Leviticus 24

First, concerning the "lamp" and the "lampstand" and the "oil" which is poured into it; second, concerning the "table" and the "shewbread" and their number and those who ought to use them. Let us therefore direct our mind more diligently to the things that are written, and let us pray that the grace of the Lord be granted us for discerning these things, so that in the letters which we read we may recognize what is the will of the Holy Spirit. "Command", it says, "the children of Israel, and let them bring you clean oil pressed from olives for the light, that a lamp may burn always outside the veil in the tabernacle of testimony, and Aaron and his sons shall kindle it from evening until morning before the Lord without ceasing, an everlasting statute throughout your generations. On the clean lampstand you shall kindle the lamps before the Lord until morning". He names a "clean lampstand"; he commands the "lamps" to be kindled by the high priest, and he prescribes that their "light" be supplied from the "oil" which is given by the people. And so, unless the people supply "oil", without doubt the "lamp" will be extinguished and there will be no "light" among the holy things. According to the letter, then, this was the sequence: that the people should contribute "clean oil pressed from olives", so that from it the "light of the lamp" might be supplied; "and Aaron kindled the lamps from evening until morning", providing fuel for the light with the nourishment of the oil which the people had contributed.

But "since the law is spiritual", let us ask of the Lord — if indeed "we have turned to the Lord" — that "the veil of the reading of the old testament be taken away" from us, so that we may be able to perceive what is the meaning of his "lampstand and lamps" according to the spiritual understanding. Before the coming of my Lord Jesus Christ the sun did not rise upon the people of Israel, but it made use of "the light of a lamp". For among them the word of the law and the prophetic word was a "lamp" shut within narrow walls, which could not pour out its light upon the whole earth. For within Judea the knowledge of God was confined, as the prophet also says: "God is known in Judea". But when the "sun of righteousness", our Lord and Savior, rose, and the man was born of whom it is written: "behold a man, the East is his name", throughout the whole world the light of the knowledge of God was poured out. The word of the law, then, and the prophetic word was a "burning lamp", but it burned within the house and could not send its splendor beyond. And that the word of the law and of the prophets is called a "lamp", the Lord himself taught us, saying of John the Baptist: "he was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for an hour to rejoice in his light". And elsewhere he says that "the law and the prophets were until John". And so John is the "burning lamp" in whom the "law" is enclosed "and the prophets". As long, then, as that people had "oil" which it "contributed for the light", the "lamp" was not extinguished. But when among them the oil of mercy, the oil of good works, failed, and no purity was found among them — for clean oil was required for the light — necessarily the "lamp" was extinguished. But why do we say that these things befell them, but are foreign to us? Rather, the Christian has a greater care for procuring oil. For see how the Lord in the gospels names, through a parable, "foolish virgins" who "do not carry oil in their vessels", and so foolish that, since oil for kindling their lamps was lacking to them, they were shut out from the marriage chambers, and to those who knocked, who had neglected the care of the oil, the bridegroom commanded that it be no longer opened. Yet I remember that some time ago, when we were expounding that verse of the hundred and eighteenth psalm in which it is written: "your law is a lamp to my feet, O Lord, and a light to my paths", we showed, according to our ability, the difference between the "lamp" and the "light". For we said that he assigned the "lamp" indeed to the "feet", that is, to the lower parts of the body, but gave the "light" to the "paths", which "paths" in another place are called "eternal paths". Since, then, according to a certain mystical meaning, this world is understood as the lower parts of creation, therefore the "lamp" of the law is recorded as kindled for those who are in this world as it were the feet of the whole creation. But the "light" will be eternal for those "paths" along which in the age to come each one will walk according to his merits. But concerning these things enough has been said in its own place according to our ability. Now therefore, since it is evening and night "until the consummation of the age" and until the new day of the age to come and of the new light shines forth, this "lamp" burns for each one of us, giving so much splendor of light as the abundance of oil has been supplied by the plenty of works. Finally, Job too in a certain place, when he was setting forth the good things of his works, added also this: "when", he says, "the lamp shone above my head". This "lamp", then, shines for each one of us, insofar as it has been kindled with the oil of good works. But if we act wickedly and our works are evil, we not only do not kindle but even extinguish this lamp for ourselves, and there is fulfilled in us that which Scripture says: "he who does evil walks in darkness, and he who hates his brother walks in darkness". For he has extinguished the "lamp" of charity and therefore "walks in darkness". Or does it not seem to you that he has extinguished the "lamp" who has extinguished the "light" of charity? "But he who loves his brother" continues in the light of charity and can say with confidence: "but I am like a fruitful olive tree in the house of God", and: "his sons are like young olive shoots around" his "table". "Oil", therefore, is commanded to be offered by the people, and not oil of any sort whatever, but "clean" oil, and not from any kinds of seeds, as is the custom in various regions, but pressed "from olives", in which a sign of peace is shown. For your works cannot be acceptable to God unless they are performed in peace; as the Apostle James also says: "but the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace". For this reason, I believe, the Lord also handed on to his disciples a faithful deposit, saying: "my peace I give to you, my peace I leave to you". From this "olive", then, let us press the oil of our works, from which a lamp can be kindled for the Lord, "that we may not walk in darkness". Let these things be said by us, insofar as concerns the "lamp of the lampstand" and its "oil".

