Apologia Altera Prophetae David

Perhaps the title of the psalm, which you heard read, has offended many, because Nathan the prophet came to him when he went in to Bathsheba. At the same time, the reading from the Gospel, which was recited, could also cause no small scruple to the inexperienced, in which you noted that an adulteress was brought to Christ and the same woman was dismissed without condemnation. For certainly, if anyone receives this with idle ears, he falls into an incentive to error, when he reads of a holy man's adultery and the absolution of an adulteress, almost slipping by a human and divine example, because a man thought adultery should be committed and a god judged that adultery should not be condemned. Therefore, the path to a fall is slippery, whether by indulgence or lust. There is also this, that it seems to kindle the very torches of youthful wantonness, because he did not blush at his adultery, did not conceal it, but made it public by a certain proclamation of divine song. What then? Was the holy David so shameless and improvident that he himself sang his own disgrace, especially when he himself, in another psalm which was also recited today, said: "How long, O Lord, will sinners, how long will sinners boast?" He forbids others to boast of sin, and does he himself boast even with a sacred song? How then do we distinguish these things?

Nevertheless, if David erred wantonly, did Christ also err, so that we might think He did not have right judgment? Well then, as if to them, David prophesied today, saying: "Understand, foolish and stupid ones; at last be wise." For how could Christ err? It is not lawful for this to enter our minds. Does He who planted the ear not hear, or He who formed the eye not see? Does He who reproves nations not accuse, He who teaches man knowledge? Is Christ ignorant of how to examine guilt and hear a just accusation? Could Christ approve wantonness? Christ, who reproves nations, did not think an adulteress should be accused? Christ, who knows the inner heart of each one, teaches the knowledge of the law—could He either be deceived by an error or judge contrary to the sequence of the law? And how did He Himself say: "I have not come to dissolve the law, but to fulfill it"? Christ, who condemns hidden things, could He dissemble what is public? Christ, who made the times, can He be ignorant of the times? He who knows the vain thoughts of men, does He not also know the criminal ones?

And so let that be enough of a response to those who, although they cannot deny the creator, nevertheless deny the power of the creator; who, while they acknowledge wisdom, assert foolishness, by charging him with ignorance of future things. I could discuss this at greater length, but another treatise seems to have been set before us. And although a series of diverse readings has been run through, they nevertheless contribute to the same assertion, especially the title of the psalm and the Gospel reading. But although the assertion is one and the same, still, according to the order of the readings, let the order of the treatise be, and therefore it seems that the title of the psalm should be treated first. A story has been set forth which contains adultery and homicide. For we find it written thus in the book of Kings, that King David, while walking in his house, saw Uriah's wife bathing, immediately loved her, and ordered her to be summoned. Then he ordered her innocent husband, as Scripture relates, to be exposed to the fiercest warriors, so that he might be overwhelmed by enemy force. These things were done and are not denied. How then will they be defended? The Gospel reading well reminds us that, even when sin appears, the judgment of a judge must nevertheless be sober, and each one must be mindful of what his own condition and merit ought to be. For often, even in judging, the sin of the judgment is greater than the sin of the one about whom judgment has been made.

For if it has been prescribed by certain wise men of the world that in judging one must take care that the punishment not be greater than the fault, and that is observed, how much more does it seem that this should be observed: that each person, about to judge another, should first judge himself, and not condemn lesser errors in another when he himself has committed graver ones. Who then are you, who judge the holy man David? I speak to the Gentile, I speak to the Jew, I speak to the Christian. And therefore it seems to me that the treatise must be divided into three parts: one against the Gentiles, another against the Jews, and a third among Christians. First, then, my speech is against the Gentiles, who are accustomed to object frequently: "Behold how Christians follow innocence, prefer faith, venerate religion, teach chastity—when their leaders are revealed to have committed both homicides and adulteries! David himself, from whose lineage, as you say, Christ chose to be born, he himself sang of his own homicides and adulteries. What sort of disciples can there be, when such are their teachers?" What then?

We deny the deed, or do we repudiate the teacher? Neither of these; but let him who objects to the species consider the community. The species of the deed is the community of nature. Therefore it is no wonder if the species is within the generality. For I acknowledge that David was a man, and it is no wonder: I acknowledge the common thing, that man sins. For the infirmity of the human condition is not new, and it seems more remarkable if a man lacks sin than if he falls into sin. Therefore holy David committed sin—I will not hold you in any ambiguity—he committed adultery, he devised murder, and he both devised and carried it out. He sinned as kings are wont to do, but he did penance and wept, which kings are not wont to do. He begged forgiveness, not arrogating his power, but conscious of his weakness, prostrate on the ground, covered himself with sackcloth, forgetful of his rule and mindful of his guilt. What man of this sort could you find for me, who, placed in power, does not rather love his own crimes, proclaim his guilt, defend his sins: who thinks that what is not fitting is not lawful for him: who binds himself by his own laws and recognizes that what is not lawful by justice is not lawful even by power? For power does not dissolve justice, but justice dissolves power; a king is not released from the laws, but releases the laws by his own example. Or can it be that

who judges others should himself be free in his own judgment and take upon himself that by which he binds others? Therefore David is good and far more admirable for having conquered power than for having conquered love. For chastity is sometimes yielded to the body, often through error; power is subjected to God, and it is easier for one to restrain himself in love than to moderate himself in power. Do you not then forgive that which is lesser, when you admire greater things? The nature of sinning is slippery and prone in all men, and the license of power and the offer of opportunity are slippery even in good morals. For the anger of a king does not differ from the anger of a lion; but he who provokes it and mingles with it sins against his own soul. Let him therefore beware, lest someone provoke power, lest the soul, ensnared in bodily nets, be unable to free itself from vice. It is not surprising, then, if even David slipped through the species of power, but it is far more admirable that he was recalled through contemplation of faith.

You see, therefore, that this secular power often brings no benefit and mostly brings harm; for often the outcome of a fault lies in the authority of the power. Do not, therefore, you, whoever you are, O king, presume upon your power and ability, for the heart of a king is in the hand of the Lord. Do not flatter yourself with the subjection of peoples, because a king will not be saved by the multitude of his strength, nor will a giant be safe in the multitude of his strength. For it is not in the high summits of tents and the precious roof-tops, but upon those who fear Him and those who hope in His mercy that the Lord is well pleased. We see, therefore, that power is slippery towards vices, yet I would not say it is always bent, because we read that David, exalted by royal power, increased divine worship, and that Solomon consecrated a temple to the Lord. Now let us assert that which we have touched upon: that the faculty of commanding is an incentive to sin, and let us follow the sequence of history. David would not have committed adultery against the right of another's marriage bed and the covenants of a pledged union, had he not seen the woman naked and bathing from her inner house. And therefore it is well written: "Do not fall into the beauty of a woman, and do not covet a woman," and elsewhere: "Beware of all irreverent eyes." Presume nothing about your own continence and virtue.

For the fornication of a woman is recognized in the haughtiness of her eyes and in her eyelids, and therefore flee the first cause of sin; for no one is strong for long, and it is said not only to the fragile but to every man: let not the desire for beauty overcome you—if you do not wish to be overcome, do not engage with sins, lest vices be crowned upon you—and be not caught by the eyes nor snatched away by the eyelids. A woman seems cheap to you in price, but strong for vice, because a woman captures the precious souls of men. It is therefore difficult for anyone ensnared by the allurements of lust to escape unharmed. Nor is this judged difficult only by my opinion, but it has also been judged impossible in the Proverbs of holy Solomon, who, led by his own example, says: Will anyone bind fire in his bosom and not burn his garments? Or will anyone walk over coals of fire and not burn his feet? Beware, therefore, lest you kindle the fire of lust and love within the bosom of your mind, lest the corporeal garment be consumed by that conflagration of the spirit and the perpetuity of the resurrection, or at least the footprint of your mind, be burned, if you think you must walk through the torches of lust; for he who is burned in heart is burned in body.

