Matthew § 90e

(Verse 18.) But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, hypocrites? The first virtue of a respondent is to understand the minds of those who ask, and to call not disciples, but tempters. Therefore, a hypocrite is called someone who is one thing and pretends to be another, that is, someone who acts one way in action and another in words.

This is the first excellence of the answerer, that He discerns the thoughts of His examiners, and calls them not disciples but tempters. A hypocrite is he who is one thing, and feigns himself another.

What then saith He? "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?" Seest thou how He talks with them with more than usual severity? For since their wickedness was now complete and manifest, He cuts the deeper, first confounding and silencing them, by publishing their secret thoughts, and making it manifest to all with what kind of intent they are coming unto Him.

And these things He did, repulsing their wickedness, so that they might not suffer hurt in attempting the same things again. And yet their words were full of much respect, for they both called Him Master, and bore witness to His truth, and that He was no respecter of persons; but being God, He was deceived by none of these things. Wherefore they also ought to have conjectured, that the rebuke was not the result of conjecture, but a sign of His knowing their secret thoughts.

He makes an answer not corresponding to the smooth tone of their address, but harsh, suitable to their cruel thoughts; for God answers men's hearts, and not their words.

He therefore calls them hypocrites, that seeing Him to be a discerner of human hearts, they might not be hardy enough to carry through their design. Observe thus how the Pharisees spoke fair that they might destroy Him, but Jesus put them to shame that He might save them; for God's wrath is more profitable to man, than man's favour.

There follows the response: but Jesus knowing their wickedness, said. And first he responds to their mind; secondly, to their words, at render. Because it belongs to man to respond to words, but to God to respond to the mind, therefore because Christ was God and man, he responds to both. The searcher of hearts and reins is God, Psalm 7:10. Hypocrites. And he rightly calls them hypocrites, because hypocrites are properly those who have one thing on their lips and another in their heart. Why do you tempt me? For this was forbidden in Deuteronomy 6:16: thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Likewise, they addressed Christ with flattery; but Christ responded harshly, because he responded to their heart, not to their words. Likewise, an example is given to us that we should not believe flatterers; Proverbs 29:12: the prince that willingly heareth lying words hath all his servants wicked.

(Verse 19.) Show me the coin of the census. And they offered him a denarius. Wisdom always acts wisely, so that its accusers are mainly confuted by their own words. Show me, he said, the denarius, that is, the kind of coin which was valued at ten coins and had the image of Caesar.

Wisdom does ever wisely, and so the tempters are best confuted out of their own words; therefore it follows, show me the tribute money; and they brought unto Him a denarius. This was a coin reckoned equivalent to ten sesterces, and bore the image of Cæsar.

He stopped not, however, at the rebuke, although it was enough merely to have convicted them of their purpose, and to have put them to shame for their wickedness; but He stops not at this, but in another way closes their mouths; for, "Shew me," saith He, "the tribute money." And when they had shown it, as He ever doth, by their tongue He brings out the decision, and causes them to decide, that it is lawful; which was a clear and plain victory. So that when He asks, not from ignorance doth He ask, but because it is His will to cause them to be bound by their own answers. For when, on being asked, "Whose is the image?" they said, "Caesar's;" He saith, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." For this is not to give but to render, and this He shows both by the image, and by the superscription.

Likewise, when he wishes to respond to something, he cannot better confute an opponent than according to his own words. Hence first he poses a question; secondly, from the response he draws out the truth. And first he asks about the coin; secondly, about the image: for he wished to show his point sensibly; Proverbs 14:6: the learning of the wise is easy. He says, show me the coin of the tribute, i.e., the denarius which is given for the census. This denarius is worth ten ordinary coins, and each person paid one denarius.

(Verse 20) And Jesus said to them, Whose image is this and superscription? Those who think that this question indicates ignorance on the part of the Savior, and not dispensation, let them learn from the present passage that Jesus could certainly know whose image was on the coin; but he asks in order to respond appropriately to their words.

Let those who think that the Saviour asks because He is ignorant, learn from the present place that it is not so, for at all events Jesus must have known whose image was on the coin.

Then he asks about the image: whose image and inscription is this? For in every public coin an inscription is placed on its form; so it was in this one.

A man may have to die for our country: but no man must, in any exclusive sense, live for his country. He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God: himself.

Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question — how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

Some of the hermits once came to Joseph in Panephysis, to ask him if they should break their fast when they received brothers as guests, to celebrate their coming. Before they asked their question, Joseph said to them, 'Think about what I am going to do today.' He put two seats made of reeds tied in bundles, one on his left and the other on his right, and said, 'Sit down.' Then he went into his cell and put on rags; he came out, and walked past them, and then went in again and put on his ordinary clothes. The visitors were astonished, and asked him what it meant. He said to them, 'Did you see what I did?' They said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Did the rags change me for the better?' They said, 'No.' He said, 'Did good clothes change me for the worse?' They said, 'No.' He said, 'So I am myself whether I wear good clothes or rags. I was not changed for better or worse because I changed my clothes. That is how we ought to be when we receive guests. It is written in the Holy Gospel, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:21). When visitors come we should welcome them and celebrate with them. It is when we are by ourselves that we ought to be sorrowful.' When they heard this they were amazed that he knew what they intended to ask him, and they praised God.

For if there remain with us nothing that is Cæsar's, we shall not be bound by the condition of rendering to him the things that are his; but if we lean upon what is his, if we avail ourselves of the lawful protection of his power, we cannot complain of it as any wrong if we are required to render to Cæsar the things of Cæsar.

It behoves us also to render unto God the things that are His, namely, body, soul, and will. For Cæsar's coin is in the gold, in which His image was pourtrayed, that is, God's coin, on which the Divine image is stamped; give therefore your money to Cæsar, but preserve a conscience void of offence for God.

(Verse 21) They said to Him, 'Caesar's.' Then He said to them, 'Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.' We cannot consider Augustus as Caesar, but Tiberius is understood to be his stepson, who succeeded him and under whom our Lord suffered. However, all the Roman emperors, from the first Caesar, who seized power, have been called Caesars. Furthermore, what He says, 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's,' that is, the tribute and money, and to God the things that are God's, let us understand as tithes, first fruits, offerings, and sacrifices, just as He Himself paid taxes for Himself and Peter (Matthew 17). And He rendered to God the things that are God's, doing the will of the Father (John 6).

They say unto Him, Cæsar's; not Augustus, but Tiberius, under whom also the Lord suffered. All the Roman Emperors were called Cæsar, from Caius Cæsar who first seized the chief power. Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; i. e. the coin, tribute, or money.

That is, tithes, first-fruits, oblation, and victims; as the Lord Himself rendered to Cæsar tribute, both for Himself and for Peter; and also rendered unto God the things that are God's in doing the will of His Father.

Then that they might not say, Thou art subjecting us to men, He added, "And unto God the things that are God's." For it is possible both to fulfill to men their claims and to give unto God the things that are due to God from us. Wherefore Paul also saith, "Render unto all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear."

But thou, when thou hearest, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's," know that He is speaking only of those things, which are no detriment to godliness; since if it be any such thing as this, such a thing is no longer Caesar's tribute, but the devil's.

Idolatry is condemned, not on account of the persons which are set up for worship, but on account of those its observances, which pertain to demons. "The things which are Caesar's are to be rendered to Caesar." It is enough that He set in apposition thereto, "and to God the things which are God's.

Will it be "Ye cannot serve God and mammon" to devote your energies to mammon, and to depart from God? Will it be "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's," not only not to render the human being to God, but even to take the denarius from Caesar? Is the laurel of the triumph made of leaves, or of corpses? Is it adorned with ribbons, or with tombs? Is it bedewed with ointments, or with the tears of wives and mothers? It may be of some Christians too; for Christ is also among the barbarians.

And as a matter of course, he is already a king-although he even now owes to Caesar the things which are Caesar's.

Then he goes on also to show how he wishes you to be subject to the powers, bidding you pay "tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom," that is, the things which are Caesar's to Caesar, and the things which are God's to God; but man is the property of God alone.

Since, therefore, Caesar has imposed nothing on us after this fashion of a tributary sect-in fact, such an imposition never can be made,-with Antichrist now close at hand, and gaping for the blood, not for the money of Christians-how can it be pointed out to me that there is the command, "Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's? " A soldier, be he an informer or an enemy, extorts money from me by threats, exacting nothing on Caesar's behalf; nay, doing the very opposite, when for a bribe he lets me go-Christian as I am, and by the laws of man a criminal.

They say, Caesar's: understand, not Caesar Augustus, but Tiberius Caesar. And you should understand that the Lord's question was not from ignorance, but rather from design. He was well of such an age, and had lived so long among men, that he knew well the form of a denarius, but he asked for the sake of signification. Consequently, he concludes the truth: render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's; as if to say: you belong to God and to Caesar, and you have in your use both the things of God and the things of Caesar. You have natural riches from God, namely, bread and wine, and of these give to God: you have those artificial things, such as coins, from Caesar, and render these to Caesar. Mystically thus: we have a soul which is made in the image of God, and therefore we should render it to God; according to the things we have from the world, we should have peace with the world. Even holy men here, elevated from the world, because they nevertheless dwell in the world with others, should seek the peace of Babylon, as is found in Baruch 1:10 ff. And this means that all things that are of the flesh, that are of the world, or of men with whom they dwell, they should render to God.

(Enchir. 88.) But that earthy matter of which the flesh of men is made perishes not before God; but into whatsoever dust or ashes reduced, into whatsoever gases or vapours dispersed, into whatsoever other bodies incorporated, though resolved into the elements, though become the food or part of the flesh of animals or men, yet is it in a moment of time restored to that human soul, which at the first quickened it that it became man, lived and grew.

(cont. Faust. xvi. 24.) Seasonably may we confute the Manichæans by this same passage by which the Sadducees were then confuted, for they too though in another manner deny the resurrection.

On account of these things, they erred since they did not know the Scriptures. Because they were ignorant of the Scriptures, they denied the power of God, that is, Christ, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

(Verse 29.) But Jesus, answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Therefore, they err because they do not know the Scriptures, and because they are ignorant of the Scriptures, they consequently do not know the power of God, that is, Christ, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God (I Cor. 1).

They therefore err because they know not the Scriptures; and because they know not the power of God.

For what saith He? "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." For since, as if they knew them, they put forward Moses and the law, He shows that this question is that of men very ignorant of the Scriptures. For hence also arose their tempting Him, from their being ignorant of the Scriptures, and from their not knowing the power of God as they ought.

"For what marvel then is it," He saith, "if ye tempt me, who am as yet unknown to you, when at least ye know not so much as the power of God, of which ye have had so much experience, and neither from common sense nor from the Scriptures have become acquainted with it;" if indeed even common sense causes us to know this, that to God all things are possible. And in the first place He answers to the question asked. For since this was the cause for their not believing a resurrection, that they think the order of things is like this, He cures the cause, then the symptom also (for thence arose the disease too), and shows the manner of the resurrection.

What then saith Christ? He replies unto both, as taking His stand not against the words, but the purpose, and on every occasion revealing the secrets of their hearts; and at one time exposing them, at another time leaving the refutation of them that question Him to their conscience. See, at any rate here, how He proves both points, as well that there will be a resurrection, as that it will not be such a resurrection as they suspect.

But someone might inquire if [passage], 'You are in error, not knowing the Scriptures,' which is said to the Sadducees who did not recognize any other Scripture than the Law, has reference to other Scriptures than the Law of Moses. This person, therefore, might say in respect of this same passage that the Sadducees are so called because in not recognizing the Scriptures which come after the Law they are in error since they do not know them. Another person might say: it is sufficient for the Sadducees to be reproved of error for not understanding the Scriptures according to Moses such that they apprehend the divine meaning in them. To be sure, however, he claims that the Sadducees do not know two things: one, the Scriptures, and the other, the power of God, which is the power by which those of the resurrection and the new life in it comes to be.

Two (1 Cor. 1:24.) things there are which He says they know not, the Scriptures and the power of God, by which is brought to pass the resurrection, and the new life in it. Or by the power of God, which the Lord here convicts the Sadducees that they knew not, He intends Himself, who was the power of God; and Him they knew not, as not knowing the Scriptures which spoke of Him; and thence also they believed not the resurrection, which He should effect. But it is asked when the Saviour says, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures, if He means that this text, They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, is in some Scripture, though it is not read in the Old Testament? We say that these very words are indeed not found, but that the truth is in a mystery implied in the moral sense of Scripture; the Law, which is a shadow of good things to come, whenever it speaks of husbands and wives, speaks chiefly of spiritual wedlock. But neither this do I find any where spoken in Scripture that the Saints shall be after their departure as the Angels of God, unless one will understand this also to be inferred morally; as where it is said, And thou shalt go to thy fathers, (Gen. 15:15.) and He was gathered to his people. (Gen. 25:8.) Or one may say; He blamed them that they read not the other Scriptures which are besides the Law, and therefore they erred. Another says, That they knew not the Scriptures of the Mosaic Law, for this reason, that they did not sift their divine sense.

Wisely does He first convict them of folly, in that they did not read; and afterwards of ignorance, in that they did not know God. For of diligence in reading springs knowledge of God, but ignorance is the offspring of neglect.

Or, when He says, In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, He referred to what He had said, Ye know not the power of God; but when the proceeded, I am the God of Abraham, &c. to that Ye know not the Scriptures. And thus ought we to do; to cavillers first to set forth Scripture authority on any question, and then to show the grounds of reason; but to those who ask out of ignorance to show first the reason, and then the authority. For cavillers ought to be refuted, enquirers taught. To these then who put their question in ignorance, the first shows the reason, saying, In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.

These things which are spoken concerning the conditions of the resurrection He spoke in answer to their enquiry, but of the resurrection itself He replies aptly against their unbelief.

God; who have restored the honour of their flesh, and who have already dedicated themselves as sons of that (future) age, by slaying in themselves the concupiscence of lust, and that whole (propensity) which could not be admitted within Paradise! Whence it is presumable that such as shall wish to be received within Paradise, ought at last to begin to cease from that thing from which Paradise is intact.

The Saviour shows that there will also be a resurrection, not such a resurrection of the flesh as they mistakenly imagine, but one more divine and more spiritual. Why then are you deluded, not knowing either the Scriptures or the power of God? For if you knew the Scriptures, you would understand that God is not God of the dead but of the living. If you knew the power of God, you would know that for God all things are possible, so that He can even make men to live as angels. See the Lord's wisdom! By using Moses they were intent on overturning the doctrine of the resurrection, but He, also by using Moses, convinces them, quoting, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (Ex. 3:6). What Christ means is this: God is not the God of that which is not, but of that which exists and is. For God did not say, "I was," but "I am." Even though they had died, they live in hope of the resurrection. But you may ask, "How is it, then, that he says in another place that He is Lord of both the dead and the living?" (Rom. 14:9). Learn, then, that "the dead" means, in that passage, those who have died but who shall live again. Here the Lord says, in opposing the heresy of the Sadducees who teach that there is no immortal soul but that it altogether perishes, that He is not God of the dead, that is, of those who appear to us to have utterly perished, but of the living, that is, of those who have an immortal soul and will be resurrected, though they are dead now.

There follows the response. And first he shows the error and its cause; secondly, he insinuates the truth. Hence he says, Jesus answering, said to them: you err, i.e., you hold an erroneous opinion; Wisdom 2:21: they devised, and they erred; for their own malice blinded them. And what is the cause of the error? Not knowing the Scriptures. Hence they did not meditate on the commands of God; Psalm 118:100: I have had understanding above ancients, because I have sought thy commandments. Hence he who meditates on the commands of God can avoid errors; hence John 5:39: search the Scriptures. But they did not search, and therefore they erred, as do some who understand badly. Likewise, some, not knowing the power of God, wish to measure the power of God according to inferior things; Romans 1:20: the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.

(de Civ. Dei, xxii. 17.) To me they seem to think most justly, who doubt not that both sexes shall rise again. For there shall be no desire which is the cause of confusion, for before they had sinned they were naked; and that nature which they then had shall be preserved, which was quit both of conception and of child-birth. Also the members of the woman shall not be adapted to their former use, but framed for a new beauty, one by which the beholder is not allured to lust, which shall not then be, but God's wisdom and mercy shall be praised, which made that to be which was not, and delivered from corruption that which was made.

If swiftness, or strength, or freedom of body, which nothing can resist: they shall be like the Angels of God, because it is sown a natural body, and shall rise a spiritual body, by power, assuredly, not by nature.

For God divided the one place which extends from the earth to the higher heaven by interposing in the middle the second heaven, and thus made two places; and to this mortal and mutable state he assigned the lower place, and to the immortal and immutable state the higher, which is called also the Kingdom of Heaven, and about which the Lord Christ speaks thus in the Gospel of Matthew: For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven;

when the Lord in arguing with the Pharisees and Sadducees concerning the resurrection he speaks thus: For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

the Jews acknowledge a resurrection for men, but say that we shall live upon the earth and eat and drink and marry and be given in marriage, as, in the Gospels, the Sadducees proposed a question to the Lord, saying: In the resurrection of which of the seven shall she be the wife? These the Lord very summarily convicted of error and of not knowing divine scripture, in which there is the power of God, saying to them: For, in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. It is therefore proved against these, both from what is written and from the figure of the world prepared from its foundation, that the upper place was not made without occasion—but that there is a second heavenly state prepared from the foundation of the world.

It had been enough to have cut off this opinion of the Sadducees of sensual enjoyment, that where the function ceased, the empty pleasure of the body accompanying it ceased also; but He adds, But are as the Angels of God in heaven.

The same cavil that the Sadducees here offer respecting marriage is renewed by many who ask in what form the female sex shall rise again. But what the authority of Scripture leads us to think concerning the Angels, so must we suppose that it will be with women in the resurrection of our species.

(Verse 30) For in the resurrection neither do they marry, nor are they given in marriage; but they are as the angels of God in heaven. The Latin custom does not correspond to the Greek idiom. For to marry is properly said of women, and to take wives of men; but let us simply understand the statement, that to marry is written of men, and to be given in marriage of women. If in the resurrection they do not marry, nor are they given in marriage, then the bodies that are able to marry and be given in marriage will rise again. For no one indeed says about a stone and a tree, and these things which do not have reproductive organs, that they do not marry, nor are they married; but about those things which can marry, they do not marry in a different way. But what is brought forth: But they are like the angels of God in heaven. A spiritual conversation is promised.

In these words the Latin language cannot follow the Greek idiom. For the Latin word 'nubere' is correctly said only of the woman. But we must take it so as to understand marry of men, to be given in marriage of women.

This that is added, But are as the Angels of God in heaven, is an assurance that our conversation in heaven shall be spiritual.

For none could say of a stone and a tree or inanimate things, that they shall not marry nor be given in marriage, but of such things only as having capacity for marriage, shall yet in a sort not marry.

"For in the resurrection," saith He, "they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels of God in Heaven." But Luke saith, "As Sons of God."

If then they marry not, the question is vain. But not because they do not marry, therefore are they angels, but because they are as angels, therefore they do not marry. By this He removed many other difficulties also, all which things Paul intimated by one word, saying, "For the fashion of this world passeth away."

And by these words He declared how great a thing the resurrection is; and that moreover there is a resurrection, He proves. And indeed this too was demonstrated at the same time by what He had said, nevertheless over and above He adds again to His word by what He saith now. For neither at their question only did He stop, but at their thought. Thus when they are not dealing with great craft, but are asking in ignorance, He teaches even over and above, but when it is of wickedness only, not even to their question doth He answer.

Our Savior does not explain the meaning of the passage from Moses' law, rejecting them as unworthy of the knowledge of such a great mystery. He only represents matters in the simplest way as he speaks and teaches from the divine Scriptures concerning the resurrection of the dead. He teaches that there is no marriage in heaven but that those who are risen from the dead are like the angels in heaven. And, just as the angels in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage, so he says it is with those who are risen from the dead. But I think he means that only those who are considered worthy of the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage as the angels in heaven. Furthermore, their "humble" bodies are changed to become like the bodies of the angels, ethereal and brilliant.

In this life that we may die, therefore are we born; and we marry to the end that that which death consumes, birth may replenish; therefore where the law of death is taken away, the cause of birth is taken away likewise.

It should be noted, that when He spoke of fasting, alms, and other spiritual virtues, He did not bring in the comparison of Angels, but only here where He speaks of the ceasing of marriage. For as all acts of the flesh are animal acts, but this of lust especially so; so all the virtues are angelic acts, but especially chastity, by which our nature is bound to the other virtues.

(de Divin. Nom. i.) For then when we shall be incorruptible and immortal, by the visible presence of God Himself we shall be filled with most chaste contemplations, and shall share the gift of light to the understanding in our impassible and immaterial soul after the fashion of the exalted souls in heaven; on which account it is said that we shall be equal to the Angels.

The ogdoad, or eightfold number, therefore, is not concerned in our formation; for in the time it represents there will be no more marriage. We have already demonstrated the conjunction of the body and the soul, from the concretion of their very seminations to the complete formation of the f£tus.

"For this corruptible"-and as he spake, the apostle seemingly pointed to his own flesh-"must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality," in order, indeed, that it may be rendered a fit substance for the kingdom of God. "For we shall be like the angels." This will be the perfect change of our flesh-only after its resurrection. Now if, on the contrary, there is to be no flesh, how then shall it put on incorruption and immortality? Having then become something else by its change, it will obtain the kingdom of God, no longer the (old) flesh and blood, but the body which God shall have given it.

To this discussion, however, our Lord's declaration puts an effectual end: "They shall be," says He, "equal unto the angels." As by not marrying, because of not dying, so, of course, by not having to yield to any like necessity of our bodily state; even as the angels, too, sometimes were "equal unto" men, by eating and drinking, and submitting their feet to the washing of the bath-having clothed themselves in human guise, without the loss of their own intrinsic nature. If therefore angels, when they became as men, submitted in their own unaltered substance of spirit to be treated as if they were flesh, why shall not men in like manner, when they become "equal unto the angels," undergo in their unchanged substance of flesh the treatment of spiritual beings, no more exposed to the usual solicitations of the flesh in their angelic garb, than were the angels once to those of the spirit when encompassed in human form? We shall not therefore cease to continue in the flesh, because we cease to be importuned by the usual wants of the flesh; just as the angels ceased not therefore to remain in their spiritual substance, because of the suspension of their spiritual incidents. Lastly, Christ said not, "They shall be angels," in order not to repeal their existence as men; but He said, "They shall be equal unto the angels," that He might preserve their humanity unimpaired. When He ascribed an angelic likeness to the flesh, He took not from it its proper substance.

With what consistency do we mount that (future) judgment-seat to pronounce sentence against those whose gifts we (now) seek after? For you too, (women as you are, ) have the self-same angelic nature promised as your reward, the self-same sex as men: the self-same advancement to the dignity of judging, does (the Lord) promise you.

"But if 'in that age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be equal to angels,' is not the fact that there will be no restitution of the conjugal relation a reason why we shall not be bound to our departed consorts? "Nay, but the more shall we be bound (to them), because we are destined to a better estate-destined (as we are) to rise to a spiritual consortship, to recognise as well our own selves as them who are ours. Else how shall we sing thanks to God to eternity, if there shall remain in us no sense and memory of this debt; if we shall be reformed in substance, not in consciousness? Consequently, we who shall be with God shall be together; since we shall all be with the one God-albeit the wages be various, albeit there be "many mansions", in the house of the same Father having laboured for the "one penny" of the self-same hire, that is, of eternal life; in which (eternal life) God will still less separate them whom He has conjoined, than in this lesser life He forbids them to be separated.

In the resurrection they shall neither marry, nor be married. He makes his point clear. And because he had said two things, namely, that they did not know the Scriptures nor the power of God, therefore first he declares that they were ignorant of the power of God; secondly, that they were ignorant of the Scriptures. And since he mentioned the Scriptures first, why is this declared second? Chrysostom responds that when someone disputes with one who errs from malice, he should first cite authority; when with one who errs from ignorance, he should first propose a reason, and then authority. Thus the Lord does. First he proposes a reason; hence he says, in the resurrection they shall neither marry, nor be married. The first, according to the letter, is true. Neither shall they marry, etc., because then it will not be necessary as it is now. Jerome says: the word for marrying is understood differently in Latin and in Greek, because properly in Latin to marry pertains to women: hence it is said to be a neuter passive verb; but in Greek, men marry, i.e., take wives, and women are married, not marry. Therefore he says, they shall not marry, the men; nor be married, the women. For since marriage is for the procreation of offspring, so that man may be preserved in being in his likeness, who cannot be preserved in himself, therefore since the resurrection will be unto immortality, then marriage will not be necessary. Therefore these men erred and were ignorant of the power of God. But they are as the angels of God in heaven. That state is the state of reward, and the end of this life. Job 14:14: dost thou think that a man once dead shall live again? All the days in which I am now in warfare, I wait until my change come; and that change was the reward. That life will be of those shining with intellect. But why will they be like the angels? Because they will be free from passions; for now man has his intellect bound to the senses, and in this the angels surpass him, but then it will be purified, and therefore they will be like the angels: 2 Samuel 14:17: for as an angel of God, so is my lord the king, that he is neither moved with blessing nor cursing. Hence those who have their mind elevated above passions are like the angels. But the passions that most make men bestial are the passions of sexual pleasure, which are exercised through marriage; therefore then they will neither marry nor be married. Likewise, some have said that not all will rise, but only men. But Augustine refutes this, saying that the sexes will rise; but sex is not preserved in men alone. He removes this opinion when he says, neither shall they marry, nor be married. From this it is given to understand that both sexes will rise, but neither shall they marry, nor be married.

(in Joan. Tr. xi. 8.) God is therefore called in particular The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, because in these three are expressed all the modes of begetting the sons of God. For God begets most times of a good preacher a good son, and of a bad preacher a bad son. This is signified in Abraham, who of a free woman had a believing son, and of a bondslave an unbelieving son. Sometimes indeed of a good preacher He begets both good and bad sons, which is signified in Isaac, who of the same free woman begot one good and the other bad. And sometimes He begets good sons both of good and bad preachers; which is signified in Jacob, who begot good sons both of free women and of bondmaids.

(Vers. 31 seqq.) But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken by God, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the crowds heard this, they were amazed at his teaching. To prove the truth of the resurrection, he could have used many other more obvious examples, among which is: The dead will be raised up, and those who are in the graves will rise again (Isaiah 26:19). And in another place: Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: some unto everlasting life, and others unto shame and everlasting contempt (Dan. XII, 2). Therefore, it is asked what the Lord intended by this testimony, which seems ambiguous or not sufficiently related to the truth of the resurrection: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and as if having proclaimed this, he proved what he wanted by immediately adding: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Those who also surrounded the turmoil, knowing the mystery, were amazed at his teaching and answers. We have already said above that the Sadducees, confessing neither angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection of bodies, also preached the destruction of souls. These accepted only the five books of Moses, rejecting the prophecies of the prophets. Therefore, it was foolish to present testimonies whose authority they did not follow. Furthermore, in order to prove the eternal nature of souls, he presents the example of Moses: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' (Exodus 3:6). And immediately he deduces: 'God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,' so that when he has proven that souls continue to exist after death (for it could not be that God would be their God if they did not exist at all), the resurrection of the bodies, which have carried out good or evil deeds along with the souls, would consequently be introduced. In the final part of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul expands on this topic more fully (1 Cor. XV).