The twelve loaves on the table of the tabernacle then are the twelve apostles and all those in the church who follow their teaching. Since until the end of time they do not cease to renew the people of God with the nourishment of the word, they are the twelve loaves of proposition which never depart from the table of the Lord. And those same loaves are properly ordered to be made not from just any flour but from the finest wheat, doubtless because all those who minister the word of life to others must first devote themselves to the fruits of virtue. [Thus] they may commend by their actions those things that they counsel in their preaching, being conformed to the example of him who says concerning himself, "Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone." Those same loaves are also properly commanded to be set on the table in two rows of six for the sake of concord (that is to say, charity and fellowship), for the Lord is also said to have sent his disciples out to preach two by two. This suggests figuratively that the holy teachers never disagree with one another in either their defense of truth or their ardor for love.

In the first place, the figure of the twelve apostles is clearly foretold here in the very number of the loaves, for when the Lord appeared in flesh he chose them to be the first of those by whose ministry he gave the food of life to all nations. And then to these same disciples of his (that is, to our apostles), he says in reference to the multitudes hungering in the wilderness, "You give them something to eat." And when five thousand men had been satisfied from the five loaves, they "gathered twelve baskets of fragments," doubtless because those sacraments of the Scriptures which the multitudes are not able to receive belong to the apostles and the apostolic men.

The Old Covenant had its loaves of proposition, but they, as belonging to that covenant, have come to an end. The New Covenant has its heavenly bread and cup of salvation to sanctify both body and soul. For as the bread is for the body, the Word suits the soul.

But now let us see what is written also in what follows concerning the shewbread. "And you shall take", it says, "fine flour and make from it twelve loaves; of two tenths shall be one loaf; and you shall set them in two rows, six loaves in one row, upon the clean table before the Lord. And you shall put upon the row clean frankincense and salt, and the loaves shall be set as a memorial before the Lord; on the day of the sabbaths they shall always be set forth before the Lord by the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant. And it shall be Aaron's and his sons', and they shall eat them in a holy place; for they are the holy of holies. This shall be theirs of the things that are offered to the Lord, an everlasting statute". According to what is written, in the twelve loaves a "memorial before the Lord" seems to be made of the twelve tribes of Israel, and a command to be given that without ceasing these "twelve loaves be set forth in the sight of the Lord"; so that both the memory of the twelve tribes may always be held before him, whereby through these there may seem to be, as it were, a certain entreaty and supplication made for each of them. But such an intercession is small enough and slight. For how much does it avail toward propitiation, where the fruit of each tribe is to be considered through the loaf, and its works through the fruit? But if these things are referred to the greatness of the mystery, you will find that this "memorial" has the effect of an immense propitiation. If you return to that "bread which came down from heaven and gives life to this world", that bread of the presentation "whom God set forth as a propitiator through faith in his blood", and if you look to that "memorial" of which the Lord says: "do this in memory of me", you will find that this is the only "memorial" that makes God propitious to men. If, then, you recall more attentively the ecclesiastical mysteries, in the things which the law writes you will find preformed the image of the future truth. But of these things there is no need to discourse further, since it suffices to be understood by recollection alone. But we can also speak in another way. Every word of God is bread, but there is a difference among the loaves. For there is a certain word which can be brought forth for the common hearing and can teach the multitude concerning the works of mercy and of all beneficence; and this is the bread which will seem common. But there is another which contains hidden things and discourses concerning the faith of God or the knowledge of things. This bread is clean and made from "fine flour". This is "always to be placed in the sight of the Lord and to be set forth upon the clean table". This is set apart for the priests alone and bestowed on the sons of Aaron as an everlasting gift. But lest you suppose that we are relating these things devised by our own imaginings and have not observed them in the divine volumes, I will bring forth for you from the scriptures how among different men a difference of bread was maintained according to the merit of each one. It is related in Genesis that Abraham the patriarch received angels as guests, and likewise also Lot. But Abraham, who excelled in merits, is described as having set before them loaves made from "fine flour", which he also named — that is, hidden and secret ones. But Lot, because he did not have fine flour, set before his guests loaves made from meal; not that he was so poor that he did not have fine flour, he who is written to be not inferior to his uncle in riches, but the difference of the merits of both is designated by these tokens; that he indeed, to whom the mysteries were to be revealed by the Lord and to whom it was said: "I will not hide from my servant Abraham what I am about to do", who was to be instructed and taught concerning the hidden and secret things of God, that man is written to have had loaves "of fine flour"; but that other, to whom nothing of the sacrament was conveyed, but the account of present salvation and life, is written to have had common loaves made from "meal" alone. And so you too, if you have the knowledge of secret things, if you can discourse knowingly and carefully concerning the faith of God, concerning the mystery of Christ, concerning the unity of the Holy Spirit, you offer loaves "of fine flour" to the Lord; but if you employ common admonitions to the people and know only how to treat the moral topic, which pertains to all, know that you have offered common bread.

