Questions on the Old and New Testaments

QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

BY

AMBROSIASTER

INTRODUCTION AND TRANSLATION BY JOHN LITTERAL

REVISED in 2026

QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

BY

AMBROSIASTER

INTRODUCTION AND TRANSLATION BY JOHN LITTERAL

REVISED in 2026

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION                                1

QUESTIONS ON OT & NT                        6

POLEMIC                                360

MISCELLANEOUS                                  402

INDEX OF QUESTIONS                        473

INTRODUCTION

Ambrosiaster was an anonymous fourth century Christian writer who is credited with writing commentaries on all of St. Paul’s epistles and a compilation of treatises known as the Questions on the Old and New Testaments.  The name Ambrosiaster is not the actual name of the writer, but the name means “Star of Ambrose,” and this name was given after the Ambrosian authorship of the commentaries on Paul’s epistles had been ruled out, which will be discussed further below.  Scholars are still unsure of the author’s identity, but they are certain that the same author is responsible for both the commentaries on the epistles and the Questions.

These Questions (Quaestio) means ‘an enquiry’ or investigation into passages of Scripture which are difficult to understand.¹ The Questions on the Old and New Testaments is a compilation of essays of various sizes as well as discourses and sermons.  Some of the questions thoroughly examine and explain important doctrinal matters such as the meaning of God, the sin of Adam and Eve, baptism of the Savior, etc.  Some questions are treatises against opponents to Christianity and heretics such as Pagans, Arians, Novatian, etc. There are some questions that are running commentaries on the Psalms and Gospels, while others are on Old Testament heroes such as Melchizedek, Abraham, Job, and Tobit.²   

The Questions by Ambrosiaster are found in two different manuscript traditions.  Both manuscript traditions are displayed in this translation and placed in sections or categories, such as, 1^st Category and 2^nd Category.  The manuscript tradition of the 1^st Category is a compilation of 127 “Questions” and the MS tradition of the 2^nd Category is a compilation of 150. “Of these questions, eighty-nine are common to both collections, and almost two thirds of these eighty-nine have undergone some rewriting.”³   The English translation for this book is based upon the text from the collection of Migne (PL 35 2214-2416).

There are a lot of explanations to specific passages of Scripture in the Questions by Ambrosiaster, which means that they are useful for exegetical purposes.  The way that the questions are organized in the manuscripts and the printed edition that this translation is based upon would make it difficult, to say the least, to use it for looking up specific passages to see what Ambrosiaster had to say about them, because the order of the questions in the manuscripts do not follow a consistent pattern nor order that the Scripture passages would be in the Bible. For this reason, I have chosen to provide the questions that concern specific passages of Scripture to follow the order found in the Bible, such as by book, chapter, and verse.  For those questions that are polemic in nature, they are placed in a section separate called “Polemic,” and other questions that are not polemic nor exegetical are placed in a section called “Miscellaneous.”

For many years, the Questions on the Old and New Testaments were thought to have been written by Augustine of Hippo and were placed among his works.  Scholars have long determined since then that it was not written by Augustine, and was in fact the same author of the Bible commentaries of Paul’s epistles that is mentioned above.  There are many examples that demonstrate how scholarly rejection of the Augustinian authorship of the Questions is more than justified, starting with the choice of topics, the method of teaching, the difference of style, which are quite in opposition to the genius and the faith of Augustine.  Augustine’s teachings on original sin is an indicator that he was not the author of the Questions, because the author claims without constraint, in Question 13, that the children who died with their parents in the fire of Sodom were “exempt from the punishments of hell, because they have been victims of a crime they did not commit.” Therefore, the author of these questions has appeared here to deny ‘original sin.’  Also, the same author claims, in questions 21 and 45, that ‘woman’ was not created in the image of God, while St. Augustine teaches the contrary in his book on the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 3, chapter 22.  Another example, in question 41, the author endeavors to prove that these words of Genesis: "The Spirit of God was carried on the waters," should not be understood of the Holy Spirit, as Augustine, however, explains it in several places.⁴

As mentioned above, scholars are of the opinion, for good reason, that the authorship of the Questions on the Old and New Testaments is the same for the Bible commentaries on the epistles of Paul.⁵ Alexander Souter, who devoted nearly 130 pages to this point, demonstrated by comparing these two works and found the greatest similarities between the community of illustrations and allusions, comparison of Scripture quotations, comparison of style and language, identity of thought such as favorite texts of Scripture and interpretations of Scripture.⁶  Scholars think, moreover, that these two works must have been composed at about the same time; the commentaries, under the pontificate of Pope Damasus, who died towards the end of the year 384, as attested by the author of these writings in chapter 3, verse 15 of the second epistle to Timothy, and Question 44 (Against the Jews).⁷

As mentioned above, scholars are uncertain of the identity of the author of the commentaries and the Questions, but I will leave the readers with a quote from Alexander Souter on this point…

“Erasmus, in the year 1527, was the first to suspect the accuracy of this ascription; and thereafter speculation became rife as to the real author. At the dawning of modern scholarship, as it is still more clearly at the present time, Ambrosian authorship was seen to be an impossibility. Some guessed that the work was a cento made from S. Jerome and S. Chrysostom by some unknown person; others believed it to be by Julian of Aeclanum or some other Pelagian; others by Remigius, others by Tyconius, the author of the ‘Rules,’ others by S. Hilary of Poitiers, others by Hilary of Pavia, others by Hilary of Syracuse; very many have attributed the work to Hilarius, a deacon of Rome. The statement of S. Augustine, who undoubtedly meant S. Hilary of Poitiers as the author of the quotation he makes, is responsible for the last four views. S. Hilary of Poitiers is unhesitatingly to be rejected owing to known differences of style. Most of the other names are idle conjectures, carelessly thrown out before the days of exact method in the study of literature and history. Langen himself put forward a view that Faustinus, a Roman presbyter, is the author. His proof, built up chiefly from a comparison of the language of both works with that of the De Tririitate and other writings of Faustinuss, is so far from being convincing that it certainly shows Faustinian authorship to be impossible. This conjecture has had the fate of the others. Dr Marold and Dom Morin, for example, explicitly reject it. The recent view, that Isaac, a converted Jew, who was concerned in the disturbances at the election of Pope Damasus and afterwards relapsed to Judaism, wrote the commentaries and the Quaestiones V. et N. Testamenti, is due to Dom Germain Morin, O.S.B., of the Abbaye, Maredsous, who by his successful researches and independent criticism has shown himself a worthy follower of his Benedictine predecessors. Dr. Zahn and Mr. A. E. Burn, both called for a fuller treatment of the subject. This I have endeavored to supply, as the special study I had devoted to the language of the commentary seemed to invite me to the task. I can heartily support Dom Morin’s second suggestion, that Hilary, the Layman, was the author.”⁸ 

1 Alexander Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, Volume 7, Issue 4 of Texts and studies: Contributions to Biblical and patristic literature, Publisher Kraus Reprint, 1967, Original from the University of Virginia. (pg. 8)

2 See Alexander Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, Volume 7, Issue 4 of Texts and studies: Contributions to Biblical and patristic literature, Publisher Kraus Reprint, 1967, Original from the University of Virginia. (pgs. 8-9)

3 Ambrosiaster’s Method of Interpretation in the Questions on the Old and New Testament. Marie-Pierre Bussieres. Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad, Dr John W Watt, Dr Josef Lössl Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Jul 28, 2013; (pg. 54)

4 See Patrologiae cursus completes, the Benedictine editors; Volume 35, Jacques-Paul Migne, Apud Garnier Fratres, 1902. (pgs. 2208-09)

5 English translation of the Epistles of Paul by Ambrosiaster: Commentaries on Romans and 1-2 Corinthians; Commentaries on Galatians--Philemon (Ancient Christian Texts) translated and edited by Gerald L. Bray. IVP.

6 Alexander Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, Volume 7, Issue 4 of Texts and studies: Contributions to Biblical and patristic literature, Publisher Kraus Reprint, 1967, Original from the University of Virginia. (pgs. 23-152)

7 See Patrologiae cursus completes, the Benedictine editors; Volume 35, Jacques-Paul Migne, Apud Garnier Fratres, 1902. (pgs. 2208-09)

8 See Alexander Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, Volume 7, Issue 4 of Texts and studies: Contributions to Biblical and patristic literature, Publisher Kraus Reprint, 1967, Original from the University of Virginia. (pgs. 4-5)

QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

GENESIS

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 106. ON GENESIS. — In the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1). If He made heaven in the beginning, and the earth, and if heaven is the firmament, as is evident in what follows, then this is not literally true, because light was made first, and therefore the firmament: for it could not signify some other heaven, since it is describing the making of the world as perfected by the working of God. For this reason, because people were misled by various opinions about the cause of the world, Moses, inspired by God, showed what the true ordering of the world was. To some it seemed that it had no beginning; to others that it did have a beginning, but was fashioned by certain Angels; to others again that it was likewise made, but by a certain Saklas, who is also the god of opposing power; but a few, following the path of truth concerning its origin, asserted that God was its maker. Therefore, because of those who were drawn away by false opinions of diversity, Moses was compelled to show what its true cause was, lest the children of Israel, freed from the power of the Egyptians, should still not be released from their false understanding. For they, more than the rest, pursued the study of error: for in ancient times they above others devoted themselves to vain philosophy. Indeed Moses, because he was adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter, is said to have been taught in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22). What then is the meaning of his words, In the beginning God made heaven and earth? If it signifies the firmament, according to what we showed above, let us see what he says. We think that Moses, so as to remove all error about the lower creation and about the materials of the world’s construction, indicated that in the beginning the very substances from which the world is constituted were made; for if he had kept silence about this, they might perhaps be thought to be eternal substances, considered to be yoked to God. So that the one who receives testimony about this matter cannot doubt that the world was made, since he confesses that the substances which served for the expenditure of the world were subjected in the beginning. Therefore, In the beginning God made heaven and earth, that is, the upper and the lower substance. The upper is that from which heaven consists; the lower, however, is a certain thick dreg-like concretion which advanced into the dry land that is called earth, and into darkness. Therefore He says in the prophet Isaiah, I am God, who made light and created darkness (Isa. 45:6–7). When these were created, He made at the same time the substance, that is, water, darkness, and earth before times: for times are under the firmament. For the firmament, as some think, is the ice of the waters. And it is therefore called firmament, because the waters, being solidified by divine power, are made firm, which, from covering or concealing, is called heaven. And therefore, because water is the greater element, it is mentioned first, since a part of it advanced into the vault of the world. The earth, however, is the pavement: which indeed David, by the Holy Spirit, confesses to have been created. For he says, And the waters that are above the heavens, let them praise the name of the Lord. For He Himself spoke, and they were made; He Himself commanded, and they were created (Ps. 148:4–5). After these elements, before the joining together of the world, God made light, so that His works should go forth in the light, which light, by a fixed arrangement, completed the course of the day. Night came to be according to the measure of the day, which likewise, when the measure of its span was fulfilled, was illumined by the coming of the morning light: and therefore the first day was completed when the second began; for the night is reckoned to the day, so that together they are called one day: for because darkness is subject to light, it lacks authority and cannot make up a number. For thirty days are called one moon, even though nights are included with them. Therefore the service of light, by which it uses up the space assigned to it, is called day. But the substance of darkness, before it is illumined, is called night. And that space which is between the setting and the rising is night. For it is not darkness that makes the night, just as it is not light that makes the day, because darkness remains in its own nature. The coming of light makes day, and its departure makes night. Not without reason, therefore, is the night subject to the day. So, when light was made, and the course of twelve hours completed, and likewise the space of the night of twelve hours also passed, there was an equinox on the first day: and from then the day began to grow longer than the night, namely throughout three months, which are the spring season. From that increase the day then diminishes through three other months, which are the summer season. And again there is an equinox, so that from then the night grows longer than the day through another three months, which are the autumn season. And again the night, from the greatness by which it surpasses the day, begins to diminish until the end of the fourth season, which is winter. And the equinox returns to the first season, when God created the world, which day is understood to be the eleventh day before the Kalends of April, when the first day of Passover is, that is, the first day of the first month. For in the Law it is commanded that on the tenth day of the first month in the evening they should prepare themselves to celebrate Passover on the fourteenth day of the month, that is, from the eleventh. For already the evening of the tenth day shines into the eleventh, so that from the eleventh day before the Kalends of April the beginning of the first month should be. For at the beginning the moon was made on the fourteenth, because all things were made full. Add three days from the evening of the tenth, and these are the three days before the luminaries that were made, so that the world was made on the eleventh day before the Kalends of April; for the number of the moon from the eleventh comes to the fourteenth, to which the first month of Passover in its entirety is assigned, so that on the solemn day of Passover it should be neither beyond the eleventh day before the Kalends of April, nor beyond the fourteenth moon, because the world was made on the eleventh, and on the fourteenth the moon was made brighter with greater light. Between the beginning, therefore, and the brightness with which the world was illumined, our Savior both suffered and rose again; for He suffered on the fourteenth moon, and rose on the first day, which is therefore called the Lord’s Day, because the Lord Himself made it, who made the multiplied months, and the seasons, and the years. And so that it might never be celebrated in exactly the same way, the course of the moon in its wanings and waxings brings this about. But the earth was invisible and unformed. It is clear that the earth, after it was made, was invisible and unformed: for it was covered by waters, and therefore was invisible; and it was unformed because, being fluid, it was not suitable for cultivation. And darkness was upon the abyss. He says that darkness was upon the abyss, that is, upon the boundless water on every side. And the spirit of God was borne above the water (Gen. 1:2). This water he signifies as the extremity, above which the spirit of God, because it was borne above it, shows that the darkness was upon the infinite depth. As for the spirit of God above the waters, since where the spirit of God was, there was no obscurity, it illuminated the water as far as it could. But it could not illuminate the abyss, that is, the immense depth: that is, it illuminated the higher waters, and beneath there was darkness, and over the abyss. He therefore calls this the spirit of God not because he wishes this to be understood as the Holy Spirit, but because he wishes it to be understood spiritually over the material creation, and by calling him the spirit of God who was moving above the waters, he signifies that he is wholly of God, so as to overturn the perverse assertion used by some, who say there is something that is not of God. For it is neither orderly nor reasonable that the Holy Spirit should be said to have been over the waters, since he is over all creation. For whatever is of God is above all powers and principalities and likewise above all spiritual powers. Nor should anyone’s mind be disturbed because he is called the spirit of God, when it is established that all things are God’s. For God, among other things when he was about to make the flood, says: My spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh (Gen. 6:3); and in Ezekiel, among other things: Therefore says the Lord to these bones, I will spread skin over you, and I will give my spirit in you, and you shall live (Ezek. 37:5). Do these things belong to the office of the Holy Spirit, and not to the soul? Therefore this spirit of God is indeed, like the rest, but is the governor of material substances; for his appointed order is to preside over these. When light was made, and the course of day set in order, and the second day completed, he made the firmament, that is, heaven, so that the light in the earth of the firmament might govern the day, so that it might be as a lamp in a house. This firmament, I say, was made from the aforesaid substance of water. For now the world is being joined together in form, so that from the confusion of things, with substances distinguished, individual parts might be fitted which would contribute to the members of the world. For the substances which we said were first made are expended upon the world. And therefore it is called “world” (mundus), because the things that were mixed together, once separated from one another and brought into form, made it called “world,” to whose structure they contributed. Therefore the firmament, that is, heaven, was made in the midst of the waters, so that it might divide between the water that was above the firmament and the water that was below the firmament; so that by God’s power the firmament might stand in the midst of the waters, having water beneath itself, and within itself, and above and around itself; so that it might be concave on the outside and fortified within, lest the waters, whether inner or outer, should penetrate its concavity, so that it might be as a house fortified and strengthened, that those dwelling in it might be secure. On the third day he commanded the water that was under heaven, that is, within the capacity of the firmament, to be gathered into one place, so that the dry land, which is the earth, might appear, and therefore it came to pass. For the breadth of the earth having been drawn out, there was made as it were a basin, in which all the water that was within the firmament might be sunk down, and the dry land appeared. When the water receded, it was necessary that the earth, made visible, should appear, which before had been invisible. Then the dry land was called earth, and the gatherings of the waters seas. And he commanded the earth to bring forth grass for food, and fruit-bearing trees for seed upon the earth. Then on the fourth day God commanded luminaries to be made in the firmament of heaven, that they might shine upon the earth: the greater luminary at the beginning of the day, and the lesser luminary at the beginning of the night, and the stars. These relate to the conception and birth and nourishment of those things which are begotten in the world, and to the signs of seasons needed for fixed intervals, and also to the adornment of the whole world. For just as it belongs to the adornment of a house if its ceiling has panels marked with gold, so also the stars, shining with diverse light, provide adornment to the world. Therefore to the light which was first made, the brightness of the sun is added, so that these are joined and inseparable. And to the night, which was dark, a luminary is given; and because the moon was at the fourteenth day when it was made, therefore he says, The lesser luminary at the beginning of the night: for when it was made, it shone the whole night. From the part, therefore, it is said “at the beginning of the night,” because it does not always shine in the evening. But the greater luminary, which we call the sun, remains at the beginning of the day, because it was compacted together with the prior light. For three days the world existed without these luminaries; for as yet there were not those for whose benefit their functions would serve. But when the earth brought forth grass for food and fruit-bearing trees, there was need of things that would nourish or preserve what had been brought forth. Because all generation of these is completed through their intervention, it was not fitting that these should be made first, lest, by the effect of those things produced from the earth, they should be thought to have arisen; but he made those first, so that therefore these might be without doubt understood to have been made without them. Then on the fifth day he commanded the waters to bring forth creeping things of living souls, and winged creatures flying over the earth beneath the firmament of heaven, and it was so. And among other things, And God saw, he says, that they were good, and he said, Increase and multiply (Gen. 1:21–22). He added, And God saw that they were good, because some say they are evil, so that at least in this way they may feel shame. For when they please God and their maker, surely they ought to displease no one. For fools are accustomed to say, Therefore, they say, he saw, and they pleased him, because previously he did not know. O dull ones, how could He not know? Whatever He willed came forth. Can anyone will what he does not know? And can He who is able to act be said not to know what He is doing? And what is more, He did not make them Himself, but commanded that they be made; and is He who commands not possessed of the power to make? But because all things are possible for Him, when He commanded that what could not do so should begin to be able, it was in order that it might contribute to His praise. There is therefore a double power, that He should command what is insensible to bring forth what is sensible. On the sixth day He commanded the earth to bring forth living soul, quadrupeds, and beasts of the earth; and so it was done, and they were brought forth. And God saw that they were good, and very good, because all are necessary. On the day mentioned above, therefore, God said: Let us make man in our image and likeness, and, He said, let him have power over all things that have been made upon the earth (Gen. 1:26). First indeed God made the substances out of which He would frame the world; when it was compacted, adorned with all its embellishments, and furnished with what was necessary, He then made man, who would enjoy it and all that is in it. For whereas He had commanded that everything on earth should be brought forth from water and earth, yet when He made man, He is described as having taken clay of the earth in His hands, so that He might teach how greatly man differs from the things He had already made. He wishes it to pertain to the honor of man that he is described as being made by the hands of God, and made in the image and likeness of God, that is, of the Father and the Son. What it is to be in the image and likeness of God, although we have said elsewhere, yet this place and its occasion require that we say it again. The words are from the Father to the Son, saying, Let us make man in our image and likeness: although in the work the person of both is understood, of Him who speaks and of Him who hears. This then is the image of God in man, that one man was made as it were a lord, from whom the rest would arise, having the dominion of God as His vicar; for every king bears the image of God. Therefore woman was not made in the image of God. Therefore it says, And God made man; in the image of God He made him. Therefore it is that the Apostle says, A man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman covers it for this reason, because she is not the glory or image of God (1 Cor. 11:7). The likeness of God in man is this, that just as from the Father is the Son, so from man is woman. In this plainly there is a difference, because she was made, whereas He was born. Yet to some it seems that God made all things at once. For, they say, if He made by His word, why is it not said that He made everything at once? For it is the custom among men to believe that things are made in stages. For the power of God it seems more fitting if it is said that He made all things in one day. However, we see great providence in this work and order. For He could certainly have made all things together; but diverse reason forbade it, and with all these matters set apart, faith must be given to divine Scripture, which says, and often says, For in six days, it says, the Lord your God made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them (Exod. 20:11). First then, they ought to have been made in such a way that they might feel and know that they had been made: for when they did not all see themselves at once, but one today, another tomorrow, they recognized that they are contained in a beginning, and in no way could they suspect eternity, since they recognize each other in parts. For if all things had existed at once, there would be no sense of weakness for them, but they would think that they had not begun. For those things which suddenly exist all together by the word of God do not feel themselves being made, unless they see something before themselves and something after themselves. And lest that which was made first might think itself unmade, by seeing greater things made after itself, it believes of itself what it has seen in the other that is nobler. Finally, the light which is called day has before itself heaven and earth, that is, water and dry land. But when water itself and dry land and the confused darkness had been made, they could not claim eternity for themselves, because none of these dared to claim for itself fixedness and identity. Again, the sun and moon, though they are most bright, have many things before them. Therefore it was brought about that the greater things are later, and the earlier lesser things, when they see each other, none of these claims eternity for itself. Furthermore, the work completed in six days contains within itself the whole age of the world, so that the works of six days have the figure of six thousand years: because what in each age was going to happen is contained in order in the works of the six days; for instance, because in the earlier ages there was not going to be such great knowledge of God upon the earth, the earlier days appear without splendor; and that cattle were made before man, because our forefathers, uncultivated and rural, were going to live in the manner of cattle; but that man should be made on the sixth day, this event was brought about because in the sixth millennium of years the coming of Christ made man so that he should not be subject to death. And that man should be the image of God, because by God’s gift he would be conformed in image to the Son of God, as the apostle John says, We know, he says, that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him (1 Jn. 3:2). And the Vessel of election: being conformed, he says, to the image of the Son of God (Rom. 8:29). Moreover, the tree of life which was set in paradise was the image of God’s future grace, which is the body of the Lord; whoever eats it will live forever. For the tree of the knowledge of good and evil signifies that the Law was given through Moses, which, when it made sin known that previously lay hidden, gave the knowledge of good and evil. For it showed what was good and what was evil. And as to the fact that on the seventh day He rested from His works, this signifies that, once the sixth millennium of years is completed, in the seventh millennium He will rest, with the world ceasing from all secular work. We have said these few things out of many, so that we might open a path for understanding according to what we have shown above.