In proof of the resurrection there were many plainer passages which He might have cited; among others that of Isaiah, The dead shall be raised; they that are in the tombs shall rise again: (Is. 26:19. juxta LXX.) and in another place, Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. (Dan. 12:2.) It is enquired therefore why the Lord should have chosen this testimony which seems ambiguous, and not sufficiently belonging to the truth of the resurrection; and as if by this He had proved the point adds, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. We have said above that the Sadducees confessed neither Angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection of the body, and taught also the death of the soul. But they also received only the five books of Moses, rejecting the Prophets. It would have been foolish therefore to have brought forward testimonies whose authority they did not admit. To prove the immortality of souls therefore, He brings forward an instance out of Moses, I am the God of Abraham, &c. and then straight subjoins, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; so that having established that souls abide after death, (forasmuch as God could not be the God of those who had no existence any where,) there might fitly come in the resurrection of bodies which had together with their souls done good or evil.

And again by Moses doth He stop their mouths, since they too had brought forward Moses; and He saith, "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Not of them that are not His meaning is, and that are utterly blotted out, and are to rise no more. For He said not, I was, but, I am; of them that are, and them that live. For like as Adam, although he lived on the day that he ate of the tree, died in the sentence: even so also these, although they had died, lived in the promise of the resurrection.

How then doth He say elsewhere, "That He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living?" But this is not contrary to that. For here He speaks of the dead, who are also themselves to live. And moreover too, "I am the God of Abraham," is another thing from, "That He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living." He knew of another death too, concerning which He saith, "Let the dead bury their dead."

But as concerning the resurrection of the dead, etc. After he showed that they were ignorant of the power of God, here he shows that they were ignorant of the Scriptures. Hence, have you not read that which was said by God, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? This is written in Exodus 3:6. But Jerome asks, since there are other authorities more explicit about the resurrection, as is found in Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 33 and Daniel 12, why did he cite this one which is ambiguous? He responds that they did not accept the prophets, but only the five books of Moses.

It should be further considered, that this was said to Moses at a time when those holy Patriarchs had gone to their rest. They therefore of whom He was the God were in being; for they could have had nothing, if they had not been in being; for in the nature of things that, of which somewhat else is, must have itself a being; so they who have a God must themselves be alive, since God is eternal, and it is not possible that that which is dead should have that which is eternal. How then shall it be affirmed that those do not, and shall not hereafter, exist, of whom Eternity itself has said that He is?

(Vers. 31 seqq.) But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken by God, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the crowds heard this, they were amazed at his teaching. To prove the truth of the resurrection, he could have used many other more obvious examples, among which is: The dead will be raised up, and those who are in the graves will rise again (Isaiah 26:19). And in another place: Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: some unto everlasting life, and others unto shame and everlasting contempt (Dan. XII, 2). Therefore, it is asked what the Lord intended by this testimony, which seems ambiguous or not sufficiently related to the truth of the resurrection: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and as if having proclaimed this, he proved what he wanted by immediately adding: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Those who also surrounded the turmoil, knowing the mystery, were amazed at his teaching and answers. We have already said above that the Sadducees, confessing neither angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection of bodies, also preached the destruction of souls. These accepted only the five books of Moses, rejecting the prophecies of the prophets. Therefore, it was foolish to present testimonies whose authority they did not follow. Furthermore, in order to prove the eternal nature of souls, he presents the example of Moses: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' (Exodus 3:6). And immediately he deduces: 'God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,' so that when he has proven that souls continue to exist after death (for it could not be that God would be their God if they did not exist at all), the resurrection of the bodies, which have carried out good or evil deeds along with the souls, would consequently be introduced. In the final part of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul expands on this topic more fully (1 Cor. XV).

God moreover is He who says, I am that I am; (Ex. 3:14.) so that it is impossible that He should be called the God of those who are not. And see that He said not, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. But in another place He said thus, The God of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee. (Exod. 7:16.) For they who in comparison of other men are most perfect before God, have God entirely in them, wherefore He is not said to be their God in common, but of each in particular. As when we say, That farm is theirs, we show that each of them does not own the whole of it; but when we say, That farm is his, we mean that he is owner of the whole of it. When then it is said, The God of the Hebrews, this shows their imperfection, that each of them has some small portion in God. But it is said, The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, because each one of these possessed God entirely. And it is to the no small honour of the Patriarehs that they lived to God.

And how does it serve the purpose? He says, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is said to be the God of certain ones in their worshiping him. These, therefore, worship him. But to worship God does not belong to the dead, but to the living. Therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive; but not according to the body: therefore according to the soul. But what does this avail for the resurrection? It avails, because these men said the soul does not exist; but he shows the soul to remain: and if the soul remains, therefore also the resurrection, because naturally the soul is inclined toward the body. But what does it mean when he says that he is not the God of the dead? This is true according to the body. Yet he is also the God of the dead, because they live according to the spirit; Romans 14:8: whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. Likewise, this is against the heretics who condemn the fathers of the Old Testament, because here it says that they live according to the soul. Likewise, he says it in the singular, because among the other nations each one had his own god. Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one, Deuteronomy 6:4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It exists to be transcended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poemen also said, 'Teach your heart to follow what your tongue is saying to others.' He also said, 'Men try to appear excellent in preaching but they are less excellent in practising what they preach.'

(Chapter 23, Verses 1 and following.) Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and Pharisees have seated themselves on the chair of Moses. Therefore, whatever they tell you, observe and do it, but do not do their works. For they speak, but do not practice. What is gentler, what is kinder than the Lord? He is tempted by the Pharisees, their plots are crushed, and according to the Psalmist: The arrows of little children have become their wounds (Psalm 63:8). And nevertheless, because of their priesthood and the dignity of their office, he urges the people to submit to them, considering not their works, but their teaching. But when He says, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat,' He shows that the seat represents the teaching of the Law. Therefore, we must also understand the teaching in the passages that say, 'He did not sit on the throne of pestilence' (Psalm 1:1) and 'He overturned the seats of those selling doves' (Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15).

Therefore when he speaks "to the crowds and his disciples" he talks about "the scribes and Pharisees who sit upon the throne of Moses." I judge these statements to be referring to the following groups. Those who profess that they interpret the law of Moses and glory in this, or who know the law well and seek to profit by this knowledge—these sit upon the throne of Moses. Those who do not depart from the letter of the law are called scribes. Then there are those who profess to know even more, setting themselves apart because they think they are better than the masses. That is why they are called Pharisees, which interpreted means "to divide or segregate" (for Phares translated means "division").

The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, as professing his Law, and boasting that they can interpret it. Those that do not depart from the letter of the Law are the Scribes; those who make high professions, and separate themselves from the vulgar as better than they, are called Pharisees, which signifies 'separate.' Those who understand and expound Moses according to his spiritual meaning, these sit indeed on Moses' seat, but are neither Scribes nor Pharisees, but better than either, Christ's beloved disciples. Since His coming these have sat upon the seat of the Church, which is the seat of Christ.

But regard must be had to this, after what sort each man fills his seat; for not the seat makes the Priest, but the Priest the seat; the place does not consecrate the man, but the man the place. A wicked Priest derives guilt and not honour from his Priesthood.

The scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses. The chair properly belongs to teachers; and therefore those are said to sit upon the chair who are successors of Moses; Sirach 24:33: Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justice. Hence those who taught the law of Moses sat upon the chair of Moses. And in the law were contained certain things pertaining to faith, and certain things pertaining to good morals. The things pertaining to faith were those in which Christ was prefigured; hence he himself says, John 5:46: if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also. Likewise, there were contained moral precepts; Sirach 24:33: Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justice. But it should be noted that upon the chair sit both the scribes, and the Pharisees, and the disciples of Christ: the scribes, who consider only the letter; the Pharisees, who grasp something of its inner meaning; the disciples of Christ, who weigh all of it. And they are not called disciples of Moses, but of Christ; Luke 24:27: beginning from Moses and the prophets, he expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning him.

He is tempted by the Pharisees and surrounded by their lies. According to the psalmist, "The arrows of children are their snares." Nevertheless, on account of the dignity of the priests and their reputation, he encourages the people to obey them, considering not their works but their teaching. What he says is this: "The scribes and Pharisees sit upon the throne of Moses," showing this as a throne of teaching about the law. And we ought to accept this because of what is said in the psalms: "He does not sit in the seat of scoffers" and "He overturned the seats of those who sold pigeons."

(Hom. lxxii.) But that none should say, For this cause am I slack to practise, because my instructor is evil, He removes every such plea, saying, All therefore whatsoever they say unto you, that observe and do, for they speak not their own, but God's, which things He taught through Moses in the Law. And look with how great honour He speaks of Moses, showing again what harmony there is with the Old Testament.

Look with what He begins His reproof of them, For they say, and do not. Every one who transgresses the Law is deserving of blame, but especially he who has the post of instruction. And this for a threefold cause; first, because he is a transgressor; secondly, because when he ought to set others right, be himself halts; thirdly, because, being in the rank of a teacher, his influence is more corrupting.

But if the Scribes and Pharisees who sit in Moses' seat are the teachers of the Jews, teaching the commandments of the Law according to the letter, how is this that the Lord bids us do after all things which they say; but the Apostles in the Acts forbid the believers to do according to the letter of the Law. (Acts 15:19.) These indeed taught after the letter, not understanding the Law spiritually. Whatsoever they say to us out of the Law, with understanding of its sense, that we do and keep, not doing after their works, for they do not what the law enjoins, nor perceive the veil that is upon the letter of the Law. Or by all we are not to understand every thing in the Law, many things for example relating to the sacrifices, and the like, but such as concern our conduct. But why did He command this not of the Law of grace, but of the doctrine of Moses? Because truly it was not the time to publish the commandments of the New Law before the season of His passion. I think also that He had herein something further in view. He was about to bring many things against the Scribes and Pharisees in His discourse following, wherefore that vain men might not think that He coveted their place of authority, or spoke thus out of enmity to them, he first puts away from Himself this suspicion, and then begins to reprove them, that the people might not fall into their faults; and that, because they ought to hear them, they should not think that therefore they ought to imitate them in their works, He adds, But do ye not after their works. What can be more pitiable than such a teacher, whose life to imitate is ruin, to refuse to follow is salvation for his disciples?

But as gold is picked out of the dross, and the dross is left, so hearers may take doctrine and leave practice, for good doctrine oft comes from an evil man. But as Priests judge it better to teach the bad for the sake of the good, rather than to neglect the good for the sake of the bad; so also let those who are set under them pay respect to the bad Priests for the sake of the good, that the good may not be despised because of the bad; for it is better to give the bad what is not their due, rather than to defraud the good of what is justly theirs.

Then he admonishes them to obedience with caution; and he does two things. First, he exhorts them to obey; secondly, to beware. All things whatsoever they shall say to you, observe, namely in the heart, and do, in deed; Deuteronomy 17:9: you shall come to the priests of the levitical race, and to the judge; and afterward: and you shall do whatsoever they shall say; and it follows: you shall follow their sentence. And the Apostle says: obey your prelates. And this is against the Manicheans, who said that the old law was not good. And it is clear that it is good, because the Lord commanded it to be observed. But someone can object: therefore we ought to observe the legal ceremonies, which is against the doctrine of the apostles, Acts 15:29. It should be known that the authority of the lawgiver is always to be maintained according to his intention; but the lawgiver says some things as always to be observed, and such things must always be observed; but he says other things that are like a shadow, as it says in Colossians 2:17: which are a shadow of things to come. Moral precepts, therefore, are commandments according to the intention of the lawgiver, to be observed always; but legal precepts only for a time, namely for the time before Christ. Hence before that time they ought to be observed, but not after: because whoever would observe them would do injury to Christ. And Augustine gives an example. If someone were to say, "I shall eat tomorrow," this utterance is a sign of this thing; and if, after he had eaten, he were to say the same thing, he would not speak rightly. So since these legal precepts were signs of Christ who was to come, after Christ came, whoever would observe them would not observe them rightly. Hence all things whatsoever they shall say to you, according to the intention of the lawgiver, do. But according to their works do ye not. Here he teaches caution. You should know that a prelate is placed in charge so as to teach not only by doctrine but also by his life. And we ought to be in agreement with him as regards what he teaches, because, as is said in Galatians 1:9, if anyone preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. Likewise, we ought to conform to him in life. For his life should be an example to us, as the life of Christ; hence 1 Corinthians 4:16: be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ. But these men were not at variance with the doctrine, but with the life; therefore their doctrine is to be attended to, but their life is to be avoided. For they say, and do not. Here he assigns the reason. And first he states the reason; secondly, he explains it, at for they bind heavy burdens, etc. You say, whatsoever they shall say to you, do, because they say: you ought to do good, but they do not; and therefore you ought not to act according to their works, because you who teach not to steal, do steal; Psalm 49:16: but to the sinner God has said: why do you declare my justices, and take my covenant in your mouth?

But the modern laws are almost always laws made to affect the governed class, but not the governing. We have public-house licensing laws, but not sumptuary laws. That is to say, we have laws against the festivity and hospitality of the poor, but no laws against the festivity and hospitality of the rich. We have laws against blasphemy—that is, against a kind of coarse and offensive speaking in which nobody but a rough and obscure man would be likely to indulge. But we have no laws against heresy—that is, against the intellectual poisoning of the whole people, in which only a prosperous and prominent man would be likely to be successful. The evil of aristocracy is not that it necessarily leads to the infliction of bad things or the suffering of sad ones; the evil of aristocracy is that it places everything in the hands of a class of people who can always inflict what they can never suffer. Whether what they inflict is, in their intention, good or bad, they become equally frivolous. The case against the governing class of modern England is not in the least that it is selfish; if you like, you may call the English oligarchs too fantastically unselfish. The case against them simply is that when they legislate for all men, they always omit themselves.

(interlin.) Or, bind burdens, that is, gather traditions from all sides, not to aid, but to burden the conscience.

(Verse 4.) However, they bind heavy and burdensome loads and lay them on people's shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with their finger. This applies generally to all teachers who command heavy things but do not do smaller things. However, it should be noted that both the shoulders, the finger, the burdens, and the chains with which the burdens are bound should be understood spiritually.

But all these things, the shoulders, the finger, the burdens, and the bands with which they bind the burdens, have a spiritual meaning. Herein also the Lord speaks generally against all masters who enjoin high things, but do not even little things.

And together with these He mentions also another charge against them, that they are harsh to those accountable to them.

"For they bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders, but they will not move them with their finger." He mentions here a twofold wickedness, their requiring great and extreme strictness of life, without any indulgence, from those over whom they rule, and their allowing to themselves great security; the opposite to which the truly good ruler ought to hold; in what concerns himself, to be an unpardoning and severe judge, but in the matters of those whom he rules, to be gentle and ready to make allowances; the contrary to which was the conduct of these men.

For such are all they who practise self restraint in mere words, unpardoning and grievous to bear as having no experience of the difficulty in actions. And this itself too is no small fault, and in no ordinary way increases the former charge.

But do thou mark, I pray thee, how He aggravates this accusation also. For He did not say, "they cannot," but, "they will not." And He did not say, "to bear," but, "to move with a finger," that is, not even to come near them, nor to touch them.

Therefore up until now the scribes and Pharisees among the Jews have been sitting on the throne of Moses. I am not saying this because only scribes and Pharisees will sit on the seat of Moses. They speak but do not do anything, laying heavy and unsupportable burdens on the shoulders of men.Yet they are not even willing to lift a finger to lighten those burdens. For I judge that those who rightly understand and explain Moses according to his spiritual power are the ones who will indeed sit on the throne of Moses. But these are not the scribes and Pharisees. They are much better. They are the beloved disciples of Christ who interpret his word through the grace of God. They are able to sort out different meanings in different words. Indeed, therefore, before the coming of Christ they sat well on the throne of Moses who interpreted the sayings of Moses well and according to reason. However, after the coming of Christ, they sit on the throne of the church, which is the seat and throne of Christ.

Just as the scribes and Pharisees wickedly sat upon the throne of Moses, so do some in the church who sit upon the ecclesiastical throne. There are some in the church who have the right understanding of the law and pass it on correctly. They say what each person needs to do, but they themselves do not do it. Some of them lay heavy burdens upon the shoulders of men, but they won't even lift a finger to help. These are the ones the Savior is talking about when he says, "Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of God." There are others, however, who sit on the throne, who act before they speak and speak wisely, restraining those who are disordered. They place merciful burdens on the shoulders of others. They themselves are the first to lift the heavy burden, for the exhortation of other listeners. It is these of whom the Lord speaks when he says, "He who does so and teaches others to do so, this man will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

And to the Scribes and Pharisees of whom He is now speaking, heavy burdens not to be borne are the commandments of the Law; as St. Peter speaks in the Acts, Why seek ye to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear? (Acts 15:10.) For commending the burdens of the Law by fabulous proofs, they bound as it were the shoulders of the heart of their hearers with bands, that thus tied as though with proof of reason to them, they might not fling them off; but themselves did not in the least measure fulfil them, that is, not only did not wholly, but did not so much as attempt to.

Such also are they who lay a heavy burden upon those who come to penitence, so that while men would avoid present punishment, they overlook that which is to come. For if you lay upon a boy's shoulders a burden more than he can bear, he must needs cither cast it off, or be broken down by it; so the man on whom you lay too grievous a burden of penance must either wholly refuse it, or if he submit himself to it will find himself unable to bear it, and so be offended, and sin worse. Also, if we should be wrong in imposing too light a penance, is it not better to have to answer for mercy than for severity? Where the master of the household is liberal, the steward should not be oppressive. If God be kind, should His Priest be harsh? Do you seek thereby the character of sanctity? Be strict in ordering your own life, in that of others lenient; let men hear of you as enjoining little, and performing much. The Priest who gives licence to himself, and exacts the utmost from others, is like a corrupt tax-gatherer in the state, who to ease himself taxes others heavily.

The Pharisees laid heavy burdens on men, forcing them to fulfill the commandments of the law which were detailed and difficult to observe. Indeed, they weighed them down with more than the commandments of the law by handing down certain traditions that went beyond the law; these traditions they did not move with even one of their fingers, that is, they themselves did not practice them, nor even dare to undertake such burdens. For whenever a teacher not only teaches but practices what he teaches, then he is seen to carry the burden and to labor along with those who are taught. But when he gives me a load to carry, but himself practices nothing, then indeed he weighs me down, showing by what he himself neglects to do that it is impossible to accomplish what he says. The Lord, therefore, is accusing the Pharisees of themselves not wanting to carry the weight of the commandments and to practice them. Not only do they not do anything good, but they pretend that they do good. Even if they had done something good, because they did it for the sake of appearance, any gain they might have derived from it would have fallen through their fingers. So indeed they are worthy of condemnation now, since they do not do good and yet they wish men to think that they do. What things do they practice? "They make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their garments." What this means is this: in the law it is said, "Thou shalt bind [the words of the law] to thy hand and they shall be immovable before thine eyes" (Deut. 6:8). So the Pharisees would inscribe on two pieces of leather the ten commandments of the law, and they would attach one to their forehead and suspend the other from their right hand. They would make borders on the ends of their garments, consisting of blood-red threads like a fringe. For this, too, they found a text in the law (Num. 15:38-40), so that when they saw these things they would not forget the commandments of God. But God did not desire this; rather, to have the phylactery upon the hand meant that one must labor in the commandments, and the blood-red fringe showed that we must be signed with the blood of Christ. But the Pharisees made large phylacteries and fringes, so that those who saw them would think that they were keepers of the law.

For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, etc. For the Lord wishes to exaggerate their malice, because they say, and do not. If they simply said and did not do, this would still be tolerable; but this does not suffice them, because they add most grievous burdens to the precepts of God. And therefore their presumption is noted, because they bind other burdens upon the burdens imposed by God, because they make new observances, as it says in Mark 7:2, that they forbade eating bread unless the hands were frequently washed; against that passage in Isaiah 58:6: loose the bands of wickedness, undo the bundles that oppress. Likewise, their cruelty is noted, for they impose burdens, against that passage in 1 John 5:3: for the commandments of God are not heavy. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light, above at 11:30. Likewise, their indiscretion is noted, because if they imposed a heavy burden on a strong person, it would not be a great thing; but they impose insupportable burdens on the weak: for that cannot be carried which exceeds the strength of the one carrying it. In Acts 15:10: this is a burden which neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear. Likewise, their excessive severity is noted, because if they imposed a burden and gave indulgence, this would still be sufficient; but with a certain violence they command. They lay them on men's shoulders; hence they exceed in speaking. Likewise, they exceed in not doing, because there are some men who do not wish to accomplish everything, yet they wish to accomplish something. Likewise, there are some who, even if they do not wish to do something difficult, yet wish to do something light. Likewise, there are some who, even though they do not act, yet have the will to act. But he who wishes none of these things exceeds in malice; hence he says, but with a finger of their own they will not move them; hence they not only did not do them, but were unwilling even to move them with their finger, i.e., not even to begin them. Nor even to do light things, which are signified by a finger. Therefore you ought to do what they teach, but they are not to be followed as regards their works, because they do not even the least thing. Chrysostom says: such are those who speak great things and do small things; such are like tax collectors, who make others pay more than the taxes demand, but they themselves pay nothing. Let me not see you teaching great things but doing small things. Hence the Lord will spare you more if you incline to mercy than to severity.

Three brothers once came to a hermit in Scetis. One of them said to him, 'Abba, I have memorized the Old and New Testaments.' But the hermit answered, 'And you have filled the air with words.' The second said to him, 'I have written out the Old and New Testaments with my own hand.' But the hermit said, 'And you have filled the window-ledge with manuscripts.' The third said, 'The grass is growing up my chimney.' But the hermit answered, 'And you have driven away hospitality.'

They called those phylacteries "little pictures" of the Decalogue, because whoever had them had his own fortification and defense. But the knowledgeable Pharisees did not have them, because these things must be carried in the heart, not the body. They may have children and treasure boxes and granaries, but they do not have knowledge of God. Even today there are those superstitious ladies who have their "little Gospels." In the absence of the true cross and other such things, they indeed have the zeal of God but no true knowledge of him. Even today, they too do these same kinds of things in front of us by liquefying gnats for drinking and gulping down honey. This is what some see as the small, short fringe mandated by the law. But a better case is the woman with the bloody flow who touched the fringe of the Lord's garment. She was not motivated by the superstitious sentiments of the Pharisees. And what is more, she was healed at his touch. And so when they widened their phylacteries and lengthened their fringes, attracting the honor of the people, they were exposed in their hypocrisies, showing why they seek the first seats at dinners and the front chairs in synagogues. They point out gluttony and glory in public and are hailed by men as rabbi, which in colloquial Latin means "teacher."

(Verse 5.) All their works they do to be seen by others. Therefore, whoever does anything to be seen by others, is a scribe and a Pharisee.

For the Lord, when He had given the commandments of the Law through Moses, added at the end, And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be ever before thine eyes; (Deut. 6:8.) the meaning of which is, Let my precepts be in thine hand so as to be fulfilled in thy works; let them be before thine eyes so as that thou shalt meditate upon them day and night. This the Pharisees misinterpreting, wrote on parchments the Decalogue of Moses, that is, the Ten Commandments, and folding them up, tied them on their forehead, so making them a crown for their head, that they should be always before their eyes. Moses had in another place given command that they should make fringes of blue in the borders of their garments, to distinguish the people of Israel (Numb. 15:39.); that as in their bodies circumcision, so in their garments the fringe, might discriminate the Jewish nation. But these superstitious teachers, catching at popular favour, and making gain of silly women, made broad hems, and fastened them with sharp pins, that as they walked or sat they might be pricked, and by such monitors be recalled to the duties of God's ministry. This embroidery then of the Decalogue they called phylacteries, that is, conservatories, because those who wore them, wore them for their own protection and security. So little did the Pharisees understand that they were to be worn on the heart and not on the body; for in equal degree may cases and chests be said to have books, which assuredly have not the knowledge of God.

But wherein are they earnest, and vigorous? In the things forbidden. For, "all their works they do," He saith, "to be seen of men." These things He saith, accusing them in respect of vainglory, which kind of thing was their ruin. For the things before were signs of harshness and remissness, but these of the mad desire of glory. This drew them off from God, this caused them to strive before other spectators, and ruined them. For whatever kind of spectators any one may have, since it hath become his study to please these, such also are the contests he exhibits And he that wrestles among the noble, such also are the conflicts he takes in hand, but he among the cold and supine, himself also becomes more remiss. For instance, hath any one a beholder that delights in ridicule? he himself too becomes a mover of ridicule, that he may delight the spectator: hath another one who is earnest minded, and practises self-government? he endeavors himself to be such as he is, since such is the disposition of him who praises him.

But see again that here too the charge is with aggravation. For neither is it that they do some things in this way, some in another way, but all things absolutely this way.

Then, having blamed them for vainglory, He shows that it is not even about great and necessary things they are vainglorious (for neither had they these, but were destitute of good works), but for things without warmth or worth, and such as were certain proofs of their baseness, the phylacteries, the borders; of their garments. "For they make broad their phylacteries," He saith, "and enlarge the borders of their garments."

And what are these phylacteries, and these borders? Since they were continually forgetting God's benefits, He commanded His marvellous works to be inscribed on little tablets, and that these should be suspended from their hands (wherefore also He said, "They shall be immoveable in thine eyes"), which they called phylacteries; as many of our women now wear Gospels hung from their necks. And in order that by another thing again they may be reminded, like as many often do, binding round their finger with a piece of linen or a thread, as being likely to forget, this God enjoined them as children to do, "to sew a ribbon of blue on their garments, upon the fringe that hung round their feet, that they might look at it, and remember the commandments;" and they were called "borders."

In these things then they were diligent, making wide the strips of the tablets, and enlarging the borders of their garments; which was a sign of the most extreme vanity. For wherefore art thou vainglorious, and dost make these wide? what, is this thy good work? what cloth it profit thee at all, if thou gain not the good results from them. For God seeks not the enlarging of these and making them wide, but our remembering His benefits. But if for almsgiving and prayer, although they be attended with labor, and be good deeds on our parts, we must not seek vainglory, how dost thou, O Jew, pride thyself in these things, which most of all convict thy remissness.

And their works likewise they do to be seen of men, using outward circumcision, taking away actual leaven out of their houses, and doing such like things. But Christ's disciples fulfil the Law in things secret, being Jews inwardly, as the Apostle speaks. (Rom. 2:29.)

Every substance breeds in itself that which destroys it, as wood the worm, and garments the moth; so the Devil strives to corrupt the ministry of the Priests, who are ordained for the edification of holiness, endeavouring that this good, while it is done to be seen of men, should be turned into evil. Take away this fault from the clergy, and you will have no further labour in their reform, for of this it comes that a clergyman who has sinned can hardly perform penance. Also the Lord here points out the cause why they could not believe in Christ, because nearly all they did was in order to be seen of men; for he whose desire is for earthly glory from men, cannot believe on Christ who preaches things heavenly. I have read one who interprets this place thus. In Moses' seat, that is, in the rank and degree instituted by Moses, the Scribes and Pharisees are seated unworthily, forasmuch as they preached to others the Law which foretold Christ's coming, but themselves did not receive Him when come. For this cause He exhorts the people to hear the Law which they preached, that is, to believe in Christ who was preached by the Law, but not to follow the Scribes and Pharisees in their disbelief of Him. And He shows the reason why they preached the coming of Christ out of the Law, yet did not believe on Him; namely, because they did not preach that Christ should come through any desire of His coming, but that they might be seen by men to be doctors of the Law.