But let us now see what is the making of these shewbread loaves which are commanded to be "always placed before the Lord". "Of two tenths", it says, "let there be one loaf". He said "two tenths" indeed, but of what measure these "tenths" are he did not specify; although surely it would have been consistent, if he wished the quantity of the fine flour to be known, to name the measure itself of which he commanded "two tenths" to be taken. What, then, is this thing whose measure and amount could neither be specified nor named? The number ten is everywhere found to be perfect; for from it arises the reckoning and origin of every number. Fittingly, therefore, the author and origin of all things, God, is seen to be shown under this number. But if in the church I speak of the Father alone and utter the praises of him alone, I have made a loaf of one tenth. Or if I make a discourse concerning Christ alone and recount his passion and preach his resurrection, I have offered a "loaf" of one tenth. But if I say that the Father is always with the Son and "he does his works", or even if I say that "the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father" and "he who has seen the Son has seen also the Father", and that the Father and the Son are one, then "of two tenths" of clean fine flour I have offered one "loaf", a true loaf, "which gives life to this world". Heretics do not make "one loaf of two tenths", for they deny that the creator God is the Father of Christ, nor do they make the old and new testament "one loaf" and profess one spirit in both instruments. But we say that one and the same Holy Spirit is present in the law and the gospels, and in this way too "of two tenths" we offer "one loaf" of the presentation. Those, therefore, who separate Christ from the creator God his Father — the heretics — and the Jews, who receive the Father alone and do not receive Christ, his Word and Wisdom, do not make "one loaf of two tenths". But we cannot grasp or discover the name or the reckoning of the measure itself, that is, of the substance; yet, confessing the Father and the Son, we make "one loaf of two tenths", not so that one loaf is made of one tenth and another of the other, so that the "two tenths" themselves are separate, but so that these "two tenths" are one mass and "one loaf". How do "two tenths" become one mass? Because I do not separate the Son from the Father nor the Father from the Son: "for he who has seen me", he says, "has seen also the Father". The loaves, then, are made each "of two tenths and are set forth in two rows", that is, in two orders. For if there were one row, the discourse concerning the Father and the Son would be confused and intermingled. But now there is indeed "one loaf" — for there is one will and one substance — but there are "two rows", that is, the two properties of the persons. For we call the Father that one who is not the Son, and the Son this one who is not the Father. And in this way we preserve the "two tenths" in "one loaf" and profess "two rows before the Lord". But truly it belongs, so to speak, to some great baker and highly skilled craftsman to preserve these measures diligently and so to temper the discourse concerning the Father and the Son, to join where it is fitting and again to separate where it is proper, that neither the "two measures" are ever lacking nor that the "one loaf" ever fails to appear. "Twelve loaves", then, are commanded to be made "of" this "fine flour" according to the number of the tribes which were then of the carnal Israel. In which there seems to me to be contained the form of the whole rational nature; for the general orders of the rational creation are thought to be twelve, whose figure was in those twelve tribes. Among which there was one royal order, which is named "Judah". Another was the priestly order, and it is called "Levi". And there was another order neighboring on Judah, which is called "Benjamin", in which order both the temple of God and the altar were placed. Another order was "Issachar and Zebulun and Ephraim" and the others which the divine Scripture designates by name, whose meaning it is not the time now to explain. Yet there is a "loaf before the Lord" of each tribe or order. And although there may be some tribe which descends not from a freewoman but from a concubine of Israel, and which is in part free, in part servile, nevertheless for all a "loaf of two tenths is set forth before the Lord", and in all the "two tenths of fine flour" hold firm. And they are commanded to be "set forth upon the clean table". Who among us is there who has so "clean a table" that upon it "loaves" may be offered to the Lord? "If you sit down to dine at the table of a powerful man", says Solomon, "understand intelligently what is set before you". What, then, is the "table of the powerful man", if not the mind of him who said: "I can do all things in him who strengthens me, Christ", and: "when I am weak, then am I strong"? Upon the "clean table of this powerful man", that is, in his heart, in his mind, the "loaf" is offered to the Lord. If you sit down to dine at the "table" of this "powerful" Apostle, "understand intelligently what is set before you", that is, attend spiritually to the things that are said by him, so that you too may be able to do what is added; for he says: "knowing that you must prepare such things".