(Genesis 1:1)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 2. WHY DID GOD CREATE THE WORLD? — He made it because He is a craftsman; or else it must be denied that He is, if He did not. But His very works show that He exists. He therefore made what previously did not exist, because without doubt it is better to be than not to be. If it is said, “Was there some empty place where He could make it, or what was there before He made it?” The Vessel of Election resolves this briefly. For when speaking of God he says, “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28); that is, all things are in God, because He is everywhere, and before all things He alone is eternal, invisible to every creature. And lest we seem to have passed over the mystery, or rather to have been ignorant why the world was made, we say that the apostasy of the Devil drew many angels, that is, spiritual powers, with him into transgression, when he willed by wicked presumption to defend a kingdom for himself. This the prophet Isaiah signifies, saying, “How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who used to rise in the morning?” (Isa. 14:12); that is, you who appeared brighter than the rest. For he was a sort of prince of many, among whom he was more splendid, and with whose company he descended into wicked conflict. Seeing beneath himself many spiritual powers, since in the paradise of God he was more excellent in the knowledge of the heavenly mystery, swollen with pride itself, he wished to be called god. In this, moreover, we see in the present life that some have imitated his example: men who, puffed up by the contemplation of the troops of soldiers gathered around them, and with their attendants supplying fuel for conspiracy in this matter, have tried to claim dominion for themselves. From this it came about that God, in order to destroy his presumption not by power but by reason, created matter which would be a confusion of things, from which He would make the world. For the things that were together in confusion, once distinguished, yielded this adornment which we see. When the substances were separated from one another, and a structure made, it is called “world”; because each thing, set apart from another, appeared in the world: so that man, placed here, created from what is above and what is below, that is, from heavenly and earthly elements, might show by the dominion of the one God, not only by voice but also by the image in which one man was made by the one God, from whom the rest would arise, that all things are from one. For One made one, so that He might teach that all are from one, and that therefore God is one; so that the higher creature might learn in man, to its own confusion, truth, he who was formed from the earth. From this the Devil became man’s enemy. For he foresaw that man was made to be his accuser; and so by his subtlety he worked to bring man into the same transgression into which he himself fell, so that he might make his accuser a sharer in his own condemnation. For in the transgression he promised man divinity, from which he himself, when he aimed to it, was cast down. And since every nature is free from guilt, it takes its names from what happens from it. First come things, afterwards their designation; and so “Satan” and “Devil” are names formed from his deeds, so that they signify not his nature but his will. Therefore, so that the purpose of God, which He decreed in the case of created man, should stand firm, and so that the deed of the Devil, by which he deceived man, might increase the weight of his own guilt, Christ agreed to come down from the holy seats even to earth: so that He might free man from the sentence of transgression, and might show the future perdition of the Devil, lest anyone imitate his deed. For this reason the apostle John said, “For this the Son of God came, that He might destroy the works of the Devil” (1 Jn. 3:8). If he were evil by nature, then to promise him punishment would be madness or injustice. For who reproves one whom he sees do nothing except what his nature allows? Can fire be blamed because it burns, or water because it cools, when it does this not by will but by nature? Therefore if the Devil was evil by nature, he would have no will. Nor could he discern; instead, in one and the same way he would rush upon all, like a blind creature. But in fact he acts with a kind of judgment: he spares those who do his will, conceals toward certain beginners, sets obstacles and hindrances before those who seek to flee to God’s help, lays snares for the servants of God, and is more hostile to those who are more zealous in His service. From this it is clear that his will lies in crime. Therefore the apostle Peter says, “Be sober and watchful, because your adversary the Devil, like a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). He does not seek the Gentiles, he does not seek the Jews, he does not seek those of evil life and conduct; he seeks the servants of God and the followers of Christ, whom he knows to be his enemies, because they condemn his deed and his presumption. Indeed, once the Law was given, envy burned more fiercely against those who were under the Law, knowing that the teachings of the Law proclaim one God and good conduct for men. Therefore, if he is thought to do this by nature, he cannot be held guilty: because he does what belongs to his nature and what he can do, and does not do what he cannot do, because it does not belong to his nature. Therefore he is neither to be praised nor condemned. He is not to be praised, because what he does harms; but he is not to be condemned, because he does these things not by will but by the force of nature. For we know that some have suddenly gone mad, and with clubs, iron, stones, and bites have injured many, even killed some; yet when they were captured by skill and brought before judges, they were not held guilty, because they had done these things not by will, but driven by some unknown force, not knowing what they did. For how can he be made guilty who does not know what he has done? So also if the Devil does not know good, why is he judged condemnable for not doing what he does not know? Rather, if it could be so, he would deserve praise because he does what he does not know. We, however, are rightly made guilty, because we do not do what we know we ought to do, or because we do what we know we ought not to do. But since we see throughout all of Scripture that the Devil is presented as guilty, and therefore we read that Hell has been prepared for him, that he is to be condemned by the law, we know this: because when he knew and was able to do good, he did evil. For God, who is just, would not condemn him for not doing the good which he did not know; but because he did the evil which he did know. Therefore I think it is clear that no nature ought to be called evil, because every evil, as has been made evident, arises from the will, which through the senses befalls nature.

(Genesis 1:1)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 28. WHAT CAN WE SAY TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THIS WORLD EXISTS NATURALLY FROM ALL ETERNITY, AND THAT IT HAS NEITHER BEGINNING NOR END? — That the world has existed from eternity and is subject to no authority is unlikely and impossible. We see it made up of bodies in such great diversity; yet nothing divine and eternal can be anything but simple, in which no diversity is seen, but only unity. For the world does not even preserve the regular cycles of the seasons, so that it is not only changeable in time or composed of contrary substances, but even in those very cycles of time; whereas what is eternal shuns all diversity and cannot be grasped by touch or sight, being incorporeal. This world, however, is subject to suffering, since water resists fire, and fire, if it grows stronger, overcomes water; and the earth, being by nature dry and cold, suffers burning, as a corporeal thing. Therefore it is inappropriate to call the world eternal, since we see it subject to suffering and failing through age as the ages go by, and we believe that it will come to an end. What is to be thought of the person who believes the world is eternal? Certainly man began in the world: without man, for whom did the yearly fruitfulness of the world profit? Or did it generate without any providence? And how did what is eternal generate corruptible and mortal things, when from what is eternal only what is eternal ought to arise? And that which is visible, felt, and touched, by what boldness is it called eternal? And that which is dispensed in the cycles of time, so that even time itself sometimes does not perform its proper functions, how is it called eternal? For eternity is neither corrupted nor changed.

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 3. WHAT NEED WAS THERE FOR MOSES TO EXPLAIN LATER, AND NOT EARLIER, THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD AND THE ORDER OF CREATION? — It was not fitting that it should be described before, because for this reason so great an error did not yet exist among humans. But when error had already grown in the human race, so that even the sons of Israel in Egypt heard from the philosophers of the Egyptians a teaching contrary to this account, those same Egyptians from whom Moses had also learned all Egyptian knowledge, that a certain Apis had fashioned this world through evil angels, and that this one too seems to be the prince of the world, that is, Satan, this view Marcion followed and rushed into death. For the Manichaeans also say that man was made by this same Satan, not this world, being more foolish than the others. For since it is agreed that the world was made for the sake of man, they say that the world was made by God, though from foreign substance; but that man was created by the adversary, as though in another’s house another master were set. It was therefore necessary that Moses, in order to expose and remove this error, should make it clear that God is the author of the world and of man who was made. Having received authority through the signs and wonders that he performed, he taught that what he transmitted with attesting signs was without doubt true. For who would not believe him whose deeds produced such great signs? Therefore it is that those who think contrary to this teaching are known to err, because they strive to support their assertion with bare words. Therefore, in order to teach that nothing is coeternal with God, he sets forth the very order of created things, so that while he mentions that the lesser things were made first, and afterwards the greater, none of these may be thought uncreated: for those that are later in time are greater in power; so that if the former think they have superiority by reason of time, they are refuted by the very weakness by which they are subjected to the latter; or if the latter, presuming on their power, claim primacy for themselves, they are humbled by their posteriority, so that none of these may appear not to have been subject from the beginning. First indeed heaven and earth were made; then light, which serves for day; after that the firmament, which was called heaven, and the gatherings of the waters, which he called seas, so that the earth might appear in which it could be possible to live. By “earth,” which he says was made after heaven, he does not wish us to understand earth alone, but he signified matter, that is, all the lower things which brought forth the whole appearance of the world. “Heaven,” however, he maintains to be not this bodily one, but that higher one which is spiritual, made in the beginning; so that when he says that heaven was first made, then earth, he meant that in heaven all things invisible, and on earth all things visible, were created by God. For he includes the highest and the lowest of the whole of nature, so that whatever lies between is without doubt also believed to have been made. The luminaries moreover, which he appointed for the governance of the world, he declares were made on the fourth day, so that the greater they are in power, the later they are in time. But man he established on the sixth day, so that he might introduce an inhabitant into a house already prepared. And man is far more exalted, who indeed is declared to have been made on the sixth day; whom I therefore called more exalted because his inner nature is invisible and capable of understanding. Yet in strength the sun is greater, and in light the moon is more excellent than the earth. Therefore it is that some are displeased by the statement, “And he saw the light, that it was good”: for since all things were said by them to have been made by evil, they could not be believed to be good. Moses, in order to prove that the things which were made are good, shows that what he made was pleasing to God himself, so that whoever was displeased by them might be shown guilty. For how could he be ignorant of the light, who said, “Let there be light,” and there was light? Or who makes what he does not know? The light that was made pleased him who made it. What craftsman does not rejoice in his work? Therefore it is said, “God saw the light, that it was good” (Gen. 1:3–4). And there is no lack of those who say that it is evil. What, if it had been left without testimony? Therefore, after the structure of the world had been described, the line of the race was carried through from the origin of the first man by Seth, who was given in place of Abel, and in due order it comes down to Abraham, the father of the Jews: so that it might be shown that Abraham believed in this God, who is the maker of the world, and that he himself gave the Law, in which the Christ who was to come was promised, who would free the human race from the dominion of the Devil. From these things our faith is proved reasonable. For the described genealogy bears witness to this, because from the beginning there has been a race of Christians. For from Seth, the son of Adam, one comes to Enoch, from Enoch to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham one descends to David, from David to Mary, from Mary Christ is born of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, all those in former times, as many as had faith in the one God whom the Savior proclaimed, are rightly to be called Christians. For from the beginning the coming Savior was promised. Therefore John in the Apocalypse says, “The Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). Therefore there have always been Christians. For all those, whom I mentioned above, from the first man created in the world, through whom the line reaches to the Savior, had faith in this God, of whom Christ spoke when he said: “Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (Jn. 17:3). It may be said by way of objection: If even those earlier people were Christians, what new knowledge came through Christ? The coming of Christ brought this advance in understanding: that the preaching of the one God revealed the mystery, showed what belongs to each person (of the Trinity), and, to the fulfilling of the righteousness of the Law, added what had been reserved.

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 107. ON THE ORDER OF DAY AND NIGHT. — As far as the structure of the world is concerned, we read of darkness before we read of light. For those things which contributed to the making of the world, and which appear to have been made together, are considered to have been without light; that is, water, earth, darkness, from which the world was compacted, as is contained in Wisdom, which is called Solomon’s, “out of formless matter” (Wis. 11:18), that is, dark matter. For both darkness and water are testified by the sacred books to have been made by the very voice of the Lord through the prophet Isaiah: “I,” he says, “am God, who made the light and created the darkness” (Isa. 45:6–7). Likewise, through David, the Holy Spirit shows both that the waters were made and that the earth was established upon the waters (Ps. 135:6). This agrees both with the authority of the Gospel and the tradition of the Apostles, in which all things are read as having been made; and so that nothing might be excepted, he says, “whether things in heaven or things on earth” (Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16). Therefore, in this part which pertains to earthly things, we read of darkness before light. This, however, is only in respect to the order of the reading, not in respect to dignity; for of course light is much better than darkness. Yet in the ordering of the world light receives the name by which it is called day, and darkness is called night; but specifically for this reason, that when the darkness is illumined and the light passes, that span of time until the light returns is called night; and that span of time during which the darkness is illumined is called day. When night is named, then, the coming day is expected; and when day is named, the coming night is expected. But when these functions cease, with the passing away of the world, they will be called only darkness and light. For it cannot be called night when there are perpetual shades, nor day when the light has ceased to set. Where eternity is, these names cease, because they began with the world. Indeed, before light was made, which was called day, it is not read that there was night, but darkness; which, after they were illumined and the light passed, were called evening and night. Therefore, as far as appears, night is lesser to day. For just because darkness is mentioned before light, it should not therefore seem to be preferred; since heaven existed before the sun, and yet the sun is greater in brightness; and the earth before man, and cattle and the other animals, and yet they are subject to man. Night therefore must not be set before day merely because darkness is read first; since it is clear that in dignity light precedes darkness, and in time day precedes night. For as was shown above, when there was darkness, light was made. “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night; and there was evening and morning, one day” (Gen. 1:5). For if there had been no day, there would not even be night; there was, in fact, darkness, which, when it was illumined and the day had passed, its course completed, became evening. And when after evening it grew light, the first day came to be, the night having passed, so that night might follow day. This is both fitting and rationally praiseworthy: that a lower nature in all things be subject to a higher. How then is night said to be before day, when you read its name after day? For it would not have been called night, nor evening, unless, once light was made, it had run its course as day; when that ended, evening came to be, which is night. The day indeed became evening, so that you may know that night is a part of day. For the day is completed only when night too has passed. Therefore we say, “The year has three hundred and sixty-five days,” not, of course, without nights. For when we say “days,” we are there including nights as well. Under the authority of “day” we signify night; for if night were the leading term, under the name of night day too would be counted. Who among men says, “After five nights I will see you,” and not, “after five days”? Nor do we remember ever to have read anywhere that night was named before day. For “Moses,” he says, “was on the mountain forty days and forty nights” (Exod. 24:18). And in the Psalm: “The sun,” he says, “shall not burn you by day, nor the moon by night” (Ps. 120:6). And to give an example from the very beginnings: “Let there be,” he says, “luminaries in the firmament of heaven, and let them give light upon the earth: the greater luminary for the beginning of the day, and the lesser luminary for the beginning of the night” (Gen. 1:14). But the moon cannot be set before the sun, just as night cannot be set before day; rather, as the moon is under the sun, so night is under day. And in the Gospel we have both days and nights indicated under the authority and numbering of days. For the Lord says, among other things, “There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man in his kingdom.” And he added, “And it came to pass after eight days” (Luke 9:27, etc.). Are not nights included in this number? And in another place: “These things,” he says, “were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. On the next day he saw Jesus coming.” Did he say, “On the next night”? Again it follows: “On the following day he wished to depart into Galilee” (John 1:28–29, 43). And in what follows: “And on the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee” (Jn. 2:1). See how everywhere day is shown to have authority, having night as its subordinate. For if all were contained under the name of night, night would precede day. Therefore, because the Romans have the rule, the Spaniards and Gauls and Africans and the rest who are subject to them are called Romans under their name; so also night, because it is subject to day, is contained under its name. But some are deceived on this point, because the Jews are ordered to enter the sabbath in the evening, and they do not consider why such a command was given. For indeed they necessarily have to buy food for themselves the day before, and prepare it for the sabbath, and go to wash. Can they do these things by night, so as to enter the sabbath at sunrise? The Lord certainly rose again in the evening, and this is reckoned to the day. For the resurrection is celebrated on a day, which is called the Lord’s Day. Therefore you read, “This is the day which the Lord has made” (Ps. 117:24); yet not “the Lord’s night,” because day holds the primacy For whether on the past day or on the future, night is always placed beneath; because it is lower both in order and in nature, as the Apostle says: You are children of the day and of the light, not of the night nor of darkness (1 Thess. 5:5). And if we judge by the consuls, we shall see that he is named first who is chosen first. Indeed it is customary to say, With him who will be consul? If therefore night were also before day, it would be named first. For the reckoning so truly begins from the day, that, for example, if we say, Tomorrow is the sixth day before the calends, it is of course from morning until another morning is reached, so that a day and a night having passed, the count is complete. For the moon too, of course, was made on the morning of the fourteenth day; for it had to be made to shine for the whole night, and on the next morning the fifteenth began. Why then is there any doubt, that the beginnings are to be taken from the day? On account of the disputes of certain persons about a matter that is obvious, we have been forced to speak at greater length, although the reading itself explains itself, in which day is signified before night with clear reasoning. All these things mentioned above we have said according to the origin of the world. But if we wish to speak more deeply, lifting up our understanding with spiritual strength, we discover it to be unfitting to assert that darkness was created before light. For if the nature of light is heavenly and that of darkness earthly, it is surely senseless to think that light was made after darkness; because Moses says that light was made in that part in which the world now is, not that it was then created; for all spiritual things were created before carnal things, so that the light which was in the heights might come to be in the lower regions, like a lamp in a house. But in what way are darknesses said to be before light, when they are always seen after light? Indeed, heavenly and spiritual things are believed by nature to be light, earthly and carnal things to be darkness; so that the nature of darkness seems to subsist by the power of light, because all that is lowest belongs to what is highest. For if we question, we discover darkness even in the sun itself. For when you are close to it, it appears so very bright that it cannot be looked at; but at a certain distance, still very bright, yet such that it can be seen; but if far away, less bright: the farther, the less bright. From this there appears a certain defect which proclaims darkness, and therefore it comes about that darkness seems to take its rise from light. Therefore he who made light created darkness also in this way, just as in making water he at the same time created earth: so that, as earth is the solid support of water, so darkness is the defect of light. But God alone is he who does not suffer defect, who, although he is everywhere, or rather has all things within himself, is so exceedingly bright that he is seen by no one, unless he is willing to moderate himself. Indeed, although the Savior was in the body and was not shut in, yet he was not seen, unless he willed it. For when he was transfigured on the mountain and appeared in great glory (Matt. 17:1–2), that which, as it were, lay hidden in the body he revealed when he willed. How then was he hidden, who was not enclosed? For if, with his body, he entered to the disciples through closed doors (Jn. 20:19), how does his divinity not penetrate all things? that is, it cannot be shut in, because it does not suffer defect. Since therefore God is absent from nowhere, yet he is said to be there where he appears and wills to be seen. And since all things are in God, because he surpasses all things, as the Apostle says, For in him we live and move and are (Acts 17:28); he himself, nonetheless, is in nothing except in what he wills. By a certain mystery he is in all things, and by a certain providence he appears where he wills.