By every means, therefore, the encounter with womanly wantonness is to be avoided. And so, it says, acquire prudence as a disciple for yourself, so that she may guard you from another man's wife and from a harlot, lest she hold you bound by the snares of her lips, entangle you in the little tresses of error. Thus the prophet taught you from what you should beware of a harlot, so that you beware of her entry from the window. For she enters from the window of her house; her window is the eye, and therefore beware of all irreverent eyes, lest through the window love enter, lust penetrate. For a harlot woman entices a lover by her sight, and unless you restrain the wanton gaze of your mind and spirit, death enters through the window. The wantonness of a harlot is not idle, her lasciviousness not without purpose, which makes the hearts of young men fly, so that they cannot hold the constancy of their own mind and are snatched hither and thither by burning love. Beware, therefore, of a woman of this kind, who does not rest with her feet, wanders abroad, lies in wait at corners. She binds with her eyes, entices with words, weaves her bed with coverlets and with carpets spread from Egypt. For she does not take her adornment from divine knowledge, but from worldly enticement, she who deservedly says her husband is absent, since every adulteress cannot have Christ.

You see, therefore, by how many nets even the hearts of the saints are caught, and so do not wonder if even the holy David was caught, a man indeed great and who conquered the monstrous Philistine, bristling with body and weapons of war, by faith. But would that he had conquered himself, would that, just as he laid low that adversary, he could have laid low and overcome his inner adversary! His battle within is graver than that which fights without. But why speak only of David? Let us summon even others to a discussion of this kind, lest we think the weakness of David, that is of one man, to have been rather the infirmity of the bodily condition. Samson, strong and mighty, strangled a lion, but he could not strangle his own love. He loosed the bonds of his enemies, but he did not loose the bonds of his own lusts. He burned the harvests of others, and he himself, kindled by the little flame of one woman, lost the harvest of his own virtue. Solomon built a temple for God: but would that he himself had preserved the temple of his own body! But let the speech return to him from whom it departed. David triumphed over ten thousand, but he erred over twenty thousand and more, and because he erred, he knew himself to be a man, confessed his fault, begged forgiveness, saying to the Lord: "Lord, do not rebuke me in your anger nor chastise me in your fury. Have mercy on me, Lord, for I am weak." If David is weak, are you strong? If Solomon slipped, are you immovable?

If Paul was the first of sinners, can you be the first of the saints? Therefore, if these men erred, they erred as men, but they acknowledged their sin as righteous men. If the righteous received a sentence of a more severe penalty, how do you propose for yourself hope of impunity, when Scripture says: if the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the sinner and impious man appear? You perceive, therefore, sons, how often even a good purpose is undermined by the cause of sinning, and therefore you ought first to flee and avoid those very causes. You do not wish to be caught by love: do not gaze upon the appearance of a woman, because when your eyes have seen a woman not your own, your mouth will then speak perverse things, and you will lie as if in the heart of the sea and like a helmsman in a great whirlwind. For the multitudes of desires create a great storm, which, as if in some strait of the body, disturb the one sailing here and there, so that the mind cannot be its own helmsman, ignorant of day and night in the darkness of love.

Desire is therefore aroused by the eyes, but it is kindled by drunkenness; moreover, every drunkard and fornicator will become poor. Nor should you flatter yourself with the power of drinking. Noah became drunk, and he who was not drunk by the flood became drunk with wine. But he was ignorant of the nature of wine, for he had not drunk it before: you have learned from him what you ought to avoid. Lot was deceived through sleep, and if you do not wish to be deceived, shake off the sleep of your mind, lest a son or daughter mock the drunkard while he sleeps. It is not piety there, but drunkenness that is laughed at, nor is it a father there, but a sleeping man who is tricked. Do you wish not to be burned? Do not approach the fire. Do you wish not to be hurled headlong? Flee from unsteady things, beware of precipices, shun what is falling. You see, therefore, that in those who merited being righteous, it was not a different nature, but a different discipline. For after the first man’s fall and the just sentence, when appetite was condemned in the flesh of one man, the condition contracted a defect, and fault infected nature, but faith tempered the defect of nature itself, and the intention of devotion mitigated the offense.

Turn therefore to God, O nations, and know that the Lord Himself is God. He Himself made us, and not we ourselves. Know that we are flesh and dust. Let us therefore abandon what we have made and venerate our very Author, who gave life, who forgave sins, who alone can say: I am, I am, who blot out your iniquities and will not remember them. Great and merciful indeed is God, who bestows a benefit and does not reproach the gift of the benefit. Do you marvel that He made David king and victor over many nations? He is accustomed to raise up His servants thus. He is not greedy of gifts, nor sparing of benefit, nor narrow in grace, nor frugal, but opulent in generosity, increasing in reward those whom He has redeemed from sin. These things against the Gentiles. But since we have promised a threefold division of this treatise—one against the Gentiles, another against the Jews, a third before the Church—now it seems we must treat against the Jews. Let us therefore review what our purpose is. The title, it is said, of the Psalm of David was understood when the prophet Nathan came to him, when he went in to Bathsheba. Surely this history presents David as both an adulterer and a murderer, and do you, O Jews, say that this man is the son of God! But God is of virtues, not of crimes, and concerning this, God the Father says: His throne is like the days of heaven. He who has committed deceit has not overcome sins: and how is it written: No one is without sin except one God?

If, therefore, God cannot not exist who is the Son of God, then certainly the Son of God is the arbiter of justice, not subject to fault. But by what opinion do you judge either David or Solomon to be the Son of God? Or because it is written: "God, give your judgment to the king and your justice to the king's son," and because the title of the psalm says that the seventy-first psalm was composed for Solomon? But note whom it calls Solomon. For Solomon is "peaceful"—this is the interpretation. The psalm is said for him whom we truly know to be a lover of peace. But how is Solomon peaceful? The blood of Joab does not show this, whom he ordered killed among the altars of the temple; nor the punishment of Adonijah, whom he struck down as guilty of attempted royal affinity, nor was he recalled from indignation by his mother's entreaty. And how do you think that what is written about Solomon, the son of David, fits: that he will endure with the sun and before the moon for ages of ages, when that man, having obtained the usury of a short life, passed the span of living within narrow limits? And how is it said of him: "He will rule from sea to sea," when he, established within Syria, that is, within the province of a single region, had the boundaries of his empire circumscribed? But Christ alone extended his empire to the ends of the whole world. For he alone is the one of whom the series of psalms prophesied well: that the kings of the Arabs and Sheba will bring gifts, and all the kings of the earth will adore him, and all nations will serve him.

For we know that He rules over all peoples and nations with an unconfined dominion, with an unending power. Therefore Solomon is not the Son of God. But on what reasoning did you consider him a son of God? Was it because he was wise? But he asked for wisdom, so that he might receive what he did not have: Christ is wisdom itself, possessing by nature universally what Solomon in human affairs received through grace. Indeed, what is received in time is possessed in time. For Solomon had wisdom neither at his beginning nor did he possess it at his end. For he did not believe he had what he asked for, and later, turning away from the worship of God, he fell not as a wise man but as a fool, so that he gave offense. And he gave offense, so that he lost even what he had merited. Why, then, did you believe this man to be the Son of God? Was it because he built a temple for God? But from this you ought to have believed that he is not the Lord and God, because it is written: Unless the Lord builds a house for Himself, those who build it labor in vain. He who built that temple labored in vain, which a subject fire consumed. Or was it because it was said to David, his father: You will not build a house for Me, but when you sleep, I will rouse your seed after you? But there too a temple is promised that is not corporeal, not material; for God does not dwell in things made by hand, but the temple is the holy Church, which is founded not by human but by heavenly power.