But after their example do many invent Hebrew names of Angels, and write them, and bind them on themselves, and they seem dreadful to such as are without understanding. Others again wear round their neck a portion of the Gospel written out. But is not the Gospel read every day in the Church, and heard by all? Those therefore who receive no profit from the Gospel sounded in their ears, how shall the having them hung about their neck save them? Further, wherein is the virtue of the Gospel? in the shape of its letters, or in the understanding its meaning? If in the characters, you do well to hang them round your neck; if in their meaning, they are of more profit when laid up in the heart, than hung round the neck. But others explain this place thus, That they made broad their teachings concerning special observances, as phylacteries, or preservatives of salvation, preaching them continually to the people. And the broad fringes of their garments they explain of the same undue stress upon such commandments.

And all their works they do to be seen by men. Here he sets forth their intention; and he does two things. First, he reveals their intention; secondly, he warns the disciples to avoid them. And first he sets forth their intention; secondly, he explains it, at for they make their phylacteries broad, etc. What is the reason why they say and do not? Because they are incorrigible. Now the reason why a man is difficult to correct, or incorrigible, is that he seeks his own glory. Hence Chrysostom says: take vainglory away from the clergy, and without labor you will cut away all other vices. Hence he begins by saying: all their works they do to be seen by men; John 12:43: they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God. Hence he says, all their works they do, because not only one thing, but all things, to be seen by men, against what is said above at 6:16: be not as the hypocrites. Be not therefore like to them. There follows the explanation: for they make their phylacteries broad, etc. And he does two things. First, he says what they do; secondly, what they seek, at and they love the first places at feasts, etc. What do they do? They do not do burdensome things, but certain things that are outwardly apparent, they do well; hence Bernard says: they bear garments of sanctity, and this is not burdensome, which they displayed in phylacteries and in fringes. For it says in Deuteronomy 6:8: you shall bind them on your hand, and before your eyes. On the hand, i.e., in the completion of a work, and before your eyes, i.e., in your consideration. Therefore, these men, desiring glory, so that they might appear to be zealous for the commandments of God, would write the commandments on a strip and place them before their eyes, and they called this phylacteries, and they made these broader so that they might be more seen by men; hence it says, they make their phylacteries broad. Likewise, regarding the fringes, it is read in Numbers 15:38 that the Lord commanded them to make fringes, because he willed that the Jewish people be distinguished from other peoples. And these men, to show themselves more religious, made the fringes larger and bound thorns to them, so that they might seem to prick themselves, in order to remind themselves that they were Jews. Therefore they exhibit only external things; above at 7:15: they come to you in the clothing of sheep.

(Verse 6.) For they enlarge their phylacteries and magnify their fringes. They love the places of honor at banquets, the chief seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called Rabbi by men. Woe to us, miserable ones, to whom the vices of the Pharisees have been passed on. When the Lord gave the commandments of the Law through Moses, He added at the end: Bind them upon your hand, and they shall be before your eyes (Deut. VI, 8). And the meaning is: Let my precepts be in your hand, so that they may be fulfilled in action: let them be before your eyes, so that day and night you may meditate on them. The Pharisees, by misinterpreting this, wrote the Ten Commandments of Moses on scrolls, folding them up and binding them on their foreheads, making them like a crown on their heads so that they would always be before their eyes. This is still done today by the Indians, Persians, and Babylonians, and those who do this are considered religious among the people. Moses also commanded (Num. XV) that the Israelite people should make blue tassels on the corners of their garments, to distinguish them as the chosen people, just as circumcision is a sign for the Jewish people's bodies, so their clothing should have some distinction. Superstitious teachers, seeking popular applause, and pursuing gains from women, made large phylacteries and bound the sharpest thorns in them so that, as they walked or sat, they would be punctured and, as it were, be drawn by this admonition to the duties of the Lord and to the ministries of his service. Therefore, because the Lord had said that they do all their works to be seen by men, which he had accused in general, he now divides them into parts. Those little tablets of the Decalogue were called phylacteries, which whoever had them would have as a safeguard and a reminder of themselves: the Pharisees not understanding that these things should be carried in the heart, not on the body; otherwise, even cabinets and chests have books, but do not have knowledge of God. This is done among us by superstitious women, in little Gospels, and in the wood of the cross, and in similar things (which indeed they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge). (Romans 10) Even today, they strain out a gnat and swallow a camel (Below, in the same place). Such was the fringe, small and short, from the Law and the precepts, which was touched by the woman who was flowing with blood, in the cloak of the Lord (Luke 8, above). But she was not moved by the superstitious thorns of the Pharisees; rather, she was healed by touching it. And when they excessively enlarge their phylacteries and make large fringes, seeking glory from men, they are accused in the rest, why they seek the first places at dinners, and the first seats in synagogues; and in public they cut throats and glory; and they are called Rabbi by men, which is said in Latin language, teacher. Denique sequitur:

Seeing they thus make broad their phylacteries, and make them broad fringes, desiring to have glory of men, they are convicted also in other things; For they love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues.

But they not in these only, but in other little things, suffered from this disease.

For, "they love," He saith, "the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi." For these things, although one may think them small, yet are they a cause of great evils. These things have overthrown both cities and churches.

And it comes upon me now even to weep, when I hear of the first seats, and the greetings, and consider how many ills were hence engendered to the churches of God, which it is not necessary to publish to you now; nay rather as many as are aged men do not even need to learn these things from us.

But mark thou, I pray thee, how vainglory prevailed; when they were commanded not to be vainglorious, even in the synagogues, where they had entered to discipline others.

For to have this feeling at feasts, to howsoever great a degree, doth not seem to be so dreadful a thing; although even there the teachers ought to be held in reverence, and not in the church only, but everywhere. And like as a man, wherever he may appear, is manifestly distinguished from the brutes; so also ought the teacher, both speaking and holding his peace, and dining, and doing whatever it may be, to be distinguished as well by his gait, as by his look, and by his garb, and by all things generally. But they were on every account objects of ridicule, and in every respect disgraced themselves, making it their study to follow what they ought to flee. For they love them, it is said; but if the loving them be a matter of blame, what a thing must the doing them be; and to hunt and strive after them, how great an evil.

What are we to say about those who "love the places of honor at banquets and the front seats in synagogues and the highest respect in public places and to be called rabbi by everyone"? We must first admit that this kind of delight is found not only among the scribes and Pharisees but also in the church of Christ, and not only at dinner, while taking places at the table, but also the front seats in church. These are the deacons, or those who wish to become deacons, yet who "squander the savings of widows, praying for a good opportunity" and yet "will receive a greater judgment." They covet even more avidly the highly visible "first seats" of those called priests. Indeed, however, even they do not put as much effort into their scheming as those who are called bishops, the ones who love "being called rabbi by men." It is they who ought most clearly to understand that a bishop is to be "above reproach" and so on, so that he would be called "bishop" not by men [only] but rather before God.

For He rebukes not those who recline in the highest place, but those who love such places, blaming the will not the deed. For to no purpose does he humble himself in place who exalts himself in heart. For some vain men hearing that it was a commendable thing to seat himself in the lowest place, chooses so to do; and thus not only does not put away the vanity of his heart, but adds this additional vain ostentation of his humility, as one who would be thought righteous and humble. For many proud men take the lowest place in their bodies, but in haughtiness of heart think themselves to be seated among the highest; and there are many humble men who, placed among the highest, are inwardly in their own esteem among the lowest.

It should be noted, that He does not forbid those to whom this belongs by right of rank to be saluted in the forum, or to sit or recline in the highest room; but those who unduly desire these things, whether they obtain them or not, these He enjoins the believers to shun as wicked.

Alas! What is He saying? They are condemned even for loving these things. If he who only loves the place of honor is rebuked, what punishment does that man deserve who does everything to satisfy this love? In the very place where they ought to have taught others to be humble, that is, in "the chief seats in the synagogues," there they themselves were corrupted. For they did everything for the sake of glory, and they were not ashamed of doing these things, but wished all the more for men to call out to them, "Rabbi, Rabbi," which means "teacher."

And what do they seek? To be seen by men. Now this glory is shown in three things: in primacy, in the reverence shown, and in the praise of the name; for whoever seeks glory seeks one of these, or all of them. But these men sought primacy in a sacred place and in a public place; hence regarding the public place he says, and they love the first places at feasts. For they wished to sit at the head of tables, against that passage in Luke 14:8: when you are invited to a wedding, sit down in the lowest place. And he says they love, because it is not authority that is reprehended, but the disordered appetite. For some are in the first place bodily, who nevertheless in their heart sit in the lowest place; and conversely, someone sits in the lowest place so that it might be said, "Look, he is humble," and so forth, but he is in the first place in his heart, because from this he seeks glory. Likewise, they seek primacy in a sacred place, namely in the church; hence he says, and the first chairs in the synagogues, against that passage in Sirach 7:4: seek not of man the pre-eminence, nor of the king the seat of honor.

They love the first salutations, first, that is, not in time only, before others; but in tone, that we should say with a loud voice, Hail, Rabbi; and in body that we should bow low our head; and in place, that the salutation should be in public.

That is, they wish to be called, not to be such; they desire the name, and neglect the duties.

And herein they are not without fault, that the same men should be concerned in the litigations of the forum, who in the synagogue in Moses' seat, seek to be called Rabbi by men.

Likewise, they desire reverence; hence he says, and salutations in the marketplace, i.e., that they be greeted and honored by men, that the hood be removed before them, and that knees be bent before them; and they desire to be called by men, Rabbi, i.e., that they be praised as masters. Origen refers this to those who desire dignities in the churches: for there is a certain dignity of archdeacons, deacons, priests, and bishops. Deacons are appointed to preside over tables, Acts 6:2ff. Hence those who desire the first places at feasts desire the position of deacons. Likewise, the chair properly belongs to priests; therefore those who love the chairs love the position of priests. But those who ought to be masters are properly the bishops; hence those who wish to be called Rabbi love to be bishops.

(Verse 8 onwards) But you must not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, who is in heaven. Nor are you to be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled, and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. Neither be called masters; for One is your Master, that is, Christ. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Father, because from Him all things are. Teacher, because through Him all things: or because through the dispensation of His flesh, we all are reconciled to God. It is asked why the Apostle, the teacher of the Gentiles, declared himself to be against this precept (2 Corinthians 5; Colossians 1); or how, in the common language, especially in the monasteries of Palestine and Egypt, they call each other Fathers? This is resolved as follows: It is one thing to be a father or a teacher by nature, another thing by indulgence. If we call someone our father, we show honor to their age, not that they are the author of our life. Likewise, a teacher is called such from the fellowship of a true teacher. And to avoid endless repetition, just as one God and one Son do not prejudice others from being called gods and sons by adoption, so one father and one teacher do not prejudice others from being called fathers and teachers in an abusive manner.

(cont. Helvid. 15.) All men may be called brethren in affection, which is of two kinds, general and particular. Particular, by which all Christians are brethren; general, by which all men being born of one Father are bound together by like tie of kindred.

The other things then He carried no further than to accuse them, as being small and trifling, and as though His disciples needed not at all to be corrected about these matters; but what was a cause of all the evils, even ambition, and the violent seizing of the teacher's chair, this He brings forward, and corrects with diligence, touching this vehemently and earnestly charging them.

For what saith He? "But be not ye called Rabbi." Then follows the cause also; "For one is your master, and all ye are brethren;" and one hath nothing more than another, in respect of his knowing nothing from himself. Wherefore Paul also saith, "For who is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers?" He said not masters.

You are not "to be called rabbi" and especially "not by men," nor are you to love to be called righteous by someone else. "For you have one teacher, and you are all brothers" to each other. For you have been born anew, not only from water but also from the spirit, and you have received the "spirit of adoption," so that it might be said of you that you were "born not of the flesh, nor of the will of man" but from God. It is hard to imagine this being said of anyone or any son until now. You do not call anyone on earth "Father" in the sense that you say "our Father" of the one who gives all things through all ages and according to the divine plan. Whoever ministers with the divine word does not put himself forward to be called "teacher," for he knows that when he performs well it is Christ who is within him. He should only call himself "servant" according to the command of Christ, saying, "Whoever is greater among you, let him be the servant of all."

And in the Church of Christ are found some who take to themselves the uppermost places, that is, become deacons; next they aspire to the chief seats of those that are called presbyters; and some intrigue to be styled among men Bishop, that is, to be called Rabbi. But Christ's disciple loves the uppermost place indeed, but at the spiritual banquet, where he may feed on the choicer morsels of spiritual food, for, with the Apostles who sit upon twelve thrones, he loves the chief seats, and hastes by his good works to render himself worthy of such seats; and he also loves salutations made in the heavenly market-place, that is, in the heavenly congregations of the primitive. But the righteous man would be called Rabbi, neither by man, nor by any other, because there is One Master of all men.

Be not ye called Rabbi, that ye take not to yourselves what belongs to God. And call not others Rabbi, that ye pay not to men a divine honour. For One is the Master of all, who instructs all men by nature. For if man were taught by man, all men would learn that have teachers; but seeing it is not man that teaches, but God, many are taught, but few learn. Man cannot by teaching impart an understanding to man, but that understanding which is given by God man calls forth

So, too, righteousness-for the God of righteousness and of creation is the same-was first in a rudimentary state, having a natural fear of God: from that stage it advanced, through the Law and the Prophets, to infancy; from that stage it passed, through the Gospel, to the fervour of youth: now, through the Paraclete, it is settling into maturity. He will be, after Christ, the only one to be called and revered as Master; for He speaks not from Himself, but what is commanded by Christ.

Therefore a wife, when her husband is dead, will not marry; for if she marry, she will of course be marrying (his) brother: for "all we are brethren." Again, the woman, if intending to marry, has to marry "in the Lord; " that is, not to an heathen, but to a brother, inasmuch as even the ancient law forbids marriage with members of another tribe.

Christ does not prohibit one from being called "teacher," but rather He prohibits the passionate desire to be so called, and the eager pursuit of every possible means to acquire the name. For the dignity of the office of "teacher" belongs chiefly to God alone.

But be not you called Rabbi. In this part he forbids the imitation of glory; secondly, he invites to humility, at he that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. Now it should be noted that he who has primacy has the duty of instructing and governing; the first of these belongs properly to a master, the second to fathers. And therefore he first prohibits vainglory with respect to both; the second is at and call none your father upon earth. Regarding the first, he first sets forth the teaching; secondly, he assigns the reason. He says, then, but be not you called Rabbi; against which is that passage in 1 Timothy 5:17: let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. It can be said, be not, i.e., do not seek it ambitiously. And he adds the reason: for one is your master, etc., namely God; Psalm 84:9: I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me. But what does he mean to say? It should be said that he is properly called a master who has his doctrine from himself, not one who disperses to others what he has received from another. And thus there is only one master, namely God, who properly has the doctrine; but by ministry many are masters. If you seek authority, you seek what belongs to God; but if you seek ministry, you seek what belongs to humility; hence it follows, he that is the greatest among you shall be your servant, i.e., he will consider himself a servant. Chrysostom says that just as there is one God by nature and many by participation, so also there is one master naturally and many ministerially. But how can a man know that he does not have doctrine from himself? It is clear, because if so, it would be in his power to give doctrine to whomever he wished, but he cannot; rather, this belongs to God alone, who illumines the heart from within. And there is a manifest example in health, because a physician heals by administering certain things externally; but nature principally heals, and the physician only provides certain aids; and the physician heals in the way nature does, namely by reducing to a mean. So it is with knowledge, because the principle is ours from nature, namely the intellect; the one who teaches provides certain helps for doctrine, as the physician does for health, but God alone operates in the intellect. Hence one is your master; hence you ought not to be called masters. Likewise, he shows that they should not love the authority of a father: but you are all brothers, and he shows this from the equal condition. In the matter of teaching he made no difference in the quality of condition, but in paternity he adds the condition; hence he says, you are all brothers, because from me your father; Malachi 4:5: behold, I will send you Elias the prophet; and afterward: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers. Likewise, you are my children through regeneration; 1 Peter 1:3: who has regenerated us unto a lively hope, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Hence one does not have authority over another.

Matthew twenty-three: Call none your father upon earth. It is clear that he does not mean the carnal father, therefore he means the spiritual father. To this it must be said that father means one who communicates nature, and master means one who communicates knowledge; and since God alone is He who principally bestows nature and infuses knowledge, therefore both names, namely of father and of master, ought to be attributed to Him as the principal source of both knowledge and nature, inasmuch as they denote principal authority, and not to another. But because God in these things also works outwardly through human ministry, therefore both names, insofar as they denote ministry, can be communicated to a human being, not as to a principal agent, but as to a steward.

And that the disciples may ever remember that they are the children of one parent, and that by their new birth they have passed the limits of their earthly origin.

No one should be called teacher or father except God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is the Father, because all things are from him. He alone is the teacher, because through him are made all things and through him all things are reconciled to God.But one might ask, "Is it against this precept when the apostle calls himself the teacher of the Gentiles? Or when, as in colloquial speech widely found in the monasteries of Egypt and Palestine, they call each other Father?" Remember this distinction. It is one thing to be a father or a teacher by nature, another to be so by generosity. For when we call a man father and reserve the honor of his age, we may thereby be failing to honor the Author of our own lives. One is rightly called a teacher only from his association with the true Teacher. I repeat: The fact that we have one God and one Son of God through nature does not prevent others from being understood as sons of God by adoption. Similarly this does not make the terms father and teacher useless or prevent others from being called father.

It is a difficulty that the Apostle against this command calls himself the teacher of the Gentiles; and that in monasteries in their common conversation, they call one another, Father. It is to be cleared thus. It is one thing to be father or master by nature, another by sufferance. Thus when we call any man our father, we do it to show respect to his age, not as regarding him as the author of our being. We also call men 'Master,' from resemblance to a real master; and, not to use tedious repetition, as the One God and One Son, who are by nature, do not preclude us from calling others gods and sons by adoption, so the One Father and One Master, do not preclude us from speaking of other fathers and masters by an abuse of the terms.

Seest thou not those who adopt to themselves sons here, how they commit not the act to slaves, but are themselves present at the judgment-seat? Even so neither hath God committed His gift to angels, but Himself is present, commanding and saying, "Call no man Father on earth;" not that thou shouldest dishonor them that gave thee birth, but that thou shouldest prefer to all those Him that made thee, and enrolled thee amongst His own children. For He that hath given the greater, that is, hath set Himself before thee, much more will He not think scorn to distribute unto thee of His body.

And again, "Call not, father," not that they should not call, but they may know whom they ought to call Father, in the highest sense. For like as the master is not a master principally; so neither is the father. For He is cause of all, both of the masters, and of the fathers.

Not that when Christ is here said to be our Master, the Father is excluded, as neither when God is said to be our Father, is Christ excluded, Who is the Father of men.

But who calls no man father upon earth? He who in every action done as before God, says, Our Father, which art in Heaven.

And call no man your Father upon earth; because in this world though man begets man, yet there is one Father who created all men. For we have not beginning of life from our parents, but we have our life transmitted through them.

Why not? He had found the son whom he had lost; he had felt him to be all the dearer of whom he had made a gain. Who is that father to be understood by us to be? God, surely: no one is so truly a Father; no one so rich in paternal love.

However, our Lord very frequently proclaimed God as a Father to us; nay, even gave a precept "that we call no one on earth father, but the Father whom we have in the heavens: and so, in thus praying, we are likewise obeying the precept.

To Abraham, in fine, they appeal; prohibited though they are to acknowledge any other father than God. Grant, now, that Abraham is our father; grant, too, that Paul is.

In saying "Call no man your father," He is not prohibiting the honor given to parents, since He desires that we should honor our parents and especially our spiritual fathers; rather He is inducing us to acknowledge the true Father, namely, God, for He is chiefly and essentially our Father. Fathers in the flesh are not the authors of procreation, but rather, servants and accessories.

And it follows, and call none your father upon earth: because you are children of the heavenly Father, therefore you should not have a father on earth. He is properly said to have a father on earth who seeks his inheritance on earth; and he has a father in heaven who seeks his inheritance in heaven; 1 Peter 1:4: who has regenerated us unto an incorruptible inheritance, and undefiled, and that cannot fade, reserved in heaven. Why then are the superiors in monasteries called fathers? It should be said that it is with respect to authority; Ephesians 3:4: you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, etc. For one is your father. Above at 6:9: our Father, who art in heaven.

(non occ.) Because it was clear who was the Father of all, by this which was said, Which art in Heaven, He would teach them who was the Master of all, and therefore repeats the same command concerning a master, Neither be ye called masters; for one is your Master, even Christ.

And again He adds, "Neither be ye called guides, for one is your guide, even Christ;" and He said not, I. For like as above He said, "What think ye of Christ?" and He said not, "of me," so here too.

But I should be glad to ask here, what they would say, who are repeatedly applying the term one, one, to the Father alone, to the rejection of the Only-begotten. Is the Father guide? All would declare it, and none would gainsay it. And yet "one," He saith, "is your guide, even Christ." For like as Christ, being called the one guide, casts not out the Father from being guide; even so the Father, being called Master, doth not cast out the Son from being Master. For the expression, one, one, is spoken in contra-distinction to men, and the rest of the creation.

Likewise, neither be ye called masters, for one is your master: Christ. Hence Christ attributes mastership to himself, because Christ is the Word; and therefore it belongs to him to teach, because no one teaches except through the Word. Likewise, he is master with respect to his human nature, because he was sent to teach; John 1:18: no man has seen God at any time. The only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. Likewise, ibid. 13:13: you call me master and Lord.

Since those who have arrived teaching new beliefs for the most part do so from conceit and arrogance, I will say something concerning the value of the teaching. The Lord cuts short this opinion and way as leading to destruction. He says, "You love glory and the places of first importance." Meanwhile he desires the servant's role and cultivates humility.

Having warned them therefore against this grievous pest, and amended them, He instructs also how they may escape it; by humility. Wherefore He adds also, "He that is greatest among you shall be your servant. For whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased, and whosoever shall abase himself shall be exalted."

For nothing is equal to the practice of modesty, wherefore He is continually reminding them of this virtue, both when He brought the children into the midst, and now. And, when on the mount, beginning the beatitudes, He began from hence. And in this place, He plucks it up by the roots hereby, saying, "He that abaseth himself shall be exalted."

Seest thou how He draws off the hearer right over to the contrary thing. For not only doth He forbid him to set his heart upon the first place, but requires him to follow after the last. For so shalt thou obtain thy desire, He saith. Wherefore he that pursues his desire for the first, must follow after the last place. "For he that abaseth himself shall be exalted."

I wish everyone might hear this, and most of all deacons, priests and bishops, especially those who think to themselves that these were not the words written: "He who exalts himself will be humbled." On this basis, they then act as if they do not know that he said, "He who has humbled himself will be exalted." They do not hear him who said, "Learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly of heart." They thought themselves to be self-inspired and through this inspiration fell "into the judgment of the devil." They had not thought of critically examining their false humility. They would have done better to have remembered the word of wisdom that says, "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself, and you will find grace before God." It was the Lord who provided the pattern for this process. No matter how great he was, he humbled himself. For "though he was in the form of God, [he] did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name."

Or otherwise; And if one minister the divine word, knowing that it is Christ that makes it to be fruitful, such a one professes himself a minister and not a master; whence it follows, He that is greatest among you, let him be your servant. As Christ Himself, who was in truth our Master, professed Himself a minister, saying, I am in the midst of you as one that ministers. (Luke 22:27.) And well does He conclude this prohibition of all vain-glory with the words, And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Showing them what is to be gained by humility, He says that he who is great among you should be your servant and the least.

He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. After he has drawn them back from pride, he exhorts them to humility. And first he sets forth the exhortation; secondly, he assigns the reason. And this can be continued as follows. Chrysostom says: you ought not to be called fathers, nor masters; hence you should not seek these things ambitiously, but rather humility. Hence, he that is the greatest among you shall be your servant, i.e., he ought to show himself a servant. Hence 1 Corinthians 4:1: let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ. Or in another way: he had said, be not called Rabbi; hence they might say to him: do you wish that there be no authority on earth? The Lord says: this I do not wish, but I wish that he who is the greatest among you be a servant, i.e., that he not consider himself as a superior, but as a servant; 2 Corinthians 4:5: ourselves your servants through Jesus. And this is what is said in Luke 22:27: which is greater, he that serves, or he that sits at table? etc.

A hermit said, 'He who is praised and honoured above what he deserves suffers grievous loss. He who receives no honour at all among men, shall be glorified hereafter.'

The whole secret of the practical success of Christendom lies in the Christian humility, however imperfectly fulfilled. For with the removal of all question of merit or payment, the soul is suddenly released for incredible voyages. If we ask a sane man how much he merits, his mind shrinks instinctively and instantaneously. It is doubtful whether he merits six feet of earth. But if you ask him what he can conquer—he can conquer the stars. Thus comes the thing called Romance, a purely Christian product. A man cannot deserve adventures; he cannot earn dragons and hippogriffs. The mediaeval Europe which asserted humility gained Romance; the civilization which gained Romance has gained the habitable globe.

For the truth is much stranger even than it appears in the formal doctrine of the sin of pride. It is not only true that humility is a much wiser and more vigorous thing than pride. It is also true that vanity is a much wiser and more vigorous thing than pride. Vanity is social—it is almost a kind of comradeship; pride is solitary and uncivilized. Vanity is active; it desires the applause of infinite multitudes; pride is passive, desiring only the applause of one person, which it already has. Vanity is humorous, and can enjoy the joke even of itself; pride is dull, and cannot even smile. ... Stevenson had found that the secret of life lies in laughter and humility. Self is the gorgon. Vanity sees it in the mirror of other men and lives. Pride studies it for itself and is turned to stone.

All real democracy is an attempt (like that of a jolly hostess) to bring the shy people out. For every practical purpose of a political state, for every practical purpose of a tea-party, he that abaseth himself must be exalted. At a tea-party it is equally obvious that he that exalteth himself must be abased, if possible without bodily violence. Now people talk of democracy as being coarse and turbulent: it is a self-evident error in mere history. Aristocracy is the thing that is always coarse and turbulent: for it means appealing to the self-confident people. Democracy means appealing to the different people. Democracy means getting those people to vote who would never have the cheek to govern: and (according to Christian ethics) the precise people who ought to govern are the people who have not the cheek to do it.

As a matter of fact, the strongest nations are those, like Prussia or Japan, which began from very mean beginnings, but have not been too proud to sit at the feet of the foreigner and learn everything from him. Almost every obvious and direct victory has been the victory of the plagiarist. This is, indeed, only a very paltry by-product of humility, but it is a product of humility, and, therefore, it is successful. Prussia had no Christian humility in its internal arrangements; hence its internal arrangements were miserable. But it had enough Christian humility slavishly to copy France (even down to Frederick the Great's poetry), and that which it had the humility to copy it had ultimately the honour to conquer. The case of the Japanese is even more obvious; their only Christian and their only beautiful quality is that they have humbled themselves to be exalted.

