^[p.129] Homily 7

Concerning what was commanded to Aaron and his sons that “they not drink wine or strong drink when they go into the Tent of Witness or when they approach the altar”; and concerning “the breast of presentation and the limb of separation”¹ and about clean and unclean animals and foods.²

 De eo, quod mandatum est Aaron et filiis eius, ut 'vinum et siceram non bibant, cum ingrediuntur tabernaculum testimonii, vel cum accedunt ad altare', et de 'pectusculo appositionis et bracchio separationis' et de mundis et immundis animalibus vel cibis

Many things, certainly, were read to us in the preceding lesson only a few of which, limited by the brevity of the time, we spoke about fully. For now we are engaged not in the ministry of expounding the Scriptures but in that of edifying the Church. Although from these which were treated before by us, every wise hearer can find clear paths of understanding. For this reason, from these also which now we read, since we cannot cover everything, let us draw together some things which will edify the hearers as the little flowers “of a fertile field which the Lord blessed.”³

1. Plura quidem superiori lectione fuerant recitata, ex quibus temporis brevitate constricti pauca admodum diximus.  Non enim nunc exponendi scripturas, sed aedificandi ecclesiam ministerium gerimus, quamvis et ex his, quae a nobis ante tractata sunt, prudens quisque auditor evidentes ad intelligendum possit semitas invenire.  Et ideo ex his quoque, quae nunc lecta sunt, quoniam cuncta non possumus, aliqua tamen, quae aedificent auditores, velut 'aegri pleni, quem benedixit Dominus', flosculos colligemus.    

(2) Let us see, therefore, what this may be what was just read to us. “And the Lord spoke to Aaron saying, You and your sons with you will not drink wine or strong drink when you go into the Tent of Witness or when you approach the altar and you will not die. This is an eternal law for your descendants: to discern between the sacred and profane, and between the clean and the unclean, and to teach the sons of Israel all the laws which the Lord spoke to them through the hand of Moses.”⁴

Quid ergo sit, quod nunc nobis lectum est, videamus.  "Et locutus est Dominus ad Aaron dicens: vinum et siceram non bibetis tu et filii tui te cum, cum intrabitis in tabernaculum testimonii, aut cum acceditis ad altare, et non moriemini.  Legitimum aeternum in progenies vestras, discernere inter medium sanctorum et contaminatorum et inter medium immundorum et inter medium mundorum et instruere filios Istrahel omnia legitima, quae locutus est Dominus ad eos per manum Moysi".  

(3) A clear law is given both to the priests and to the chief priest that “when they approach the altar they abstain from wine and from every drink which can make them drunk”  ^[p.130] which the divine Scripture has the habit of calling by the common name, “strong drink.” Thus, the divine word wants the priests of the Lord to be sober in all things that those who “approach the altar of God to pray for the people”⁵ ought also to intervene for transgressions of others who do not have a share in the earth, but “the Lord” himself is “their portion.” The Scripture says this about them: “You will not give the sons of Levi a part with their brothers because their portion is the Lord God.”⁶ Therefore, he wants those to whom “the Lord is their portion” to be sober, fasting, vigilant at all times, but especially when they are present at the altar to pray to the Lord and to offer sacrifices in his presence.

Lex evidens datur et sacerdotibus et principi sacerdotum, ut, 'cum accedunt ad altare, vino abstineant, et omni potu, quod inebriare potest', quod scripturae divinae appellatione vernacula 'sicera' moris est nominare.  Vult ergo sermo divinus sobrios in omnibus esse Domini sacerdotes, utpote qui 'accedentes ad altare' Dei 'orare pro populo' debeant et pro alienis intervenire delictis, qui portionem in terra non habeant, sed ipse 'Dominus portio eorum' sit.  Sic enim dicit de eis Scriptura: "filiis" inquit "Levi non dabitis partem in medio fratrum suorum, quia ego portio eorum Dominus Deus ipsorum". Vult ergo istos, quibus ipse ‘Dominus portio’ est, sobrios esse, ieiunos, vigilantes in omni tempore, maxime autem cum ad exorandum Dominum et sacrificandum in conspectu eius altaribus praesto sunt.

(4) These commands preserve their force and ought to be maintained in strict observance to such a degree that the Apostle also confirms these same things in the laws of the New Testament.⁷ In the same way, setting up the rules of life for the priests or the chief priests to this, he tells them they ought not to be enslaved “to much wine,” but to be “sober.”⁸ Sobriety is the mother of all virtues just as, on the other hand, drunkenness is the mother of all vices. For the Apostle openly proclaimed, “wine, in which is excess,”⁹ to show that excess is born from drunkenness as its firstborn daughter.

Quae mandata in tantum vim sui servant et omni observantia custodienda sunt, ut et Apostolus haec eadem novi testamenti legibus firmet.  In quo similiter etiam ipse sacerdotibus vel principibus sacerdotum vitae regulas ponens dicit eos ‘non’ debere esse ‘vino multo’ servientes, sed ‘sobrios’ esse.  Sobrietas vero omnium virtutum mater est, sicut e contrario ebrietas omnium vitiorum.  Aperte etenim pronuntiavit Apostolus dicens: “vinum, in quo est luxuria”, ut ostenderet ex ebrietate veluti primogenitam filiam generari luxuriam.

(5) Besides this, the Savior by his authority as Lord and King constituting laws and rules for the priests and for the people at the same time, says, “Take heed that your hearts not be oppressed in drunkenness and intoxication and in the cares of this world and that a sudden ruin does not come upon you.”¹⁰ You have heard the proclamation of the eternal king. You have learned the deplorable end of “drunkenness” or “intoxication.” If some skilled and wise physician should teach and speak these same words to you, “Take heed that no one, for example, take too greedily a drink from this or that herb, because if he should, a sudden ruin will come upon him,” I do not doubt that everyone would keep the prescriptions of the physician’s warning with respect to his own health. But  ^[p.131] now the Lord who is both the physician of souls and bodies orders them to avoid as a deadly drink the herb “of drunkenness” and the vice “of intoxication” and in like manner the care of worldly matters. I do not know if any one of us is not consumed in these so as not to say he is wounded.

Tum praeterea et Salvator Domini et regis auctoritate sacerdotibus simul et populis leges ac jura constituens: “attendite” inquit “ne forte graventur corda vestra in ebrietate et crapula et in sollicitudinibus saeculi, et veniat super vos subitaneus interitus”.  Audistis edictum regis aeterni et lamentabilem finem ‘ebrietatis’ vel ‘crapulae’ didicistis.  Si quis vobis peritus et sapiens medicus his ipsis verbis praeciperet et diceret: attendite vobis, ne qui, verbi gratia, de illius vel illius herbae suco avidius sumat; quod si fecerit, subitus ei veniet interitus: non dubito quod unusquisque propriae salutis intuitu praemonentis medici praecepta servaret.  Nunc vero animarum et corporum medicus simul que Dominus iubet ‘ebrietatis’ herbam et ‘crapulae’ vitandam, similiter et sollicitudinum saecularium velut mortiferos sucos cavendos. Et nescio si quis nostrum non in his consumitur, uti ne dixerim sauciatur.

(6) Therefore, drunkenness of wine is destructive in all things, for it is the only thing which weakens the soul along with the body. For in other things, according to the Apostle, it can happen that when the body “is weak,” then the spirit is “much stronger,”¹¹ and when “the exterior person is destroyed, the interior person is renewed.”¹² But in the illness of drunkenness the body and the soul are destroyed at the same time; the spirit is corrupted equally with the flesh. All the members are weakened, the feet, the hands; the tongue is loosened. Darkness covers the eyes; forgetfulness covers the mind so that one does not know himself nor does he perceive he is a person. Therefore, first, drunkenness of the body has that shamefulness.

Est ergo ebrietas vini perniciosa in omnibus; sola namque est, quae simul cum corpore et animam debilem reddat.  In ceteris etenim potest fieri, ut secundum Apostolum, cum ‘infirmatur’ corpus, tunc ‘magis potens sit’ spiritus, et ubi ‘is, qui deforis est, homo corrumpitur, ille, qui intus est, renovetur’.  In ebrietatis vero aegritudine corpus simul et anima corrumpitur, spiritus pariter cum carne vitiatur.  Omnia membra debilia, pedes manus, lingua resoluta; oculos tenebrae, mentem velat oblivio, ita ut hominem se nesciat esse nec sentiat. Habet ergo istud primo dedecoris corporalis ebrietas.

 (7) Now if we discuss every way in which the human mind is inebriated we shall even find those drunk who think they are sober. Anger inebriates the soul, but rage makes it more than drunk, if indeed anything can surpass drunkenness. Cupidity and avarice make a person not only drunk, but enraged. Obscene desires inebriate the soul just as, on the other hand, holy desires also inebriate it, but with that holy drunkenness about which some of the saints said, “How splendid is your inebriating cup!”¹³ Shortly we shall see about the diversity of drunkenness. In the meantime, see now how many things there are that inebriate the soul. Fear and vain suspicion inebriate it. Envy and spite weaken it more than any drunkenness. One cannot enumerate how many things there are that afflict the unfortunate soul by the vice of drunkenness.

Iam vero si discutiamus, quot modis mens inebriatur humana, inveniemus ebrios etiam eos, qui sibi sobrii videntur.  Iracundia inebriat animam, furor vero eam plus quam ebriam facit, si quid tamen esse ebrietate amplius potest.  Cupiditas et avaritia non solum ebrium, sed et rabidum hominem reddunt. Et obscoenae concupiscentiae inebriant animam, sicut e contrario et sanctae concupiscentiae inebriant eam, sed ebrietate sancta illa, de qua dicebat quidam sanctorum: “et poculum tuum inebrians quam praeclarum est”.  Sed postmodum de ebrietatis diversitate videbimus; nunc interim vide quanta sunt, quae inebriant animam: et formido inebriat eam et vana suspicio; invidia autem et livor supra omnem ebrietatem macerant eam.  Sed enumerari non possunt, quanta sunt, quae infelicem animam vitio ebrietatis afficiant.

(8) Now, in the meantime, let us see about the priests whom the Law commands to abstain from wine when they approach the altar. Indeed insofar as the historical precept is concerned,what was said is sufficient. But insofar as the mystical interpretation is concerned, our profession in the preceding is maintained—that, according to the authority of the Apostle Paul, our Lord and Savior is called “the high priest of the good things to come.”¹⁴ Thus, this one is “Aaron,” but “his sons” are his apostles to whom he himself was saying, “My little children, yet a little while I am with you.”¹⁵ Let us see how we can apply the fact that the Law commanded “Aaron and his sons not to drink wine or strong drink when they approach the altar”¹⁶ to the true high priest, Jesus Christ our Lord, and to his priests and sons, our apostles.