For if we are allowed to admire the works of a more excellent, yet still human, virtue, we find many of this kind whom we can compare with Solomon. And therefore, where there is equality of work, there is no excellence of power. Nor can we say there are many sons of God, since we have read of one Son of God; but an injury must not be done to the Son of God on account of the benefits He conferred upon our fathers. For many were illustrious men, but through one, Joshua son of Nun, the sun stood still, it says, against Gibeon. You see that he went beyond the virtue of David; for David commanded earthly things, not the stars. You see also that the sun is a servant, not a master, which even served a human voice. Yet it stood still, because in Joshua it recognized both the type of the future and the name. For Joshua son of Nun commanded the heavenly lights not by his own virtue, but by the mystery of Christ; for it was signified that the Son of God was to come into this world, who by divine power would delay the setting of the world's light already verging into darkness, would restore light, and would bring in brightness. Enoch also was taken up to heaven; but he was taken up, while this one returned. He was taken up lest wickedness change his heart; this one abolished the very wickedness of this world. Elijah ascended to heaven in a chariot and with horses; Christ, however, descended from heaven neither in a chariot nor with horses. As that one ascended because he could not have done otherwise, this one returned by his own power.

Elisha commanded a leper to wash in the Jordan, so that he might be cleansed from all contagion: this one washed the whole world in the Jordan. Moses himself, to whom it was entrusted that the people of the Jews should cross, divided the water. And he indeed divided the elements, because he did not divide the power of the Trinity; he separated the masses of waters, because he did not separate the Father from the Son. You see how many men and what kinds of examples of works they have left behind. Therefore, how is it that you judge those whom you recognize as equal in virtue to King David or Solomon to be unequal in condition, so that you think Solomon, David’s son, sits at the right hand of God, especially since David himself clearly expressed of whom it was said? For he would not say of his own son: “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand.” For how would he call his own son “Lord”? The law forbids it, religion opposes it, faith abhors it, that you place a mortal man at the right hand of almighty God. He is another who sits at the right hand, who took on a body, not who began from a body; who was begotten before the morning star, that is, before the brightness of all lights, since he himself created the brightnesses of the various lights; for Solomon is certainly after the morning star; Solomon was not a priest; and therefore it could not be said to him by almighty God: “I begot you from the womb before the morning star”; it could not be said to him: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek,” especially since at that time in which Solomon lived, priests were according to the order of Aaron, not according to Melchizedek.

For at that time, priests were still offering the blood of goats and bulls for the sins and errors of the people; but after the one who offered himself for the salvation of the world came, so that the blood of Christ might wash away those whom the blood of bulls could not cleanse, the priests began to offer themselves as sacrifices. Thus, by one question, our Lord Jesus Christ stopped the mouths of all heretics and shut up their sacrileges. For he refuted not only the Jews, but also the Photinians, Arians, and Sabellians by this question. And therefore for us, since we see that the Jews have already failed and that abominable perfidy has been diminished, we must now touch upon some matters concerning the Arians, who differ little from the Jews, and the Photinians and Sabellians in the treatment of this question. Let Photinus, then, be silent, who says that Christ is the son of David, not of God, and let him be silent, condemned by a heavenly voice. For how does he say that Christ is the son of David, when David himself said in the book of Psalms: "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies under your feet"? If David calls him Lord, how is he his son? Therefore Christ is not the son of David, but the son of God.

Let Sabellius also be silent: when he reads that the Lord said to the Lord, let him understand that the one who speaks and the one to whom it is spoken are not the same—for the Father does not say to himself, “Sit at my right hand,” nor did he say to himself, “I will set your enemies”—and let them all at last understand that the Son is the one who sits at the right hand, and let them maintain this distinction between Father and Son, so that there is a distinction of Father and Son, that the Father is one and the Son is another, but because they sit on one throne, they enjoy one majesty, and they sit not as a mark of distinction of rank nor according to an order of power, but as a bond of love, let them understand the one power of Father and Son. In this, let Arius also fall silent, who presses the contrary footsteps of Sabellius’ error. Let him hear the Lord say to the Lord, let him hear the Son sit at the right hand of the Father, and let him cease to make a question of divinity from human speech and order. And let him not argue here because the Father says “Sit”; for we read elsewhere that the Son sits even without the Father’s command, as it is written: “And he sits at the right hand of God,” and elsewhere: “From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God.” For he is the one to whom it is said “Sit,” who is called the Son of Man. He hears as a man, but he sits as the Son of God. What more excellent power can be said than this, which has placed even the flesh of man at the right hand of God and has joined that weak condition of human nature—after, however, the Word became flesh—to eternal divinity? But what is this?

After Photinus fell silent, Arius grew still, Sabellius lost his voice, yet I still see diverse mouths stirring up heresy against the Church. For behold, Manichaeus and Valentinianus and every offshoot of the Manichaeans strive with the same weapon by which others have been destroyed: they attempt to prejudice faith by means of a testimony of faith. For the detestable heresy says: "Behold, Christ denied that he was the son of David, and therefore," it says, "it must be believed that he did not assume flesh." To these words the Scripture responds most clearly at the very beginning of the Gospel and says: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David." Why, then, is he called the son of David in one place and denied to be the son of David in another, unless you understand that it is one thing to be a son according to divine substance, and another to be a son according to the assumption of flesh? For according to divine substance he is the Son of God; according to flesh he is the son of David. Thus, where the generation of the Savior according to flesh is described, he is named the son of David; but where the fullness of confession is required, when the generation of the Savior is designated, the Son of God does not wish to be named the son of David; for the designation of his majesty interprets his nature. But now, with the crooked interpretations refuted, the discourse must be turned to the Church.

Indeed, that we often repeat the title of the fiftieth psalm is not an example of presumption, but of weakness. For in one day, either through the narrowness of my intellect or the frailty of my voice, I cannot complete the entire series of the treatise. And therefore, since on the previous day our discourse was directed against the Jews—whom indeed the proofs of faith subdued to such an extent that Christ was placed on a heavenly throne, which certainly cannot befit a man—for it is not credible that anyone other than the Son of God sits at the right hand of God—surely no one else is to be considered as sitting at the right hand of the Father except the Son of God, all ambiguities removed. Again, since Scripture has: "From the fruit of your womb I will set upon your throne," the same Son of God is surely to be believed to have taken flesh from Mary, in whom there is the fruit of the prophetic womb, so that you may truly recognize the succession of origin and not doubt that the Son of God, having later become the Son of Man through the assumption of flesh, sits on the heavenly throne. For Christ did not have any royal throne of this kind in the world, so that you might think another throne of David was promised to his seed, especially since the Lord Himself said: "My kingdom is not of this world.

I have therefore concluded on all sides that the temptations of their perfidy are diverted to this: they assert that it is incredible that God assumed flesh, yet they cannot explain on what ground He could not have assumed it. For I ask whether they think that flesh could not be assumed by God on account of impossibility or on account of injury. If impossibility, is there then something impossible for God? For there is nothing that He has willed to do and has been unable to do. It remains, therefore, that it be shown either that He willed or that He did not will. And what greater indication of will than that He Himself said: "I appeared openly to those who were not seeking me. I stretched out my hands to a people not believing and contradicting"? If, therefore, He willed and was able, do we think that He did not will on account of injury? And how does divinity feel its own injury? For it is exempt from insult and is not subject to our passions; for flesh could bring neither detriment nor increase to divinity.