But let us see how these "twelve loaves" are set forth: "two rows", it says, "six loaves in one row". Do you suppose this division is idle? Why is it that the number twelve is again divided into six? For the number six has a certain kinship with this world; for in six days this visible world was made. Two orders, therefore, are held in this world, that is, two peoples, who guard the faith of the Father and the Son in one church as it were upon "one clean table".

Now that clearest frankincense which is put upon the loaves designates the power of prayer, because the same teachers commit both their ministry of preaching and their labor of devotion unto the Lord. Prayer is symbolized by frankincense, as the psalmist testifies when he says, "Let my prayer be set forth in your sight as incense." The clearest frankincense is put upon the loaves as a memorial of the oblation of the Lord when the pure prayer of the saints is added to their pious action and teaching, so that when each is duly joined to the other, the remembrance of the sacred oblation will always appear in the sight of the supreme Judge.

"And there shall be placed", it says, "upon the row clean frankincense". The kind of frankincense holds the form of prayers. It is fitting, therefore, to join to the loaves of faith the vigilance and purity of prayers. And prayer is pure, as the Apostle says: "lifting up pure hands without wrath and dispute". At the same time the sweetness of the odor also causes to be fulfilled that which is written: "let my prayer be directed as incense in your sight". If anyone, therefore, offers prayers indeed to God, but does not have a conscience clean from evil works, this man seems indeed to "place frankincense" upon the loaves, but not entirely "clean" frankincense. For if all frankincense were "clean", Scripture would surely not have added that "clean frankincense" be "placed before the Lord" upon the shewbread. For do not suppose that almighty God commanded this and sanctioned it by law, that frankincense be brought to him from Arabia. But this is the frankincense which God seeks to be offered to him by men, from which he takes "an odor of sweetness": prayers from a pure heart and a good conscience, in which God truly receives the fragrance of sweetness. "And the loaves", it says, "shall be for a memorial, set forth before the Lord. On the day of the sabbaths you shall set them forth". If it is not yet manifest to you that these "loaves" are the word of God, be confirmed now from these words. For what is it that makes for us a "memorial" of God? What is it that recalls us to the memory of righteousness and of all good if not the word of God? Therefore, then, it says that "they shall be for a memorial, set forth before the Lord". It adds also "on the day of the sabbaths", that is, in the rest of souls. And what greater rest is there for the faithful soul than the "memory" of God, than to dwell "in the sight of the Lord", than to remain in the faith of the Father and the Son, than to offer prayers to the Lord as an "odor of sweetness"?

The loaves are properly commanded to be changed before the Lord every sabbath day. For surely the loaves that were set out on the table of the Lord through the six days of work are exchanged for new loaves on the sabbath when all the teachers in the holy church, once the time of their holy labor is completed, are rewarded in heaven with eternal peace and leave others behind them in the same work, laboring in the word with the hope of the same reward. And in this way it is brought to pass that the table of the Lord is never left destitute of bread, but as soon as one loaf is taken away another is put in its place, as long as the churches never lack ministers of the word who follow one another in succession. In their words and in their deeds, they always manifest the faith of apostolic piety and the purity of apostolic action, continuing as in that most beautiful verse in which it is said in praise of that same holy church: "Instead of your fathers, sons are born to you; you will make them princes over all the earth." In other words, that is as if it were being said to the tabernacle of the Lord: "Instead of your old loaves, new ones are prepared for you; you will designate them for the refreshment of the spiritual hearts of the faithful in all the world."

And that which is added in conclusion, "And they shall be for Aaron and his sons," contains a mystery which can be understood in two ways. For surely Aaron in company with his sons eats the holy loaves that are taken from the table of the tabernacle when our High Priest takes his elect out of this life and leads them into the increase of his body which is in heaven (that is, the whole multitude of his elect). Or perhaps the holy loaves belong to Aaron and his sons when all the leaders and the peoples who are subjected to them in the Lord are nourished unto life eternal by the examples of the fathers who have gone before.

"An everlasting covenant", it says, "it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat them in a holy place". "Aaron and his sons" are "a chosen race, a priestly race", to whom this portion of the holy things is given by God — which we all are who believe in Christ. But I do not seek the "holy place" set on earth, but in the heart. For the rational soul is called a "holy place", for which reason also the Apostle says: "do not give place to the devil". My soul, then, is the place — if I act wickedly, of the devil; if well, of God. Finally also "the evil spirit", it says, "when it has gone out from a man, and has gone about arid places, and has not found rest, then it says: I will return to my place, whence I went out". The "holy place", then, is the pure soul. In which place we are commanded to eat the food of the word of God. For it is not fitting that an unholy soul should receive holy words, but when it has purified itself from every defilement of flesh and of morals, then, made a "holy place", it may take the food of that "bread which came down from heaven". Is not the "holy place" better understood thus than if we suppose that a structure of insensible stones is called a "holy place"? Whence in a similar manner this law too is set before you, that, when you receive the mystic bread, you eat it in a clean place, that is, that you do not receive the sacraments of the Lord's body in a soul contaminated and polluted with sins: "for whoever", it says, "eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let each one prove himself, and then let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup".

