

He explains the proper method of testing a good shepherd, for He teaches that in a struggle for the salvation of the flock such a one ought not to hesitate to give up even life itself freely, a condition which was of course fulfilled by Christ. For man, having yielded to an inclination for sin, at once wandered away from love to God. On this account he was banished from the sacred and Divine fold, I mean the precincts of Paradise; and having been weakened by this calamity, he became the prey of really bitter and implacable wolves, the devil who had beguiled him to sin, and death which had been germinated from sin. But when Christ was announced as the Good Shepherd over all, in the struggle with this pair of wild and terrible beasts, He laid down His life for us. He endured the cross for our sakes that by death He might destroy death, and was condemned for our sakes that He might deliver all men from condemnation for sin, abolishing the tyranny of sin by means of faith, and nailing to His cross the bond that was against us, as it is written. Accordingly, the father of sin used to put us in Hades like sheep, delivering us over to death as our shepherd, according to what is said in the Psalms: but the really Good Shepherd died for our sakes, that He might take us out of the dark pit of death and prepare to enfold us among the companies of heaven, and give unto us mansions above, even with the Father, instead of dens situate in the depths of the abyss or the recesses of the sea. Wherefore also He somewhere says to us: Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

The ordinary weaknesses of human nature will explain all the weaknesses of bureaucracy and business government all over the world. The official need only be an ordinary man to be more indifferent to other people's children than to his own; and even to sacrifice other people's family prosperity to his own. He may be bored; he may be bribed; he may be brutal, for any one of the thousand reasons that ever made a man a brute. All this elementary common sense is entirely left out of account in our educational and social systems of today. It is assumed that the hireling will not flee, and that solely because he is a hireling. It is denied that the shepherd will lay down his life for the sheep; or for that matter, even that the she-wolf will fight for the cubs. We are to believe that mothers are inhuman; but not that officials are human. There are unnatural parents, but there are no natural passions; at least, there are none where the fury of King Lear dared to find them--in the beadle. Such is the latest light on the education of the young; and the same principle that is applied to the child is applied to the husband and wife. Just as it assumes that a child will certainly be loved by anybody except his mother, so it assumes that a man can be happy with anybody except the one woman he has himself chosen for his wife.

Will you think less of him … because to seek for what had wandered, the good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep came on the mountains and hills on which you used to sacrifice and found the wanderer. And having found it, he took it upon his shoulders, on which he also bore the wood. And having borne the wandering sheep, he brought it back to the life above. And having brought it back, he numbered it among those who have never strayed.

For behold, he who is good not by an accidental gift but essentially, says: "I am the good shepherd." And he adds the pattern of that same goodness for us to imitate, saying: "The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep." He did what he taught; he showed what he commanded. The good shepherd laid down his life for his sheep, so that in our sacrament he might transform his body and blood, and satisfy with the nourishment of his flesh the sheep he had redeemed. The way has been shown to us through contempt of death that we should follow; the pattern has been set before us upon which we should be formed. First it is ours to mercifully spend our external goods on his sheep; but finally, if necessary, even to offer our death for those same sheep. From that first and lesser thing one arrives at the final and greater. But since the soul by which we live is incomparably far better than the earthly substance we possess externally, when will someone who does not give his substance for his sheep give his life for them? And there are some who, because they love earthly substance more than the sheep, deservedly lose the name of shepherd.

(Hom. xiv. in Evang.) And He adds what that goodness (forma bonitatis) is, for our imitation: The good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep. He did what He bade, He set the example of what He commanded: He laid down His life for the sheep, that He might convert His body and blood in our Sacrament, and feed with His flesh the sheep He had redeemed. A path is shown us wherein to walk, despising death; a stamp is applied to us, and we must submit to the impression. Our first duty is to spend our outward possessions upon the sheep; our last, if it be necessary, is to sacrifice our life for the same sheep. Whoso doth not give his substance to the sheep, how can he lay down his life for them?

A Great matter, beloved, a great matter it is to preside over a Church: a matter needing wisdom and courage as great as that of which Christ speaketh, that a man should lay down his life for the sheep, and never leave them deserted or naked; that he should stand against the wolf nobly. For in this the shepherd differs from the hireling; the one always looks to his own safety, caring not for the sheep; the other always seeks that of the sheep, neglecting his own. Having therefore mentioned the marks of a shepherd, Christ hath put two kinds of spoilers; one, the thief who kills and steals; the other, one who doth not these things, but who when they are done doth not give heed nor hinder them.

(Hom. lx. 5) Our Lord shows here that He did not undergo His passion unwillingly; but for the salvation of the world.

When, in reply to this, the Lord had figured the restoration of the lost ewe, to whom else is it credible that he configured it but to the lost heathen, about whom the question was then in hand,-not about a Christian, who up to that time had no existence? Else, what kind of (hypothesis) is it that the Lord, like a quibbler in answering, omitting the present subject-matter which it was His duty to refute, should spend His labour about one yet future? "But a `sheep' properly means a Christian, and the Lord's `flock' is the people of the Church, and the `good shepherd' is Christ; and hence in the `sheep' we must understand a Christian who has erred from the Church's `flock.

So after giving evidence derived from these facts, he said to them, "I am the good Shepherd." Therefore, if I act against the thieves, not only am I not the cause of destruction for those who obey me, but I even invite them to eternal life. And so I appear to be the Shepherd because I work for the good of the sheep. Since he asserts this decisively, he proves his argument even more so, so that he may not appear to vainly portray himself as the good Shepherd. And so, with the intention of demonstrating this with different arguments, as well as the facts themselves, he says, "The good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." If, he says, the good Shepherd is the one who accepts suffering for every affliction of his sheep, since I am going to die for the salvation of the whole world, the testimony about me is beyond doubt. "I am the good Shepherd." Indeed, if the thief kills, on the contrary, not only do I not kill, but I also give new life to men and women after taking death from them. Therefore, in every respect, I appear to be the good Shepherd according to these facts.

Then He speaks also of the sufferings and says: "I lay down My life for the sheep," expressing by this that He goes to His sufferings not by compulsion, but voluntarily. By the word "lay down" He shows that no one takes it from Me, but I Myself give it up.

Here he explains the second clause of the parable, "he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep" (10:2). First, he gives the explanation; secondly, he makes it clear (v 14). First, he explains that he is the good shepherd; secondly, he states the office of a good shepherd (v 11b); thirdly, he shows that the opposite is found in an evil shepherd (v 12).

He says, in regard to the first, I am the good shepherd. That Christ is a shepherd is clear enough, for as a flock is led and fed by the shepherd, so the faithful are nourished by Christ with spiritual food, and even with his own body and blood: "For you were straying like sheep, but now have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls" (1 Pet 2:25); "He will feed his flock like a shepherd" (Is 40:11). To distinguish himself from an evil shepherd and thief, he adds, good. Good, I say, because he fulfills the office of a shepherd, just as a soldier is called good who fulfills the office of a soldier. But since Christ had said above that the shepherd enters by the door, and here he says that he is the shepherd, and before he said he was the door (v 9), then he must enter through himself. And he does enter through himself, because he manifests himself and through himself knows the Father. We, however, enter through him, because it is by him that we are led to happiness.

Note that only he is the door, because no one else is the true light, but only shares in the light: "He," John the Baptizer, "was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light" (1:8). But we read of Christ that "He was the true light, which enlightens every man" (1:9). Therefore, no one else refers to himself as a door; Christ reserved this for himself. But being a shepherd he did share with others, and conferred it on his members: for Peter was a shepherd, and the other apostles were shepherds, as well as all good bishops: "I will give you shepherds after my own heart" (Jer 3:15). Now, although the Church's rulers, who are her children, are all shepherds, as Augustine says, yet he expressly says, I am the good shepherd, in order to emphasize the virtue of charity. For no one is a good shepherd unless he has become one with Christ by love, and has become a member of the true shepherd.

The office of a good shepherd is charity; thus he says, the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. It should be noted that there is a difference between a good shepherd and an evil one: the good shepherd is intent upon the welfare of the flock, but the evil one is intent upon his own. This difference is touched upon by Ezekiel (34:2): "Ho, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?" Therefore, one who uses the flock only to feed himself is not a good shepherd. From this it follows that an evil shepherd, even over animals, is not willing to sustain any loss for the flock, since he does not intend the welfare of the flock, but his own. But a good shepherd, even over animals, endures many things for the flock whose welfare he has at heart. Thus Jacob said in Genesis (31:40): "By day the heat consumed me, and the cold by night." However, when dealing with mere animals it is not necessary that a good shepherd expose himself to death for the safety of the flock. But because the spiritual safety of the human flock outweighs the bodily life of the shepherd, when danger threatens the safety of the flock the spiritual shepherd ought to suffer the loss of his bodily life for the safety of the flock. This is what our Lord says, the good shepherd lays down his life, i.e., his bodily life, for the sheep, the sheep who are his by authority and charity. Both are required, for they must belong to him and he must love them; the first without the second is not enough. Furthermore, Christ has given us an example of this teaching: "He laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren" (1 Jn 3:16).

"But the hireling, and he who is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not," because he does not love them, but the profit for which he serves. On this Gregory says: "A hireling is one who holds the place of the shepherd, but does not seek the profit of souls, who yearns for earthly advantages, who rejoices in the honor of prelacy, who is delighted by the reverence shown to him by men"; of whom can be said that word from Matthew 6: "Amen I say to you, they have received their reward." This one, namely, "sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees," because he fears the wolf and does not love the sheep. "The wolf, as Gregory says, comes upon the sheep when any unjust person oppresses the faithful and the humble." Of such wolves, Acts 20: "I know," Paul says, "that after my departure ravenous wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock." At the coming of such a wolf the hireling leaves the sheep; Zechariah 11: "O shepherd and idol, abandoning the flock!" Upon this hireling's flight follows the scattering of the sheep; and therefore he says: "And the wolf seizes and scatters the sheep": Ezekiel 34: "My flocks were scattered over the face of the earth, and there was none who sought them." And the reason for the aforesaid is given, namely the defect of true friendship.

It is asked here concerning the hireling, whether he should be cast out and prohibited.

That he should be prohibited from the sheep seems to be indicated here, because he is censured.

But that he should be tolerated seems to follow: Philippians 1: "Whether by occasion or by truth Christ is announced, in this also I rejoice and shall rejoice."

But that he should be praised; Luke 15: "How many hirelings in my father's house abound in bread?" There Ambrose says that they abound in faith, hope, and charity.

It must be said that the hireling differs from the thief: because the hireling speaks the truth and preserves the sheep, but the thief speaks falsehood and tears the sheep apart, like a heretic; and this one is entirely to be cast out, but the hireling is to be tolerated. But here there is a twofold distinction: because some serve for a temporal reward, and such a one is to be tolerated, but nevertheless censured: some serve for an eternal reward, and such a one is to be tolerated and approved, but nevertheless is not entirely to be extolled; but one who serves from love alone is to be extolled with praises.

Having made a skilful comparison between the prating speeches and lawless daring of some and the splendour of His own works, and having characterised and described the former as thieves and robbers and climbers into the sheepfold by some other way, and Himself as the really Good Shepherd; He now passes on to speak of the rulers of the Jews themselves, and shows His own leadership to be better than that of the Pharisees. And the demonstration of this again He makes most evident to them by means of a comparison. For He sets in contrast as it were with their heedlessness and indifference His own watchfulness and love; and again accuses them of caring nothing for the flock, whereas He says His care for it was so intense that He despised even life, which to all is so dear. And He explains the proper method of testing a good shepherd, for He teaches that in a struggle for the salvation of the flock such a one ought not to hesitate to give up even life itself freely, a condition which was of course fulfilled by Christ. For man, having yielded to an inclination for sin, at once wandered away from love to God. On this account he was banished from the sacred and Divine fold, I mean the precincts of Paradise; and having been weakened by this calamity, he became the prey of really bitter and implacable wolves, the devil who had beguiled him to sin, and death which had been germinated from sin. But when Christ was announced as the Good Shepherd over all, in the struggle with this pair of wild and terrible beasts, He laid down His life for us. He endured the cross for our sakes that by death He might destroy death, and was condemned for our sakes that He might deliver all men from condemnation for sin, abolishing the tyranny of sin by means of faith, and nailing to His cross the bond that was against us, as it is written. Accordingly, the father of sin used to put us in Hades like sheep, delivering us over to death as our shepherd, according to what is said in the Psalms: but the really Good Shepherd died for our sakes, that He might take us out of the dark pit of death and prepare to enfold us among the companies of heaven, and give unto us mansions above, even with the Father, instead of dens situate in the depths of the abyss or the recesses of the sea. Wherefore also He somewhere says to us: Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. These words apply to the sheep tended by Christ: but let us now consider the state of the flocks of those others. Surely, by him who looks carefully and fairly into their condition, those others will be detected as nothing else than hirelings and false shepherds and wretches and betrayers and cowards, who have never taken any thought for the benefit of the sheep, but eagerly grasp on every side at whatever seems pleasing in any way to themselves individually. For they were hirelings, according to the Saviour's words, whose own the sheep were not. No: the sheep were Christ's, Who hired those men from the beginning, and appointed the priests to the highest honours and headships over the people of the Jews: but they, [dishonouring] so dignified [a position], and altogether neglecting the sheepfold, betrayed the sheep to the wolf, and we will briefly explain how they did it. In earlier times the numerous people of the Jews acknowledged God only for their king: to Him they paid the half-shekel, to Him they offered sacrifices and brought the observance of the Law as a sort of tribute. But there came upon them like some savage wolf a man of foreign race, imposing on them the name and the reality of slavery, and laying on them the yoke of a human sovereignty, compelling them somehow to adopt a strange and unwonted manner of life, demanding tribute, plundering the kingdom of God. For it was of course necessary for them when reduced to such distress to submit to the enactments of their conqueror. The foreigner came, overthrowing the rule which is from God, that is, the tribe ordained to minister in holy things, to whom judgment and the magistracy were committed by God; changing everything and exercising oppression; causing his own image to be struck on the coins, and practising all manner of arrogance. Against such intolerable insolence the shepherds did not show vigilance. They saw the wolf coming, and abandoned the flock, and fled, for the sheep were not their own; they did not call upon Him Who was able to help, Who delivered them out of the hands of the people of Babylon, and turned away the Assyrians, Who slew by the hand of an angel a hundred and eighty five thousand of the foreigners. And that the people of Israel were in no small degree injured and demoralised by the acceptance of the rule of the aliens, I mean under those of foreign race, thou mayest learn from the actual result. For at one time Pilate rebuked the unlawful boldness of the Jews, because they bade him crucify the Lord, and when he publicly said: Shall I crucify your King? they then actually at once threw aside their servitude under God, and burst asunder the bonds of their old allegiance, and proceeded to subject themselves as it were to a new yoke, exclaiming without more ado: We have no king but Caesar. And these things, both what the people did and what they cried out, appeared to their leaders to be right and proper; certainly therefore we must ascribe to them the authorship of all the people's misfortunes. So they are condemned, and very reasonably, as betrayers of the sheep, as wretches and cowards and most certainly 12 fond of fighting, even refusing altogether to protect and defend the sheep placed in their charge. Wherefore also God reproves them, saying: For the shepherds became brutish, and did not seek the Lord; therefore none of the flock had understanding, and they were scattered. From the events themselves therefore it is made manifest that Christ is a really Good Shepherd of sheep, but that the others are corrupters rather than good [shepherds] and are altogether to be excluded from any praise for sincerity.