Yet those who object that the Son of God could not take on flesh—if they are pagans, how is it that they, who cannot deny that their own gods were once men, testify that they were seen in human form? Does not their king, whom they place above all their gods, assume monstrous shapes for the sake of love, while Christ could not take on the flesh of man, whom He made in His own image, and that most excellent work of His, for the salvation of the world? And does it seem more noble to them that He assumed the form of flesh for the sake of adultery with another’s spouse than for the redemption of all? But if a Jew objects this, how does he read: “Behold, a virgin will conceive in her womb and bear a son, and his name will be called Emmanuel,” which is interpreted “God with us”? How does he read: “Behold, I who spoke am present”? How does he then assert that it is read: “Behold, like a panther and like a bear enraged I will meet them”? Therefore, could the Son of God not take on flesh for the redemption of all, when they themselves cannot deny that for the punishment of our sins He assumed some quality of bestial cruelty, so that He who is by nature pious and merciful, yet moved by the atrocity of our crimes, takes on against us a certain savagery of beasts?

But now, since I believe I have sufficiently answered the Jews both yesterday and today, I must, before you, my most beloved brothers, render an account of the prophetic deed. For when the title of this psalm was first read—that Nathan came to David when he went in to Bathsheba—we said that many are offended by the sequence of this history, and therefore we undertook its treatment in three parts. I thought the division of the treatment should be made as follows: among the Gentiles, the fall due to human condition should not be denied, but the correction of the error should be affirmed; among the Jews, however, we should teach that the holy David fell so that the perfidy of the Jews might no longer limp, and they might not cease to believe him to be the Son of God, whom they saw to have been subject to the common condition of sin; while Christians may perceive the mysteries of the rising Church. Thus a threefold division was made: one according to nature, another according to faith, and a third according to grace. Neither does weakness exclude from pardon, nor does faith excuse from guilt; grace, moreover, already promised, the sacraments long ago reconcile.

David sinned, lest the whole world err; he sinned for himself, that he might correct us all; finally, he sinned against his own body—for whoever fornicates sins against his own body—he sinned against his own body, that he might be redeemed in the body of Christ. Behold, the one we thought scarcely defensible we now see is to be proclaimed. For who is there who would not prefer that divine gifts be proclaimed in himself rather than human works? For we judge, according to the Apostle, that a man is justified through faith without the works of the law. Let David, therefore, be justified through faith, who recognized sin through the law but believed in the remission of sin through faith; let David be justified, because in his sin the mysteries of the rising Church shone forth. Someone will say, on what reasoning did the chosen author of the Lord’s race commit both adultery and homicide? But I say otherwise: such an author of the Lord’s body had to be chosen. For what is incorporation but the remission of sins? And therefore he could not be exempt from sin, so that he might both display and announce divine grace by example. Finally, by that arrangement, Bathsheba and Tamar are counted among the authors of the Lord’s race, of whom one committed adultery, the other incest.

By that arrangement, both Ahab and Jeconiah are counted among the ancestors of Christ, as the evangelist Matthew describes, so that the benefit of redemption might begin for all men from their own ancestors, and also so that He who submitted Himself even to bodily passion might not seem to have sought the nobility of an immaculate origin; for that is human boasting, to seek another’s glory, not one’s own. And yet, even among men, the grace of virtue is greater than that of nobility. At the same time, an example was to be given, so that all might understand that the disgraces of ancestors cannot be a dishonor to descendants, because each individual can blot out the stain of his lineage by the merit of his own virtue. You see how many and how grievously criminal persons the series of the Lord’s generation includes, of whose origin Christ was not ashamed to be born for your sake? And if you believe this, these are gifts of divine mercy in you, and this is the mark of heavenly power; for sin abounded, so that grace might abound. Therefore, David was not exempt from fault, so that he might be chosen for grace.

But let us now review the mysteries of the history itself and draw from the very fountains of the Scriptures, and so that we may be able to look into the whole sequence of mysteries, let us repeat the text of the history itself. For thus we remember it expressed in the book of Kings, that David, when he had seen Bathsheba bathing, the wife of Uriah, fell in love with her, then ordered her to come to the house, when the woman's husband was absent. Not long after, her husband was reported to have returned from the war, a religious and devoted man indeed, who in time of war did not think he should enter his house, seeing his comrades intent on war and keeping watch not in domestic tents but in battle tents. Afterwards, by David's order, he was recalled to war under that instruction, that he be exposed to the enemy warriors, so that by the man's death the king might have free opportunity to possess the woman. And here there is some modesty of sin and shame of guilt, that he sought a hiding place for his error and did not assume for himself the authority of unjust slaughter by right of royal power, but avoided ill-will. I confess the guilt, but it is more tolerable when it is weighed down by shame than when it is proclaimed with insolence. Therefore Uriah died, exposed to the warriors, but afterwards those who had slain him were themselves killed by David's order when the city was stormed. This is the sequence of history, in which deep mysteries may be observed.

And since we have undertaken not to defend David—for he has no need of my help—but to excuse him, or rather to proclaim him, lest I waver in such a deep sea of mysteries, it is right that I use the mouth of him whose history I use. Therefore, I shall employ the prophetic responsory, saying: "Create a pure heart in me, O God, and renew a right spirit in my inmost being." For no one can gaze upon such vast recesses of divine mystery without the infusion of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, if that great prophet begs for the gift of the Holy Spirit to be poured into him, what must I, a weak man, do, especially when even the holy apostle asks to be aided by the prayers of the people, so that the door may be opened to him for speaking the mystery of the Word? O, if only Christ would deign to open that door for me! Let us knock, nevertheless; for He is accustomed to hear those who knock, since He Himself said: "Knock, and it will be opened to you." O, if only He would unlock Himself for me, because Christ is the door. He is within, He is without, He is the way that leads, He is the life toward which we strive to come.

Come, therefore, Lord Jesus, and open your springs for us, that we may drink from the water of which whoever drinks will never thirst again; or if we cannot yet draw from your spring, deign to grant that we may at least draw from the well, from which you promise drink to that Samaritan woman, still hesitating. And you indeed promise from the spring to all, but for those who doubt, like that Samaritan woman, your spring is still a deep well. Let us also drink the water of heavenly secrets, and, since we have merited to reach your spring, allow us at least to see the image of the heavenly mysteries. Therefore, unless I am mistaken, through the prophet we will understand the Holy Spirit, and through the adulteress we may estimate the various fornications of the synagogue. And so we perceive long beforehand that it was revealed from the Holy Spirit and from the family of the Jews, whose ancestors—from whom Christ was born according to the flesh—that the Lord Jesus was to be begotten, who indeed was born as a Jew from an adulterous family, but as immaculate from a virgin. He was under the law, he was as if under the husband, the family of the Jews. The observance of the law was to be abolished, so that truth and grace might be substituted.

We have one mystery. Accept also another, yet in such a way that you remember that from the first conception of Bathsheba a little child was born, who died, and afterwards Solomon was born: that little child from a furtive conception, but this Solomon from a profession of marriage. It is clear, therefore, that through David the prophet is understood, through the prophet the prophetic people, from whom also the synagogue first that one who was born, since he degenerated from his ancestors, formed by shameful deeds and conceived through vices, the people of the Jews could not reach the age of resurrection nor grow into a perfect man, but failed in the smallness of their perceptions and a certain infancy of virtue. But that one who was afterwards conceived from a legitimate union, the Christian people, that wise and peaceful one—for these things are revealed by the interpretation of Solomon—reached the hoary age of long-lasting resurrection and that heavenly kingdom. Through that people, moreover, the law was dissolved; through this one, grace was restored.

Accept also a third mystery. "David" the Hebrews call, the Latins interpret as "humbled." But who is truly humbled except he who did not consider it a usurpation to be equal to God, but taking the form of a servant, humbled himself, made obedient unto death? This, therefore, is he who is signified by David: exalted by nature, but humbled through mercy; sublime in divinity, but gentle in body. Thus, where there is humbled, there is obedient. For obedience is born from that from which humility comes, and in it ceases. For when he is said to have been made obedient unto death, and death not of the divinity but of the body, that obedience was certainly not of the divinity, but of the body; nor was that humility of the majesty, but of the flesh. Therefore, as far as the assumption of the body is concerned, the apostolic reading has declared wherein Christ's humility lay; but as far as the nature of the divinity is concerned, it has been disclosed by the evangelical reading, which you have piously followed with assent, when you heard the Son of God saying as it is read: "I and the Father are one"; for the Son and the Father are one in divinity, but the sacrament of the body and the eternity of the divinity are not one. Yet not only the Apostle said that the Lord was humbled, but he himself also recalled that he was humble, saying: "Take up my yoke, because it is light, for I am meek and humble of heart.

