The Second Apology by Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, for the Prophet David.

Latin Text from public domain Migne Editors, Patrologiae Cursus Completus.

Translated into English using ChatGPT.

Table of Contents Chapter I. Caput II. Caput III. Caput IV. Caput V. Caput VI. Caput VII. Caput VIII. Caput IX. Caput X. Caput XI. Caput XII.

Chapter I.

I have found that some people may be offended because David committed adultery, and Christ forgave the adulteress who was presented to him; especially because the same prophet revealed his own sin. But, it is shown that while David erred, it is impossible for Christ to err; therefore, those who detract from the power or providence of God should be rejected.


Perhaps the title of the psalm may have offended many of you, which you heard being read, that it came to David through the prophet Nathan, when he went to Bathsheba. And it could also have caused no small amount of scruple for those who are ignorant of the reading of the Gospel (John 8:11), in which you observed the adulterous woman being presented to Christ and then being dismissed without condemnation. For surely if someone receives these things with idle ears, they fall into the temptation of error, when they read of a holy man committing adultery and the absolution of the adulteress; by an example almost both human and divine, that both a man might think that adultery should be committed and God would judge that adultery should not be condemned. Therefore, prepare yourself for either the path of repentance or the path of desire.

Moreover, there is this, which seems to add fuel to the flames of youthful lust: that he did not blush for his adultery, did not hide it, but proclaimed it in a certain divine song. So, was Saint David so shameless, so thoughtless, that he himself sang his own disgrace? Especially since he himself, in another psalm that has been passed down to today, said: How long, O Lord, how long will sinners boast, how long will sinners glory? (Psalm 93:3) He prohibits others from boasting about sin, and yet he himself also boasts with sacred song. So how do we distinguish these things?

Furthermore, even if David erred petulantly, did Christ also err, so that we may think He did not have a right judgment? Well then, David prophetically spoke today to them saying: Understand, foolish ones, and fools, finally understand (Same source, 8). For how could Christ have erred? It is not permissible for this to come into our understanding. He who planted the ear, does He not hear? Or He who formed the eye, does He not consider? He who corrects the nations, will He not rebuke? He who teaches humanity knowledge (Same source, 9 and 10)? Therefore, did Christ not know how to question guilt and hear a just accusation? Could Christ approve of insolence? Did Christ, who rebukes the nations, not think that an adulteress should be accused? Did Christ, who knows the innermost thoughts of each person and teaches the knowledge of the Law, could He be deceived by error or judge contrary to the sequence of the Law? And how did He Himself say: 'I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it' (Matthew 5:17)? Could Christ, who condemns hidden things, conceal public things? Can Christ, who made time, not know the times? He who knows the vain thoughts of men, does he not also know the sinful ones?

4. And therefore it is enough for those who cannot deny the creator, yet deny the power of the creator: those who confess wisdom, assert foolishness by objecting his lack of foreknowledge. We could speak more extensively on this matter, but it seems that another treatise is proposed to us. And although the series of readings has taken different courses, they all progress towards the same assertion, especially the title of the psalm and the Gospel reading. But although one assertion is appropriate, nevertheless there should be order in the sequence of readings; and for this reason it seems that the discussion of the title of the psalm should come first.

Caput II.

The author writes that the purpose and argument of this work are not easy to judge. Then he explains in what order and before whom he will defend the cause of David, who is accused of erring.


The story is set, which involves adultery and murder. For we find it written in the book of Kings (2 Kings 11:2 et seq.); because when King David was walking in his house, he saw Bathsheba, Uriah's wife, bathing and immediately fell in love with her, and ordered her to be brought to him. Then, as the Scripture says, he ordered her innocent husband to be exposed to the fiercest warriors, to be crushed by hostile force. These things happened and are not denied, so how are they defended? The Gospel reading (John 8:11) rightly admonishes that even when a secret sin is revealed, judgment should be left to the judge. And let everyone remember their own condition and merit. Often, in passing judgment, the greater sin is the judgment itself, rather than the sin on which judgment is passed. For if some wise people of the world prescribe caution in judging, so that the punishment is not greater than the offense, and if this is followed, it seems even more necessary that each person, who is about to judge another, first judge themselves, and not condemn lesser mistakes in others when they themselves have committed greater ones. Who are you, then, who judge David, the holy man? I speak as a Gentile, I speak as a Jew, I speak as a Christian; and therefore it seems to me that the treatise must be divided into three parts, one against the Gentiles, another against the Jews, a third among Christians.

Caput III.

He warns the Gentiles not to look upon David, who was not so much wandering as repenting, because just as that is common to men, so this is rare in kings. Then he declares how inclined he is to be overcome by lust, and confirms it by citing examples of holy men.

6. The first argument against the Gentiles, therefore, that they are accustomed to object, is this: Behold how Christians follow innocence, prefer faith, venerate religion, teach chastity, whose leaders are reported to have committed homicides and adulteries. David himself, of whose lineage, as you say, Christ chose to be born, celebrated his own homicides and adulteries. And what sort of disciples can those be, whose leaders are such?


7. So what then? Do we deny the fact or reject the teacher? Neither of these. But let one who objects to the appearance consider the community. The appearance of the fact is the community of nature. Therefore, it is not surprising that the species is contained within the generality. For I acknowledge that David was a man, and there is nothing surprising about that. I acknowledge the commonality that man should sin. For it is not a new weakness of the human condition, and it seems more surprising if a man is devoid of sin than if he is affected by some sin. Therefore, the holy David sinned, there is no doubt about it. He committed adultery, devised murder, and executed it. He sinned as kings often do, but he repented and wept, which kings do not often do. He begged for forgiveness, not as one with power, but as one aware of his weakness. He prostrated himself on the ground and covered himself in sackcloth, forgetting his position of authority and remembering his guilt.

8. Whom could you find for me, a man of this kind, who, being in power, does not love his own sins, preach blame, defend crimes; who believes that what is not proper for him is not lawful; who binds himself with his own laws; and who acknowledges that what is not allowed by justice, is not allowed by power? For power does not dissolve justice, but justice dissolves power; nor is the king exempt from the laws, rather he sets the laws free by his own example. Is it possible for someone who judges others to be free from their own judgment and to accept it in themselves, which also binds others?

9. Therefore, David is an even greater wonder because he conquered power instead of love. Chastity is sometimes attributed to the body, and frequently to error; power is subject to God; and it is easier for someone to restrain themselves in love than to control themselves in power. Therefore, you do not forgive what is lesser, in which you admire greater things. For human nature is slippery and inclined to sin in all people; the slippery license of power and the offering of ability are also slippery in good morals. For the anger of a lion is not separate from the wrath of a king; but he who provokes and mixes with it, sins against his own soul. Therefore, let no one provoke authority, lest the soul, entangled in bodily inconsistencies, is not able to free itself from vice. Thus, it is not surprising that even David fell in appearance of power; but it is much more admirable that he is recalled through the contemplation of faith.

Therefore, you see that this secular power frequently profits nothing, and often harms; for often the outcome of faults is in the authority of power. Therefore, whoever you are, do not presume about the power and ability; for the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord. Do not be flattered by the subjection of the people; for the king will not be saved by the multitude of his virtue, nor will he be safe in the multitude of his virtue. For it is not in the heights of the roofs of the tabernacles, and in the precious summit of the roofs, but it is pleasing to the Lord above those who fear Him, and those who hope in His mercy.


Therefore, we see that power has a slippery ability towards vices, although I would not necessarily say that it is always corrupt; since we read that David, with his royal power, elevated divine worship, and Solomon consecrated the temple to God.

12. Now, what we have touched upon, we assert, is the power of command, the incentive to sin, and let us continue according to the sequence of history. David would not have violated the right of another's marriage bed and the covenant of marriage, unless he had seen a naked and bathing woman in the inner parts of his house. And therefore it is well written: Do not gaze at the beauty of a woman, and do not desire a woman (Eccl. II, 5, 28). It is said elsewhere: Beware of every irreverent eye (Eccl. XXVI, 14). Do not boast about the virtue of your self-control. For the fornication of a woman is recognized in the haughtiness of her eyes and in her eyelids (Ibid, 12); therefore, flee the cause of sin first. No one is strong for a long time. It is said not only to someone fragile, but to every person: Do not let the desire of beauty conquer you (Prov. VI, 25); if you do not want to be conquered, do not engage in sins, so that vices may not be crowned upon you; do not let yourself be captured by the eyes, do not let yourself be carried away by the eyelids (Ibid). A woman may seem worthless to you in terms of price, but strong in terms of vice; for a woman captures the precious souls of men (Ibid.).