The ordinary weaknesses of human nature will explain all the weaknesses of bureaucracy and business government all over the world. The official need only be an ordinary man to be more indifferent to other people's children than to his own; and even to sacrifice other people's family prosperity to his own. He may be bored; he may be bribed; he may be brutal, for any one of the thousand reasons that ever made a man a brute. All this elementary common sense is entirely left out of account in our educational and social systems of today. It is assumed that the hireling will not flee, and that solely because he is a hireling. It is denied that the shepherd will lay down his life for the sheep; or for that matter, even that the she-wolf will fight for the cubs. We are to believe that mothers are inhuman; but not that officials are human. There are unnatural parents, but there are no natural passions; at least, there are none where the fury of King Lear dared to find them--in the beadle. Such is the latest light on the education of the young; and the same principle that is applied to the child is applied to the husband and wife. Just as it assumes that a child will certainly be loved by anybody except his mother, so it assumes that a man can be happy with anybody except the one woman he has himself chosen for his wife.

He is called not a shepherd but a hireling who feeds the Lord's sheep not out of heartfelt love but for temporal wages. Indeed, a hireling is one who holds the position of shepherd but does not seek the profit of souls; he gapes after earthly advantages, rejoices in the honor of his office, feeds on temporal gains, and delights in the reverence shown him by men. For these are the wages of the hireling: that for the very labor he performs in governance, he finds here what he seeks, and remains a stranger to the inheritance of the flock hereafter. But whether one is truly a shepherd or a hireling cannot be known with certainty if no occasion of necessity arises. In times of tranquility, the hireling often stands guard over the flock just as the true shepherd does; but when the wolf comes, it reveals with what spirit each one was standing guard over the flock. For the wolf comes upon the sheep when any unjust man and plunderer oppresses the faithful and humble. But he who appeared to be a shepherd and was not abandons the sheep and flees, because while he fears danger to himself from the wolf, he does not presume to resist his injustice. He flees not by changing his location but by withdrawing his support. He flees because he saw injustice and remained silent. He flees because he hid himself in silence.

But there is another wolf who without ceasing daily tears apart not bodies, but minds, namely the malignant spirit, who prowling around lies in wait for the sheepfolds of the faithful and seeks the deaths of souls. Concerning this wolf it is soon added: "And the wolf seizes and scatters the sheep." The wolf comes and the hireling flees, because the malignant spirit tears apart the minds of the faithful in temptation, and he who holds the place of pastor has no care of solicitude. Souls perish, and he himself rejoices in earthly advantages. The wolf seizes and scatters the sheep when he drags one person into lust, inflames another with avarice, raises another up in pride, divides another through wrath, goads this one with envy, trips up that one in deceit. The devil, as it were, scatters the flock like a wolf when he slays the faithful people through temptations. But against these things the hireling is kindled by no zeal, aroused by no fervor of love: because while he seeks only external advantages, he negligently permits the internal losses of the flock.

(Hom. in Evang. xiv.) Some there are who love earthly possessions more than the sheep, and do not deserve the name of a shepherd. He who feeds the Lord's flock for the sake of temporal hire, and not for love, is an hireling, not a shepherd. An hireling is he who holds the place of shepherd, but seeketh not the gain of souls, who panteth after the good things of earth, and rejoices in the pride of station.

(Hom. in Evang. xiv.) But whether a man be a shepherd or an hireling, cannot be told for certain, except in a time of trial. In tranquil times, the hireling generally stands watch like the shepherd. But when the wolf comes, then every one shows with what spirit he stood watch over the flock.

(Hom. in Evang. xiv.) The wolf too cometh upon the sheep, whenever any spoiler and unjust person oppresses the humble believers. And he who seems to be shepherd, but leaves the sheep and flees, is he who dares not to resist his violence, from fear of danger to himself. He flees not by changing place, but by withholding consolation from his flock. The hireling is inflamed with no zeal against this injustice. He only looks to outward comforts, and overlooks the internal suffering of his flock. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. The only reason that the hireling fleeth, is because he is an hireling; as if to say, He cannot stand at the approach of danger, who doth not love the sheep that he is set over, but seeketh earthly gain. Such an one dares not face danger, for fear he should lose what he so much loves.

(Hom. lx. 5) He then gives the difference between the shepherd and the hireling: But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth.

That "the harvest is great, but the workmen are few," this also is well-known and manifest. Let us, therefore, "ask of the Lord of the harvest" that He would send forth workmen into the harvest; [Matthew 9:37-38] such workmen as "shall skilfully dispense the word of truth;" workmen "who shall not be ashamed;" faithful workmen; workmen who shall be "the light of the world;" [Matthew 5:14] workmen who "work not for the food that perisheth, but for that food which abideth unto life eternal;" [John 6:27] workmen who shall be such as the apostles; workmen who imitate the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; who are concerned for the salvation of men; not "hireling" [John 10:12-13] workmen; not workmen to whom the fear of God and righteousness appear to be gain; not workmen who "serve their belly;" not workmen who "with fair speeches and pleasant words mislead the hearts of the innocent;" [Romans 16:18] not workmen who imitate the children of light, while they are not light but darkness — "men whose end is destruction;" [Philippians 3:9] not workmen who practise iniquity and wickedness and fraud; not "crafty workmen;" [2 Corinthians 11:13] not workmen "drunken" and "faithless;" nor workmen who traffic in Christ; not misleaders; not "lovers of money; not malevolent."

Why, a shepherd like this would be kicked off the farm! The wages held for him until the time of his discharge would be kept from him as compensation! In fact, the master's losses would need to be compensated from this shepherd's savings.

But Christ, confirming these foreshadowings Himself, adds: "The bad shepherd is he who, on seeing the wolf, flees, and leaves the sheep to be torn in pieces." Why, a shepherd like this will be tuned off from the farm; the wages to have been given him at the time of his discharge will be kept from him as compensation; nay, even from his former savings a restoration of the master's loss will be required; for "to him who hath shall be given, but from him who hath not shall be taken away even that which he seemeth to have.

He also hints at the rebels, mentioned more than once. "They," He says, "did not lay down their lives for the sheep, but abandoned their followers, for they were hirelings." But the Lord Himself did the opposite. When they seized Him, He said: "If you seek Me, then let these go their way, that the word might be fulfilled, that none of them perished" (Jn. 18:8–9, 12), and this at a time when the Jews came against Him worse than wolves against sheep. "For they came," it says, "with swords and clubs to seize Him" (Lk. 22:52). By the wolf here one can also understand the mental enemy, whom Scripture calls both a lion (1 Pet. 5:8), and a scorpion (Luke 10:19), and a serpent (Gen. 3:1; Ps. 91:13). It is said that he "snatches" the sheep when he devours someone through an evil deed; he "scatters" when by means of evil thoughts he disturbs the soul. He can rightly be called a thief as well, who "steals" through crafty thoughts, "kills" through consent to them, and "destroys" through the deed itself. Sometimes a malicious thought assails someone — this is the stealing. If the person consents to the wicked suggestion, then, one might say, the devil kills him. And when the person actually carries out the evil, then he perishes. Perhaps this is also what the words mean: "The thief comes only to steal, kill, and destroy."

Now he considers the evil shepherd, showing that he possesses characteristics contrary to those of the good shepherd. First, he mentions the marks of an evil shepherd; secondly, he shows how these marks follow one another (v 12). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he gives the marks of an evil shepherd; secondly, he mentions the danger which threatens the flock because of an evil shepherd: the wolf snatches them and scatters them.

Note that from what has been said about the good and evil shepherd, there are three differences in their traits: first in their intentions; secondly, in their solicitude; and thirdly in their affections.

First, they differ in their intentions, and this is implied by their very names. For the first is called a good shepherd, and this implies that he intends to feed the flock: "Should not shepherds feed the sheep?" (Ez 34:2). But the other one, the evil shepherd, is called a hireling, as though he were intent on his wages. Thus they differ in this: the good shepherd looks to the benefit of the flock, while the hireling seeks mainly his own advantage. This is also the difference between a king and a tyrant, as the Philosopher says, because when a king rules he intends to benefit his subjects, while a tyrant seeks his own interest. So a tyrant is like a hireling: "If it seems right to you, give me my wages" (Zech 11:12).

But may not even good shepherds seek a wage? It seems so, for "Reward those who wait for thee" (Si 36:16); "The Lord God comes…his reward is with him" (Is 40:10); "How many of my father's hired servants have bread enough and to spare!" (Lk 15:17).

I answer that wages can be taken in a general sense and in a proper sense. In a general sense, a wage is anything conferred by reason of merits. And because everlasting life, which is God - "This is true God and eternal life" (1 Jn 5:20) - is conferred by reason of merits, everlasting life is said to be a wage. And this is a wage that every good shepherd can and should seek. In the strict sense, however, a wage is different from an inheritance, and a wage is not sought after by a true child, who is entitled to the inheritance. A wage is sought after by servants and hirelings. Thus, since everlasting life is our inheritance, any one who works with an eye towards it is working as a child; but any one who aims at something different (for example, one who longs for worldly gain, or takes delight in the honor of being a prelate) is a hireling.

Secondly, they differ in their solicitude. We read of the good shepherd that the sheep are his own, not only as a trust, but also by love and solicitude: "I hold you in my heart" (Phil 1:7). On the other hand, it is said of the hireling, whose own the sheep are not, i.e., the hireling has no care for them: "My shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves" (Ez 34:8).

Thirdly, they differ in their affections. For the good shepherd, who loves his flock, lays down his life for it, i.e., he exposes himself to dangers that affect his bodily life. But the evil shepherd, because he has no love for the flock, flees when he sees the wolf. Thus he says, he sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees. Here, the wolf is understood in three ways. First, for the devil as tempting: "What fellowship has a wolf with a lamb? No more has a sinner with a godly man" (Si 13:17). Secondly, it stands for the heretic who destroys: "beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves" (Matt 7:15); "I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock" (Acts 20:29). Thirdly, it stands for the raging tyrant: "Her princes in the midst of her are like wolves" (Ez 22:27). Therefore, the good shepherd must guard the flock against these three wolves, so that when he sees the wolf, i.e., the devil tempting, the deceiving heretic and the raging tyrant, he can oppose him. Against those who do not, we read, "You have not gone up into the breaches, or built up a wall for the house of Israel" (Ez 13:5).

Accordingly, we read of the evil shepherd that he leaves the sheep and flees: "Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock" (Zech 11:17). As if to say: You are not a shepherd, but only appear to be one: "Even her hired soldiers in her midst are like fatted calves; yea, they have turned and fled together, they do not stand" (Jer 46:21).

But in Matthew (10:23) we find the contrary: "When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next." Therefore, it seems to be lawful for a shepherd to flee. I reply that there are two answers to this. One is that given by Augustine in his Commentary on John. There are two kinds of flight: that of the soul and that of the body. When we read here, he leaves the sheep and flees, we can understand it to mean the flight of the soul: for when an evil shepherd fears personal danger from a wolf, he does not dare to resist his injustices but flees, not by running away, but by withdrawing his encouragement, refusing to care for his flock.

This should be the explanation when considering the first kind of wolf, the tempting devil, because it is not necessary to physically flee from the devil.

But since sometimes a shepherd does flee physically because of certain wolves, such as powerful heretics and tyrants, another answer must be given, as found in Augustine's Letter to Honoratus. As he says, it seems lawful to flee, even physically, from the wolves, not only because of the authority of our Lord, as cited above, but because of the example of certain saints, as Athanasius and others, who fled from their persecutors. For what is censured is not the flight itself, but the neglect of the flock; so, if the shepherd could flee without abandoning his flock, it would not be blameworthy. Sometimes it is the prelate himself who is the one sought, and at other times, it is the entire flock. It is obvious that if the prelate alone is sought, others can be assigned to guard the flock in his territory, and console and govern the flock in his place. So if he flees under these circumstances, he is not said to leave the sheep. In this way, it is lawful to flee in certain cases. But if the whole flock is sought, then either all the shepherds should be with the people, or some should remain while the others leave. But if all desert the flock, then these words apply, he sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees.

Here he mentions the twofold danger that threatens. One is the ravaging of the sheep; so he says, and the wolf snatches them, i.e., takes for himself what belongs to another, for the faithful are Christ's sheep. Therefore, leaders of sects and wolves snatch the sheep when they entice Christ's faithful to their own teachings: "My sheep have become food for all the wild beasts" (Ez 34:8). The other danger is that the sheep be scattered; so he says, and scatters them, insofar as some are led astray and others persevere: "My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them" (Ez 34:6).

"But the hireling flees, because he is a hireling, and the sheep are not his concern," that is, because he loves the reward and not the sheep. Whence Gregory: "He who, in presiding over the sheep, does not love the sheep but seeks earthly gain, cannot stand firm in danger for the sheep." Of such is said Ezekiel 13: "You did not go up against the adversary, nor did you set yourselves as a wall for the house of Israel, to stand in battle on the day of the Lord." Gregory: "He flees, because he kept silent," because he was afraid: for fear is flight.

The ordinary weaknesses of human nature will explain all the weaknesses of bureaucracy and business government all over the world. The official need only be an ordinary man to be more indifferent to other people's children than to his own; and even to sacrifice other people's family prosperity to his own. He may be bored; he may be bribed; he may be brutal, for any one of the thousand reasons that ever made a man a brute. All this elementary common sense is entirely left out of account in our educational and social systems of today. It is assumed that the hireling will not flee, and that solely because he is a hireling. It is denied that the shepherd will lay down his life for the sheep; or for that matter, even that the she-wolf will fight for the cubs. We are to believe that mothers are inhuman; but not that officials are human. There are unnatural parents, but there are no natural passions; at least, there are none where the fury of King Lear dared to find them--in the beadle. Such is the latest light on the education of the young; and the same principle that is applied to the child is applied to the husband and wife. Just as it assumes that a child will certainly be loved by anybody except his mother, so it assumes that a man can be happy with anybody except the one woman he has himself chosen for his wife.

Hence it is soon added: "But the hireling flees, because he is a hireling, and the sheep do not pertain to him." For the sole reason why the hireling flees is because he is a hireling. As if it were said openly: He who in presiding over the sheep does not love the sheep but seeks earthly gain cannot stand firm in danger to the sheep. For while he embraces honor, while he rejoices in temporal advantages, he trembles to oppose himself against danger, lest he lose what he loves. But because our Redeemer made known the faults of the false pastor, He again shows the form upon which we ought to be imprinted.

The Lord acts quite differently from this thief. He gives divine life, illuminates both our thoughts with good inspirations and our bodies with good deeds; He gives also something superabundant, namely that we can bring benefit to others as well through the gift of teaching, and also the Kingdom of Heaven, as if granting us some additional reward. He is truly the Good Shepherd, and not a hireling, as were the Jewish leaders, who did not care for the people but had in view only to receive payment from them. For they sought not the benefit of the people, but their own profit from the people.