And yet it is signified not only by interpretation, but also by a clear appellation, because it is written: "I have found David my servant, I have anointed him with my holy oil," and further on: "He will say to me: 'You are my father,' and I will say to him: 'You are my son.'" Therefore, we have found the David we were seeking—a servant in appearance, but a lord in truth. This David, then, was walking within his own house. What house is that of Christ, if not the one of which he says, "In my father's house there are many mansions"? In that royal palace, then, situated as he was, he saw the human condition naked and, taking pity, fell in love. For she was still naked of virtues, because through the snares of the serpent she had been stripped of the coverings of her own nature. For it does not seem plausible that a woman would be stripped naked before the king's house, that a woman would bathe herself before the king's house, as if no other place were more suitable for a bath. It does not fit, it does not agree, it does not accord with good faith: it is far from the truth, it is repugnant to reason. Such a woman—so wanton, so shameless—the king could have shuddered at, not loved. Or could she, if not with manly modesty, at least not have feared the royal gaze? Or could his servants not have driven her away before the king saw her?

Therefore, if this cannot be consistent with faith, let us inquire what this "naked" is: namely, the human condition stripped of all garments of nature, lacking the covering of immortality and despoiled of the veil of innocence; for he is naked who is laid bare by sin and guilt. Finally, that first sinner of our race—and would that he were the only one—before he sinned did not feel himself to be naked; after he sinned, he saw himself to be naked and therefore thought he should be covered with leaves, because he recognized that he was naked. Thus he became naked to himself after he became guilty of fault. In him, the whole human condition was laid bare, subject by succession of nature not only to guilt but also to hardships. Therefore, he felt and saw himself naked. Hence it is that our entire condition is such that whoever considers himself naked both sees and feels himself naked. Indeed, he who covets riches is naked; he who despises them is wealthy. So much is each one's own perception his hardship, and each one's own virtue is free from injury. Therefore, Christ first claimed the human condition for himself in marriage through the law, which he later repudiated. Hence he also says: "Who has the bill of divorce of your mother, by which I dismissed her?" In this way, then, Christ saw his own family naked and loved it; for Christ loves a holy soul. Indeed, Jesus loved Lazarus and Mary; Christ loved his Church, even though naked, even though as yet clothed with no adornment of virtues.

Finally, so that we may know that the sequence of the Scriptures is consistent with the arrangement we have proposed, let us learn that the Church is naked, let us learn that she is seeking, hastening, and washing herself before the house of Christ, when John was baptizing in the Jordan, saying: "I indeed baptize you in water for repentance; but he who comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He himself will baptize you in the Holy Spirit." Therefore, when the people were being baptized for repentance, the Church was certainly seeking Christ, already near to his house, so that she might arrive at grace. So the Church was seeking Christ in John, saying: "Tell me whom my soul loves," recalling that he himself is the cause of her desire, he himself the cause of her bath, as you have: "I am dark but beautiful, daughters of Jerusalem, like the tent of Cedar, like the skin of Solomon." You have the reason why she is eager to wash herself, because she recalls that she is dark. For, as if to John asking why the great crowd of people was eager to wash, she replied, saying: "I am dark but beautiful, daughters of Jerusalem." Because she is dark, she desires to wash; because she is beautiful, she does not fear being seen naked. "Do not," she says, "look at me because I am darkened, because the sun has not looked upon me." Therefore, we are darkened when we are not seen by Christ, but when we are seen, we grow white. So he saw her, he for whom all things are naked and the secrets of the heart cannot remain hidden, because he is the searcher of heart and reins; nothing is covered from him, nothing is veiled.

He saw his Church naked, and as he saw, he loved her. He saw his beloved naked, and like a son of love, he loved her. See how he invites, see how he calls. Here there are no reproaches of adultery, but mysteries of chastity. "You are entirely beautiful," he says, "my neighbor, and there is no reproach in you. Come here from Lebanon, bride, come here from Lebanon; you will cross and pass over from the beginning of faith." And rightly, from the beginning of faith. Therefore, where you have faith, you ought not to fear adultery; for faith is of marriage, fraud of adultery. But so that she might be able to come from Lebanon, he first sent word saying: "Arise, come, my neighbor, my beautiful one, my dove, my perfect one." Neighbor, indeed, by desire for faith; beautiful by the grace of virtue; dove by spiritual grace. For the silvered wings of the dove signify that eternal power, and the flight of the dove declared the presence of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Christ calls her to himself, that she may come, since she was coming already endowed with spiritual gifts, because "Behold," he says, "winter has passed, the rain has gone away, it has departed from itself, flowers have been seen on the earth." See how the holy Church is invited. "Winter," he says, "has departed from itself," so that she, naked, may not fear winter—winter not of time, but of infirmity, which despoils the field of the soul, fertile with every flower.

For it is a winter not of the earthly sun; it is a winter of the mind, when a chill creeps into the soul, when the spirit's warmth fades, when the strength of perception dissolves, when excessive moisture overflows and weighs down the mind, when the inner sight grows dark. And therefore the Lord says: "See that your flight does not take place in winter or on the Sabbath." For it is good that the day of judgment or death should come when the mind's pleasant temperateness flourishes, when the celestial mystery shines with serene light, when our heart burns within us. For then Christ is present, as Ammaon and Cleopas testify in the Gospel, saying: "Was not our heart burning within us on the road, when he opened the Scriptures to us?" The mind flourishes, moreover, when even a flower is seen on the earth. Who is this flower of good fragrance but the one who said: "I am the flower of the field and the lily of the valleys"? Concerning which it is also written in Isaiah: "A rod will come forth from the root of Jesse, and a rod will ascend from the root, and a flower will come forth from the rod." The root is indeed the family of the Jews, the rod is Mary, the flower from the rod is Christ. When He shines for us on the earth and blooms in the field of the soul or flourishes in His Church, we can fear neither cold nor dread rain, but await the day of judgment.

And so the Church, in order to see this flower, hastened with all zeal, as she herself testifies, saying: "In the bedchamber by night I sought whom my soul loved. I sought him and did not find him; I called him, and he did not hear me. Therefore I will arise and go into the house, into the forum and into the streets, and I will seek whom my soul loved. I sought him and did not find him. The watchmen who go about the city found me; they struck me and took my cloak from me." You see how she seeks whom she desires to find, so that she does not fear being wounded. But these wounds are not to be feared, but to be desired, because they are wounds of love, as she herself said: "I am wounded with love." Good are the wounds of love. Indeed, the wounds of a friend are more useful than the willing kisses of an enemy. Rightly, therefore, is she naked, because she has lost her cloak; or perhaps she is naked for this reason, because sometimes it is a mark of virtue to have the breast uncovered, to have the heart unveiled. For that veiled one, that is, the Synagogue, which had a veil in the reading of the Old Testament, which is not drawn back because it is made void in Christ—the veiled Synagogue, I say, Christ despised and spurned, whence even today a veil is placed over the heart of the Jews. But she who is wholly turned to the Lord in mind is naked and transparent. For when one has been converted to the Lord, the veil is removed, so that we may be able to see, contemplating the glory of God.

