did not deny that He was David’s Son, so that they could not understand that He was also David’s Lord. For they acknowledged in Christ that which He became in time, but they did not understand in Him what He was in all eternity. Wherefore wishing to teach them His Divinity, He proposed a question touching His Humanity; as though He would say, “You know that Christ is David’s Son, answer Me, how He is also David’s Lord?” And that they might not say, “He is not David’s Lord,” He introduced the testimony of David himself. And what doth he say? He saith indeed the truth. For you find God in the Psalms saying to David, “Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy seat.”1752 Here then He is the Son of David. But how is He the Lord of David, who is David’s Son? “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand.”1753 Can you wonder that David’s Son is his Lord, when you see that Mary was the mother of her Lord? He is David’s Lord then as being God. David’s Lord, as being Lord of all; and David’s Son, as being the Son of Man. At once Lord and Son. David’s Lord, “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God;”1754 and David’s Son, in that “He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant.”1755 21. Joseph then was not the less His father, because he knew not the mother of our Lord, as though concupiscence and not conjugal affection constitutes the marriage bond.1756 At- tend, holy brethren; Christ’s Apostle was some time after this to say in the Church, “It re- maineth that they that have wives be as though they had none.”1757 And we know many of 253 our brethren bringing forth fruit through grace, who for the Name of Christ practise an entire restraint by mutual consent, who yet suffer no restraint of true conjugal affection. Yea, the more the former is repressed, the more is the other strengthened and confirmed. Are they then not married people who thus live, not requiring from each other any carnal gratification, or exacting the satisfaction1758 of any bodily desire? And yet the wife is subject to the husband, because it is fitting that she should be, and so much the more in subjection is she, in proportion to her greater chastity; and the husband for his part loveth his wife truly, as it is written, “In honour and sanctification,”1759 as a coheir of grace: as “Christ,” saith the Apostle, “loved the Church.”1760 If then this be a union, and a marriage; if it be not the less a marriage because nothing of that kind passes between them, which even with 1752 Ps. cxxxii. 11. 1753 Ps. cx. 1. 1754 Phil. ii. 6. 1755 Phil. ii. 7. 1756 Uxorem. 1757 1 Cor. vii. 29. 1758 Debitum. 1759 1 Thess. iv. 4. 1760 Ephes. v. 25. 542 Of the agreement of the evangelists Matthew and Luke in the generations…