Nunc interim de sacerdotibus videamus, quos accedentes ad altare vino lex praecipit abstinere.  Et quidem quantum ad historicum pertinet praeceptum, sufficiant ista quae dicta sunt.  Quantum autem ad intelligentiam mysticam spectat, in superioribus nostra tenetur professio quod secundum auctoritatem Pauli Apostoli Dominus et Salvator noster ‘futurorum bonorum pontifex’ dicitur.  Ipse est ergo ‘Aaron’, ‘filii’ vero ‘eius’ Apostoli eius sunt, ad quos ipse dicebat: “filioli, adhuc modicum vobis cum sum”.  Quid ergo praecepit lex ‘Aaron et filiis eius’? Ut ‘vinum et siceram non bibant cum accedunt ad altare’.  Videamus, quomodo id vero pontifici Iesu Christo Domino nostro et sacerdotibus eius ac filiis, nostris vero Apostolis, possimus aptare.

(9) First, we must examine how prior to “approaching the altar” this true high priest drinks wine with his priests, but, when he begins “to approach the altar and go into the Tent of Witness,” he abstains from wine. Do you think we can find some kind of meaning from this act? Do you think we can adapt the forms of the old records to the acts and words of the New Testament? We can, if the Word of God sees fit to assist and to inspire us. Therefore, we seek how our Lord and Savior, who is the true high priest, drinks wine with his disciples, who are true priests, before “he approaches the altar” of God, but does not drink when he begins “to approach” it.

Et perspiciendum primo est, quomodo prius quidem quam ‘accedat ad altare’ verus hic pontifex cum sacerdotibus suis bibit vinum; cum vero incipit ‘accedere ad altare et ingredi in tabernaculum testimonii’, abstinet vino.  Putas possumus invenire tale aliquid ab eo gestum?  Putas possumus veteris instrumenti formas novi testamenti gestis et sermonibus coaptare?  Possumus, si nos ipsum Dei Verbum et iuvare et inspirare dignetur.  Quaerimus ergo, quomodo Dominus et Salvator noster, qui est verus pontifex, cum discipulis suis, qui sunt veri sacerdotes, antequam ‘accedat ad altare’ Dei, bibat vinum, cum vero ‘accedere’ coeperit, non bibat.

(10) The Savior had come into this world “to offer” his flesh “as an offering to God for our sins.”¹⁷ Before he offered this, during the period of time between the dispensations, he was drinking wine. Thence he was called “a voracious man, a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.”¹⁸ But when the time of his cross came and “he was about to approach the altar,” where he would sacrifice the offering of his flesh, it says, “Taking the cup he blessed it and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take, drink some of this.’“¹⁹ You, who presently are not about to approach the altar, he says, “drink.” Yet that one, as it were, “about to approach the altar,” says about himself,  ^[p.133] “Truly I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine until I drink it anew with you in the kingdom of my father.”²⁰

Venerat in hunc mundum Salvator, ut ‘pro peccatis nostris’ carnem suam ‘offerret hostiam Deo’.  Hanc priusquam offerret, inter dispensationum moras vinum bibebat. Hanc priusquam offerret, inter dispensationum moras vinum bibebat.  Denique dicebatur ‘homo vorax et vini potator, amicus publicanorum et peccatorum’.  Ubi vero tempus advenit crucis suae et ‘accessurus erat ad altare’, ubi immolaret hostiam carnis suae: “accipiens” inquit “calicem benedixit et dedit discipulis suis dicens: accipite, et bibite ex hoc”.  Vos, inquit, ‘bibite’, qui modo accessuri non estis ad altare.  Ipse autem tamquam ‘accessurus ad altare’ dicit de se: “Amen dico vobis quia non bibam de generatione vitis huius, usquequo bibam illud vobis cum novum in regno patris mei”.

(11) If anyone of you undertakes to hear with purified ears, let him observe the hiddenness of the unspeakable mystery. What is the meaning of the saying? “I will not drink from the fruit of this vine until I drink it anew with you in the kingdom of my Father.” In the preceding, we said the promise of this good drinking was given to the saints when they say, “How splendid your inebriating cup.”²¹ In many other passages of Scripture, we read similar things, for instance, “They will get drunk from the abundance of your house and you will give them a drink from the streams of your delights.”²² In Jeremiah the Lord also says, “And I will make my people drunk.’’²³ And Isaiah says, “Behold, those who serve me will drink but you will be thirsty.”²⁴ About this kind of drunkenness, you will find many reminders in the divine Scripture. This drunkenness is taken, without doubt, for the joy of the soul and the delight of the mind as in another place I remember that we distinguished that it is one thing to be drunk in the night²⁵ and another to be drunk in the day.

Si quis vestrum auribus ad audiendum purificatis accedit, ineffabilis mysterii intueatur arcanum.  Quid est quod dicit: “quia non bibam ex generatione vitis huius, usquequo bibam illud vobis cum novum in regno patris mei”?  Dicebamus in superioribus promissionem sanctis bonae huius ebrietatis datam, cum dicunt: “et poculum tuum inebrians, quam praeclarum est!” Sed et in aliis multis Scripturae locis similia legimus, ut ibi: “inebriabuntur ab ubertate domus tuae, et torrentem voluptatis tuae potum dabis illis”.  In Ieremia quoque dicit Dominus: “et inebriabo populum meum”. Et Esaias dicit: “ecce, qui serviunt mihi bibent, vos autem sitietis”.  Et multa de huiuscemodi ebrietate in scripturis divinis invenies memorari.  Quae ebrietas sine dubio pro gaudio animae et laetitia mentis accipitur, sicut et alibi distinxisse nos memini aliud esse nocte inebriari et aliud die inebriari.

2. Therefore, if we have understood what the drunkenness of the saints is, and how this is given in the promises for the delight of the saints, let us now see how our Savior drinks no wine “until he drinks it” with the saints “anew in the kingdom” of God.²⁶

2. Si ergo intelleximus, sanctorum quae sit ebrietas, et quomodo haec pro laetitia sanctis in promissionibus datur, videamus nunc, quomodo Salvator noster non bibit vinum, ‘usquequo bibat illud’ cum sanctis ‘novum in regno’ Dei.

(2.2) My Savior even now laments my sins. My Savior cannot rejoice while I continue in iniquity. Why not? Because he is “an advocate for our sins before the Father,” as John, his fellow priest, proclaims, saying that “if anyone should sin, we have an advocate before the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous; and he himself is the propitiation for our sins.”²⁷ How can this one, therefore, who is “an advocate for my sins,” drink the wine of joy when I sadden him by sinning? How can this  ^[p.134] one who “approaches the altar”²⁸ to sacrifice himself for my sins, be in joy when the sadness of my sins always ascends to him? He says, “I will drink it with you in my Father’s kingdom.”²⁹ As long as we do not act so that we may ascend to the kingdom, he cannot drink alone the wine which he promised to drink with us. Therefore, he is in sorrow as long as we persist in error. For if his Apostle “mourns for those who sinned before and did not repent for what they did,”³⁰ what will I say about that one who is called “the Son of love,”³¹ who “emptied himself”³² because of the love which he had for us? Although “he was equal with God,” he “did not seek his own well­being”³³ but he sought ours and “emptied himself”³⁴ on account of this. Since, therefore, he then sought our welfare, does he not now seek us and does he not think about our welfare? Does he not grieve about our errors and does he not weep over our ruin and griefs? This is he who wept over Jerusalem and said to her, “How many times have I wanted to gather together your sons as a hen gathers together her chicks and you would not let me?”³⁵ Thus, how can this one, who took our wounds and suffered for us as the physician of our souls and bodies, be indifferent at all to the rottenness of our wounds? For, as the prophet says, “our scars rotted and were destroyed by the shape of our foolishness.”³⁶

Salvator meus luget etiam nunc peccata mea.  Salvator meus laetari non potest, donec ego in iniquitate permaneo.  Quare non potest? Quia ipse est ‘advocatus pro peccatis nostris apud patrem’, sicut Iohannes symmista eius pronuntiat dicens quia “et si quis peccaverit, advocatum habemus apud patrem Iesum Christum iustum; et ipse est repropitiatio pro peccatis nostris”.  Quomodo ergo potest ille, qui ‘advocatus’ est ‘pro peccatis’ meis, bibere vinum laetitiae, quem ego peccando contristo?  Quomodo potest iste, qui ‘accedit ad altare’, ut repropitiet me peccatorem, esse in laetitia, ad quem peccatorum meorum maeror semper adscendit? “Vobis cum” inquit “illud bibam in regno patris mei”.  Quamdiu nos non ita agimus, ut adscendamus ad regnum, non potest ille vinum bibere solus, quod nobis cum se bibere promisit.  Est ergo tamdiu in maerore, quamdiu nos persistimus in errore.  Si enim Apostolus ipsius ‘luget quosdam, qui ante peccaverunt et non egerunt poenitentiam in his, quae gesserunt’, quid dicam de ipso, qui ‘filius’ dicitur ‘caritatis’, qui ‘semet ipsum exinanivit’ propter caritatem, quam habebat erga nos et ‘non quaesivit quae sua sunt’, cum ‘esset aequalis Deo’, sed quaesivit, quae nostra sunt, et propter hoc ‘evacuavit se’?  Cum ergo ita, quae nostra sunt, quaesierit, nunc iam nos non quaerit nec quae nostra sunt cogitat nec de erroribus nostris maeret nec perditiones nostras et contritiones deflet, qui flevit super ‘Ierusalem’ et dixit ad eam: “quotiens volui congregare filios tuos, sicut gallina congregat pullos suos, et noluisti”?  Qui ergo vulnera nostra suscepit et propter nos doluit tamquam animarum et corporum medicus, modo vulnerum nostrorum putredines negligit?  “Computruerunt” enim, ut ait propheta, “et corruptae sunt cicatrices nostrae a facie insipientiae nostrae”.

(2.3) For all these reasons, therefore, “he now stands before the face of God interceding for us.”³⁷ He stands before the altar to offer a propitiation to God for us. As he was about to approach that altar, moreover, he was saying, “I will not drink again from the fruit of this vine until I drink it anew with you.”³⁸ Therefore, he expects us to be converted, to imitate his example, to follow his footsteps, that he may rejoice with us and “drink wine with us in his Father’s kingdom.” For now because “the Lord is one who pities and is merciful,”³⁹ he  ^[p.135] “weeps with those who weep and desires to rejoice with those who rejoice”⁴⁰ with greater feeling than this Apostle. And how much more “this one mourns for those who have previously sinned and did not repent.”⁴¹ For we must not think that Paul is mourning for sinners and weeping for those who transgress, but Jesus my Lord abstains from weeping when he approaches the Father, when he stands at the altar and offers a propitiatory sacrifice for us. This is not to drink the wine ofjoy “when he ascends to the altar” because he is still bearing the bitterness of our sins. He, therefore, does not want to be the only one to drink wine “in the kingdom” of God. He waits for us, just as he said, “Until I shall drink it with you.”⁴² Thus we are those who, neglecting our life, delay his joy.