The wheel is an animal that is always standing on its head; only "it does it so rapidly that no philosopher has ever found out which is its head." Or if the phrase be felt as more exact, it is an animal that is always turning head over heels and progressing by this principle. Some fish, I think, turn head over heels (supposing them, for the sake of argument, to have heels); I have a dog who nearly did it; and I did it once myself when I was very small. It was an accident, and, as delightful novelist, Mr. De Morgan, would say, it never can happen again. Since then no one has accused me of being upside down except mentally: and I rather think that there is something to be said for that; especially as typified by the rotary symbol. A wheel is the sublime paradox; one part of it is always going forward and the other part always going back. Now this, as it happens, is highly similar to the proper condition of any human soul or any political state. Every sane soul or state looks at once backwards and forwards; and even goes backwards to come on.

For those interested in revolt (as I am) I only say meekly that one cannot have a Revolution without revolving. The wheel, being a logical thing, has reference to what is behind as well as what is before. It has (as every society should have) a part that perpetually leaps helplessly at the sky and a part that perpetually bows down its head into the dust. Why should people be so scornful of us who stand on our heads? Bowing down one's head in the dust is a very good thing, the humble beginning of all happiness. When we have bowed our heads in the dust for a little time the happiness comes; and then (leaving our heads' in the humble and reverent position) we kick up our heels behind in the air. That is the true origin of standing on one's head; and the ultimate defence of paradox. The wheel humbles itself to be exalted; only it does it a little quicker than I do.

The mountain tops are only noble because from them we are privileged to behold the plains. So the only value in any man being superior is that he may have a superior admiration for the level and the common. If there is any profit in a place craggy and precipitous it is only because from the vale it is not easy to see all the beauty of the vale; because when actually in the flats one cannot see their sublime and satisfying flatness. If there is any value in being educated or eminent (which is doubtful enough) it is only because the best instructed man may feel most swiftly and certainly the splendour of the ignorant and the simple: the full magnificence of that mighty human army in the plains. The general goes up to the hill to look at his soldiers, not to look down at his soldiers. He withdraws himself not because his regiment is too small to be touched, but because it is too mighty to be seen. The chief climbs with submission and goes higher with great humility; since in order to take a bird's eye view of everything, he must become small and distant like a bird.

Which means that every one who thinks highly of his own deserts, shall be humbled before God; and every one who humbles himself concerning his good deeds, shall be exalted with God.

For he who exalts himself, presuming to be something, shall be humbled and abandoned by God.

Then he assigns the reason: and whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled, and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. Hence in the canticle of the Virgin, Luke 1:52: he has put down the mighty from their seat, and has exalted the humble.

"Woe" is a voice of sorrowing. For this reason he says that they close the kingdom of heaven, because they hide in the law the consolation of his truth. They lost sight of the advent expected by the prophets. Through deceptive teachings, they do not allow others to go to heaven either. They do not adorn the way of eternity.

The scribes and Pharisees have the knowledge of the prophets and of the law. They know that Christ is the Son of God. They are not ignorant that he was born of the Virgin. Yet they did not seek to serve the people to whom they were accountable. They themselves were not entering the kingdom of heaven, nor did they permit others who were able to do so. Hosea the prophet declares of them, "The priests have stolen the way, they have killed the [people of] Shechem," and again, "The priests did not ask where the Lord is." Surely every teacher who misleads his students shuts the gate of the kingdom of heaven before them.

(Ver. 13, 14.) But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive the greater condemnation. The scribes and Pharisees have knowledge of the Law and the Prophets, and they know that Christ is the Son of God; they are not ignorant that He was born of a Virgin. But while they seek to prey on the subject people, they themselves do not enter the kingdom of heaven, nor do they allow those who could enter to do so. This is what the Prophet Hosea accuses: The priests have hidden the way, they have murdered Shechem (Hosea 6:9). And again: The priests have not said, 'Where is the Lord?' (Hosea 4). Indeed, every teacher who scandalizes his disciples with evil deeds shuts the kingdom of heaven before them.

"Woe unto you, for ye shut up the kingdom against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." But if to profit no one be a charge against a man, even to hurt and hinder, what plea hath that? But what means, "them that are entering in?" Them that are fit for it. For when they were to lay injunctions on others, they used to make the burdens intolerable, but when they themselves were to do any of the things required, on the contrary, so far from doing anything, they went much beyond this in wickedness, they even used to corrupt others. These are they that are called pests, who make their employment the ruin of others, standing right contrary to teachers. For if it be the part of a teacher to save that which is perishing, to destroy that which is on the point of being saved is that of a destroyer.

There are those who dare to say that God is not good because of the curses in his law that he places against their sin. And yet the one who is truly the Son of God who gave that same law is also the same one who put blessings into the law. The same God who provides blessings for those who are saved in a similar way applies curses which he placed in the law against sinners. "Woe," he says. Woe to you and to those hearing these things who plead the God of the law and yet do not understand that these words were spoken by God in a kindly way. So we understand why Jesus said, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees." They believe that it is in fact a good thing to pronounce these curses against sinners. They consider the arrangement of the law's curses to be a part of God's design. The chiding father frequently urges his advice on his son for his improvement—advice that may seem to be a curse. He does not wish the curses to be actualized, however, but rather he desires to avert him from even more such curses.

Christ is truly the Son of that God Who gave the Law; after the example of the blessings pronounced in the Law, did Himself pronounce the blessings of them that are saved; and also after the cursings of the Law, He now sets forth a woe against sinners; Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites. They who allow that it is compatible with goodness to utter these denunciations against sinners, should understand that the purpose of God is the same in the cursings of the Law. Both the cursing there and the woe here fall upon the sinner not from Him who denounces, but from themselves who commit the sins which are denounced, and worthily bring upon themselves the inflictions of God's discipline, appointed for the turning of men to good. So a father rebuking a son utters words of cursing, but does not desire that he should become deserving of those curses, but rather that he should turn himself from them. He adds the cause of this woe, Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, nor suffer them that are entering to go in. These two commandments are by nature inseparable; because not to suffer others to enter in, is of itself enough to keep the hinderer out.

The Pharisees and the Scribes then would neither enter in, nor hear Him who said, By me if any man enter in he shall be saved; (John 10:9.) nor would they suffer those to enter in, who were able to have believed through the things which had been spoken before by the Law and the Prophets concerning Christ, but shut up the door with every kind of device to deter men from entering. Also they detracted from His teaching, denied all prophecy concerning Him, and blasphemed every miracle as deceitful, or wrought by the Devil. All who in their evil conversation set an example of sinning to the people, and who commit injustice, offending the weak, seem to shut up the kingdom of heaven before men. And this sin is found among the people, and chiefly among the doctors, when they teach men what the Gospel righteousness requires of them, but do not what they teach. But those who both teach and live well open to men the kingdom of heaven, and both enter in themselves, and invite others to enter in. Many also will not suffer those who are willing to enter into the kingdom of heaven, when they without reason excommunicate out of jealousy others who are better than themselves; thus they refuse them entrance, but these of sober spirit, overcoming by their patience this tyranny, although forbidden, yet enter in and inherit the kingdom. Also they who with much rashness have set themselves to the profession of teaching before they have learned, and following Jewish fables, detract from those who search out the higher things of Scripture; these do, as far as in them lies, shut out men from the kingdom of heaven.

By the kingdom of heaven is meant the Scriptures, because in them the kingdom of heaven is lodged; the understanding of these is the door. Or the kingdom of heaven is the blessedness of heaven, and the door thereof Christ, by Whom men enter in. The door-keepers are the Priests, to whom is committed the word of teaching or interpreting Scripture, by which the door of truth is opened to men. The opening of this door is right interpretation. And observe that He said not, Woe unto you, for ye open, but, for ye shut up; the Scriptures then are not shut up, though they are obscure.

Which means that every one who thinks highly of his own deserts, shall be humbled before God; and every one who humbles himself concerning his good deeds, shall be exalted with God.

Not only, He says, are you unbelievers who lead a corrupt life, but you teach others not to believe in Me and you corrupt them by your life and example. For the people are apt to become like their rulers, especially if they see them inclined towards evil. See, therefore, that "woe" is the reward of every teacher and ruler whose evil life obstructs others in progress towards good.

After he instructed the disciples and the multitudes about the caution they should have regarding the doctrine of the Jews, here he turns his discourse to the scribes, rebuking them. First, he rebukes them for the pretense of religion, when they were irreligious; secondly, for the pretense of purity, when they were impure; thirdly, for the pretense of piety, when they were impious. The second is at woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, who make clean the outside of the cup, etc. The third is at woe to you who build the sepulchres of the prophets, etc. In those things that pertain to religion, certain things are owed by priests to the people, and certain things conversely. First, therefore, he sets forth their malice in those things that are owed by priests; secondly, in those things that are owed by the people, at woe to him that says: whosoever shall swear, etc. A priest owes something to one already converted, and something to one not yet converted. To one not yet converted, that he may convert him; to one converted, doctrine; Malachi 2:7: the lips of the priest teach wisdom. Likewise, he owes him prayers; Hebrews 5:1: for every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God. And they acted wickedly in both respects; hence he first rebukes them regarding the first; secondly, regarding the second, at woe to you who devour the houses of widows, etc. In all these rebukes he shows himself to be the Son of him who gave the old law. In Deuteronomy 26 and 28, curses are given to those who did not remain in the law, and afterwards blessings are given. But because he came to loose the curses of the law, therefore the blessings were given first above, where it was said, blessed are the poor, blessed are the meek, etc. But toward the end of his teaching he gives the curse. Therefore they reprove badly who reprove the old law because curses were contained in it, since just as in the old law, so also in the new. For just as in the law none were cursed except those who transgressed the law, so neither here; Proverbs 3:11: reject not the correction of the Lord. But what does it mean when he says, who shut the kingdom of heaven against men? The kingdom of heaven is called the beatitude of eternal life; above at 5:20: unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Likewise, sacred Scripture is called the kingdom; above at 21:43: the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, i.e., the understanding of sacred Scripture. To both kingdoms Christ is the door; John 10:9: I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and he shall go in and go out, and shall find pastures. What then is it to shut the kingdom, if not that they were shutting it by bad doctrine and a bad life? Only what is open can be shut. The teachings about Christ were open, but they were shutting them, because they were making them obscure. It says in Isaiah 35:5: the Lord himself will come and will save us. Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. When the Lord was doing these miracles, this Scripture was open, but they were shutting it by saying, he casts out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils, Luke 11:15. Likewise, they were shutting it by a bad life, when by bad example they led others to sin; Psalm 1:1: blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the chair of pestilence. He properly sits in the chair of pestilence who takes the office of teaching and corrupts the people by a bad life. Also by an unjust sentence a judge slays a man, yet he hurls the unjust sentence to no effect. For power was given for binding and loosing unto edification, not unto destruction. Hence it can be said to them, woe to you (...) because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men. Likewise, whoever impedes entrance into the kingdom, there is no doubt that he acts wickedly; hence it follows, for you yourselves do not enter in, nor do you suffer those that are going in to enter, i.e., to be converted. Hence Malachi 2:8: you have departed out of the way, and have caused many to stumble.

(interlin.) Devour widows' houses, that is, your superstitions have this only aim, namely, to make a gain of the people that is put under you.

(interlin. Luke 12:47.) Or, because the servant that knew his Lord's will and did it not, shall he beaten with many stripes.

These are the poisoners of truth. They are reluctant to undertake the salvation of others. They bolt shut the kingdom of heaven. In their ambition they "devour widows' houses and for pretense make long prayers." By this acquaintance with heaven (achieved with those long prayers), they expect they will persevere in the merits of grace quietly, just as a rich person expects to receive the treasure stored up for him. However, they will receive ample judgment and punishment for their particular sins. They will be called to account for their strange and ignorant practices.

Or, because their observance of the kingdom of heaven proceeds hence, that they may keep up their practice of going about to widows' houses, they shall therefore receive the heavier judgment, as having their own sin and the ignorance of others to answer for.

"Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive greater damnation."

After this, next He derides them for gluttony: and the grievous thing was, that not from rich men's goods, but from the poor they indulged their own belly, and aggravated their poverty, which they should have relieved. For neither did they merely eat, but devoured.

Moreover also the manner of their overreaching was yet more grievous, "for a pretense making long prayers."

For every one is worthy of vengeance who doeth any evil thing; but he that is deriving even the reason for so doing from godliness, and is using this cloke for his wickedness, is justly liable to a far more grievous punishment. And wherefore did He not depose them? Because the time suffered it not as yet. So therefore He lets them alone for a time, but by His sayings, He secures that the people be not deceived, lest, through the dignity of those men, they be drawn on to the same emulation.

For as He had said, "Whatsoever they bid you do, that do;" He shows how many things they do amiss, lest from thence He should be supposed amongst the unwise to commit all to them.

The Pharisees and the Scribes then would neither enter in, nor hear Him who said, By me if any man enter in he shall be saved; (John 10:9.) nor would they suffer those to enter in, who were able to have believed through the things which had been spoken before by the Law and the Prophets concerning Christ, but shut up the door with every kind of device to deter men from entering. Also they detracted from His teaching, denied all prophecy concerning Him, and blasphemed every miracle as deceitful, or wrought by the Devil. All who in their evil conversation set an example of sinning to the people, and who commit injustice, offending the weak, seem to shut up the kingdom of heaven before men. And this sin is found among the people, and chiefly among the doctors, when they teach men what the Gospel righteousness requires of them, but do not what they teach. But those who both teach and live well open to men the kingdom of heaven, and both enter in themselves, and invite others to enter in. Many also will not suffer those who are willing to enter into the kingdom of heaven, when they without reason excommunicate out of jealousy others who are better than themselves; thus they refuse them entrance, but these of sober spirit, overcoming by their patience this tyranny, although forbidden, yet enter in and inherit the kingdom. Also they who with much rashness have set themselves to the profession of teaching before they have learned, and following Jewish fables, detract from those who search out the higher things of Scripture; these do, as far as in them lies, shut out men from the kingdom of heaven.

The female sex is imprudent, as not contemplating with reason all that it sees or hears; and weak, as being easily turned either from bad to good, or from good to bad. The male sex is more prudent and hardy. And therefore pretenders to holiness practise most upon women, who are unable to see their hypocrisy, and are easily inclined to love them on the ground of religion. But widows they chiefly choose to attempt; first, because a woman who has her husband to advise her is not so readily deceived; and secondly, she has not the means of giving, being in the power of her husband. The Lord then, whilst He confounds the Jewish Priests, instructs the Christian that they should not frequent widows rather than others, for though their purpose may not be bad, it gives occasion to suspicions.

First, for that ye are wicked, and then because ye put on the cloak of sanctity. Your covetousness you dress up in the colour of religion, and use God's arms in the Devil's service, that iniquity may be loved while it is thought to be piety.

He calls them hypocrites for professing piety and doing nothing worthy of what they profess, but instead, they would make pretence of long prayer and would devour the widows' means. Indeed they were mockers who deceived the simple and like leeches sucked them dry. "Therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation" because you have devoured everything the widows have, when instead you should have provided for them and relieved their poverty. There is yet another reason why their condemnation will be greater: they prayed pretending to do good while they were in fact doing something evil, that is, devouring the widows' means. For he who lures another into harm by pretending to be good deserves the greatest punishment.

Woe to you (...) who devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. This is the second woe, in which the pretense regarding prayer is touched upon. And first he rebukes their voracity, when he says, who devour the houses of widows, because whatever they did, they twisted entirely to gluttony, so that what is said in 2 Maccabees 6:4 applied to them, that the whole temple was full of debauchery and feasting. The houses of widows, i.e., the resources of widows. But why the houses of widows rather than of others? The reason is that they aimed more at seducing women, because men are wiser and more discreet, and are not so quickly deceived. Likewise, women have a more ready inclination toward giving; 1 Timothy 2:10: but that which becomes women professing godliness through good works. Likewise, the houses of widows, because a woman who has a husband has him as her head and counselor, and therefore is not so easily deceived. Likewise, a married woman does not have control of her house, but a widow does; therefore she can give more than a married woman, and therefore they made more profit from them than from others, when it was rather the case that they should have been giving to them; hence that passage in Psalm 93:6 applies well to them: they have slain the widow and the stranger. And this in prayer. Praying long prayers, on account of the pretense of sanctity: and so they twisted prayer toward profit, and profit toward glory. Hence they could be reproved because they were gluttonous, because they were despoilers, and likewise because they pretended sanctity; and therefore it follows, and for this you shall receive the greater judgment, i.e., you sin more greatly. And why? Because if someone robs by the weapons of the devil, he sins; and if by the weapons of God, he sins doubly, because he sins against God and against his neighbor. Or greater, etc., because you receive from those to whom you ought to be giving. Or greater, as it says in Luke 12:47: the servant who knew the will of his lord and did not do it shall be beaten with many stripes.

(cont. Faust. xvi. 29. et cf. cont. Adimant. 16.) This He said not because proselytes were circumcised, but because they imitated the lives of those from following whom He had prohibited His disciples, saying, Do ye not after their works. Two things are observable in this command; first, the honour shown to Moses' teaching, (Matt. 23:3.) that even wicked men when sitting in his seat are compelled to teach good things; and that the proselyte is made a child of hell, not by hearing the words of the Law, but by following their doings. And twofold more than they for this reason, that he neglects to fulfil what he had undertaken of his own choice, having been not born a Jew, but of free will become a Jew.

"I am becoming orthodox," I said, "because I have come, rightly or wrongly, after stretching my brain till it bursts, to the old belief that heresy is worse even than sin. An error is more menacing than a crime, for an error begets crimes. An Imperialist is worse than a pirate. For an Imperialist keeps a school for pirates; he teaches piracy disinterestedly and without an adequate salary.

(interlin. Luke 12:47.) Or, because the servant that knew his Lord's will and did it not, shall he beaten with many stripes.

(Mor. xxxi. 9.) But forasmuch as hypocrites though they do ever crooked things, yet cease not to speak right things, and thus by their good instructions beget sons, but are not able to bring them up by good life, but the more they give themselves up to worldly works, the more willingly do they suffer those whom they have begotten to work the same. And because their hearts are hardened, these very sons whom they have begotten they do not own by any sign of the affection due. Wherefore it is here said of the hypocrites, And when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

That they compass sea and land signifies that throughout the whole world they shall be enemies of Christ's Gospel, and shall bring men under the yoke of the Law against the justification of faith. There were proselytes made into the Synagogue from among the Gentiles, the small number of whom is here denoted by what is said one proselyte. For after the preaching of Christ there was no faith left in their doctrine, but whoever was gained to the faith of the Jews became a child of hell.

And he becomes the child of a twofold punishment, because he has not obtained remission of his Gentile sins, and because he has joined the society of those who persecuted Christ.

The scribes and the Pharisees were reviewing the whole world on account of the business and diverse profits taken by their disciples. These profits were taken under the pretense of sanctity.

(Verse 15.) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel over sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. We do not serve with the same zeal with which we seek. Scribes and Pharisees, while traversing the whole world for the sake of gains or different profits to be sought both by attracting disciples and by the image of holiness, they had the intention to make a proselyte, that is, a stranger and uncircumcised, mix with the people of God. But he, who before, while he was an ethnick, simply wandered, and was once the son of Gehenna, seeing the vices of the masters, and understanding to destroy them by works, what they were teaching by words, returns to his vomit: and becoming a gentile, as if a transgressor, he will be worthy of a greater punishment. But he is called the son of Gehenna, just as the son of perdition, and the son of this age. For each one is called the son of him whose works he does.

Or otherwise; The Scribes and Pharisees compassed the whole world to make proselytes of the Gentiles, that is, to mix the uncircumcised stranger with the people of God.

Or, because before while he was a Gentile he erred in ignorance, and was only a child of hell; but seeing the vices of his masters, and understanding that they destroyed in their actions what they taught in words, he returns to his vomit, and becoming a Gentile, he is worthy of greater punishment as one that has deserted his cause.

He is called a child of hell in the same way as one is said to be a child of perdition, and a child of this world; every man is called the son of him whose works he does.

After this, again another charge: "Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves;" that is, not even the fact that hardly ye have taken him, and with endless toils, induces you to be sparing towards him, although of the things we have hardly acquired, we are more sparing, but you not even this renders more gentle.

Here He lays to their charge two things; one, that they are unprofitable for the salvation of the many, and need much toil in order to win over even one; another, that they were remiss in the preservation of him whom they had gained, or rather that they were not only careless, but even traitors, by their wickedness in their life corrupting him, and making him worse. For when the disciple sees his teachers to be such as these, he becomes worse than they. For he stops not at his teacher's wickedness; but as when his teacher is virtuous, he imitates him, so when he is bad, he even goes beyond him, by reason of our proneness to what is evil.

And He calls him "a child of hell," that is, a very hell. And He said "twofold more than you," that He might both alarm those, and make these feel the more severely, because they are teachers of wickedness. And not this only, but because they labor to instill into their disciples a greater wickedness, hardening them to a much greater depravity than they have, and this is above all a mark of a depraved soul.

From this place we learn that there will be a difference of torment in hell, seeing one is here said to be singly a child of hell, another twofold. And we ought to consider here whether it is possible that a man should be generally a child of hell, as a Jew, suppose, or a Gentile, or whether specially so in consequence of some particular sins; that as a righteous man is increased in glory by the abundance of his righteousnesses, so a sinner's punishment is increased manifold by the number of his sins.

And that not of compassion from desire to save him whom they taught, but either from covetousness, that the greater number of worshippers might increase the number of offerings made in sacrifice, or out of vain glory. For he who sinks himself in a slough of sins, how should he be desirous to rescue another out of them? Will a man be more merciful to another than to himself? By a man's actions therefore it may be known whether he seeks another's conversion for God's sake, or out of vain glory.

Or, because while he was a worshipper of idols, he observed righteousness even because of men; but when he became a Jew, prompted by the example of evil teachers, he became worse than his teachers.

Not only, He says, do you corrupt the Jews, but also those who come to the Jewish religion from idolatry. These were called "proselytes." You are eager to convert someone to the Jewish way of life and to circumcision; but when they Judaize, they perish, corrupted by your wickedness. A "son of gehenna" means he who deserves gehenna and stands so close to it by disposition that he is kindled by its flames.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, who go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte. And this is explained in two ways, as referring to the time after Christ, and to the time before Christ. If to the time after, then he speaks of things future and present. For he foresaw that the Jews would be scattered throughout the whole world, and that they would convert some to their law, and pervert from Christ whomever they could. And therefore it says, you go round about the sea and the land, etc. Proselytes are those who convert from the gentiles to their faith, or from Christians; and because he foresaw that they would convert some to their faith from among the Christians, therefore he says this. And he says one, because very few were converted. Therefore they entered into that curse found in Hosea 9:10: I found Israel like grapes in the desert. And when he is made, namely a Jew, you make him a child of hell twofold more than yourselves: because he is first a gentile and then a Jew, and then he has double sins, namely of gentilism and of the Jews, because as a Jew he becomes a partaker of the slaying of Christ; but if he was a Christian and afterward becomes a Jew, he becomes doubly worse, because he defiles the gift of the Holy Spirit which he had received in the sacraments. Likewise, he becomes a partaker of the sins of the Jews; John 8:44: you are of your father the devil. It can also be referred to the time before Christ, because before Christ they converted some to their faith. And this is clear, because everyone loves himself more than another; therefore if they were converting others for the salvation of souls, they ought to have cared more for their own salvation, but they did not care. But they did all this for profit, because they wanted the offerings to be increased; hence their doctrine was futile. And when he is made, you make him a child of hell twofold more than yourselves; because first he was converted to Judaism and was scandalized, and so afterward he converted again. Hence 2 Peter 2:21: it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after knowing it, to turn back. Also in another way. Before he was a Jew, he abstained from evils, at least for the praise of men, but afterward, he did not; hence Romans 2:14: for when the gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law, these, having not the law, are a law to themselves. Hence they took example from the wicked.

(Quæst. Ev. i. 34.) The temple and altar we may also understand of Christ Himself; the gold and the gifts, of the praise and sacrifice of prayer which we offer in Him and through Him. For not He by them, but they by Him, are sanctified.

Jesus reproached those who by their inane observances detracted from the one who rightly should be honored in worship. He himself was the ground and source of the law. The law did not of itself suffice. The ornaments of the altar and temple were not the primary object of worship but were merely pointing the way for the future of true worship. Gold, silver, bronze, brass, pearl and crystal each embrace a particular meaning from their unique natures as metals. Jesus refuted the premise that the gold of the temple or the gifts of the altar could be venerated as if something in themselves rather than the greater one whom they honor. With the coming of Christ the massive structure of legal obligations became futile. Christ was not in the law, but the law was made holy in Christ. He had placed his seat and throne on the law. One who seeks to be religious should anchor himself rightly in the truth. They were stupid and blind who venerated gifts that were sanctified while they allowed sanctity itself to pass by.

(Verse 16 onwards) Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple is nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is bound by his oath.' Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold? And, 'Whoever swears by the altar is nothing, but whoever swears by the gift that is on it is obligated.' Blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? Therefore, whoever swears on the altar, swears on it and on all things that are above it. And whoever swears in the temple, swears in it and in him who dwells in it. And whoever swears in heaven, swears on the throne of God and on him who sits on it. Above, as it seemed to us, we have explained what the tradition of the Pharisees meant, saying: Whatever gift is from me will benefit you: now the double tradition of the Pharisees, enticing to one occasion of greed, is condemned, so that they may be proved to do everything for gain and not for the fear of God. For just as in the phylacteries and fringes, by enlarged expectations of holiness, it was trying to capture glory, and was seeking gains through the opportunity of glory, so another tradition found fault with the teachers of impiety. If anyone were to swear in the temple during a dispute, or in some argument, or in a doubtful case, and later be convicted of lying, they were not held accountable for the crime. But if they were to swear on gold and money, which was offered to the priests in the temple, they were immediately compelled to fulfill what they had sworn. Again: If anyone swore upon the altar, no one held him guilty of perjury; but if he swore falsely on a gift, or on offerings, that is, on victims and on fine flour and on the rest, which are offered to God upon the altar, these were most diligently sought after. Therefore, the Lord reproached them both for foolishness and deceit, because the temple is much greater than the gold that is sanctified by the temple, and the altar is greater than the offerings that are sanctified by the altar. But they did it not out of fear of God, but out of greed for riches.

As by making broad phylacteries and fringes they sought after the reputation of sanctity, and made this again a means of gain, so now He charges them with being teachers of wickedness by their fraudulent pretence of tradition. For when in any dispute or quarrel, or ambiguous cause, one swore by the temple, and was afterwards convicted of falsehood, he was not held guilty. This is what is meant by that, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing, that is, he owes nothing, But if he had sworn by the gold, or by the money which was offered to the Priests in the temple, he was immediately compelled to pay down that by which he had sworn.

Now an oath is in confirmation of somewhat that has been spoken. The oath here then may signify testimony of Scripture which we produce in confirmation of that word which we speak. So that Divine Scripture is the temple of God, the gold is the meaning which it contains. As the gold which is outside the Temple is not sanctified, so all thoughts which are without divine Scripture, however admirable they may seem, are not hallowed. We ought not therefore to bring any speculations of our own for the confirmation of doctrine, unless such as we can show are hallowed by being contained in divine Scripture. The altar is the human heart, which is the chief thing in man. The offerings and gifts that are hid upon the altar, are every thing which are done in the heart, as to pray, to sing, to do alms, to fast. Every offering of a man then is sanctified by his heart, by which the offering is made. There cannot therefore be a more honourable offering than the heart of man, out of which the offering proceeds. If then one's conscience does not smite him, he has confidence towards God, not by reason of his gifts, but so to speak because he has rightly ordered the altar of his heart. Thirdly, we may say that over the temple, that is over every Scripture, and over the altar, that is over every heart, there is a certain meaning which is called the Heaven, the throne of God Himself, in which we shall be able to see the things that are revealed face to face, when that which is perfect is come.