13. Therefore, it is difficult for anyone to escape unscathed from the allurements of desire. Not only is this my opinion, but it is also considered impossible in the Proverbs of the holy Solomon, who says by way of example: 'Can one hold fire against his chest without burning his clothes? Can one walk on hot coals without scorching his feet?' (Proverbs 6:27-28) So be cautious and do not ignite the fire of desire and love within the depths of your mind; lest the spiritual garment be consumed by that fire and you lose the eternity of resurrection. Indeed, the trace of your mind will be scorched if you consider that you should advance through the torches of lust. For the one who is burning in the heart, is consumed by the body.

14. Therefore, in every way the encounter with a lascivious woman must be avoided. And for that reason, acquire prudent discipline for yourself, he says, so that it may guard you from another man's wife and a harlot (Prov. VII, 5); lest the snares of her lips hold you bound, and she envelops you in the curls of error. And thus, the prophet taught you from where you should beware of the prostitute (Ibid., 6), so that you may avoid her entrance from the window. For she enters into her own home from the window. His window is an eye: and therefore beware of every irreverent eye, lest love enter through the window, lust penetrate. For indeed a promiscuous woman illicitly loves with her sight; and unless you restrain the lascivious gaze of the mind and soul, death enters through the window. It is not a lazy impertinence of a prostitute, not a useless wantonness, which makes the hearts of young men fly; so that they are unable to hold the constancy of their own mind, and are carried away here and there with fervent love. Beware of such a woman, who does not rest her feet, wanders outside, lies in wait in corners, blinds with her eyes, speaks unlawfully, weaves her bed with deceit, and spreads Egyptian carpets; for she seeks not divine contemplation, but rather worldly seduction: she rightly calls her husband absent, because every adulteress cannot have Christ present.

You see, therefore, by what things even the hearts of the saints are captivated; and so do not be surprised if even the holy David was captivated. Indeed, he was a great man, and one who conquered the giant Goliath not only with his body but also with his faithful weapons, but I wish he had conquered himself, I wish he could have defeated and overcome his inner adversary as he struck down that external adversary! The battle of the one within is more severe than that of the one who fights outside.


16. But what about David alone? Let us also consider others in such a discussion, so that we do not think David's weakness was simply that of one man, but rather the weakness of his physical condition. Samson, strong and mighty, strangled a lion, but he could not stifle his love. He broke the chains of his enemies, but he could not break the bonds of his own desires. He set ablaze the harvest of others, and he himself, inflamed by the spark of one woman, lost the harvest of his own virtue. Solomon built a temple for God, but I wish he had preserved his own body as a temple! But let us return to the one to whom I was speaking. David triumphed in ten thousand: but he erred in twenty thousand and more; and because he erred, he knew himself to be a man, confessed his fault, begged for 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 (Psalm 6:2-3). If David is weak, are you strong? If Solomon has fallen, are you immovable? If Paul is the foremost of sinners, can you be the foremost of saints? Therefore, if the righteous have erred, they have erred as humans, but they have recognized their own sin as righteous. If the righteous have received the sentence of a severe punishment, how do you propose hope of impunity for yourself, when the Scripture says: If the righteous is scarcely saved, where will the sinner and the ungodly appear (I Peter 4:18)?


17. Therefore, children, be aware how often even a good intention is undermined by the cause of adultery; and therefore you must first flee from and avoid the very causes themselves. Do you not want to be captivated by love? Do not focus on the appearance of a woman, for your eyes, when they see someone else, your mouth will speak perversity, and you will lie as if in the heart of the sea, and like a ship's captain in a great storm. For the multitudes of desires create a great tempest, which, like a certain strait in the body, disturbs the one sailing here and there, so that the captain's mind cannot be his own, unaware of the day and night darkness of love.


18. Therefore, desire is excited by the eyes, but it is ignited by drunkenness. For every drunkard and fornicator becomes poor. Do not boast about your power to drink. Noah was drunk, and he who was not drunk by the flood, was drunk by wine. But he did not know the nature of wine, for he had not drunk before: you have learned to be careful in that matter. Lot was deceived in his sleep, and if you do not want to be deceived, shake off the sleep of your mind, so that your drunkenness does not deceive your son or daughter while they are asleep. There is no piety there, but rather drunkenness returned; there is no father there, but rather a sleeping person deceived. Do you not want to be burned? Do not approach the fire. Do you not want to fall headlong? Avoid swaying things, beware of precipices, decline from falling and slipping things.

Therefore, you see that in those who have deserved to be just, there was not another nature, but rather another discipline. After the fall of the first man and the just judgment when the desire of the flesh was condemned in one, the condition drew vice and infected nature; but the vice of nature itself was tempered by faith and the intention of devotion mitigated the offense.

Therefore, let the nations turn to the Lord, knowing that the Lord is God. He made us, not we ourselves. Know that we are flesh and dust. Let us therefore abandon what we have done, and let us worship the author himself, who gave us life, forgave our sins, and who alone can say: I am, I am the one who blots out your iniquities, and I will not remember (Isaiah 43:25). Truly great and merciful is God, who bestows blessings without reproach. You marvel because David made him king, and victor over many nations? Thus he is accustomed to exalt his servants. He is not greedy for gifts, nor sparing of kindness, nor narrow and stingy in his grace; but abundant in generosity, he increases those he has redeemed from sin with rewards. These things are against the Gentiles.

Caput IV.

He refutes the mistaken belief of the Jews that David, who was guilty of sin, or Solomon, to whom the words about Christ do not apply, are the Son of God; and he refutes the false interpretation of certain heretics regarding the Son of God.


But since we have promised a three-part division of this treatise, one part against the Gentiles, another against the Jews, and a third among the Church; now it seems to be necessary to discuss against the Jews. Therefore, let us recall what our purpose is. The title, he says, is 'The understanding of the psalm of David when Nathan the prophet came to him: when he went in to Bathsheba'. Surely this story introduces both the adulterous David and the murderer, and you, Jews, say that he is the Son of God? But God is the God of virtues, not of crimes. And about this, God the Father says: His throne is like the days of heaven (Ps. LXXXVIII, 30); whoever commits deceit will not overcome sins? And as it is written: No one is without sin, except for one God (Luke XVIII, 19). Therefore, if it is impossible for God not to exist, who is the Son of God, certainly the Son of God is the judge of justice, not subject to guilt.

22. But by what opinion do you judge either David to be the son of God, or do you consider Solomon? Or is it because it is written, \"Give your judgment to the king, and your righteousness to the son of the king\" (Ps. 71:2)? And because the title of the psalm says that it is composed for Solomon in Psalm 71? But pay attention to whom it says Solomon refers to. For Solomon is peaceful, this is what the interpretation says. The psalm is said to be about him, whom we truly know to be the author of peace. But how is Solomon peaceful? This does not indicate the blood of Joab, whom he ordered to be killed among the altars of the temple; nor the punishment of Adonijah, whom he struck as guilty of royal affinity, nor being recalled from indignation by the pleas of his mother. However, how do you suppose that what is written, 'he shall endure with the sun and before the moon forever and ever' (Psalm 71:5), applies to Solomon, the son of David, when he will have obtained only a brief span of life and will have passed through the narrow limits of living? But how is it said of him: He shall have dominion from sea to sea (Ibid., 8); when he, being placed within Syria, that is, within the province of one region, had the boundaries of his empire limited? But Christ alone has extended his dominion to the ends of the whole world. For he alone is the one about whom the psalmist prophesied well, that the kings of Arabia and Sheba will bring gifts, and all the kings of the earth will worship him: all nations will serve him (Psalm 72:10-11). For we know that he ruled over all peoples and nations, with unbounded authority and endless power. Therefore, he is not Solomon, the son of God.