"For they are the holy of holies". You see how he did not say holy only, but "holy of holies", as if he said: this food is not the common food of all, nor of anyone unworthy, but it belongs to "the holy". How much more shall we also say this rightly and deservedly concerning the word of God: this discourse is not for all; not just anyone can hear the mystery of this word, but it belongs only to the holy, who are purified in mind, "who are clean of heart", who are "simple in soul", who are blameless in life, who are free in conscience — theirs it is to hear the discourse concerning this, to them can these mysteries be explained. "For to you it is given", he says, "to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to those", that is, who are not worthy, who are not such as to deserve it nor can be capable of the understanding of secret things, "to those it cannot be given": this priestly bread, which is the secret and mystic discourse, but in "parables", which is common to the crowd. "This shall be an everlasting statute". For everything that is mystic is an "everlasting statute". For these present and everywhere visible things are temporal and quickly come to an end: "for the fashion of this world passes away". But if "the fashion of this world passes away", without doubt the "fashion" of the letter also passes away, and those things remain which are eternal, which the spiritual sense contains. If, then, we have understood first how God speaks to Moses and Moses to the children of Israel, second also the meaning of the "clean lampstand" and of the "lamps" and its oil, third also that the "loaves" of the presentation are "made each of two tenths" according to the will of the Spirit: let us give our effort that we too may not be made unworthy of this so great and so sublime understanding, but that our soul may first become a "holy place", and that in a "holy place" we may take the holy mysteries through the grace of the Holy Spirit, by whom is sanctified everything that is holy. "To Him be glory and dominion unto the ages of ages. Amen!"

A narrative has been read to us whose account, though it may seem plain, will nevertheless not easily disclose to us its inner sense unless we follow rather diligently its coherence according to the letter. The passage of Scripture, then, on which we must discourse, is this: "And there went out," it says, "the son of the Israelite woman, and this one was the son of an Egyptian among the sons of Israel; and they quarreled in the camp, he who was of the Israelite woman and a man who was an Israelite. And the son of the Israelite woman, naming the name, cursed; and they brought him to Moses; and the name of his mother was Salomith, the daughter of Dabri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him into prison, that they might judge concerning him according to the command of the Lord. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Cast out him who cursed, outside the camp, and all who heard shall lay their hands upon his head, and the whole synagogue shall stone him." Let us see, then, first what the narrative we have set forth means, and, although it seems plain, let us nevertheless attempt to set it before our eyes still more evidently. Let us suppose, then, one man rejoicing in the nobility of the Israelite name from both father and mother, and another from the mother only and not also from the father, and as it were noble in part and in part not—not of the father, which would surely seem the better, but of the mother, which is the inferior. For if the father had been an Israelite and the mother an Egyptian, there would be something more; for this is what Manasseh and Ephraim had been. But now it is written that he is the son of an Israelite woman and of an Egyptian father. If, then, you have diligently followed these two men, the one wholly noble, the other in part, behold now these men "quarreling with one another"; in which quarrel he who appears to have been begotten of an Egyptian father and of an Israelite mother alone, "naming, cursed," and on this account he who had cursed was brought to Moses, but Moses, daring neither to acquit him nor to condemn him without God, "handed him over to custody" until he should receive an answer from God as to what He willed to be done with him. This is the coherence of the narrative; now let us see what spiritual meaning there is in it, which ought to build up the Church.