Pro his ergo omnibus ‘adsistit nunc vultui Dei’ ‘interpellans pro nobis’, adsistit altari, ut repropitiationem pro nobis offerat Deo; et ideo dicebat tamquam accessurus ad istud altare: “quia iam non bibam de generatione vitis huius, donec bibam illud vobis cum novum”.  Exspectat ergo, ut convertamur, ut ipsius imitemur exemplum, ut sequamur vestigia eius et laetetur nobis cum et ‘bibat vinum nobis cum in regno patris sui’. Nunc enim quia ‘misericors est et miserator Dominus’, maiore affectu ipse quam Apostolus suus ‘flet cum flentibus et cupit gaudere cum gaudentibus’.  Et multo magis ‘ipse luget eos, qui ante peccaverunt et non egerunt poenitentiam’.  Neque enim putandum est quod Paulus quidem lugeat pro peccatoribus et fleat pro delinquentibus, Dominus autem meus Iesus abstineat fletu, cum accedit ad patrem, cum adsistit altari et repropitiationem pro nobis offert; et hoc est ‘accedentem ad altare’ non bibere vinum laetitiae, quia adhuc peccatorum nostrorum amaritudines patitur.  Non vult ergo solus ‘in regno’ Dei bibere vinum; nos exspectat; sic enim dixit: “donec bibam illud vobis cum”.  Nos sumus igitur, qui vitam nostram negligentes laetitiam illius demoramur.

(2.4) He waits for us that he may drink “from the fruit of this vine.” Of what “vine”? Of that one of which he was a type: “I am the vine, you are the branches.”⁴³ Whence he also says, “My blood is true drink and my flesh is true food.”⁴⁴ For certainly, “he washes his robe in the blood of the grape.”⁴⁵ What is this? He awaits delight. When does he await it? He says, “when I shall have finished your work.”⁴⁶ When “does he finish this work”? When he makes me, who is the last and most vile of all sinners, complete and perfect, then “he finishes his work.” For now his work is still imperfect as long as I remain imperfect. And as long as I am not subjected to the Father, neither is he said to be “subjected”⁴⁷ to the Father. Not that he himself is in need of subjection before the Father but for me, in whom he has not yet completed his work, he is said not to be subjected, for, as we read, “we are the body of Christ and members in part.”⁴⁸

Exspectat nos, ut bibat ‘de generatione vitis huius’.  Cuius ‘vitis’? Illius, cuius ipse erat figura: “Ego sum vitis, vos palmites”.  Unde et dicit quia: “sanguis meus vere potus est, et caro mea vere cibus est”.  Vere enim ‘in sanguine uvae lavit stolam suam’. Quid ergo est? Exspectat laetitiam.  Quando exspectat? ‘Cum consummavero’, inquit, ‘opus tuum’.  Quando ‘consummat’ hoc ‘opus’? Quando me, qui sum ultimus et nequior omnium peccatorum, consummatum fecerit et perfectum, tunc ‘consummat opus eius’; nunc enim adhuc imperfectum est opus eius, donec ego maneo imperfectus.  Denique donec ego non sum subditus patri, nec ipse dicitur patri esse ‘subiectus’.  Non quo ipse subiectione indigeat apud patrem, sed pro me, in quo opus suum nondum consummavit, ipse dicitur non esse subiectus; sic enim legimus, quoniam ‘corpus sumus Christi et membra ex parte’.  

(2.5) Let us see what it is, however, that it meant “in part.” Now, for example, I am “subjected” to God according to the spirit, that is, by intention and free will. But as long as within me “the flesh strives against the spirit and the spirit against  ^[p.136] the flesh”⁴⁹ and I have not yet been able to subject the flesh to the spirit, certainly I am “subjected” to God, not in whole but “in part.” But if I could draw my flesh and all my other members into harmony with the spirit, then I will seem to be perfectly “subjected.”

Quid autem est, quod dixit ‘ex parte’, videamus. Ego nunc, verbi gratia, ‘subiectus’ sum Deo secundum spiritum, hoc est proposito et voluntate; sed quamdiu in me ‘caro concupiscit adversus spiritum et spiritus adversus carnem’ et nondum potui subicere carnem spiritui, ‘subiectus’ quidem sum Deo, verum non ex integro, sed ‘ex parte’. Si autem potuero etiam carnem meam et omnia membra mea in consonantiam spiritus trahere, tunc perfecte videbor esse ‘subiectus’.

(2.6) If you have understood what it is to be “subjected in part” and in whole, return now also to that which we set forth concerning the subjection of the Lord. See that, although we are all said to be his body and members, he is said not to be “subjected” as long as there are some among us who have not yet been subjected by the perfect subjection. But when “he shall have completed” his “work” and brought his whole creation to the height of perfection, then he is said to be “subjected” in these whom he subjected to the Father.⁵⁰ In these, “he finished the work that God had given him that God may be all in all.”⁵¹

Si intellexisti, quid sit ‘ex parte’ et quid sit ex integro esse ‘subiectum’, redi nunc et ad id, quod de subiectione Domini proposuimus, et vide quia, cum omnes corpus ipsius et membra esse dicamur, donec sunt aliqui in nobis, qui nondum perfecta subiectione subjecti sunt, ipse dicitur non esse ‘subiectus’. Cum vero ‘consummaverit opus’ suum et universam creaturam suam ad summam perfectionis adduxerit, tunc ipse dicitur ‘subiectus’ in his, quos subdidit patri, et in quibus ‘opus, quod ei pater dederat, consummavit’, ‘ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus’.

(2.7) But what is the purpose of all this? That we may understand what we treated above, how he does not drink wine or how he drinks it. He drinks before “he entered the Tent, before he approached the altar.”⁵² But he does not drink now because he stands at the altar and mourns for my sins. On the other hand, he will drink later, when “all things will have been subjected to him” and after the salvation of all and the death of sin is destroyed.⁵³ Then it will no longer be necessary to offer “sacrifices for sin.”⁵⁴ For then there will be joy and delight. Then “the humble bones will rejoice”⁵⁵ and what was written will be fulfilled: “Pain, sorrow and sighing flee away.”⁵⁶

Verum haec quorsum spectant? Ut intelligeremus id, quod supra tractavimus, quomodo non bibit vinum vel quomodo bibit; bibit, antequam ‘intraret in tabernaculum, antequam accederet ad altare’; non bibit autem nunc, quia adsistit altari et luget peccata mea; et rursum bibet post haec, ‘cum subiecta ei fuerint omnia’ et salvatis omnibus ac destructa morte peccati ultra iam necessarium non erit offerre ‘hostias pro peccato’.  Tunc enim erit gaudium et laetitia et tunc “exsultabunt ossa humiliata” et implebitur illud, quod scriptum est: “aufugit dolor et tristitia et gemitus”.

(2.8) But let us not omit that it is said not only about Aaron that “he should not drink wine,” but also about his sons when they enter the sanctuary.⁵⁷ For indeed even the apostles have not yet received their joy, but they also await that I may be a partaker of their joy. For the saints, when they leave this place, do not immediately obtain the whole rewards of their merits.

Sed et illud non omittamus, quod non solum de Aaron dicitur, ut ‘non bibat vinum’, sed et de filiis eius, cum ingrediuntur ad sancta.  Nondum enim receperunt laetitiam suam ne Apostoli quidem, sed et ipsi exspectant, ut et ego laetitiae eorum particeps fiam.  Neque enim discedentes hinc sancti continuo integra meritorum suorum praemia consequuntur; sed exspectant etiam nos, licet morantes, licet desides.

 Perhaps you not believe me when I say this. For who am I that I am so bold to confirm the meaning of such a doctrine? But I produce their witness about whom you cannot doubt. For the Apostle Paul is “the teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”⁵⁸ Therefore, in writing to the Hebrews, after he had enumerated all the holy fathers who were justified by faith, he adds after all that, “But those who had every witness through the faith did not yet obtain the new promise since God was looking forward toward something better for us that they might not obtain perfection without us.”⁵⁹ You see, therefore, that Abraham is still waiting to obtain the perfect things. Isaac waits, and Jacob and all the Prophets wait for us, that they may lay hold of the perfect blessedness with us.

 Hoc fortasse mihi dicenti non credas; quis enim ego sum, qui confirmare sententiam tanti dogmatis audeam? Sed adhibeo horum testem, de quo non potes dubitare: ‘Magister’ enim ‘gentium’ est ‘in fide et veritate’ Apostolus Paulus.  Ipse igitur ad Hebraeos scribens, cum enumerasset omnes sanctos patres, qui per fidem iustificati sunt, addit post omnia etiam hoc: “sed isti” inquit “omnes testimonium habentes per fidem nondum adsecuti sunt repromissionem, Deo pro nobis melius aliquid providente, uti ne sine nobis perfectionem consequerentur”.  Vides ergo quia exspectat adhuc Abraham, ut, quae perfecta sunt, consequatur.  Exspectat et Isaac et Iacob et omnes prophetae exspectant nos, ut nobis cum perfectam beatitudinem capiant.

(9) For this reason therefore, that mystery of the delayed judgment is also kept until the last day. For there is “one body”⁶⁰ which is waiting to be justified. There is “one body” that is said to rise from the dead in judgment. “For although there are many members, there is only one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, you are not necessary to me.”⁶¹ Likewise, if the eye is healthy and is not troubled in what pertains to seeing, if the rest of the members are absent, what delight will there be for the eye? Or how can it seem to be perfect if it does not have a hand, if the feet are absent, or the other members are not present? For is there is some excellent glory of the eye, it is particularly in this: that either it is the leader of the body or it is not abandoned by the functions of the other members. I think this is what is taught to us through that vision of the prophet Ezekiel when he says that “bone must be joined to bone, joint to joint, and nerves and veins and skin,”⁶² and each must be restored to its place. Next, see what the prophet adds: “These bones”—he did not say, all men are, but he said “these bones”—”are the house of Israel.”^{63  [p.138]} Therefore, you will have delight when you depart this life if you are holy. But then the delight will be full when you lack none of the members of the body. For you will wait for others just as you also are waited for.

Propter hoc ergo etiam mysterium illud in ultimam diem dilati iudicii custoditur.  ‘Unum’ enim ‘corpus’ est, quod iustificari exspectatur; ‘unum corpus’ est, quod resurgere dicitur in iudicio.  “Licet enim sint multa membra, sed unum corpus; non potest dicere oculus manui: non es mihi necessaria”.  Etiam si sanus sit oculus et non sit turbatus, quantum pertinet ad videndum, si desint ei reliqua membra, quae erit oculo laetitia?  Aut quae videbitur esse perfectio, si manus non habeat, si pedes desint aut reliqua membra non adsint? Aut quae videbitur esse perfectio, si manus non habeat, si pedes desint aut reliqua membra non adsint?  Quia et si est praecellens aliqua oculi gloria, in eo maxime est, ut vel ipse dux sit corporis vel ceterorum membrorum non deseratur officiis.  Hoc autem nos et per illam Ezechiel prophetae visionem doceri puto, cum dicit ‘congregandum esse os ad os, et iuncturam ad iuncturam et nervos et venas et pellem’ ac singula locis suis esse reparanda.  Denique vide, quid addit propheta: “ossa” inquit “ista” (non dixit: omnes homines sunt, sed dixit: “ossa ista)” “domus Istrahel sunt”.