(Genesis 1:26)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 24. WHY, SINCE MAN AND WOMAN ARE ONE FLESH, IS MAN THE IMAGE OF GOD AND NOT WOMAN? — Man and woman are indeed of one substance, both in soul and in flesh; but man holds a higher rank, because woman is from man, as the Apostle says: “The head of the woman is the man” (Eph. 5:25; 1 Cor. 11:3). For it was the cause that made man greater, not the substance. In one body, too, there are greater and lesser members, not by nature, but by arrangement.

(Genesis 1:26) 

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 45. HOW MAN WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, AND WHETHER THIS WAS FOR DOMINION, AND WHETHER WOMAN TOO? —  “Let us make,” he says, “man in our image and likeness” (Gen. 1:26). Some think this should be understood in light of another passage of Scripture, namely that in which we read that God said, “Come, let us go down and confuse their languages” (Gen. 11:7). For, as far as outward appearance goes, it seems similar: it is one voice speaking in the plural; but it differs in meaning, because the reasons are not the same. There, he speaks of creating man, whom God wills to be created in his image and likeness. But when he says, “Come, let us go down and confuse their languages,” this refers to the fact that men should not understand one another; therefore God can be seen as speaking to the angels, like a commander to his army. He speaks in common, because he was going to act through them, as their Creator; and therefore he says, “Let us confuse their languages.” For when he says, “Let us make man in our image and likeness,” it cannot be said that he spoke to the angels, because one cannot say that there is one single image of God and of the angels, as of an emperor and his companions. For where there is one single image, the dignity and nature cannot be different. Accordingly he added, “And God made man; in the image of God he made him” (Gen. 1:27): so that it is God who said, and God who made; not another or a different god, but the same God. For when one speaks to one, he did not signify a different nature, but a person. For although God is one, there are nonetheless three persons: and therefore there is one God, because whether in the Son or in the Holy Spirit, there is the one substance of God; for what proceeds from that substance cannot fail to be what he himself is. Therefore the person of God the Father is the one who says, “Let us make”; and the person of the Son is the one who makes man in the image of God; whether in the image of the Father or of himself, it makes no difference, because the image of both is one. Moreover, the Son made through the Holy Spirit. For just as the Father is said to make through the Son, so also the Son through the Holy Spirit, since he himself says, “I cast out demons by the Spirit of God” (Matt. 12:28). Therefore one image belongs to the three; because whether Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, there is one God. And consequently man was made one in the image of the one God. Man is the image of God in this respect, that just as there is one God in heaven, from whom all spiritual beings have their existence, so there should be one man on earth, from whom the rest would have their carnal origin. Yet some think that man was made in the image of God with respect to God’s dominion; and because it says, “And let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the air, and all the earth,” whereas not only the man but also the woman is seen to have these things subject to her, though it is certain that she does not have the image of God. This indeed fails in reason on two counts: for in that case it would be asserted that God did not say to the Son, “Let us make man in our image and likeness,” but to the heavenly dominions which the Apostle mentions, if man has the image of God in dominion; and it would be given to the woman, so that she too would be the image of God, which is absurd. For how can it be said of the woman that she is the image of God, when it is certain that she is subject to the rule of the man and has no authority? She can neither teach, nor act as a witness, nor pronounce a legal decision, nor judge; how much less can she exercise command?

 (Genesis 1:31, 7:2)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 9. IF ALL THE CREATURES THAT GOD MADE WERE GOOD AND VERY GOOD, WHY DID HE SAY TO NOAH, "BRING WITH YOU INTO THE ARK OF PURE AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS, SINCE NO ONE CAN CALL GOOD WHAT IS UNCLEAN?” (GEN. 1:31; 7:2) — It is because words have many different senses that they give rise to questions. For if they are referred to the specific issue being discussed, there will be no question, since things themselves unfold in due order. Sometimes we call “common” what is undivided; sometimes what is unclean. For “common” is used in two ways. Therefore the Apostle Peter says, “Nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth” (Acts 10:14). And the Apostle Paul says, “Everything that does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23); and elsewhere, “The law is not of faith” (Gal. 3:12), and yet it is not sin. You see, then, that one and the same word does not always signify the same thing. So also when something is called “unclean,” we must consider for what reason it is so called: sometimes it is called unclean in comparison with something better; sometimes it is referred to dishonorable deeds, so that it is understood as evil. No substance, therefore, is evil; for those things which are called unclean by reason of their substance are unclean only in comparison with things of surpassing beauty. For a dog is called unclean compared with a sheep; lead is unclean compared with gold; a raven compared with a peacock. And though they are all members of one body, some are called honorable and others dishonorable, even though they are known not to be evil. Therefore all things are good in their own nature, because they are useful. 

(Genesis 2:7)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 23. CAN SOULS, THEN, BE TRANSLATED JUST LIKE BODIES? — I think it is dishonorable to say that souls are generated together with bodies, so that a soul is born from a soul, a thing that does not belong even to the soul itself. Or if indeed each of the heavenly powers was made individually, and from them the rest came to be, then it might seem believable that from the one soul of Adam the other souls are born. But this is not fitting, because this was possible for God alone, that the simple should generate, and was not granted to others. This is so mysterious in the case of the Savior that it is considered unbelievable not only by pagans or Jews alone, but even by those who call themselves Christians. For the Photinians and Arians reject this faith and do not believe that God has generated. For if at the time when the body is sown the soul also is generated from a soul, we read that a rib was taken from Adam, yet we do not read that a soul was born from a soul. But if the rib had a soul with it, then it was not born, but removed as a part. Yet this too is not written. The prophet Zechariah says among other things: “Who formed the spirit of man within him” (Zech. 12:1). Nor does Isaiah disagree with this, for he says: “Therefore says the Lord God who made you and formed you in the womb” (Isa. 44:2). If therefore it is formed in the womb, then it is given to an already shaped body. For when it fills all the members of the body, it is said to be fashioned in the body. Just as water, although without form, when poured into a vessel appears to be shaped, so the soul, though by nature incorporeal and simple, is as it were formed in the body, giving life to each of the members. Moses has handed this down more clearly, saying: “If someone strikes a woman who is pregnant in the womb, and she miscarries: if what is in her is fully formed, let him give soul for soul; but if it is unformed, let him be fined” (Exod. 21:22), so that he might prove that the soul is not present before the form. Therefore, if it is given to a body already formed, it is not born at the conception of the body, derived with the seed. For if the soul exists with the seed and comes from another soul, many souls perish every day, since the seed by a certain outflow does not come to birth. But if we look more closely, we shall see what we ought to follow. Let us consider the making of Adam. In Adam an example was given, so that from him it might be understood that a soul was received by an already formed body. For God could have mixed the soul with the clay of the earth and so have formed the body. But he proceeded with reason, because the house had first to be put together and then the inhabitant brought in. The soul, certainly, since it is spirit, cannot dwell in dryness; therefore it is carried in the blood. Consequently, when the features of the body have not yet been put together, where will the soul be? Does it wander outside until it is put in, although reason teaches that it is given in such a way as to animate the body, not to wander idly? But from whom is it given, let those who think otherwise tell us: from the male, or from the female? If from the female, it is not fitting, because the example is otherwise. For they propose that with the rib taken from the man, a soul was also given; and we have shown by many arguments that this is invalid. From this it might perhaps seem to be given from the female, especially on account of the Savior, whom we know to have been born of a woman from the Holy Spirit, without the union of flesh. But if they suppose this, they give more to women; for they transfer the authority of the man to the woman. Since they claim that the origin of both body and soul is from the man, they turn around and say that what is more important, namely the soul, is from the woman, and what is less, namely the body, is from the male; although it is clear that the order of the example given by God cannot be altered.

(Genesis 2:7)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 123. DID ADAM HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT? — I have found that some of our brethren have not fully examined the Scriptures, but in simplicity of mind affirm that when Adam was made, he received the Holy Spirit, which he lost when he sinned, just as it is now given to believers. Led by this reasoning, by which many are accustomed to assert that through faith man is restored so that, being brought back to his former state, he receives all that Adam had obtained in the beginning; and because he is said to be made a perfect man, they say that if he did not have the Holy Spirit, he was imperfect. But I say that not only man, but also all things which God made, which cannot be said to have received the Holy Spirit, are perfect. For all kinds of animals are perfect in their own nature, so that they may accomplish that for which they are made: so also man is perfect in his own kind, so that he is able to discern evil from good, crooked from straight. For he is an intelligible creature, perfect for that for which he was made. He is capable of speaking, planning, and acting, so that what he cannot accomplish by strength, he fulfills by understanding. And how have they dared to say that man ought to be born perfect and to know everything, when they see that he knows nothing beyond what he learns here? For what he does not learn here, he does not know. Finally, since he does not learn here what he is like, he does not know: therefore, since he does not know what he is like, how does he know all things, when knowing oneself is less than knowing other things? But because he learns about other things, and does not learn about himself, he knows about others, but does not know about himself, neither what he is like, nor whether he exists before the body or after the body. For if he had been made so perfect that he needed nothing, he would not have been man, but God; nor would he, being deceived, have transgressed. But to have the Holy Spirit is beyond the nature and perfection of man, so that he may be able to do the things that are of God. Was it not beyond its perfection that the donkey spoke to Balaam (Num. 22:28)? For it received so that it might do what was not of its own nature, but of ours. Therefore, since man is superior to the other animals, must those be said to be imperfect? Or because the holy angels are not what God is, are they imperfect? Or because the luminaries and stars are inferior to the heavenly angels, or because the clouds with their veil obscure the sun and the moon, are they less perfect? And because the members need one another (for the feet cannot do what the hands can), shall they be called imperfect? Far from it. For all things are firm and perfect in their own places and ranks, so that they fulfill that for which they are made. Therefore all things are perfect, because their Creator is also perfect; but in comparison with him they are imperfect. For God is perfect in all things, as the fountain and origin of all. Now the things that have been made are indeed perfect, but with regard to that for which they were made, so that in another respect they are not perfect; because one needs another: so that in that respect in which it does not need, it is perfect, not in that in which it needs: and therefore all things are both perfect and imperfect. Hands need feet; for unless the feet walk, the hands will be idle. Again, the feet need hands; for they cannot shoe themselves nor care for themselves. Therefore, although the body is perfect with its members, it nevertheless cannot fly, nor bear as much as a mule can. And although these (animals) are perfect, they still do not know how to govern themselves, nor can they apply medicine to themselves. Where it is said, Do not be like horse and mule, which have no understanding (Ps. 32:9). And water and fire, though they oppose one another, are perfect in their own kind; for they fulfill that for which they were made. Fire cooks and consumes; it purifies and heats: water, however, washes, cools, irrigates, and refreshes the thirsty. Therefore, since all things are perfect in their own kind, yet without man they can do nothing, nor can man, although he is more perfect, do anything without them. Therefore the Apostle calls us imperfect and perfect. For in comparison with unbelievers we are perfect, because we know God: but because we know less than we ought of the things that are promised, since in this life we cannot comprehend as much as that which is believed, we are imperfect. Therefore, since they think that Adam’s perfection is restored to believers, let us see whether this restoration has anything beyond the divine gift which Adam had obtained. For when Adam was made, he was placed in paradise that he might work there and keep it: that is, that he might cultivate the land and keep the commandments of God, by which he might know that he had received dominion over all things in such a way that he himself should nevertheless live under the law of the Creator, lest his dominion should exalt him, and, puffed up with pride, he should become forgetful of his Maker. He was therefore placed there so that his life might be sustained by food: but through Christ this has been granted, that those who rise again do not need food or drink; because what is mortal in man is transformed into life. Adam was made to dwell on earth; but faith has consented to grant that our dwelling be in heaven. Scripture itself bears witness, for it says, The first man Adam was made a living soul, but the second man a quickening spirit. The first man was of the earth, earthly; the second man was from heaven, heavenly. As is the earthly, such also are the earthly; and as is the heavenly, such also are the heavenly (1 Cor. 15:45–48). What is clearer than that Adam did not have the Holy Spirit? For he was made a living soul; but through Christ (we are made) a quickening spirit, so that man may in some way be similar to the Creator whom he believes. For since the mystery of faith, which is given for salvation, is threefold, he becomes threefold, in body, soul, and Holy Spirit, through whom we are called sons of God: a title which Adam is by no means proved to have received; for he was made earthly. But the sons of God, born not carnally but spiritually, are said to be heavenly. Behold, the gift of God has clearly granted much more grace to man in the time of the Savior than Adam had received; for he has not only been restored, but also improved: restored in that he has been washed from sins; improved in all other respects. For both justice and reason demanded that God’s mercy in granting benefits should be more abundant at the time when He willed the mystery of His divinity to become known to His creature: so that, coming to know what had been unknown for ages and generations, that the mystery of the one God subsists in the Trinity, those cleansed from sins, as though by a kind of dedication to this novelty itself, might furthermore be justified, and, adopted by God, receive the Holy Spirit, by whom they appear to bear the mark of adoption. For adoption from God ought to bear the sign of God the Father, so that they are rightly called sons of God. This gift too was promised through the Prophets, to be given at the time when the mystery of God was to be revealed in the triumph of conquered death, so that the creature might know that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God. Therefore the Evangelist says: “The Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (Jn. 7:39). For this is glorification: when, by His power, He is recognized as being what He testified about Himself; because this glorification bestowed that gift which had been promised through the prophet Joel. For God says: “In the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, etc.” (Joel 2:28). And the Apostle says among other things: “But when the kindness and love for man of God our Savior appeared; not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:4–7). The Apostle confirmed what had been promised through the prophet Joel, because after Jesus was glorified God fulfilled this: that He should pour out the Holy Spirit upon those who believe in Christ. And this is to become an heir of eternal life: to receive the Holy Spirit; so that, because the Spirit is eternal, the one who receives Him should have eternal life: for He is the pledge of immortality. Whoever receives Him and abides in His love, when this life is passed, goes on to heaven to Him whose Spirit he possesses. For it would be strange that one who departs therefore having the Holy Spirit should be held in the lower regions. The Spirit of Christ is in man as a mark of Christ’s victory by which He conquered death, so that whoever has His Spirit cannot be held in Hades. And therefore in the ancient saints the Holy Spirit was not present in the same way as He is now in the faithful; for when they departed from this world, they were in the underworld: and it cannot be said that the Holy Spirit, because of Adam’s sin, which through the transmission of the race made all his offspring subject to the underworld, was held under the same sentence that was given to Adam. Therefore, that the Holy Spirit was with the Prophets and righteous men is not doubtful: with the Prophets, on account of the dispensation; with the righteous, on account of holiness, as is read of holy Simeon, because, it says, “the Holy Spirit was upon him” (Luke 2:25); not as a mark of adoption in him, but by reason of his merits. For sons of God who believe only began to exist when the Son of God was revealed, death conquered, to the whole creation. But if it is said that the Holy Spirit was in Adam or in others in the same manner as He is now in the faithful, what new gifts did God bestow when He dedicated in us the kingdom of His Son? And how can the time of the Savior’s coming be called happy and blessed above others if He bestowed the same things that had already been bestowed? And where is that saying in which the Savior says to His disciples: “Many Prophets and righteous men have desired to see what you see, and to hear what you hear, and have not heard” (Matt. 13:17)? By what reasoning, then, can it be said that the blessedness of this time has brought no greater gift than was granted to the ancients? This indeed turns to the dishonor of the Savior, as though He had nothing new to give to those who received Him at the rise of His kingdom; although the wealthy are accustomed to labor so that on the festive day of their birthday they may offer rare gifts to their invited guests. How great, then, is the injustice, that God, being said to have invited people to a new and unheard-of festival day, worthy of all praise, should be thought to have had no unprecedented gifts to bestow? And where is that statement of the Evangelist John, who says: “He came unto His own, and His own did not receive Him; but as many as received Him, He gave them power to become sons of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn. 1:11–13)? How, then, is it not something unheard-of that God bestowed upon believers in Christ, when He gave them the power to become sons of God, that is, brothers of His own Son, not by the will of the flesh or of man, but of God, so that they might be born spiritually? Or if it is proved that this grace had previously been granted, then it must be said that the coming of Christ brought nothing new. Adam’s making, surely, was carnal and earthly, not spiritual. For he was not born of God without flesh and blood, but made by God from earth: and therefore he could not receive the Holy Spirit, since he was not spiritual, and it had not been granted to him to call God “Father” in prayer. Those who receive the Holy Spirit are given the power that, by reason of having the Holy Spirit, they may call that One the Father of Christians in prayer. Because this had not previously been granted, the ancients cannot be said to have had the Holy Spirit. Those therefore who think that Adam or others had the Holy Spirit do not understand what kind of gift they have from God; nor can they give fitting thanks to Him, since, though receiving more than the others, they say that they have obtained nothing beyond what the others received.

(Genesis 2:7)

2^ND CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 3. WHEN ADAM WAS MADE BY GOD AND GIVEN LIFE, HE RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT; FOR IT IS WRITTEN, “GOD BREATHED INTO HIS FACE THE SPIRIT OF LIFE” (Gen. 2:7). — It was not fitting that he should receive the Holy Spirit then; for this was reserved by God for the future, so that in the last days, when the mystery of the one God was revealed, it would be given to believers. From the beginning the Trinity was indeed preached, but the understanding of it was, as it were, under a veil. For the person of God the Father was first preached and revealed without delay and without figure, because all things are from him. But the persons of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit were not kept silent, yet they were not revealed. Accordingly, there arises a question from the faithless concerning the Lord, and concerning the Holy Spirit. For certain madmen say that the Holy Spirit is himself the Father, just as Sabellius says that the Father is the same as the Son. But no one doubts about the person of God the Father. When therefore the revealing of the Trinity takes place, then at last the Holy Spirit is given to believers, so that his person may be revealed, and those who receive him may have the sign that they are children of God, in that they have within themselves the Spirit of God, who is of course from God. For this is the indication of perfection: when it is known that there is both Father and Son and Holy Spirit. This perfection grants this gift. For when the Son of God comes, opening and revealing these things, he must give something more, and it is fitting that he bestow this perfection on believers; for neither in the Son alone, nor in the Father alone is there perfection or salvation, but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Therefore John the Evangelist says that from his fullness we have all received, grace for grace; “for the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:16–17). It is clear that when the Savior comes, the fullness of truth is brought about. For the things that were hidden, and that which was promised, when it is revealed and made clear, the fullness of truth comes to be; then, when believers receive the Holy Spirit, they become children of God. For the “breathing” which is said to have been done by God into Adam is the imparting of the soul; for “spirit” is frequently used in place of “soul,” as the Gospel says among other things: “And,” it says, “his spirit returned to her” (Luke 8:55). And in the Psalm: “A contrite spirit and a humbled heart God will not despise” (Ps. 50:19). Yet frequently some manuscripts do not read “God breathed,” but “God blew into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” Not because it says “breath of life” did it thereby signify the Holy Spirit. For it says the same of animals: “In which was the breath of life” (Gen. 7:22). It is called “breath of life” because it animates bodies unto life.

(Gen. 2:15-17) 

2^ND CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 4. WHY DID GOD IMPOSE UPON ADAM THAT HE HAD PLACED IN THE WORLD A COMMANDMENT, A LAW, AFTER HAVING GIVEN HIM DOMINION OVER ALL CREATURES? — Although Adam was placed in the world and received a command or law, while he himself held dominion over the rest, yet, though Adam was set as lord in the world, because he did not receive this from himself but from God, he had to receive the meaning of this reality from the law; so that he who appears to be lord might, through the law, be subject to the One who had given him this power; so that the authority of the Creator, through the law, might inspire reverence in him, lest so great a dominion exalt him and cause him to become forgetful of God, his Maker.