Now he shows how the above-mentioned marks are related, for the third follows from the first two. Since the evil shepherd seeks his own advantage and has no love or solicitude for the flock, it follows that he is not willing to endure any inconvenience for them. Thus he says of the hireling, he flees, for this reason, because he is a hireling, that is, he seeks his own advantage, which is the first mark; and cares nothing for the sheep, i.e., he does not love them, and is not solicitous for them, which is the second mark. So we read in Job (39:16) about the evil shepherd: "She deals cruelly with her young, as if they were not hers." The opposite is true of the good shepherd, for he seeks the welfare of his flock, and not his own: "Not that I seek the gift; but I seek the fruit which increases to your credit" (Phil 4:17). Furthermore, he is concerned for his sheep, that is, he loves them and is solicitous for them: "I hold you in my heart" (Phil 1:7).

When He saith, "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father," who can be ignorant of His meaning? For He knoweth the Father by Himself, and we by Him. That He hath knowledge by Himself, we know already: that we also have knowledge by Him, we have likewise learned, for this also we have learned of Him. For He Himself hath said: "No one hath seen God at any time; but the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." And so by Him do we also get this knowledge, to whom He hath declared Him. In another place also He saith: "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any one the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." As He then knoweth the Father by Himself, and we know the Father by Him; so into the sheepfold He entereth by Himself, and we by Him.

"I am the good shepherd." Here Christ's diligence toward the sheep is noted, which consists in the discernment and knowledge of the sheep, on account of which he calls himself the good shepherd: wherefore he says: "I am the good shepherd, and I know my sheep, and my sheep know me"; and in this is noted his diligence, according to that word of Proverbs 27: "Be diligent to know the countenance of your cattle, and consider your flocks"; 2 Timothy 2: "The Lord knows who are his." This diligence he makes manifest through a comparison; whence he adds:

You may learn, if you will, the profound wisdom of the most holy Shepherd and instructor, the Lord of the universe and the Word of the Father. He presents himself to us by way of allegory as the shepherd of the sheep, and so in this way serves also as the teacher of children. Speaking through Ezekiel to the Jewish elders, he gives them a salutary example of true care. "I will bind up the injured and will heal the sick; I will bring back the strays and pasture them on my holy mountain." These are the promises of the good Shepherd. Pasture us children like sheep, O Lord. Fill us with your own food, the food of righteousness. As our instructor, feed us on your holy mountain, the church above the clouds that touches the heavens.

Again He exults in having gained the victory and obtained the suffrages [of His hearers to the effect] that He ought to be acknowledged as ruler of the Jews, suffrages not expressed by the open testimony of any, but arising from the investigation of facts which has just been |79 undertaken. For just as after He contrasted His own works with the villainies brought about by the false-prophets, and showed the result of His doings to be better than that of their falsehood: for He says that they came, unbidden, merely to steal and to kill and to destroy, to tell lies and to say things unlawful; but that He Himself was come that the sheep might have not life merely, but also something more; beautifully and rightly He exclaimed: I am the Good Shepherd: so also here, after characterising the really good shepherd as one who is ready to die on behalf of the sheep, and willing to lay down his life for them, whereas the hireling, even the foreign ruler, is a wretch and a coward and worthy of all such names previously given him; since He knows that He Himself is going to lay down His life for the sheep, with good reason He again cries aloud: I am the Good Shepherd. For He Who in all things hath the pre-eminence must of course be superior to all, so that the Psalmist once more may appear truthful, when he says somewhere unto Him: That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words and victorious when Thou art judged.

And besides what has been said, this other matter also deserves consideration. For my own part I think that teaching intended to be of great benefit to the people of the Jews was urged upon them by the Lord, not merely by His own words, but also the utterances of the Prophets, to persuade them to a willingness to think according to right reason, and to know of a certainty that He is the Good Shepherd and the others are not so. And whence? Surely it would not be unreasonable to suppose that even if they were not persuaded by words of His, yet at any rate they would not be unwilling to yield to those of their own Prophets. He accordingly says: I am the Good Shepherd, bringing to their remembrance as it were the words spoken by the voice of Ezekiel and recalling them to the minds of the Jews. For thus speaks the Prophet concerning Christ and those whose lot it was to rule the flock of the Jews: Thus saith the Lord God: O shepherds of Israel, do shepherds feed themselves? do not shepherds feed their flocks? Behold, ye consume the milk, and clothe yourselves with the wool, and ye slay them that are fat; but ye feed not My sheep. The diseased ye have not strengthened, neither have ye refreshed the side, neither have ye bound up the broken, neither have ye turned back the strayed, neither have ye sought the lost; but ye have killed even the strong with hardships. And My sheep were scattered because there were no shepherds, and they became meat to all the beasts of the field: and My sheep were scattered on every mountain, and upon every high hill, and over the face of all the earth; and there was none who sought them or turned them back. For the one aim of the rulers of the Jews was to look only for their own gain, and to make money out of the offerings of their subjects, and to collect tributes, and to impose burdens over and above the law, but certainly not to take any account of anything which was likely to benefit or able to keep in safety the people in their charge. Wherefore again the really excellent Shepherd speaks concerning them in these words: Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My sheep at their hands, and. I will cause them to cease from feeding My sheep; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more: and I will deliver My sheep out of their mouth, and they shall no longer be unto them for meat. And again, after other words: And I will set up One Shepherd over them, and He shall feed them, even My Servant David; and He shall be their Shepherd, and I the Lord will be their God, and David shall be a Prince among them: I the Lord have spoken it. And I will make with David a covenant of peace, and I will cause the evil beasts to disappear out of the land; and they shall dwell in the wilderness and sleep in the woods. And I will set them round about My hill, and I will give you rain, even the rain of blessing, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield her increase. Surely in these words God very well and distinctly declares that the unholy multitude of the Pharisees shall be removed from the leadership of the Jews, and manifestly announces that after them shall be set over the rational flocks of believers He Who is of the seed of David according to the flesh, even Christ. For by Him God hath concluded a covenant of peace, namely, the Evangelic and Divine proclamation, which leads us to reconciliation with God, and wins the kingdom of heaven. Likewise also through Him comes the rain of blessing, that is, the first-fruits of the Spirit, making as it were a fruitful land of the soul in which it dwells. And since the Pharisees caused no small grief to their sheep, in no wise feeding them, but rather suffering them to be in many ways tormented, whereas Christ saved His sheep and was shown to be a giver and promoter of blessings from above, He appears to be right in this which He says of Himself: I am the Good Shepherd.

And let no one find it a stumbling-block, I pray you, that God the Father called Him Who was made Man of the seed of David a servant, although He is by Nature God and Very Son; but let it rather be understood, that He has humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant. He is therefore called by God the Father by a name suitable to His assumed form.

When Jesus says, "I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father," it is equivalent to saying, I shall enter into a close relationship with my sheep, and my sheep shall be brought into a close relationship with me, according to the manner in which the Father is intimate with me, and again I also am intimate with the Father. For God the Father knows his own Son and the fruit of his [i.e., the Father's] substance because he is truly his parent. And again, the Son knows the Father, beholding him as God in truth, since he is begotten of him. In the same way, we also, being brought into a close relationship with God the Father, are called his family and are spoken of as children, according to what he himself said: "Behold, I and the children whom God has given me." Truly, we are called the family of the Son, and in fact we are part of his family. Through our relationship to the Son, we are related to God the Father, because the Only Begotten, who is God of God, was made man, and though separate from all sin, he assumed our human nature.

"I am the good Shepherd." And He adds: "And I know my sheep," that is, I love them, "and my sheep know me." As if He were saying openly: Those who love follow in obedience. For he who does not love the truth has not yet come to know it at all.

Since, therefore, you have heard, most beloved brethren, our peril, consider in the Lord's words also your own peril. See whether you are his sheep, see whether you know him, see whether you know the light of truth. But I say "know" not through faith, but through love. I say "know" not from belief, but from action. For the same John the Evangelist who speaks these things testifies, saying: "He who says that he knows God, and does not keep his commandments, is a liar."

(Hom. in Evang. xiv.) As if He said, I love My sheep, and they love and follow Me. For he who loves not the truth, is as yet very far from knowing it.

From both Christ distinguisheth Himself; from those who came to spoil, by saying, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have more abundantly"; and from those who cared not for the sheep being carried away by wolves, by never deserting them, but even laying down His life for them, that the sheep might not perish. For when they desired to kill Him, He neither altered His teaching, nor betrayed those who believed on Him, but stood firm, and chose to die. Wherefore He continually said, "I am the good Shepherd." Then because His words appeared to be unsupported by testimony, (for though the, "I lay down My life," was not long after proved, yet the, "that they might have life, and that they might have more abundantly," was to come to pass after their departure hence in the life to come,) what doth He? He proveth one from the other; by giving His mortal life (He proveth) that He giveth life immortal. As Paul also saith, "If when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved." (Rom. v. 10.) And again in another place, "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?" (Rom. viii. 32.)

Then because He said above "And the sheep hear his voice, and follow him," lest any should say, "What then is this to those who believe not?" hear what He addeth "And I know My sheep, and am known of Mine." As Paul declared when he said, "God hath not rejected His people whom He foreknew"; and Moses, "The Lord knew those that were His"; "those," He saith, "I mean, whom He foreknew." Then that thou mayest not deem the measure of knowledge to be equal, hear how He setteth the matter right by adding, "I know My sheep, and am known of Mine." But the knowledge is not equal. "Where is it equal?" In the case of the Father and Me, for there, "As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father." Had He not wished to prove this, why should He have added that expression? Because He often ranked Himself among the many, therefore, lest any one should deem that He knew as a man knoweth, He added, "As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father." "I know Him as exactly as He knoweth Me." Wherefore He said, "No man knoweth the Son save the Father, nor the Father save the Son", speaking of a distinct kind of knowledge, and such as no other can possess.

And from this you can learn the difference between a shepherd and a hireling. The hireling does not know the sheep, which comes from the fact that he does not watch over them constantly. For if he constantly watched, he would know them. But the shepherd, such as the Lord is, knows His own sheep, and therefore cares for them, and they in turn know Him, because they benefit from His watchfulness and by habit recognize their Protector. Look. First He knows us, and then we know Him. And it is not possible to know God otherwise than by being known by Him (1 Cor. 13:12). For He first made Himself one with us through the flesh, becoming Man, and then we were made one with Him, receiving the gift of deification. Wishing to show that those who did not believe are unworthy of being known by God and are not His sheep, He said: "I know My own, and My own know Me," as it is written: "The Lord knows those who are His" (2 Tim. 2:19).

Hence the difference of the hireling and the Shepherd. The hireling does not know his sheep, because he sees them so little. The Shepherd knows His sheep, because He is so attractive to them.

For the deceivers did not expose their lives for the sheep, but, like hirelings, deserted their followers. Our Lord, on the other hand, protected His disciples: Let these go their way. (infr. 18:8)

Here our Lord proves his explanation. First, he restates what he intends to prove; secondly, he gives the proof, I know my own (v 14b); and thirdly, he amplifies on it (v 17).

He says, I am the good shepherd, which has been explained above: "As a shepherd seeks out his flock…so will I seek out my sheep" (Ez 34:12).

Then he says, I know my own, he proves what he says. Now he says two things about himself, that he is a shepherd, and that he is good. First, he proves that he is a shepherd; secondly, that he is a good shepherd.

He proves he is a shepherd by the two signs of a shepherd already mentioned. The first of these is that he calls his own sheep by name. Concerning this he says, I know my own: "The Lord knows those who are his" (2 Tim 2:19). I know, I say, not just with mere knowledge only, but with a knowledge joined with approval and love: "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins" (Rev 1:5). The second sign is that the sheep hear his voice and know him. And concerning this he says, and my own know me. My own, I say, by predestination, by vocation and by grace. This is like saying: They love me and obey me. Thus, we must understand that they have a loving knowledge about which we read: "They shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (Jer 31:34).

Now concerning their blasphemous assertion who say that the Son does not perfectly know the Father, we need not wonder: for having once purposed in their mind to wage war against Christ, they impugn also these words of His, "As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father." Wherefore, if the Father only in part knoweth the Son, then it is evident that the Son doth not perfectly know the Father. But if it be wicked thus to speak, and if the Father perfectly knows the Son, it is plain that, even as the Father knoweth His own Word, so also the Word knoweth His own Father, of whom He is the Word.

"As the Father knows me, and I know the Father," so, supply, I know my own, and my own know me. Chrysostom: "'As' is a mark of similitude, not of equality," just as below in chapter 17 the Son, praying to the Father for his disciples, says, "that they may be one, as we also are." This diligence he also makes manifest through its effect: whence he says: "And I lay down my life for my sheep." So the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 15: "I die daily for your glory, brethren"; and the Lord himself, Jeremiah 12: "I have given my beloved soul into the hands of the wicked."

And I know Mine own, and Mine own know Me, even as the Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father.

Without sufficient thought any one might say that by these words the Lord wished to signify nothing more than this:----that He would be well-known to His own people, and would freely bestow knowledge concerning Himself upon those who believe on Him; and also that He would recognize His own people, manifestly implying that the recognition would not be without profit to those whose lot it might be to experience it. For what shall we say is better than being known by God? But since what is here expressed somehow claims for itself a keener scrutiny, especially because He added: As the Father knoweth Me and I know the Father; come and let us proceed towards such an understanding of the words before us. For I do not think that any living being who has a sound mind will say that he has power to be able to attain to such knowledge concerning Christ as that which we may suppose God the Father has concerning Him. For the Father alone knows His own Offspring, and is known by His own Offspring alone. For no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; nor again doth any know what the Father is, save the Son, according to the saying of the Saviour Himself. For that the Father is God and the Son likewise is Very God, we both know and have believed: but what their ineffable Nature is in its Essence is utterly incomprehensible to us and to all other rational creatures. How then shall we know the Son in like measure as the Father doth? For we must consider in what sense He declares that He will recognize us and be recognized by us, as He knoweth the Father and the Father Him.