First of all the passage says that "there went out the son of the Israelite woman" and of an Egyptian father; and from where or to where he went out, it does not matter. For both are found placed within the camp, as the word of the Lord indicates, which says: "Lead out the man who cursed, forth outside the camp." If, then, "he is led out from the camp," he was necessarily in the camp. What, then, is the meaning that, when he had not yet gone out from the camp, the divine Scripture says of him: "and there went out the son of the Israelite woman"? I think the divine word wishes to teach us that he who sins is said to go out in a twofold way. For first he goes out from his good purpose and right judgment, he goes out from the way of righteousness, he goes out from the law of God. But afterward, when he has been convicted for his sin, he goes out also from the assembly and congregation of the saints. So that, if for example we should say: one of the faithful has sinned—this man, even if he is not yet cast out by the sentence of the bishop, yet already by the very sin which he has committed he has been cast out; and although he enters the church, nevertheless he has been cast out and is outside, separated from the fellowship and unanimity of the faithful. "There went out," then, the son of an Egyptian father and of an Israelite mother. He who is wholly outside the faith is entirely an Egyptian. But he who is among us and sins, on the one part, in which he believes God, seems to be of Israelite origin; but on that part in which he sins, he draws his lineage from the Egyptian. Two men, then, Scripture has set forth quarreling: the one wholly an Israelite, who indeed quarreled but did not sin; but the other, whose sin it designates, it indicates to be for the greatest part mixed with the Egyptian race, against whom the Israelite quarrels, and perhaps quarrels fittingly and reasonably. For in Exodus too an Israelite and an Egyptian quarrel, where the Israelite prevails and the Egyptian falls. Therefore I too today, if I defend the truth, if I fight for the faith of the Church against him who indeed in part believes Christ and receives the Scriptures, but does not receive their sense wholly nor faithfully, I quarrel against him who is indeed by his mother an Israelite, but by his father an Egyptian. If, then, anyone is both by the belief of faith and by the profession of the name a Christian and a Catholic, this man is on both parts an Israelite. But he who by profession indeed is a Christian, but in the understanding of the faith is a heretic and perverse, this man has indeed an Israelite mother, but an Egyptian father. How, then, does this come about? When someone reads the Scriptures and follows indeed the letter, but repudiates the spiritual understanding, this man has indeed an Israelite mother, that is, the letter, but because he follows not the spiritual sense but the carnal, to him there is an Egyptian father; and therefore he quarrels against the churchman, against the Catholic, against him who is on both parts an Israelite, who is both according to the letter an Israelite and according to the spirit an Israelite—because he himself is according to the letter indeed an Israelite, but according to the spirit an Egyptian. What, then, is the case with both quarreling? Necessarily he who follows the carnal sense, as one drawing his lineage from the Egyptian, "names the name and curses." For he names the name of God, and names it with a curse; for he denies that He is the creator of the world, he denies that He is the Father of Christ. But we, who are Israelites of both races and defend both the letter and the spirit in the holy Scriptures, quarrel also against those who seem to be Israelites of the middle part, and we say that neither according to the letter ought He to be cursed, nor according to the spiritual understanding to be blasphemed. For the "reviler," not only against God but also against his neighbor, is by the sentence of the Apostle Paul excluded from the kingdom of God. For see how the Apostle says: "Do not err: neither fornicators nor adulterers nor the effeminate nor abusers of themselves with men nor thieves nor the covetous nor revilers shall possess the kingdom of God." See among what crimes—among "adulterers," among "abusers of themselves with men," among "the covetous," whom elsewhere he calls "servants of idols"—he has also placed "revilers" and has excluded them together with those from the kingdom of God. Let them see, then, if there are any who by an almost daily habit accustom their mouth to this vice, what peril hangs over them. For thinking this to be a slight and easy sin, they do not easily guard against it; but let them consider how the Apostle excludes the "reviler" from the kingdom of God, and how God through Moses commands the "reviler" to be punished. Whence I too have greatly marveled that in this passage which we have in hand, Scripture has not openly designated that this man who draws his lineage from the Egyptian cursed God, but has only set down that "naming, he cursed," and has left it in the middle, whether it is to be suspected of God or of man. Whence it seems to me that for this reason it was unwilling to declare openly concerning God, lest it should seem to have given license concerning men, and therefore it kept silence both concerning God and concerning man, that on both accounts one might beware.