(Genesis 3) 

QUESTION 127. THE SIN OF ADAM AND EVE. — I consider it beyond doubt that this world was fashioned for the sake of man: which, although composed of diverse substances, is yet one body fitted with many members, so that from these, through their mutual workings, those things might arise which were to be necessary for man. For a dwelling was made for man together with necessities, in such a way that each of these, according to its kind, should be produced upon the earth; that is, that once made, they should possess an inherent power of propagation in each several kind of the things that were created upon the earth. For origins were established, whose seed should advance to the procreation of multiplying kinds upon the earth. Where Scripture bears witness: And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply upon the earth (Gen. 1:22, 28). In like manner also the human race was blessed: which meaning we behold in the Law. For we see it written: The people grew and was multiplied in Egypt (Acts 7:17). With the same blessing, therefore, with which the things created for man’s use were blessed, man himself was blessed, that likewise from male and female the stock of the human race should increase and be multiplied upon the earth; and that just as seeds were to be improved by cultivation, so also the human race, by applying care, should endeavor that, once they had attained the knowledge of the Creator, they would restrain their way of life so as to win His favor, that all things together might advance to the praise and glory of the Creator. And since these words signify nothing else, the facts themselves bear witness. For all things that have been made have, by God’s will, been multiplied and improved upon the earth. Nor indeed could it happen otherwise than as God’s will and blessing have decreed for the seeds. How then can it be said that what increases by God’s blessing and with His favor is done evil or is not permitted? The tradition of this matter has remained in the Synagogue and is now celebrated in the Church, namely that God’s creature be joined under God’s blessing. Not at all by presumption, since the pattern has been given by the very Author. But if it is thought that it ought to cease, then it must cease when those things also cease which likewise were blessed that they might multiply: for if the generation of men ceases, to what purpose do those things come into being which were blessed upon the earth? For the world cannot act in part and in part cease. Either it all works, or it all rests in idleness. Is a body useful whose some members are vigorous, others are numb? Why then is that which has been blessed by the Lord asserted by some to be a filthy and contaminated work, unless because a kind of violence is done to the hands of God Himself? For they would not condemn this deed unless they thought ill of God, the Author of this work. Because they fear to detract openly from God, nevertheless they accuse Him through the work He has devised. For when the work displeases, the author is criticized. If men of this sort would read, or rather receive, the Scriptures, they would remember Balaam saying: How shall I curse him whom God has blessed? (Num. 23:8). For it is in vain that he is accused who is praised by the judge; rather, he himself is his own accuser who declares guilty him whom the laws defend. Who then are you who think that that which you read has been blessed by God should be condemned, unless either you deny that this is God, or accuse the Scripture of falsehood? There are those who, as if receiving new things, think that the old must be rejected. But the new precepts, proclaimed to the peoples through Christ, do not differ from these. For He Himself, when invited, did not disdain to go to a wedding; and not only did He honor it with His presence, but also supplied what was lacking for joy (Jn. 2:1–11). For it is written that wine makes glad the heart of man (Ps. 104:15 and Sirach 40:20). And to show that He did this in accordance with the will of God His Father, when the Jews asked whether it is lawful for a man to put away his wife, He answered among other things, saying: For from the beginning God made them male and female, and said: For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. Therefore now they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate (Matt. 19:4–6). Therefore it is that He went willingly when invited to the wedding, lest He should seem to weaken the work of God and of His Father. Rather, showing that the teaching of the old and new Law agrees, He not only did not forbid marriage, but consented to be present at it, bearing witness that God is its Author; and by a saving precept He showed that what has been joined by God ought neither to be forbidden nor separated. And because birth is beneficial, when He was already leaving the world He entrusted His mother to John His disciple (Jn. 19:26–27). Wherefore we also, in all things observing the commands of the old and new Law, are taught to honor our parents (Deut. 5:16 and Matt. 15:4): and it is laid down in the Law that unless we do so, we shall suffer a curse. What then is this presumption, or from what law does it arise, to close off the entrance to marriage, when both the new and the old Law in all respects seem to favor these things? But it is that which we read, that whatever is beyond is from evil (Matt. 5:37). Where the Apostle says that men of this sort have their conscience seared, who forbid to marry and teach abstinence from foods which God created to be received (1 Tim. 4:2–3). For they are shown to do this in hypocrisy, for the sake of hostility, so that they may charge the Law delivered by God. Others, therefore, by striving to resist saving precepts, stretch out opposing hands, that they may praise the orders of crooked doctrine: and therefore they are said to have their conscience seared. For with a corrupt mind, knowing one thing, they profess another. So also the Jews, who, not ignorant that the works done by the Savior were works of the Holy Spirit, out of envy said that He casts out demons by Beelzebub (Matt. 12:24), in order to turn the people away from faith in Him. Such also is the cunning of the above-mentioned people, for in order to pretend that they are lovers of holiness and chastity, they say that marriage must be condemned, so that by this they may win commendation and turn the people away from the truth. And that they may pretend that they study abstinence, they teach that one must refrain from certain foods, so that by this they may show themselves as strangers to the world hastening to the heavenly kingdoms; and by this, after ensnaring the minds of people, they then teach that what is unlawful is permitted, and condemn what is lawful as though it were forbidden. These are the tricks of Satan, that he may invert causes and, as if insinuating something new, shut out the truth, in which there is nothing new, because all is eternal. Who does not see that this way of thinking has been manufactured by adversaries? For who would dare to reject what God has established, and what has never harmed anyone except the enemy of truth? He, in order to cover his own uncleanness, proclaims a holiness which he does not love, so that while he presents himself as if of good will on its account, he may persuade people to unlawful things as if they were lawful. For he recommends himself in order that he may deceive more easily, and by this, when the unwary are taken captive, he suggests things through which he makes them greater sinners: for so that he may apply some supposed remedy to his own cause, he strongly urges people to sin, seeking great comfort from this, in that he shows he has many partners in his crime, reckoning the punishment light, as though it were less grievous if he sees many with him in Gehenna. Blind men, while they are overcome by vices, defend themselves either by weakness or by ignorance, instead of taking vengeance on those things by which a deceiving desire leads them astray. Or what hindering darkness is there, that what is true is not seen? For letters are often thought to signify something else, when either they are not pronounced correctly, or are improperly divided. But when it is read, “God made,” and, “He blessed what He had made,” who can from this argument? who can doubt? who can think that what has been blessed is accursed, unless he is animated by another spirit? If this were said to be the voice of a man, perhaps some deceit might be believed: it is said that God is speaking, and do you doubt? God has blessed, and you reject it? But perhaps, under the name of God, Moses introduced an error? Let the signs and wonders done through Moses in Egypt satisfy you; let the marvels done in the Red Sea for the deliverance of the children of Israel persuade you. Hear the magicians confessing, “This is the finger of God” (Exod. 8:19). Agree with the Apostle when he says, “I would not have you ignorant, brothers, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:1–4). And from where did the Apostle say this? Scripture is at hand, in which we read our Lord Christ saying to the Jews, “If you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe also in me, for Moses wrote about me” (Jn. 5:46). Who will deny faith to this harmony? Who will dare to say that what is one is at variance? Who is of such a wicked mind as to strive to make undivided love appear as hate? Behold, you have both the testimony of words and examples of virtues, which may subject your mind to the truth, so that you may not think anything else true than what the books of the Catholic Church contain. Since therefore it has been proved that the same God was in the Old Testament who is now ours, and that he is true, as shown by many evidences of his power, his authority must be preferred to such a degree that even what seems harsh and perhaps absurd to us must be accepted and allowed, and thought of otherwise than we imagine, if it is praised by the judgment of God; because we must believe God more than ourselves. For our weakness and lack of skill usually judge as useful what is harmful, and reckon false things as true: which it is wicked even to suspect concerning God. For he is not a nature that can be deceived: how much less, then, should there be doubt concerning marriages, when God says, “What God has joined together, let no man separate”? (Matt. 19:6) For this is a matter clear and simple. Surely every person rejoices when he has been found worthy of God’s favor, and believes himself made better when he learns the mystery of his Creator, which he certainly would not have attained if he had not been born. Why then does he lament what he rejoices in, and condemn that which he boasts of having learned? For if he rejoices because he has learned, but would not have learned unless he had been born, without doubt it is good to be born, because the fruit of birth is the knowledge of the truth. But if it is evil to be born, then knowledge will not be good. For to what purpose will knowledge profit, if birth is condemned? For if it is not useful to be born and it ought not to be, it is useless that one who is to be condemned should learn. But since no one is so dull as to deny that the knowledge of God benefits people, and that it is good and useful, for through it birth itself is made better, so that, when birth is improved, it may merit more than what had been granted to Adam, for believers will reign in heaven, not on earth, in the paradise of God the Father, not in that in which Adam had been commanded bodily to work. For if the feast of the dedication was celebrated at Jerusalem, that is, the festival of the dedication of the temple of God was kept, how much more should the birthday of the human person be celebrated, who is more truly the temple of God; for whose sake also the temple was built by hands, that thanks might be given to God. For our body is a better temple: because it is the work of God, whereas that other was built by human labor; and this is under the hope of eternity, that for destruction. Therefore whoever knows that he was born by God’s appointment, in order that he may give him thanks, having understood his mystery, ought to rejoice on his birthday, seeing that his birth has made progress. Truly, however, those ought not to have been born who, abandoning their Creator, assign his glory to others: for their birth leads on to punishment; but it is not birth that suffers guilt, but the will. But who are you who forbid marriage? Perhaps you are Marcion, because you think the body was not made by God, but by the Devil; while you insist that the soul fell by some error, so that it came to the regions of darkness in which the world now is. How then could he be freed from here, if he were prevented from being generated? For once born you came to know your condition, and with deliberate effort you acted so as to return to your native home, restored to your rightful lot. Indeed, you say you give thanks to Christ, through whom you rejoice that you have attained this understanding. Now consider: if you had not been born, this knowledge would cease, and liberation would not follow. Therefore, if you rejoice that the soul is freed, favor birth; for if you oppose birth, you are an enemy of souls. Or if you are a Manichaean, who reject marriage as though it were something contrary, I ask you: if bodies were not generated at all, how would the soul, which you claim to have been poured into the region of darkness and to be clinging to material things, be rescued from here? For in your books you have written that it is freed by being born, so that souls received from the moon and departing from bodies are handed over to the sun, whom you assert to be the god of your souls. For you are glad to be called Manichaeans. By this very name you demand your liberation: which you certainly would not know of, if you had not been born. Therefore it is very clear that you condemn marriage hypocritically. For while professing holiness, you secretly strive after impurity, something that has been made known not only privately, but also through imperial edicts. Now listen, Catholic, and learn from the Gospel that man’s birth is beneficial. When Simeon, a righteous man, wished to depart from this world, thinking that the knowledge of the Creator without understanding His mystery was sufficient for him, he was not allowed to die unless he advanced further in his perception of God, so that he might have the full reward of his faith. Accordingly, receiving the newborn Savior in his arms, he blessed God and said: “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart, according to your word, in peace; for my eyes have seen your salvation” (Luke 2:29–30). It has been clearly shown that man’s birth is a blessing from God, since to a righteous man thinking of death the answer was given that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ: for he advanced so far in life that he became worthy, even in the present, to see the One whom he hoped would be his deliverer after death. He, then, who was preserved in life and not allowed to die until he had seen the fruit of his hope, so that he might be assured that he would pass from life to life, how can it be said that birth was of no benefit to him? If it were an evil that we are born, paradise would not be promised, nor eternal life, nor the kingdom of heaven, but punishment and the destruction of hell; so that someone who knew himself to be born for perdition would fear to beget another, and he who knew himself to be unlawfully born would not desire to beget. But perhaps it will be said: The kingdom of heaven is indeed promised, but to the faithful and those who do good. Correct. You see, then, that men do not become guilty because they are born, but because they have lived badly. Nor is the kingdom of heaven promised to those who are not born, so that it might be charged against birth in the case of those to whom it will not be given; rather, it is promised to those who are born and act well, so that birth may neither benefit one who acts badly nor be able to harm one who acts well. For by the faithful and those who act well, birth is improved; but by the faithless and those who act badly, it is made worse. For birth is like a tree that is grafted: if it is grafted with a good shoot, it will become better and be called good; but if it is grafted with a bad shoot, it will become worse and be called not good but evil. So also, if good teaching is joined to birth, it will produce good fruits; but if bad teaching is joined to it, it will produce bad fruits. Therefore, just as a tree is necessary in order that something may be grafted onto it, so birth is necessary in order that there may be something that can make progress. But an objection is raised on the other side: If birth is useful, why are we reborn? We would not be reborn unless birth were useful. To be reborn is to be renewed, and those who are renewed are restored. Therefore rebirth does not accuse birth, but reshapes it; and what is reshaped is thereby shown to have been well established from the beginning. Therefore, in being reborn we are changed in our nature, through the purification of the body, so that we may be restored to Adam’s original condition. It is by the soul’s sin that the body has been stained; when it is repaired and improved through faith, the disposition is washed clean: so that just as it had been defiled through contempt of God, so through obedience it may be cleansed, in order to escape the sentence passed on Adam and be able to rise again. If, then, sin began from the soul, why is the nature of the body blamed, since in Adam’s sin the cause was not bodily desire, but the soul, enticed by hope of divinity, transgressed God’s command so as to subject his body to sin, and men might be born under sin? Yet this in no way harms a man, if he obeys the law of God, except that he dies; and for this very thing God’s goodwill has promised a reward, so that, since in devotion to the Creator they are found faithful, yet through Adam’s transgression they have been subjected to corruption and death, for this reason they may receive from God the Judge more than was granted to Adam: that in the future they may be both glorious and possess eternal life, and be called adopted sons of God; so that it is a gain that they have been born. From this point I will now return to the remaining part of the passage. When man was placed in paradise, he received this command: “From every tree that is in paradise for food, you shall eat. But from the tree by which good and evil are distinguished, you shall not eat from it.” (Gen. 2:16-17) All the trees he mentions are fruits for the nourishment of creatures. Indeed, they are called “trees” by one name, but various fruits are understood. Yet all are trees, and there is one kind of eating, though the things eaten are different. For when God had created many fruit-bearing trees for man to eat, as I said, he forbade eating from one tree; so that those who had received everything in their power might have some reverence for the Creator, in that one tree was reserved, whose use they did not have permission for, so that they would remember the condition of the law. But how was the kind of sin understood from the sentence? For this sentence applies suitably to a murderer, a criminal, an adulterer, and a disgraced man. Achar also, the son of Charmi, when he had sinned, was condemned to be destroyed along with all his household (Joshua 7:1). How then can this sentence be understood as indicating the kind of sin? It can be recognized that it was a great offense, but not understood what kind of offense it was. For we know that others have been condemned by this sentence, though they are known to have sinned in different ways. Both the Amorites and the Sodomites are known to have perished with all their own. Therefore it happens that people guilty of one sin are struck by different sentences, and sinners of different crimes are punished by one and the same kind. Therefore from the sentence given to Adam and Eve the type of their sin cannot be understood. For although their sin was one, yet each, man and woman, received the sentence according to their own person; and likewise the serpent, so that they would not only fail to remain as they had been made, but that labor would also be added to them as punishment. For when all cattle and living creatures had been made subject to man, as we read (Gen. 1:26), the serpent, contrary to this order, raised itself up and by deceit and fraud brought man, once deceived, into subjection to itself. For without doubt whoever captures someone makes that person beneath himself. Therefore, so that the serpent’s cunning would not have its effect, God’s sentence calls it back and brings it down further than it had been made, lest it should be above man, so that by its craftiness it would not only grieve that it had gained nothing, but also that it had become worse. For although it is read to have been more wise than the other beasts, after it deceived man it was made more cursed than all the beasts of the earth. After the sentence given upon the man, the sentence upon the woman, the sentence upon the serpent, it follows that the woman also, whom he had joined to himself for the despising of God’s law, should receive her sentence. He says to her: “Multiplying I will multiply your hardships and your groaning: in sorrow you shall bear children, and to your husband shall be your turning, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16). No one confirms what he reproves. If children were therefore granted because she had seized intercourse, then the violation has consulted more. But since he said, “In sorrow you shall bear children,” if you think that generation took its beginning from there, where then is what was said, “Increase and multiply”? Understand therefore that this was added only as punishment, so that what had previously been granted with joy should be subjected to sorrow as penalty; and in order that a worse and multiplied punishment should always press upon the woman, the turning to the man is added, so that from this her pain might be renewed again. If the Lord was condemning intercourse, why did he add among the things imposed, “And to your husband shall be your turning”? No one establishes as a punishment what he condemns; for punishment is of course contrary to condemnation, and never arises from the same thing, but from what is opposed to it. If they were in one and the same, no one would fear condemnation. Then someone would award this as a favor, from that very thing in which he saw the law transgressed. This would be to confirm, not to punish, the sin, if for this reason the woman’s turning to the man, and, from that which she practices and not from that which is true, turning, given simply before, were believed to have been imposed upon her as punishment together with a final servitude, because through the woman granted to him the man had been made subject. And without doubt she seemed superior, whose advice he used, thinking that what she urged would benefit him, so that the work of God might appear destroyed by the serpent’s cunning. This is restored by the sentence established by God, so that the woman returns, humbled, to the subjection of her condition under the man, as it had been ordained; and that is added to her which is added as punishment, when she hears, “Multiplying I will multiply your sorrows and your groaning: in sorrow you shall bear children, and to your husband shall be your turning, and he shall rule over you.” Had it been decreed otherwise than that the woman should be subject to the rule of the man? From this, therefore, it is clear that the woman has been called back to what she was, with an addition. Therefore he says, “Multiplying I will multiply your sorrows and your groaning.” What he multiplies, he increases in what already exists, not in what does not exist, it seems he is working. By this sentence, therefore, that had gone before, “Increase and multiply” (Gen. 1:22, 28), the work of creating does not begin, but the ruin of the creature to which it had been granted. To the woman, sorrow is added in bearing children, difficulty is imposed, but no new form of procreation is constructed. For if generation is rightly thought to arise from this, it can rather be understood that generation came from the serpent’s creativity than from the Lord’s; and it is truly, as he said, “Brood of vipers” (Matt. 3:7). But if anyone thinks himself therefore born, let him consider what he deserves, that on account of sin his pain in childbirth might be increased, so that she who was going to have only a little pain, would have it increased because of the sin in having children: for they are born with groaning and sorrow, and those born are not regarded without grief. Now for the third time such a sentence is pronounced upon the man: “Because you have listened,” he says, “to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat, cursed is the earth in your works, and in sorrows you shall eat of it all the days of your life: thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you” (Gen. 3:17–18). And here too Adam is called back to that for which he had been made, but with a loss. For previously he had been placed to till the earth simply, so that the result of his labor might follow him; but when he despised God’s command, believing that by the serpent’s counsel things would be better provided for him than God had made them, he is recalled to his former appointment with the disadvantage of toil; so that the earth would by no means respond to him according to his labor, being cursed not for itself, but for his works, so that it might be shown that God’s purpose cannot be overthrown, nor can anyone provide better than God. For no one can love another’s work more than he who made it himself, as the Apostle says, because, he says, no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ also does the Church (Eph. 5:29). Let us now see whether the following things in the Law agree with its beginnings. When Abraham had pleased God, among the other things that pertain to the reward of his faith, although he was old, he was judged worthy to beget one son (Gen. 18:10). How then can it be blamed as though it were a reward granted, that God should fulfill the will of one who had done God’s own will? That will would not have been fulfilled unless it were harmless; nor would God fulfill what He saw was asked badly or ignorantly, especially by one who was pleasing to Him; for even a man should not do that. And Anna, though she was barren and loved God, asked to have a son and received one (1 Sam. 1); and if this had been something contrary, she could have been warned by Him whom she loved not to ask for a harmful thing. And Samuel, most holy, who was born from her, begot sons, yet did not lessen the merits of his righteousness. From his earliest years he was always advancing, so that in old age he might be praised by a fuller testimony of God. And Zacharias the priest, a just man, in his old age begot a son by God’s command; and before that son was born, he merited to prophesy (Luke 1:5). On what grounds, then, is that accused which is clearly shown not to be harmful? And who will deny that what harms no one ought to be called good? And to say something here about the Apostles, which pertains to strengthening the case: certainly Saint John was the guardian of chastity; but his fellow disciple, that is, Saint Peter, is known to have had a wife; and to receive the primacy among the Apostles, the begetting of children was no obstacle to him. How then can that be thought worthy of condemnation which does not hinder merit? Therefore the Apostle shows that one who has a wife, if he keeps the commandments in other respects, can and ought to be made a priest. For if it were unlawful, he certainly could not say that a sinner ought to be made a priest. And what is clearer? It is the voice of the same Apostle who says: “Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:25). For when the Corinthians were harassed by heretics who, in hypocrisy, taught that marriages must be condemned, they consulted the Apostle by letter whether it was permitted to marry or to dismiss a wife. Then the Apostle commanded that a wife ought not to depart from her husband; and when he had the occasion to say, if he had known that it should be taught so, that it is not permitted to marry, he showed that he could not teach what had not been handed down to him. But which of the disciples would teach what was not handed down by the Master? Or who would not listen to him preaching: “I want younger women to marry, to bear children” (1 Tim. 5:14)? But perhaps it may be said: If it is permitted and good to marry, why is it not permitted for priests to have wives? that is, that once ordained, they may no longer have marital relations? Who does not know that each state has its own law? For there are things which absolutely and generally are not permitted to all; there are also things which are permitted to some and not permitted to others; and there are things which are sometimes permitted and sometimes not permitted. Fornication is never permitted to anyone; trade, however, is sometimes permitted and sometimes not permitted. For before a man enters church office, he is permitted to trade; once he has become a cleric, it is no longer permitted. And for a Christian to have relations with his wife is sometimes permitted and sometimes not permitted. Because on days of solemn procession it is sometimes not permitted to have relations; since even lawful things must be abstained from, that what is asked may be more easily obtained. Therefore the Apostle says it is necessary to abstain for a time by mutual consent, that one may devote oneself to prayer (1 Cor. 7:5). For according to the Law, on a fast day it is not permitted to strike or to quarrel, afterwards it is permitted; because greater reverence is owed to the things of God. Is everything that is permitted before others permitted also before the emperor? How much more in the things of God? And therefore His bishop must be purer than others: for he seems to bear His person, being His vicar; so that what is permitted to others is not permitted to him, because he must of necessity daily act in the place of Christ, either to pray for the people, or to offer, or to baptize. And not only is intercourse forbidden to this man, but also to his minister: because he ought to be cleaner, since the things he ministers are holy. For just as, in comparison with a lamp, darkness is not only dim but also filthy, whereas in comparison with the stars a lamp is gloom, and in comparison with the sun the stars are murky, and in comparison with the brightness of God the sun is night; so also the things that are lawful and pure for us, in comparison with God’s dignity are as though unlawful and impure; for though they are good, they do not befit the person of God. Is not the tunic of a man of moderate station, though clean, yet filthy and unsuitable for an emperor? Likewise a Saxon cloak for a senator? And therefore the bishops of God must be purer than others, because they bear the person of Christ, and the ministers of God must be cleaner. For no one serves the emperor without carefulness; therefore they serve clothed in bright and clean garments. But because God by nature is most radiant, it is necessary that His ministers be clean by nature rather than by garments; to whom be praise and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