Therefore we must also investigate what meaning we shall consistently attach to the words so as not to be out of harmony with the context; this we must seek for. For my part, I will not conceal that which comes into my mind; nevertheless let it be accepted [only] by such as are willing. For I think that in these words He means by "knowledge" not simply "acquaintance," but rather employs this word to signify "friendly relationship," either by kinship and nature, or as it were in the participation of grace and honour. In this way it is customary for the children of the Greeks to say they "know" not only those who are of more distant family relationship, but also, even their actual brothers. And that the Divine Scripture too speaks of friendly relationship as knowledge, we shall perceive from what follows. For Christ somewhere says concerning those who were not at all in friendly relationship with Him: Many will say to Me in that day, namely, in the Day of judgment, Lord, Lord, did we not by Thy Name do many mighty works, and cast out devils? Then will I profess unto them, Verily, I say unto you, I never knew you. Again if "knowledge" means simply "acquaintance," how can He Who has all things naked and laid open before His eyes, as it is written. Who even knows all things before they be,----how can He be without knowledge of any living beings? It is therefore quite unintelligible, or rather it is positively impious, to suspect that the Lord is without knowledge of any; and we will rather think that He means to speak of them as brought into no friendly relationship or communion with Him. As though He says: "I do not know you to have been lovers of virtue, or to have honoured My word, or to have joined yourselves unto Me by good works." Conformably with this thou wilt also understand what is spoken with regard to the all-wise Moses, when God says to him: I know thee above all [other men], and thou hast found grace in My sight; which signifies: "Thou, more than any other man, hast been brought into friendly relationship with Me, and hast obtained much grace." And when we say this, we do not take away the signification of "acquaintance" from the word "knowledge," but simply attach a more suitable meaning in harmony with our ideas on the subject. Accordingly, when He says: I know Mine, and am known by Mine, even as the Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father; it is equivalent to saying: "I shall enter into friendly relationship with My sheep, and My sheep shall be brought into friendly relationship with Me, according to the manner in which the Father is intimate with Me, and again I also am intimate with the Father." For just as God the Father knows His own Son and the Fruit of His Substance, by reason of being really His Parent; and again, the Son knows the Father, holding Him as God in truth, inasmuch as He is Begotten of Him: in the same way, we also, being brought into friendly relationship with Him, are called His kindred and are spoken of as children, according to that which was said by Him: Behold, I and the children whom God hath given Me. And we both are and are called the kindred in truth of the Son, and through Him of the Father; because the Only-Begotten, being God of God, was made Man, assuming the same nature as ours, although separate from all sin. Else how are we the offspring of God, and in what way partakers of the Divine Nature? For not in the mere will of Christ to receive us into friendly relationship have we our full measure of boasting, but the power of the thing itself is realised as true by all of us. For the Word of God is a Divine Nature even when in the flesh, and we are His kindred, notwithstanding that He is by Nature God, because of His taking the same flesh as ours. Therefore the manner of the friendly relationship is similar. For as He is closely related to the Father, and through the sameness of their Nature the Father is closely related to Him; so also are we to Him and He to us, in so far as He was made Man. And through Him as through a Mediator are we joined with the Father. For Christ is a sort of link connecting the Supreme Godhead with manhood, being both in the same Person, and as it were combining in Himself these natures which are so different: and on the one hand, as He is by Nature God, He is joined with God the Father; whereas on the other hand, as He is in truth a Man, He is joined with men.

But perhaps some one will say, "Dost thou not see, O fellow, to what a perilous hazard thy argument is leading thee? For if in so far as He became Man we shall think that He knows His own, that is, comes into friendly relationship with His sheep; who remains outside the fold? For they will be all together in friendly relationship, because they are men just as He is Man. Why then does He any longer use the superfluous word 'Mine?' And what is the peculiar mark of those that are really His? For if all are in friendly relationship from the above-mentioned cause, what greater advantage will those who know Him intimately have?"

We say in reply, that the manner of the friendly relationship is common to all, both to those who have known Him and to those who have not known Him; for He became Man, not showing favour to some and not to others, out of partiality, but pitying our fallen nature in its entirety. Yet the manner of the friendly relationship will avail nothing for those who are insolent through unbelief, but rather will be allotted as a distinguishing reward to those who love Him. For just as the doctrine of the resurrection extends to all men, through the Resurrection of the Saviour, Who causes to rise with Himself the nature of man in its entirety, yet it will profit nothing those who love sin, (for they will go down into Hades, receiving restoration to life only that they may be punished as they deserve); nevertheless it will be of great profit to those who have practised the more excellent way of life, (for they will receive the resurrection to the participation of the good things which pass understanding): in just the same way I think the doctrine of the friendly relationship applies to all men, both bad and good, yet is not the same thing to all; but while to those who believe on Him it is the means of true kinship and of the blessings consequent upon that, to those who are not such it is an aggravation of their ingratitude and un-holiness. Such is our opinion on this subject, but let any one who can do so think out the more perfect meaning.

Now however we must notice at the same time how true and carefully accurate the language is, for Christ is not found to treat subjects in inconsistent and varying ways, but to put every separate thing in its own and most suitable place. For He did not say: "Mine know Me and I know Mine," but He introduces in the first place Himself as knowing His own sheep, then afterwards He says that He shall be known by them. And if knowledge be taken in the sense of acquaintance, as we were saying at the beginning it might be, thou wilt understand something like this: "We did not first know Him, but He first knew us." For instance, Paul when writing to some of the Gentiles says something of this sort, as follows:----Wherefore remember, ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For out of His unbounded kindness Christ introduced Himself to the Gentiles, and knew them before that He was known by them. And if knowledge be understood as friendship and relationship, again we say likewise: "It was not we who began this state of things, but the Only-Begotten Son of God." For we did not lay hold of the Godhead which is above our nature, but He Who is in His Nature God took hold of the seed of Abraham, as Paul says, and became Man, so that being made like unto His brethren in all things, except sin, He might receive into friendly relationship him who of himself had not this privilege, that is, man. Therefore, as a matter of course, He says that He first knew us, then afterwards that we knew Him.

And I lay down My life for the sheep.

Thus He was prepared on behalf of those who were now His friends and relations to afford protection in every way, and He promises even willingly to incur peril, giving a proof in fact by taking this upon Himself that He really is the Good Shepherd. For some, abandoning the sheep to the wolves, were well designated on that account as wretches and hirelings; but since He knew that He must strive on their behalf so vigorously as not even to shrink from death, He might with good reason be deemed a Good Shepherd. And by saying: I lay down My life for the sheep, because I am the Good Shepherd, He covertly rebukes the Pharisees, and gives them perhaps to understand that one day they would act thus franticly, and reach such a pitch of madness against Him, as to compass the death of One Who by no means deserved this, but rather was worthy of all praise and admiration, both because of the deeds which He wrought and on account of His excellent skill in the duties of a shepherd.

Nevertheless we must remark that Christ did not unwillingly endure death on our behalf and for our sakes, but is seen to go towards it voluntarily, although very easily able to escape the suffering, if He willed not to suffer. Therefore we shall see, in His willingness even to suffer for us, the excellency of His love towards us and the immensity of His kindness.

Christ did not endure death against his will on our behalf and for our sakes. Rather, we see him go toward it voluntarily, although he could easily escape the suffering if he did not want to suffer. Therefore, in his willingness even to suffer for us, we shall see the excellent quality of his love toward us and the immensity of his kindness.

Hence in this passage the Lord immediately adds: "As the Father knows me, and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for my sheep." As if he were openly saying: In this it is established that I both know the Father and am known by the Father, because I lay down my life for my sheep; that is, by that charity with which I die for the sheep, I show how much I love the Father.

(Hom. in Evang. xiv.) And I lay down My life for My sheep. As if to say, This is why I know My Father, and am known by the Father, because I lay down My life for My sheep; i. e. by My love for My sheep, I show how much I love My Father.

Then because His words appeared to be unsupported by testimony, (for though the, "I lay down My life," was not long after proved, yet the, "that they might have life, and that they might have more abundantly," was to come to pass after their departure hence in the life to come,) what doth He? He proveth one from the other; by giving His mortal life He proveth that He giveth life immortal.

"I lay down My life." This He saith continually, to show that He is no deceiver. So also the Apostle, when he desired to show that he was a genuine teacher, and was arguing against the false apostles, established his authority by his dangers and deaths, saying, "In stripes above measure, in deaths oft." For to say, "I am light," and "I am life," seemed to the foolish to be a matter of pride; but to say, "I am willing to die," admitted not any malice or envy. Wherefore they do not say to Him, "Thou bearest witness of thyself, thy witness is not true," for the speech manifested very tender care for them, if indeed He was willing to give Himself for those who would have stoned Him.

(Hom. lx. 1) Then that thou mayest not attribute to the Shepherd and the sheep the same measure of knowledge, He adds, As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father: i. e. I know Him as certainly as He knoweth Me. This then is a case of like knowledge, the other is not; as He saith, No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father. (Luke 10:23)

(Hom. lx. 1) He gives it too as a proof of His authority. In the same way the Apostle maintains his own commission in opposition to the false Apostles, by enumerating his dangers and sufferings.

The force of love makes a person brave because genuine love counts nothing as hard, or bitter, or serious or deadly. What sword, what wounds, what penalty, what deaths can avail to overcome perfect love? Love is an impenetrable breastplate. It wards off missiles, sheds the blows of swords, taunts dangers, laughs at death. If love is present, it conquers everything.But is that death of the shepherd advantageous to the sheep? Let us investigate. It leaves them abandoned, exposes them defenseless to the wolves, hands over the beloved flock to the gnawing jaws of beasts, gives them over to plunder and exposes them to death. All this is proved by the death of the Shepherd, Christ. From the time when he laid down his life for his sheep and permitted himself to be slain through the fury of the Jews, his sheep have been suffering invasions from the piratical Gentiles. Like prisoners to be slain in jails, they are shut up in the caves of robbers. They are torn unceasingly by persecutors who are like raging wolves. They are snapped at by heretics who are like mad dogs with savage teeth.… In the light of all this, does the Shepherd prove his love for you by his death? Is he proving his love because, when he sees danger threatening his sheep, when he cannot defend his flock, he prefers to die before he sees any evil done to the sheep? But what are we to do, since the Life himself could not die unless he had decided to? Who could have taken life away from the Giver of life if he were unwilling?… Therefore, he willed to die—he who permitted himself to be slain although he was unable to die. And so, let us investigate the strength and the reason of this love, the cause of this death and the utility of this passion. Clearly, there is an established strength, a true reason, a lucid cause, a patent utility in all this blood. For unique power sprang forth from the one death of the Shepherd. For the sake of his sheep the Shepherd met the death that was threatening them. He did this that, by a new arrangement, he might, although captured himself, capture the devil, the author of death; that, although slain himself, he might punish; that, by dying for his sheep, he might open the way for them to conquer death.

Therefore, by giving a pattern like this, the Shepherd went before his sheep; he did not run away from them. He did not surrender the sheep to the wolves, but he consigned the wolves to the sheep. For he enabled his sheep to pick out their robbers in such a way that the sheep, although slain, should live; although mangled, should rise again and, colored by their own blood, should gleam in royal purple and shine with snow-white fleece.In this way, when the good Shepherd laid down his life for his sheep, he did not lose it. In this way he held his sheep; he did not abandon them. Indeed, he did not forsake them but invited them. He called and led them through fields full of death and a road of death to life-giving pastures.

In a later passage He declares that He is known by the Father, and the Father by Him; adding that He was so wholly loved by the Father, that He was laying down His life, because He had received this commandment from the Father.

There is a different way of knowing. You see, I made them my own, for they are my own possession, … and they recognize me as the master. But then he also said, "Just as the Father knows me, I, also, know the Father," as if to say, I know the sameness of the nature and of the substance of the Father, being consubstantial with him, and he also knows mine. Nevertheless, I am not like the earlier teachers or like those who are teachers now, which is why I choose the danger on behalf of the sheep.

Lest anyone think that He was learning as a man, He added: "As the Father knows Me, and I know the Father," that is — I know Him as truly as I know Myself. He frequently repeats "I lay down My life for the sheep" in order to show that He is not a deceiver. For the expressions "I am the Light, I am the Life" seemed arrogant to the foolish. But the words "I wish to die" contain no self-boasting, but on the contrary express great care, since He wishes to give Himself up for the people who were casting stones at Him.

He shows that he is a good shepherd by mentioning that he has the office of a good shepherd, which is to lay down his life for his sheep. First, he shows the reason for this; secondly, he gives a sign of it; and thirdly, he shows the fruit of his sign.

The reason for this sign, that is, of his laying down his life for his sheep, is the knowledge he has of the Father. Concerning this he says, as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. This statement can be explained in two ways. In one way, so that "as" indicates just a similarity in knowledge; and taken this way, such knowledge can be given to a creature: "I shall know even as I am known" (1 Cor 13:12), i.e., as I am known without obscurity, so I will know without obscurity. In another way, the "as" implies an equality of knowledge. And then to know the Father as he is known by him is proper to the Son alone, because only the Son knows the Father comprehensively, just as the Father knows the Son comprehensively: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son" (Matt 11:27), that is, with a comprehensive knowledge. Our Lord says this because in knowing the Father, he knows the will of the Father that the Son should die for the salvation of the human race. He is also saying here that he is the mediator between God and man. For as he is related to the sheep as known by them and as knowing them, so also he is related to the Father, because as the Father knows him, so he knows the Father.

Then when he says, and I lay down my life for the sheep, he gives the sign: "By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us" (1 Jn 3:16). But since there are three substances in Christ, namely the substance of the Word, of the soul, and of the body, one might ask who is speaking when he says, I lay down my life. If you say that the Word is speaking here, it is not true, because the Word never laid down his soul, since He was never separated from his soul. If you say that the soul is speaking, this too seems impossible, because nothing is separated from itself. And if you say that Christ says this referring to his body, it does not seem to be so, because his body does not have the power to take up its soul. Therefore, one must say that when Christ died, his soul was separated from his flesh, otherwise Christ would not have been truly dead. But in Christ, his divinity was never separated from his soul or his flesh; but was united to his soul, as it descended to the lower world, and to his body, as it lay in the tomb. And therefore, his body, by the power of his divinity, laid down his soul by the power of his divinity, and took it up again.

So listen to this unity being even more urgently drawn to your attention: "I have other sheep," he says, "who are not of this fold." He was talking, you see, to the first sheepfold of the race of Israel according to the flesh. But there were others, of the race of the same Israel according to faith, and they were still outside, they were of the Gentiles, predestined but not yet gathered in. He knew those whom he had predestined. He knew those whom he had come to redeem by shedding his blood. He was able to see them, while they could not yet see him. He knew them, though they did not yet believe in him. "I have," he said, "other sheep that are not of this fold," because they are not of the race of Israel according to the flesh. But all the same, they will not be outside this sheepfold, because "I must bring them along too, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd."

Let them all be in the one Shepherd and speak with the one voice of the Shepherd, which the sheep may hear and follow their shepherd, not this or that shepherd, but the one Shepherd. And in him let them all speak with one voice, not with conflicting voices.

But of the one sheepfold and of the one Shepherd, you are now indeed being constantly reminded; for we have commended much the one sheepfold, preaching unity, that all the sheep should enter by Christ, and none of them should follow Donatus. Nevertheless, for what particular reason this was said by the Lord, is sufficiently apparent. For He was speaking among the Jews, and had been specially sent to the Jews, not for the sake of that class who were bound up in their inhuman hatred and persistently abiding in darkness, but for the sake of some in the nation whom He calls His sheep: of whom He saith, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

But perhaps some one thinks that, as He Himself came not to us, but sent, we have not heard His own voice, but only the voice of those whom He sent. Far from it: let such a thought be banished from your hearts; for He Himself was in those whom He sent. Listen to Paul himself whom He sent; for Paul was specially sent as an apostle to the Gentiles; and it is Paul who, terrifying them not with himself but with Him saith, "Do ye wish to receive a proof of Him who speaketh in me, that is, of Christ?" Listen also to the Lord Himself. "And other sheep I have," that is, among the Gentiles, "which are not of this fold," that is, of the people of Israel: "them also must I bring." Therefore, even when it is by the instrumentality of His servants, it is He and not another that bringeth them. Listen further: "They shall hear my voice." See here also, it is He Himself who speaks by His servants, and it is His voice that is heard in those whom He sends. "That there may be one fold, and one shepherd." Of these two flocks, as of two walls, is the corner-stone formed. And thus is He both door and the corner-stone: all by way of comparison, none of them literally.