The temple pertains to God's glory, and to man's spiritual salvation, but the gold of the temple though it pertains to the glory of God, yet does it more so to the delight of man, and the profit of the Priests. The Jews then pronounced the gold which delighted them, and the gifts which fed them, to be more holy than the temple, that they might make men more disposed to offer gifts, than to pour out prayers in the temple. Whence the Lord suitably reproves them in these words. Yet have some Christians at present an equally foolish notion. See, they say, in any suit if one swear by God, it seems nought; but if one swear by the Gospel, he seems to have done some great thing. To whom we shall say in like manner, Ye fools and blind! the Scriptures were written because of God, God is not because of the Scriptures. Greater therefore is God, than what is hallowed by Him.

Jesus is saying that the gold in the temple, the gold objects dedicated in the temple to the glory of God, whether these be the gold cherubim or the gold jar containing the manna, were considered by the Jews to be worthy of much more honor than the temple. Therefore they were condemned by the Lord.… But the saying possesses a figurative meaning directed against them because they are not receiving the truth regarding Christ. Instead, they were judging Moses and the types given through him as more valuable than Christ.… They were rejecting the Christ who sanctifies Moses while simultaneously praising the law. Just as the law was praiseworthy, not because it possesses the types and the symbols but because it prefigures the true mystery of worship in Christ, in the same way the gold is precious because of the one who sanctifies the temple, and heaven is beautiful because of the God who sanctifies it and dwells within it.

He calls them blind for not wanting to teach what was right, but instead valuing what was of lesser importance, and giving second place to that which was worthy of honor. For they valued the gold in the temple, the images of the Cherubim and the golden urn, more highly than they did the temple itself. Therefore they taught the people that it was of no consequence to swear by the temple, and instead they taught them to swear by the gold which is in the temple. This gold, however, was precious precisely because it was in the temple. And the Pharisees said that the gifts placed on the altar were more valuable than the altar itself. So the Pharisees even taught that if someone swore by the golden vessel, or the ox, or the sheep brought for sacrifice, and then broke his oath, he was sentenced to pay an equal amount. The Pharisees put a higher value on the gift upon the altar because of the profit they derived from sacrifices. But if some one swore by the temple and then broke his oath, he was absolved [and owed nothing, the Pharisees would say], as it was not possible to build [and pay] anything equal to the temple. And so the oath by the temple was considered to be of lesser consequence because of the Pharisees' love of money. Under the Old Covenant, Christ does not permit the gift to be greater than the altar, but for us it is just the opposite: the altar is sanctified by the gifts, for the loaves are changed by divine grace into the very Body of the Lord Himself. Therefore the altar is sanctified by them.

Woe to you, blind guides. In this he shows how they are pretenders of sanctity in those things that are owed to prelates. And first, regarding offerings; secondly, regarding tithes, at woe to you (...) who tithe mint, etc. See: first he sets forth their tradition; secondly, he argues against it with three reasons. The first part, where the tradition is set forth with the reason, has two parts. The second is at and whosoever shall swear by the altar, etc. They were drawing all religion toward profit, in order to induce men to make offerings. In the temple there was much gold placed: hence they said that if anyone swore by the temple, he owed nothing; but he who swore by the gold obligated himself to as much as the value of what he swore by. Likewise, the second tradition was that there was an altar and many things were offered upon the altar; hence they said that he who swore by the altar paid nothing, but he who swore by the offering obligated himself to the value of the offering. And why? So that they might profit from the penalties, and so that they might elevate the sanctity of the offering, and so that men might be incited to offer more. And first he sets forth the first part; secondly, the second. Regarding the first, he does two things. First, he proposes the tradition; secondly, the refutation, at you foolish and blind, etc. He says, then, woe to you, blind guides, etc. The same is said above at 15:14: they are blind and leaders of the blind; Isaiah 56:10: his watchmen are all blind. Who say, whosoever shall swear by the temple of God, it is nothing, because it is impossible that this man should build another temple; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, i.e., by the gold, is a debtor, namely of that gold.

For since Christ is come, reliance upon the Law is vain; for not Christ by the Law, but the Law by Christ, is sanctified, in whom it rests as on a seat or throne; so are they fools and blind, who, overlooking the sanctifier, pay honour to the things sanctified.

Then he sets forth the refutation: you foolish and blind; for which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold? It is evident that what is in the temple is holy by reason of the temple; hence he who steals anything in the temple commits sacrilege. Hence it is greater to swear by the temple than by the gold. Chrysostom says: this is against certain people who say that to swear by God is nothing. Hence those who swear by God believe they swear by nothing; but when they swear by the holy Gospels of God, they believe it to be a great thing. Hence it can be said to them: which is greater, God or the Gospel? It is evident that it is God. And this is true absolutely; it is otherwise when some circumstance is added which aggravates the sin. Because he who swears by the holy Gospels of God has sworn with a certain deliberation and solemnity, and therefore sins more gravely.

Again, if one swore by the altar, none held him guilty of perjury; but if he swore by the gift or the victims or the other things which are offered to God upon the altar, this they exacted most rigorously. And all this they did not out of fear of God, but out of covetousness. Thus the Lord charges them with both folly and fraud, inasmuch as the altar is much greater than the victims which are sanctified by the altar.

Those who work in the fields of the gospel seek the hidden meaning of these passages of Scripture. We are not simply confiscating the higher parts of Scripture but rather looking toward its whole sense. As regards swearing, it is intended as a binding action, seeking to confirm the word concerning which something is sworn.Consider this analogy. Think of the altar as the heart and the temple as the whole of Scripture. The temple of God's glory, spiritually understood, is the divinely inspired Scripture. The gold refers to the meanings it conveys. To swear is to witness to the Scriptures, as a validation and confirmation of the word we speak. Therefore we ought to profess the whole sense of Scripture as a confirmation of the sense which we invoke in all of our words. Gold found outside the temple is not sanctified. Rather, that gold which is found in the temple is the measure of that which is outside it. Similarly the meaning which is found outside of the Scriptures is not holy, but it is contained in the meaning of the Scriptures. Only that sense of Scripture is sanctified which can be seen from within the temple itself, that is, within the whole of Scripture. The temple, that is, the reading of the Scriptures, makes a great and venerable sense, just as consecrated gold is valuable. So we ought not to swear by our own intellects to confirm our beliefs, as if we were creating witnesses that could judge according to the truth. But let us explore further the analogy of the temple, the gold and the altar. The altar is the place where a vow is sanctified. The altar in this passage is the heart of a man. What happens in the heart happens deeply within a person. Vows and gifts placed on the altar are clearly those placed upon the human heart. When you begin to pray, you place the vow of your prayer upon your heart, as if you had placed something upon the altar, so that you might offer your prayer to God. Suppose you are ready to place an offering of psalms upon your heart, so as to offer to God an offering of psalms, accompanying yourself with a harp. Or suppose you are ready to give alms. You make an offering of alms upon your heart, just as if you had placed something on the altar, as you would offer your alms to God. Suppose you have proposed to fast in order to make an offering of your fasting upon your heart, as if you had placed something upon the altar. In this way the heart of a man makes vows in a holy and venerable way. It is from the heart, that is, the altar, that the vow is offered to God. Therefore it is not possible for the offering of a man to be more honorable than his heart from which the offering is sent up.

Then he sets forth the second part of the tradition: and whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, is a debtor.

For since Christ is come, reliance upon the Law is vain; for not Christ by the Law, but the Law by Christ, is sanctified, in whom it rests as on a seat or throne; so are they fools and blind, who, overlooking the sanctifier, pay honour to the things sanctified.

Anyone who thinks that his own almsgiving, his own fasting, his own psalms and prayers are in themselves great and who, without good judgment, blesses them and does not reflect that it is just from such a heart that his almsgiving or psalms or prayers or fasting are offered—such a man is blind. For indeed his heart is the altar that sanctifies his offering which is the heart of the world. The heart and the conscience of such a man "do not feel remorse but have trust in God," because his own heart has been rightly formed. He does not rely on his gifts as such or the words of his prayers or of his psalms—although they may seem well composed and chosen from the Scriptures—but on the heart rightly formed. Whoever places his own witness on the altar, that is, his own conscience and the center of his heart, such a man swears by the altar, embracing everything which is contained in it. One who swears according to what we attest to by the temple, that is, "through the whole sense of Scriptures," such a man seems to swear according to the word and the will of God which is contained in it. Such a man in this sense swears upon the temple (upon all the Scriptures) and upon the altar (upon the whole heart), that is, an understanding of the sense of the whole of the Scriptures and upon the whole heart. The temple is the glory of God, which "we see as in a mirror darkly." The heavens, however, are above the temple of God, in which sits the throne of God, on which we may look "with our face uncovered" when he comes.

Then he sets forth the refutation: ye blind, which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? For the gift is not sanctified except by the altar.

(non occ.) And lest their infatuation should go so far, that they should affirm that the gold was more holy than the temple, and the gift than the altar, He argues on another ground, that in the oath which is sworn by the temple and the altar is contained the oath by the gold or by the gift.

One of the Pharisaical traditions regarded oath taking. Some were swearing by the temple, others by the gold of the temple; some by the altar, others by the gifts of the altar. The Pharisees were teaching that one who swore by the gold of the altar or by the gift of the altar was obligated, whereas one who swore by the temple or by the altar was not under obligation. Our Savior spoke against these traditions. He wished to call them back from human traditions to divine revelation. Those who hand on such traditions are blind and foolish. They do not see that what is placed in the temple is not sanctified through itself but through the Lord of the temple. That which is placed on the altar is judged already as a gift of God, which is why it is placed on the altar. It seems foolish to argue that one who swears in one way is bound and one who swears in another way is not bound. This assumes that what is sanctified is above the one who sanctifies. It seems foolish to argue that one who swears by heaven is less vulnerable than one who swears by God himself. Jesus showed them that it was equally as absurd to swear by heaven as to swear by the temple or by the altar. It is irrational to assume that one avoids punishment because he is not swearing by God but by the throne of God. Thus he spoke to the Jews prohibiting them to follow the Pharisaic tradition. Moreover, he clearly rejected the whole business of swearing at all, as if it were a superior way.

He therefore that swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things that are upon it. Here he sets forth another reason. The temple contains the gold, and not conversely; similarly, the altar contains the gift, and not conversely. Hence he who swears by the temple swears by the gold that is in the temple; and he who swears by the altar, i.e., by the altar, swears by what is on it.

His hands, at all events, are ever unclean, eternally dyed with the blood of the prophets, and of the Lord Himself; and on that account, as being hereditary culprits from their privity to their fathers' crimes, they do not dare even to raise them unto the Lord, for fear some Isaiah should cry out, for fear Christ should utterly shudder.

Likewise, another reason follows: and whosoever shall swear by the temple, swears by it and by him that dwells in it. They said: he who swears by the temple swears by nothing. But he wishes to show that he who swears by the temple swears by God, because he does not swear by the temple except as sanctified, and it is not sanctified except by God. Therefore he who swears by the temple swears by God.

(ord.) For whoso swears by the creature that is subject, swears by the Divinity that rules over the creation.

In like manner the custom which the Jews had of swearing by the Heaven He reprobates. For they did not, as they supposed, avoid the danger of taking an oath by God, because, Whose sweareth by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

Then another reason is set forth: and he that swears by heaven, i.e., by heaven, does not swear by it except because it is the throne of God, and because the power of God is manifested there; hence he that swears by heaven swears by the throne of God, and by him that sits thereon. Psalm 10:5: God is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven. And this is introduced there according to a likeness. But mystically, according to Origen, he makes mention of the temple, the gold, and the altar, in which the contemplative and glorious life is signified. By the gold the contemplative life is signified, by which is signified the subtle sense excogitated from Scripture itself: because however reasonable it may appear, it is nothing unless it is in the temple, i.e., unless it is confirmed in sacred Scripture. By the altar is signified the heart, in which there ought to be the fire of devotion; Leviticus 6:12: the fire on my altar shall not go out. By the offerings are signified the services and offerings, which, unless they proceed from a holy heart, or from a holy altar, cannot have value; above at 6:22: if your eye be single, your whole body shall be lightsome. By the throne the glorious life is signified: there God is, who surpasses all things. Or by the altar and the temple we understand Christ: for he calls himself a temple; John 2:19: destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Likewise, he is called an altar; Hebrews 13:10: we have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle. Hence whatever good we do, unless it is sanctified in this temple, i.e., Christ, it is of no value; hence everything is contemptible unless it is referred to Christ.

[On the tendency to single out disreputable sins while ignoring weightier evils]

What Christian, in a society so worldly and cruel as that of Wyvern, would pick out the carnal sins for special reprobation? Cruelty is surely more evil than lust and the World at least as dangerous as the Flesh. The real reason for all the pother is, in my opinion, neither Christian nor ethical. We attack this vice not because it is the worst but because it is, by adult standards, the most disreputable and unmentionable, and happens also to be a crime in English law. The World will lead you only to Hell; but sodomy may lead you to jail and create a scandal, and lose you your job. The World, to do it justice, seldom does that.

[On the danger of elevating any single virtue to an absolute while neglecting justice]

The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide. You might think love of humanity in general was safe, but it is not. If you leave out justice you will find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence in trials 'for the sake of humanity', and become in the end a cruel and treacherous man.

Though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting, the pleasures of power, of hatred.

"O Pharisees, you demand," Jesus says, "perhaps the tithes of herbs and the smallest coins while you neglect the commandments, concerning which the violation is greater." And what kind of commandments are these? Justice, that is, to judge uprightly and blamelessly; mercy, that is, genuineness toward God. For justice and mercy and faith toward God are better than the tithe and firstfruits. Therefore the God of all things says through the prophet, "And now, Israel, what does the Lord require from you but to do justice and to love and seek mercy and to be prepared to follow the Lord your God." For the genuine faith of those being saved is seen in their exceeding readiness to follow.

A hermit was asked by a brother, 'How do I find God? With fasts, or labour, or vigils, or works of mercy?' He replied, 'You will find Him in all those, and also in discretion. I tell you many have been very stern with their bodies, but have gained nothing by it because they did it without discretion. Even if our mouths stink from fasting, and we have learnt all the Scriptures, and memorized the whole Psalter, we may still lack what God wants, humility and love.'

It is not in the least desirable that everybody should be earnest. It is highly desirable that everybody should be honest, but that is a thing that can go quite easily with a coarse and cheerful character. But the ineffectualness of most protests against the abuse of the Press has been very largely due to the instinct of democracy (and the instinct of democracy is like the instinct of one woman, wild but quite right) that the people who were trying to purify the Press were also trying to refine it; and to this the democracy very naturally and very justly objected. We are justified in enforcing good morals, for they belong to all mankind; but we are not justified in enforcing good manners, for good manners always mean our own manners.

But henceforward I shall always understand with a darker and more delicate charity those who take tythe of mint, and anise, and cumin, and neglect the weightier matters of the law; I shall remember how I was once really tortured with owing half a crown to a man who might have been dead.

Of all the marks of modernity that seem to mean a kind of decadence, there is none more menacing and dangerous than the exultation of very small and secondary matters of conduct at the expense of very great and primary ones, at the expense of eternal ties and tragic human morality. If there is one thing worse than the modern weakening of major morals, it is the modern strengthening of minor morals. Thus it is considered more withering to accuse a man of bad taste than of bad ethics. Cleanliness is not next to godliness nowadays, for cleanliness is made essential and godliness is regarded as an offence. A playwright can attack the institution of marriage so long as he does not misrepresent the manners of society, and I have met Ibsenite pessimists who thought it wrong to take beer but right to take prussic acid.

(Mor. i. 15.) Or otherwise; The gnat stings while it hums; the camel bows its back to receive its load. The Jews then strained off the gnat, when they prayed to have the seditious robber released to them; and they swallowed the camel, when they sought with shouts the death of Him who had voluntarily taken on Him the burden of our mortality.

What is lost is the hidden dimension of the evil will. These hidden things of the mind bring about these distortions of the law. The law prescribes that a tenth be given, so they measure out a tenth of a measure of mint and dill but only in order that they might be thought by other men to fulfill the law. They abandon mercy and justice, faith and every form of benevolence. Yet these are the true duties of man.

God laughs at the superficial diligence of those who measure cucumbers. God laughs at our attempts to swallow camels, as if the sins of avoidance were less serious than the sins of consumption.

And because it was much less guilt to omit the tithing of herbs than a duty of benevolence, the Lord derides them, Ye blind guides, which strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.

(Verse 23.) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. Many precepts are given in the law that foreshadow future events. But others are open, according to the Psalmist, saying: The commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes (Psalm 19:8), which are immediately to be desired. For example, thou shalt not commit adultery: thou shalt not steal: thou shalt not bear false witness, etc. But the Pharisees, because the Lord had commanded (let us for the present leave out the mystical understanding) tithes to be offered in the temple for the maintenance of the priests and Levites, whose portion was the Lord's, were studious in this one thing, that the commands should be observed: but as to the other matters, whether a man should do them or not, they made little account. And from this chapter it accuses them of greed, because they eagerly demand tithes even of cheap vegetables, and neglect justice in the handling of business disputes, and mercy towards the poor, orphans, and widows, and faith in God, which are great.

The Lord had commanded, that for the maintenance of the Priests and Levites, whose portion was the Lord, tithes of every thing should be offered in the temple. Accordingly, the Pharisees (to dismiss mystical expositions) concerned themselves about this alone, that these trifling things should be paid in, but lightly esteemed other things which were weighty. He charges them then with covetousness in exacting carefully the tithes of worthless herbs, while they neglected justice in their transactions of business, mercy to the poor, and faith toward God, which are weighty things.

The camel I suppose to mean the weighty precepts, judgment, mercy, and faith; the gnat, the tithing of mint, anise, and cummin, and other valueless herbs. The greater of God's commands we swallow and overlook, but show our carelessness by a religious scrupulousness in little things which bring profit with them.

Then He derides them for folly also, because they bade them disregard the greater commandments. And yet before He had said the opposite, that "they bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne." But these things too they did again and were doing everything for the corruption of those who were subject to them, in little things requiring strictness, and despising the great.

"For ye pay tithe," He saith, "of mint and anise, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, and mercy, and faith. These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the others undone."

Here then He naturally saith it, where it is tithe and almsgiving, for what doth it hurt to give alms? But not to keep the law; for neither doth it say thus. Therefore here indeed He saith, "These ought ye to have done;" but where He is speaking about clean and unclean, He no longer adds this, but makes a distinction, and shows that the inward purity is necessarily followed by the outward, but the converse is no longer so.

For where there is a plea of love to man, He passes it over lightly, for this very reason, and because it was not yet time expressly and plainly to revoke the things of the law. But where it is an observance of bodily purification, He overthrows it more plainly.

Then, to show that there is no harm arising from despising bodily cleansings, but very great vengeance from not regarding the purifications of the soul, which is virtue, He called these "a gnat," for they are small and nothing, but those other a camel, for they were beyond what men could bear. Wherefore also He saith, "Straining at the gnat, and swallowing the camel." For indeed the one were enacted for the sake of the other, I mean of mercy and judgment; so that not even then did they profit being done alone. For whereas the little things were mentioned for the sake of the great, and after that these last were neglected, and labor was spent on those alone, nothing was gained even then by this. For the greater followed not the lesser, but the lesser were sure to follow these greater.

But these things He saith to show, that even before grace was come, these were not among the principal things, or amongst those upon which men should spend their labor, but the matters required were different. But if before the grace they were so, much more when high commandments had come, were these things unprofitable, and it was not meet to practise them at all.

In every case then is vice a grievous thing, but especially when it does not so much as think it needs amendment; and it is yet more grievous, when it thinks itself sufficient even to amend others; to express which Christ calls them "blind guides." For if for a blind man not to think he needs a guide be extreme misery and wretchedness; when he wishes himself to guide others, see to what a gulf it leads.

But these things He said, by all intimating their mad desire of glory, and their exceeding frenzy concerning this pest. For this became a cause to them of all their evils, namely, that they did all things for display. This both led them away from the faith, and caused them to neglect what really is virtue, and induced them to busy themselves about bodily purifyings only, neglecting the purifications of the soul. So therefore to lead them into what really is virtue, and to the purifyings of the soul, He makes mention of mercy, and judgment, and faith. For these are the things that comprise our life, these are what purify the soul, justice, love to man, truth; the one inclining us to pardon and not suffering us to be excessively severe and unforgiving to them that sin (for then shall we gain doubly, both becoming kind to man, and hence meeting also ourselves with much kindness from the God of all), and causing us both to sympathize with them that are despitefully entreated, and to assist them; the other not suffering them to be deceitful, and crafty.

But neither when He saith, "These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the others undone," doth He say it as introducing a legal observance; away with the thought; neither with regard to the platter and the cup, when He said, "Cleanse that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also," doth He bring us unto the old regard for little things, but on the contrary indeed, He doth all things to show it to be superfluous. For He said not, Cleanse the outside of them also, but that which is within, and the outside is sure to follow.

Not only among the Jews but among ourselves as well, we find people sinning in these ways. They are swallowing camels. People of this type frequently show off their religion even in the smallest of things. They are rightly called hypocrites for wanting to exploit their religiosity before men but being unwilling to undertake that very faith which God himself has justified. Therefore the imitators of the scribes and Pharisees must be dislodged and sent away from us, lest a woe touches us in the same way it touches them. The scribes could be described as those who valued nothing found in the Scriptures except its plain sense interpreted legalistically. Meanwhile they condemn those who look into the very depths of God himself. Mint and dill and cummin are only spices for food but are not themselves substantial food. What substantive food would mean in conversion would be that which is necessary for the justification of our souls—faith and love—unlike these legalisms, which are more like condiments and flavorings. It is as if a meal might be thought to consist more of condiments and flavorings than the food itself. The seriousness of judgment is neglected while great attention is given to minor matters. Spiritual exercises which in and of themselves are hardly justice are spoken of as justice and compassion and faith. It is lacking in justice to treat these small parts as the whole. When we do not offer to God the observance of all that is necessary for worship, we fail altogether.

But because it was possible that some, hearing the Lord speak thus, might thereupon neglect paying tithes of small things, He prudently adds, These things ought ye to have done, (i. e. justice, mercy, and faith,) and not to leave the others undone, i. e. the tithing of mint, anise, and cummin.

Now this is the first lust which conquered the world, and because of it the first transgression of the law took place. Through it the scribes and Pharisees received "Woe" from our Redeemer, because it had taught them to keep festival, and Sabbath, and to pay tithe of cummin. For the lust of the belly is the captain of the host of the left side, and to it are fettered all the hosts of sin.

Or, because these covetous Priests, when any one did not bring his tithes of the smallest thing, made it a matter of grave reprehension; but when one injured his neighbour or sinned against God, they were at no pains to reprove him, careful only of their own profit, neglecting the glory of God, and the salvation of men. For to observe righteousness, to do mercy, and to have faith, these things God commanded for His own glory; but the payment of tithes He established for the support of the Priests, so that the Priests should minister to the people in spiritual things, and the people supply the Priests with carnal things. Thus is it at this time, when all are careful of their own honour, none of God's honour; they jealously protect their own rights, but will not bestow any pains in the service of the Church. If the people pay not their tithes duly, they murmur; but if they see the people in sin, they utter not a word against them. But because some of the Scribes and Pharisees, to whom He is now speaking, were of the people, it is not unsuitable to make a different interpretation; and 'to tithe' may be used as well of him who pays, as of him who receives, tithes. The Scribes then and Pharisees offered tithes of the very best things for the purpose of displaying their righteousness; but in their judgments they were unjust, without mercy for their brethren, without faith for the truth.

In these words the Lord shows that all the commandments of the Law, greatest and least, are to be fulfilled. They also are refuted who give alms of the fruits of the earth, supposing that thus they cannot sin, whereas their alms profit them nothing unless they are careful to keep themselves from sin.

Again He reproaches them as foolish for disdaining the greater commandments while demanding strict observance of the lesser; nor do they overlook a tenth part of the cumin, but tithe that as well. And if anyone accused the Pharisees of nitpicking, they would cite the law in their defense. It would have been better and more God-pleasing if they had required discernment and mercy and faith from the people. What is discernment? To do nothing unjust or unreasonable, but rather to do everything with good judgement and with reason. Mercy follows immediately upon discernment. For he who does all things with discernment knows to whom one ought to give alms. And faith follows mercy, for he who is merciful and gives alms, has faith that he will lose nothing but will receive everything. Or, in another sense, one must show mercy but also believe in the true God. For there were many pagan Greeks who gave alms, but did not believe in the living God and did not have that faith that follows mercy. Every teacher, then, must tithe his people, that is, require from the ten senses, five bodily and five spiritual, the one tithe consisting of discernment, mercy, and faith. "These ought ye to have done," the Lord said, not to exhort them to tithe herbs, but so that He not appear to be in opposition to Moses. He calls them blind guides because by priding themselves in their teaching and extensive knowledge, they were of benefit to no one, but rather, they corrupted every one and cast them into the pit of unbelief. He says that they strain the gnat, meaning that they keep close guard over the slightest sin, while they swallow the camel, that is, disregard the great sins.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, who tithe mint and anise and cummin. Here he rebukes them regarding tithes; and he does three things. First, he sets forth their custom; secondly, he introduces the teaching; thirdly, he sets forth a certain likeness. The second is at these things you ought to have done; the third is at blind guides, who strain out a gnat, etc. Hence he says, woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, and adds hypocrites, because the principal intention was pretense, who tithe mint, anise, and cummin. This can be understood either as "you give tithes" or "you who exact tithes"; hence very many were priests and Levites, to whom it pertained to exact the tithes that were owed them, as it says in Numbers 18:21 and Deuteronomy 14:22; therefore they were most diligent in exacting them, so that they exacted even down to the smallest things, such as cummin and anise. And have left the weightier things of the law: judgment, mercy, and faith. For certain things were owed to the priests for their own sake, as tithes, from which they were to live; but to certain things they were bound for God's sake, namely to exercise judgment and mercy; hence the Lord required these things of them, namely judgment and mercy; Psalm 100:1: mercy and judgment I will sing to you, O Lord. Likewise, he wills faith for his own glory. Hence those things to which they were bound for God's sake they did not care about; hence he says: and have left the weightier things of the law: judgment, mercy, and faith. But regarding tithes, to which they were bound for their own sake, they took good care, according to that passage in Philippians 2:21: all seek the things that are their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's. Charity does the contrary, for it seeks not its own but the things that are Jesus Christ's, 1 Corinthians 13:5. Likewise, it can be said, woe to you, who give tithes, because you give from the least things, from mint and cummin and things of this sort, and this so that you may appear religious; but you do not care about interior things, because you love neither mercy, nor judgment, nor faith; above at 12:7: if you knew what this means, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, you would never have condemned the innocent. Origen says that by mint and cummin, etc., certain things can be understood that pertain to the propriety of religion. Hence mercy, judgment, and faith are like foods, but the other least things are like seasoning. Hence just as they put more effort into the seasoning in preparing food than into the food itself, so also they put more effort into having knees bent before them than into the things that pertained to God. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone. Because he had said, woe to you who tithe, someone could say that the Lord was forbidding the giving of tithes; therefore he says that, on the contrary, when he says, these things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone; as if to say: you do not sin in these things, but in omitting those to which you are more bound. Therefore these things you ought to have done, i.e., to exact tithes, and those things, namely judgment, justice, and faith, not to leave undone. But here there can be a question about tithes. The Lord seems to set forth the necessity of paying tithes; hence in the whole New Testament no mention is made so expressly as here. But is it held by precept of the law? No: because in the law certain things are contained that are moral, certain things ceremonial, and certain things judicial. Moral precepts are to be observed at all times and by all; ceremonial precepts by certain men and at certain times, as circumcision, and these were only figurative; likewise, certain judicial precepts, as if someone stole a sheep, he should repay fourfold. Therefore the question is raised about tithes, whether tithes are a moral precept. And it seems not, because moral precepts are of the natural law. But only that is of the natural law which natural reason recommends. But reason does not recommend giving a tenth more than a ninth or an eleventh, etc. Therefore it is not of the natural law. Likewise, if tithes are ceremonial, then those who pay them sin. To this, those who came before us said that some things are purely moral, some purely ceremonial, and some have something of the moral and something of the ceremonial. You shall not kill is purely moral. Similarly, the Lord your God you shall adore, etc. If you say: on the fourteenth day of the moon at evening you shall offer a lamb, this is purely ceremonial. But if it is said: remember to keep holy the sabbath day, it has something natural, or moral, and something ceremonial. Moral, namely what natural reason suggests, namely that one should have some time in which one is free, or in which one is free to pray to God. But that it be on the sabbath day, or on Sunday, etc., is judicial. Hence they say that the precept about tithes is partly ceremonial and partly moral. For they are for the sustenance of the poor and of those who devote themselves to the service of God, or to preaching: for he who serves the community, it is fitting that he live from the community, and this is of the natural law; but that it be the tenth part, this is ceremonial. But are they obligatory now? I say that the determination belongs to whatever ruler has the power of establishing law; hence it is within the power of the Church to establish the tenth, or the ninth, or the like. Hence they are obligatory, not because it is of the natural law, but from the constitution of the Church.