(Genesis 3:1) 

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 31. WHETHER, WITH THE WOMAN, A SERPENT SPOKE ACCORDING TO ITS NATURE, OR WHETHER THE SERPENT, ACTUALLY MEANING THE DEVIL, DECEIVED HER? — As far as the historical account is concerned, the serpent is called such by nature, being said to be wiser than all the other beasts that the Lord God had made upon the earth. Indeed, God even pronounced a sentence upon the serpent. For what wonder is it if the Devil was wiser than the beasts, of whom the Apostle says among other things, “Do you not know the depths of Satan?” (2 Cor. 2:11). Moreover, it was so truly a serpent by nature that it was told, “Upon your breast and belly you shall crawl, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life” (Gen. 3:14). These things are far removed from the condition of Satan, because he is neither bodily nor mortal. And if the sentence is considered in itself, it will be seen that the sentence given has not harmed the serpent: rather, it was commanded to remain in that state in which it was made. For since it was made a servant of Satan for the overthrow of man, to whom God had subjected all things, God, in that very subjection in which He had subjected all things to man, repressed the pride of the serpent, by which it had begun to be the agent of arrogance. For man seemed to have been placed beneath the serpent, through whom, after receiving counsel, he despised the law given to him. And since serpents are wise, the Lord confirms this in the Gospel, saying, “Be wise as serpents” (Matt. 10:16). Therefore, since it is clear that a true serpent spoke with Eve, what remains is to discern whether it could have been so wise and cunning as to deceive her by trickery. For if it was more wise than the other beasts, it was not, however, more wise than human beings, since no animal is rational except man. Therefore it is impossible that the serpent itself devised such subtlety: although it is called wise, it is not so beyond its nature. For it does not deliberate or devise or take counsel. Therefore, that it was the Devil who through the serpent bypassed the woman is beyond doubt. By associating himself with the serpent, he acted through it as through an instrument, so that the woman would not recognize the hidden deceit of the Devil, knowing that the serpent was wise. And therefore, though the sentence was given in a bodily form, it fell spiritually upon Satan, because a sentence holds the guilty party. For the sentence was not given by man, who might perhaps destroy an innocent person through error or ill will, but by God, who certainly cannot be deceived, so that His sentence binds only him who is guilty. Since Satan is invisible, yet worked his deceit bodily, the sentence appears to have been given bodily, so that it might spiritually bind him whose deed brought about the pronouncement of the sentence. For Satan, having been cast out from the most sacred dwellings of heaven, thrashes upon the earth, always groaning in utmost shamelessness. But it may perhaps be asked, In what language do you think the serpent spoke to the woman? Surely with the serpent’s own mouth. For even today there are people who understand the barking of dogs, the howling of wolves, the trumpeting of elephants, and the crowing of roosters; why then could not the still unrefined woman know and understand the hissing of serpents, since we know many people who can distinguish the voices of birds? And it is also certain that the Devil uses the tongue of that body into which he has entered; otherwise he could not have deceived the woman. And therefore, he spoke through the serpent with the serpent’s mouth.

(Genesis 3:7-9)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 19. WAS ADAM'S BODY, WHEN IT WAS CREATED, IMMORTAL OR SUBJECT TO DEATH? — God made man in such a way that, as long as he did not sin, he would flourish in immortality: so that he himself would be the author for himself either of life or of death; that by guarding himself from sin, he would, by his own effort, rejoice that he was immortal; but by becoming careless, he would blame himself, because he had begun to be mortal. For as long as he continued in the law of his Creator, he was worthy to eat from the tree of life, so that he could not die. For his body was not of such a kind that it would seem impossible for it to be dissolved; rather, the taste of the tree of life restrained the body’s corruption. Indeed, even after the sin, it could have remained everlasting, if only it had been permitted him to eat from the tree of life. For how could he have had an immortal body if it was sustained by food? For the immortal does not need food or drink. Food supplied strength, while the tree of life, in the manner of a medicine, prevented all corruption. Therefore it was for man as though it were an secure wall.

(Genesis 4:1-18)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 5. WHY WAS ABEL’S SACRIFICE ACCEPTED, AND CAIN’S REJECTED? — This can be gathered from the words of the very passage itself, since the story is not wrapped in literary pretense. For Scripture’s own language shows Abel to be wise and devout in what he did, but Cain careless and thoughtless, and therefore less devout. Abel, then, chose the better parts from the peaceful flock to offer to the Lord his creator, so that from the things God had created he might offer Him the worthiest, thereby proving both his own submission and God’s merit, and showing his personal reverence and God as author of all. Cain, crudely, was unable to present this. Fixing his whole mind in the soil, he could not lift the eyes of his heart to heaven to see what would be worthy of the Creator; he offered whatever gifts to God, of whatever sort they were. The same cause is found in the Jews with their crooked minds. They were often criticized when they carelessly offered their own gifts to God’s altar, gifts that did not even seem worthy of men, while the Lord said, “You offer to me the blind and the lame; I will not receive these from your hands. Offer them to your governor or your leader, if he will accept them” (Mal. 1:8). It is agreed among all that the greatest gifts ought to be offered to a person of high rank. Therefore Cain’s gifts were rejected, as the Lord said to him, “Why are you downcast, and why has your face fallen? If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, have you not sinned? Be calm. Its turning is toward you, and you shall rule over it” (Gen. 4:6–7). You see, then, that division suffers sin, since, without considering what was worthy of God, he kept the better part for his own use. Therefore he is not criticized because he offered, but because he offered unworthy things. Nor is he condemned on that account, but because, when warned, he refused to correct what he had done. For, “Its turning,” He says, “is toward you, and you shall rule over it”: that is, since I do not accept it, the gift you have offered is turned back to your own control, so that from then on you might know what you should do. From this envy flared up so that he killed his brother, so that the unrighteous man killed the one who had first shown righteousness, and a bad example might be given to mankind. Therefore, blinded by the rivalry of jealousy, he not only failed to give thanks that he had not been made guilty, and had learned how to correct this, but even added something worse by which he would deserve condemnation. Such is the case of careless and murderous Cain, like that of the wicked servant who, though his master had forgiven him, went out ungrateful and throttled his fellow servant, so that he might be condemned without excuse both for the past crime forgiven him and for his cruelty against his fellow servant (Matt. 18:27). And yet Cain was not at that moment condemned, but, shamed and guilty, was sent forth under terror upon the earth, so that, if he repented, he might be forgiven. Fearing that someone might kill him for this deed, he said to the Lord, “My case is too great for me to be left; if you cast me out today from your face, I shall hide myself from the face of the earth, and I shall be groaning and trembling upon the earth. And whoever finds me will kill me.” (Gen. 4:14) Terrified, then, by the words of the just Judge, Cain fears being despised by the Lord, so much so that he thinks he must flee even from the sight of men; knowing that whoever lives under God’s wrath may also be killed by man. But what does the Lord answer him? “Not so,” He says—that is, I did not spare you, though you do not deserve to live, so that you might be killed by someone; but so that you might groan and tremble, as one who first gave an evil example upon the earth, when the fruit from the ground does not answer to your labors. Therefore He says, “Whoever kills Cain will pay sevenfold vengeance.” (Gen. 4:15) This sentence shows that Cain is rightly to be condemned. For when he saw that a law was given with such a threat, so that no one should imitate his deed, he began to fear more, knowing what evil he had committed. So God promises sevenfold vengeance if anyone should aspire to this crime, so that, seeing that Cain had been made guilty by this act, and while the revelation of the law was not yet clear, he might know that he would be punished sevenfold if he did not avoid it; so that the knowledge of the law would add six plagues beyond what Cain had deserved, and with Cain’s plague the vengeance would be counted as seven. By this same number those are to be rewarded who leave all things and follow the Lord, and in the future will have eternal life. This is the sign the Lord set upon Cain, lest anyone who found him should kill him (Gen. 4:13–15). In the case of a murder, a law has been set that if anyone commits homicide, since every murder is homicide, he shall be seven times more guilty than Cain was, so that, terrified by such severity, others may restrain themselves from this crime.

(Genesis 4:23)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 6. DID LAMECH KILL CAIN, AS SOME THINK? — Those who think this are mistaken, believing that when Lamech spoke of Cain he meant, “I killed a man who hurt me, a young man who covered me with wounds.” (Gen. 4:24) By then Lamech had already been born in the fifth generation from Cain, that is, from Methuselah, Cain’s great‑grandson. Lamech mentions this to show that anyone who sins under a revealed law must be bound more strictly. And therefore, if after Cain his imitator was avenged seven times, how much more must vengeance be taken on the one whom neither Cain’s deed and correction, nor the sentence afterward passed on him, was able to terrify, so as to turn his will away from so wicked and cruel a crime? Therefore, after Cain, Lamech committed this murder, and undoubtedly, in line with what was said above, he paid sevenfold vengeance. And he shows what would happen after Lamech to whoever followed his example, when he says, “But on Lamech seventy‑seven times” (Gen. 4:23–24). Since a wicked deed not followed by repentance is struck with seventy‑seven blows of punishment, therefore also the Savior commanded that one who sins seventy‑seven times, if he turns back, is yet to be forgiven (Matt. 18:22). But so that no one may think another committed murder after Cain and before Lamech, because Lamech said, “Cain is avenged” (Gen. 4:24, according to the LXX), as though it had already happened: how could Lamech say of himself that vengeance had already been taken on him, when the murder he confessed to committing was still recent? For it is certain that every act carries its sentence with it. When there is no other expectation than that, once the deed is complete, its due recompense is known, the future is considered as already done. Indeed it was said to Adam and Eve, “On the day you eat of it, you shall die by death” (Gen. 2:17); and certainly they did not die immediately, but after a long interval of time. Yet because they had already lost the hope of immortality, their future death was called present, since it began to be held in view as certain. Therefore, since Lamech admits that he killed a young man, and since it is clear that Cain could not have lived until that time, or if he did, which seems impossible, he would have been older, Lamech did not kill him.

(Genesis 6:3)

2^ND CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 5. WHY DOES GOD SAY, “MY SPIRIT SHALL NOT REMAIN IN THESE MEN, BECAUSE THEY ARE FLESH; THEIR YEARS SHALL BE ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY,” ETC. (Gen. 6:3)? —  Since in those days there were giants upon the earth, lethal and proud, arrogant by the greatness of their stature, following the desires of the flesh, born apostates; then, when this displeased God, He promised that He would destroy the human race by a flood and set a time, so that if anyone, upon hearing of God’s wrath and anger in this matter, should wish to correct himself, he would have a span of time to reform. In fact, the ark seems for this reason to have been built over a hundred years. But it is said that twenty years elapsed before the beginning of the ark. Yet the narrative, by what it adds after mentioning the number of Noah’s years, seems to obscure this. For this decree is understood to have been issued before Noah was five hundred years old. For what does it say? “My Spirit shall not remain in these men”; and therefore it adds, “Because wickedness has increased upon the earth, I will blot out man from the face of the earth, down to cattle”; which certainly was fulfilled when the flood took place. For even after the flood we remember that men lived many years: and it is recorded that Aaron, the brother of Moses, lived one hundred and twenty-three years (Num. 33:38–39). But Moses himself, so that he could not pass beyond one hundred and twenty years, brought it about that he did not glorify God at the waters of contradiction. For he was to enter into the land of promise, had not sin stood in the way (Deut. 34:7 and 32:48–52). For it seems to some that this statement was made with reference to the time of Moses, since we find that Jehoiada the priest lived one hundred and thirty years (2 Chron. 24:15).

(Genesis 11:14-21). 

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 108. ON THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHERE IT TOOK ITS NAME. — Everything that is from God is rational, and for each thing its origin gives the reason why it exists, so that it may not seem to be named or to subsist without sense, but may show a designation which is understood to be the head, as it were, of its own name. Therefore the reason of a man is the cause by which he stands. Now he stands from four elements, namely earth, air, water, and fire, with God alone as author; the fifth is the soul, as it were a charioteer, to drive the material and shaped body, and as its commander. And from the ground [humus] we have taken our beginning, and from its name we are called. For we are called “men” [homines] because of the ground [humus], from which our father has his external origin. Therefore cause and reason bring it about that from the name of one person the others subsisting under the same name are called by it, signifying him in themselves. Accordingly, let us see whether it fits, as some think, that the Hebrews are so called from Heber. For as far as the name is concerned, the origin of this name seems to descend from him; for Heber is earlier than Abraham. But if this were true, those who are of the tribe of Heber ought, after him, to be called by the same name; for from Heber Abraham was born in the seventh generation (Gen. 11:16, 26). If therefore, after Abraham, or Abraham himself, was called a Hebrew, then without doubt the Hebrews are named from Heber; but if it is not read that they were called Hebrews in the time of Abraham, but after Abraham, then clearly they are not said to be from Heber, but from Abraham: since the sons of Abraham are known to have been first called by this name. For in Genesis Joseph and his brothers are called Hebrews (Gen. 43:32). For knowing that Abraham was he who had come down from Syria into Canaan (Gen. 12:4), and had been multiplied, being filled with all resources for the sake of faith, called king and prophet and father of many nations (Gen. 17:4), who with his three hundred and eighteen home-born servants struck down five kings (Gen. 14:14–15); since these things were not done and spoken in a corner, so as to be hidden, they called those who were of his seed Hebrews. It belonged therefore to the rank and merit of Abraham that he should become the head of those who draw their lineage from him. For by God’s judgment he was placed as prince and origin in the land of Canaan, so that those born from him should have another profession and way of life than he had before he went down into the land of Canaan; for he, being renewed, should establish a new people in devotion to God. Therefore it is that the apostle Paul confesses himself to be “a Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil. 3:5); for this seemed to be a title of dignity. It was a testimony and nobility of lineage that they should be surnamed from his name, who had pleased God in many ways and who was their source. Let this be rejected if it does not agree with reason; let it be despised if it is unlike; let it be torn up if it is foreign to the merits of Abraham; and let us be refuted as his flatterers. What hostility is this against Abraham, what rivalry, by which his enemies belittle him? And who are these, if not those who are called his sons? In what respect does Abraham displease them, that this glory should be thought unfamiliar to him? And what is there in Heber to please them, that he should be said to have this primacy? If his way of life could be investigated, it would perhaps be found that he worshipped idols, like Thare and Nachor and the father of Nachor, who clearly were not far from him, as Joshua testifies, who says they worshipped idols (Josh. 24:2). Or at least let those who are on the other side show by what reasoning this must be claimed for Heber, lest perhaps we suppress his merit; but there is none, because the Scriptures are common to us all, and it is in the open what is owed to each. For if they think this ought to be defended from the name alone, it is weak and unlikely. It would then rightly be vindicated for his name if there were some proofs of causes which confirmed this: for some people of the same name could claim as theirs what does not belong to them. And therefore this is true, because it is established not only by the name, but also by clear reasoning. For since by God’s gracious choice it was brought about that in Abraham the human race should be made alive, and that he should become a saving pattern for men, it is not doubtful to anyone that in him was restored that which had been lost through the fault of human frailty. For he was set as a certain image, that after his likeness the human race might return to God, so that both the worship of God and the word which had previously been given for the use of men might be restored to humankind: because as in the beginning in Adam there was the image of God, so that God might be known on earth, so after the ruins of the human race and the forgetfulness of the true God, in Abraham it was refashioned, so that from him faith in God might begin, and again sprout forth into fruit. Where it is not unreasonable that from his name the people that began from him should obtain their designation. But lest perhaps they suffer doubt because of the name Heber, since the name Heber sounds closer to “Hebrews,” because they are called Hebrews, not Abraheans, let them notice again that they are called Hebrews, not Heberaeans: for he was called Heber, not Hebre. If therefore they think this point must be attacked from here, they suffer what they do, and neither of us will have the victory on this side, except the one who, by giving a reason in order, shows that what he asserts is true. For he who is equal in one matter must be said to have lost if he is found unequal in another. For the letter was changed because of the sound, so that they should say “Hebraei” instead of “Hebrei,” because it sounds better. For also from Juda they are not called “Judai” but “Judaei.” For wherever it seemed awkward, the letter was changed, so that the word might have a harmonious sound. For instead of medio die, we say meridie, and there are many such cases. Therefore it is fitting, as has been shown, that from the name of Abraham both the language and the people should be named. This, then, is the language which we say was first given to Adam and the others, which, because of the presumption shown in building the tower, we believe was scattered into many and confused, so that no longer this one language, but many derived from it, came to exist through the alteration of certain expressions: so that they would have one appearance, and yet it would not be lost, but would be completely mixed in with the other languages. For this was done then, so that people would not understand one another and dare greater things (Gen. 11:8). Therefore, it is understood that as many languages then existed as there were people who, being scattered, each in the places where they lived, established a language of their own. But if this is not thought to be the very language which is written to have been then the one language, it will remain to be said that it was gathered bit by bit from the other languages and fitted together into the form of a single language which Abraham used; so that, because he was the father of many nations, he would have a speech composed from many languages, and would be wholly renewed in every respect. But since those whom the Book of Genesis mentions as of one voice and speech (Gen. 11:31), are read to have migrated from the East, and then again to have been scattered by God over the face of the whole earth, that language certainly did not remain there, so that the language first given should remain. Indeed, it does not have any land among humankind, as the other languages do, nor any nation, except the Jews; because it was given to the first man in Paradise. And after the languages were confused, this language, which is now called Hebrew, was nowhere to be found. If, then, it has nowhere a place or a nation; and Abraham was by race a Syrian; where came this language to Abraham or to the rest of his offspring, unless because it is either that first language, or at least put together from many? For we see that some languages have certain words similar to it. But this does not so well accord with reason as the other view, if it is said to be itself the first: reason shows that this was not done without purpose. Abraham ought to have had the very language which the first man had, so that Moses, when he came to describe the creation and man made by God, would use that speech with which God spoke and named the man Adam, and Adam’s wife was called Eve: so that this speech would be in the book of Moses, which had also been in those whom he describes, so that he might truly show in all things the re-establishment of the first cause and the divine favor in Abraham.