(de Verb. Dom. s. 1) The sheep hitherto spoken of are those of the stock of Israel according to the flesh. But there were others of the stock of Israel, according to faith, Gentiles, who were as yet out of the fold; predestinated, but not yet gathered together. They are not of this fold, because they are not of the race of Israel, but they will be of this fold: Them also I must bring.

(Tr. xlvii. 4) What does He mean then when He says, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Only, that whereas He manifested Himself personally to the Jews, He did not go Himself to the Gentiles, but sent others.

"And other sheep I have." Here Christ's providence toward the sheep is noted, which consists in the gathering together of his sheep, just as a shepherd gathers the sheep into one, lest they suffer attack.

Therefore he says: "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold," namely the faithful predestined from among the Gentiles: "and them I must bring," as those who are straying: whence First Peter chapter two: "You were as sheep going astray, but are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls." "And they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd," on account of the union of the Church from Jews and Gentiles: whence Ephesians chapter two: "He is our peace, who has made both one," namely Gentiles and Jews into one fold. And he himself is the one shepherd; Ezekiel chapter thirty-four: "I will raise up over them one shepherd, who shall feed them, my servant David."

It is asked concerning what he says: "I have other sheep which are not of this fold": because no sheep is a sheep when it is outside the Church, none is innocent.

Likewise, how does he say: "It is necessary for me to bring them?" Because Matthew fifteen: "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel": therefore he ought not to have brought them.

It must be said that he calls those sheep from the Gentiles, not yet called according to present justice, his own, because they were chosen according to eternal predestination. He brought them by the merit of his passion and by the word of preaching, not his own, but of the Apostles, because he himself in his own person had come specially and principally to preach to the Israelite people, to whom he had been promised and by whom he was to be killed.

And according to this, that passage of Matthew fifteen is to be understood: "I was not sent," etc.

It takes all sorts to make a world; or a church. This may be even truer of a church. If grace perfects nature it must expand all our natures into the full richness of the diversity which God intended when He made them, and heaven will display far more variety than hell. "One fold" doesn't mean "one pool". Cultivated roses and daffodils are no more alike than wild roses and daffodils.

He is called Jesus: Sometimes He calls Himself a shepherd, and says, "I am the good Shepherd." According to a metaphor drawn from shepherds, who lead the sheep, is hereby understood the Instructor, who leads the children-the Shepherd who tends the babes. For the babes are simple, being figuratively described as sheep. "And they shall all," it is said, "be one flock, and one shepherd." The Word, then, who leads the children to salvation, is appropriately called the Instructor (Paedagogue).

"And other sheep there are also," saith the Lord, "which are not of this fold"-deemed worthy of another fold and mansion, in proportion to their faith. "But My sheep hear My voice," understanding gnostically the commandments. And this is to be taken in a magnanimous and worthy acceptation, along with also the recompense and accompaniment of works. So that when we hear, "Thy faith hath saved thee," we do not understand Him to say absolutely that those who have believed in any way whatever shall be saved, unless also works follow. But it was to the Jews alone that He spoke this utterance, who kept the law and lived blamelessly, who wanted only faith in the Lord. No one, then, can be a believer and at the same time be licentious; but though he quit the flesh, he must put off the passions, so as to be capable of reaching his own mansion.

Who, then, is so wicked and faithless, who is so insane with the madness of discord, that either he should believe that the unity of God can be divided, or should dare to rend it-the garment of the Lord-the Church of Christ? He Himself in His Gospel warns us, and teaches, saying, "And there shall be one flock and one shepherd." And does any one believe that in one place there can be either many shepherds or many flocks? The Apostle Paul, moreover, urging upon us this same unity, beseeches and exhorts, saving, "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that ye be joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." And again, he says, "Forbearing one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Do you think that you can stand and live if you withdraw from the Church, building for yourself other homes and a different dwelling, when it is said to Rahab, in whom was prefigured the Church, "Thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all the house of thy father, thou shalt gather unto thee into thine house; and it shall come to pass, whosoever shall go abroad beyond the door of thine house, his blood shall be upon his own head? " Also, the sacrament of the passover contains nothing else in the law of the Exodus than that the lamb which is slain in the figure of Christ should be eaten in one house. God speaks, saying, "In one house shall ye eat it; ye shall not send its flesh abroad from the house." The flesh of Christ, and the holy of the Lord, cannot be sent abroad, nor is there any other home to believers but the one Church. This home, this household of unanimity, the Holy Spirit designates and points out in the Psalms, saying, "God, who maketh men to dwell with one mind in a house." in the house of God, in the Church of Christ, men dwell with one mind, and continue in concord and simplicity.

In divers manners He rattles His blows around the lawless Pharisees; for that they would almost immediately be thrust out from the charge of the sheep and that in their stead He Himself would govern and lead them, He intimates by many sayings. And He throws out hints that, having joined the flocks of the Gentiles to the better disposed of Israel, He will rule not merely the flock of the Jews, but will at once extend the light of His own glory over the whole earth, and call the nations in every quarter to the knowledge of God; not suffering Himself to be known in Judaea only, as was the case in early times, but rather in every country under heaven giving the information which leads to the enjoyment of the true knowledge of God. And that Christ was appointed to be a Guide of the Gentiles unto piety, any one may learn, and very easily; for the inspired Scripture is full of testimonies to this, and perhaps it would not be wrong to pass it over altogether, leaving it to the more studious to seek out such passages; but nevertheless I will adduce two or three sentences from the Prophets concerning this, before I pass on to what follows, Well then, God the Father somewhere says with regard to Christ: Behold, I have given Him for a witness to the Gentiles, a leader and commander to the Gentiles. For Christ bore witness to the Gentiles, giving them instruction unto salvation, and frankly telling them the things whereby they must be saved. And the Divine Psalmist, as if calling those in all quarters into one joyous company, and bidding all under the sun to gather themselves together to a heavenly feast says: O clap your hands, all ye Gentiles; shout unto God with the voice of exultation. But if it may seem good to any one to inquire into the cause of such a glorious and noble act of praise, he will find it clearly expressed: For God is the king of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding: God reigneth over all the Gentiles. And somewhere also he has introduced the Lord Himself announcing in His own words the Evangelic Proclamation to all the Gentiles together; for in the eight and fortieth Psalm He says: Sear this, all ye Gentiles; give ear, all ye inhabitants of the world, both the low-born and the nobles, rich and poor together. My mouth shall speak of wisdom, and the meditation of my heart shall be of understanding. For how shall any one mention any thing wiser than the Gospel precepts, or what shall we find so full of hidden understanding as the instruction which comes through Christ? Therefore, for our explanation must revert to what we began with, He clearly foretells that the multitude of the Gentiles shall be united into one flock with the obedient of Israel. But "For what reason," some one who is more keenly searching into the signification of this passage may say, "does the Saviour, when addressing the rulers of the Jews, and speaking to men whose hearts burned with hatred and envy, reveal mysteries? For tell me why such men should be informed that He would rule the Gentiles, and that He would gather into His own folds the sheep from beyond the limits of Judaea? "What then shall we say to this, and how shall we explain it? Not as to friends does He impart mysteries [to these men], but neither does He deem the explanation of these matters useless to them: on the other hand, He thus speaks because He knew it would profit them as much as anything He could do; for this was His object, although the mind of His hearers, being quite obstinate and not yielding to obedience, remained inflexible. And because He was aware that they knew the writings of Moses and the announcements of the Holy Prophets, and in the Prophets the statements are frequent and abundant that Christ was to |89 convert the Gentiles also to the knowledge of God: on this account He set this matter before them as a most manifest sign that He was clearly the One fore-announced. He publicly declared that He would call even those sheep who were not of the Jewish fold, in order (as we said just now) that they might believe Him to be really the One Whom the company of the holy men had foretold.

But because he had come to redeem not only Judea but also the Gentiles, he adds: "And I have other sheep which are not of this fold, and those I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." The Lord was looking upon our redemption, we who come from the Gentile people, when he said he would bring other sheep also. This you see happening daily, brethren; this you see accomplished today with the reconciled Gentiles. For he makes one fold, as it were, from two flocks, because he unites the Jewish and Gentile peoples in his faith, as Paul attests, who says: "He is our peace, who has made both one." For while he chooses the simple from both nations for eternal life, he leads his sheep to their proper fold.

Let us seek, therefore, dearly beloved brethren, these pastures, in which we may rejoice with the solemnity of so many fellow citizens. Let the very festivity of those who rejoice invite us. Surely if the people were celebrating a market somewhere, if they were gathering at the dedication of some church with a proclaimed solemnity, we would all hasten to be found there together, and each one would be eager to be present, and would consider himself afflicted with grave loss if he did not witness the solemnity of common joy. Behold, in the heavens the joy of the elect citizens is celebrated, all rejoice together over one another in their assembly, and yet we, lukewarm in our love of eternity, burn with no desire, we do not seek to be present at so great a solemnity, we are deprived of joys, and yet we are happy. Let us therefore kindle our spirit, brethren, let faith grow warm again in what it has believed, let our desires burn toward heavenly things, and thus to love is already to go. Let no adversity call us back from the joy of the inner solemnity, because even if someone desires to go to an intended place, no roughness of the road changes his desire. Let no flattering prosperity seduce us, because he is a foolish traveler who, seeing pleasant meadows along the way, forgets to go where he was heading. Therefore let the soul yearn with all desire for the heavenly homeland, let it seek nothing in this world, which it knows it will soon leave behind, so that if we are truly sheep of the heavenly Shepherd, because we are not fixed on the delight of the way, we may be satisfied with eternal pastures upon arrival.

(Hom. xiv.) But as He came to redeem not only the Jews, but the Gentiles, He adds, And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold.

(Hom. Evang. xiv.) Of two flocks He maketh one fold, uniting the Jews and Gentiles in His faith.

Observe again, the word "must," here used, doth not express necessity, but is declaratory of something which will certainly come to pass. As though He had said, "Why marvel ye if these shall follow Me, and if My sheep shall hear My voice? When ye shall see others also following Me and hearing My voice, then shall ye be astonished more." And be not confounded when you hear Him say, "which are not of this fold", for the difference relateth to the Law only, as also Paul saith, "Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision." "Them also must I bring." He showeth that both these and those were scattered and mixed, and without shepherds, because the good Shepherd had not yet come. Then He proclaimeth beforehand their future union, that, "They shall be one fold." Which same thing also Paul declared, saying, "For to make in Himself of twain one new man." (Eph. ii. 15.)

Remember in Thy good mercy the Holy and only Catholic and Apostolic Church throughout the whole world, and all Thy people, and all the sheep of this fold.

This sentence alludes to those among the Gentiles who will believe, because many among the Gentiles as well as many among the Jews are destined to gather together into a single church and to acknowledge one shepherd and one lord, who is Christ. This has indeed actually happened. But at that time the miracles confirmed the words; now the fulfillment of the words confirms the miracles accomplished then even though this did not appear at that time.

This speaks of the Gentiles. They are not of that fold which is under the law. For the Gentiles are not fenced in by the law. For both these are in the dispersion, and those have no shepherds. And the prudent and most capable of faith among the Jews were without shepherds; consequently, all the more so the Gentiles. I "must" gather both the Gentiles and the Jews. The word "must" here does not signify compulsion, but rather that which will inevitably follow. "In Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile" (Gal. 3:28), and no distinction whatsoever. For all share one form, one seal of baptism, one Shepherd, the Word of God and God. Let the Manichaeans be ashamed, who reject the Old Testament, and let them hear that there is one flock and one Shepherd; for one and the same God is the God of the Old and the New Testament.

For there is one sign of baptism for all, and one Shepherd, even the Word of God. Let the Manichean mark; there is but one fold and one Shepherd set forth both in the Old and New Testaments.

Then when he says, and I have other sheep, he sets down the fruit of Christ's death, which is the salvation not only of the Jews but of the Gentiles as well. For since he had said, "I lay down my life for the sheep," the Jews, who regarded themselves as God's sheep - "We thy people, the flock of thy pasture" (Ps 79:13) - could have said that he laid down his life for them alone. But our Lord adds that it is not only for them, but for others too: "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad" (11:51).

In regard to this fruit our Lord does three things. First, he mentions the predestination of the Gentiles; secondly, their vocation through grace; and thirdly their justification.

As to the first he says, and I have other sheep, that is, the Gentiles, that are not of this fold, i.e., of the family of the flesh of Israel, which was in a way a flock: "I will surely gather all of you, O Jacob" (Mic 2:12). For as sheep are enclosed in a fold, so the Jews were kept enclosed within the precepts of the Law, as we read in Galatians (c 3). These other sheep, I say, that is, the Gentiles, I have from my Father through an eternal predestination: "Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage" (Ps 2:8); "I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth" (Is 49:6).

As to the second he says, I must bring them also, i.e., according to the plans of divine predestination it is time to call them to grace.

This seems to conflict with what our Lord says in Matthew (15:24): "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." I answer that Jesus was sent only to the sheep of the house of Israel in the sense of preaching to them personally, as we read in Romans (15:8): "Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs." It was through the apostles that he brought in the Gentiles: "From them I will send survivors to the nations" (Is 66:19).

In regard to the third he says, and they will heed my voice. Here he mentions three things necessary for righteousness in the Christian religion. The first is obedience to the commandments of God. Concerning this he says, and they will heed my voice, i.e., they will observe my commandments: "Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:20); "People whom I had not known," i.e., whom I did not approve, served me. As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me" (Ps 18:43).

The second is the unity of charity, and concerning this he says, so there shall be one flock, i.e., one Church of the faithful from the two peoples, the Jews and the Gentiles: "One faith" (Eph 4:5); "For he is our peace, who has made us both one" (Eph 2:14).

The third is the unity of faith, and in regard to this he says, one shepherd: "They shall all have one shepherd," that is, the Jews and the Gentiles (Ez 37:24).

(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.

(non occ.) And therefore let none shut up his faith within the measure of the Law, but have recourse to the Church in which the grace of the sevenfold Spirit shines forth.

(ubi sup.) Not he that suffers persecution is trodden under foot of men, but he who through fear of persecution falls away. For we can tread only on what is below us; but he is no way below us, who however much he may suffer in the body, yet has his heart fixed in heaven.

(ubi sup.) By the world here we must not understand heaven and earth, but the men who are in the world; or those who love the world for whose enlightenment the Apostles were sent.

(ubi sup.) Or, the mountain is the great righteousness, which is signified by the mountain from which the Lord is now teaching.

(ubi sup.) With what meaning do we suppose the words, to put it under a corn-measure, were said? To express concealment simply, or that the corn-measure has a special signification? The putting the lamp under the corn-measure means the preferring bodily ease and enjoyment to the duty of preaching the Gospel, and hiding the light of good teaching under temporal gratification. The corn-measure aptly denotes the things of the body, whether because our reward shall be measured out to us, as each one shall receive the things done in the body; (2 Cor. 5:10.) or because worldly goods which pertain to the body come and go within a certain measure of time, which is signified by the corn-measure, whereas things eternal and spiritual are contained within no such limit. He places his lamp upon a stand, who subdues his body to the ministry of the word, setting the preaching of the truth highest, and subjecting the body beneath it. For the body itself serves to make doctrine shine more clear, while the voice and other motions of the body in good works serve to recommend it to them that learn.