(10) Because if the delight does not seem to be complete for you who are a member, if another member is missing, how much more does our Lord and Savior, who is “the head”⁶⁴ and the originator of the whole body, consider his delight to be incomplete as long as he sees one of the me mbers to be missing from his body. And for this reason, perhaps, he poured out this prayer to the Father: “Holy Father, glorify me with that glory that I had with you before the world was.”⁶⁵ Thus, he does not want to receive his complete glory without us, that is, without his people who are his body and his members. For he himself wants to live in this body of his Church and in these members of his people as in their soul that he can have all impulses and all works according to his own will, so that that saying of the prophet may be truly fulfilled in us, “I will live in them and walk [among them].”⁶⁶

Habebis ergo laetitiam de hac vita discedens, si fueris sanctus. Sed tunc erit plena laetitia, cum nullum tibi membrum corporis deest.  Exspectabis enim et tu alios, sicut et ipse exspectatus es.  Quod si tibi, qui membrum es, non videtur esse perfecta laetitia, si desit aliud membrum, quanto magis Dominus et Salvator noster, qui ‘caput’ et auctor est totius corporis, non sibi perfectam ducit esse laetitiam, donec aliquid ex membris deesse corpori suo videt! Et propterea forte orationem fundebat ad patrem dicens: “Pater sancte, glorifica me illa gloria, quam habui apud te, priusquam mundus esset”. Non vult ergo sine te recipere perfectam gloriam suam, hoc est sine populo suo, qui est corpus eius et qui sunt membra eius. Non vult ergo sine te recipere perfectam gloriam suam, hoc est sine populo suo, qui est corpus eius et qui sunt membra eius.  Vult enim in isto corpore ecclesiae suae et in istis membris populi sui ipse velut anima habitare, ut omnes motus atque omnia opera secundum ipsius habeat voluntatem; ut vere compleatur in nobis illud prophetae dictum: “habitabo in iis et inambulabo”.

(11) Now, however, as long as we are not all “perfected,” and “are still in [our] sins,”⁶⁷ he is in us “in part.” For this reason, “we know in part and we prophesy in part”⁶⁸ until each one is worthy to come to that measure which the Apostle says, “I live, but it is no longer I, for Christ lives in me.”⁶⁹ Therefore, “in part,” as the Apostle says, now “we are his members”⁷⁰ and “in part we are his bones.”

Nunc autem, donec ‘perfecti’ non sumus omnes, sed ‘adhuc sumus in peccatis’, ‘ex parte’ in nobis est et ideo “ex parte scimus et ex parte prophetamus”, donec quis pervenire mereatur ad illam mensuram, quam dicit Apostolus: “vivo autem iam non ego, vivit vero Christus in me”.  ‘Ex parte’ ergo, ut dicit Apostolus, nunc ‘membra eius sumus’ et ‘ex parte’ ‘ossa eius sumus’.

(12) But when “bones will have been joined to bones and joints to joints,”⁷¹ as we said above, then this one will also speak that prophecy about us: “All my bones will say, ‘Lord, who is like you?’“ For indeed “all the bones” say this, and sing a hymn, and give thanks to God. For they will remember his kindness and also “all my bones will say, ‘Lord, who is like you? You deliver the poor person from a hand stronger than his.’“^{72   [p.139]} About these bones, since they were scattered before he came who “collects and brings them together in one,”⁷³ this prophetic word was said: “Our bones are scattered in Hell.”⁷⁴ It is because they were scattered that he says through another prophet, “Let bone be joined to bone, and joint to joint, and nerves and veins and skin.”⁷⁵ For when this is done, then “all these will say, ‘Lord, who is like you? You deliver the weak person from a hand stronger than his.’“ For each bone of “those bones” was weak and was being worn away by the hand of someone “stronger.” For it did not have “the joint” of charity, nor “the nerves” of patience, nor “the veins” of the vital soul and the vigor of faith. But when he comes, he who “draws together what was dispersed and joins together what was scattered,” connecting “bone to bone, and joint to joint,” he begins to build up the holy body of the Church.

Cum autem ‘coniuncta fuerint ossa ad ossa et iuncturae ad iuncturas’, secundum hoc quod supra diximus, tunc etiam ipse dicet de nobis illud propheticum: omnia ossa mea dicent: Domine, quis similis tibi?”  ‘Omnia’ namque ‘ossa’ ista loquuntur et hymnum dicunt et gratias agunt Deo.  Meminerunt enim beneficii eius et ideo “omnia ossa mea dicent: Domine, quis similis tibi?  Eripiens pauperem de manu fortioris eius”.  De istis ossibus, cum adhuc essent dispersa, antequam veniret, qui ea ‘colligeret et congregaret in unum’, dictum est et illud propheticum: “dispersa sunt ossa nostra secus infernum”. Quia ergo dispersa erant, propterea dicit per alium prophetam: “congregetur os ad os et iunctura ad iuncturam et nervi et venae et pelles”.  Cum enim hoc factum fuerit, tunc ‘omnia ista dicent: Domine, quis similis tibi?  Eripiens inopem de manu fortioris eius’.  Unumquodque enim os ex ‘istis ossibus’ inops erat et atterebatur ‘fortioris’ manu.  Non enim habebat ‘iuncturam’ caritatis, non ‘nervos’ patientiae, non ‘venas’ vitalis animi et fidei vigorem.  Ubi vero venit, qui ‘dispersa colligeret’ et qui ‘dissipata coniungeret’ consocians ‘os ad os et iuncturam ad iuncturam’, aedificare coepit sanctum corpus ecclesiae.

(13) These things, certainly, fell outside of this explication but by necessity they were explained that the entry into the sanctuary by my high priest, not drinking wine as long as he performs the priestly duty, might become clearer. Yet after these things he will drink wine, but “new wine,” and “a new wine” in “a new heaven and new earth” and in “a new person” with “new people” and with those who “sing a new song”⁷⁶ to him. You see, therefore, that it is impossible for him to drink the new cup of the new life who still “is clothed by the old person with his deeds.” “For no one,” it says, “puts new wine into old wine skins.” Therefore, if you want to drink from this “new wine,” renew yourself and say, “If our outer person is destroyed, the inner person is renewed from day to day.”⁷⁷ Certainly this statement is sufficient concerning these things.

Haec inciderunt quidem extrinsecus huic disputationi, sed necessario explanata sunt, ut manifestior fieret pontificis mei ingressus in sancta non bibentis vinum, usquequo sacerdotio fungitur.  Post haec tamen bibet vinum, sed ‘vinum novum’; et ‘vinum novum’ in ‘coelo novo et in nova terra’ et in ‘novo homine’ cum ‘hominibus novis’ et cum his, qui ‘cantant’ ei ‘canticum novum’.  Vides ergo quia impossibile est de nova vite novum poculum bibi ab eo, qui adhuc ‘indutus est veterem hominem cum actibus suis’.  “Nemo enim” inquit “mittit vinum novum in utres veteres”.  Si vis ergo et tu bibere de hoc ‘novo vino’, innovare et dic quia: “et si exterior homo noster corrumpitur, sed qui intus est, renovatur de die in diem”.  Et quidem de his sufficienter dictum.

3. There are also many other things that were read. But since we cannot speak about everything, we must choose which of these we ought to talk about. Since we spoke as best we could about what it was to drink and not to drink wine, now let us also see what it is to eat “the breast of separation and the  ^[p.140] limb of taking away.” After this, inasmuch as the Lord should allow and there should be a space of time, let us speak about both clean and unclean things, either of food or animals.

3. Multa sunt et alia, quae recitata sunt.  Sed quoniam cuncta non possumus, eligendum est, de quibus dicere debeamus.  Et quoniam quid esset bibere et non bibere vinum, pro viribus diximus, nunc quid sit etiam comedere ‘pectusculum separationis et bracchium ablationis’, videamus.  Et post haec de mundis et immundis vel cibis vel animalibus, in quantum Dominus dederit et temporis spatium fuerit, disseremus.

(2) The Scripture says, “You will eat the breast of separation and the limb of taking away in a holy place. For the rule was given to you and your sons concerning the salutary sacrifices of the sons of Israel, the limb of removal, and the breast of separation.”⁷⁸ Not every breast is “the breast of separation,” and not every limb is “the limb of taking away” or “of separation.” But since we applied the person of the high priest to Jesus my Lord and the holy apostles to his sons, let us see how this one and his sons eat “the breast of separation,” but all the others cannot eat “the breast of separation.”

Dicit ergo Scriptura: “pectusculum segregationis et bracchium ablationis manducabis in loco sancto, tu et filii tui et domus tua te cum; legitimum enim tibi et legitimum filiis tuis datum est de sacrificiis salutaribus filiorum Istrahel, bracchium ablationis et pectusculum segregationis”.  Non omne pectusculum ‘segregationis’ est ‘pectusculum’ nec omne bracchium ‘ablationis’ vel ‘separationis’ est ‘bracchium’. Non omne pectusculum ‘segregationis’ est ‘pectusculum’ nec omne bracchium ‘ablationis’ vel ‘separationis’ est ‘bracchium’.

(3) What is it, therefore, that is separated from all things and is not common with the rest, except the substance of the Trinity alone? If, therefore, I can understand the rationale for the world I cannot also understand about God, as is worthy, since if the knowledge of God has not been revealed to me, I can certainly eat a breast, but not “the breast of separation.” Likewise, if I could say, “For he gave me true knowledge of all that is that I may know the reason of the world and the virtue of the elements; the beginning, the end, and the middle of time; the alternation of the solstices and the change of seasons; the cycles of the year and the positions of the stars;”⁷⁹ knowledge of all this that is rational is the food of the breast but not “of the breast of separation.” But if I could know from God the things that are great, that are holy, that are true and secret, then I will eat the breast of separation, since I would know that which stands out and is separated from all creatures. Therefore, first, my true high priest “eats” that “breast.” How “does he eat” it? He says, “No one knows the Father except the Son.” In the second place, “his sons also eat”⁸⁰ it. He says, “For no one knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son wants to reveal him.”⁸¹ But who are those to whom he reveals him except his apostles?  ^[p.141] (4) And “the limb of separation” or “of removal,” as we said above, are the deeds and works superior to the others which the Savior himself and my Lord completed first. How did he complete them? He says, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to perfect his work.”⁸² When, therefore, he does “the will of him who sent” him, by so doing he eats, not the breast but “the limb of separation.” In like manner, his apostles also “eat the limb of separation” or “removal” when they do the work of the Evangelist and become “workmen unashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”⁸³ Do you still want to see more clearly how the Savior eats “the limb of separation”? Hear what he says to the Jews: “If I performed works among you which no one else did, for which of these do you want to kill me?”⁸⁴ You see how this one truly “eats the limb of separation” who did works so separate and so much more eminent that “no other did them.”