(Genesis 11)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 117. ON ABRAHAM. — The faith of this patriarch was so exceptional and wondrous that all other righteous people confess him, by God’s judgment, as the father of belief; nor is anyone worthy of and dear to God unless he is called his son. The right of his honor and value is faith, which he does not hesitate to give even to incredible things, and among other privileges he was also found worthy to see the Savior in hope of the future Incarnation, as the Lord said and proved to the Jews: Your father Abraham rejoiced that he might see my day; and he saw it and was glad (Jn. 8:56). For since he became father by the value of faith, it was fitting that he should foresee the hope of his future children, which, through the gracious and provident God, would overflow from a human and devout father upon his obedient sons as an inheritance. Let us now see what this faith believed, so that it reached such honor and glory by divine judgment. We have praised the faith, but we have not yet said what it believed. For the Lord, leading him out, showed him the stars of heaven and said: If you can, number them. So shall your seed be. And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:5–6). It would not be a great thing to have believed God, except that what he believed the world judges not to be believed and as foolish, because this is not within the hope of things according to nature. Therefore Abraham, being one out of the world because he believed this, was separated from worldly people and justified. Therefore, believing this is made great by the unbelieving wisdom of the world, and to have believed against its hope is of the highest value. For the despair of worldly men is the value and hope of Christians. For the cause of evil becomes the reward of good: faith is stronger and fuller when it commits itself more to things that are incredible. A man already dried up and from an aged wife believed he would have seed so abundant that it could not be numbered; looking not so much at what was shown, but at him who showed it, not thinking that he could lie. And therefore it was counted to him for righteousness. For it is dull to believe a thing absurd and known to be impossible, unless there is a person who persuades us to believe it. Therefore Abraham is admirable for his faith and for the discernment of his heart, since he both believes that which is incredible and commits himself to him to whom not to believe is both foolish and dangerous. This shows our faith to be reasonable, that it believes this not of any other than of God, that he is able to do what he promises. This, then, is the bulwark of faith, this its triumph. Seeing this, some wise men of the world, because the nature of things cannot do this, say it is foolish to believe. Ignorant that, according to the Apostle, what is foolish of God is wiser than men (1 Cor. 1:25). For they would rightly judge us foolish if we believed of the nature of things what is proved not to be possible. But we, on the contrary, believe that God will be able to do what nature cannot, if he has promised it. What folly can be found in this matter? If, however, the work which is believed possible is unworthy of God, then faith is rightly compared to dullness; but if it is worthy, precisely because it is impossible to the creature, why is the faith not to be praised which attributes so much to the Creator as the creature is denied power to do? Great and admirable, then, is Abraham, who did not doubt to believe God against the world’s judgment, because he can do what he promises. A Chaldean by birth, he appears as a master of belief: though skilled in astrology, he still placed God above human counsel, judging it fitting that such things be believed of God as cannot be investigated in respect to how they may come to pass. For he strengthened his own weakness by the power of God, since God determined, to proclaim the unique greatness of his majesty, to perform things that are impossible and unheard of to the world; and by doing this he would show himself Lord of the creature, and the creature would subject itself to him whose work would seem impossible to all others; by whose unbelief the most faithful Abraham is raised higher. For his faith is the punishment of unbelievers; the deceit of unbelievers is his glory. For he is the father of the faithful and the judge of the unfaithful. By his example, the good are granted eternal life, and the wicked will receive eternal punishments. In that time, when the world was still small in knowledge and not yet enlightened by signs and wonders that might draw it to faith, he did not deny faith to God against his own understanding. Therefore holy Abraham was given as a most faithful example to the human race. In him all nations were prefigured as coming to salvation through faith; and that the overflowing increase of his faith might be known, he is tested and ordered to sacrifice his son to God, a thing that had never before been done, and he is neither disturbed by the novelty of the deed nor does he dispute whether a murder ought to be committed at God’s command, he who had threatened that murder must not be committed. Therefore, fearless and secure about the will of God, he does not hesitate to think that what God commands is provident: and this son, whom two old people received through a promise, the reward of faith, the witness of virtues, and in whom all hope of the promised future seed was held. That he might fulfill this with complete devotion, he did not tell his mother, lest she bring some obstacle to his obedience, knowing that mothers are the more inclined in love toward the affection they bear for their children; therefore he concealed it from her, not doubting that what God commands must be fulfilled, so that by this example we might be taught to carry out God’s commands with all carefulness. For if the most faithful Abraham is found obedient in a matter so grave and harsh, how much more should we, to whom things are commanded that can be accepted? O faith dedicated to God, and hope firm in the Lord, which is so dear and sweet that it is preferred to the affections of parents and children, as Scripture says: Taste and see, that the Lord is sweet (Ps. 33:9)! But our patriarch, most faithful Abraham, because he was a prophet, knew what was to follow. Therefore, in accordance with what the Lord had just said, he then acted, so that he preferred God in love over his son, dear as he was, with the Lord saying, “If anyone loves father or mother, or children more than me, he is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37). Therefore the Patriarch, in order to be found worthy of the Lord above all others, did not refuse even to kill his son.

(Genesis 13:5-18) 

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 44. HOW COULD IT BE SHOWN FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHETS, ALREADY RECEIVED AMONG THE GENTILES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, THAT THE PROMISE WHICH GOD MADE TO ABRAHAM HAS BEEN FULFILLED THROUGH THE COMING OF CHRIST? — It is written in the prophet Isaiah: “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isa. 56:7). But perhaps the Jews will say: The house of God, that is, the synagogue, is open to all. Nor do we object; yet in such a way that, as always, the circumcised join themselves to the Law. For their Law is that by which they were commanded, after the manner of Abraham, to be circumcised. Therefore, nothing new can seem to be signified by this example of the prophet; since anyone coming from any nation has never been forbidden from the beginning of Judaism to join himself to the Law. Nothing new spoken by the prophet can be thought, indeed it would be unessential, if the Gentiles have always been admitted to serve the God of Abraham and are never found to have been forbidden. And this is true, because those who submit themselves to the Law are never found not to have been received. If, therefore, these things are so, it seems needless that the prophet admonished about what, once handed down, has always been observed. And could anyone so dull be found as to say that the prophet spoke something unnecessary and empty? I do not know for whom it would be safe even to hear this and not oppose it. For since the Jewish people, on account of the sins which they committed against God, seeking help from idols, were often rebuked by the prophets but refused to enter upon the path of repentance so as to return to God, God, in reproach of them, indicated that He would open His house to all nations to pray, so that, the Jews being cast off, He would show that He would place others in their place. For if the nations have always been admitted to the Law, as was said above, how could the prophet say that this would happen in the future, unless he meant something different from what had been previously commanded? He could not speak of a thing which was done daily as though it were going to come. Therefore it is clear that this tends to the ruin of the Jews, to whom the prophet shows that, with them removed, others were to be called and were to receive the house of God’s grace, which had been promised to the Jews. What that promise is, the prophet Isaiah teaches, saying: “There shall come out of Zion one who shall deliver and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob; and this shall be my covenant with them” (Isa. 59:20–21). Therefore this covenant is the removal of sins. This is the New Covenant, which was promised through Jeremiah, who says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will accomplish for the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new covenant, not according to the covenant which I arranged for their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and I neglected them, says the Lord” (Jer. 31:31–32). This is their transgression, when they made the image of a calf; then they corrupted His covenant. Therefore also the tablets on which the Law had been given were shattered under the mountain (Exod. 32:4, 19), because they deserved to receive more severe precepts. But because God is mild and merciful, He promised through the prophets that He would change the Law, so as to give another Covenant, which would differ from that which He had given before: that not only what was burdensome might be changed, but also those things which were given in figure, that is, the sabbath and circumcision; so that, since they had long been oppressed, being relieved in all things, they might give grateful thanks to God as petitioners. And because, persisting in their fathers’ transgression, they refused to turn their minds away from idols, He testifies that the nations, together with the remnant who kept the faith, will enjoy the Covenant which He had said would come: so that the faithless Jews might be tortured in a twofold way. For they were burdened for a time by the precepts, and in the future they will pay fitting penalties, because they were found faithful neither in the Old nor in the New Covenant. So He said that He would give a New Covenant, so that the Old, which had been given to the Fathers, would cease. And therefore, whoever serves God in this Covenant does not observe the sabbath, nor new moons, nor circumcision, nor distinctions of foods; but has only the fear of God in faith: because he will not be justified by the Law, but by faith, as the prophet Habakkuk says: “For the righteous shall live by faith” (Hab. 2:4); so that he no longer uses many precepts to gain favor with God, but few. Isaiah again, speaking with the same meaning, says: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant of them shall be saved. For the Lord shall accomplish and cut short His word in righteousness, because the Lord will make a short word upon the whole earth” (Isa. 10:22–23). For the remnant who will persevere in the faith of the promise, while the others do not believe, He shows the shortened word of the Law: this is the New Covenant which He promised. It would not otherwise be called a Covenant, unless in a similar way this too were confirmed by the witness of blood, just as the Old Covenant, so that both might have one and the same name: but in the Old, many precepts, in the New, however, few, as He promised. So that, since He had said that Abraham would be the father of many nations (Gen. 17:4–5), in the same way the sons might be justified as the father had been justified: so that, once those things ceased which began after the faith of Abraham, those who receive the faith by which that same Abraham was justified might be sons of Abraham, as was said by the Lord. And this is neither strange nor unheard of, that men should be justified without care for the sabbath and circumcision and the rest of the commandments of this sort. For Enoch did not please God by this, that he might be translated; nor was Noah found righteous in the flood by observing this alone; nor was Abraham himself justified after he was circumcised: “Abraham,” it says, “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Heb. 11:5, 7, 8; Rom. 4:3). Then he was circumcised, so that there might be in him a sign that, though he was old, he believed that he would have a son. Therefore it is not circumcision that commends Abraham, but faith. And so, for those who believe, faith is sufficient for justification, that they may be sons of Abraham in faith, not in circumcision, because they have no need of circumcision. For what Abraham believed is not what is believed in their case. But the Jews were therefore ordered to be circumcised, so that they might have the sign of Abraham’s faith, not of their own faith, but so that they might be known as his sons according to the flesh. Yet if they believe, they will be his sons also in justification. For what advantage is it to be called the son of a powerful man if one is powerless, except that it is even more harmful? For it is a disgrace to be the son of a noble and glorious man without honor. Indeed, bodily circumcision is so far from being a merit that God says through the prophet Jeremiah that He will take vengeance on all the circumcised in foreskin, if they are not circumcised in heart (Jer. 4:4). Yet He is not angry with those who are circumcised in heart but uncircumcised in flesh, because no one has ever pleased God without the circumcision of the heart. Whoever, therefore, are circumcised in the flesh signify the lineage of Abraham according to the flesh; but those who are circumcised in heart signify the lineage of God according to faith, because, being circumcised from all worldly error, they confess God as their Father. What then does the circumcision of the flesh profit, if, when faith is lacking in the Jew, he cannot attain to the merit of Abraham? Or what harm is there in foreskin, when no one attains to his righteousness except the one who has followed the faith of Abraham? They therefore glory in the circumcision of the flesh in vain, since they see that it has no merit before God. And since, as has been shown, it is better to have faith than circumcision, the Gentiles are better than the Jews; for the Gentiles have faith, the Jews have circumcision. And whom do you think He recognizes more as sons of Abraham: those who are like him according to the flesh, or those who are like him in faith? But the faith of Abraham bears witness. And therefore he glories not in the flesh but in faith. For this reason he has received as sons those whom he sees to be imitators of his glory. For how can he call those sons from whom he sees a shrinking back from that by which he pleased God and was justified? He will therefore be able to judge them not as his sons, but as his enemies. For they appear to be envious of him, despising the faith through which he was glorified. Nor is it surprising if the Jews are found untrusting, not at all accepting the New Testament, when we know that they were not faithful even in the Old. They were always rebellious and disrespectful against God, and therefore they received such commandments by which their necks, which were unbending, might be pressed down. For they never wished to hope for good things from God, whose such great benefits and such wondrous powers they had come to know. Therefore it is that, among other things, the prophet Ezekiel says: “I lifted up my hand to them in the desert, that they should be scattered among the nations and dispersed in the lands, because they did not perform my ordinances and rejected my commandments.” And in what follows: “I gave them laws that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live in them” (Ezek. 20:23–25). He shows for what reason such great and so harsh commandments were given to them: because they proved ungrateful for such great benefits, and, justice dictating, they were to be pressed by more severe precepts. Therefore He called them “not good,” although they are just: because they did not lead them to justification, but to destruction; and although a punishment rightly inflicted, yet for the one who suffers it, it is not a good. After these things, however, because God is merciful, He promised that He would give the New Testament, in which the shortening of the Law would justify believers, just as Abraham was justified: so that, with new moons and the sabbath and circumcision and the other precepts ceasing, not those that belong to the natural law, that is, murder, adultery, and such things, they might be justified as Abraham was. For, with the faith of Abraham renewed, He willed that all things should cease, so that the time might be such as it was when Abraham believed. But perhaps the Jews say: “If those things that were given by Moses are said to cease through the shortening of the Law, was circumcision given by Moses so that it should cease? And therefore we have the sign of our father, because we are the sons of Abraham, a sign which, for the sake of the testimony of our lineage, ought not to cease.” Circumcision indeed had to be observed in its time, that is, before the New Testament which had been promised was given. But when, by the grace of God, the burdens of the Law were ordered to cease, what need is there of circumcision? Therefore a new Law was given, that is, a spiritual one, so that carnal things might cease, and those who received it might accept its sign: so that just as in the Old Testament they had the sign of Abraham, from whom the Old Testament began, so also in the New they might have the sign of the Savior, who is the institutor of the New Testament. For just as from Abraham they were called Hebrews, so from Christ they are called Christians. Whoever, therefore, are still called Hebrews have not received the New Testament which God promised, bringing to nothing the kindness and mercy of God: for He no longer wished His people to be designated by the name of a man, but agreed to establish them under the name of His Son. With what courage, then, do the Jews say that we do not use our Law but theirs, when David says, “I will give thanks to you among the nations” (Ps. 17:50), and again, “Rejoice, O nations, with his people”? And to the prophet Jeremiah the Lord says, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; and before you came forth from the womb, I sanctified you; and I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jer. 1:5). Judaism certainly has its own particular signs: for this people is signified either in Jacob, or in Samaria, or in Jerusalem, or in Judea, or in Israel. As for the nations, however, it is clear that He signifies them in a different way than He does the Jews. Therefore Jeremiah is our prophet. For although in all the Prophets God showed that the nations would share in His gift, yet to Jeremiah in particular He says that He has given him to us as a prophet. For he signified that the New Testament would come, which would profit the Gentiles more than the Jews, as now appears clearly. For since the preaching of the New Testament is spread over the whole earth, a faithful Jew is so rarely and with such difficulty found that all the Churches of the New Testament are called “of the nations,” as it was said in the prophet Hosea: “I will call that which is not my people, my people; and her that was not beloved, beloved” (Hosea 2:24; Rom. 9:25). Therefore, the Jews having been rejected, He calls the nations with the same mercy and grace with which He agreed to call Abraham. For Abraham did not come to know the Lord without being called. Therefore, He who agreed to call Abraham likewise agreed to call the nations. Why then do they say, “The Law is ours,” when it is clear that the gift of God is for all who are willing? Let this careless violation cease, since the grace of God is common to all. With what shame do they deny that our Christ was promised in the Law, when they see in Him all the signs which the Law foretold as to come? For both according to the promise made to Abraham all nations are justified by believing in Him (Gen. 22:18); and according to the prophet Isaiah He was born of a Virgin (Isa. 7:14) in Bethlehem from the tribe of Judah, as was promised, from the seed of David (Micah 5:2); and in accordance with what Jeremiah prophesied (Jer. 31:31–32), He proclaimed the New Testament which God then promised would come; and after all the signs of power had been shown, He humbled Himself, according to the words of the Prophets; and having suffered all that had been foretold, He rose on the third day, as it is written in the prophet. And if they inquire about the time of the promise, as it is shown in the prophet Daniel (Dan. 9:24 ff.), they will find it fulfilled in the time when Christ was born and suffered: for from the first year of Darius, king of the Persians, down to the birth and passion of the Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem, which was carried out by Vespasian, chief of the Roman Empire, the seventy weeks were completed, which are four hundred and ninety years, a reckoning made clear through the kingdoms and the successors of the empire. Therefore also it is found calculated by Tertullian in the book which he wrote against the Jews; but, lest this should backfire to his disadvantage, although he calculated correctly, we have passed it over in silence. And who can doubt this number, when now about three hundred years are found in addition to that number? It is therefore shameless, after so many years have been added beyond the time of the coming of the Saviour, to say, “He has not come.” Under the Apostles, or at the time when the Lord was living among men, hatred opposing the truth could still hide itself; so that, although it saw all the signs of the Christ who had been promised in the Savior, it could say that it doubted about the time, to conceal its unbelief. But afterwards, when many years began to exceed the promised number, what shamelessness it is to deny that He has come, whose coming is known to have been fulfilled both by signs and by times! For when something is full and does not overflow, a combative person may say that it is not full; but overflow closes the mouth of the argumentative. So the Jews, in the time of the Saviour, could say, though deceitfully, that the calculation from the time of Darius to the Lord Christ was not correctly made, so that He might not be acknowledged as the one who had been promised. We are mistaken, they might say, in the years and in the months and in the days of the emperors, and we do not make an exact reckoning. But when the times have extended beyond the prescribed number of years of the promised Christ, no excuse can be put forward to deny that He who has come is the Christ, unless, which God forbid, the one who promised is said to have lied. For when the time of the promise has elapsed, and it is denied that the one who was promised has come, what else is charged against the promiser but falsehood? Yet that He who made the promise is truthful, all the signs teach which were foretold in Christ and are known to have been found in Christ. The Jews, however, while they are ashamed to change themselves, do not consider that there will be a judgment to come. For nothing is worse than for someone to deny that a thing is true when he understands that it is not a lie.

(Genesis 14:18-24). 