For it is not absurd if any one will understand the house to be the Church. Or, the house may be the world itself, according to what He said above, Ye are the light of the world.

(Serm. in Mont. i. 7.) Had He only said, That they may see your good works, He would have seemed to have set up as an end to be sought the praises of men, which the hypocrites desire; but by adding, and glorify your Father, he teaches that we should not seek as an end to please men with our good works, but referring all to the glory of God, therefore seek to please men, that in that God may be glorified.

(in loc. quoad sens.) Or, Christ Himself has lighted this lamp, when He filled the earthen vessel of human nature with the fire of His Divinity, which He would not either hide from them that believe, nor put under a bushel that is shut up under the measure of the Law, or confine within the limits of any one oration. The lampstand is the Church, on which He set the lamp, when He affixed to our foreheads the faith of His incarnation.

The Lord has already called his disciples the "salt of the earth" because they seasoned with divine wisdom the hearts of the human race which had been made tasteless by the devil. Now he also calls them the "light of the world." For, illumined by his very own self who is the true and eternal light, they too become light within the darkness. For since he himself is the sun of righteousness, he rightly also calls his disciples "light of the world." Through them, as if through shining rays, he poured the light of his knowledge on the entire world. For by showing the light of truth, the Lord's disciples made the darkness of error flee from people's hearts.

As the doctors by their good conversation are the salt with which the people is salted; so by their word of doctrine they are the light by which the ignorant are enlightened.

He calls the flesh he has assumed a city. For as a city consists in a variety and multitude of inhabitants, so by virtue of his assumed body he contains in himself a certain union of the entire human race. Thus he becomes a city by our union in him, and we through union with his flesh are the community of the city. Therefore he cannot be hidden. Situated on God's lofty height, he is held up to all in admiration of his good works as deserving of contemplation and understanding.But a lamp is not to be lit and hidden under a bushel. For what benefit is derived from keeping light enclosed? Thus the lamp of Christ must not be hidden under a bushel.… Hung on the wood of the cross, it sheds everlasting light on all those who dwell in the church.

It is the nature of a light to emit its rays whithersoever it is carried about, and when brought into a house to dispel the darkness of that house. Thus the world, placed beyond the pale of the knowledge of God, was held in the darkness of ignorance, till the light of knowledge was brought to it by the Apostles, and thenceforward the knowledge of God shone bright, and from their small bodies, whithersoever they went about, light is ministered to the darkness.

Or, the city signifies the flesh which He had taken on Him; because that in Him by this assumption of human nature, there was as it were a collection of the human race, and we by partaking in His flesh become inhabitants of that city. He cannot therefore be hid, because being set in the height of God's power, He is offered to be contemplated of all men in admiration of his works.

Or, the Lord likened the Synagogue to a corn-measure, which only receiving within itself such fruit as was raised, contained a certain measure of limited obedience.

Or, the lamp, i. e. Christ Himself, is set on its stand when He was suspended on the Cross in His passion, to give light for ever to those that dwell in the Church; to give light, He says, to all that are in the house.

He instructs the Apostles to shine with such a light, that in the admiration of their work God may be praised, Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.

He means not that we should seek glory of men, but that though we conceal it, our work may shine forth in honour of God to those among whom we live.

(Verset 14 et suiv.) You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. It teaches the confidence in preaching, so that the apostles are not hidden out of fear, and are not like a lamp under a basket, but rather they freely reveal themselves, so that what they have heard in the inner rooms, they may proclaim on the housetops (Matthew 10:27).

He instructs them what should be the boldness of their preaching, that as Apostles they should not be hidden through fear, like lamps under a corn-measure, but should stand forth with all confidence, and what they have heard in the secret chambers, that declare upon the house tops.

After this He leads on to another, a higher image. Ye are the light of the world. Of the world again; not of one nation, nor of twenty states, but of the whole inhabited earth. And a light to the mind, far better than this sunbeam: like as they were also a spiritual salt. And before they are salt, and now light: to teach thee how great is the gain of these strict precepts, and the profit of that grave discipline: how it binds, and permits not to become dissolute; and causes clear sight, leading men on to virtue.

A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid, neither do men light a candle, and put it under the bushel. Again, by these words He trains them to strictness of life, teaching them to be earnest in their endeavors, as set before the eyes of all men, and contending in the midst of the amphitheatre of the world. For, look not to this, He saith, that we are now sitting here, that we are in a small portion of one corner. For ye shall be as conspicuous to all as a city set on the ridge of a hill, as a candle in a house on the candlestick, giving light.

Where now are they who persevere in disbelieving the power of Christ? Let them hear these things, and let them adore His might, amazed at the power of the prophecy. For consider how great things he promised to them, who were not known even in their own country: that earth and sea should know them, and that they should by their fame reach to the limits of the inhabited world; or rather, not by their fame, but by the working of the good they wrought. For it was not fame that bearing them everywhere made them conspicuous, but also the actual demonstration by their works. Since, as though they had wings, more vehemently than the sunbeam did they overrun the whole earth, sowing the light of godliness.

But here He seems to me to be also training them to boldness of speech. For to say, A city set on a hill cannot be hid, is to speak as declaring His own powers. For as that city can by no means be hidden, so it was impossible that what they preached should sink into silence and obscurity. Thus, since He had spoken of persecutions and calumnies, of plots and wars, for fear they might think that these would have power to stop their mouths; to encourage them, He saith, that so far from being hid, it should over-shine the whole world; and that on this very account they should be illustrious and renowned.

By this then He declares His own power. In what follows, He requires that boldness of speech which was due on their part; thus saying, Neither do men light a candle and put it under the bushel, but on the candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

But to live well must go before to teach well; hence after He had called the Apostles the salt, He goes on to call them the light of the world. Or, for that salt preserves a thing in its present state that it should not change for the worse, but that light brings it into a better state by enlightening it; therefore the Apostles were first called salt with respect to the Jews and that Christian body which had the knowledge of God, and which they keep in that knowledge; and now light with respect to the Gentiles whom they bring to the light of that knowledge.

This city is the Church of which it is said, Glorious things are spoken of thee, thou city of God. (Ps. 87:3.) Its citizens are all the faithful, of whom the Apostle speaks, Ye are fellow-citizens of the saints. (Eph. 2:19.) It is built upon Christ the hill, of whom Daniel thus, A stone hewed without hands (Dan. 2:34.) became a great mountain.

A city set on a hill cannot be hidden though it would; the mountain which bears makes it to be seen of all men; so the Apostles and Priests who are founded on Christ cannot be hidden even though they would, because Christ makes them manifest.

How Christ manifests His saints, suffering them not to be hid, He shows by another comparison, adding, Neither do men light a lamp to put it under a corn-measure, but on a stand.

The lamp is the Divine word, of which it is said, Thy word is a lamp unto my feet. (Ps. 119:105.) They who light this lamp are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Or, men of the world may be figured in the corn-measure as these are empty above, but full beneath, so worldly men are foolish in spiritual things, but wise in earthly things, and therefore like a corn-measure they keep the word of God hid, whenever for any worldly cause he had not dared to proclaim the word openly, and the truth of the faith. The stand for the lamp is the Church which bears the word of life, and all ecclesiastical persons. (vid. Phil. 2:15.)

That is, teaching with so pure a light, that men may not only hear your words, but see your works, that those whom as lamps ye have enlightened by the word, as salt ye may season by your example. For by those teachers who do as well as teach, God is magnified; for the discipline of the master is seen in the behaviour of the family. And therefore it follows, and they shall glorify your Father which is in heaven.

For as the sun sends forth his beams, so the Lord, the Sun of righteousness, sent forth his Apostles to dispel the night of the human race.

You are a light of the world, and a tree ever green.

For what purpose, except that malice may have no access at all to you, or that you may be an example and testimony to the evil? Else, what is (that): "Let your works shine? " Why, moreover, does the Lord call us the light of the world; why has He compared us to a city built upon a mountain; if we do not shine in (the midst of) darkness, and stand eminent amid them who are sunk down? If you hide your lamp beneath a bushel, you must necessarily be left quite in darkness, and be run against by many.

Ye are the light of the world. First He calls them salt and then light. He who reproves what is done in secret is light, "for whatsoever doth make manifest is light" (Eph. 5:13). The apostles did not enlighten one nation only, but the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. He teaches them to struggle and to be strict in living a virtuous life, for they will be in view of all. Do not imagine, He says, that you will be hidden away in some corner, for you will be most visible. See to it, then, that you live blamelessly, lest you become a stumbling block for others.

Neither do men light a candle and put it under the bushel, but on the candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven.

For I, saith He, it is true, have kindled the light, but its continuing to burn, let that come of your diligence: not for your own sakes alone, but also for their sake, who are to profit by these rays, and to be guided unto the truth. Since the calumnies surely shall not be able to obscure your brightness, if you be still living a strict life, and as becomes those who are to convert the whole world. Show forth therefore a life worthy of His grace; that even as it is everywhere preached, so this light may everywhere accompany the same.

Next He sets before them another sort of gain, besides the salvation of mankind, enough to make them strive earnestly, and to lead them unto all diligence. As thus, Ye shall not only, saith He, amend the world, if ye live aright, but ye will also give occasion that God shall be glorified; even as if ye do the contrary, ye will both destroy men, and make God's name to be blasphemed.

And how, it may be asked, shall God be glorified through us, if at least men are to speak evil of us? Nay, not all men, and even they themselves who in envy do this, will in their conscience admire and approve you; even as the outward flatterers of such as live in wickedness do in mind accuse them.

What then? Dost thou command us to live for display and vain glory? Far from it; I say not this; for I did not say, Give ye diligence to bring forward your own good deeds, neither did I say, Show them; but Let your light shine. That is, Let your virtue be great, and the fire abundant, and the light unspeakable. For when virtue is so great, it cannot lie hid, though its pursuer shade it over ten thousand fold. Present unto them an irreprehensible life, and let them have no true occasion of evil speaking; and then, though there be thousands of evil-speakers, no man shall be able to cast any shade upon you. And well did He say, your light, for nothing makes a man so illustrious, how manifold soever his will to be concealed, as the manifestation of virtue. For as if he were clad with the very sunbeam, so he shines, yet brighter than it; not spending his rays on earth, but surmounting also Heaven itself.

Hence also He comforts them more abundantly. For, What though the slander pain you, saith He; yet shall ye have many to honor God on your account. And in both ways your recompence is gathering, as well because God is glorified through you, as because ye are defamed for God's sake. Thus, lest we should on purpose seek to be reproached, on hearing that there is a reward for it: first, He hath not expressed that sentiment simply, but with two limitations, namely, when what is said is false, and when it is for God's sake: and next He signifies how not that only, but also good report, hath its great profit, the glory of it passing on to God. And He holds out to them those gracious hopes. For, saith He, the calumny of the wicked avails not so much as to put all others in the dark, in respect of seeing your light. For then only when you have lost your savor shall they tread you under foot; but not when you are falsely accused, doing right. Yea, rather then shall there be many admiring, not you only, but for your sake your Father also. And He said not God, but your Father; already sowing beforehand the seeds of that noble birth, which was about to be bestowed upon them.

And Himself too, when He was making laws for His own disciples, what said He? "Do miracles, that men may see you"? By no means. But what? "Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven."

He used Himself to tell them that a candle was not usually "pushed away under a bushel, but placed on a candlestick," in order to "give light to all who are in the house." These things the apostles either neglected, or failed to understand, if they fulfilled them not, by concealing any portion of the light, that is, of the word of God and the mystery of Christ.

For what purpose, except that malice may have no access at all to you, or that you may be an example and testimony to the evil? Else, what is (that): "Let your works shine? " Why, moreover, does the Lord call us the light of the world; why has He compared us to a city built upon a mountain; if we do not shine in (the midst of) darkness, and stand eminent amid them who are sunk down? If you hide your lamp beneath a bushel, you must necessarily be left quite in darkness, and be run against by many.

So, what does the Savior mean by the "bucket" under which some people put the lamp? Here by "bucket" he means vice, and by "lamp," virtue. People who intend to perform some illicit act walk in darkness, avoiding, if possible, the light.

Neither do men light a lamp, and put it under a bushel, but on a lamp stand; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Christ says, "It is I Who have kindled the light in you, but it is for you to labor zealously so that you do not extinguish that grace; in this way, the brightness of your life will shine upon others." He says, therefore:

That person places the lamp under a bushel who obscures and conceals the light of good teaching with earthbound interests. Rather, one should place the truth up high "on the lampstand." That indicates the light that shines as a result of bodily service, so that it is presented to believers through their embodied ministry. In this way our voices and tongues and other operations of the body are conveyed into good works by those who are learning.

Of course, the very words of the gospel are self-explanatory. While they feed the hearts of those who knock, they do not hinder the shouts of those who hunger. One must look deeply into the human heart to see in what direction it is turned and on what point its gaze is fixed. Suppose someone desires that his good work be seen by others. Suppose he regards his glory and profit according to the estimation of others and seeks to be elevated in the sight of others. By doing so he fulfills neither of the commands that the Lord has given in this text. For he has sought to practice his justice before the eyes of others, in order to be seen by them. Therefore his light has not caused others to give glory to the Father who is in heaven. He did not wish to have glory rendered to God but to himself. He did not love the will of God but sought advantage for himself. Of such the apostle says, "For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ." The saying "Let your light so shine before others that they may see your good works" is incomplete. He immediately adds the reason why this should be done: "that they may give glory to your Father who is in heaven." This means that even though one is seen by others in doing good works, in one's conscience one ought to have the simple intention of glorifying God. It is only for the sake of God's glory that we should allow our good works to become known.

Yet we all want to be tinkering. Even I would gladly see "Let your light so shine before men" removed from the offertory. It sounds, in that context, so like an exhortation to do our alms that they may be seen by men.

Hyperichius said, 'He who teaches others by his life and not his speech is truly wise.'

He means not that we should seek glory of men, but that though we conceal it, our work may shine forth in honour of God to those among whom we live.

But "let your works shine," saith He; but now all our shops and gates shine! You will now-a-days find more doors of heathens without lamps and laurel-wreaths than of Christians.

For what purpose, except that malice may have no access at all to you, or that you may be an example and testimony to the evil? Else, what is (that): "Let your works shine? " Why, moreover, does the Lord call us the light of the world; why has He compared us to a city built upon a mountain; if we do not shine in (the midst of) darkness, and stand eminent amid them who are sunk down? If you hide your lamp beneath a bushel, you must necessarily be left quite in darkness, and be run against by many.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father Who is in heaven. He did not say, "You must display your virtue," for that is not good; but rather He said only, "Let it shine," so that even your enemies will marvel and glorify not you, but your Father. If we practice virtue, we must practice it for the glory of God, and not for our own glory.