Sed quoniam ad Dominum meum Iesum personam pontificis revocavimus et ad filios eius sanctos Apostolos, videamus, quomodo ipse quidem ‘pectusculum segregationis’ manducat et filii eius, alii autem non omnes possunt ‘segregationis pectusculum’ manducare.  Quid igitur est, quod a rebus omnibus segregatur nec est commune cum reliquis, nisi sola substantia Trinitatis?  Si ergo intelligam quidem rationem mundi, non possim autem etiam de Deo intelligere, sicut dignum est, neque revelata mihi fuerit scientia Dei, manduco quidem pectusculum, sed non ‘pectusculum segregationis’.  Etiam si potuero dicere: “ipse enim mihi dedit omnium, quae sunt, scientiam veram, ut sciam rationem mundi et virtutem elementorum, initium et finem et medietatem temporum, permutationum vicissitudines et conversiones temporum, anni circulos et stellarum positiones”; horum omnium scientia quia rationabilis est, pectusculi cibus est, sed non ‘pectusculi segregationis’.  Si autem potuero de Deo sentire quae magna, quae sancta, quae vera sunt et secreta, tunc ‘manducabo pectusculum segregationis’, cum id, quod ab omni creatura eminet et segregatur, agnovero.  Primus ergo ‘pectusculum’ istud verus pontifex meus ‘comedit’.  Quomodo ‘comedit’? “Nemo”, inquit, “novit patrem, nisi filius”.  Secundo in loco ‘manducant et filii eius’. “Nemo enim” inquit “novit patrem, nisi filius, et cui voluerit filius revelare”.  Quibus autem aliis nisi Apostolis suis revelat? Sed et ‘bracchium separationis’ vel ‘ablationis’, sicut et superius diximus, actus sunt et opera eminentioria ceteris, quae utique primus ipse Salvator et Dominus meus implevit.  Quomodo implevit? “Meus” inquit, “cibus est, ut faciam voluntatem eius, qui me misit, et perficiam opus eius”.  Cum ergo facit ‘voluntatem eius, qui misit’ eum, in hoc non pectusculum, sed ‘bracchium separationis’ comedit.  Similiter autem et Apostoli eius, cum faciunt opus Evangelistae et efficiuntur ‘operarii inconfusibiles, recte tractantes sermonem veritatis’ ‘separationis’ - vel ‘ablationis’ - ‘bracchium comedunt’. Vis adhuc planius videre, quomodo Salvator ‘separationis bracchium’ comedat?  Audi quid dicit ad Iudaeos: “si feci” inquit “in vobis opera, quae nullus alius fecit, pro quo horum vultis me occidere?”  Vides, quomodo ipse vere ‘manducat bracchium separationis’, qui opera tam segregata et tam sublimia fecit quam ‘nullus alius fecit’.

4. Now let us see something also of the things which were read about clean and unclean foods or animals. Just as in the explanation of the cup we ascended from the shadow to the truth of the spiritual cup, so also let us ascend from the foods which were spoken through the shadow to those which are true foods through the spirit. But in this investigation, we are in need of the witness of divine Scripture lest anyone think—for people love “to sharpen their tongues as a sword”⁸⁵—lest anyone, I say, think that I do violence to divine Scriptures, and ascribe to human beings what is related in the Law about clean or unclean animals, quadrupeds, or even birds, or fish, and depict these words to be said about persons. Perhaps one of the hearers may say, “Why do you do violence to Scripture? They are called animals; they are understood as animals.” Therefore, lest anyone believe these things to be perverted by human thinking, we must call forth the apostolic authority in these matters.

4. Sed iam videamus aliqua etiam ex his, quae de mundis atque immundis vel cibis vel animalibus lecta sunt; et sicut in explanatione poculi de umbra adscendimus ad veritatem spiritalis poculi, ita etiam de cibis, qui per umbram dicuntur, adscendamus ad eos, qui per spiritum veri sunt cibi. Sed ad haec investiganda Scripturae divinae testimoniis indigemus, ne qui putet - amant enim homines ‘exacuere linguas suas ut gladium’ - ne qui, inquam, putet quod ego vim faciam scripturis divinis et ea, quae de animalibus, quadrupedibus vel etiam avibus aut piscibus mundis sive immundis in lege referuntur, ad homines traham et de hominibus haec dicta esse confingam.  Fortassis enim dicat quis auditorum: cur vim facis Scripturae?  Animalia dicuntur, animalia intelligantur.  Ne ergo aliquis haec depravari humano credat ingenio, Apostolica in iis auctoritas evocanda est.

(2) Hear first of all, therefore, how Paul speaks about these things. He says, “For they all crossed over through the sea and ^[p.142] they all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all of them ate the same spiritual food and they all drank the same spiritual drink. They drank from a spiritual rock which followed; and that rock was Christ.”⁸⁶ Paul says this, “A Hebrew of Hebrews, according to the Law, a Pharisee,”⁸⁷ “educated at the feet of Gamaliel,”⁸⁸ who would never dare to speak of “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink” unless he had learned that this is the meaning of the Lawgiver through the knowledge of the truest doctrine handed down to him. For this reason, he adds, as he is bold and certain about the meaning of clean or unclean foods, that it must be observed, not according to the letter, but spiritually. He says, “Therefore, let no one judge you in food or in drink or in participation of the feast days or new moons or sabbaths which are a shadow of the future.”⁸⁹ Therefore, you see how all of this that Moses says about foods or drink, Paul, who has learned these better than those who now boast to be teachers, says all these are “a shadow of future things.”⁹⁰ For this reason, as we said, we ought to ascend from this shadow to the truth. The discourse is of a Christian to Christians by whom the authority of the apostolic words ought to be valued. But if anyone, puffed up by pride, despises or rejects the apostolic words, that is a matter for him. “But for me,” as “for God” and our Lord Jesus Christ, “it is good to cling”⁹¹ to his apostles and to receive understanding from divine Scriptures according to their tradition.

Audi ergo primo omnium Paulus de his qualiter dicat.  “Omnes enim” inquit, “per mare transierunt, et omnes in Moysen baptizati sunt in nube et in mari, et omnes eandem escam spiritalem manducaverunt, et omnes eundem potum spiritalem biberunt.  Bibebant enim de spiritali sequenti petra; petra autem erat Christus”.  Paulus haec dicit ‘Hebraeus ex Hebraeis, secundum legem Pharisaeus’, ‘edoctus secus pedes Gamalielis’, qui utique numquam auderet ‘spiritalem escam’ et ‘spiritalem potum’ appellare, nisi hunc esse sensum legislatoris per traditam sibi verissimae doctrinae scientiam didicisset.  Unde et illud addit, tamquam confidens et certus de ciborum ratione mundorum vel immundorum quod non secundum litteram, sed spiritaliter observanda sint, et dicit: “ne qui ergo vos iudicet in cibo aut in potu aut in parte diei festi aut neomeniae aut sabbatorum, quae sunt umbra futurorum”. Vides ergo, quomodo haec omnia, quae de cibis vel potu loquitur Moyses, Paulus, qui melius ista didicerat quam hi, qui nunc iactant se esse doctores, omnia haec ‘umbram’ dicit esse ‘futurorum’.  Et ideo, sicut diximus, ab hac umbra ad veritatem debemus adscendere.  Christiani [et] ad Christianos sermo est, quibus Apostolicorum dictorum cara esse debet auctoritas; si qui vero arrogantia tumidus Apostolica dicta contemnit aut spernit, ipse viderit.  ‘Mihi autem’, sicut ‘Deo’ et Domino nostro Iesu Christo, ita et Apostolis eius ‘adhaerere bonum est’ et ex divinis scripturis secundum ipsorum traditionem intelligentiam capere.

(3) But, perhaps, there will be an opportune time, if this were still the will of God and calmness of circumstances should allow it “for we do not know what the next day will bring forth,”⁹² for us to apply even to the Old Testament, what was seen by the view of the apostles, that the understanding of clean or unclean foods and also of animals, or birds, or of fish, about which the Law writes should be interpreted in human terms. But now, since there is not enough time for a fuller explanation, we are satisfied with two luminaries of the apostles, Paul and Peter, as witnesses. And the things Paul thought, we certainly have already revealed.

Erit autem opportunum fortasse tempus, si tamen Dei voluntas in hoc fuerit et rerum tranquillitas siverit - ‘nescimus enim, quid pariat superventura dies’ - ut etiam ex veteri testamento adsignemus secundum ea, quae Apostolis visum est, ciborum mundorum vel immundorum, sed et animalium vel avium vel piscium, de quibus in lege scribitur, intelligentiam ad homines referendam.  Sed nunc quoniam latiore uti explanatione non est temporis, duobus luminibus Apostolorum, Paulo et Petro, testibus contenti simus.  Et quidem Paulus quae senserit, iam protulimus.

(4) But the Apostle “Peter,” when he was in Joppa and “wanted to pray, ascended into the upper part”⁹³ [of the house]. Immediately, I take these words to be not in vain, that he did not pray in lower places but “ascended to the higher.” For the reason that so great an apostle chose to pray “in a higher place” is not superfluous, but rather, I believe, to show that Peter, because “he had died with Christ, was seeking the things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God” and “not the things upon the earth.”⁹⁴ “He ascended” there, to that “roof,” to those heights about which the Lord also says, “Let the one who is on the roof not go down to remove anything from the house.”⁹⁵ Then, so that you may know that we do not say these things suspiciously about Peter because “he ascends to the higher,” you will confirm it from the following. It says, “He went up to the higher place to pray and he saw the heavens open.”⁹⁶ Does it not yet appear to you that Peter had gone up “to the higher,” not only in the body but also in mind and spirit? It says, “he saw the heaven open and a certain vessel descending to the earth like a sheet in which were all quadrupeds, reptiles, and fowls of the sky. And he heard a voice saying to him, ‘Arise, Peter, kill and eat.’“⁹⁷ Without doubt, the command is to eat “the quadrupeds, and serpents, and fowl,” that were placed on the sheet and given to him from heaven. But he says, “Lord, you know that nothing common or unclean entered into my mouth.” It says, “The voice came to him a second time, saying ‘What God made clean, do not call common.’ And this was done three times. And after this, it says the sheet was taken back into heaven.”⁹⁸

‘Petrus’ vero Apostolus, ‘cum’ esset in Ioppe, et ‘orare vellet, adscendit in superiora’.  Ego statim et hoc ipsum, quod noluit in inferioribus orare, sed ‘adscendit ad superiora’, non frustra dici accipio. Neque enim tanti Apostoli consilium ex superfluo ‘superiora’ delegit ad orandum, sed quantum ego arbitror, ut ostenderetur quod Petrus, quia ‘mortuus erat cum Christo’, ‘quae sursum sunt quaerebat, ubi Christus est in dextera Dei sedens’, et ‘non quae super terram’.  Illuc ‘adscendat’, ad illa ‘tecta’, ad illa fastigia, de quibus dicit et Dominus: “qui in tecto est, non descendat tollere aliquid de domo”.  Denique ut scias quia non haec suspiciose de Petro dicimus quia ‘ad superiora conscenderit’, ex consequentibus sequentibus approbabis.  “Adscendit” inquit “ad superiora, ut oraret, et vidit coelum apertum”.  Nondum tibi videtur Petrus ‘ad superiora’ non solum corpore, sed et mente ac spiritu conscendisse?  “Vidit” inquit “coelum apertum et vas quoddam deponi sicut linteum in terra, in quo erant omnia quadrupedia, reptilia et volatilia coeli.  Et audivit vocem dicentem sibi: surge, Petre, occide et manduca”, de his sine dubio imperans manducandis ‘quadrupedibus et serpentibus et volatilibus’, quae superposita linteo ad eum coelitus sunt delata.  At ille: “Domine” inquit “tu scis quia numquam commune aut immundum introivit in os meum.  Et vox” inquit “ad eum secundo: quod Deus mundavit, tu commune ne dixeris. Et hoc factum est per ter.  Et post haec” inquit “receptum est linteum in coelis”.