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 109. ON MELCHIZEDEK. — We read about Melchizedek in the book of Genesis; about Melchizedek likewise, in a similar manner, in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “Because,” it says, “Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham as he returned from the slaughter of the kings, and brought out bread and wine, and offered it to him, and blessed him, saying: Blessed are you, Abraham, by the Most High God, who made heaven and earth, who has delivered your enemies into your hands” (Gen. 14:18-20). And in order to indicate who is to be understood under the name of Melchizedek, the Apostle added: “For, without any doubt,” he says, “the lesser is blessed by the better” (Heb. 7:7). He certainly did not refer this to the handing on of ecclesiastical office. For who would question that the rule of the Lord’s ordinance, by which subjects are blessed by the Lord, is better than those who are blessed by it? For the mystery of the Lord operates in those words which contain and recall him. But he wished to show the proper merit and power of his person. Who then is this one, and how great, in comparison with whom Abraham is called “the lesser,” Abraham who is clearly known, in all the faithful, to bear the mark of noble testimony and faith? Therefore this Melchizedek is not to be understood as having blessed Abraham in the same way as human priests do, so as to give a blessing by commission with sincere words; but as one who, so to speak, possessed a proper blessing which he received, not by words, but by nature, substantially, so that it is his own. The priests, however, whom we call bishops, have a rule ordered and handed down to them in sincere words, and by placing this rule upon people they bless them: yet not those whom they will, but sometimes even those whom they do not will; because the giver of the rule himself knows to whom the most holy blessing ought to be given or poured in. But he who by nature possesses the blessing substantially, whom he calls priest of the Most High God, gives the blessing by his will. For the words of blessing and his nature are in agreement with his will. Nor does he go wrong so as to will it where he ought not, nor refuse where he ought; but to whomever he gives the words, he gives also the effect. Our priests, on the other hand, daily place upon many the name of the Lord and the words of blessing, but in few is there the effect. There are, again, times when those who are better bless themselves. For although one who is holy bows his head to receive a blessing, yet this is because it is not the priest’s own possession, but God’s invention. For the priest Heli blessed Anna, and the effect followed (1 Sam. 1:17, 20), not by the merit of the priest, but by that of Anna herself, whose pure heart God inspected. Therefore Melchizedek is said to be better than Abraham, not because of the office of priesthood alone; rather he is also preferred to him by nature, so that he is understood to be beyond men. For it is in no way possible that he who is set before so great a friend of God, and so faithful that, for love and fear of him, he did not hesitate to kill even his most beloved son, should be considered a mere man. By what justice, by what works, could he have merited more than Abraham merited? Nor was there anything further that he could do to enhance the honor of his importance beyond what Abraham did. First, when he did not know God, nor had he seen a sign by which he might be persuaded, when God said to him, “Go out from your land, and from your kindred, and from your father’s house” (Gen. 12:1), he did not delay, but immediately obeyed, fulfilling the will not only of the present God, but also of the future Lord. For the Lord says: “Whoever loves house, or parents, or brothers, or relatives more than me, is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37). What then is Abraham like, and of what kind of merit is he, who fulfilled the commands of the Saviour before they were preached? The Apostle strongly teaches that hospitality must be pursued (Heb. 13:2); Abraham practiced this so diligently and devoutly (Gen. 18:3) that the Apostle seems to have learned from him that this must be preached. Then, advanced in years, he believed that his offspring would be multiplied in such a way as seems foolish to the wise of this world, like the stars of heaven, so that, before a judgment was passed by the wise of this age, they seem to have been condemned by him. For afterward it was said: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise” (Isa. 29:14; 1 Cor. 1:19). At God’s command he was circumcised; which is certainly not done without pain: and he did not take it hard, so as to give his descendants a model of patience. From Sarah his wife, now an old woman, a son is promised to him, and he does not doubt (Gen. 17:17); in order to show to future generations that God’s authority must be believed in to such an extent that, even if he commands or promises things that seem irrational, there is no wavering; because his person must be considered more than his words, so that what seems weak or impossible in the words his person may confirm and make appear possible. For it is God who promises, of whom it must be believed that he can do what seems impossible to human beings. What fault, then, can be judged, when one forms a higher opinion of God than humanity does of itself? Therefore the son given to Abraham by God he does not hesitate to kill at God’s command; he does not delay the time; he is not astonished at God’s will, that he should order to be killed the very son whom he had given as a gift of great favor and wonder: he is certain that God’s will ought not to be reconsidered by a human being, nor that God’s command or deed is without providence. And so that he might fulfill this with every devotion, and swiftly, he does not tell his mother, his wife, not being ignorant that women are more fragile regarding their children and could bring an obstacle to this devotion through the tears of compassion; nor does he reveal it to the boy himself until the hour of his death, so that he might obey the command of God with the full submission of his mind (Gen. 22:3-10); considering this not as murder, but as a holocaust, which was being carried out with a just judge as its author. What greater deeds, then, could Melchizedek perform, by which he might surpass Abraham, whom, as we see, is in no respect found to have been disobedient? For Moses himself, of whom it is read that the Lord spoke to him face to face (Exod. 33:11), when he was sent to the nation and to his brothers, did not want to go (Exod. 4:1). The prophet Jonah broke the command given to him to preach to the Ninevites, and went off to another place where he had not been sent (Jonah 1:1-3). Job, truly outstanding in all things, nevertheless, moved by the loss of his children, tore his garments and shaved the hair of his head (Job 1:20); Abraham, however, is nowhere read to have been saddened by the death of his most beloved son, the very one he had been ordered to kill with his own hands, nor is he read anywhere to have shuddered when God commanded him. Therefore, through these things it becomes clear that Melchizedek is beyond man, because there was no way he could be better than Abraham except by surpassing him in nature alone. For a nature that is impassible possesses blessedness by its very substance; human birth, however, attains blessedness through deeds. Since it does not have the perfection of divinity, it advances and improves through effort and struggle, becoming better the more it conquers than it is conquered. For if it acted in such a way, which is impossible, that it never sinned, it would become better than God; which is unthinkable, because a nature that can sin as well as not sin, if it always won, would have to be preferred to that nature which does not sin precisely because it is impassible. For it would not seem a great thing not to sin if one could not sin; it is truly magnificent if, being able to sin, one does not sin. This, then, is the difference between the substance of God and that of man: the substance of God is always blessed with the security of its unconquerable eternity; man’s substance, however, becomes blessed through labor. And necessarily one kind of blessedness is that which is impassible, another that of the one who is worn down by tribulations so that he may at some point rejoice. For impassible blessedness lies in this, that it is always blessed; but passible blessedness rejoices, after great perils, to have escaped death. Therefore it is saddened so that it may be able to rejoice, nor is it perpetually secure because of the passibility of its nature. The impassible, however, is always blessed, because it neither knows sadness nor even suspects that it could be saddened. For even human nature, although it attains blessedness through labor, will not remain unharmed, nor will it lack scars. How could it be otherwise, that nature which, having often engaged in combat and at times been defeated, would not be wounded? But the impassible remains always untouched, unharmed, unbreakable. Therefore Abraham would not be said to be the lesser in comparison with Melchizedek, unless the nature of Melchizedek were superior to that of Abraham. Now what we have said may perhaps seem to belong to human reasoning. But if we look to the Law, far more and greater things will still be said. For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he returned from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, is first interpreted “King of Righteousness,” and then “King of Salem,” which is “king of peace,” without father, without mother, and without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; but, made like to the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. And so that he might highlight, in the places where he had signified these things, what he meant, he added this about him: “You see,” he says, “how great this man is, to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils” (Heb. 7:1-4). For in order to show by what power and how great Melchizedek is, he praises Abraham by saying that he is the patriarch, that is, better than all the rest; yet he is least in comparison with Melchizedek. Is it not clear that this one is not merely a man, but better than a man? What does it mean when he says of him that he is king of peace and king of righteousness? Draw nearer and see. From afar, seeing the sun, you think it a lamp; looking at silver, you suppose it to be tin. Can any human being be called king of peace and of righteousness? For peace is proclaimed to men, and likewise righteousness; but this one is called king of peace and righteousness precisely so that righteousness and peace may be known to have their origin from him. For that which is ruled by him cannot be said to be above him. Men are instructed by righteousness as their teacher and by peace, so as to gain God’s favor. This, then, which is the teacher of men, has Melchizedek as its king. How much, then, is Melchizedek better than man, since that which governs men is under him, that is, since he is king of kings? Therefore, when he is called king of righteousness and of peace, he is shown to be their author, so that just as the Lord Jesus is the author of life, so Melchizedek is the author of righteousness and peace; because those who live through Christ are governed, by the dispensation of righteousness and peace, through him. For he pours righteousness and peace into the hearts of God’s servants, in order to adorn the discipline of the Lord. We read written in Psalm 84 that “Righteousness and peace have embraced one another, and truth has sprung out of the earth;” and to show of what righteousness he was speaking, he said, “Righteousness has looked down from heaven” (Ps. 85:11-12). Scripture points here to the time of the Savior, when the righteousness of God was given to the world through Christ in the revelation of the mystery of the one God that had been previously promised. For it is just that the creature should know the truth of its Creator; this righteousness, revealed on earth, removed the disharmony that had arisen from the unrighteousness born of an unknown God, and made those who were at odds into people of peace, when it established men long divided into one faith. Therefore righteousness and peace and truth of the One have embraced each other. From the earth has arisen the teacher of righteousness. For the incarnation of Christ has shown what truth about God himself was to be known. Therefore, this is certainly the righteousness of God. Likewise peace also, as the Apostle says: “The God of peace will soon crush Satan” (Rom. 16:20). I do not see how this can be distinguished: since the God of peace is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Christ himself as well; for he says, “My peace I give to you” (Jn. 14:27); how then can it be said of Melchizedek that he is king of righteousness and peace, and by what reasoning can he be set apart, I do not understand. I think that, as far as the matter at hand is concerned, there is no difference between “king of peace” and “God of peace.” Because no one in the world ought to have been called God, so that this name alone might be reserved to the One from whom are all things, he appointed a king who would bear his image, who, except for the name of God, would have all his authority; but since he is earthly, he is king of men, yet not of peace and righteousness. For he too has righteousness as his leader, which he is not permitted to despise. For God is his righteousness. Righteousness is God’s own attribute, and whoever transgresses it becomes guilty before God’s judgment. But Melchizedek, as we are given to understand, is not called king in the way humans are; because he has righteousness under him, which rules over kings. For no one can have righteousness under himself unless his nature is such that he cannot sin. Yet he is said to be above it because he discovered the manner of law by which those who can sin are governed. Therefore the king of righteousness is the ruler of the words discovered by himself, by which a person can both live well and happily and also believe. We labor long and much, and still we say too little about Melchizedek, unless we return to Scripture, which itself also for a long time knocks and cries out, so as to awaken those weighed down by heavy sleep to understanding, not of night but of day. It says therefore that Melchizedek is without father, without mother, without genealogy. And lest this should be understood otherwise than is worthy, it added: Having neither beginning of days nor end of life. By this it shows that Melchizedek was neither born nor died. What has human refinement to argue against things so clear? What cunning craftiness of intellect is so deceptive that it dares to resist what is revealed, so as not to receive meaning from the text, but to impose meaning on the text? Violence is done to the Scriptures of the Lord, so that they even feel these as enemies who appear to bow themselves to their authority. For some say that one ought not to believe about Melchizedek as it is reported in the Scriptures, and by this they twist the Scriptures to their own understanding. It would be better for such people openly not to accept the Scriptures than to act deceitfully against them, so that under the name of peace war is prepared, and under the cloak of friendship the enemy lies hidden. They say therefore that Melchizedek’s “without father and mother” does not refer to nobility, but to the lowliness of his family, because he is read to have been without father and mother. They claim this was written therefore in order to show that he was of foreigners, not of the tribe from which Abraham sprang, because his lineage is not found in the Law. Therefore, they say, it also added, And without genealogy, so that it might be understood that his origin is in no way described in the Law, so that he may be believed to have become a good man by himself from parents of whatever sort. But now Scripture is so abundant that it sets out everything necessary to the case in orderly fashion. First it says, Without father, without mother. Let us see whether the mothers of others are mentioned in the Law: it is not written who was the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s grandmother, the mother of Terah; nor is it written who was the mother of Abraham, not to speak of the rest. Are these to be said to have been without mothers? If it had said, Without father, there might have been some appearance of a distinguishing feature, because in the Law the fathers of all who existed are recorded. It adds, And without genealogy. If he said this in order to show that his lineage is not in the Law, it would have been enough to say “without father,” since no one knows his father. Yet further, and much more clearly, he says for the sake of clarity, Having neither beginning of days nor end of life. Say, whoever you are that use violence, how do you interpret this? What is it not to have the beginning of days nor the end of life? It would certainly have been enough to say that his lineage is not written in the Law, and that therefore his origin must be believed to be from foreigners. It can be said that he was translated like Enoch, and therefore did not die. Granted. What is it not to have the beginning of the days of life? Perhaps you will say that his birthday is not written. Whose is written in the Law? And is this the reasoning, that for anyone whose birthday is not written, it is denied that he has a beginning of days of life? The same could therefore have been said of the others. And even if he had been translated as a man, he still would not have been without an end of life; because whatever is under the prospect of death has an end. Stop, whoever you are who strive for dispute. It is better to be overcome by the truth than to overcome the truth by falsehoods. For that is destruction, not victory; because even if truth might seem to be defeated in man, yet with God it triumphs, because its reason is invincible. Therefore the mind ought to be overcome by the Law, so that it may think what is signified by the Law, not that it should give the Law its meaning by its own judgment, so as to present itself as violently reading the Law. And listen to Zerubbabel, for, he says, above all things truth prevails (3 Esdras 3:12). Already Melchizedek has shown the future mystery of the incarnation and passion of the Lord, when he first delivered to Abraham, as to the father of believers, the Eucharist of the body and blood of the Lord, so that in the father the truth might be prefigured which was to come in the sons. If he is thought to be a man and a priest in the manner in which Aaron was, or as priests now are, let the place of his dwelling be shown or read; or if there was some temple or synagogue in which he gathered the people and offered their sacrifices, or what people it was that assembled to him. For if he was a priest upon earth, he undoubtedly had a people, and before Abraham, or at least in his time, there was certainly a people who served God. And how then was Abraham made as it were the head of faith, so that from him the people might have the knowledge of God? For similarly, if Melchizedek existed as one who taught the fear of the one God on earth, Abraham was chosen in vain so that from him the people of God should be named. For there could have been among those who gathered to Melchizedek some who would be called the people of God. And where is that which is read in the canticle of Deuteronomy: For when the Most High divided the nations, as he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the Angels of God. And the portion of the Lord became his people Jacob (Deut. 32:8–9). Therefore, if there was in the world no people of God except the children of Abraham, on what ground is another people thought to have existed which came forth from the teaching of Melchizedek, when the Prophet denies it? For when he names all the nations that are in the world, and does not say that any people are God’s except the children of Abraham, what remains but that, apart from these, it should be denied that the rest had the knowledge of God, because God is known in Judah (Ps. 75:1). But Melchizedek, priest of the most high God, appeared to bless Abraham as a foreshadowing of the future saints: because in time to come a blessing was to be given to the people of God through the chief minister of God, whom we call a priest. Therefore this Melchizedek appeared as the forerunner of the future consecrated Son of God, because he who follows in order goes before in service. Nor, then, are the things we have said about Melchizedek to be wondered at, when Scripture, to the confusion of those who murmur, adds more and says. For after all the things worthy of praise, in order to confuse the spiteful it says: “But made like unto the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” Now consider of whom you are striving to think ill; and if you do not fear him, at least fear Christ, to whom he is reported, by the authority of Scripture, to be similar. For by degrees he comes, in due order, to his natural merit, so that if any were moved by the preceding statements, by which he is signified as king of righteousness and of peace, and because, having been seen in the flesh, he had neither father nor mother, that is, he appeared as unbegotten, having neither beginning nor end; from the things set forth last he might show the former statements to be believable. For who would dare to say, unless he is mad, that all these things which have been spoken in such exalted terms are unfitting to him who is designated as like unto the Son of God, remaining a priest forever? But one who is like unto the Son of God cannot be so unless he is of the same nature. And what seems incredible, if Melchizedek appeared as a man, when he is understood to be the third person? For if Christ, who is the second person, was frequently seen in the form of a man, why should there be any doubt about the things that have been said? For we read in the Psalm: “You are,” he says, “a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4). None of us doubts that this refers to the person of Christ, because Christ is a priest forever in the same manner as Melchizedek. But Christ is the high priest, Melchizedek the second. For if Melchizedek is a man, how does it fit that Christ should be a priest forever according to his order? Already both are read as being similar and as belonging to a single dispensation, because they are also of a single nature. But since in every respect the authority of the one God must be preserved, therefore the third person is also subordinated to the paternal name. Christ, however, is the vicar and high priest of the Father, and therefore he is also called a priest. Likewise, the Holy Spirit, as it were a high priest, has been called priest of the most high God, not the supreme one, as our people presume in the offering. For although Christ and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, yet the order of each must be observed. Therefore priests or messengers are so called because they show in themselves him of whom they are the messengers: for they are his image. And therefore Christ and the Holy Spirit, naturally possessing the image of God, are called his priests. In them God is seen, as the Lord says, “He who sees me, sees the Father also” (Jn. 14:9). And if in the deeds of God the Lord has been seen, but the deeds of the Holy Spirit are works, with the Lord signifying, “For I cast out demons by the Spirit of God” (Matt. 12:28); then in the Holy Spirit God has been seen.

(Genesis 15:16)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 10. GOD HAVING FORETOLD TO ABRAHAM THAT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WOULD BE FREED FROM THE DOMINION OF THE EGYPTIANS. THE FOURTH GENERATION, WHY DOES THE LAW SAY, "THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SHALL COME FORTH OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT INTO THE FIFTH GENERATION?" — As far as the words are concerned, it seems to be a contradiction; but if the sense is examined, it will be found not to differ. For the Law speaks in such a way that those who are diligent and attentive may understand, so that the basis of the truth reveals itself not to the careless but to the earnest. Indeed, God said “fourth generation,” (Gen. 15:16) and Moses wrote “fifth generation.” (Exod. 13:18) Though Moses recorded both, and it is impossible that he should be mistaken, in whom such great power has worked; therefore the meaning must be investigated, since Scripture never speaks anything uselessly or without forethought. Therefore there are two aspects which each mentions. God indicated four generations that were born in Egypt; Moses, however, adding to these one from which these originated when they entered Egypt, says, “In the fifth generation the sons of Israel went out.” For he includes together the generation that entered Egypt and the four that were born there. From Abraham up to the departure of the sons of Israel from Egypt there are eight generations. For they lived two hundred and fifteen years in Canaan from the time the promise was made to Abraham, and two hundred and fifteen in Egypt. These are the years encompassed by the Apostle to the Galatians when he says, “The Law was given four hundred and thirty years later” (Gal. 3:17). Therefore these four generations were born in Canaan: one in Isaac, another in Jacob, a third in Levi, a fourth in Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari. But when the sons of Israel entered Egypt, Kohath begot Amram: this is the first generation produced in Egypt. Amram then begot Aaron and Moses and Miriam, which is the second generation produced in Egypt. And Aaron begot Eleazar and his brothers, which is the third generation. Then Eleazar begot Phinehas, the fourth generation. These are the four generations brought forth in Egypt. Therefore the Lord says to Abraham, “Your seed will be a stranger, and they will oppress them with slavery; but I will deliver them, and in the fourth generation they will come out from there.” (Gen. 15:13) See whether it is not clear that God signified nothing other than what took place in Egypt. Moses, however, in order also to include that generation which entered Egypt together with Jacob their father, from which these four take their origin, said, “In the fifth generation the sons of Israel went out from the land of Egypt.”

(Genesis 17:10)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 12. WHY DID ABRAHAM RECEIVE THE SIGN OF HIS FAITH, THE SACRAMENT OF CIRCUMCISION? — If you are willing to pay attention, you will see that what you think is at odds with reason is not unfitting. For since he believed he would have a son in whom all nations would be blessed, and from whom holiness was to arise, he received the sign in that part by which the begetting of sons both begins and ceases, so that it might be holier. But if to some people this seems a blemish, let them observe that Abraham rejoiced in it, and that his sons were made glorious by this testimony. For Achior, surely one of the princes of the Gentiles, seeing that there was such great power in the God of Abraham that Holofernes, the commander of the Assyrian army, whose might made the whole earth tremble, was beheaded with his own sword by the hand of a woman, circumcised himself of his own accord, thinking that by this very act a dignity had been obtained for him (Judith 14:6). Does not a person boast if he has lost an eye or some limb for the name of Christ? Does he not display that very part before human faces so that he may appear glorious? For to lose something for a time for the sake of faith is to make a gain. So Abraham too, by receiving the sign of his faith, was not disfigured, but made better. In a spiritual sense this signified that the cloud of the flesh ought to be cut away from the hearts of men through faith in Christ: for carnal error stood in the way, casting darkness over human hearts so that they might not know the Creator. But Abraham, because Christ was promised to come from his seed, the one who would wipe away this darkness, was therefore circumcised, because he believed he would have a son who would cut off this error. Now see whether he did not appropriately receive such a sign in that part. 