Finally, even elsewhere, being naked is a sign of virtue, because it is written: "I have taken off my tunic; how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet; how shall I soil them?" What tunic, then, she has taken off and does not find how to put it on, we shall reveal from the Scriptures, if we can. For there is a certain bodily tunic; there are certain interwoven veils of desires; and therefore it is sometimes better to be naked in body than veiled in heart. Whence even Paul admonishes us that it is much better to be stripped than to be overclothed, saying also elsewhere: "Stripping yourselves of the old man with his deeds, put on the new, who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of him who created him." Therefore, she who is stripped and has washed feet, and thus she who has washed does not know how she can be soiled; for she forgets through grace what she had imbibed through nature. Great, then, and just is the love of the woman washing herself before the royal court of David.

But she not only washes, but also calls, as we find in the same book when holy Church says: "Come, my brother, let us go out into the fields, let us rest in the hamlets, let us rise at dawn in the vineyards, let us see if the vines have flowered." Therefore she not only washes, but also summons and invites Christ to come to her, saying: "I will give you my breasts." And she promises not only her own, but also new and old things, as you have: "New and old, my brother, I have kept for you." And as if impatient with love, she seeks the support of someone by whom Christ may be asked to come. See her burning, see her desiring. "Who will give me you," she says, "my brother, suckling at my mother's breast?" And she shows by what reasoning she seeks, by what grace she invites, and how she can hold him, and she shows how she waits for him lingering outside, and she implores him to enter her house, saying: "Finding you outside, I will kiss you, I will take you up and lead you into the house of my mother and into her secret place, who conceived me." You see how naked she is, who cannot have a roof over the secret of her undefiled nature, the secret of her innermost conscience not marked by any rashness of vices.

For the enclosed garden is the holy Church and immaculate virginity, which therefore merits this grace from Christ, because it sought, desired, and found the word of God, keeping watch before the doors of wisdom, as she herself says: "Blessed is the man who hears me, and the man who will keep my ways, keeping watch at my doors daily, guarding the posts of my entrance; for my exits are the exits of life." Thus Christ desired the beauty of his Church and prepared to take her as his wife. But because she was under the law—for Peter, John, and the other apostolic men were under the law—he first thought that we should be released from the bonds of bodily observance. For although the law is religious, the law is just, as the person of Uriah is introduced, because he was so religious and chaste that, returning from war, he did not recognize his wife nor enter to her; yet when Uriah, that is, the humble man, recognized the union of David, the Church, departing from her union with the synagogue, was preparing the place for future nuptials. Hence John also received the type of the law, who, although he was from the fathers, announced that the ways of the Lord were to be prepared and prophesied the union of the Church, and therefore he is represented as killed, to show the failure of legal observance; for the law and the prophets lasted until John. Therefore Uriah is now killed in the type of the law, so that the synagogue might be freed from the bonds of the law, since a woman who is under a husband is bound to the law while the husband lives, but if the husband dies, she is freed from the law of the husband.

Therefore, while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress if she has been joined to another man; but if her husband has died, she is freed from the law of the husband, so that she is not an adulteress if she is with another man. Therefore, the human condition is not adulterous, which, although it was under the law, has nevertheless been vindicated into grace, the observance of the law having been in a certain way abolished. But Christ did not abolish the observance of the law. Hence, Uriah did not kill David, but David suffered him to be killed by warriors, that is, Christ suffered the rite of observance coming from the law to be profaned through the incursion of barbarians and the captivity of the Jews. Finally, Uriah is called "my light." But what is the light of Christ if not the law and the Gospel? — for if you believed Moses, you would also believe me; for he wrote about me — because the light of Christ preceded in the law, whose grace later in the Gospel, as if in a sevenfold spirit, filled all things of this world. Therefore, to this law he removed the flesh and joined the Church to himself. The hostile people diminished the light of this law when they violated the holy things of the law. Therefore, the light of God in the Jewish people was diminished, because a partial blindness occurred in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles entered and thus all Israel would be saved.

There remains also a fourth mystery, which I ask you to receive with calm ears and to weigh our meaning, not our words; for the kingdom of God is not in the word, but in the power. An adultery has been committed, a homicide has been committed. This is what was said to the prophet: "Take for yourself a walnut staff." And elsewhere we read of a walnut rod, by which we understand a certain right and summit of prophecy, which, like a walnut, is bitter on the outside in the husk, hard in the middle of the shell, tender within and fruitful. Therefore, even if in the history you hear more bitter things, and in the type you recognize hard things, yet hope in the mystery for fruitful things. The adultery, I say, was committed in the type of salvation; for not every adultery is to be condemned. Finally, it was said to the prophet: "Go, take for yourself a harlot as a wife." The Lord commands this, that a marriage be with one who has been a harlot, of which marriage, as we said above, Christ is the offspring. For to the son who was born from fornication, a name was imposed by the Lord: Jezrahel, which means "divine generation." Therefore, if that pious union with a harlot exists, then certainly this union with an adulteress is also a pious bond. But that is concerning the Jews. Concerning divine matters, however, I dare not name a pious adultery, lest the very sound of the word offend anyone, although the more reverent meaning is obvious. What can, nevertheless, be said more cautiously, if not more explicitly, is that a pious cohabitation was made from unequal unions, when the Word became flesh.

The unions of divinity and flesh are not legitimate, nor do the natures of flesh and soul and soul and flesh come together by some covenant, as if divinity and flesh somehow keep the law of the marriage bed. God took on flesh, assumed a soul; through an unusual and illegitimate incarnation, he made the union legitimate, so that God might be all things and in all things. Finally, that you may know it is a mystery, interpret the names. For you take David as a type of Christ; Bathsheba is called the daughter of the Sabbath, and the daughter full, and the well of the oath. What, then, is more explicit than that the daughter of the Sabbath is the flesh of Christ, because God sent his Son, made from a woman, made under the law? The same is "full," because in his passion there is the fullness of the law, or because she is full of the Holy Spirit; for Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan. The same is also the well of the oath, that is, of religion and faith. And rightly a well, because rivers of living water flow from her womb. Therefore, taking her to himself, the Word of God made the union legitimate, a mystery which those nuptials also declared, which are in the Song of Songs, in which the Church marries Christ and the flesh marries the spirit. And so the Word of God ran about and sought everywhere, because it was wounded, because it was naked, because it was adulterous in all things, even if immaculate in Christ, the wretched flesh sought its redeemer.

Christ joined this to himself, so that he might render it immaculate; he united it, so that he might remove adultery. And because it was under the law, it had to die, so that it might be freed from the law, so that through that death, as it were, a certain marriage of law and flesh might be dissolved. Therefore, flesh died in Christ, so that we, mortified to the law through the body of Christ, as the apostle said, might be of another—of him who rose from the dead—and so that the passions and desires of the flesh and the sinful thoughts, which were in our members through the law, might die in that death, while we, released from the law of death, might rise again in the newness of the spirit, as if by a new union with Christ. And yet, those who dissolved the law in Christ’s flesh and thought it ought to be violated were all slain by David’s warriors at his command. By this sign it is shown that what they later taught was sealed—that none of those who killed Christ escaped—and this is most clearly revealed: that those whom Christ had taken up before death, like the Jews, perished as small and unformed, while those whom he enrolled after death into the number of the sons were preserved for the kingdom. Hence, according to this mystery, it is fitting that the first birth among the Jews was weak, so that later among Christians an eternal fruit might come to be.

But let us now move on to the messenger. For in the preceding discussion we dealt with that invidious adultery and homicide of the prophet David, and after reviewing the mysteries we found not only nothing to condemn but even something to praise. Now the discussion begins concerning the messenger, which the title of the psalm already traversed, often repeated, indicates. For it is thus: a psalm of David, understood, when the prophet Nathan had come to him, when he had gone in to Bathsheba. Therefore this part of the history also must be recounted, which is of this sort. 'A rich man,' he says (and a poor man were within one city. The rich man had many herds, many sheep; the poor man had one sheep, which was fed on the bread and wine of the poor man and rested in his bosom. A guest came to the rich man; the rich man took nothing from his own herd nor from his flocks, but killed the one sheep of the poor man. When David learned of this, he said, 'That man will die and will repay fourfold.' Nathan replied to him: 'You are that man.' Then he revealed to him the heavenly command, saying that the Lord had commanded that he had bestowed many good things upon him, that is, royal wealth, having removed him from the number of shepherds, and that he had poured out his mercy upon him, and therefore, because he had provoked the Lord by sin, all his possessions were to be taken away, seized by enemies, his house laid waste. Then he said: 'I have sinned,' and Nathan replied: 'Since you confess that you have sinned, the Lord will forgive you your sin, but your son who was born from Bathsheba will die.