23. But by what reasoning did you believe him to be the Son of God? Was it because he was wise? But here he demanded wisdom, so that he might receive what he did not have: Christ himself is wisdom, naturally possessing it in its entirety, which Solomon received by grace in human affairs. In the end, what is received in time is possessed in time. For Solomon did not have wisdom at the beginning, nor did he possess it at the end. Nor did he believe that he possessed what he asked for; and afterwards, turning away from the worship of God, he fell not as a wise man, but as a foolish one, in order to offend. He offended to such an extent that he even lost what he had deserved. So why did you believe in this son of God? Is it because he built a temple for God? But from this you should have believed that he is not the Lord and God, because it is written: Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain (Ps. 126:1). In vain did he labor, who built that temple, which was consumed by fire. Or is it because it was said to his own father David: You shall not build me a house. But when you sleep, I will raise up your seed after you; and I will build a house to my name. However, there the promised temple is not a physical or material one, for God does not dwell in things made by hands, but the temple is the holy Church, which is founded not by human power, but by celestial virtue.

24. For if we marvel at the works of those who have outstanding skill, yet are still human, we find many such individuals whom we can compare to David and Solomon. And therefore, where there is an equality of work, there is no excellence of power. Nor can we say that there are multiple sons of God, when we have read of only one Son of God; but it is a grievous offense against the Son of God to attribute to Him the benefits He bestowed upon our ancestors. For there are many illustrious men, but it is written that the sun stood still for one Joshua son of Nun, against Gibeon (Joshua 10:13). You see him having surpassed the power of King David; for David ruled over earthly things, not heavenly ones. You also see that he is a servant of the sun, not its master, who even obeyed the human voice. And yet he stood, because he recognized in Jesus both the image of the future and his name. For it was not by his own power that Joshua commanded the heavenly lights, but by the mystery of Christ; for it was indicated that the Son of God would come into this world, who by his divine power would delay the setting of the worldly light that is already declining into darkness, restore the light, and bring in glory. Enoch was also taken up to heaven: but yet he was taken up, but here he returned. He was taken up, lest his heart be changed by wickedness; here he abolished the very wickedness of this age. Elijah ascended to heaven in a chariot and horses; but Christ descended from heaven, not in a chariot and horses, as he ascended, because he could not have done so otherwise; but here he returned by his own power. Elisha commanded the leper to wash himself in the Jordan, so that he would be cleansed from all contamination; but here in the Jordan he washed away the whole world. Moses himself, to whom the people of the Jews trusted, divided the water; and indeed he divided the elements, because he did not divide the power of the Trinity; he separated the masses of water, because he did not separate the Father from the Son.

25. You see how great men, and of what kind of works they left behind. Therefore, just as you recognize those who are equal to David the king or to Solomon in virtue, you judge them to be unequal in condition, so that you may think Solomon the son of David to sit at the right hand of God. Especially since David himself clearly expressed about whom it was said, for he would not say about his son: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand (Ps. CIX, 1). For how could he call his son Lord? The law prohibits, religion opposes, faith abhors that you place a mortal man at the right hand of Almighty God. He is the other one who sits at the right hand, who received a body, not the one who began from a body; who was born before Lucifer, that is, before the brightness of all lights; for he himself created the dignities of various lights: for Solomon is after Lucifer. Solomon was not a priest; and therefore it could not be said to him by the Almighty Lord: From the womb before Lucifer I have begotten you (Ibid., 3); it could not be said to him: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Ibid., 4); especially since during the time when Solomon was, there were priests according to the order of Aaron, not according to the order of Melchizedek. For up until now, the priests were offering the blood of goats and bulls for the sins and errors of the people; but after Christ came, who offered himself for the salvation of the world (so that the blood of bulls could not cleanse, but the blood of Christ could), the priests began to offer themselves as sacrifices.

Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ silenced the mouths of all heretics with one question, and he refuted sacrileges. For he not only refuted the Jews, but also the Photinians, the Arians, and the Sabellians with this question. And for this reason, we must now address the Arians, who do not differ much from the Jews, as well as the Photinians and Sabellians, and touch upon some points in this discussion. Let Photinus, therefore, be silent, who says that Christ is the son of David, not the son of God; and let him be silent, condemned by the heavenly voice. For how can he say that Christ is the son of David, when David himself says in the book of Psalms: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool (Ps. 109:1)? If David, he says, calls him Lord, how is he his son (Luke 20:13-14)? Therefore, not the son of David, but the son of God is Christ. Let Sabellianus also be silent; and when he reads that the Lord said to the Lord, let him understand that it is not the same person who speaks as to whom it is spoken: for the Father did not say this to Himself, Sit thou on my right hand; nor to Himself, Set thy enemies as a stool to thy feet. But let them recognize that the Father is one, the Son another; the Father He who commands, the Son He who obeys: to the Father He who sends, to the Son He who is sent. To the Father He who gives, to the Son He who receives. Lastly, let them observe the distinction of persons in a way that the Unity may be believed in. Let them not, therefore, make the Son the Father, because they will lose the Son, if they do not admit Him to be the Son of the Father; neither let them make the Father the Son, as the Sabellian heretics have done, who will lose the Father, not having Him as the Father, unless they hold Him to be the Son. Let him hear the Lord saying to the Lord, let him hear that the Son is sitting on the right hand of the Father; and let him cease from questioning the divinity of the human order. Let him not argue here, because the Father says, sit; for we read elsewhere that the Son is seated without the Father's command, as it is written: And he sits on the right hand of God (Mark XVI, 20). And elsewhere: Henceforth you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of God (Matthew XXVI, 64). For it is He to whom it is said, 'Sit at my right hand, who is called the Son of Man'; He hears as a man, He sits as the Son of God. What can be said to be more excellent than this power, which has also placed the flesh of man at the right hand of God; and after the weakness of human nature, nevertheless, united it with the divinity of the eternal Word, when the Word became flesh?

27. But what is this? After Photinus fell silent, Arius was silent, Sabellius lost his voice; yet I still see different heresies with mouths that stir up controversy against the Church. For behold, there is Manichaeus and Valentinianus, and every derivation of the Manichaeans depends on the same weapon by which others have been destroyed; and it fabricates a prejudice against faith, it constructs a testimony for faith. For the detestable heresy says: 'Behold, Christ denied that he is the son of David' (Luke 20:41); and therefore, it says, it must be believed that he did not assume flesh. Which the Scripture very clearly affirms from the very beginning of the Gospel, when it says: The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David (Matt. 1:1). So why is David sometimes called the son of someone else, or sometimes the son of David is denied, unless you understand that according to his divine nature he is the Son, and according to his assumption of flesh he is the son of David? For according to his divine nature, he is the Son of God; according to the flesh, he is the son of David. Therefore, when the generation according to the flesh of the Savior is described, he is called the son of David; but when the fullness of confession is required, when the generation of the Savior is designated, he does not want to be called the son of David, but the son of God; for the designation of his majesty interprets his nature. But now that you have refuted the interpretations of the wicked, the discourse must be turned to the Church.

Caput V.

He confirms the arguments brought against the Jews and Gentiles, and turns to the discourse to the Church.


28. However, the fact that we often repeat the title of the fiftieth psalm is not an example of presumption, but of weakness. For in one day, either due to the limitations of our understanding or the frailty of our voice, we cannot deliver the entire series of discourses. And therefore, since our previous discourse was directed against the Jews, who were subjected to the evidence of faith to such an extent that Christ was placed on the heavenly throne, which certainly cannot apply to a mere mortal. For it is not credible that anyone other than the Son of God should sit at the right hand of God. Certainly no one but the Son of God should sit at the right hand of the Father for us, once all ambiguous things have been removed, he is to be esteemed. Furthermore, since Scripture says: 'I will set upon your throne the fruit of your womb' (Psalm 131:11), it is to be believed that the same Son of God received flesh from Mary, in whom the prophetic fruit of the womb is found. This is so that you may truly recognize the succession of origin and not hesitate to believe that this same Son of God, who later became the son of man by accepting human flesh, sits on the heavenly throne of the Father. For Christ did not have any royal throne in this world, so that you may think that another throne similar to that of David has been promised; especially since the Lord Himself said: My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).

Therefore, they conclude on all sides, deriving the conditions of their treachery, that it is unbelievable that God would assume flesh; however, they cannot explain the manner by which He could not assume it. For I ask whether they think that the reason the flesh could not be assumed by God is due to impossibility or injustice? If impossibility, then there is something impossible for God: for there is nothing that He wills to do and is unable to do. Therefore, it remains to be taught whether He willed it or not. But what greater indication of will than what He Himself said: 'I have appeared openly to those who did not ask for Me... I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people' (Isa. 65:1-2)? If, therefore, He both wanted and could, do we think that He would not have wanted without cause for injustice? And what injury does divinity feel? For it is devoid of insult, and it is not subject to our passions; for neither could the flesh bring harm or benefit to divinity, nor increase it.