(Verse 24) Blind leaders, straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel. I believe the camel refers to the understanding of the present situation, the magnitude of the teachings, judgment, mercy, and faith. The gnat, on the other hand, represents the tithing of mint, dill, cumin, and other cheap herbs. We devour and neglect these great commandments of God, while showing diligence in matters of religion that bring profit and have little importance.

Or, straining out a gnat, that is, putting from them small sins; swallowing a camel, that is, committing great sins, which He calls camels, from the size and distorted shape of that animal. Morally, The Scribes are those who think nothing else contained in Scripture than the bare letter exhibits; the Pharisees are all those who esteem themselves righteous, and separate themselves from others, saying, 'Come not nigh me, for I am clean.' Mint, anise, and cummin, are the seasoning, not the substantial part of food; as in our life and conversation there are some things necessary to justification, as judgment, mercy, and faith; and others which are like the seasoning of our actions, giving them a flavour and sweetness, as abstinence from laughter, fasting, bending the knee, and such like. How shall they not be judged blind who see not that it is of little avail to be a careful dispenser in the least things, if things of chief moment are neglected? These His present discourse overthrows; not forbidding to observe the little things, but bidding to keep more carefully the chief things.

Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. In this part he sets forth a likeness; hence he says, who strain out a gnat. He who strains swallows with difficulty. Hence he means to say that they put great care into the smallest things and little care into great things. Or by the gnat the smallest sins are understood, and by the camel, great sins; hence they make an issue of small sins; and this is what he says, but swallowing a camel.

The law of Moses taught through the use of symbols how to maintain purity throughout life's activities. It was the custom of the Jews, passed on to them from their ancient traditions, to wash carefully their cups and the dish that contained their food. They observed these practices to maintain their purity and to avoid contact with "sinful people." Their aim was that they might flee from fellowship with sinners.… How much more through such practices were they preparing themselves to flee from sin itself. And yet those who were carefully observing these practices were themselves acting like robbers and violently making a profit, becoming loathsome by doing so. Therefore Jesus says this: "Flee unrighteousness, O blind Pharisee. For you fail to perceive how you are acting. For what is in the cup and dish are clean if they are not gained in an unrighteous manner. Righteousness cleanses the vessel much better than water."

(Mor. i. 15.) Or otherwise; The gnat stings while it hums; the camel bows its back to receive its load. The Jews then strained off the gnat, when they prayed to have the seditious robber released to them; and they swallowed the camel, when they sought with shouts the death of Him who had voluntarily taken on Him the burden of our mortality.

He therefore is reproving those who, pursuing an ostentation of useless scrupulosity, neglected the discharge of useful morality. For it is the inside of the cup that is used; if that be foul, what profit is it to cleanse the outside? And therefore what is needed is purity of the inner conscience, that those things which are of the body may be clean without.

(Verse 25, 26.) Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and impurity. Blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and the plate, so that the outside also may be clean. In different words, with the same meaning as above, Jesus accuses the Pharisees of hypocrisy and deceit, because they pretend one thing to others outwardly, but do something different at home. Not that their superstition delayed them in the cup and dish; but that they displayed holiness to others, in their attire, in their speech, in their phylacteries, in the fringes, in the length of their prayers, and other such things, while internally they were full of the filth of vices.

In different words, but to the same purport as before, He reproves the hypocrisy and dissimulation of the Pharisees, that they showed one face to men abroad, but wore another at home. He means not here, that their scrupulousness respecting the cup and the platter was of any importance, but that they affected it to pass off their sanctity upon men; which is clear from His adding, but inwardly ye are full of ravening and uncleanness.

So, therefore, while with respect to alms He saith, "These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the others undone," touching purifications He speaks not on this wise, but what? "Ye make clean," He saith, "the outside of the cup and the platter, but within they are full of extortion, and injustice. Cleanse that which is within the cup, that the outside may be clean also." And He took it from a thing confessed and manifest, from a cup and platter.

And besides, neither is it concerning a cup and platter he is speaking, but of soul and body, by the outside meaning the body, by the inside the soul. But if with regard to the platter there be need of that which is within much more with regard to thee.

But ye do the contrary, saith He, observing things trifling and external, ye neglect what are great and inward: whence very great mischief arises, for that thinking ye have duly performed all, ye despise the other things; and despising them, ye do not so much as strive or attempt to perform them.

This passage teaches us that we should hasten to be righteous, not merely to appear so. Whoever strives only to appear righteous will cleanse his exterior and will take great care of what can be seen by others but will neglect his heart and his conscience. He fails to realize that the one who is eager to purify his interior life and his thoughts will also naturally want to give a healthy outward appearance as well. Whoever works hard on the externals but neglects his interior life, however, will inevitably be filled with avarice, lust, malice, and many other kinds of evil. For the one who is solicitous of his own interior salvation also takes care of his external, public reputation. But not everyone who cares first about his public reputation is also solicitous of his interior salvation. In this connection, it is written that "whoever sees a woman and lusts after her has committed adultery with her in his heart." He who refrains from acts of fornication, therefore, but commits fornication by lusting in his heart is like the one who cleanses the outside of the cup and plate while the inside is left full of intemperance. Whoever performs acts of mercy for the purpose of earning human respect, doing his good deeds "to be seen by men," also seems to cleanse only the exterior of the cup and plate but is full of intemperance and lust for vainglory within.

If it is proper to regard everything in the gospel according to the moral sense … we can say that it is a sort of spiritual food and spiritual drink that we receive when we read the law and the prophets in Scripture. Indeed, the language through which we take our spiritual drink and the biblical narratives on which we are nourished are the plates and cups for our food and drink. This is why we are warned not to take as much care for their outside as we do for their inside, so that our hearts might be filled with pure understanding, not merely adorned with fine rhetoric and grammar. For "the Kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power." Whoever strives harder to dress his speech in elegant composition than to fill it with saving doctrine has cleaned only the outside, but the inside remains stained with vanity.…We can also say that the very words of the law and the prophets are the cups of spiritual drink for souls and that the plates or bowls of nourishing food for the faithful are their wise authors. The scribes and Pharisees work diligently at discerning only the external, literal meaning of these prophetic cups and plates and bowls, eager to demonstrate that the vessels themselves are pure and holy. The disciples of Christ … hasten to purify and sanctify the interior, spiritual meaning by means of knowledge and credible explanations, so that they might eat and drink the law and the prophets whose inside has been purified, desiring as they do to hear and understand the interior, mystical meaning and to go beyond the literal sense of the words.

This discourse instructs us that we should hasten to become righteous, not to seem so. For whoso seeks to be thought so, cleanses the outside, and has care of the things that are seen, but neglects the heart and conscience. But he who seeks to cleanse that which is within, that is, the thoughts, makes by that means the things without clean also. All professors of false doctrine are cups cleansed on the outside, because of that show of religion which they affect, but within they are full of extortion and guile, hurrying men into error. The cup is a vessel for liquids, the platter for meat. Every discourse then of which we spiritually drink, and all speech by which we are fed, are vessels for meat and drink. They who study to set forth well wrought discourse rather than such as is full of healthful meaning, are cups cleansed without; but within full of the defilement of vanity. Also the letter of the Law and the Prophets is a cup of spiritual drink, and a platter of necessary food. The Scribes and Pharisees seek to make plain the outward sense; Christ's disciples labour to exhibit the spiritual sense.

Or, He means that the Jews whenever they were to enter the temple or to offer sacrifice, or on any festivals, used to wash themselves, their clothes, and their vessels, but none cleansed himself from his sins; but God neither commends bodily cleanliness, nor condemns the contrary. But suppose foulness of person or of vessels were offensive to God, which must become foul by being used, how much more does He not abhor foulness of conscience, which we may, if we will, keep ever pure?

This He speaks not of the cup and platter of sense, but of that of the understanding, which may be pure before God, though it have never touched water; but if it have sinned, then though the water of the whole ocean and of all rivers have washed it, it is foul and guilty before God.

But what reason is there in going to prayer with hands indeed washed, but the spirit foul?-inasmuch as to our hands themselves spiritual purities are necessary, that they may be "lifted up pure" from falsehood, from murder, from cruelty, from poisonings, from idolatry, and all the other blemishes which, conceived by the spirit, are effected by the operation of the hands. These are the true purities; not those which most are superstitiously careful about, taking water at every prayer, even when they are coming from a bath of the whole body.

Preserving the traditions of the elders, the Pharisees would wash the cups and the plates in which their food and drink were to be placed. But they drank wine and ate food gained by extortion, so they were all the more polluted. Therefore Christ says, do not obtain wine from injustice and the inside of the cup will be clean. Or, in another sense, He is speaking not of cups and plates, but of the bodily and external condition in contrast to the inner and spiritual. For, He says, you assume a most comely appearance on the outside of the cup, that is, in your external condition, while you are full of filth within, extorting and practicing injustice. But you must cleanse the inside, that is, the soul. For the radiance of a purified soul illumines the outward appearance of a man.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, who make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish. Above, the Lord rebuked the Pharisees for the pretense they outwardly displayed, which they did not have in their hearts, but twisted toward profit; here, for the pretense of purity which they outwardly showed. And this, first, with respect to the appetite for temporal goods, or with respect to carnal sins; secondly, with respect to spiritual sins. And first he treats of the first; secondly, of the second, at woe to you (...) because you are like whitened sepulchres. Regarding the first, he does two things. First, he rebukes their pretense; secondly, he sets forth the sound doctrine, at you blind Pharisee, etc. He says, then, woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, who make clean the outside of the cup, etc. Note that this can be understood in two ways. In one way, that it is a proper expression; and he means to touch upon the custom of the Pharisees, who put great care into cleaning the exteriors, as is said above, that they observed the cleanliness of cups and vessels; hence woe to you, who put great care into cleaning vessels, but not hearts. Hence it follows, but within, i.e., in the heart, you are full of rapine and uncleanness. Jerome holds that it is a figurative expression; hence he holds that all the cleanliness that is shown outwardly is to be understood. Food is served in the dish, drink in the cup. But man is called a dish; and the food in which God delights are the good works that he does; John 4:34: my meat is to do the will of my Father. It is evident that the use of the cup and dish is not on the outer surface but the inner. He therefore who cleans the cup outwardly is he who prepares his body outwardly. But you are of this sort: within you are full of rapine and uncleanness. And he sets forth two things, rapine and uncleanness, because there are two kinds of sins: carnal sins, which are consummated in the delight of the flesh, such as gluttony and lust; and others which are consummated in the delight of the spirit, such as pride and avarice, because avarice with respect to its object holds itself with carnal sin; but with respect to its completion, because it is completed in the delight of the mind, namely in the desire for money, it holds itself with spiritual sin. Hence he reproves avarice when he says rapine. Now rapine properly refers to when what belongs to another is taken; so properly the avaricious man withholds what belongs to another: hence it is opposed to justice; Isaiah 3:14: the spoil of the poor is in your house. Likewise, full of uncleanness, with respect to gluttony and lust. The soul is rendered impure by passion, and no passion so depresses reason as gluttony and lust; Ephesians 5:3: let not fornication and uncleanness, or covetousness, be so much as named among you, as becomes saints.

We are not washed in order that we may cease sinning, but because we have ceased, since in heart we have been bathed already.

Then he brings them to sound doctrine: you blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish. All exterior purity is from interior purity, as it says above at 6:22: if your eye be single, your whole body shall be lightsome, etc. Therefore he teaches that one should cleanse the heart, and so the whole will be clean. Hence he says, you blind Pharisee, etc. Wisdom 2:21: their own malice blinded them. Make clean the inside, because whatever is done outwardly, provided it is done from a good will, is entirely good; Proverbs 4:23: with all watchfulness keep your heart. Likewise, it can be explained of the word of a man: hence that which is interior can be understood as the understanding of sacred Scripture, Sirach 15:3: she fed him with the bread of life and understanding, in which wisdom is served. The bread of wisdom is the word of life. Hence some wish to adorn the word outwardly and do not care about the meaning. And these clean the outside.

The monks praised a brother to Antony. Antony went to him and tested him to see if he could endure being insulted. When he saw that he could not bear it, he said to him, 'You are like a house with a highly decorated outside, but burglars have stolen all the furniture by the back door.'

It is very beautiful, and, as you say, it is very English. Charles Dickens, who was almost more English than England, wrote one of his rare poems about the beauty of ivy. Yes, by all means let us admire the ivy, so deep, so warm, so full of a genial gloom and a grotesque tenderness. Let us admire the ivy; and let us pray to God in His mercy that it may not kill the tree.

Brave men are vertebrates; they have their softness on the surface and their toughness in the middle. But these modern cowards are all crustaceans; their hardness is all on the cover and their softness is inside.

But the difference lies precisely in this--that the Christ of Mr. Kennedy's play insists on really knowing all the souls that he loves; he declines to conquer by a kind of supernatural stupidity. He pardons evil, but he will not ignore it. In other words, he is a Christian, and not a Christian Scientist. The distinction doubtless is partly explained by the problems severally selected. Mr. Jerome practically supposes Christ to be trying to save disreputable people; and that, of course, is naturally a simple business. Mr. Kennedy supposes Him to be trying to save the reputable people, which is a much larger affair. The chief characters in The Servant in the House are a popular and strenuous vicar, universally respected, and his fashionable and forcible wife. It would have been no good to tell these people they had some good in them--for that was what they were telling themselves all day long. They had to be reminded that they had some bad in them--instinctive idolatries and silent treasons which they always tried to forget. It is in connection with these crimes of wealth and culture that we face the real problem of positive evil. The whole of Mr. Blatchford's controversy about sin was vitiated throughout by one's consciousness that whenever he wrote the word "sinner" he thought of a man in rags. But here, again, we can find truth merely by referring to vulgar literature--its unfailing fountain. Whoever read a detective story about poor people? The poor have crimes; but the poor have no secrets. And it is because the proud have secrets that they need to be detected before they are forgiven.

(Mor. xxvi. 32.) But before their strict Judge they cannot have the plea of ignorance, for by assuming in the eyes of men every form of sanctity, they witness against themselves that they are not ignorant how to live well.

(Verse 27, 28.) Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful to people, but inside are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to people, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. Just as he had shown with the cup and dish, that they were clean on the outside but dirty on the inside, he now repeats the same example with tombs: how tombs are whitewashed on the outside and decorated with marble and gold and different colors, but inside they are full of dead people's bones. This is how the perverse teachers, who teach one thing and do another, demonstrate cleanliness with their clothing and humility of speech, but inside they are full of all uncleanness and desire. Finally, this expresses more clearly the very thing itself, inferring: Thus you indeed appear just to men on the outside: but within, you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Sepulchres are whitened with lime without, and decorated with marble painted in gold and various colours, but within are full of dead men's bones. Thus crooked teachers who teach one thing and do another, affect purity in their dress, and humility in their speech, but within are full of all uncleanness, covetousness, and lust.

After this, He again derides them for vainglory, calling them "whited sepulchers" and unto all adding, "ye hypocrites;" which thing is the cause of all their evils, and the origin of their ruin. And He did not merely call them whited sepulchers, but said, that they were full of uncleanness and hypocrisy. And these things He spake, indicating the cause wherefore they did not believe, because they were full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

But these things not Christ only, but the prophets also constantly lay to their charge, that they spoil, that their rulers judge not according to the rule of justice, and every where you may find the sacrifices indeed refused, but these things required. So that there is nothing strange, nothing new, neither in the lawgiving, nor in the accusation, nay not even in the comparison of the sepulchre. For the prophet makes mention thereof, neither did he call them merely a sepulchre, "but their throat an open sepulchre."

Such are many men now also, decking themselves indeed outwardly, but full of iniquity within. For now too there is many a mode, and many a care for outward purifications, but of those in the soul not so much as one. But if indeed any one should tear open each man's conscience, many worms and much corruption would he find, and an ill savor beyond utterance; unreasonable and wicked lusts I mean, which are more unclean than worms.

But that "they" should be such persons is not "so" dreadful a thing (although it be dreadful), but that "you," that have been counted worthy to become temples of God, should of a sudden have become sepulchers, having as much ill savor, this is extreme wretchedness. He in whom Christ dwells, and the Holy Spirit hath worked, and such great mysteries, that this man should be a sepulchre, what wretchedness is this? What mournings and lamentations doth this call for, when the members of Christ have become a tomb of uncleanness? Consider how thou wast born, of what things thou hast been counted worthy, what manner of garment thou hast received, how thou wast built a temple without a breach! how fair! not adorned with gold, neither with pearls, but with the spirit that is more precious than these.

Consider that no sepulchre is made in a city, so then neither shalt thou be able to appear in the city above. For if here this is forbidden, much more there. Or rather even here thou art an object of scorn to all, bearing about a dead soul, and not to be scorned only, but also to be shunned. For tell me, if any one were to go round, bearing about a dead body, would not all have rushed away? would not all have fled? Think this now likewise. For thou goest about, bearing a spectacle far more grievous than this, a soul deadened by sins, a soul paralyzed.

Who now will pity such a one? For when thou dost not pity thine own soul, how shall another pity him that is so cruel, such an enemy to himself? If any one, where thou didst sleep and eat, had buried a dead body, what wouldest thou not have done? but thou art burying a dead soul, not where thou dinest, nor where thou sleepest, but in the members of Christ: and art thou not afraid lest a thousand lightnings and thunderbolts be hurled from above upon thine head?

This discourse instructs us that we should hasten to become righteous, not to seem so. For whoso seeks to be thought so, cleanses the outside, and has care of the things that are seen, but neglects the heart and conscience. But he who seeks to cleanse that which is within, that is, the thoughts, makes by that means the things without clean also. All professors of false doctrine are cups cleansed on the outside, because of that show of religion which they affect, but within they are full of extortion and guile, hurrying men into error. The cup is a vessel for liquids, the platter for meat. Every discourse then of which we spiritually drink, and all speech by which we are fed, are vessels for meat and drink. They who study to set forth well wrought discourse rather than such as is full of healthful meaning, are cups cleansed without; but within full of the defilement of vanity. Also the letter of the Law and the Prophets is a cup of spiritual drink, and a platter of necessary food. The Scribes and Pharisees seek to make plain the outward sense; Christ's disciples labour to exhibit the spiritual sense.

Justly are the bodies of the righteous said to be temples, because in the body of the righteous the soul has dominion, as God in His temple; or because God Himself dwells in righteous bodies. But the bodies of sinners are called sepulchres of the dead, because the sinner's soul is dead in his body; for that cannot be deemed to be alive, which does no spiritual or living act.

But say, hypocrite, if it be good to be wicked, why do you not desire to seem that which you desire to be? For what it is shameful to seem, that it is more shameful to be; and what to seem is fair, that it is fairer to be. Either therefore be what you seem, or seem what you are.

Wherefore that also must be held to be the resurrection, when a man is reanimated by access to the truth, and having dispersed the death of ignorance, and being endowed with new life by God, has burst forth from the sepulchre of the old man, even as the Lord likened the scribes and Pharisees to "whited sepulchres." Whence it follows that they who have by faith attained to the resurrection, are with the Lord after they have once put Him on in their baptism.

This analogy, too, has the same meaning as that of the preceding. For they were eager to appear comely in their external condition, just like tombs that are whitened with lime and chalk, but within they are full of every uncleanness, and of dead and rotting works.

Woe to you, (...) because you are like whitened sepulchres. Here he rebukes them with respect to spiritual sins. And first he sets forth the likeness; secondly, he explains it. A sepulchre is where a dead body rests. The dead bodies of the saints are the temple of God, in which God dwells; 1 Corinthians 3:17: the temple of God is holy, which you are. The body is the dwelling of the soul, and the soul is the throne of God: so just as the body is the dwelling of the soul, so the soul is the dwelling of God; Psalm 10:5: God is in his holy temple, etc. But the body of a sinner is a sepulchre, because it contains a dead thing, since the soul dies through sin; therefore the wicked are called a sepulchre; Psalm 13:3: their throat is an open sepulchre. In a sepulchre there is a dead body within, but sometimes outwardly there is some image that seems to live in appearance; Apocalypse 3:1: you have the name of being alive, and you are dead. And therefore he says, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, on account of the beauty outwardly applied, but within are full of dead men's bones and of all filthiness, i.e., of all putrefaction and of all uncleanness.

As the scribes and Pharisees were previously called "full of robbery and intemperance," likewise here they are said to be "full of hypocrisy and iniquity" and are compared with "the bones of the dead and all uncleanness." Hypocrisy, because it is a counterfeit of the good, possesses nothing vital of the good it simulates, but is only its dead bones, so to speak.… If we listen with wisdom to what the present passage wants to tell us, we will understand that every simulated righteousness is a dead righteousness, hence no righteousness at all. Just as a dead man can still have the appearance of a man, even though he is in fact no longer a man, so also a dead chastity is no chastity. For any virtue is dead when it is not practiced for God but feigned on account of men. He who feigns righteousness can give the appearance of being righteous even though what he has is not righteousness at all but only a figment of righteousness, much like impersonators who can take on the appearance of another individual without thereby actually becoming the other person. The same is true concerning chastity. Because of this, men who do such things are appropriately compared with "whitewashed tombs which look beautiful from the outside," for they give every external appearance of righteousness, even though they are full of "the bones of the dead" within.

As above they are said to be full of extortion and excess, so here they are full of hypocrisy and iniquity, and are likened to dead men's bones, and all uncleanness.

For all feigned righteousness is dead, forasmuch as it is not done for God's sake; yea, rather it is no righteousness at all, any more than a dead man is a man, or an actor who represents any character is the man whom he represents. There is therefore within them so much of bones and uncleanness as are the good things that they wickedly pretend to. And they seem righteous outwardly, not in the eyes of such as the Scripture calls Gods, (Ps. 82:6.) but of such only as die like men.

After this he explains: so you also outwardly indeed appear to men just, i.e., men judge you to be just, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. He comprehends the carnal sins, avarice and gluttony, as was said above, under which vainglory is contained; John 12:43: they loved their own glory more than the glory of God. Likewise, under iniquity, all spiritual sins.

The best example of the cultured, but common, tripper is the educated Englishman on the Continent. We can no longer explain the quarrel by calling Englishmen rude and foreigners polite. Hundreds of Englishmen are extremely polite, and thousands of foreigners are extremely rude. The truth of the matter is that foreigners do not resent the rude Englishman. What they do resent, what they do most justly resent, is the polite Englishman. He visits Italy for Botticellis or Flanders for Rembrandts, and he treats the great nations that made these things courteously--as he would treat the custodians of any museum. It does not seem to strike him that the Italian is not the custodian of the pictures, but the creator of them. He can afford to look down on such nations--when he can paint such pictures.

That is, in matters of art and travel, the psychology of the cad. If, living in Italy, you admire Italian art while distrusting Italian character, you are a tourist, or cad. If, living in Italy, you admire Italian art while despising Italian religion, you are a tourist, or cad. It does not matter how many years you have lived there. Tourists will often live a long time in hotels without discovering the nationality of the waiters. Englishmen will often live a long time in Italy without discovering the nationality of the Italians. But the test is simple. If you admire what Italians did without admiring Italians--you are a cheap tripper.

The same, of course, applies much nearer home. I have remarked elsewhere that country shopkeepers are justly offended by London people, who, coming among them, continue to order all their goods from London. It is caddish to wink and squint at the colour of a man's wine, like a wine taster; and then refuse to drink it. It is equally caddish to wink and squint at the colour of a man's orchard, like a landscape painter; and then refuse to buy the apples. It is always an insult to admire a thing and not use it. But the main point is that one has no right to see Stonehenge without Salisbury Plain and Salisbury. One has no right to respect the dead Italians without respecting the live ones. One has no right to visit a Christian society like a diver visiting the deep-sea fishes--fed along a lengthy tube by another atmosphere, and seeing the sights without breathing the air. It is very real bad manners.

(Verse 29 onwards) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, and you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. In the most skillful syllogism, they are proven to be the offspring of murderers, while they themselves, by the opinion of goodness and glory among the people, build tombs for the prophets whom their forefathers killed, and they say, 'If we had lived in that time, we would not have done what our fathers did.' However, even if they do not say it in words, they speak through their actions by ambitiously and magnificently building monuments to the slain, whom they do not deny were killed by their forefathers.

By a most subtle syllogism He proves them to be the sons of murderers, while to gain good character and reputation with the people, they build the sepulchres of the Prophets whom their fathers put to death.

Though they speak not this in words, they proclaim it by their actions, in ambitious and magnificent structures to their memory.

Not because they build, nor because they blame the others, doth He say, woe, but because, while both thus, and by what they say, they are pretending to condemn their fathers, they do worse. For in proof that the condemnation was a pretense, Luke saith, ye do allow because ye build; for, "Woe unto you," saith He, "for ye build the sepulchers of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness, and ye allow the deeds of your fathers, for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchers." For here He reproves their purpose, wherewith they built, that it was not for the honoring of them that were slain, but as making a show of the murders, and afraid, lest, when the tombs had perished by time, the proof and memory of such daring should fade away, setting up these glorious buildings, as a kind of trophy, and priding themselves in the daring deeds of those men, and displaying them.

Without just cause He seems to utter denunciations against those who build the sepulchres of the Prophets; for so far what they did was praiseworthy; how then do they deserve this woe?