But since we have set forth the sentence of the Apostle, in which he says that revilers are to be excluded from the kingdom of God, this discourse demands some consolation, lest we should seem in every way to pronounce despair upon those who are carried away by an almost daily habit of reviling and neglect to set a guard, or a door, upon their mouth. Of the future promise there is not one mode nor a single kind; but, as the Lord Himself taught in the Gospel, when He calls "blessed" the "poor in spirit" and says that "theirs is the kingdom of heaven," and again calls "blessed" the "meek," yet promises them not the kingdoms of heaven but "the inheritance of the earth." He calls "the peacemakers" also "blessed," but not even to them did He give the kingdom of heaven, yet He declares them to be "sons of God." And when He promises different things to different persons, He calls all "blessed" who attain to the promises, yet He has not granted to all the kingdoms of heaven. It can happen, then, that someone may perhaps in his other works and acts be corrected and perfect, yet be tripped up in the vice of the mouth and the slip of speech; to him, even if according to the sentence of the Apostle the kingdoms of heaven are denied, yet the place of another blessedness is not cut off. Nevertheless, all the more, if anyone is perfect in other things, he ought to labor also in this, lest the vice of a depraved habit, tripping him up, snatch away from him "the kingdoms of heaven," which is the summit of all blessednesses—although the Lord has said: "In my Father's house are many mansions." We can still add also this, that the nature of sin is like the material which is consumed by fire, which the Apostle Paul says is built up by sinners, who "upon the foundation" of Christ "build wood, hay, stubble." In which it is manifestly shown that there are certain sins so slight that they are compared to "stubble," over which, when fire is brought, it cannot tarry long; but others are like "hay," which the fire likewise consumes not with difficulty, yet tarries somewhat longer than upon "stubble"; but others there are which are compared to "wood," in which, according to the quality of the crimes, the fire finds lasting and great fuel. Thus, then, each sin, according to its quality or quantity, pays its just penalties. Nevertheless, what need is there for the faithful and for those who have known God to think about the qualities of penalties? What need to place "wood," what "hay," what even "stubble" itself "upon the foundation" of Christ? Why do we not rather place "gold" or "silver" or "precious stones" upon the precious "foundation," where, when the fire comes, it may find nothing that it may consume? For if it comes to "stubble," from "stubble" it will render embers and ashes; but if it comes to "gold," it will render "gold" purer. Let these things be said by us for those who neglect to cut off the habit of a reviling mouth; who, even if they do not curse from the heart, even if they do not utter curses with an evil wish and mind, yet incur the uncleanness of lips, according to the word of Isaiah, and the defilements of the mouth. Yet this man, who, though of an Israelite mother, was nevertheless begotten of an Egyptian father, "went out" and "naming the name, cursed." Concerning whom I think that, unless he had gone out, he would neither have quarreled against the true Israelite nor "naming, have cursed." For "he went out" from the truth, "he went out" from the fear of God, from faith, from charity, as we said above, in what manner someone "goes out" from the camp of the church, even if by the voice of the bishop he is by no means cast out. Just as, on the contrary, it sometimes happens that someone is driven off and put out by an unjust judgment of those who preside over the church. But if he himself has not first "gone out," that is, if he has not so acted that he deserved to "go out," he is in no way harmed by the fact that he seems by an unjust judgment to have been expelled by men. And thus it happens that sometimes he who is put out is within, and he is outside who seems to be retained within. Do you wish me to show you another also who is said to have "gone out" though cast out by none? It is written of Cain that: "he went out from the face of God." Whither did "he go out from the face of God"? For where was "the face of God" not? But "he is said to have gone out" for the reason that he went out from the law of nature and, the first, infected with a brother's blood the earth that was ignorant of so great a crime. Yet there are also those who go out well and are blessed because they go out. I will show this too from the Scriptures. In Exodus it is written: "All," it says, "who sought the name of the Lord went out forth to Moses outside the camp." These went out well "outside the camp," because they followed Moses, that is, the law of God. And of others it is said: "Go out, my people, from the midst of them, and do not touch the unclean thing." "There went out," then, it says, "the son of the Israelite woman, and this one was the son of an Egyptian, among the sons of Israel; and they quarreled in the camp, he who was of the Israelite woman and a man who was an Israelite." See how great is the caution of the divine Scripture, if only you attend, if you inspect diligently: him who was born of an Israelite mother and of an Egyptian father, it did not call "a man," but him who was of both races an Israelite it named "a man." Do we think these things were written by chance? Do we think it was added by accident, that the one should not be called "a man" and the other should? These things are not fortuitous; there is a reason. For nothing in the words of God has been written without a profound reason. For that one, who was in part an Egyptian, in part an Israelite, did not yet deserve to be named "a man"; but this one, who was wholly an Israelite, that is, who saw God with his mind, this one is called "a man"—that inner man who was made "according to the image of God" and can "see God."