30. But those who object to this argue that the Son of God could not take on flesh. If the pagans, who cannot deny that their gods (since they admit them to have been men) appeared in human form? Did their king, whom they prefer above all their gods, not assume outrageous forms out of love: and yet Christ, the Son of Man, whom He made in His own image, could not assume that most excellent work of His for the salvation of the world? And is it more beautiful to them because of the adultery of an alien bed than because of the redemption of all mankind in the assumed form of flesh? But if a Jew objects to this, how does he read: Behold, a virgin shall conceive in her womb, and shall bring forth a son; and his name shall be called Emmanuel (Isaiah 7:14), which is interpreted, God is with us? How does he read: Behold, here I am who spoke (Isaiah 53:6)? How does he also claim: Behold, I will meet them like a leopard... and like a bear robbed of her whelps (Hosea 13:7-8)? Therefore, the Son of God could not assume flesh for the redemption of all, since they themselves cannot deny that God, moved by the cruelty of wild beasts, has taken on a certain affliction for the punishment of our sins; so that He, who is by nature kind and merciful, is nevertheless moved by the enormity of our crimes to assume a certain savagery of beasts towards us.


31. But now, since I believe that I have sufficiently responded to the Jews both yesterday and today, dear brothers, a prophetic explanation must be given to you. For when the title of this psalm is read, which says, 'When Nathan went to David, when he went to Bathsheba,' we said that many events of this story are confused: and therefore we have taken up a threefold treatment of it; and we thought that the division of the treatment should be made in such a way that the lapse of condition is not denied among the Gentiles, but the correction of error is established; but among the Jews we would teach that the lapse was holy for David, so that the perfidy of the Jews would no longer stumble, and they would cease to believe that he, whom they saw subject to the common condition of sin, was the Son of God; but Christians can understand the mysteries of the rising Church. Therefore, a threefold division has been made: one according to nature, another according to faith, and a third according to grace; neither weakness excludes from mercy, and faith excuses from fault; the sacraments also reconcile the grace promised long ago.

Caput VI.

He teaches the Church why David and many other authors of the holy race were allowed to fall into error; and in order to more easily bring forth the mysteries from them, he recounts the history of David's murder and adultery.

32. David sinned so that the whole world would not go astray; he sinned for himself, so that he could correct all of us; finally, he sinned against his own body (for whoever commits fornication, sins against his own body), he sinned against his own body so that he could be redeemed in the body of Christ: behold, the one whom we thought was difficult to defend, we now see proclaiming. For who is there that does not want divine gifts to be preached in him more than human works? For we believe, according to the apostle (Rom. III, 28), that a person is justified by faith, without works of the Law. Therefore, let David be justified by faith, who, by the Law, acknowledged sin but believed in the forgiveness of sin through faith; let David be justified, for in his sin the mysteries of the Church shone forth.


Someone asks, in what way did the chosen author of the Dominician lineage commit both adultery and homicide? I say, such an author of the Dominician lineage should have been chosen for his body. For what is corporatio, if not the forgiveness of sins? And therefore, he could not have been void of sin, so that he might offer divine grace both in example and in message. Finally, by that disposition, Bathsheba and Tamar are included among the authors of the Dominician lineage: one of whom committed adultery, the other committed incest. Both Achab and Jechonias are included in the lineage of Christ, as Matthew the Evangelist described (Matt. 1:9 and 11), so that he, who would redeem all men, might begin his benefit from his ancestors. At the same time, so that no one who subjected himself to the passion of the body would seem to have acquired the nobility of an immaculate origin. For this boasting of men is to seek the glory of another, not one's own; and yet among men, the grace of virtue is greater than nobility. At the same time, there was an example of eating together, so that everyone could understand that the faults of our ancestors cannot bring shame to future generations; that each person can erase the stain of their own merit through virtue. Do you see how many and how gravely sinful the succession of the Lord's generation includes, from whose origin Christ did not hesitate to be born because of you? And if you believe this, these are gifts of divine mercy to you, and this is the mark of celestial power. For sin abounded, so that grace might also abound. Therefore, David was not exempt from fault in order to be chosen for grace.

34. But now let us recount the mysteries of the history itself, and let us draw from the very sources of the Scriptures; and so that we may be able to examine the entire series of mysteries, let us repeat the text of the history itself. For thus we remember it expressed in the book of Kings (2 Kings 11:2 ff.), that when David saw Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, bathing, he fell in love with her; then he ordered her to come to his house, while her husband was absent; not long after, her husband returned, a religious and devout man, who, during the time of war, did not think it fitting to enter his house, when he saw his companions intent on the war, not in domestic chambers, but keeping watch in battle tents; afterwards, by David's order, he was called back to the war, under the command that he should be exposed to the enemy warriors, so that the king might have free access to the woman by the death of her husband. And here there is also a certain shame of sin, and the shame of guilt, because he sought a hiding place for his error; and he did not assume the authority of royal power for the unjust killing, but he avoided the envy. He admits guilt, but the shame that is suppressed is more tolerable than the insolence that is preached. So Uriah, having been exposed to the warriors, is dead, but afterwards the same ones who killed him, by the order of David, were destroyed after the city was captured. This is a series of stories, in which you can explore profound mysteries.

Caput VII.

With the divine Spirit invoked, it begins to reveal the mysteries that were concealed under the adultery of David and Bathsheba, as well as under the birth itself.


35. And since we do not receive David as needing to be defended by my own help, but rather to be excused or rather to be preached; lest I may waver in such a deep mystery, it is just that I use his mouth, whose history I use. Therefore, I will use the prophetic response, saying: Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me (Psalm 51:10). For no one can behold such divine mysteries without the infusion of the Holy Spirit. For if that great prophet, the Holy Spirit, seeks the gift to be poured out upon himself, what should the weak person do? Especially since even the holy Apostle believes that he is also helped by the prayers of the people, that the door may be opened to him to speak the mystery of the word. Oh, if Christ would deign to open that door for me! Let us knock, however; for he is accustomed to hear those who knock, for he himself said: Knock, and it will be opened to you (Luke 11:9). Oh, if he would open himself to me, for Christ is the door: he is within, he is outside, he is the way that leads, he is the life to which we strive to attain.


36. Come therefore, Lord Jesus, and open to us your fountains, so that we may drink from the water that whoever drinks it, may not thirst forever (John 4:13). Or if we are not yet able to draw from your fountain, deign to grant us at least to draw from the well, from which you promise to the Samaritan woman who was still doubting. And indeed, you promise to everyone from your fountain, but to those who doubt, like that Samaritan woman, your fountain is still a deep well. Let us drink the water of heavenly secrets. And since we have merited to come to your fountain, let us at least be allowed to see the image of celestial mysteries.

So, unless I am mistaken, by the Prophet we understand the Holy Spirit; by the adulteress, however, we may think of various fornications of the Synagogue. And therefore, long before, we see revealed from the Holy Spirit and from the family of the Jews (whose fathers, and from whom Christ according to the flesh), that the Lord Jesus is to be born (Gen. 49:10), who indeed was born as it were a Jew from an adulterous family, but as it were immaculate from a Virgin. He was under the Law, he was like a member of the Jewish family; the observance of the Law had to be abolished, so that truth and grace could be substituted.

We have one mystery: take another; yet in such a way that you remember that from the first conception Bathsheba gave birth to a child who died, and then she gave birth to Solomon: the former child from a secret conception; the latter Solomon already from the profession of marriage. Therefore it is clear that by David the prophet is understood, by the Prophet the prophetic people, from whom and from the Synagogue that first one who was born (because he had degenerated from his ancestors and was formed through crimes, and the Jewish people had become consolidated through vices) could not attain to the eternity of the resurrection, nor grow into a perfect man; but in a smallness of senses, and in a kind of infancy of virtue, he lacked. But indeed, that people who was afterwards conceived from the lawful union, the Christian people, that wise and peaceful people, is unfolded by this interpretation of Solomon, to the white-haired age of eternal resurrection, and reaches that heavenly kingdom. Through that people, the Law was dissolved, through this one, grace was reformed.