(5) Here is the explanation for clean and unclean animals. The Apostle is taught knowledge about these from heaven, because indeed there was no more eminent and better on earth. And he is taught, not by a single voice, nor by a single vision, but by three. I do not take that which is said “a third  time” as a useless saying. It is said to him “a third time” and through him to all of us. “What God has made clean, do not call common.”⁹⁹ For the things made clean are made clean, not by a single invocation, nor by a second, but unless a third invocation is pronounced, no one is cleansed. For unless you were cleansed in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, you could not be clean. For this reason, therefore, these things are shown for cleansing not once or twice, but “a third time” they are shown and “a third time” they are taught.¹⁰⁰ Thus, “all the quadrupeds and reptiles and birds of heaven”¹⁰¹ were on that sheet.

De mundis hic et immundis animalibus ratio est; de quibus rerum scientiam coelitus docetur Apostolus, quoniam quidem eminentiorem se et maiorem non habebat in terris, et docetur non una voce nec una visione, sed trina.  Ego nec hoc ipsum, quod ‘tertio’ haec dicuntur, otiose dictum suscipio.  ‘Tertio’ ei dicitur et per illum omnibus nobis: “quod Deus mundavit, tu commune ne dixeris”.  Quae enim mundantur, non sub una appellatione mundantur neque sub secunda, sed nisi et tertia appellatio nominetur, nemo mundatur.  Nisi enim in patre et filio et Spiritu sancto fueris mundatus, mundus esse non poteris.  Propterea ergo quae pro emundatione ostendebantur, non semel neque iterum, sed ‘tertio’ ostenduntur et ‘tertio’ praecipiuntur.  Erant ergo ‘omnia’ in illo linteo ‘quadrupedia et reptilia et volucres coeli’.

(6) And after this, “Peter was thinking within himself what that was.” And while he was thinking about this, it says, “those who had been sent by Cornelius the centurion arrived”¹⁰² from that city, that is, Caesarea in Joppa. For Peter was there and “was a guest at the house of a certain Simon, a tanner.”¹⁰³ It is appropriate that Peter stays “at the house of a tanner,” that one, perhaps, about whom Job says, “you clothed me with skin and flesh.”¹⁰⁴ But these things are spoken in digression. Meanwhile, “they arrived who had been sent by Cornelius” to Peter. He, on receiving them, hears from them what Cornelius asks of him.

Et post haec ‘cogitabat’ inquit ‘intra semet ipsum Petrus, quid hoc esset’.  Et adhuc eo cogitante ‘supervenerunt’ inquit ‘hi, qui a Cornelio centurione missi fuerant’ ex hac civitate, id est a Caesarea in Ioppen.  Ibi namque erat Petrus et ‘hospitabatur apud Simonem quendam coriarium’.  Bene autem quod Petrus ‘apud coriarium’ manet, illum fortasse, de quo dicit Iob quia “pellem me et carnem induisti”.  Sed haec in excessu dicta sint.  Interim ‘superveniunt, qui missi fuerant a Cornelio’ ad Petrum; quos ille suscipiens audit ab iis, quae sibi Cornelius mandat.

(7) And “descending” from above he went hitherto Cornelius.¹⁰⁵ “He descended,” for Cornelius was still below and was staying below. Thus, he went to Caesarea. “He found a great crowd” gathered here at the house of Cornelius and after many things “he said to them, ‘God showed me that I should call no person common or unclean.’“¹⁰⁶ Does it not appear to you that the Apostle Peter clearly translated “all” those “quadrupeds and reptiles and fowls” to human terms and understood as human beings those which had been shown to him in the sheet descending from heaven?

Et ‘descendens’ de superioribus venit huc ad Cornelium.  ‘Descendit’: adhuc enim deorsum erat Cornelius et in inferioribus manebat.  Venit ergo Caesaream, ‘invenit multos’ hic apud Cornelium ‘congregatos’ ‘et ait ad eos’ post multa: “et mihi” inquit “ostendit Deus neminem communem aut immundum dicere hominem”. Videtur ne tibi Petrus Apostolus ‘quadrupedia’ illa ‘omnia et reptilia et volatilia’ dilucide ad hominem transtulisse et homines intellexisse ea, quae sibi in linteo coelitus lapso fuerant demonstrata?

5. But perhaps someone may say, indeed concerning the quadrupeds and reptiles and birds you gave a reason that they ^[p.145] ought to be understood as men. Also explain about “these which are in the water.”¹⁰⁷ Since indeed the Law also designates some from these to be clean and others unclean, I ask no one to believe my words about this unless I produce sufficient witnesses. I will offer to you our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as a witness and creator of these, how fish are said to be human beings. He says, “The kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, which draws together all kinds of fish; and when it is full, they sit on the beach and store those which are good in vessels. But those that are bad are cast out.”¹⁰⁸ He clearly taught that those which are called “fish caught in nets” are either “good” persons or “bad” ones. Thus, these are the ones who according to Moses are called either clean or unclean fish.

5. Sed fortasse dicat aliquis: de quadrupedibus quidem et reptilibus et avibus reddidisti rationem quod homines intelligi debeant; da etiam de ‘his, quae in aquis sunt’.  Quoniam quidem lex etiam de ipsis munda esse quaedam et alia designat immunda, nihil in his, ut meis verbis credatur, exposco, nisi testes idoneos dedero.  Ipsum vobis Dominum et Salvatorem nostrum Iesum Christum testem horum et auctorem dabo, quomodo pisces homines esse dicantur.  “Simile est” inquit “regnum coelorum retiae missae in mare, quae ex omni genere piscium colligit; et cum repleta fuerit, sedentes supra litus condunt eos, qui boni sunt, in vasis; qui autem mali, foras mittuntur”.  Evidenter edocuit eos, qui ‘retibus colligi’ dicuntur ‘pisces’, vel ‘bonos’ homines esse vel ‘malos’.  Isti ergo sunt, qui secundum Moysen pisces vel mundi vel immundi nominantur.

(2) Consequently, now that these have been confirmed by the apostolic and evangelical authority, let us see how every person can be shown to be either clean or unclean. Every person has in himself some food which he gives to his neighbor when that person arrives. For it cannot happen that, when we approach each other as human beings and join in conversation, we do not either take or give some food between us either by a response, or by a question, or by some gesture. Indeed, if the person from whom we take food is clean and of a sound mind, we receive clean food. But if he whom we touch is unclean, we receive unclean food as was said above. For this reason, I think, the Apostle Paul speaks about such as unclean animals, “Do not eat with such as these.”¹⁰⁹

His igitur ex auctoritate Apostolica atque evangelica comprobatis videamus, quomodo unusquisque hominum vel mundus vel immundus possit ostendi.  Omnis homo habet aliquem in se cibum, quem accedenti ad se proximo praebeat.  Non enim potest fieri, ut, cum accesserimus ad invicem nos homines et conseruerimus sermonem, non aliquem vel ex responsione vel ex interrogatione vel ex aliquo gestu aut capiamus inter nos gustum aut praebeamus.  Et si quidem mundus homo est et bonae mentis is, de quo gustum capimus, mundum sumimus cibum; si vero immundus sit, quem contingimus, immundum cibum secundum ea, quae supra dicta sunt, sumimus.  Et propterea, puto, Apostolus Paulus de talibus velut immundis animalibus dicit: “cum huiusmodi nec cibum sumere”.

(3) But, in order that what we say may be opened more clearly to your understanding, let us take an example from greater things, so that descending little by little we come to the lesser things. Our Lord and Savior says, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life in you. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.”¹¹⁰ Therefore,  ^[p.146] since Jesus is totally clean, all his “flesh is food” and all his “blood is a drink” because his every deed is holy and his every word is true. For this reason, therefore, his “flesh is true food and” his “blood is true drink.” For from the flesh and blood of his word, as from pure food and drink, he gives drink and refreshment to every kind of person.

Verum ut evidentius tibi patescant ad intellectum, quae dicimus, de maioribus sumamus exemplum, ut inde paulatim descendentes usque ad inferiora veniamus.  Dominus et Salvator noster dicit: “nisi manducaveritis carnem meam et biberitis sanguinem meum, non habebitis vitam in vobis ipsis.  Caro enim mea vere cibus est, et sanguis meus vere potus est”.  Iesus ergo quia totus ex toto mundus est, tota eius ‘caro cibus est’ et totus ‘sanguis’ eius ‘potus est’, quia omne opus eius sanctum est et omnis sermo eius verus est.  Propterea ergo et ‘caro’ eius ‘verus est cibus et sanguis’ eius ‘verus est potus’.  Carnibus enim et sanguine verbi sui tamquam mundo cibo ac potu potat et reficit omne hominum genus.

(4) In the second place, after his flesh, the clean food is Peter, Paul, and all the apostles; in the third place, their disciples. Thus, any food is made clean for their neighbor in accordance with the number of their merits or the purity of their understanding. Perhaps he who does not know how to hear these things may turn away and divert his attention to those who said, “How will he give us his flesh to eat? Who can hear him? And they departed from him.”¹¹¹ But you, if you are sons of the Church, if you are instructed in the evangelical mysteries, if “the Word made flesh lives in you,”¹¹² know that what we say is of the Lord, lest “he who knows does not know may be unknown.”¹¹³ Know that they are figures written in the divine volumes and, for that reason, examine and understand what is said as spiritual and not as carnal. For if you receive those things as carnal, they wound you and do not sustain you.

Secundo in loco post illius carnem mundus cibus est Petrus et Paulus omnes que Apostoli; tertio loco discipuli eorum.  Et sic unusquisque pro quantitate meritorum vel sensuum puritate proximo suo mundus efficitur cibus.  Haec qui audire nescit, detorqueat fortassis et avertat auditum secundum illos, qui dicebant: “quomodo dabit nobis hic carnem suam manducare?  Quis potest audire eum? Et discesserunt ab eo”.  Sed vos si filii estis ecclesiae, si evangelicis imbuti mysteriis, si ‘verbum caro factum habitat in vobis’, agnoscite quae dicimus quia Domini sunt, ne forte ‘qui ignorat, ignoretur’.  Agnoscite quia figurae sunt, quae in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt, et ideo tamquam spiritales et non tamquam carnales examinate et intelligite quae dicuntur.  Si enim quasi carnales ista suscipitis, laedunt vos et non alunt.  