After these things, now the matters which are recounted in what follows are not without a certain question, concerning which, though many have inquired, not many have been able to explain. But if you help me with your prayers, we too will attempt to bring forward into the midst what the Lord shall grant. "A man, a man," it says, "if he shall curse God, shall receive sin; but he who names the name of the Lord, let him die the death." What is this? He who "shall curse God" does not have the penalty of death, but "he who shall name the name of the Lord"? Is it not far more grievous to "curse God" than to "name" Him, although he is said to have named Him in vain? And how is it that he who "curses" only takes on sin, but he who "names" is punished "with death"? These, then, are the things which in this passage are wont to raise a question, which to those ignorant of the sense of the Scriptures seem to be said inconsequently and incongruously. For they think that he who curses the name of God ought to be punished at once; but that he "who shall name the name of the Lord," that is, shall name it superfluously and in vain, it should suffice that he "has received sin." But let us attempt to open the sequence of the passage with some such sense as this. That the sin is greater in which God is cursed than that in which He is named, we cannot doubt. It remains that we should show that it is far more grievous to "receive sin" and to have it with oneself than to be punished with death. Death, which is inflicted for the sake of penalty for sin, is a purgation of the sin itself for which it is commanded to be inflicted. The sin, then, is absolved through the penalty of death, nor does anything remain which the day of judgment and the penalty of eternal fire may find for this crime. But where someone "receives sin" and has it with himself and remains with it, and the penalty which is washed away does not pass by any punishment, it is with him even after death; and because he does not pay the temporal penalties here, there he pays the eternal punishments. You see, then, how much more grievous it is to "receive sin" than to be punished with death. For here death is given as vengeance, and with the "Lord, the just judge," "vengeance is not taken twice for the same thing," as the prophet said; but where the vengeance has not been paid, the sin remains to be extinguished by those eternal fires. And that these things are so, I can bring forward to you as witnesses from the divine volumes the patriarchs Reuben and Judah, speaking to their father Jacob, when they wished to take Benjamin with them and lead him to Egypt on account of the pledges which they had made with their brother Joseph. There, then, Reuben indeed speaks thus to his father: "Kill both my sons, unless I bring Benjamin back to you"; but Judah says: "I shall be a sinner against you, unless I bring him back to you." Jacob, then, their father, knowing that what Judah had promised, who had said "I shall be a sinner against you," was far more grievous than that of the one who had said "Kill my sons," did not entrust the son to Reuben, as to one who had chosen the lighter penalty, but handed him over to Judah, knowing that what he had chosen was more grievous. In this way, then, the divine Scripture has fittingly adapted to him who "shall curse God" that he "takes on sin," but to him who has offended more lightly that he "shall die the death." But do you also wish to learn from the Gospels that he who "shall have received in this life his evil things" does not there receive them again, but he who has not received them here, there all things are reserved for him? The example of "poor Lazarus" and of that rich man teaches us, to whom it is said "in the netherworld" by the patriarch Abraham: "Remember, son, that you received your good things in your life, and Lazarus likewise the evil things. But now you indeed are tormented, while this one is at rest." And men ignorant of the judgments of God, which are "a great abyss," are wont to complain against God and to say, why do wicked and unjust men, plunderers, impious, criminal, in this life suffer nothing adverse, but all things yield to them with prosperous successes—honors, riches, power, health too itself and the constitution of the body serve them; on the contrary, upon the innocent and pious and those who worship God innumerable troubles come, and they live abject, humble, despised, and under the buffets of the powerful, and sometimes even the diseases of the body themselves rule more savagely over them. But these things, as I said, are complained of by those ignorant of what the order is in the divine judgments. For the more grievously they wish those to be punished at whose power and iniquities they groan, the more necessary it is that the penalties be deferred, which, if they were not deferred, would surely be temporal and lighter, because they would receive their end with death; but now, because they are deferred, it is certain that they will be eternal and will be extended with the ages. On the contrary, therefore, if they should wish good things to be rendered to the just and innocent in the present age, those good things too would be temporal and to be concluded with a swift end; but the more they are deferred into the future, the more they will be perpetual and will know no end. This, then, is what this passage of Scripture, comprised in a few words, has taught us: that we may know that it is far more grievous to "receive sin" and to have it and carry it with oneself down to the netherworld than to pay the penalties of the deed in the present. And therefore, knowing these things to be expedient for the faithful, the Apostle Paul says of him who had sinned: "whom I have handed over," he says, "to Satan for the destruction of the flesh," that is, to have punished him with death. But what the fruit of this death is, he shows in what follows, saying: "that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." You see, then, how openly the Apostle has set forth the usefulness of this death. For what he says, "I have handed over for the destruction of the flesh," that is, for the affliction of the body, which is wont to be paid out by penitents, and he named it a destruction of the flesh which nevertheless confers life on the spirit. Whence now too, if perhaps any of us recalls in himself the consciousness of some sin, if anyone knows himself to be liable to an offense, let him take refuge in penitence and take upon himself a voluntary destruction of the flesh, that, purged in the present life, our spirit may proceed clean and pure to Christ our Lord, "who is glory and dominion unto the ages of ages. Amen!"

We take up the name of God in vain through uttering of blasphemous speech; and this occurs in three ways: first, when someone, speaking of God, uses cursing speech, as when he curses God. The second mode is through mendacious speech, when someone denies what is true of God, or affirms what is false; because Anselm says that the nobler part of every contradiction is to be attributed to God. The third mode is through reproachful speech, such as when someone speaks of the lower members of Christ, he blasphemes most wickedly, even if he speaks the truth, and despises Christ in that He was humble and assumed our nature.

And such persons have been destroyed by divine judgment. For Gregory narrates that a certain boy of six years was accustomed to blaspheme the name of the Lord. One day, when he was blaspheming and was in the lap of his father, he was seized by demons and carried into hell. On account of which it is said in Leviticus: "Whoever shall have blasphemed the name of the Lord, let him surely die."

Whosoever by reason of his gluttony destroyeth the members of his body is an associate of the murderer, and he is the consort of a destroying thief, and that which is written in the Law, "Everyone who slayeth shall be slain, and whosoever cutteth off a member of his neighbour, one of his members shall be cut off," applieth unto him. Now the glutton destroyeth his own members, and little by little he maketh to perish and consumeth the power of his body and of his members, and whosoever ruineth the fair creation of God, and throweth down the building of his body which the will of the Architect builded aforetime, bringeth together for every reason punishments upon himself, according to the word of righteousness, which was uttered before he had transgressed the command of God, Who had commanded man not to become a servant unto his lusts.