39. Also receive the third mystery. Which the Hebrews call David lofty, but the Latins interpret as humbled. But who is truly humbled if not the one who does not consider being equal to God a robbery: But taking the form of a servant, he humbled himself, being obedient unto death (Philippians 2:6 et seq.)? Therefore, this is he who is signified by David, lofty by nature, but humbled by mercy: sublime in divinity, but gentle in body. So where there is humility, there is obedience. For obedience is born from humility and ends in it. For when one is called obedient, it means they were obedient even unto death (which was not the death of divinity, but of the body); that obedience was not of divinity, but of the body; and that humility was not of majesty, but of the flesh. Therefore, as for the acceptance of the body, the apostolic reading has revealed in what respect there was humility in Christ; but as for the nature of divinity, it has been revealed in the Gospel reading: which you have followed with pious agreement, when you heard it said in the Law by the Son of God: 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30). For indeed God the Father and the Son are one in divinity, but they are not one in the sacrament of the body and the eternity of divinity. Yet not only the Apostle said that the Lord is humble, but he also mentioned himself as being humble, saying: Take my yoke upon you, for it is light; for I am meek and humble of heart (Matthew 11:29). And yet it is not only by interpretation, but also by designation, that it is marked; for it is written: I have found David my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him (Psalm 88:21). And below he says, 'You are my Father' (Ibid. 27); and, 'I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son.' Therefore, we have found David, whom we were looking for: a slave in appearance, but the Lord in truth.

Caput VIII.

What does the royal house, in which David walks, signify? What does the nudity and bathing of Bathsheba signify? And what does it signify that she is immediately loved when seen naked?

40. So David walked within his own house. Which indeed is the house of Christ, unless it is the one of which He says: 'In my Father's house there are many mansions' (John 14:2)? Therefore, in that royal house, He saw human nature stripped bare and pitied it, and loved it. For it was still naked of virtues, because through the serpent's ambush it had been deprived of its natural clothing. For it does not seem likely that a woman would be undressed before the house of the king, nor that a woman would wash herself before the house of the king: as if another place could not exist with a suitable bath. It does not fit, it does not agree, it does not accord with truth: it is far from the truth, it is repugnant to reason. A king could loathe such a person, so insolent, so shameless, not love them. Could she, if she were not ashamed in the presence of a true man, not even be afraid of the royal gaze? Could her ministers not have kept her away before the king saw her?

So if this cannot agree with faith, let us inquire what this naked condition is, namely, the human condition, stripped of all the vestments of nature, lacking the clothing of immortality, and robbed of the covering of innocence. For he is naked who is stripped of sin and guilt. Finally, that first sinner of our kind, and would that he were the only one, before he sinned, did not feel that he was naked, but after he sinned, he saw that he was naked; and therefore, he thought he should be covered with leaves, because he knew himself to be naked. So he became naked to himself, after he became guilty of the crime. In that state, the entire human condition was revealed, through the succession of nature; not only subject to guilt, but also to suffering. Therefore, he felt and saw himself naked: thus is our entire condition, that whoever thinks themselves naked, sees and feels themselves naked. Indeed, whoever desires wealth is naked: whoever despises it, is wealthy. Each person's own sense is a suffering, and each person's own virtue is devoid of injury. Therefore, Christ first claimed the human condition for himself through the Law, which he later rejected. Hence he said: 'Which of you is free from the bill of divorce that I have given to your mother?' (Isaiah 50:1). Therefore, in this way, Christ saw his family naked and loved them: for Christ loves the holy soul. In conclusion, Jesus loved Lazarus and Mary: Christ loved his Church, even though she was naked and not yet clothed with the adornment of virtues.


Finally, so that we may understand the sequence of the proposed discussion of the Scriptures, let us learn about the clean Church, let us learn about the one seeking, hurrying, and washing herself before the house of Christ, when John was baptizing in the Jordan, saying: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he who comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. (Matthew 3:11). Therefore, when the people were being baptized for repentance, they were certainly seeking Christ, who was already seeking their house nearby, in order to attain grace. Thus, the Church sought Christ from John, saying: 'Tell me who my soul loves' (Song of Songs 1:6); she recalled that he is the cause of her desire, the cause of her cleansing, as you have: 'I am dark but lovely, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon' (Ibid., 1:4). You have the reason why he longs to cleanse himself, because he recalls that he is dark. For when John, as if questioning, asked in what way the common people, who were flocking together, might be eager to be baptized, she replied: I am dusky and fair, the daughter of Jerusalem. Because she is dusky, she desires to be washed; because she is fair, she is not afraid to appear naked. Do not, she said, look at me because I am dim, because the sun does not look at me. Therefore, let us be dusky when we are not seen by Christ; but when we are seen, we grow white. Therefore, he who sees her, to whom all things are naked, and the hidden things of the heart cannot be concealed; because he is the searcher of hearts and reins: nothing is hidden from him, nothing is covered. He saw his church naked, and he saw, and he loved. He saw his beloved naked, and he loved her like a son of charity.

See how he sees, see how he calls. These are not the reproaches of adultery, but the mysteries of chastity. You are completely beautiful, my friend, my closest one, and there is no blame in you. Come here from Lebanon, my bride, come here from Lebanon, you will pass through and pass by from the beginning of faith (Song of Songs 4:7 and 8). And blessed from the beginning of faith. Therefore, when you have faith, you should not fear adultery; faith is the bond of marriage, deceit is adultery. But in order to be present from Lebanon, he sent a message beforehand, saying: Arise, come, my neighbor, my beautiful one, my dove, my perfect one (Song of Songs 2:10). My neighbor, certainly with a desire for faith; my beautiful one, with the beauty of virtue; my dove, with spiritual grace. For the silver wings of a dove can signify that eternal power; and the flight of a dove has declared the presence of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Christ calls her to himself, that she may come; because she was already coming with spiritual rewards: For lo, he says, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone, the flowers have appeared on the earth (ibid., 11 and 12). See how the holy Church invites. Winter, it says, has departed from itself, so that it does not fear a naked winter, not the season's winter, but the winter of weakness, which strips the fertile field of the soul of all its flowers. For it is not the winter of the earthly sun, it is the winter of the mind, when coldness creeps into the soul, when the steam of the mind evaporates, when the strength of the senses dissolves, when excessive moisture overflows and weighs down the mind, when the inner vision is darkened. And so the Lord says: Take heed that your flight not be in winter or on the Sabbath (Matth. XXIV, 20). For it is good that the day of judgment or death should come when there is a gentle tempering of the soul, when the heavenly mystery shines forth in clear light, when our hearts burn within us. For then Christ is present, as testified in the Gospel by Ammaon and Cleophas, saying: Was not our heart burning within us while he was opening the scriptures to us (Luc. XXIV, 32)? But the soul is revived when even a flower is seen on earth. Who is this flower of sweet fragrance, if not the one who said: I am the flower of the field, and the lily of the valleys (Song of Songs 2:1)? Concerning whom it is also written in Isaiah: And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit (Isaiah 11:1). The root is indeed the family of the Jews, the branch is Mary, the flower is Christ of Mary, who when he shines forth in our land and delights the field of the soul, or blossoms in his Church, we cannot fear the cold, nor dread the rain, but await the day of judgment.


44. And therefore the Church, in order to see this flower, hastened with every effort, as she herself testifies, saying: In my bed, in the nights I sought him whom my soul loves: I sought him, and did not find him: I called him, and he did not hear me. Therefore I will rise, and go about the city, in the streets and in the squares, and seek him whom my soul loves (Song of Songs, 3:1-2). I sought, and did not find him... The watchmen who go about the city found me, they struck me, and took away my cloak from me (Song of Songs, 5:7). You see how he seeks whom he desires to find, so that he may not fear being wounded. But these wounds are not to be feared, but to be desired; because the wounds are wounds of love; as she herself says: I am wounded by love (Ibid. 8). The wounds of love are good. In fact, the wounds of a friend are more useful than the voluntary kisses of an enemy.

Caput IX.

He continues the same subject, and shows that the Church of Christ, which he has rejected as a veiled Synagogue, was pleasing to Him when it was naked; then he describes the ardor of the Church in seeking Him; and finally he explains the fulfillment of the Law foreshadowed in the murder of Uriah.