When his son was ill, David wept, lay on the ground, covered himself with sackcloth, and fasted. When he learned that the boy was dead, he rose, washed, dined, and consoled others. See how many things there are. First of all, that God is pious and merciful, and that the adversities which befall us we undergo as the price of our error. We have therefore learned that captivity is the price of sin; for this penalty is decreed for crime. Next, we observe that the lapse of kings is the punishment of peoples. For just as we are preserved by their virtue, so also we are endangered by their error. Hence it is to be desired for us that we might have a glorious and perfect king. Therefore, do we who wish to have a perfect king not wish to have a perfect Lord? Or can those who do not wish God to be perfect wish a man to be perfect? Moreover, the text of the history briefly accomplishes this, that we may notice how quickly the hope of pardon followed. Nor is it a small thing that Nathan denounced him, that is, a lesser prophet; for it is a grave shame and disgrace to be rebuked for a fault by an inferior. You see that fault diminishes grace. Nathan knew what David did not know; so much does the mind grow dim, overshadowed by a certain cloud of vices. Then, this is the Nathan who in earlier passages prophesied that David was acceptable to the Lord, so that the sin was grieved to be refuted by the same witness by whose prophecy the merit had been proclaimed.

But let us now seek the mystery. "Two men," it says, "were in one city, one rich and the other poor." Who is this rich man or poor man, if not perhaps one people of the Jews, the other the Christian people? That one is rich in the law, rich in the words of God entrusted to him, rich in prophecies, rich in oracles; this one, however, is poor. But do not shrink from this poverty, which is followed by the kingdom of heaven; for it is written: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs." Good poverty, which does not lose what it has had. Good poverty, which, if it does not have treasures of money, nevertheless has treasures of knowledge and wisdom. Do not, children, despise poverty as something base; this poor man cried out, and the Lord heard him. Do not, as if they were great, envy riches; the rich have lacked and hungered. But if you wish to have goods, seek the Lord; for those who seek the Lord do not lack any good. Therefore, do not reject every poor man. Peter was poor and had no small coin to give, but he gave something more precious than any money: salvation. That Lazarus in the Gospel was poor, but the one who previously lay rich in purple and desired, after the end of his life, to be cooled by the dripping finger of the poor man. Although that one, proud in his royal purple and disdainful of the poor man's wounds, shrank from them in his rich fastidiousness, yet placed in the underworld, he wished he had been in the place where Lazarus was.

In this passage, the reading does not seem to describe a rich man and a poor man in terms of money, but rather that man as poor who, for the sake of faith and devotion, has not shrunk from wounds of the body and has endured hunger and fasting. Therefore, although the people of the Jews had very great numbers of sacrificial victims in their flocks, yet they seized the one little sheep which that poor people possessed, subjecting it to that glorious passion. Do you wish to know which sheep? Like a sheep led to sacrifice was he who was nourished by the poor man's bread, who used the poor man's drink, and who slept in the poor man's bosom. For he used our sustenance, he rested in the bosom of our breast. For he said that he could not rest in the bosom of the Jews, saying: The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head. And a guest came, it says, to that rich man. Who is this guest but miserable sin? For indeed, guilt entered this world as a guest, alien to our nature and a stranger. Therefore, he did not offer a victim from his own flocks, but he took the poor man's little sheep and killed it. Although its passion indeed advanced to the salutary sanctuary, yet it seems to have been for him an increase of his own fury, and food for guilt, and an incentive to sin. Finally, Judas received bread from Christ and then was more filled with the devil, because he did not receive it in faith, he who was preparing betrayal for such a hospitable lord.

And David was angry at that man. We have said that the prophet is declared to be the people of the Jews, and therefore under this figure he condemns himself. That man who did these things is worthy of death, and he will restore the ewe fourfold, that is, the Jewish people will perish, but the Christian people will enjoy more abundant goods, because the state which is due from the resurrection is more excellent than the present state. It was my purpose, as you deign to remember, to respond with my own speech against those who condemn the homicide and adultery of holy David, and thus, by the favor of your unanimity, the course of our treatise has turned out so that he whom we thought could not be defended seems to all to be rightly praised. But since the holy man does not need our help, let him now speak for himself to you, and let his own words defend his deed. "Have mercy on me," he says, "O Lord, according to your great mercy." This is a new combination of words, if I am not mistaken, most dear brothers, that "great mercy" should be said, and I do not recall having read it easily elsewhere. And therefore we must note what "great mercy" is. For although we have not easily read of "great mercy," we have nevertheless read of the great power of God. And therefore, by considering what great power is, we will be able to infer what great mercy he wished to designate. For we read in the holy Jeremiah: "Who are you, O Lord? You made heaven and earth in your great power and with your high arm." Therefore, great power made heaven.

What is this great power, the Father's or the Son's? The great power is certainly the Father's—for He Himself through the Son made heaven and earth, as you have: "In the beginning God made heaven and earth"—but yet the Son also is a great power. For when you read that the Son is the power of the Father, as you have that Christ is the wisdom and power of God, then since the Son is the power of the Father, the Son is a great power. How, therefore, is He denied to be omnipotent, whom we confess to be the great power of God? This great power, then, made heaven, because the Son also made heaven, as you have: "All things were made through Him." Therefore, if both the Father made and the Son made, the unity of the work certainly indicates the unity of the maker. So the operation of the Father and the Son does not differ. But if the operation is one, then the power of the operation is one, and the majesty of the things made is one. These things concerning the Father and the Son. Why, then, are we silent about the Spirit, especially since divine Scripture does not allow us to be silent? For it gives a most opportune testimony to prove the unity of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, so that we cannot separate His operation from the work of the Father and the Son. For we read that it is the great power of the Father that He made heaven, and that the Son is also a great power, since He made heaven, and not only made it, but also strengthened it; for by the word of the Lord the heavens were strengthened.

Therefore, if both making and establishing the heaven is of great power, we cannot separate the Holy Spirit from the majesty of great power, because it is written: "and by the spirit of his mouth, all their power." For when heaven and earth were being made, the Spirit was borne over them, concerning which he says elsewhere through the prophet David: "Send forth your spirit, and they will be created." Concerning which he also said elsewhere: "For I will see the heavens, the work of your fingers." For God did not make heaven and earth with bodily fingers, but by the sevenfold grace of the Spirit, that is, by that finger of which you have in the Gospel: "But if I cast out demons by the finger of God." For elsewhere he called this finger the spirit, as you have: "But if I cast out demons by the spirit of God." Therefore, if the spirit of God is the finger, since the Son of God is the arm, the Spirit certainly cooperated with the Father and the Son through the unity of operation in making heaven and earth. For the Son called it a finger in order to express the unity of divinity as of one body. And so, if great power made heaven, certainly great wisdom made heaven, because it is written: "You have made all things in wisdom.

We have learned, therefore, what great power is: let us now gather what great mercy is. If great power made the heavens, great mercy also must be from heaven, and great justice must be from heaven; for justice looked forth from heaven, and mercy came from heaven. Great mercy, then, was wrought, because the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Therefore great power made the heavens, great power inclined the heavens, as we read: "and he inclined the heavens and descended." By this it is shown that the Son of God was never without a share in his own divinity, not even when he moved among men, since, although he took up what he was not, he nevertheless did not cease to be what he was. And so, when it is said: "and he inclined the heavens and descended," he seems not so much to have descended from heaven as to have descended together with heaven. For when the Father addressed the Son situated on earth, and the angels ministered, the Son of God seems not so much to have changed his abode as to have transferred it. Therefore we have learned that mercy is great.