And therefore, after He has exhorted His hearers that they should prepare themselves to bear all things for truth and righteousness, and that they should not hide the good which they were about to receive, but should learn with such benevolence as to teach others, aiming in their good works not at their own praise, but at the glory of God, He begins now to inform and to teach them what they are to teach; as if they were asking Him, saying: Lo, we are willing both to bear all things for Your name, and not to hide Your doctrine; but what precisely is this which Thou forbiddest us to hide, and for which You command us to bear all things? Are You about to mention other things contrary to those which are written in the law? No, says He; for think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

(Serm. in Mont. i. 8.) In this last sentence again there is a double sense; to fulfil the Law, either by adding something which it had not, or by doing what it commands.

(cont. Faust. xix. 7. et seq.) And lastly, because even for them who were under grace, it was hard in this mortal life to fulfil that of the Law, Thou shalt not lust, He being made a Priest by the sacrifice of His flesh, obtained for us this indulgence, even in this fulfilling the Law, that where through our infirmity we could not, we should be strengthened through His perfection, of whom as our head we all are members. For so I think must be taken these words, to fulfil the Law, by adding to it, that is, such things as either contribute to the explanation of the old glosses, or to enable to keep them. For the Lord has showed us that even a wicked motion of the thoughts to the wrong of a brother is to be accounted a kind of murder. The Lord also teaches us, that it is better to keep near to the truth without swearing, than with a true oath to come near to blasphemy.

But how, ye Manichæans, do you not receive the Law and the Prophets, seeing Christ here says, that He is come not to subvert but to fulfil them? To this the heretic Faustusa replies, Whose testimony is there that Christ spoke this? That of Matthew. How was it then that John does not give this saying, who was with Him in the mount, but only Matthew, who did not follow Jesus till after He had come down from the mount? To this Augustine replies, If none can speak truth concerning Christ, but who saw and heard Him, there is no one at this day who speaks truth concerning Him. Why then could not Matthew hear from John's mouth the truth as Christ had spoken, as well as we who are born so long after can speak the truth out of John's book? In the same manner also it is, that not Matthew's Gospel, but also these of Luke and Mark are received by us, and on no inferior authority. Add, that the Lord Himself might have told Matthew the things He had done before He called him. But speak out and say that you do not believe the Gospel, for they who believe nothing in the Gospel but what they wish to believe, believe themselves rather than the Gospel. To this Faustus rejoins, We will prove that this was not written by Matthew, but by some other hand, unknown, in his name. For below he says, Jesus saw a man sitting at the toll-office, Matthew by name. (Mat. 9:9.) Who writing of himself says, 'saw a man,' and not rather 'saw me?' Augustine; Matthew does no more than John does, when he says, Peter turning round saw that other disciple whom Jesus loved; and it is well known that this is the common manner of Scripture writers, when writing their own actions. Faustus again, But what say you to this, that the very assurance that He was not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, was the direct way to rouse their suspicions that He was? For He had yet done nothing that could lead the Jews to think that this was His object. Augustine; This is a very weak objection, for we do not deny that to the Jews who had no understanding, Christ might have appeared as threatening the destruction of the Law and the Prophets. Faustus; But what if the Law and the Prophets do not accept this fulfilment, according to that in Deuteronomy, These commandments that I give unto thee, thou shalt keep, thou shalt not add any thing to them, nor take away. Augustine; Here Faustus does not understand what it is to fulfil the Law, when he supposes that it must be taken of adding words to it. The fulfilment of the Law is love, which the Lord hath given in sending His Holy Spirit. The Law is fulfilled either when the things there commanded are done, or when the things there prophesied come to pass. Faustus; But in that we confess that Jesus was author of a New Testament, what else is it than to confess that He has done away with the Old? Augustine; In the Old Testament were figures of things to come, which, when the things themselves were brought in by Christ, ought to have been taken away, that in that very taking away the Law and the Prophets might be fulfilled wherein it was written that God gave a New Testament. Faustus; Therefore if Christ did say this thing, He either said it with some other meaning, or He spoke falsely, (which God forbid,) or we must take the other alternative, He did not speak it at all. But that Jesus spoke falsely none will aver, therefore He either spoke it with another meaning, or He spake it not at all. For myself I am rescued from the necessity of this alternative by the Manichæan belief, which from the first taught me not to believe all those things which are read in Jesus' name as having been spoken by Him; for that there be many tares which to corrupt the good seed some nightly sower has scattered up and down through nearly the whole of Scripture. Augustine; Manichæus taught an impious error, that you should receive only so much of the Gospel as does not conflict with your heresy, and not receive whatever does conflict with it. We have learned of the Apostle that religious caution, Whoever preaches unto you another Gospel than that we have preached, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8.) The Lord also has explained what the tares signify, not things false mixed with the true Scriptures, as you interpret, but men who are children of the wicked one. Faustus; Should a Jew then enquire of you why you do not keep the precepts of the Law and the Prophets which Christ here declares He came not to destroy but to fulfil, you will be driven either to accept an empty superstition, or to repudiate this chapter as false, or to deny that you are Christ's disciple. Augustine; The Catholics are not in any difficulty on account of this chapter as though they did not observe the Law and the Prophets; for they do cherish love to God and their neighbour, on which hang all the Law and the Prophets. And whatever in the Law and the Prophets was foreshown, whether in things done, in the celebration of sacramental rites, or in forms of speech, all these they know to be fulfilled in Christ and the Church. Wherefore we neither submit to a false superstition, nor reject the chapter, nor deny ourselves to be Christ's disciples. He then who says, that unless Christ had destroyed the Law and the Prophets, the Mosaic rites would have continued along with the Christian ordinances, may further affirm, that unless Christ had destroyed the Law and the Prophets, He would yet be only promised as to be born, to suffer, to rise again. But inasmuch as He did not destroy, but rather fulfil them, His birth, passion, and resurrection, are now no more promised as things future, which were signified by the Sacraments of the Law; but He is preached as already born, crucified, and risen, which are signified by the Sacraments now celebrated by Christians. It is clear then how great is the error of those who suppose, that when the signs or sacraments are changed, the things themselves are different, whereas the same things which the Prophetic ordinance had held forth as promises, the Evangelic ordinance points to as completed. Faustus; Supposing these to be Christ's genuine words, we should enquire what was His motive for speaking thus, whether to soften the blind hostility of the Jews, who when they saw their holy things trodden under foot by Him, would not have so much as given Him a hearing; or whether He really said them to instruct us, who of the Gentiles should believe, to submit to the yoke of the Law. If this last were not His design, then the first must have been; nor was there any deceit or fraud in such purpose. For of laws there be three sorts. The first that of the Hebrews, called the law of sin and death, (Rom. 8:2.) by Paul; the second that of the Gentiles, which he calls the law of nature, saying, By nature the Gentiles do the deeds of the law; (Rom. 2:14.) the third, the law of truth, which he names, The law of the Spirit of life. Also there are Prophets some of the Jews, such as are well known; others of the Gentiles as Paul speaks, A prophet of their own hath said; (Tit. 1:12.) and others of the truth, of whom Jesus speaks, I send unto you wise men and prophets. (Mat. 23:34.) Now had Jesus in the following part of this Sermon brought forward any of the Hebrew observances to show how he had fulfilled them, no one would have doubted that it was of the Jewish Law and Prophets that He was now speaking; but when He brings forward in this way only those more ancient precepts, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, which were promulged of old to Enoch, Seth, and the other righteous men, who does not see that He is here speaking of the Law and Prophets of truth? Wherever He has occasion to speak of any thing merely Jewish, He plucks it up by the very roots, giving precepts directly the contrary; for example, in the case of that precept, An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Augustine; Which was the Law and which the Prophets, that Christ came not to subvert but to fulfil, is manifest, to wit, the Law given by Moses. And the distinction which Faustus draws between the precepts of the righteous men before Moses, and the Mosaic Law, affirming that Christ fulfilled the one but annulled the other, is not so. We affirm that the Law of Moses was both well suited to its temporary purpose, and was now not subverted, but fulfilled by Christ, as will be seen in each particular. This was not understood by those who continued in such obstinate error, that they compelled the Gentiles to Judaize—those heretics, I mean, who were called Nazarenes.

Through these three, God the Trinity is pious, true, and holy, offering a pious law of nature, a true law of Scripture, and a holy law of grace. And through these three, He governs the world, and according to these three, He imprints laws in the rational mind. For all moral law is dependent upon these three. But in the law of nature, they are less distinct and explicit, in the law of Scripture, they are more explicit but less perfect, while in the law of grace they are more explicit and perfect. Hence, the Lord says: I have not come to destroy but to fulfill the law.

I can't say for certain which bits came into Christianity from earlier religions. An enormous amount did. I should find it hard to believe Christianity if that were not so. I couldn't believe that nine hundred and ninety-nine religions were completely false and the remaining one true. In reality, Christianity is primarily the fulfillment of the Jewish religion, but also the fulfillment of what was vaguely hinted in all the religions at their best. What was vaguely seen in them all comes into focus in Christianity—just as God Himself comes into focus by becoming a man.

While it is sinful to abolish the least of the commandments, all the more so the great and most important ones. Hence the Holy Spirit affirms through Solomon: "Whoever despises the little things shall gradually die."Consequently nothing in the divine commandments must be abolished, nothing altered. Everything must be preserved and taught faithfully and devotedly that the glory of the heavenly kingdom may not be lost. Indeed, those things considered least important and small by the unfaithful or by worldly people are not small before God but necessary. For the Lord taught the commandments and did them. Even small things point to the great future of the kingdom of heaven. For this reason, not only words but also deeds are important; and you should not only teach, but what you teach, you should do.

The Son of God, who is the author of the law and the prophets, did not come to abolish the law or the prophets. He gave the people the law that was to be handed down through Moses, and he imbued the prophets with the Holy Spirit for the preaching of the things to come. Therefore he said, "I have come not to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them." He fulfilled the law and the prophets in this way: He brought to pass those things that had been written about him in the law and the prophets. Hence, when he drank the vinegar offered him on the cross, he said, "It is finished," evidently to show that everything written about him in the law and the prophets had been completed, even including the drinking of vinegar. He fulfilled the law at any rate when he completed by the sacrament of his passion the once prefigured mystery of the paschal meal. Consequently the apostle says, "For Christ our paschal lamb has been sacrificed." .

(ord.) Having now exhorted His hearers to undergo all things for righteousness' sake, and also not to hide what they should receive, but to learn more for others' sake, that they may teach others, He now goes on to tell them what they should teach, as though He had been asked, 'What is this which you would not have hid, and for which you would have all things endured? Are you about to speak any thing beyond what is written in the Law and the Prophets;' hence it is He says, Think not that I am come to subvert the Law or the Prophets.

(Verse 17.) Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill. Whether it is that he has fulfilled the prophecies about himself through others, or because by his preaching he has fulfilled those things which before were crude and imperfect on account of the weakness of those who heard them, taking away wrath and excluding retaliation, and suppressing hidden desire in the mind.

Why, who suspected this? or who accused Him, that He should make a defense against this charge? Since surely from what had gone before no such suspicion was generated. For to command men to be meek, and gentle, and merciful, and pure in heart, and to strive for righteousness, indicated no such design, but rather altogether the contrary.

Wherefore then can He have said this? Not at random, nor vainly: but inasmuch as He was proceeding to ordain commandments greater than those of old, saying, "It was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; but I say unto you, Be not even angry;" and to mark out a way for a kind of divine and heavenly conversation; in order that the strangeness thereof might not disturb the souls of the hearers, nor dispose them quite to mutiny against what He said He used this means of setting them right beforehand.

For although they fulfilled not the law, yet nevertheless they were possessed with much conscientious regard to it; and whilst they were annulling it every day by their deeds, the letters thereof they would have remain unmoved, and that no one should add anything more to them. Or rather, they bore with their rulers adding thereto, not however for the better, but for the worse.

Therefore, since Christ in the first place was not of the sacerdotal tribe, and next, the things which He was about to introduce were a sort of addition, not however lessening, but enhancing virtue; He knowing beforehand that both these circumstances would trouble them, before He wrote in their mind those wondrous laws, casts out that which was sure to be harboring there.

Wherefore many things are uttered by Him, far below His proper dignity, and here when He is about to proceed upon His addition to the law, He hath used abundance for correction beforehand. For neither was it once only that He said, "I do not abrogate the law," but He both repeated it again, and added another and a greater thing; in that, to the words, "Think not that I am come to destroy," He subjoined, "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Now this not only obstructs the obstinacy of the Jews, but stops also the mouths of those heretics, who say that the old covenant is of the devil. For if Christ came to destroy his tyranny, how is this covenant not only not destroyed, but even fulfilled by Him? For He said not only, "I do not destroy it;" though this had been enough; but "I even fulfill it:" which are the words of one so far from opposing himself, as to be even establishing it.

And how, one may ask, did He not destroy it? in what way did He rather fulfill either the law or the prophets? The prophets He fulfilled, inasmuch as He confirmed by His actions all that had been said concerning Him; wherefore also the evangelist used to say in each case, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet." Both when He was born, and when the children sung that wondrous hymn to Him, and when He sat on the ass, and in very many more instances He worked this same fulfillment: all which things must have been unfulfilled, if He had not come.

But the law He fulfilled, not in one way only, but in a second and third also. In one way, by transgressing none of the precepts of the law. For that He did fulfill it all, hear what He saith to John, "For thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." And to the Jews also He said, "Which of you convinceth me of sin." And to His disciples again, "The prince of this world cometh, and findeth nothing in me." And the prophet too from the first had said that "He did no sin."

This then was one sense in which He fulfilled it. Another, that He did the same through us also; for this is the marvel, that He not only Himself fulfilled it, but He granted this to us likewise. Which thing Paul also declaring said, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." And he said also, that "He judged sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh." And again, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! yea, we establish the law." For since the law was laboring at this, to make man righteous, but had not power, He came and brought in the way of righteousness by faith, and so established that which the law desired: and what the law could not by letters, this He accomplished by faith. On this account He saith, "I am not come to destroy the law."

But if any one will inquire accurately, he will find also another, a third sense, in which this hath been done. Of what sort is it then? In the sense of that future code of laws, which He was about to deliver to them. For His sayings were no repeal of the former, but a drawing out, and filling up of them. Thus, "not to kill," is not annulled by the saying, Be not angry, but rather is filled up and put in greater security: and so of all the others.

And that for two reasons. First, that by these words He might admonish His disciples, that as He fulfilled the Law, so they should strive to fulfil it. Secondly, because the Jews would falsely accuse them as subverting the Law, therefore he answers the calumny beforehand, but in such a manner as that He should not be thought to come simply to preach the Law as the Prophets had done.

He here asserts two things; He denies that He was come to subvert the Law, and affirms that He was come to fulfil it.

For the same John is called not merely an "angel" of Christ, but withal a "lamp" shining before Christ: for David predicts, "I have prepared the lamp for my Christ; " and him Christ Himself, coming "to fulfil the prophets," called so to the Jews.

But since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them; for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation.

In whatever way he commanded it, in the same way might he also have first uttered that sentiment: "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it." What business, therefore, had you to erase out of the Gospel that which was quite consistent in it? For you have confessed that, in his goodness, he did in act what you deny that he did in word.