45. She is naked, therefore, by merit, because she has lost her cloak: or perhaps she is naked for this reason, because sometimes it is the virtue of the heart not to have it covered, the heart not to have it veiled. In conclusion, Christ has despised and rejected that veiled Synagogue (II Cor. III, 13 et seq.), which had a veil in the reading of the Old Testament, which is now revealed, because it is annulled in Christ; I say, veiled, Christ despised and rejected the Synagogue, which is why today the veil is placed upon the hearts of the Jews. But truly, that which turns the whole mind to the Lord is naked and clear. For when someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away, so that we may see, beholding the glory of God. Moreover, elsewhere it is a sign of virtue to be naked, for it is written: 'I have put off my tunic, how shall I put it on again? I have washed my feet, how shall I defile them?' (Cant. V, 3)

Therefore, let us reveal from the Scriptures if we can, how one should take off and put on this tunic. For there is a certain bodily tunic, and there are certain woven coverings of desires; and therefore, sometimes it is better to be naked in body than veiled in heart. Hence, even Paul admonishes us to strip off, saying elsewhere: Stripping yourselves of the old man with his deeds, put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge, according to the image of Him who created him (Colossians 3:9-10). Therefore, she who is stripped and has washed feet, and hence she who has bathed, does not know how they can become dirty again. For she forgets through grace what she had drawn through nature. Therefore, great is the righteous love of the woman before David, washing himself in the royal house.

But she not only washes, but also calls; as we have learned from the same book, with the Holy Church saying: 'Come, my brother, let us go out into the field, let us rest in the castles, let us rise early in the vineyards, let us see if the vine has flourished' (Song of Solomon 7:11-12). Therefore, she not only washes, but also provokes and invites Christ to come to her, saying: 'To you I will give my breasts' (Ibid.). And not only her own, but also the new and the old, as you have: 'I have kept new and old for you, my brother' (Ibid. 13). And, as if impatient of love, he seeks the support of someone by whom Christ may be asked to come. See him burning, see him longing: 'Who,' he says, 'will give you, O my brother, to suck the breasts of my mother?' (Song of Solomon 8:1). And he shows by what means he seeks, and by what grace he invites, and how he can hold on: how he waits for the one who is staying outside; and he implores that he may enter his house, saying: 'Finding you outside I will kiss you, I will take hold of you, and will bring you to the house of my mother, and into the secret place of her who conceived me' (ibid. 2). You see how exposed it is, which cannot have a hidden shelter of undefiled nature, a hidden shelter of intimate conscience, not designated by any audacity of vice. For the closed garden is the holy Church, and immaculate virginity, which, for this reason, merits this grace from Christ, because it sought, desired, and found the Word of God, vigilantly watching before the gates of wisdom, as it itself says: Blessed is the man who hears me and the person who keeps my ways, vigilantly watching at my gates daily, guarding the entrances to my doors. My end, the ends of life. (Prov. VIII, 34).

48. Thus Christ desired and prepared himself to take as his wife the appearance of his Church. But since he sought her under the Law (for under the Law Peter, John, and the other apostolic men), he thought that first the bonds of bodily observance should be relaxed for us. For though the religious Law, the just Law, summoned the person of Uriah, who was so religious and chaste that, upon returning from war, he did not recognize his wife nor enter into her; yet because Uriah, through David, that is, through the humble man, perceived the union of the Church, departing from the union of the Synagogue, he prepared a place for future nuptials. And so John also received the type of the Law, who, although he was from the Fathers, announced the preparation of the ways of the Lord and prophesied the joining of the Church; and therefore he is portrayed as being killed, in order to demonstrate the failure of legitimate observance. For the Law and the prophets were until John. Therefore, now Uriah was killed in the type of the Law, so that the Synagogue of the Law would be freed from its snares, because a woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he is alive; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. Therefore, while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress if she is joined to another man; but if her husband is dead, she is freed from the law of her husband, so that she is not an adulteress if she is with another man. Therefore, she is not an adulteress in the human condition, although she may have been under the Law, yet she has been freed in a sense from the observance of the Law, and is vindicated by grace.

However, Christ did not abolish the observance of the law. Therefore, Uriah was not killed by David, but he suffered being killed by warriors: that is, the ritual observance coming from the Law was profaned by the invasion of barbarians and the captivity of the Jews, Christ suffered. Finally, Uriah is called my light. And what is the light of Christ except the Law and the Gospel? For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. Because the light of Christ preceded in the Law, which afterwards in the grace of the Gospel, as if in a sevenfold spirit, filled all the world of this age. Therefore, he took away the flesh from the Law or the Church and joined it to himself: the hostile people diminished the light of the Law when they violated the sacred Law. Therefore, the light of God is diminished in the people of the Jews; blindness has partly befallen Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles enters, and thus all Israel shall be saved.

Caput X.

With renewed attention, it explores the deeper mystery hidden in the adulterous affair of David, namely the union of the divine Word with human nature.

50. There remains a fourth mystery, which, I implore you, you may receive with calm ears and not weigh our minds by words; for the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. Adultery is committed, and murder is committed. This is what was spoken to the Prophet: Take for yourself a rod of nutwood (Jerem. I, 11). And elsewhere we read of a rod of nutwood, through which we understand a certain law and the summit of prophecy, which is bitter outside like a nut shell; hard in the middle, like the shell; but soft and fruitful within. Therefore, even though you have heard bitter things in history, you have recognized harshness in the example, nevertheless hope for fruitful things in the mystery. Adultery, I say, was done in the example of salvation; for not all adultery is to be condemned. Finally, it is said to the Prophet: Go, take for yourself a prostitute as a wife (Hosea 1:2). The Lord commands this, that there may be marriage with her who has committed adultery, of which marriage, as we said above (above, chapter 9 of this book), Christ is the offspring. For the son who was born from fornication, the name Jezrahel was given by the Lord, which is a divine generation. So if that pious union of fornication is indeed a pious union of adulterous society. But that is of the Jews. However, I dare not name the divine ones as pious adultery, although it is pious, lest the sound of the word offend anyone, although the sense of reverence is evident; however, it can be said more cautiously, although not more explicitly, that a pious connection was made from disparate unions when the Word became flesh. For there is no legitimate union of divinity and flesh; and just as the flesh and soul are joined in a certain agreement of nature, so also the divinity and flesh of the righteous observe, in a certain way, the law of marriage. God took on flesh, assumed a soul, and through an unprecedented and illegitimate incarnation, made the union to be legitimate, so that God may be all in all.

51. Finally, so that you may know that it is a mystery, interpret the words. For you receive David as a type of Christ, Bathsheba is indeed called daughter of the Sabbath, or daughter full, or the well of an oath. What, then, could be more explicit than the fact that the daughter of the Sabbath is the flesh of Christ; for God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the Law? She is also called full, because in His passion there is the fullness of the Law, or because she is full of the grace of the Holy Spirit. For Jesus, filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan. Likewise, the well of the oath, that is, of religion and faith. And it is a good well, because living waters flow from its womb. Therefore, God the Word, taking this upon Himself, made it a legitimate bond; a mystery which those nuptials in the Song of Songs signify, in which the Church is joined to Christ and the flesh to the Spirit. And thus, the wounded, the naked, the adulteress in all things, though immaculate in Christ, the miserable flesh sought a redeemer.


52. Christ joined himself to her, in order to make her spotless: he united himself with her, in order to remove adultery. And because he was under the Law, it was necessary for him to die, so that he could be freed from the Law, and so that through that death, the marriage of the Law and the flesh could be dissolved. Therefore, the flesh died in Christ, so that we, who have been deadened to the Law through the body of Christ, as the Apostle said (Rom. VII, 4), might become those who have risen from the dead, and that the passions and desires of the flesh, and the thoughts of sins that were in our members because of the Law, might die in that death; but we, freed from the law of death, as a new bond of Christ, might rise again in the newness of spirit.


53. And yet those who violated the Law in the flesh of Christ and thought it should be violated were all killed by the warriors at David's command. By this evidence it is shown that what they taught later was a sign, that none of those who killed Christ escaped; and this is most clearly revealed, that those whom Jesus had taken before his death, like the Jews, perished as children and infants: but those whom he admitted into the number of sons after his death, are saved in the kingdom. According to this mystery, it is fitting that the first birth among the Jews was weak, so that later an eternal fruit could be born among Christians.

Caput XI.

The parable of Nathan is proposed, and it is understood morally, and soon it is translated allegorically.

54. But now let us move on to the message. For in the previous days we had discussed with us about that infamous adultery and murder of David the prophet, and having gone through the mysteries, we found not only nothing to condemn, but also something to praise. Now the discussion begins about the message which the title of the previous psalm, often repeated, indicates. For it is written as follows: Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba (Psalm 50:1).