Therefore, if it is a great mercy to have descended from heaven, we must distinguish and understand what the multitude of mercies is. For it follows thus: "And according to the multitude of your mercies, blot out my iniquity." For these two verses do not mean the same thing, but the former refers to the incarnation, while this one that follows seems to refer to the injuries which the Son of God took upon himself in the flesh, because he fasted, because he hungered, because he wept, because he was beaten, because he was crucified, because he died, because he was buried; for these are signs of the flesh, not of the divinity. And it was necessary that the multitude of hardships be repelled by the multitude of mercies, for the sake of the Lord's struggle of passion that would benefit us. For he was not blotting out his own sins, because he had committed no sin, but because he became sin, our sins had to be blotted out, as David said: "Blot out my iniquity." What does "blot out" mean? Let us examine this word; it is not idle. Finally, elsewhere he says: "I am, I am the one who blots out your iniquities, and I will not remember." Certainly, there are certain deep-seated ulcers of our conscience, wounds of our minds and spirits, which are covered over by the ulcers of our errors. Therefore, guilt has its own characters and marks by which it is betrayed. We do not fabricate this by our own ingenuity, but we mark it by prophetic authority. Therefore, it is written, and let us see where it is written.

In the breast of your heart," he says, that is: there the series of fault is written, where also the form of virtue is, not on stone tablets, but on the fleshly tablets of the heart. But good things are not inscribed with ink, but with the spirit of the living God; evil things, however, with an iron stylus and an adamantine nail. Such a writing is almost like the punishment of sin. It is written with that iron stylus; it is restrained by that iron rod, as it is written: "You will rule them with an iron rod." That other rod is the straight rod, the rod of your kingdom. The one restrains the guilty with punishment; this one governs the innocent with authority. Therefore, fault is written; let us see where. Not outside, but inside, in your heart and in your breast. For just as the word is near in your mouth and in your heart, so in the unfaithful the figure of sin and the image of error are impressed in the heart itself. Therefore, fault is within, virtue is within. And so the Lord says, "I perceive that virtue has gone out from me," to show that good things proceed from within, and likewise that evil things come forth from within. For it is not what enters the mouth, he says, that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth. For thoughts proceed from your heart, and therefore beware lest evil thoughts come forth from your heart, which in later time will convict and accuse you. For God does not need testimonies and arguments to refute you; your own fault itself accuses and betrays you.

Well therefore in this psalm David says: "My fault is always against me." For woe is me, that I desire to hide and cannot hide! For how shall I be hidden, who bear inscribed in my breast the evidences of my faults? On that day of judgment the breast of each one will be laid bare, as his own conscience bears witness for all, and thoughts accuse or even defend one another on the day when God will judge the secrets of men. What shame that will be, when what we thought hidden begins to be revealed to all, when the image of each one's fault begins to open itself, so that each is convicted by the series of his own crime! What shame, when you see that one whom you judged despicable in this world is preferred, that slave of yours, that one whom you deemed inept and unfit according to the cunning of this world, you recognize as honored by the riches of his simplicity! Therefore, while we live, let us flee to Him who can blot out sin. And do not fear that it is written with an iron stylus and an adamantine nail—for He has broken iron and adamantine doors—nor be afraid to confess your fault.

David confessed, he acknowledged his iniquity, he acknowledged his error, and therefore he says: "For I acknowledge my iniquity." David acknowledges, and do you not acknowledge? David confesses, and do you deny? Paul proclaims himself guilty, and do you assert yourself innocent? Is there not, therefore, the greatest occasion for shame, when there are associations mixed with very many sins? If, however, we follow the zeal for correction... nor again be afraid, lest the confession of fault be held for punishment. For a good and merciful God is accustomed not only to forgive the fault of those confessing, but also to bestow rewards upon those correcting themselves, provided that each one asks that what he understands is not hidden be granted to him. Therefore speak your iniquities, so that you may be justified. That is the voice of God willing to forgive, that is the voice of God promising that he wishes to blot out your sin. "To you," he says, "I have sinned and done evil before you," that is: even if men do not see, yet you see; even if men cannot judge me, who are participants in the offenses, you nevertheless are the judge of each one, who are without offenses. However much harmful thoughts lie hidden in the inmost heart, they are yet before you, who can say: "Why do you think evil in your hearts?" Surely Christ says this. Therefore he who knows what is written in the heart can blot out whatever is inscribed in the heart. To him the holy David confesses that he has sinned not only in himself, but also in the first man, while the divine precepts are violated.

From this it is possible to observe, most beloved brothers, how all heresies, while they attack each other, recoil upon themselves. Thus the Arians, while they separate the power of the Father and the Son, rush into such a furious outcome of their disputation that their assertion coincides with that of the Manichaeans; for the latter say that one God is of the Old Testament, another of the New. This profane assertion the holy Church condemns, which reads of one God, because there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we into Him, and one Lord Jesus, through whom are all things and we through Him. Certainly the omnipotent power, both of the Father and of the Son, is declared to be one, so that we neither separate the Father from the grace of the New Testament nor, on the other hand, separate the Son from the renewal of the world. Finally, let us consider whether the same God is the creator of both Testaments. Surely we all sinned in the first man, and through the succession of nature the succession of guilt also was transmitted from one to all. Against whom, then, did I sin, against the Father or against the Son? Certainly against Him who entrusted to me what I violated by not keeping. A command was given to man, that he should taste of all things that were in paradise, but not touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam, therefore, is in each one of us. For in him the human condition erred, because through one man sin passed into all. I see the sum entrusted to me, I see what debts of transgression I have contracted, while I taste what is forbidden and interdicted.

From this I must consider the interest on the sum entrusted to me, because I could not preserve the loan of the heavenly commandments with unblemished faith. We have recognized the loan; let us also recognize the creditor. It is, of course, the right of the creditor to demand and to remit. And therefore the same person remits who has the right to demand. Since, therefore, in the Gospel Christ said to me: "Your sins are forgiven you," do I not understand the same Lord of the sum to be the one whom I acknowledge as the arbiter of pardon? Or if the Father lent and the Son remitted, not through unity, as we say, but as the Arians assert, through a separation of power, then did one god lend and another remit? Hence they fall into such a position that they do not escape the perfidy of the Manichaeans. Then, by calling one the good god, let them note what snares of their own madness they fall into. If the one who lent is good, how is the one who remitted not good? Therefore, let the Arians share a part with those whose assertion they agree with.

Nor is it surprising if one who has once begun to deviate from the truth entangles himself in the bonds of another’s error. And therefore there is one principle which destroys the machinations of all heretics: that we believe the Trinity to be of one power, majesty, and virtue, and therefore we do not separate the Father from what the Son has done, nor do we segregate the Son from what the Father has commanded. For thus it will come about that we do not introduce one God of the Old Testament and another of the New, but through the unity of power, the Son is understood in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Son is lent at interest in the Father and the Father remits in the Son. For the Father also forgives sin: that the Son has forgiven, we have already said. Hear that the Father also forgives. “Forgive,” he says, “our debts, just as we also forgive our debtors.” This the Son says to the Father from our person. Nor does he say this as if he himself cannot forgive, but he says it so that you may understand the unity of power.

Finally, if you seek authority in the Son, he says: “You are already clean of the world because of the word which I have spoken to you.” He dismisses by word, he dismisses by command, but he dismisses with reason, saying: “Go, after this see that you do not sin.” You have authority, because he has granted remission of past sins; you have judgment, because he has prescribed for the future.