Thus Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath: He kept the law thereof, and both in the former case did a work which was beneficial to the life of His disciples, for He indulged them with the relief of food when they were hungry, and in the present instance cured the withered hand; in each case intimating by facts, "I came not to destroy, the law, but to fulfil it," although Marcion has gagged His mouth by this word.

This verity of the gospel then stands unimpaired: "I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them." He also dissipated other doubts, when He declared that the name of God and of the Good belonged to one and the same being, at whose disposal were also the everlasting life and the treasure in heaven and Himself too-whose commandments He both maintained and augmented with His own supplementary precepts.

If also the gospel of Christ is fulfilled in this same precept, but not the Creator's Christ, what is the use of our contending any longer whether Christ did or did not say, "I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it? " In vain has (our man of) Pontus laboured to deny this statement.

He warned us, to be sure, at that time (for elsewhere our Discipline is called "the Way" ), that when, set in "the way" of prayer, we go not unto "the Father" with anger. After that, the Lord, "amplifying the Law," openly adds the prohibition of anger against a brother to that of murder.

For His own servants, may the Lord by His mercy take care that to them it may be lawful even to presume on His goodness! But why are we a (source of) danger to our neighbour? why do we import concupiscence into our neighbour? which concupiscence, if God, in "amplifying the law," do not dissociate in (the way of) penalty from the actual commission of fornication, I know not whether He allows impunity to him who has been the cause of perdition to some other.

Unity, moreover, is everything which is once for all. But for Christ was reserved, as in all other points so in this also, the "fulfilling of the law." Thence, therefore, among us the prescript is more fully and more carefully laid down, that they who are chosen into the sacerdotal order must be men of one marriage; which rule is so rigidly observed, that I remember some removed from their office for digamy.

And since there are some who sometimes assert that they have nothing to do with the law (which Christ has not dissolved, but fulfilled), sometimes catch at such parts of the law as they choose; plainly do we too assert that the law has deceased in this sense, that its burdens-according to the sentence of the apostles-which not even the fathers were able to sustain, have wholly ceased: such (parts), however.

For even if we are just now beginning with the Law in demonstrating (the nature of) adultery, it is justly with that phase of the law which Christ has "not dissolved, but fulfilled." For it is the "burdens" of the law which were "until John," not the remedial virtues.

Think not that I am come to abolish the law, or the prophets: I am not come to abolish, but to fulfill. He was about to introduce new laws, yet He did not want them to think that He was opposed to God. Therefore He says, anticipating the suspicion that many would have, "I have not come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it." How did He fulfill it? First, He did everything which the prophets had foretold concerning Him, which is why the evangelist often says, "So that what was spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled." He also fulfilled every commandment of the law. "For He did no sin, neither was any guile found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22). And He fulfilled and completed the law in yet another way: whatever the law had sketched in outline, Christ fully painted in. The law said, "Do not murder"; but Christ said, "Neither be angry without a cause." So too the painter does not destroy the sketch, but rather completes it.

(Serm. in Mont. i. 8.) By the words, one iota or one point shall not pass from the Law, we must understand only a strong metaphor of completeness, drawn from the letters of writing, iota being the least of the letters, made with one stroke of the pen, and a point being a slight dot at the end of the same letter. The words there show that the Law shall be completed to the very least matter.

Nothing in Sacred Scripture is to be despised as useless, nothing rejected as false, nothing repudiated as wicked, because the Holy Spirit, its most perfect author, could say nothing false, nothing superfluous, nothing deficient. And therefore heaven and earth shall pass away, but the words of sacred Scripture shall not pass away, without being fulfilled. Until indeed heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or one tittle shall pass from the Law, until all things be accomplished, as the Savior attests.

He fulfilled the law at the time by completing the sacrifices of the law and all the examples prefigured in himself … by accepting a body. Certainly he fulfilled the law at the time he confirmed with evangelical grace the precepts of the law he had given. He proceeds to demonstrate he had come to fulfill the law: "Until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not a dot, shall be lost from the law until all is accomplished." Therefore we know from Christ's teaching how true and divine is the preaching of the law. The Lord reveals that not a single iota or a dot will be lost.

From the expression here used pass, we may suppose that the constituting elements of heaven and earth shall not be annihilated.

We are promised a new heaven and a new earth, which the Lord God will make. If new ones are to be created, the old ones will therefore pass away. As for what follows, "Not one iota, not a dot, shall be lost from the law until all is accomplished," this literally shows that even what is considered least important in the law is full of spiritual sacraments, and it is all summed up in the gospel.

(Verse 18.) Until heaven and earth pass away. The new heavens and the new earth are promised to us, which the Lord God will create. Therefore, if new things are to be created, the old things will necessarily pass away. And what follows is:

One iota, or one iota, will not pass from the Law until all is done. It is shown from the figure of the letter, that even what are thought to be the least in the Law, are full of spiritual sacraments, and all are recapitulated in the Gospel. Whose, then, is the erudition and whose teaching, to demonstrate that even diverse sacrifices and those which appear superstitious are fulfilled in daily victims?

"For verily I say unto you, Till Heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all come to pass."

Now what He saith is like this: it cannot be that it should remain unaccomplished, but the very least thing therein must needs be fulfilled. Which thing He Himself performed, in that He completed it with all exactness.

And here He signifies to us obscurely that the fashion of the whole world is also being changed. Nor did He set it down without purpose, but in order to arouse the hearer, and indicate, that He was with just cause introducing another discipline; if at least the very works of the creation are all to be transformed, and mankind is to be called to another country, and to a higher way of practising how to live.

But the "one dot" is not only the iota of the Greeks but also that which among the Hebrews is called the yod. And the "one iota" or "one dot" can symbolically be said to be Jesus, since the beginning of his name is written not only by Greeks with an iota but also by Hebrews with a yod. So Jesus will be the one dot, the Word of God in the law which does not pass from the law until all is accomplished. But the iota might also be (as he himself says) the Ten Commandments of the law, for everything else passes away, but these do not pass away. But neither does Jesus pass away; if he "falls to the ground" he does so willingly, in order to bear much fruit. Again, the "one iota" or "one dot" has mastery over things both in heaven and on earth.

But since all things which should befal from the very beginning of the world to the end of it, were in type and figure foreshewn in the Law, that God may not be thought to be ignorant of any of those things that take place, He therefore here declares, that heaven and earth should not pass till all things thus foreshewn in the Law should have their actual accomplishment.

He fitly mentions the Greek iota, and not the Hebrew jod, because the iota stands in Greek for the number ten, and so there is an allusion to the Decalogue of which the Gospel is the point and perfection.

Amen is a Hebrew word, and may be rendered in Latin, 'vere,' 'fidenter,' or 'fiat;' that is, 'truly,' 'faithfully,' or 'so be it.' The Lord uses it either because of the hardness of heart of those who were slow to believe, or to attract more particularly the attention of those that did believe.

But shall abide in their essence, but pass through renewal.

For amen, I say unto you. The "amen" is an assurance, meaning, "Yes, truly I say unto you." Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be accomplished. He indicates here that the world passes away and undergoes a change in form. He is saying, therefore, that while the universe subsists, not the least letter of the law will pass away. Some say that the "jot" [i.e. the Greek letter iota] and the "tittle" [i.e. accent mark] signify the ten commandments of the law; others say that they indicate the Cross, for the iota is the upright beam of the Cross, and the accent, the transverse beam. Christ is saying, therefore, that everything that was spoken concerning the Cross will be fulfilled.

(ubi sup.) Or, the precepts of the Law are called 'the least,' as opposed to Christ's precepts which are great. The least commandments are signified by the iota and the point. He, therefore, who breaks them, and teaches men so, that is, to do as he does, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Hence we may perhaps conclude, that it is not true that there shall none be there except they be great.

(ubi sup.) Otherwise; he who breaks the least of these commandments, that is, of Moses' Law, and teaches men so, shall be called the least; but he who shall do (these least), and so teach, shall not indeed be esteemed great, yet not so little as he who breaks them. That he should be great, he ought to do and to teach the things which Christ now teaches.

Nothing in Sacred Scripture is to be despised as useless, nothing rejected as false, nothing repudiated as wicked, because the Holy Spirit, its most perfect author, could say nothing false, nothing superfluous, nothing deficient. And therefore heaven and earth shall pass away, but the words of sacred Scripture shall not pass away, without being fulfilled. Until indeed heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or one tittle shall pass from the Law, until all things be accomplished, as the Savior attests. Whoever therefore shall break those things which Scripture teaches, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Whoever sets aside "one of the least of the commandments" of the law is set aside by God as God's enemy and as an inventor of laws opposed to God. And now out of the law of the gospel that one receives the retribution which, under the ancient law, was not defined. For this reason Christ fittingly says, "I am not come to destroy but to fulfill." For that which then was lacking, here is made full. It is said in the law: "Stand in the presence of the elderly" and "If you see the beast of your enemy fallen under its load, go help him lift it up." If anyone transgressed these commandments, there was no retribution specified under the law. So Christ makes up this lack when he says that in the kingdom of heaven such a person will be treated with scorn.

(ord.) By 'break,' is meant, the not doing what one understands rightly, or the not understanding what one has corrupted, or the destroying the perfectness of Christ's additions.

(Hom. in Ev. xii. 1.) Or, by the kingdom of heaven is to be understood the Church, in which that teacher who breaks a commandment is called least, because he whose life is despised, it remains that his preaching be also despised.

From the expression here used, "pass," we may suppose that the constituting elements of heaven and earth shall not be annihilated. Or, He calls the passion, and the cross, the least, which if one shall not confess openly, but be ashamed of them, he shall be least, that is, last, and as it were no man; but to him that confesses it He promises the great glory ofa heavenly calling.

With a beautiful introduction Christ moves beyond the work of the law. He does not intend to abolish it but to enhance it by fulfilling it. He declares that his apostles will not be able to enter heaven unless their righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees. Therefore he bypasses what is laid down in the law, not for the sake of abolishing it, but for the sake of fulfilling it.

(Verse 19 and following) Therefore, whoever shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but he who shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. This chapter, sticking with the previous testimony, in which he said: Not one iota, or one apex, will pass from the Law, until all things are fulfilled. Therefore, he seals the Pharisees, who, despising the commandments of God, establish their own traditions, which do not benefit them in teaching the people if they destroy even a small thing that is commanded in the Law. However, we can also understand that the education of teachers, even if subject to a small sin, leads them down from the highest rank, and it does not benefit them to teach righteousness, which the smallest fault destroys. And let perfect happiness be to fulfill with action what you have taught in words.

This head is closely connected with the preceding. It is directed against the Pharisees, who, despising the commandments of God, set up traditions of their own, and means that their teaching the people would not avail themselves, if they destroyed the very least commandment in the Law. We may take it in another sense. The learning of the master if joined with sin however small, loses him the highest place, nor does it avail any to teach righteousness, if he destroys it in his life. Perfect bliss is for him who fulfils in deed what he teaches in word.

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven."

Thus, having rid Himself of the evil suspicion, and having stopped the mouths of them who would fain gainsay, then at length He proceeds to alarm, and sets down a heavy denunciation in support of the enactments He was entering on.

For as to His having said this in behalf not of the ancient laws, but of those which He was proceeding to enact, listen to what follows, "For I say unto you," saith he, "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven."

For if He were threatening with regard to the ancient laws, how said He, "except it shall exceed?" since they who did just the same as those ancients, could not exceed them on the score of righteousness.

But of what kind was the required excess? Not to be angry, not even to look upon a woman unchastely.

For what cause then doth He call these commandments "least," though they were so great and high? Because He Himself was about to introduce the enactment of them; for as He humbled Himself, and speaks of Himself frequently with measure, so likewise of His own enactments, hereby again teaching us to be modest in everything. And besides, since there seemed to be some suspicion of novelty, He ordered His discourse for a while with reserve.

But when thou hearest, "least in the kingdom of Heaven," surmise thou nothing but hell and torments. For He was used to mean by "the kingdom," not merely the enjoyment thereof, but also the time of the resurrection, and that awful coming. And how could it be reasonable, that while he who called his brother fool, and transgressed but one commandment, falls into hell; the breaker of them all, and instigator of others to the same, should be within the kingdom. This therefore is not what He means, but that such a one will be at that time least, that is, cast out, last. And he that is last will surely then fall into hell. For, being God, He foreknew the laxity of the many, He foreknew that some would think these sayings were merely hyperbolical, and would argue about the laws, and say, What, if any one call another a fool, is he punished? If one merely look on a woman, doth he become an adulterer? For this very cause He, destroying such insolence beforehand, hath set down the strongest denunciation against either sort, as well them who transgress, as them who lead on others so to do.

Knowing then His threat as we do, let us neither ourselves transgress, nor discourage such as are disposed to keep these things.

"But whosoever shall do and teach," saith He, "shall be called great."

For not to ourselves alone, should we be profitable, but to others also; since neither is the reward as great for him who guides himself aright, as for one who with himself adds also another. For as teaching without doing condemns the teacher (for "thou which teachest another," it is said, "teachest thou not thyself"?) so doing but not guiding others, lessens our reward. One ought therefore to be chief in either work, and having first set one's self right, thus to proceed also to the care of the rest. For on this account He Himself hath set the doing before the teaching; to intimate that so most of all may one be able to teach, but in no other way. For one will be told, "Physician, heal thyself." Since he who cannot teach himself, yet attempts to set others right, will have many to ridicule him. Or rather such a one will have no power to teach at all, his actions uttering their voice against him. But if he be complete in both respects, "he shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven."

If even an honourable man blushes to be found in a falsehood, and a wise man lets not fall empty any word he has once spoken, how could it be that the words of heaven should fall to the ground empty? Hence He concludes, Whoso shall break the least of these commandments, &c. And, I suppose, the Lord goes on to reply Himself to the question, Which are the least commandments? Namely, these which I am now about to speak.

Otherwise; the precepts of Moses are easy to obey; Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not commit adultery. The very greatness of the crime is a check upon the desire of committing it; therefore the reward of observance is small, the sin of transgression great. But Christ's precepts, Thou shalt not be angry, Thou shalt not lust, are hard to obey, and therefore in their reward they are great, in their transgression, 'least.' It is thus He speaks of these precepts of Christ, such as Thou shall not be angry, Thou shalt not lust, as 'the least;' and they who commit these lesser sins, are the least in the kingdom of God; that is, he who has been angry and not sinned grievously is secure from the punishment of eternal damnation; yet he does not attain that glory which they attain who fulfil even these least.

Whosoever therefore shall disregard one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. The "least commandments" are those which He Himself is about to give, not those of the law of Moses. He calls them "least" out of humility, to instruct you, O reader, to have moderate thoughts of yourself as you give your teachings. He who "shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven" means he who will be last in the resurrection and who will be cast into gehenna. For such a one shall not enter the kingdom of heaven, far from it! By "kingdom" understand the resurrection. But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. First Christ says, "whosoever shall do," and then, "and shall teach"; for how can I guide another along a road that I have not myself travelled? By the same token, if I practice the commandments, but do not teach them, my reward is not so great. There can even be condemnation, if I do not teach because of spite or sloth.