And in the prophetic writings, the historical sense is the body, the spiritual meaning is the soul; the sepulchres are the letter and books themselves of Scripture. They then who attend only to the historical meaning, honour the bodies of the Prophets, and set in the letter as in a sepulchre; and are called Pharisees, i. e. 'cut off,' as it were cutting off the soul of the Prophets from their body.

But say, hypocrite, if it be good to be wicked, why do you not desire to seem that which you desire to be? For what it is shameful to seem, that it is more shameful to be; and what to seem is fair, that it is fairer to be. Either therefore be what you seem, or seem what you are.

Or, they said within themselves, If we do good to the poor not many see it, and then but for a moment; were it not better to raise buildings which all may see, not only now, but in all time to come? O foolish man, what boots this posthumous memory, if, where you are, you are tortured, and where you are not there you are praised? While He corrects the Jews, He instructs the Christians; for had these things been spoken to the former only, they would have been spoken, but not written; but now they were spoken on their account, and written on ours. When one, besides other good deeds, raises sacred buildings, it is an addition to his good works; but if without any other good works, it is a passion for worldly renown. The martyrs joy not to be honoured with money which has caused the poor to weep. The Jews, moreover, have ever been adorers of saints of former times, and contemners, yea persecutors, of the living. Because they could not endure the reproaches of their own Prophets, they persecuted and killed them; but afterwards the succeeding generation perceived the error of their fathers, and thus in grief at the death of innocent Prophets, they built up monuments of them. But they themselves in like manner persecuted and put to death the Prophets of their own time, when they rebuked them for their sins. This is what is meant, And ye say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the Prophets.

He deplores them, not for building tombs for the prophets, for that is pleasing to God, but for doing these things in pretence, and for passing judgement on their fathers while doing worse things themselves, and exceeding them by far in malice. They lie brazenly when they say, "If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have killed the prophets," for they were rabid with desire to kill the Master of the prophets. Therefore Christ says:

Then when he says, woe to you, (...) who build the sepulchres of the prophets, he rebukes them for the pretense of piety, and he does two things. First, he sets forth their pretense; secondly, their cruelty, at wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, etc. Likewise, they pretend in two ways, by deeds and by words. Hence he first rebukes them regarding their deeds; secondly, regarding their words. The second is at and you say: if we had been, etc. He says, then, woe to you who build the sepulchres of the prophets. But what is this? Were they doing wrong? Do we not do this well, who place the bodies of the saints in silver and gold caskets? Some say that they are not reproved for the deed but for the intention, because their intention was evil; for they did this so that the memory of the crime of their fathers might be brought back to men's remembrance: hence it was the custom that when something notable happened, something was made as a memorial of it. Hence they wanted the boldness of their parents, because they dared to kill the prophets, to be in the memory of all. But this exposition does not agree with the letter. Therefore it should be said otherwise, that they are not blamed for this, but because they did this only so as to show outward signs of piety, just as it is said above that they tithed mint and cummin. Likewise, they adorn the monuments of the just. They adorned the sepulchres, and yet had the intention of killing, on account of pretense. Similarly, Chrysostom says, it happens in our times that if someone does many good things, adorns sepulchres, has an open hand, and the like; if he builds in stone, and aims at vainglory, and does not walk in the ways of the Lord, it profits him nothing.

For the things that ye now dare to do, show that ye do these things also in this spirit. For, though ye speak the contrary, saith He, as condemning them, as, for instance, "We should not, if we had been in their days, have been partakers with them;" yet the disposition is evident wherewith ye say these things. Wherefore also unfolding it, though darkly, still He hath expressed it. For when He had said, ye say, "If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets;" He added, "Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them that slew the prophets." And what blame is it to be a murderer's son, if one partake not in the mind of one's father? None. Whence it is evident, that for this same thing He brings it forward against them, hinting at their affinity in wickedness.

Once the prophets had departed this life, their bodies were in the tomb but their souls and spirits were in the "realm of the living." Accordingly, the historical narrative of the prophetic writings is to be regarded as the body but their spiritual meaning and the inner truth as the soul and spirit which inhabits history. It is not improper then for us to consider the "tombs of the prophets" to be the letters on the pages of their books, in which the narrative lays as though it were a body placed in a tomb. Those persons therefore who receive and understand the spiritual meaning of the prophetic writings and the truth hidden within them have the soul and spirit of the prophets and are themselves made into a sort of realm of the living prophets.… Those who neither seek nor accept the spiritual meaning but attend only to the simple, historical narrative study the bodies of the prophets in the letters and pages of the books, as though in so many tombs. Such persons were the Pharisees, who were rightly called Pharisees (that is, the "separated") because they separated the spiritual meaning of the prophets from their bodily history, as though expelling the prophets' souls from their bodies, killing them and rendering them devoid of soul and spirit. It was also right for the Pharisees to be called "hypocrites," because they built and adorned only the tombs of the prophets which contained their bodily history, which is to say that they studied only the letter of their writings and books. They did not understand that those who study dead bodies (the historical narrative) may seem to act with reverence toward the memory of the prophets but are in fact being most irreverent. Their attempts to defend themselves against the charge of being associated with "those who killed the prophets" and to prove themselves innocent only add to the crimes of "those who killed the prophets," thereby filling up the "measure" of the iniquity of their fathers by not believing in Christ, whom the prophets proclaimed not through the historical sense of their writings but through the spiritual sense.

Likewise, they showed piety by their words: and you say: if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been their partners in the blood of the prophets. It is common that in the deeds of others all are severe judges: hence if we see someone sinning, we judge it a great sin, but we diminish our own sin; therefore these sons recognized the malice of their fathers, but not their own; above at 7:5: cast out first the beam from your own eye, and then you shall see to cast out the mote from your brother's eye.

We will carefully investigate what the Savior says. The forefathers of the Jews killed the holy prophets who were transmitting the divine word to them in those times. They surely have become witnesses for some of them, because the prophets are now revered and honored. They have placed crowns on their heads or assign … honor to their tombs as to holy things, for believing the prophets to be holy men, they have become the judges of those who have killed them. For by honoring them in this way, they have spoken against those who killed them, and through these things they accuse them of having acted wickedly. But though they agreed to condemn the murders committed by their own forefathers, they were about to become threshing floors for the same kind of evils, indeed, to things even worse. They "killed the author of life" and added to their impieties against him other murders, those of his holy apostles. For while one scrutinizes the sins of others, making a decision according to one's innate reason, one sees the wickedness and censures it.… He who is led into similar passions is like a blind man carried away.

What kind of accusation is this, to Call one the son of a murderer, who partakes not in his father's disposition? Clearly there is no guilt in being so; wherefore this must be said in proof of their resemblance in wickedness.

What they thought in their hearts, that they spoke by their deeds. Christ lays bare here the natural habit of all wicked men; each readily apprehends the other's fault, but none his own; for in another's case each man has an unprejudiced heart, but in his own case it is distorted. Therefore in the cause of others we can all easily be righteous judges. He only is the truly righteous and wise who is able to judge himself. It follows, Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that you are the children of them which killed the Prophets.

The character of the parents is a witness to the sons; if the father be good and the mother bad, or the reverse, the children may follow sometimes one, sometimes the other. But when both are the same, it very rarely happens that bad sons spring of good parents, or the reverse, though it be so sometimes. This is as a man is sometimes born out of the rule of nature, having six fingers or no eyes.

Then he sets forth their cruelty. And first, in general; secondly, in particular. And he sets forth the temporal punishment, at behold, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes. Regarding the first, he first describes the origin; secondly, the imitation of evil; thirdly, he threatens punishment. He says, wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of those who killed the prophets. But what evil was it for them, since it was not in their power? Therefore it seems that it ought not to be imputed to them. See: sometimes a son does not imitate the sins of his father, and sometimes he does imitate paternal malice. If he does not follow paternal malice, it is not imputed to him. Sometimes it happens that one has a good father and a bad mother, or conversely, and he follows the goodness of his father, or of his mother. But if both are wicked, it rarely happens that he does not imitate their malice. And the reason is that the children of the wicked become accustomed to evils from the beginning; and what they become accustomed to in youth they adhere to more strongly, and therefore they are more inclined to evil. Likewise, when evil parents see their children doing something evil, they do not correct them; for this reason their sin is aggravated, so that the sins of the parents redound to the children; Exodus 20:5: I am a jealous God, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children. Therefore he says, you are the sons of those, who have their malice; Wisdom 3:12: their children are most wicked. Hence you are sons by imitation; and this is what follows:

The form of judgment is perfect; the understanding and idea of equity are instilled in each of us by nature so that the more fully the ideal of equity is known, the less need there is for the forgiveness of iniquity. The people of the law killed all the prophets. They had become inflamed with hatred toward them because of the harshness of their reproaches, since the prophets had publicly called them thieves, murderers, adulterers and sacrilegious. Moreover, because they had denounced the Jews as unworthy of the kingdom of heaven and because they taught that the Gentiles would be the heirs of the covenant of God, they afflicted the prophets with a variety of other punishments. The descendants, however, repudiated the deeds of their fathers, honoring the prophets' books, decorating their tombs, restoring their sepulchers and attesting by these forms of respect that they were not culpable of the crimes of their fathers.

Because then they will fill up the measure of their fathers' purposes, therefore are they serpents, and an offspring of vipers.

And you, fulfill the measure of your fathers. Having proven with the previous words that they were the children of murderers and those who killed the prophets, he now concludes what he wanted and puts forth the final part of the syllogism. And you, fulfill the measure of your fathers. What was lacking for them, you complete. They killed the servants, you crucify the Lord. They killed the prophets, you kill him who was preached by the prophets.

Then, because He was searching their temper of mind, which is to the more part obscure, He doth, from those things also which they were about to perpetrate, which would be manifest to all, establish His words. For, because He had said, "Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets," making it evident, that of their affinity in wickedness He is speaking, and that it was a pretense to say, "We should not have been partakers with them," He added, "Fill ye up therefore the measure of your fathers," not commanding, but declaring beforehand, what was to be, that is, His own murder.

Therefore, having brought in their refutation, and having shown that they were pretenses which they said in their own defense, as, for instance, "We would not have been partakers with them," (for they who refrain not from the Lord, how should they have refrained from the servants), He makes after this His language more condemnatory, calling them "serpents, and generation of vipers," and saying, "How shall ye escape the damnation of hell," at once perpetrating such things, and denying them, and dissembling your purpose?

Then rebuking them more exceedingly from another cause also, He Saith, "I will send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, and some of them shall ye kill and crucify, and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues." For that they should not say, "Though we crucified the Lord, yet from the servants we should have refrained, if we had been then;" "Behold," He saith, "I send servants also to you, prophets likewise themselves, and neither will ye spare them." But these things He saith, showing that it was nothing strange, that He should be murdered by those sons, being both murderous and deceitful, and having much guile, and surpassing their fathers in their outrages.

And besides what hath been said, He shows them to be also exceedingly vainglorious. For when they say, "If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them," they spake out of vainglory, and were practising virtue in words only, but in their works doing the contrary.

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, that is, wicked sons of wicked men, and more wicked than those who begat them. For He showeth that they are committing greater crimes, both by their committing them after those others, and by their doing much more grievous things than they, and this, while positively affirming that they never would have fallen into the same. For they add that which is both the end and the crown of their evil deeds. For the others slew them that came to the vineyard, but these, both the son, and them that were bidding them to the wedding.

But these things He saith, to separate them off from the affinity to Abraham, and to show that they had no advantage from thence, unless they followed his works; wherefore also He adds, "How can ye flee from the damnation of hell," when following them that have committed such acts?

And here He recalls to their remembrance John's accusation, for he too called them by this name, and reminded them of the judgment to come. Then, because they are nothing alarmed by judgment and hell, by reason of their not believing them, and because the thing is future, He awes them by the things present, and saith, "Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets and scribes: and some of them shall ye kill and crucify, and scourge; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barschias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, that all these things shall come upon this generation."

See by how many things He has warned them. He said, Ye condemn your fathers, in that ye say, "We would not have been partakers with them;" and this is no little thing to shame them. He said, While ye condemn them, ye do worse things, even ye yourselves; and this is sufficient to cover them with disgrace. He said, These things shall not be without punishment; and hence he implants in them fear beyond words. He hath reminded them at least of hell. Then because that was to come, He brought home to them the terrors as even present. "For all these things shall come," He saith, "upon this generation."

He added also unspeakable severity to the vengeance, saying, that they shall suffer more grievous things than all; yet by none of these things did they become better. But if any one say, And why do they suffer more grievously than all? we would say, Because they have first committed more grievous things than all, and by none of the things that have been done to them have they been brought to a sound mind.

Heardest thou not Lamech saying, "Of Lamech vengeance shall be taken seventy times sevenfold;" that is, "I am deserving of more punishment than Cain." Why could this be? Yet he did not slay his brother; but because not even by his example was he brought to a better mind. And this is what God saith elsewhere, "Requiting the sins of fathers upon children for the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Not as though one were to suffer punishment for the crimes committed by others, but inasmuch as they who, after many sin and have been punished, yet have not grown better, but have committed the same offenses, are justly worthy to suffer their punishments also.

But see how seasonably he also mentioned Abel, indicating that this murder likewise is of envy. What then have ye to say? Know ye not what Cain suffered? Did God hold His peace at his deeds? Did He not exact the severest penalty? Heard ye not what things your fathers suffered, when they slew the prophets; were they not delivered over to punishments, and inflictions of vengeance without number? How then did ye not become better? And why do I speak of the punishments of your fathers, and what they suffered? Thou who thyself condemnest thy fathers, how is it thou doest worse? For moreover even ye yourselves have declared that "He will miserably destroy those wicked men." What favor then will ye have after this, committing such things after such a sentence?

But who is this Zacharias? Some say, the father of John; some, the prophet; some, a priest with two different names, whom the Scripture also calls, the son of Jehoiada.

But do thou mark this, that the outrage was twofold. For not only did they slay holy men, but also in a holy place. And saying these things, He did not only alarm them, but also comfort His disciples, showing that the righteous men also who were before them suffered these things. But these He alarmed, foretelling that like as they paid their penalty, even so should these too suffer the utmost extremities. Therefore He calls them "prophets, and wise men, and scribes," even hereby again taking away every plea of theirs. "For ye cannot say," He saith, "Thou didst send from among the Gentiles, and therefore we were offended;" but they were led on unto this by being murderous, and thirsting for blood. Wherefore He also said beforehand, "For this cause do I send prophets and scribes." This did the prophets also lay to their charge, saying, "They mingle blood with blood," and that they are men of blood. Therefore also did He command the blood to be offered to Him, showing that if in a brute it be thus precious, much more in a man. Which He saith to Noah likewise, "I will require all blood that is shed." And ten thousand other such things might one find Him enjoining with regard to their not committing murder; wherefore He commanded them not even to eat that which was strangled.

Oh the love of God towards man! that though He foreknew they would profit nothing, He still doeth His part. For I will send, He saith, and this knowing they would be slain. So that even hereby they were convicted of saying vainly, "We should not have been partakers with our fathers." For these too slew prophets even in their synagogues, and reverenced neither the place, nor the dignity of the persons. For not merely ordinary persons did they slay, but prophets and wise men, such that they had nothing to lay to their charge. And by these He meaneth the apostles, and those after them, for, indeed, many prophesied. Then, willing to aggravate their fears, He saith, "Verily, verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation;" that is, I will bring all upon your heads, and will make the vengeance sore. For he that knew many to have sinned, and was not sobered, but himself hath committed the same sins again, and not the same only, but also far more grievous, would justly deserve to suffer a far more grievous punishment than they. For like as, if he had been minded, he would have gained greatly, had he grown better by their examples, even so, since he continued without amendment, he is liable to a heavier vengeance, as having had the benefit of more warning by them who had sinned before and been punished, and having reaped no advantage.

He had said against the Scribes and Pharisees, that they were the children of those who killed the Prophets; now therefore He shows that they were like them in wickedness, and that that was false that they said, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the Prophets. Wherefore He now says, Fill ye up the measure of your fathers. This is not a command, but a prophecy of what is to be.

And in the prophetic writings, the historical sense is the body, the spiritual meaning is the soul; the sepulchres are the letter and books themselves of Scripture. They then who attend only to the historical meaning, honour the bodies of the Prophets, and set in the letter as in a sepulchre; and are called Pharisees, i. e. 'cut off,' as it were cutting off the soul of the Prophets from their body.

They fill up the measure of their fathers' sins by their not believing in Christ. And the cause of their unbelief was, that they looked only to the letter and the body, and would understand nothing spiritual in them.

He foretels, that as their fathers killed the Prophets, so they also should kill Christ, and the Apostles, and other holy men. As suppose you had a quarrel with some one, you might say to your adversary, Do to me what you are about to do; but you do not therein bid him do it, but show him that you are aware of his manæuvres. And in fact they went beyond the measure of their fathers; for they put to death only men, these crucified God. But because He stooped to death of His own free choice, He does not lay on them the sin of His death, but only the death of the Apostles and other holy men. Whence also He said, Fill up, and not Fill over; for a just and merciful Judge overlooks his own wrongs, and only punishes those done to others.

He neither bids them nor impels them towards their plan to kill Him when He says, "Fill ye up also the measure of your fathers." Rather, this is what He means: since you are serpents and the offspring of such fathers, and have been plunged into such malice that you are incurable, in a short time you will be eager to outdo your fathers when you kill Me. For you shall have attained to the ultimate degree of malice when you fulfill and complete the bloodletting which your fathers omitted. Being such, how shall you escape eternal torments?

Fill up then the measure of your fathers. This is not imperative, but declarative: fill up, i.e., you will fill up, as though a man were speaking, i.e., you will kill me; John 13:27: that which you do, do quickly. Or it can be permissive, i.e., you will not be prevented by me; i.e., at some time you wished to but I did not permit; hereafter I will not prevent you. Therefore fill up the measure of your fathers. But what does it mean when he says fill up? It should be seen that all things that come to pass come from the certain judgment of God. But in that judgment of God the punishment is not immediately exacted, until the guilt is totally accumulated and comes to a head: hence with respect to the judgment of God, their guilt was not yet filled up. Hence they killed the prophets, and the guilt is not yet filled up, but it will be completed in me. Therefore fill up the measure of your fathers. Isaiah 27:8: in measure against measure, when it shall be cast off, you shall judge it. Or fill up. The fathers sinned, but you fill up. Then one fills up when he arrives at as much as his fathers. Therefore your fathers killed the prophets, and you, fill up. Or it can be said that those sinned by killing servants, but these by killing the Son; hence they filled up the wickedness of their fathers. But the Lord willingly offered himself and did not oppose. Likewise, he does not reproach them for his own injury, but only for that of his own, because it belongs to a good shepherd to consider the injury of his own as his own.

The punishment of all the murders committed in the past will fall on the last generation of murderers according to a certain pattern, although God speaking through the prophet does say that "the fathers will not die for the sins of the children" … and indeed, "each will die for his own sin." What then should we think about this? How can a later generation be punished for the murders committed by others, concerning whom Christ says these things? Won't Cain be punished for the murder of Abel?… How is it that these poor souls will be subjected to the punishment due to all these people? For God is not unjust but is the righteous judge, powerful and patient, according to the testimony of the Scripture. Therefore we think there is a certain intention contained within the things that have been spoken that applies to the present case and helps us to fit one thing to another. Let it be taken for granted then that this may be so in the present case. Let us say that they have become robbers in that land. These men were plundering the surrounding villages and killing their inhabitants. But the prince of the realm did not immediately strip them of the ruler's sword. Rather, he was eager to teach them differently through the use of threats.… But I suppose someone of the last who have been cruelly punished will say that they have received the penalty due to all.… You will also understand something such as this concerning God. For God was extremely patient in the preceding times until he deemed it necessary to set a boundary on his longsuffering. For it was also necessary that the divine anger fall upon these. On the one hand, they continued to sin against people and their fellow servants. On the other hand, they killed the Lord of all. Not that it is for this reason that he harshly punished the last ones but that it is astonishing that he has borne patiently with them to the present time.

The tremendous figure which fills the Gospels towers in this respect, as in every other, above all the thinkers who ever thought themselves tall. His pathos was natural, almost casual. The Stoics, ancient and modern, were proud of concealing their tears. He never concealed His tears; He showed them plainly on His open face at any daily sight, such as the far sight of His native city. Yet He concealed something. Solemn supermen and imperial diplomatists are proud of restraining their anger. He never restrained His anger. He flung furniture down the front steps of the Temple, and asked men how they expected to escape the damnation of Hell. Yet He restrained something. I say it with reverence; there was in that shattering personality a thread that must be called shyness. There was something that He hid from all men when He went up a mountain to pray. There was something that He covered constantly by abrupt silence or impetuous isolation. There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth.

(v. 33) Serpents, ((Al. additur et)) offspring of vipers, how can you escape the judgment of Gehenna? This very thing John the Baptist also said (Luke III). Therefore, just as vipers give birth to vipers, so you, he says, are born of murderers fathers, are murderers.

The same had been said by John the Baptist. Wherefore as of vipers are born vipers, so of your fathers who were murderers are you born murderers.

And this is manifest too by what comes after; He adds at least, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers." For as those beasts are like their parents, in the destructiveness of their venom, so also are ye like your fathers in murderousness.

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, that is, wicked sons of wicked men, and more wicked than those who begat them. For He showeth that they are committing greater crimes, both by their committing them after those others, and by their doing much more grievous things than they, and this, while positively affirming that they never would have fallen into the same. For they add that which is both the end and the crown of their evil deeds. For the others slew them that came to the vineyard, but these, both the son, and them that were bidding them to the wedding.

But these things He saith, to separate them off from the affinity to Abraham, and to show that they had no advantage from thence, unless they followed his works; wherefore also He adds, "How can ye flee from the damnation of hell," when following them that have committed such acts?

And here He recalls to their remembrance John's accusation, for he too called them by this name, and reminded them of the judgment to come.

He calls them offspring of vipers, because the nature of vipers is such that the young burst the womb of their dam, and so come forth; and in like manner the Jews condemned their fathers, finding fault with their deeds. He says, How shall ye escape the damnation of hell? By building the tombs of the saints? But the first step of piety is to love holiness, the next, to love the saints; for it is not reasonable in him to honour the righteous, who despises righteousness. The saints cannot be friends to those to whom God is an enemy. Shall ye be saved by a mere name, because ye seem to be among God's people! Forasmuch as an open enemy is better than a false friend, so is he more hateful to God, who calls himself the servant of God, and does the commands of the Devil. Indeed, before God he who has resolved to kill a worm is a murderer before the deed is done, for it is the will that is rewarded for good, or punished for evil. Deeds are evidence of the will. God then does not require deeds on His own account that He may know how to judge, but for the sake of other men, that they may perceive that God is righteous. And God affords the opportunity of sin to the wicked, not to make them sin, but to manifest the sinner; and also to the good He gives opportunity to show the purpose of their will. In this way then He gave the Scribes and Pharisees opportunity of showing their purposes, Behold, I send unto you Prophets, and wise men, and Scribes.

Then he adds concerning the punishment: you serpents, generation of vipers, etc. And it seems that he speaks fittingly about the guilt. A serpent is a venomous animal and kills by its venom: so they are called serpents because they killed the prophets. Of the viper it is also said that it dies in giving birth, for the offspring gnaws through the mother's innards: so since they themselves were wicked, they reviled their fathers. Hence, you who are such, how will you flee from the judgment of hell? According to the judgment of men you escape, but according to the judgment of God, how will you escape? Hence one must have a clean heart. Job 19:29: flee from the face of the sword.

Then there is a curious thing which seems to slip out almost by accident. On one occasion this Man is sitting looking down on Jerusalem from the hill above it and suddenly in comes an extraordinary remark—"I keep on sending you prophets and wise men." Nobody comments on it. And yet, quite suddenly, almost incidentally, He is claiming to be the power that all through the centuries is sending wise men and leaders into the world.

That is, the Apostles, who, as foretelling things to come, are Prophets; as having knowledge of Christ, are wise men; as understanding the Law, are Scribes.

(Verse 34.) Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town. And so upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. At the same time, observe the Apostle writing to the Corinthians (1 Cor. VII), that there are various gifts of the disciples of Christ; some are prophets, who preach the coming things; some are wise, who know when they should speak; some are scribes, most learned in the Law, from whom Stephen was stoned, Paul was killed, Peter was crucified, the disciples were whipped in the Acts of the Apostles: and they were persecuted from city to city; driven out of Judea, so that they might migrate to the Gentile people.

Or, as the Apostle writes to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 12.) that there are various gifts among Christ's disciples; some Prophets, who foretel things to come; some wise men, who know when they ought to speak; others Scribes taught in the Law; of whom Stephen was stoned, Paul killed, Peter crucified, and the disciples of the Apostles beaten, in the Acts; and they persecuted them from city to city, driving them out of Judæa, that they might go to the Gentiles.

And to take away all excuse from them that they might not say, Because you sent them to the Gentiles thereat were we offended, He foretels that His disciples should be sent to them, and it is of their punishment that He adds, Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation.

The unfruitful scribes of the law are different from the scribes who were sent by Christ on account of the gospel, in whose work the spirit vivifies but the letter does not kill, as does the letter of the law. Those who follow the letter of the law incur faithlessness and vain superstitions. Those who follow the letter of the gospel (i.e., its simple narrative), however, are saved. For the literal story of the gospel itself is sufficient for the salvation of the more simple among us. And if you see scribes of the law and Pharisees acting not only against "wise men" of the gospel and "prophets" of Christ but also against the "scribes" of the new covenant, you will see how (insofar as they are able) they kill the prophets of Christ and crucify the scribes and scourge them with slanderous speech in their synagogues. It is common to hear how the sects, the so-called spiritual men of the Pharisees, use their tongues like whips to scourge Christians with curses and to pursue them "from town to town," sometimes bodily, sometimes spiritually, wanting to expel them from their own town, which is the law and prophets and the gospel and the apostles, and to drive them by deceitful means into another, foreign town, which is another gospel.

Or the Scribes who are sent by Christ, are Scribes according to the Gospel, whom the spirit quickens and the letter does not kill, as did the letter of the Law, which whoso followed ran into vain superstitions. The simple words of the Gospel are sufficient for salvation. But the Scribes of the Law do yet scourge the Scribes of the New Testament, by detracting from them in their synagogues; and the heretics also, who are spiritual Pharisees, with their tongues murder the Christians, and persecute them from city to city, sometimes in the body, sometimes also in the spirit, seeking to drive them from their own city of the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel, into another Gospel.

He reproves them for saying falsely, "If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have killed the prophets." For "Behold," He says, "I send unto you prophets and wise men, and scribes," but you will kill them. He is speaking of the apostles, for the Holy Spirit adorned the apostles with teachings and made them scribes, that is, teachers of the people, and prophets filled with all wisdom. "I send," He says, thus showing His divine authority.