(5) For even in the Gospels, it is “the letter” that “kills.”¹¹⁴ Not only in the Old Testament is “the letter that kills” found; there is also in the New Testament “the letter that kills” that one who does not spiritually perceive what is said. For, if you follow according to the letter that which is said, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood,”¹¹⁵ this “letter kills.” Do you want me to bring out of the gospel for you another “letter” that “kills”? He says, “Let the one who does not have a sword sell his tunic and buy a sword.”¹¹⁶ Behold, this is the letter of the gospel, but “it kills.” But, if you take it spiritually, it does not kill, but there is in it “a spirit that gives life.”¹¹⁷ For this reason, receive spiritually what is said either in the Law or in ^[p.147] the Gospels because “the spiritual one judges all things but that one is not judged by anyone.”¹¹⁸

Est enim et in evangeliis ‘littera’, quae ‘occidit’.  Non solum in veteri testamento ‘occidens littera’ deprehenditur; est et in novo testamento ‘littera’, quae ‘occidat’ eum, qui non spiritaliter, quae dicuntur, adverterit Si enim secundum litteram sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est: “nisi manducaveritis carnem, meam et biberitis sanguinem meum”, ‘occidit’ haec littera’.  Vis tibi et aliam de evangelio proferam ‘litteram’, quae ‘occidit’?  “Qui non habet” inquit “gladium, vendat tunicam et emat gladium”.  Ecce et haec littera evangelii est, sed ‘occidit’.  Si vero spiritaliter eam suscipias, non occidit, sed est in ea ‘spiritus vivificans’.  Et ideo sive in lege sive in evangeliis quae dicuntur, spiritaliter suscipe, quia “spiritalis diiudicat omnia, ipse vero a nemine diiudicatur”..

(6) Therefore, as we said, every person has some food within him from which, if indeed it is good and “from the good treasure of his heart he brings forth good,” he may supply pure food to his neighbor. But if he is evil and “brings forth evil,”¹¹⁹ he supplies unclean food to his neighbor. For anyone who is innocent and led by the heart can be seen as a sheep, a clean animal. He can furnish the hearers clean food as a sheep which is a clean animal. It is the same in the others. For this reason, every person, as we said, when he speaks to his neighbor and either he does him good or harms him by his words, the animal is made either clean or unclean by him. Form these we are taught either to use the clean ones or to abstain from the unclean ones.

Ut ergo diximus, omnis homo habet aliquem in se cibum, ex quo qui sumpserit, si quidem bonus est et ‘de bono thesauro cordis sui profert bona’, mundum cibum praebet proximo suo.  Si vero malus et ‘profert mala’, immundum cibum praebet proximo suo.  Potest enim quis innocens et rectus corde mundum animal ovis videri et praebere audienti se cibum mundum tamquam ovis, quae est animal mundum. Similiter et in ceteris.  Et ideo omnis homo, ut diximus, cum loquitur proximo suo et sive prodest ei ex sermonibus suis sive nocet, mundum ei aut immundum efficitur animal, ex quibus vel mundis utendum vel immundis praecipitur abstinendum.

(7) If, according to this understanding, we say that the supreme God has proclaimed the laws to human beings, I think that the legislation will seem worthy of the divine majesty. But if we stand by the letter and according to that we accept what is seen by the Jews or the multitude as the written law, I would be ashamed to say and to confess that God gave such laws. For human laws, for instance, either of the Romans, or the Athenians, or the Lacedemonians, seem more elegant and reasonable. But if the Law of God is received according to this understanding that the Church teaches, then clearly it surpasses all human laws and is believed to be truly the Law of God. And so, with these firstfruits for the spiritual understanding, as we reminded you, let us speak briefly about the clean and unclean animals.

Si secundum hanc intelligentiam dicamus Deum summum leges hominibus promulgasse, puto quod digna videbitur divina maiestate legislatio.  Si vero adsideamus litterae et secundum hoc, vel quod Iudaeis vel vulgo videtur, accipiamus quae in lege scripta sunt, erubesco dicere et confiteri quia tales leges dederit Deus.  Videbuntur enim magis elegantes et rationabiles hominum leges, verbi gratia, vel Romanorum vel Atheniensium vel Lacedaemoniorum.  Si vero secundum hanc intelligentiam, quam docet ecclesia, accipiatur Dei lex, tunc plane omnes humanas supereminet leges et vere Dei lex esse credetur.  Itaque his ita praemissis spiritali, ut commonuimus, intelligentia de mundis et immundis animalibus aliqua perstringamus.

6. It says, “All cattle that parts the hoof and has hoofs and chews its cud among the cattle, these you will eat. Moreover, you will not eat from those which chew the cud and do not part the hoofs and have hoofs. The camel, because it indeed chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean for you. The hare because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof is unclean for you; and the hedgehog because it chews the cud and does not part the hoof is unclean for you; and the swine,”¹²⁰ etc. Therefore, it determines that these kinds of animals, which seem to be partly clean and partly unclean, not be eaten. For example, “the camel” seems to be clean “because it chews the cud,” but it is called “unclean” from the fact “that it does not have a parted hoof.” After these it names now both “the hare” and “the hedgehog” and also it indeed says those “chew the cud” but do “not part the hoof.” But it makes another list of these which, on the other hand, certainly “part the hoof” but “do not chew the cud.”

6. “Omne” inquit “pecus, quod ungulam dividit, et ungulas habet, et reducit ruminationem in pecoribus, haec manducabitis.  Praeterea ab his non manducabitis, quae reducunt ruminationem, et non dividunt ungulas, et habent ungulas. Camelus, quoniam reducit ruminationem, et ungulam non dividit, immundum hoc vobis.  Et lepus, quoniam reducit ruminationem, et ungulam non dividit, immundum hoc vobis; et erinacius, quia reducit ruminationem hic, et ungulam non dividit, immundum hoc vobis; et sues” et cetera.  Decernit ergo, ne manducentur huiusmodi animalia, quae ex parte videntur esse munda et ex parte immunda; sicut ‘camelus ex eo quod ruminat’, mundus videtur, ex eo autem ‘quod ungulas divisas non habet’, ‘immundus’ dicitur.  Post haec iam nominat et ‘leporem’ et ‘erinacium’, sed et ipsos dicit ‘ruminare’ quidem, sed ‘ungulas non dividere’.  Alium vero ordinem facit eorum, qui e contrario ‘ungulam’ quidem ‘dividunt’, sed ‘non ruminant’.

(2) Therefore, let us first see who these are that “chew the cud and part the hoof” which it calls clean. I think that one is said to chew the cud who pays heed to knowledge and “meditates day and night on the Law of the Lord.”¹²¹ But hear how it was stated in the text: “Whatever parts the hoof and chews of the cud.”¹²² Therefore, “he chews the cud” who applies those things which he reads according to the letter to the spiritual sense and he ascends from the lowest and visible to the invisible and higher things. But if you meditate on the divine law and you apply what you read to a precise and spiritual understanding, but your life and your deeds are not such that they have the capacity for distinguishing between the present life and the future, between this age and “the age to come,”¹²³ unless you discern and separate these things with the proper reason, you are a confused camel, who, when you receive understanding from meditation of the divine law, you do not divide nor separate the present and the future and do not discern “the narrow path” from “the wide path.”¹²⁴

Primo ergo videamus, qui sunt isti, qui ‘ruminent et ungulam dividunt’, quos mundos appellat.  Ego arbitror illum dici ruminare, qui operam dat scientiae et ‘in lege Domini meditatur die ac nocte’.  Sed audi, quomodo dictum est: “qui dividit” inquit “ungulam, et revocat ruminationem”.  ‘Revocat’ ergo ‘ruminationem’, qui ea, quae secundum litteram legit, revocat ad sensum spiritalem et ab infimis et visibilibus ad invisibilia et altiora conscendit. Sed si mediteris legem divinam et ea, quae legis, ad subtilem et ad spiritalem intelligentiam revoces, vita autem tua et actus tui non sint tales, ut habeant discretionem vitae praesentis et futurae, huius saeculi et ‘saeculi superventuri’, si non ista competenti ratione discernas et dividas, camelus es tortuosus; qui cum intellectum acceperis ex meditatione legis divinae, non dividis neque segregas praesentia et futura nec ‘angustam viam’ a ‘via spatiosa’ secernis.

(3) But let us explain still more clearly what is said. There are those who with their mouth take the testament of God and, although they have the Law of God in their mouth, their life and deeds are greatly different from their words and their sermons. “For they speak and do not do.”¹²⁵ About these the prophet says, “But God said to the sinner, ‘Why do you interpret my righteousness and take my testament in your mouth?’“¹²⁶ Therefore, you see how this one who has the testament of God in his mouth chews the cud. But what is said to him in the following? “But you hated discipline and you cast my words behind you.”¹²⁷ In this it clearly shows this one indeed “chews the cud” but “does not part the hoof,” and for this reason whoever is such as this is unclean.

Sed adhuc manifestius, quod dicitur, explanemus.  Sunt qui adsumunt testamentum Dei per os suum et, cum legem Dei in ore habeant, vita et actus sui longe a verbis eorum et sermonibus discrepant; “dicunt enim et non faciunt”.  De quibus et propheta dicit: “peccatori autem dixit Deus: quare tu enarras iustitias meas, et adsumis testamentum meum per os tuum?”  Vides ergo, quomodo iste ruminat, qui testamentum Dei habet in ore suo.  Sed quid in sequentibus ad eum dicitur? “Tu autem odisti disciplinam, et abiecisti sermones meos post te”.  In quo evidenter ostendit istum ‘ruminantem’ quidem, sed ‘ungulam non dividentem’, et ideo immundus est quicumque est talis.

(4) And again, there is another one, either of those who are outside our religion or of those who are with us, who indeed “part the hoof” and so advance in their lives that they prepare their deeds for the coming age. For many both learn thus from the philosophers and believe there is a future judgement. For they are aware of the immortal soul and they confess a reward is reserved for all good people. Some of the heretics do this, and inasmuch as they expect it, they have a fear of the future judgment and they temper their deed more cautiously as being liable to be examined in the divine judgment. But neither of these “chews the cud” nor “applies the cud.”

Et iterum est alius vel ex his, qui extra religionem nostram sunt, vel ex his, qui nobis cum sunt, qui ‘dividunt’ quidem ‘ungulam’ et ita incedunt in viis suis, ut actus suos ad futurum saeculum praeparent.  Multi enim ita et ex philosophis sapiunt et futurum esse iudicium credunt. Immortalem namque animam sentiunt et remunerationem bonis quibusque positam confitentur.  Hoc et haereticorum nonnulli faciunt et quantum exspectant, timorem futuri iudicii gerunt et actus suos tamquam in divino examine requirendos cautius temperant.  Sed horum uterque non ‘ruminat’ nec ‘revocat ruminationem’.

(5) For hearing what was written in the Law of God, he does not meditate on it and apply it with a keen and spiritual understanding. But when he hears something, he immediately either disdains or despises it and does not look for what valuable understanding is concealed in the more common words. And indeed those die “who part the hoof” but “do not apply the cud.” But you who want to be pure, hold your life in conformity and harmony with knowledge, and your deeds with understanding, that you may be pure in each, that “you apply the cud” and “divide the hoof” but also that “you may produce” or “you may cast away” the hoofs.