And so this part of the story must be told, which is as follows. There were a rich man and a poor man living in the same city (2 Samuel 12:1 et seq.). The rich man had many cattle and many sheep; the poor man had only one sheep, which he nourished with bread and wine and kept in his bosom. A guest came to the rich man; the rich man did not take anything from his own cattle or his own flocks, but killed the one sheep of the poor man. When David learned of this, he said, 'That man shall surely die, and he shall restore the lamb fourfold.' Then Nathan said to him, 'You are the man!' After that, he opened to him the heavenly command, saying that the Lord had commanded many good things to him, that is, royal possessions, taking away from the number of the shepherds, and that he had poured out his mercy upon him. And because he had angered the Lord with his sin, everything would be taken away from him, plundered by enemies, and his house would be laid waste. Then he said, 'I have sinned.' And Nathan replied, 'Since you confess your sin, the Lord will forgive you; but your son who was born of Bathsheba will die.' When his son was sick, David wept, lay on the ground, covered himself with sackcloth, fasted. When he learned of his son's death, he rose, washed, ate, and comforted others.

See how many things. First of all, because God is kind and merciful, we accept the adversities that happen to us as the price of our error. Therefore, we have learned that captivity is the price of sin; for this is the punishment for the crime. Then we notice that the downfall of kings is the punishment of peoples. For just as we are saved by their virtue, so we are also endangered by their error. Hence it is desirable for us to be able to have a glorious and perfect king. Therefore, if we want to have a perfect king, do we not want to have a perfect Lord? Or can those who do not want God to be perfect desire man to be perfect? This also briefly demonstrates the workings of the story, so that we may note how quickly hope follows forgiveness. But there is no small significance to what Nathan the prophet denounces, that is, the lesser prophet. For indeed, it is serious shame and modesty of a sin to be reproved by someone of lower status. You see that fault diminishes grace. Nathan knew what David did not know: his mind was so clouded by a certain cloud of vices. Then there is Nathan, who in previous times prophesied to David, having been accepted by the Lord; so that he might grieve for the sin being rebuked by the same person by whom his merit had been praised.

57. But now let us investigate the mystery. There were two men, he says, in one city, one rich and the other poor (2 Kings 12:1). Who is this rich or poor man, if not perhaps one Jewish people and the other Christian people? That one is rich in the Law, rich in the words of God entrusted to him, rich in prophecies, rich in oracles; but this one is poor. But do not shun this poverty, for the kingdom of heaven follows it. For it is written: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3). Good poverty, which does not lose what it has. Good poverty, which if it does not have the treasures of money, nevertheless has the treasures of knowledge and wisdom. Sons, do not despise poverty as if it were worthless. This poor man cried out, and the Lord heard him (Psalm 34:7). Do not envy great wealth: The rich have become poor and hungry (ibid., 11). But if you want to have good things, seek the Lord: Those who seek the Lord will not lack any good thing (ibid.). Therefore, do not refuse every poor person. Peter was poor, and he did not have a coin to give; but he gave a more valuable gift than all money: salvation. That poor man was Lazarus in the Gospel (Luke 16:19 et seq.); but the one who lay before, rich in purple and fine linen, desired to be refreshed by the finger of the poor man after the end of life. Although that proud man, adorned with royal purple and fine clothes, despised the wounds of the poor man and abhorred the poor man, he, being placed in hell, desired to have been in the same place as Lazarus. In this passage, it does not seem to be describing a rich or poor person in terms of money, but rather a poor person who, for faith and devotion, is not afraid of suffering bodily wounds and enduring hunger and fasting.

Since the Jewish people had many flocks of sacrificial animals, yet he chose to take one small lamb that the poor people had, subjecting it to glorious suffering. Do you want to know which lamb? He was led like a lamb to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7), he was nourished with the bread of the poor, he used the drink of the poor, and he slept in the bosom of the poor. He used our food, he rested in the lap of our hearts. For he remembered that he could not find rest in the bosom of the Jews, saying: The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head (Luke 9:58).

And the guest came, he said, to that rich man. Who is this guest, if not a miserable sin? For indeed guilt entered into this world like a guest, foreign and alien to our nature. Therefore, he did not offer a sacrifice from his own flock; but he took the little lamb of the poor, and killed it. Although the passion of that sacrifice may have benefited some for their salvation; yet it seems to them to have been the nourishment of their own madness, and the food of guilt, and an incentive to sin. Finally, Judas received the bread from Christ, and then he was even more filled with the devil; because he did not accept in faith, he who was preparing betrayal for such a hospitable Lord.

60. And David became angry at that man. We said that the people of the Jews are declared through the Prophet, and therefore condemns himself under this figure. That man is worthy of death who did this, and he will restore the little sheep fourfold, that is, the people of the Jews will perish, but the Christian people will enjoy more abundant goods; because the status that is owed from the resurrection is more excellent than present circumstances.

61. It was my intention, that you might deign to remember, to speak against those who think that David should be accused of murder and adultery, and for me to respond in my own words: and so our course of discussion turned out with the support of your unity in such a way that it seemed to deserve to be preached by the mouth of all, which we thought could not be defended. But since our holy man does not need our help, let him now speak for himself to you, and let his actions be defended by his own words.

Caput XII.

David confesses his sin to God, composing Psalm 50, in which several verses are explained; first, it is asked what great mercy is and how great a multitude of mercies there are; then it is taught that only God can forgive our iniquities, which cannot be hidden, as David himself confesses. Finally, it becomes clear that the Arians fall into the impiety of the Manicheans.


62. Have mercy on me, O Lord, according to your great mercy. (Psalm 50:3). Perhaps, dear brothers, this conjunction of words is new, that it should be said 'according to your great mercy'. I do not easily recall having read it elsewhere, and therefore we will not easily say what great mercy is. However, we do read about the great power of God. And therefore, by considering what great power is, we can infer what great mercy he wanted to designate. For we read in the Holy Jeremiah: Who are you, Lord? You have made heaven and earth, in your great power and with your outstretched arm (Jer. XXXII, 17). Therefore, great power has made heaven. What is this great power; of the Father or of the Son? It is certainly the great power of the Father; for he made heaven and earth through the Son, as you have: In the beginning God created heaven and earth (Gen. I, 1). However, the Son is also of great power. For when you read of the power of the Father, the Son, as you have, is Christ, the wisdom and power of God, and certainly since the Son is the power of the Father, he is of great power. Therefore, since the Almighty is denied, whom we confess to be the great power of God? Therefore, this great power made the heavens; because the Son made the heavens, as you have: All things were made by him (John I, 3). Therefore, if both the Father and the Son made, certainly the unity of their operation indicates unity. Therefore, the operation of the Father and the Son does not differ. But if there is one operation, certainly there is one power of operation, and there is one majesty of the works. This is about the Father and the Son.

63. Why then do we remain silent about the Spirit, especially when the divine Scripture does not allow us to remain silent? For it provides the most opportune testimony to the unity of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, so that we may not separate His operation from the work of the Father and the Son. For we read that there is great power in the Father, who made the heavens; and there is also great power in the Son, who also made the heavens: not only did He make them, but He also established them. For by the word of the Lord the heavens were established (Psalm 32:6). Therefore, if both the creation and the establishment of the heavens are of great power, we cannot separate the Holy Spirit from the majesty of great power; for it is written: 'And by the breath of his mouth, all their power.' (Ibid.). For when the heavens and the earth were created, the Spirit was borne; as the prophet David also says elsewhere: 'Send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created.' (Psalm 103:13). Of whom he also said elsewhere: 'For I will see your heavens, the works of your fingers.' (Psalm 8:4). For God did not create heaven and earth with physical fingers, but with the sevenfold grace of the Spirit, namely that finger about which you have in the Gospel: But if I cast out devils by the finger of God (Luke 11:20). For elsewhere He called this finger the Spirit, as you have: But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God (Matthew 12:28). Therefore, if the Spirit of God is a finger, since the arm of God is the Son, undoubtedly the Spirit, cooperating with the Father and the Son through the unity of operation, created heaven and earth. Therefore, the Son is called the Finger, so that as the unity of the body is expressed, so is the unity of divinity. Therefore, if great power created the heavens, surely great wisdom created the heavens, because it is written: You have made all things in wisdom (Psalm 103:24).