Behold I. In this part he sets forth their cruelty and adds the temporal punishment. And first he does the first; secondly, he adds the punishment. And first he sets forth the benefit; secondly, the guilt; thirdly, the magnitude of the punishment. Hence he says, behold, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, etc. And this can be referred to what immediately follows, or to all that follows. If to all, then it has a plainer sense. Thus I say that you are about to fill up the measure, and that you are serpents, etc. Hence I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, and some of them you will put to death, because you are such as are accustomed to killing. Or in another way, so that it refers to the whole. The Lord wills that judgment be not only just, but that it appear just, so that others may take example. Hence if someone has a good resolution, the Lord rewards him for his good resolution, and then gives him the will to exercise a good work; so conversely, when someone has an evil resolution and is full of evil will, according to what is said in Hosea 2:6: I will hedge up your way with thorns, he excites the wrath of God, and from the wrath of God it comes about that his malice is made manifest. Therefore I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and you will kill them. And he says behold, because it is at hand, for he sent the apostles; hence Acts 1:8: and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth. But note that in saying I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, he signifies the diverse gifts of the Holy Spirit. To one is given the gift of wisdom, to another the gift of tongues, etc. 1 Corinthians 12:10. The apostles had all these gifts. They had the gift of prophecy in foretelling the future; Joel 2:28: I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. Likewise, the gift of wisdom, because they knew all things; Luke 21:15: I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist and gainsay. Likewise, they were scribes, because they had understanding of Scripture; Luke 24:45: he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures. And why does he predict this? So that the disciples, thinking about what they had heard, might bear it more easily. Likewise, to convict them of malice, because just as their fathers killed the prophets, so they would kill the apostles; hence some of them you will put to death, as it says in Acts 12:2, because Herod killed James the brother of John with the sword, seeing that it pleased the Jews. Others were crucified; hence and you will crucify. For this was the most shameful death; therefore by this death they killed Christ, according to that passage in Wisdom 2:20: let us condemn him to a most shameful death. And you will scourge. Acts 5:40 says that having beaten them, they charged them that they should not speak at all in the name of Jesus. And you will persecute. This is manifest in how they persecuted Paul. And above at 10:23: when they shall persecute you in one city, flee into another.

Because we read about so many Zechariahs in Scripture, we need to inquire into the identity of this particular Zechariah, the son of Barachiah. Lest we mistake him for another, the Gospel specifies "whom you killed between the sanctuary and the altar." Yet there remains a variety of diverse opinions on this question, each of which ought to be considered. Some say that this Zechariah the son of Barachiah is the eleventh of the twelve minor prophets. Although their fathers share the same name, however, they cannot be the same persons because the prophet Zechariah was never said to have been killed between the sanctuary and the altar and especially because the temple had just recently been destroyed in the prophet's time. Others want us to believe that this Zechariah is the father of John the Baptist, killed because he proclaimed the advent of the Savior on the basis of something he had dreamed. Because this theory doesn't have the authority of Scripture, however, it can be disproven as easily as it can be proven. Still others maintain that this is the Zechariah who was killed between the sanctuary and the altar by Joash the king of Judah, as is chronicled in the book of Kings. But that Zechariah was the son of Jehoida the priest, not Barachiah, as the Scripture relates: "Joash did not remember the good which Jehoida, Zechariah's father, had done for him."

(Verses 35, 36.) So that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation. Regarding Abel, there is no doubt that he is the one whom his brother Cain killed. But the righteousness of Zechariah is not only confirmed now by the judgment of the Lord, but also by the testimony of Genesis (Gen. IV), where the offerings accepted by God are narrated. We inquire who this Zacharias son of Barachiah is, because we have read of many Zachariases. And so that no opportunity for error might be given, it has been added: whom you have killed between the temple and the altar. Different things are read in different places, and I ought to present the opinions of different authors. Some say that it is Zacharias son of Barachiah, who is the eleventh among the twelve prophets, and that the name of the father agrees with him; but where he was killed between the temple and the altar, Scripture does not speak: especially since during his time there were hardly any ruins of the temple. Some suggest that Zacharias is the father of John, approving this based on certain apocryphal dreams, stating that he was killed because he preached the coming of the Savior. However, since this does not have authority from the Scriptures, it is dismissed with the same ease with which it is proven. Others believe this Zacharias to be the one who was killed by King Joash of Judah between the temple and the altar, as the history of the Kings narrates. But it should be noted that this Zacharias is not the son of Barachiah, but the son of Jehoiada the priest. And Scripture also reports: He did not remember the kindness Joash, his father, had shown him (2 Chronicles 24:22). Therefore, if we consider Zachariah and the place where he was killed, we wonder why he is called the son of Barachiah and not Joiada. Barachiah in our language means blessed by the Lord, and the righteousness of the priest Joiada is demonstrated in the Hebrew language. In the Gospel used by the Nazarenes, we find written that he is the son of Joiada instead of Barachiah. The simpler brethren among the ruins of the temple and the altar, or at the exits of the gates that lead to Siloam, pointing to the red stones, consider them to be polluted with the blood of Zechariah. We do not condemn the error that stems from hatred of the Jews and devotion to the faith. Let us briefly explain why the blood of the righteous Abel to the son of Barachiah is sought from that generation, even though neither of them killed him. The rule of the Scriptures is to present two generations, of the good or the evil, that is, one for each individual. Let us take examples of good things: Who shall ascend into the mountain of the Lord? or who shall rest in his holy mountain? (Ps. 23:3) And when he has described those who are going to ascend into the mountain of the Lord, who were of different ages, afterward he adds: This is the generation of them that seek the Lord, that seek the face of the God of Jacob. And in another place concerning all the saints: The generation of the righteous shall be blessed. (Ps. 112:2) But concerning the wicked, as in the present place: The generation of vipers. And all things will be required from this generation. And in Ezekiel, when he described the sins of the land, the prophetic word added: If Noah, and Job, and Daniel were found there, I will not forgive the sins of that land (Ezek. 14:14): All the righteous who would be like them in virtues, by Noah and Job and Daniel, wanting to be understood. Therefore, those who have done similar things to Cain and Joash against the apostles are referred to as being from the same generation.

Concerning the Abel here spoken of, there is no doubt that it is he whom his brother Cain murdered. He is proved to have been righteous, not only by this judgment of the Lord, but by the passage in Genesis, which says that his offerings were accepted by God. But we must enquire who is this Zacharias, son of Barachias, because we read of many Zachariases; and that we might not mistake, here it is added, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Some say that it is that Zacharias who is the eleventh among the twelve Prophets, and his father's name agrees to this, but when he was slain between the temple and the altar, Scripture does not mention; but above all, in his time there were scarce 'even the ruins of the temple. Others will have it to be Zacharias the father of John.

But as this has no Scripture authority, it is as readily despised as offered. Others will have it to be that Zacharias who was killed by Joas, king of Judah, between the temple and the altar, that is, in the court of the temple. (2 Chron. 24:21.) But that Zacharias was not the son of Barachias, but of Jehoiada the Priest. But Barachias in our language is interpreted 'Blessed of the Lord,' so that the righteousness of Joiada the Priest is expressed by this Hebrew word. But in the Gospel which the Nazarenes use, we find written 'son of Joiada' instead of son of Barachias.

The rule of the Scriptures is only to know two generations, one of good the other of bad. Of the generation of the good it is said, The generation of the righteous shall be blessed. (Ps. 112:2.) And of the bad it is said in the present passage, Generation of vipers. These then, because they did against the Apostles like things as Cain and Joas, are described as of one generation.

Then to show them that they should not do this without punishment, He holds out an unspeakable terror over them, That upon you may come all the righteous blood.

Moreover, He names Abel, to show that it would be out of envy that they would kill Christ and His disciples. He names Zacharias, because there was a twofold resemblance in his case, the sacred place, as well as the sacred person.

A tradition has come down to us, that there was one place in the temple in which virgins were allowed to worship God, married women being forbidden to stand there. And Mary, after the Saviour's birth, going into the temple, stood to pray in this place of the virgins. And when they who knew that she had borne a Son were hindering her, Zacharias said, that forasmuch as she was still a virgin, she was worthy of the place of the virgins. Whereupon, as though he manifestly were contravening the Law, he was slain there between the temple and the altar by the men of that generation; and thus this word of Christ is true which He spake to those who were standing there, whom ye slew.

Zacharias is interpreted 'The memory of God.' Whosoever then hastes to obliterate the memory of God, seems to those to whom he gives offence to shed the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias. For it is by the blessing of God that we retain the memory of God. Also the memory of God is slain by the wicked, when the Temple of God is polluted by the lustful, and His altar defiled by the carelessness of prayers. Abel is interpreted 'mourning.' He then who does not receive that, Blessed are they that mourn, sheds the blood of Abel, that is, puts away the truth of wholesome mourning. Some also shed, as it were, the blood of the Scriptures by putting aside their truth, for all Scripture, if it is not understood according to its truth, is dead.

As all the good things which had been merited by all the saints in each generation since the foundation of the world were bestowed upon that last generation which received Christ; so all the evil that all the wicked in every generation from the foundation of the world had deserved to suffer, came upon that last generation of the Jews which rejected Christ. Or thus; Assail the righteous of former saints, yea, of all the saints, could not merit that so great grace as was given to men in Christ; so the sins of all the wicked could not deserve so much evil as came upon the Jews, that they should suffer such things as these suffered from the Romans, and that in after time every generation of them to the end of the world should be cast off from God, and be made a mock by all the Gentiles. For what is there worse than to reject and in such sort to put to death the Son coming in mercy and lowliness! Or thus; Nations and states when they sin are not thereupon immediately punished by God, but He waits for many generations; but when He sees fit to destroy that state or nation, He then seems to visit upon them the sins of all former generations, and one generation suffers the accumulation of all that former generations have deserved. Thus this generation of the Jews seems to have been punished for their fathers; but in truth they suffered not for others, but on their own account.

That is, all the vengeance due for the shedding of the blood of the righteous.

It should be enquired too how He says, to the blood of Zacharias, since the blood of many more saints was afterwards shed. This is thus explained. Abel a keeper of sheep was killed in the field, Zacharias a priest was slain in the court of the temple. The Lord therefore names these two, because by these all holy martyrs are denoted, both of lay and priestly order.

He says that upon the Jews then alive shall come all the blood shed unrighteously. For they shall be punished more severely than their fathers because they did not amend their lives after receiving such examples. For Lamech too was punished more than Cain, although he had not killed a brother, because he did not learn from the example of Cain (Gen. 4:23-24). All blood, He says, from Abel to Zachariah shall come upon you. It was appropriate that He mentioned Abel, for as Abel was slain out of envy, so Christ too was envied. Which Zachariah is mentioned here? Some say that it is he who is numbered among the twelve prophets; others say that he is the father of the Forerunner. For there is an account handed down to us, according to which Zachariah, when he was high priest, had Mary the Mother of God stand in the temple in the place of the virgins even after she had given birth to Christ. The Jews were vexed at this and killed him for ranking among the virgins a woman who had given birth. But it is nothing to be wondered at if the father of the Forerunner also had a father named Baruch, as did one of the twelve prophets who was called the son of Baruch. For it is likely that just as they shared the same name, so did their fathers.

Then the punishment is set forth, which, because it seemed severe, he therefore confirms: amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. He says, that upon you may come all the just blood, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias. Who this Abel is, is well known, because he was killed by his brother Cain. But who this Zacharias was is not established. It is read that there were three men named Zacharias. One was the son of Barachias, who was the eleventh among the prophets. But it cannot be understood of this one, because there was not yet an altar. Another was the father of John, and whose son he was is not found; but Chrysostom says that he was killed on account of Christ, because in the temple there was a place for virgins, and when the Virgin Mary was sitting in the place of virgins, the Jews wished to expel her from the place; Zacharias prevented this by defending her, and on account of this he was killed. Another is called the son of Joiada, whom Joash killed in the court of the temple, and therefore between the temple and the altar; hence the place agrees, but the name differs. Yet Jerome says that Barachias is interpreted "blessed of the Lord," and designates the holiness of his father Joiada the priest. And he says that he himself saw the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and there it was contained, the son of Joiada. But why he begins with this Zacharias can be a question of the literal sense. The reason, however, seems to be that although the preceding things were more frequent, these nevertheless were found in Scripture. Or in another way, that Abel was a shepherd and Joiada a priest; therefore by these two are signified the laity and the clergy. Hence all punishment for the slaying of men will come upon you. Or in another way, because some are active and some contemplative; hence both are signified by these two.

(ord.) He means not only those there present, but the whole generation before and after, for all were one city and one body of the Devil.

Otherwise; Because He delayed the punishment of hell which He had threatened them with, He pronounces against them threats of present evil, saying, All these things shall come upon this generation.

For he who having seen many sinning yet remains uncorrected, but rather does the same or worse, is obnoxious to heavier punishment.

But amen I say to you, that all these things shall come upon this generation. But how can it be that all these things come upon this generation? Is one punished for another? Ezekiel 18:20: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. How then upon this generation? Jerome solves this by saying that it is customary in Scripture that the whole generation of the good is taken as one generation, of which Psalm 111:2 says: the generation of the righteous shall be blessed. Of the generation of the wicked, above at 12:39: an evil generation seeks a sign. Chrysostom says thus: some sin, but God does not immediately punish; hence in Psalm 7:12: does he become angry every day? But some, when they sin, are never corrected, but change for the worse; 2 Timothy 3:13: but evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse; and then the Lord waits until their malice is fulfilled. Hence these, in whom malice will be fulfilled, bear the weight of the whole as regards temporal punishment, yet as regards eternal punishment each bears his own. Hence it will be so great that it will seem as though they suffer for all; hence in Exodus 32:34 it says that this sin is to be reserved until the day of vengeance. Just as there was a fullness of goods for those who believe in Christ, so there was a fullness of evils for those who killed Christ; therefore he says, all these things shall come upon this generation. But what is this punishment? The destruction of the city of Jerusalem.

He was soon to rain calamitous blows on Jerusalem because of its bloodthirsty nature. For that very reason Jesus accuses it of possessing a murderous disposition. For he says it kills the prophets and stones the ones sent to it. So often [the city] could have obtained mercy, but it does not desire it. How many times he demonstrated this, on many occasions and to many descendants, as when he brought back the people from captivity. But through their sins they continually scattered themselves. By speaking of wings and shelter Jesus teaches in a way appropriate for God and illustrates the meaning of Moses' words through a human comparison. "He spread his wings and welcomed them." And David: "But the children of men take refuge in the shadow of your wings." For when Satan scattered them on one side into idolatry and on the other into a love for pleasure, he sent prophets to them. Then through himself he came that he might gather them together "into one." But they could not bear to remain under his protection. "For I," he says, "like a loving hen always held you to draw you to myself, but you had no desire for this. You scattered yourself through your constant sinning and drew away from God." But this is a prolific hen who has many children. She ardently loves and cares for her children and willingly gives herself for them.

(Quaest. Ev. i. 36.) This species has the greatest affection for its brood, insomuch that when they are sick the mother sickens also; and what you will hardly find in any other animal, it will fight against the kite, protecting its young with its wings. In like manner our mother, the Wisdom of God, sickened as it were in the putting on the flesh, according to that of the Apostle, The weakness of God is stronger than men, (1 Cor. 1:25.) protects our weakness, and resists the Devil that he should not make us his prey.

(Ench. 97.) Where is that omnipotence, by the which He did whatsoever pleased Him both in heaven and in earth, if He would have gathered the children of Jerusalem and did not? Was it not that she would not that her children should be gathered by Him, and yet He did, notwithstanding, gather those of her children whom He would?

Some begin to suspect that [love of country] is never anything but a demon. But then they have to reject half the high poetry and half the heroic action our race has achieved. We cannot keep even Christ's lament over Jerusalem. He too exhibits love for His country.

The Impassible speaks as if it suffered passion, and that which contains in Itself the cause of its own and all other bliss talks as though it could be in want and yearning. ... "Oh Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not."

Admonition, then, is the censure of loving care and produces understanding. Such is Christ the Educator in his admonitions, as when he says in the Gospel, "How often would I have gathered your children, as a bird gathers her young ones under her wings, and you would not!" And again, the Scripture admonishes, saying, "And they committed adultery with wood and stone and burned incense to Baal." For it is a very great proof of his love, that, though knowing well the shamelessness of the people that had kicked and bounded away, he notwithstanding exhorts them to repentance and says by Ezekiel, "Son of man, you live among scorpions. Nevertheless, speak to them. Perhaps they will hear." Further, to Moses he says, "Go and tell Pharaoh to send my people forth; but I know that he will not send them forth." For he shows both things: both his divinity in his foreknowledge of what would take place and his love in affording an opportunity for repentance to the self-determination of the soul. He admonishes also by Isaiah, in his care for the people, when he says, "This people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." What follows is reproving censure: "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of people." Here his loving care, having shown their sin, shows salvation side by side with repentance.

the Lord Christ, who in those days when he had come down from the Mount of Olives, and beheld Jerusalem and wept over it as it lay opposite, said: How often would I have gathered thy children even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wing, and ye would not. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

The Poets are those who rise above the people by understanding them. Of course, most of the Poets wrote in prose--Rabelais, for instance, and Dickens. The Prigs rise above the people by refusing to understand them: by saying that all their dim, strange preferences are prejudices and superstitions. The Prigs make the people feel stupid; the Poets make the people feel wiser than they could have imagined that they were. There are many weird elements in this situation. The oddest of all perhaps is the fate of the two factors in practical politics. The Poets who embrace and admire the people are often pelted with stones and crucified. The Prigs who despise the people are often loaded with lands and crowned. In the House of Commons, for instance, there are quite a number of prigs, but comparatively few poets. There are no People there at all.

(Verse 37.) Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you: how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling! Jerusalem, He calls not the stones and buildings of the city, but the inhabitants, whom He mourns for with a fatherly affection, as we also read in another place that He wept upon seeing her (Luke 19). And in saying, how often I have longed to gather your children together, He testifies that all the prophets sent by Himself were rejected. We also read in the song of Deuteronomy the image of a chicken gathering its chicks under its wings: As an eagle protects its nest and desires its young, spreading its wings, it receives and carries them on its feathers (Deut. XXXII, 11).

By Jerusalem He means not the stones and buildings, but the dwellers there, over whom He laments with the feeling of a Father.

Then He directs His speech unto the city, in this way too being minded to correct His hearers, and saith, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem!" What meaneth the repetition? this is the manner of one pitying her, and bemoaning her, and greatly loving her. For, like as unto a woman beloved, herself indeed ever loved, but who had despised Him that loved her, and therefore on the point of being punished, He pleads, being now about to inflict the punishment. Which He doth in the prophets also, using these words, "I said, Turn thou unto me, and she returned not."

Then having called her, He tells also her blood-stained deeds, "Thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, and ye would not," in this way also pleading for His own dealings; not even with these things hast thou turned me aside, nor withdrawn me from my great affection toward thee, but it was my desire even so, not once or twice, but often to draw thee unto me. "For how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not." And this He saith, to show that they were ever scattering themselves by their sins. And His affection He indicates by the similitude; for indeed the creature is warm in its love towards its brood. And everywhere in the prophets is this same image of the wings, and in the song of Moses and in the Psalms, indicating His great protection and care.

He calls them children of Jerusalem, just as we call each generation of citizens the sons of the preceding generation. And He says, How often, though it is well known that once only did He teach the Jews in the body, because Christ was ever present in Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Angels, ministering to human salvation in every generation. Whosoever shall not have been gathered in by Him shall be judged, as though he had refused to be gathered in.

Foreseeing the destruction of the city, and the blow it would receive from the Romans, He called to mind the blood of the saints which had been, and should yet be, shed in it. Thou killedst Esaias who was sent unto thee, and stonedst my servant Jeremias; thou dashedst out the brains of Ezechiel by dragging him over stones; how shalt thou be saved, which wilt not suffer a physician to come nigh thee? And He said not, Didst kill and stone; but, Killest, and Stonest; that is, This is a common and natural practice with thee to kill and stone the saints. She did to the Apostles the same things which she had once done to the Prophets.

(non occ.) Let heretics then cease to assign to Christ a beginning from the Virgin; let them leave off to preach one God of the Law and another of the Prophets.

Twice He says the name Jerusalem, pitying and calling out to her with compassion. For as a lover vehemently justifies himself to his beloved, intending to punish her for having spurned him, so Christ accuses Jerusalem of being a murderess. And many times He desired to show mercy to her but she did not want it, but trusted in the devil who scattered her and led her away from the truth which unites, and she did not accept the Lord who gathers together. For there is nothing which disbands and scatters us from God so readily as does sin; just as there is nothing which gathers us back to God as readily as does a good conscience. He gave the example of the hen to show His affection.

And since he intends to speak of the destruction of the city, he turns to address the city, saying, Jerusalem, Jerusalem. And first he sets forth the offense; secondly, he recalls the benefits; thirdly, he announces the punishment. The second is at how often would I have gathered together your children (...) and you would not? The third is at behold, your house shall be left to you desolate. He says, then, Jerusalem, Jerusalem; and this doubling designates the feeling of one who pities; hence it says in Luke 19:41 that seeing the city, he wept over it. You that kill the prophets; Acts 7:52: which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And he says, you that kill, not "you that killed," because they were still persevering in malice. This is that Jerusalem of which it says in Ezekiel 5:6: this is Jerusalem, I have set her in the midst of the nations, and the countries round about her, and she has despised my judgments. They could excuse themselves: we had no one to tell us; therefore he says, and you stone those who are sent to you; hence I sent prophets and many helps, and you did not recognize them. How often would I have gathered together your children, as the hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would not? In this is designated the perpetuity of his divinity, according to what he himself says, John 8:58: before Abraham was made, I am. Hence Christ himself sent prophets, patriarchs, and angels. Whenever he sent them, he wished to gather, etc. Those are gathered who are converted to the Lord, because in him sinners are united; those are scattered who are separated from unity. Hence, I would have gathered, as the hen gathers her chickens under her wings. It is said that there is no animal so compassionate toward its chicks as the hen. The hen defends them from the hawk and exposes her life for them and gathers them under her wings. So Christ has compassion on us: surely he has borne our infirmities, Isaiah 53:4. Likewise, he exposed himself to the hawk, i.e., the devil; Deuteronomy 31:27: while I am yet living, and going in with you, you have always been rebellious against the Lord. But there is an objection. The Lord willed, and they were unwilling; therefore their evil will prevailed over the will of God. Hence it should be said: as often as I willed, I acted, but against your will; I acted when I acted; hence your will prevented me from acting. Or the fact that he sent prophets was a sign that he willed to gather, and you would not.

Verse 38. Behold, your house shall be left desolate. This very thing Jeremiah had already said in the person of Jeremiah: I have forsaken my house, I have cast off my inheritance: my inheritance is become to me as a lion in the forest. We see with our eyes the house of the Jews left desolate, that is, that temple which shone more brightly, because it lost its inhabitant Christ, and, desiring to seize the inheritance, killed the heir.

"But ye would not," He saith. "Behold your house is left desolate," stripped of the succor which cometh from me. Surely it was the same, who also was before protecting them, and holding them together, and preserving them; surely it was He who was ever chastening them. And He appoints a punishment, which they had ever dreaded exceedingly; for it declared the entire overthrow of their polity.

In like manner to all such as would not be gathered under His wings Christ speaks this threat; Behold, your house is left unto you desolate; i. e. your soul and your body. But if any one of you will not be gathered under the wings of Christ, from the very time when he shall have refused to be so gathered, (by a mental rather than a bodily act,) he shall no more see the beauty of the word, till repenting of his evil purpose he shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord. And the word of the Lord then comes with a blessing upon a man's heart, when one is turned to God.

As the body, when the spirit departs, first becomes cold, and then decays and decomposes; so also your temple, when God's Spirit shall have withdrawn, shall be first filled with strife and anarchy, and after shall come to ruin.

But as you do not want My affection, I leave the temple empty and abandoned. From this let us learn that God inhabits the temples for our sake, but when we have forsaken God, then the temples are abandoned [by God] as well.

Then the punishment follows: behold, your house shall be left to you desolate. The whole people was honored on account of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem on account of the temple; therefore it says, your house shall be left, i.e., the temple, or the dwelling; Psalm 68:26: let their habitation be made desolate. Or a house is said to be desolate when it lacks its proper inhabitant; Psalm 10:5: the Lord is in his holy temple. Hence he is said to leave through habitation; therefore you shall not see me henceforth, etc., because I was with you by the power of divinity, and afterward I was corporally, but I shall depart from you. But now your house shall be left to you desolate, and you shall not see me henceforth, neither corporally, namely after the passion, nor spiritually.

That which has been spoken possesses an interpretation that comes through the vision of faith. For when "the fullness of the nations come in" and they believe in Christ, then the Jews who believe after these things see the beauty of the divine nature of Christ. They behold the Father in the Son and declare him to be the Redeemer proclaimed through the prophets, whom the prophets previously mentioned as coming in the name of the Lord. For the other prophets did not come in the name of the Lord. For they were saying, "The Lord says these things" and "I am the servant of the Lord, and I worship the God of heaven."

(Verse 39) For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' He is speaking to Jerusalem and to the people of Judaea. However, this verse, in which even infants and nursing babies used at the entrance of the Lord's Savior in Jerusalem, when they said, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, hosanna in the highest,' is taken from the 117th psalm, which clearly is written about the coming of the Lord. And what he says, he wants this to be understood: Unless you repent (Luke 13), and confess that I am the one about whom the Prophets sang, the Son of the almighty Father, you will not see my face. The Jews have been given a time of repentance: let them confess the blessed one who comes in the name of the Lord, and let them contemplate the face of Christ.

I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me, &c. That is to say, Unless ye shall do penitence, and shall confess that I am He of whom the Prophets have spoken, the Son of the Almighty Father, ye shall not see My face. Thus the Jews have a time allowed for their repentance. Let them confess Him blessed who cometh in the name of the Lord, and they shall then behold Christ's face.

"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord." And this is the language of one that loves earnestly, earnestly drawing them unto Him by the things to come, not merely warning them by the past; for of the future day of His second coming doth He here speak.

What then? Did they not see Him from that time? But it is not that hour which He meaneth in saying, Henceforth, but the time up to His crucifixion.

For since they were forever accusing Him of this, that He was a kind of rival God, and a foe to God, He moves them to love Him by this, namely, by showing Himself to be of one accord with His Father; and He indicates Himself to be the same that was in the prophets. Wherefore also He uses the same words as did the prophets.

And by these He intimated both His resurrection, and His second coming, and made it plain even to the utterly unbelieving, that then most surely they should worship Him. And how did He make this plain? By speaking of many things that were first to be, that He should send prophets, that they should kill them; that it should be in the synagogues; that they should suffer the utmost extremities; that their house should be left desolate; that they should undergo things more grievous than any, and such as never were undergone before. For all these things are enough to furnish even to the most senseless and contentious a clear proof of that which should come to pass at His coming.

For I will ask them, Did He send the prophets and wise men? Did they slay them in their synagogue? Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it. As then all these things came to pass, so shall those also come to pass, and most surely they shall submit then.

But they shall derive thence no advantage in the way of defense, as neither will they who repent of their course of life then.

Therefore "Ye shall not see Me henceforth" until the second coming. But then, willing or not, you will fall prostrate before Him and say, "Blessed is He that cometh." Understand "henceforth" to mean "after the crucifixion" and not at that time at which He was speaking these things. For they saw Him many times after He said this, but after the crucifixion they did not see Him, nor would they see Him until the moment of His second coming.

But is this true, that none of the Jews saw him, since many were converted to him? Therefore he says, till you say: blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord, because when you confess, then you will see through faith. Or in another way, he designates in a hidden way the second coming: they saw him in the body, but they did not have this vision until the second coming, in which you will be able to say, and will recognize that I am he who is blessed, who comes in the name of the Lord.