Non enim ea, quae in lege Dei scripta sunt, audiens meditatur ac revocat ad subtilem et spiritalem intelligentiam; sed statim ut audierit aliquid, aut contemnit aut despicit nec requirit, qui in vilioribus verbis pretiosus lateat sensus.  Et abeunt isti ‘dividentes’ quidem ‘ungulam’, sed ‘ruminationem non revocantes’.  Tu autem, qui vis esse mundus, convenientem habeto et consonam vitam scientiae et actus intellectui, ut sis in utroque mundus, ut et ‘revoces ruminationem’ et ‘ungulam dividas’, sed et ungulas ut ‘producas’ sive ‘abicias’.

(6) Let us seek the explanation of this thing, how we produce the hoofs or, as we read elsewhere, cast them down. It is written in Deuteronomy: “If you should go out to war against your enemies and see there a woman with a beautiful figure and desire her, take her and shave off all the hair of her head and pare her nails and clothe her with mourning clothes. She will remain in your house, mourning her father and her mother and her father’s house. After thirty days, she will be your wife.”¹²⁸ But now the purpose is not to explain these things which were spoken as a witness. But we quote it for this reason, because mention was made here concerning the nails.

Requiramus et huius rei testimonium, quomodo ungulas producimus, vel, ut alibi legitur, abicimus.  Scriptum est in Deuteronomio: “si” inquit “exieris ad bellum adversum inimicos tuos, et videris ibi mulierem decora specie, et concupieris eam, adsumes eam, et rades omnem pilum capitis eius et ungulas eius, et indues eam vestimentis lugubribus; et sedebit in domo lugens patrem suum et matrem suam et domum paternam suam; et post triginta dies erit tibi uxor”.  Sed nunc non est propositum, ut haec, quae in testimonium vocata sunt, explanentur; sed propterea diximus, quia et hic de ungulis mentio facta est.

(7) But nevertheless, I also frequently “have gone out to war against my enemies and I saw there” in the plunder “a woman with a beautiful figure.”¹²⁹ For whatever we find said well and reasonably among our enemies, or we read anything said among them wisely and knowingly, we must cleanse it also from the knowledge which is among them, remove and cut off all that is dead and worthless—namely all the hairs of the head and the nails of the woman taken from the spoils of the enemy—and so at last make her your wife when she has nothing of the things which are called dead through infidelity. She has nothing in her head, nothing in her hands, lest she bring something unclean or dead either in her thoughts or in her deeds. For the women of our enemies have nothing pure because there is no wisdom among them with which something unclean was not mixed.

Verum tamen et ego frequenter ‘exivi ad bellum contra inimicos meos et vidi ibi’ in praedam ‘mulierem decora specie’.  Quaecumque enim bene et rationabiliter dicta invenimus apud inimicos nostros, si quid apud illos sapienter et scienter dictum legimus, oportet nos mundare id et ab scientia, quae apud illos est, auferre et resecare omne quod emortuum et inane est - hoc enim sunt omnes capilli capitis et ungulae mulieris ex inimicorum spoliis adsumptae - et ita demum facere eam nobis uxorem, cum iam nihil ex illis, quae per infidelitatem mortua dicuntur, habuerit, nihil in capite habeat mortuum, nihil in manibus, ut neque sensibus neque actibus immundum aliquid aut mortuum gerat.  Nihil enim mundum habent mulieres hostium nostrorum, quia nulla est apud illos sapientia, cui immunditia aliqua non sit admixta.

(8) Yet, I wish that the Jews would tell me how these things were preserved among them. What is the cause? What is the reason for the woman “to be shaved bald” and “her nails removed”? Let us suppose, for example, that the one who is said to have found her should find that she has neither hair nor nails. What does she have according to the Law that he ought to remove? But we, whose combat is spiritual and whose “arms are not carnal but power from God to destroy arguments,”¹³⁰ if “a beautiful” woman were found among our enemies and has some reasonable doctrine, we will purify her in the way that we said above. Therefore, it is necessary for him who is pure not only “to part the hoof” and not only to distinguish between the deeds and works of the present age and of the future age, but also “to produce hoofs” or, as we read elsewhere, “to cast them out”¹³¹ so that we, “purifying ourselves from the dead works,”¹³² may remain in life.

Velim tamen dicerent mihi Iudaei, quomodo apud eos ista serventur.  Quid causae, quid rationis est ‘decalvari’ mulierem et ‘ungulas eius demi’?  Verbi causa, si ponamus quod ita invenerit eam is, qui dicitur invenisse, ut neque capillos neque ungulas habeat: quid habuit quod secundum legem demere videretur?  Nos vero, quibus militia spiritalis est et ‘arma non carnalia, sed potentia Deo ad destruenda consilia’, ‘decora’ mulier si repperta fuerit apud hostes et rationabilis aliqua disciplina, hoc modo purificabimus eam, quo superius diximus.  Oportet ergo eum, qui mundus est, non solum ‘dividere ungulam’ et non solum praesentis et futuri saeculi actus et opera discernere, sed et ‘ungulas producere’ vel, ut alibi legimus, ‘abicere’, ut ‘purificantes nos ab operibus mortuis’ permaneamus in vita.

 ^[p.151] 7. Indeed, these things were said generally about animals. But, those “which are in the water” are said to be clean when they have “fins and scales.”¹³³ But if they do not have them, they are unclean and ought not to be eaten. That is shown in the fact that, if anyone is put in these waters and in the sea of this life and placed in the waves of the age, then he ought to do enough that he may not be cast down into the depths of the waters as are those fish which are said “not to have fins or scales.” For their nature produces these so that they always delay in the lowest part and around the mire itself, just as eels and those similar to it are those which cannot ascend to the top of the water nor reach its heights. But those fish which are aided “by fins” and are protected “by scales” ascend to greater heights and become more near to this are as those who seek the freedom of the spirit. Therefore, each saint is like this one who, enclosed within “the net” of faith, is called “a good fish” by the Savior and is put “into a vessel,”¹³⁴ as having “fins” and “scales.” For unless he had had “fins,” he could not have risen from the mire of incredulity nor come into “the net” of faith. But why is it that he is also said to have “scales” except that he is prepared to lay aside old garments?¹³⁵ For these who do not have “scales” are as if they are wholly of the flesh and totally carnal, who cannot lay aside anything. Therefore, if someone has “fins” with which he advances to the superior things, he is clean. But he, who does not have “fins” but remains in interior things and always is living in filth, is unclean.

7. Haec quidem generaliter dicta sint de animalibus; illa vero, ‘quae in aquis sunt’, quia dicuntur, siquidem habeant ‘pinnas et squamas’, munda esse, si vero non habeant, immunda nec edi debere: illud in his ostenditur, ut, si quis est in aquis istis et in mari vitae huius atque in fluctibus saeculi positus, tamen debeat satis agere, ut non in profundis iaceat aquarum, sicut sunt isti pisces, qui dicuntur ‘non habere pinnas neque squamas’. Haec namque eorum natura perhibetur, ut in imo semper et circa ipsum coenum demorentur; sicut sunt anguillae et huic similia, quae non possunt adscendere ad aquae summitatem neque ad eius superiora pervenire.  Illi vero pisces, qui ‘pinnulis’ iuvantur ac ‘squamis’ muniuntur, adscendunt magis ad superiora et aeri huic viciniores fiunt, velut qui libertatem spiritus quaerant.  Talis est ergo sanctus quisque, qui intra ‘retia’ fidei conclusus ‘bonus piscis’ a Salvatore nominatur et mittitur ‘in vas’, veluti ‘pinnas’ habens et ‘squamas’.  Nisi enim habuisset ‘pinnas’, non resurrexisset de coeno incredulitatis nec ad ‘rete’ fidei pervenisset.  Quid autem est quod et ‘squamas’ habere dicitur, tamquam qui paratus sit vetera indumenta deponere?  Hi enim, qui ‘squamas’ non habent, velut ex integro carnei sunt et toti carnales, qui deponere nihil possint.  Si qui ergo habet ‘pinnas’, quibus ad superiora nitatur, mundus est; qui vero non habet ‘pinnas’, sed in inferioribus permanet et in coeno semper versatur, immundus est.

(2) But it is the same about birds. It says, “You will not eat these because they are unclean, the eagle and the vulture”¹³⁶ and others like these. For the food of these birds is always dead bodies and they live on dead carcasses. Therefore, all who sustain life in this way must be held unclean. I think that these are also to be counted in those who lie in wait for the deaths of others and submit wills with deceit and fraud. For people of this sort will be justly called vultures and eagles as ones who are gazing longingly at the corpses of the dead. I  ^[p.152] know other fowls which live by plundering. These are souls who indeed, according to the fact that they are rational and instructed with liberal instructions or rational doctrines, seem to be fowls. For they read and ask either about the rationale of heaven, or how the world is ruled by the providence of God. For this reason, therefore, they are called fowls. But if such persons act unjustly, they work against the Law; they rob their neighbors. While heavenly knowledge seems to be in their words, they perform in their deeds carnal and dead works. Rightly, they must be called vultures and eagles which sink down from the heights to dead and stinking flesh. The greediness of the hawk and all the others must be included in this. Of these some are indeed birds which pursue greediness, but some are [characterized] not so much by greed as by love of obscurity and darkness. “For everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light,”¹³⁷ are as “owls and bats” and the others which the Law has called unclean.¹³⁸

Similiter autem de avibus.  “Non manducabis” inquit “haec, quia immunda sunt: aquilam et vulturem” et cetera his similia. His etenim avibus semper mortuorum corporum cibus est et ex mortuis cadaveribus vivunt.  Omnes ergo, qui huiusmodi vitam gerunt, immundi habendi sunt.  Ego puto et illos in his numerari, qui alienas incubant mortes et arte vel fraude testamenta subiciunt.  Huiusmodi enim homines vultures et aquilae merito appellabuntur, velut mortuorum cadaveribus inhiantes.  Scio et alia volatilia, quae raptu vivunt.  Hae sunt animae, quae secundum hoc quidem, quod rationabiles sunt et imbutae liberalibus institutis vel rationabilibus disciplinis, volatilia videntur - legunt enim et requirunt vel de ratione coeli vel quomodo mundus Dei providentia gubernetur; secundum haec ergo volatilia nominantur; si vero huiusmodi homines inique agant, contra legem faciant, diripiant proximos et, cum in verbis esse videatur eruditio coelestis, in actibus carnalia et mortua opera gerant, recte vultures vel aquilae dicendi sunt, quae de excelsis ad carnes mortuas ac foetidas delabuntur.  Ad hoc referenda est et accipitris rapacitas et ceterorum omnium; ex quibus quaedam quidem sunt volatilia rapacitati studentia, quaedam vero non tam rapacia quam obscuritatem et tenebras amantia.  “Omnis enim qui male agit, odit lucem et non venit ad lucem”, ut sunt ‘noctuae et vespertiliones’ et cetera, quae lex pronuntiavit immunda.

(3) From all these, guarding ourselves by spiritual observance and seeking food from clean animals, may we also be found pure and clean through Christ our Lord through whom is to God the Father with the Holy Spirit “glory and power forever. Amen.”¹³⁹

A quibus omnibus spiritali nos observantia custodientes et cibum ex mundis animalibus appetentes etiam ipsi puri efficiemur et mundi, per Christum Dominum nostrum, per quem est Deo patri cum Spiritu sancto ‘gloria et imperium in saecula saeculorum. Amen’.