64. Therefore, we have learned what great virtue is, now let us gather what great mercy is. If great virtue made the heavens, and great mercy must be from heaven, and great justice must be from heaven; for justice looked down from heaven, and mercy came from heaven. Great mercy, therefore, has been made, because the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John I, 14). Therefore, great virtue made the heavens, great virtue inclined the heavens, as we read: And he inclined the heavens and came down (Psalm XVII, 10). Whereby it is shown that the Son of God, never devoid of His divinity, nor when He dwelt among men; for although He assumed what He was not, He did not cease to be what He was. Therefore, when it is said: And He inclined the heavens and came down, it does not seem so much that He descended from heaven, as that He descended with heaven itself. For when the Father addressed the Son while situated on earth, and the angels ministered, it seems that the Son of God did not so much change the abode as transfer it. Therefore, we have learned that mercy is great.

Therefore, if it is a great mercy that has descended from heaven, we must understand and distinguish the multitude of mercies. For it follows: 'According to the multitude of your mercies, wipe away my iniquity' (Psalm 50:3). These two verses do not have the same meaning. The first is referring to the Incarnation, while the second seems to refer to the injuries that the Son of God suffered in the flesh, because he fasted, he hungered, he wept, he was beaten, he was crucified, he died, and he was buried. For these are the insignia of the flesh, not of divinity. And it was necessary, in order to drive away the multitude of sufferings, that the multitude of mercies would be of benefit to us in the struggle of the Lord's passion.

For he did not remove his own sins, for he had committed no sin; but because he became sin, our sins had to be removed, as David said: Remove my iniquity. What does remove mean? Let us consider this word; for it is not idle. Moreover, elsewhere he says: I am the one who removes your iniquities, and I will not remember (Isaiah XLIII, 25). Indeed, there are certain deep-seated wounds of our conscience, and certain scars of our minds and souls, which are covered by the ulcers of our errors. Therefore, it has its own characters and accents by which it is revealed: not something we invent with our own skill, but something we mark with the authority of prophecy. It is written, therefore; and where it is written, see: 'In the inscriptions of your heart,' he says (Jer. 17:1). That is, there the series of guilt is written, but also the form of virtue; not on stone tablets, but on carnal tablets of the heart. But the good things are not written with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; the wicked things, however, with an iron stylus and a diamond pen. Such is the nature of sin: it is written with an iron stylus, it is restrained by an iron rod, as it is written: You shall rule them with an iron rod (Psalm 2:9). There is another straight rod, the rod of your kingdom (Psalm 44:7): it punishes the guilty, it governs the innocent. Therefore, the fault is written: let us see where. Not outside, but inside your heart and your chest. For just as the word is close to your mouth and in your heart: so the figure of sin and the image of error are expressed in the hearts of the unbelievers. Therefore, both fault and virtue are within. And therefore the Lord says: 'I feel virtue has gone out from me' (Luke, 8:46), to show that good things proceed from the interior, and conversely, bad things come forth from the interior. For it is not what enters into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth' (Matthew, 15:11). For out of the heart come forth thoughts, and therefore beware that evil thoughts do not come forth from your heart, which will accuse and condemn you in the future. For God does not need witnesses or arguments to convict you: your own fault accuses and betrays you.

67. Then in this psalm David says well: And my sin is always against me (Psalm 50:5). Woe to me, for I desire to hide, and I cannot hide! For how can I hide, who carry within my heart the inscriptions of my own sinful acts? On that day of judgment, the heart of each person will be laid bare, with their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them. On the day when the Lord judges the secrets of men, everything will be revealed. What shame is that, when that which we thought hidden is exposed to all; when each image of wrongdoing begins to reveal itself, so that each is convicted by the series of his own crimes? What shame is it when you see that one whom you judged contemptible in this world, is seen to be exalted; your servant, whom you thought inept and incapable according to the cunning of this world, you now know to be honored by the wealth of his simplicity? Therefore, while we live, let us take refuge in him who can erase sin. Do not fear what is written with an iron stylus and a diamond nail; for here he broke down iron gates and gates made of adamant, and do not fear to admit fault.

68. David confessed, he acknowledged his iniquity, he acknowledged his error; and therefore he said: For I acknowledge my iniquity. David acknowledges, and you do not acknowledge? David confesses, and you deny? Paul proclaims himself guilty, and you assert yourself innocent? Therefore, there is no greater place for shame, when there are associations mixed with many sins; if, however, we follow the desire to correct. Nor should you fear again that the confession of guilt will be held against you for punishment. For God, who is both good and merciful, is accustomed not only to forgive the sins of those who confess them, but also to bestow rewards on those who correct them; if, however, each person seeks to be given what they understand is not hidden. Therefore, confess your iniquities, that you may be justified (Isaiah 43:26). This is the voice of God, who is willing to forgive; this is the voice of God, who promises to destroy your sin.

69. David says to you, 'I have sinned and done evil before you.' This means that even if humans cannot see, you see; even if humans cannot judge me, because they are participants in the offenses, you are still the judge of each individual, because you are free from offenses. Although harmful thoughts may hide in the innermost heart, they are still before you, who can say, 'Why do you think evil thoughts in your hearts?' (Matthew 9:4) Christ himself says this. Therefore, whoever knows what is written in the heart can erase whatever is written in the heart. Our David confesses not only to have sinned in himself, but also in the first man, while divine precepts were being disregarded.

70. Moreover, dear brethren, it is allowed to turn one's attention to the fact that all heresies, while they attack one another, recur within themselves. Thus the Arians, while separating the power of the Father and the Son, fiercely fall into the outcome of dispute, so that their assertion coincides with that of the Manichaeans, for those ones say that there is one God of the Old Testament and another of the New. This profane assertion the holy Church condemns, which acknowledges one God, because there is one God the Father from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus through whom are all things (1 Corinthians 8:6). Certainly the all-powerful power is declared as both the Father and the Son, so that we do not separate the grace of the New Testament from the Father, nor do we separate the Son from the restoration of the world.

71. Finally, let us consider whether the same God is the creator of both Testaments. Indeed, we all sinned in the first man, and through the succession of nature, the succession of guilt is also transmitted from one to all. In whom, then, did I sin? In the Father or in the Son? Surely in the one who believed in me, because I sinned by not keeping the commandment. It was commanded to man to taste everything that was in paradise, but not to touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen., II, 17). Therefore, Adam is in each of us. For in him human nature fell, because through one man sin passed into all. I see the highest trust that has been given to me; I see the weight of transgression that I have taken on while tasting forbidden and prohibited things. Hence, I must pay interest on the entrusted fate; because spotless faith could not preserve the interest of heavenly commands.

72. We have recognized the one who is believed, let us also recognize the one who believes. For it is the right of the creditor to demand and to release; and therefore the one who has the right to demand also releases. So when Christ says to me in the Gospel: Your sins are forgiven you (Luke 5:20), do I not understand Him as the Lord of mercy, whom I acknowledge as the judge of forgiveness? Or if the Father believed and the Son released, not by unity, as we say, but as the Arians assert, by a difference of power: did a different God believe and a different God release? Where they rush in to not escape the treachery of the Manicheans. Then by calling the one good God, they should take note of the snares of their own madness. If it is good, the one who believed, then how is it not good, the one who relaxed? Therefore, they have a share with the Arians, into whose assertion they come. It is not surprising if the one who once began to stray from the truth, becomes entangled in the bonds of another's error.

73. And therefore there is one opinion, which destroys all the schemes of the heretics, that we believe in the Trinity of one power, majesty and virtue; and therefore let us not separate the Father from what the Son has done, nor let us separate the Son from what the Father has commanded. For in this way, we will not introduce two gods, one of the Old Testament and another of the New Testament, but through the unity of power, both the Son is understood in the Father, and the Father is understood in the Son; and the Son is enthroned in the Father, and the Father is revealed in the Son. For the Father also forgives sin: We have already said that He has forgiven the Son.

74. Take heed that the Father also sends. Forgive, he says, our debts, as we also forgive our debtors (Matt. 6:12). Indeed, the Son says this in our person to the Father. And he does not say this as if he himself cannot forgive, but he says this so that you may understand the unity of power.

75. Finally, if you seek authority in the Son: 'Now you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you', he says (John 15:3). He dismisses with a word, he dismisses with a command, but he dismisses with reason, saying: 'Go, and from now on do not sin anymore' (John 5:14). You have authority, because he has given the old; you have judgment, because he has prescribed the future.