(Genesis 17:10-11) 

2^ND CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 10. WHY WERE CIRCUMCISION AND PRECEPTS GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE, WHICH PREVIOUSLY DID NOT EXIST AND NOW ARE NO LONGER HELD IN AUTHORITY? — Circumcision is a sign of Abraham’s faith, so that when this sign was seen in his sons, it might be known that they were his sons, who, believing God, had received this sign (Gen. 17:10–11). But the commandments about Sabbaths and things past were given as testimony, and about things to come which were to have a figure (Exod. 20:9–11). For the future Sabbath, in which He will grant rest in eternity, is foreshadowed by this Sabbath that was made in the completed week. The law of foods, however, was not given at the beginning of the Law, but when, under a leader, they were faithless and did not want to give faith to God’s words and promises, they received, because of the hardness of their heart, precepts that were not good, as the prophet Jeremiah says (Ezek. 20:25). This was done so that their neck might be pressed down, for their own improvement. For the whole creation ought not to have been subjected to proud and stubborn men. Later, however, when the mercy of God came, freedom to eat was restored. Therefore the apostle Peter says: Why do you put a yoke upon the neck of the brothers, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear? (Acts 15:10).

(Genesis 17:11-12)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 29. WHY WAS IT COMMANDED THAT CIRCUMCISION TAKE PLACE ON THE EIGHTH DAY? — It was therefore commanded that circumcision be performed on the eighth day from birth because, according to the number and cycle of the seven days, that day is again found to be the first, as it were, after the sabbath, so that it is no longer regarded as the eighth, but as the first. For since the salvation to come through Christ was predestined for the first day (which is therefore called the Lord’s Day, because on it the Lord rose again), which is after the sabbath, the figure of this salvation was given in circumcision, so that the future renewal might be recognized in the law of circumcision. And because human beings were to be saved through faith, which was confirmed on the first day of the Lord’s resurrection, the figure of this reality was given in circumcision on the first day, which would also be the sign of Abraham’s faith. The whole reason, therefore, is complete: because the sign of the past faith, sealed on the first day, was a figure of the future faith established on the first day.

(Genesis 19:25)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 13. IF GOD’S JUDGMENT IS JUST, WHY WERE INFANTS IN SODOM BURNED TOGETHER WITH THEIR PARENTS? — So that the exceedingly wicked crime of the Sodomites might be noticed, their sin reached even to the killing of their own children, so that no trace might remain of their origin. Was it not provided for them that, by not living long, they would not follow the example of their parents? For they are free from hell, having been killed in another’s cause. The parents are guilty both for themselves and for these, because, in order that their deeds might be wiped out, all their offspring was erased. For just as children rejoice in the good things of their parents, because they are praised by their parents’ due, so also they cannot complain about the death which is inflicted on account of their parents’ evils. For just as they are sharers in profit, it is necessary that they also be sharers in loss. Likewise in Egypt, children were struck down for the faults of their parents, but in such a way that it might lead to their modification: so that, since for other reasons they were unwilling to believe in and worship God, who was with Moses, terrified by this plague they might confess with satisfaction, lest they suffer more heavily for this guilt. Therefore this death of the children is the crime of the parents. For in whatever way the children yielded up their due spirit, they will be future accusers of their parents, because their parents could not overcome their own treachery even by the shedding of their children’s blood. So the evils of the parents did not overtake the children in the future, but in the present time. Nor is it any kind of benefit not to be glorious, and yet not to be guilty. For if some people, with prayers and great effort, at the very end of life strive to come to true faith, so that, if not a crown, they might at least deserve pardon, how can those complain at all whose case was such that they had neither any means by which they might ask to be forgiven, nor any exalted merit, because they did not toil at all? Now compare a momentary torment with a long-lasting punishment. Imagine also that many labor hard, and because they cannot persevere, they not only lose the fruit of their labor, but are also punished. Add moreover that it is difficult for those born of the wicked and raised or living among the most vicious people to discipline their minds to follow God’s teaching. Consider then whether it was not better dealt with in the case of the children of the lost.

(Genesis 22:16) 

2^ND CATEGORY OT & NT

QUESTION 3. THE OLD LAW ALLEGES THAT GOD SWORE AN OATH; FOR IT SAYS, “BY MYSELF I HAVE SWORN, SAYS THE LORD” (Gen. 22:16). BUT THE SAVIOR FORBADE SWEARING (Matt. 5:34): HOW THEN DID HE NOT DESTROY THE OLD THINGS? — Before the knowledge of God was on earth, there was no other way to stir people to an unheard-of hope than that a promise should be made to them with an oath, by him whom they did not know as was fitting. But once he began to be known, it was certainly no longer right to swear by him whom it was not permissible to think could lie. Therefore the Lord no longer commanded his servants to swear, but to make themselves such that their words would be trusted. For the necessity of an oath arose either from treachery or from the deceit of the fickle, so that, since people are accustomed to deceive, they might perhaps be restrained by fear of God; or at least it will be enough that the one who is deceived gains offense from this.

(Genesis 27:27)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 11. IF THE WILL OF THE RIGHTEOUS MAN IS GOOD, WHY DID NOT ISAAC BLESS ESAU AS HE WISHED, BUT JACOB WHOM HE WOULD NOT BLESS? — The righteous man’s will is good, as far as his own conscience is concerned; but with respect to foreknowledge, it is free from opposing events. For God alone is the one who judges things to come. Therefore Isaac, righteous as to his present human understanding, considered his elder son more worthy to receive the blessing. But God, who is the knower of hidden things, showed that the younger deserved the blessing, so that in the blessing He might show the benefit to be not from man, but from God; for the dignity of the office, not the merit of the man, is what God’s blessing follows. Accordingly, it was said by God in Numbers to Moses and Aaron the priests, You shall place my name upon the children of Israel; I, the Lord, will bless them (Num. 6:27): so that the grace, by the handing-on through the minister who ordains, might be poured out upon men, and the will of the priest could neither harm nor benefit, but only the merit of the one seeking the blessing. We may see from this how great is the dignity of the priestly order. For it is said of the most wicked Caiaphas, the killer of the Savior, among other things, This he did not say of himself; but since he was the high priest of that year, he prophesied (Jn. 11:51). By this it is shown that the spirit of graces follows not the person, whether worthy or unworthy, but the ordination of the tradition: so that even if someone is of good merit, he still cannot bless unless he has been ordained, so that he may exercise the office of ministry. It is God’s part to grant the effect of the blessing.

(Genesis 32:30)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 71. JACOB IS CALLED “THE MAN WHO SEES GOD,” AND MOSES SAW GOD FACE TO FACE; LIKEWISE ISAIAH SAYS, “I HAVE SEEN THE LORD OF HOSTS WITH MY EYES.” BUT ON THE OTHER HAND JOHN THE EVANGELIST SAYS, “NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN GOD” (Gen. 32:28; Exod. 33:11; Isa. 6:5; 1 John 4:12); THIS, AS FAR AS IT APPEARS, IS CONTRADICTORY. — As far as true faith is concerned, absolutely no one has ever seen God, neither the Father nor the Son. For what is called “seeing” refers to understanding; for sight is as in an image. Just as when we do not know emperors personally, we see them in likeness, not in reality; so too God was seen so that it might be understood that the one who appeared was God, by reason, not by substance; because in His own nature God cannot be seen. And to reveal more truly the hidden things of the question set before us, let us strive to explain the Evangelist’s meaning. For John wished to disclose something hidden, which he knew apply to saving teaching: therefore he says, “No one has ever seen God, except the only‑begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.” Let us observe the Evangelist’s meaning: in order to show that it is true that no one has ever seen God, he teaches that the Son has revealed this; and it is utterly impossible for Him to be mistaken, because He is in the bosom of the Father. But what is the bosom of the Father, if not the affection of the true Father in love, through the unity of nature in the Son? Wherefore no one has seen God except the only Son: this John the Apostle heard the Son of God saying among other things, “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except Him who is from God; He has seen the Father.” (Jn. 6:46) Therefore, in order to advance the condemnation of the Jews, who were unwilling to hear or believe that Christ is the Son of God, the Evangelist shows that this is the Christ who had appeared to the Fathers as God; but that the One who is the Father is never seen except by the Son. For when He denies that God the Father has been seen, and yet confesses that God appeared to the Fathers, He wishes to make it clear that He, the Son of God, is the One who has always been seen by the Fathers as God. Therefore, among other things, He says to the Jews about the Father, “You have never at any time heard His voice, nor seen His form” (John 5:37). Behold, it is not contradictory that God is both seen and unseen.

 (Genesis 49)

2^ND CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 6. WHAT DOES THE BLESSING OF JACOB, WHICH HE GAVE TO HIS SONS (Gen. 48, 49), CONTAIN? — Jacob not only foretold, on the basis of present causes, the future of each tribe, but also, from future causes, future events whose shadow did not yet exist, and he signified these in the Jewish people. For he showed what the future character of each tribe would be in morals, faith, discipline, excess, immorality, and contempt of faith; so that, although they were from one and the same ancestor, they would not preserve unity. Some advanced for the better, others became worse, others remained as they were: so that they might not claim a privilege for themselves on account of their lineage, since it had been foretold by him that some of those who were certainly of his origin would turn out depraved, indeed that many would perish, in such wise that others were signified as coming in to take their place, who, to their shame and condemnation, would be grafted into the nature from which they had fallen. Therefore he declared that the people in all the tribes would be mixed: by this variety it was to be understood that the good would be few, and the evil many. And although he gave the scepter to his son Joseph for a time, he nevertheless set Judah over all. Not because all from Judah were going to be worthy, but because the Savior, who is truly King, was according to the flesh to arise from that tribe.

(Genesis 50:24)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 25. WHY DID JOSEPH, AFTER PREDICTING THE FUTURE, REQUEST THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL TO CARRY HIS ASHES FROM EGYPT WHEN GOD DELIVERED THEM? — It is absolutely certain that Joseph did not give that command to the sons of Israel without purpose. For he who was able to prophesy is not to be thought to have spoken without foresight. Since he was more inclined to devotion toward God the Creator, and knew that he was revered by the Egyptians because of the administration through which he governed Egypt in a time of great famine, after his departure he sought to have this error removed: he was sure of the vanity of the crowd, which honors the dead more like gods than the living, so that the honor due to the Creator would not be given to him. Therefore he showed that he was free from the vain superstition of the Egyptians, when he ordered his bones to be carried elsewhere so that they would not contribute to an injury against God. We find that the Apostles followed the same example. For Paul and Barnabas, when they saw that people wanted to offer sacrifice to them, knowing this was hateful to God, tore their garments, saying, “What are you doing? We too are men, like you,” and so they restrained the crowds (Acts 14:10–17).

EXODUS

(Exodus 4:24)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 16. WHY DID THE ANGEL WHO WANTED TO KILL MOSES, IN THE ROUTE, BE APPEASED BY THE CIRCUMCISION OF HIS CHILD? — What Moses had done without taking counsel was corrected by the appearance of the threatening angel. Finally, when the angel saw being done what had been neglected through carelessness, he ceased from his wrath. Therefore Moses saw the angel so hostile against him and ready for punishment, because the fault of a man of high rank is a grave sin. For the more exalted his position is, the more serious is his offense. Therefore whatever is done by a man of highest standing, as the leader of the people, is a most bitter sin. He was going to the sons of Israel, sent by the God of Abraham, and he was not bearing the sign of Abraham’s righteousness, in which he knew the Jews took pride, so that he would either be called a deceiver, or not be considered sent by that same God who had chosen Abraham. For while living in Midian he had by no means circumcised his sons: whom he ought either not to have taken with him to Egypt, since he was going there to lead the others out; or certainly to have taken them circumcised, for the reasons we stated above. Therefore Zipporah, the wife of Moses, because Scripture speaks briefly, knowing well for what reason the angel appeared hostile to her husband, took a stone, circumcised her son, and the angel departed. For by that action the anger was softened by the same cause by which it had been kindled. Sometimes Scripture speaks in brief form, wanting things to be understood from the reasoning presented: just as in that passage where the Savior says among other things to the Jews, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition? For God said, Honor your father and mother; and, Whoever curses father or mother, let him surely die. But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, Whatever gift you might have had from me shall profit you, shall not honor his father or mother (Matt. 15:3–6). Without doubt the Savior said this in summary, so that the Jewish priests may be understood, in that, being devoted to greed, they despised the Law of God. For in sinful conspiracy they gave counsel to sons that, when they cursed father or mother, whatever they might offer as if a gift to God would dissolve the sentence previously given against those who curse: and therefore the sons, made secure, in defiance of God’s commandment despised their parents. So also Moses, when he saw the angel hostile to him, understanding the cause, showed his wife what ought to be done so that the angel who sought to kill him would depart from him. This is to be understood covertly in this case, just as in the passage we mentioned above concerning the priests.

(Exodus 7:10)

2^ND CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 8. THERE WAS NO OTHER SIGN THAT MOSES PERFORMED OPENLY BEFORE PHARAOH EXCEPT THE SERPENT (Exod. 7:10) — Whoever considers this blameworthy should say what else ought to have been done. For indeed he made a serpent, which both inspired terror yet did not harm, because it is somewhat slow to injure due to a certain stupor. For if he had made a lion, or a bear, or something of that sort, how would those present have escaped? He did not wish to kill anyone, but only to instill fear and to show power; so that since the first transgression began through a serpent, in like manner the calling to mind of the knowledge of God and the correction of conduct might come through the sign of a serpent, so that as sin came about, so it might also be corrected. Just as sin came through a woman, so it was taken away through a woman, namely Mary, the Mother of the Lord, from whom Christ was born and condemned sin. Eve was still a virgin when she transgressed, just as Mary was a virgin. In this way, therefore, the things that had perished were recalled to their former state: for the kingdom too had been lost through the tasting of wood, and again through wood it was sought. For “the Lord,” it is said, “reigned from the tree” (Ps. 95:10). In a similar way, the world in which it was made, in it also must be reformed, that is, at the beginning of the first month, which is Passover. Therefore no nature will be evil except transgression alone; since sin has been corrected through that by which it was also committed.

(Exodus 12:11)

QUESTION 116. THE REASON FOR THE PASSOVER. — Passover, dearest brothers, is named from “passion,” as the prefiguration of this tradition teaches us, which was fulfilled in Egypt through God’s servant Moses, as Scripture says: “It is the victim of the Lord’s Passover” (Exod. 12:11). What then is the reason that the mystical ceremony was celebrated by blood, and the restoration of life came through death; so that when death thought it was increasing its power, it was diminished and dissolved by receiving the blood of the Savior; and when it believed it was acting with strength, it collapsed, weakened? For death found death through His work, by divine ordering: so that, since it always wills evil, it was allowed to prevail for a time, in order that, its own work of injustice being destroyed, it could not complain that its kingdom had been taken away. For although God can do all things, He nevertheless does nothing that is contrary to reason. The justice that He requires is the very justice He performs; He does not presume upon His power. Therefore there is great providence toward the human race, in that, while preserving justice, He therefore loosed what had been justly decreed, and rescued man from death, although he was not held without cause. But because he had been deceived by the Devil’s envy, it was just that he should be helped. For the sentence was God’s, but it was Satan who had brought this about. Therefore, just as it was seen to be just that man should be delivered, so it would have been unjust that this should be done by mere power, with justice disregarded. Since man, overcome at the Devil’s persuasion, was to receive mercy, the Devil, as accuser, resisted. Therefore it was brought about that the one who gloried in man’s sin should be caught sinning, so that then at last, made guilty, he would not dare to contradict. Therefore it came to pass that the Son of God was born as man, and, proclaiming justice, provoked the Devil because He restrained men from his vices, to the point that he even killed Him who knew no sin. Then he was found to have sinned, and more gravely indeed than the man whom he accused. For while, by God’s decree, he claimed man for himself on account of sin, since he who sins belongs in part to the Devil, he was found to have sinned more, when he killed Him who had not sinned, that he might seize Him for himself. Through death, therefore, destruction entered into death; so that, in order that blood might be restored, blood was shed. Because, as I have said, the author of death, who is the Devil, since he was found to have sinned in the death of the Savior, lost His blood together with that of us all: for just as through one Adam, who sinned, he held all in death, so through one who did not sin he lost all. Therefore the blood of the Savior, shed unjustly, obtained this reward: that, recovering with triumph the blood of His own stock, He might return restored human nature to its former state in a better condition. Conquered death could not resist Him who had conquered it. Blessed, then, is the mystery of Passover, which redeemed us by blood, with death having been conquered through death, just as poison is often overcome by poison.

(Exodus 20)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 7. WHAT ARE THE TEN WORDS GIVEN ON THE TABLETS; OR WHAT DID EACH TABLET CONTAIN, AND HOW MANY WORDS DID EACH HAVE? — He called ten sentences “ten words,” because the Savior also used the word “word” to mean a sense or meaning, when he said among other things to the Jews, I also ask you one word; answer me: the baptism of John, where was it, from heaven or from men? (Matt. 21:24). This sense he called a word. In a similar way, the ten words written on the two tablets are said to be ten meanings. Indeed, he says, You shall not have other gods besides me (Exod. 20:3): this is the first word. And he added the second, You shall not make for yourself any likeness in heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. (Exod. 20:4) Then he added the third, You shall not take the name of your God in vain. (Exod. 20:7) For the Lord will not cleanse him who takes his name in vain: that is, You shall not take the name of your God in a lie, so that you swear falsely by it. Then in the fourth place he says, You shall keep the sabbath of the Lord your God, (Exod.20:8) and you shall do no servile work on it. These four words properly belong to God, and are contained on the first tablet. The remaining are these: the first word is, Honor your father and your mother; the second, You shall not murder; the third, You shall not commit fornication; the fourth, You shall not steal; the fifth, You shall not bear false witness; the sixth, You shall not covet anything of your neighbor’s (Exod. 20:3–17). The Apostle Paul proves that these were written on the second tablet, saying, Honor your father and your mother, which is the first commandment with a promise (Eph. 6:2). For how could it be the first, unless he had begun with it on the second tablet itself? He says “with a promise” for this reason, because he immediately added, That you may live long upon the earth, and that it may go well with you. This is the promise made to those who keep the commandments. Therefore you have both the commandments distinguished, and their number completed, and what and how many were written on each tablet.

(Exodus 20:5)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 14. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT GOD, WHO IS PROCLAIMED AS JUST, HAS PROMISED TO REPAY THE SINS OF THE FATHERS UPON THE CHILDREN TO THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATION? — Anyone who doubts that God does nothing and says nothing unjust is out of his mind. Therefore, if the words of the Lord are not suppressed, but everything that relates to this same question is set forth, what seems obscure will come to light, and what is thought hardly just will be recognized as devout. For whoever suppresses the words of a question is either ignorant or shifty, preferring accusation to teaching. Further, the Lord indeed promised that He would repay the sins of the fathers upon the children, but upon those who hate Him, that is, those who, involved in their fathers’ evils, have served idols just as their fathers did. For he is an enemy of God who transfers the honor of His name to a creature. Just as the sons of the righteous, being themselves righteous, dignify the line of righteousness in themselves, while both the righteousness of the fathers and their own are exalted; so also the sons of the utterly wicked, being themselves wicked, increase hatred, because they are children of the evil and have copied their wickedness to the ruin of many. God therefore appears to speak with terror; but it is true, and it has its basis. For who does not detest both an evil man and the son of an evil man in a double way, just as he judges both a good man and the son of a good man deserving of double honor? He therefore promised to repay to the third and fourth generation so that, if after an evil father the son does not follow his father’s treachery, but the grandson becomes an imitator of his grandfather’s evils, he may know that he will not be exempt from the severity of judgment; or if the grandson, not following his grandfather but his father’s footsteps, loves the Covenant of God, the great‑grandson may not be ignorant that the sentence reaches to him, if he rivals the disloyalty of his great‑grandfather. By this revealing of the Law God wished to deter wicked fathers, so that, recognizing how much evil the pursuit of idolatry produces, they might be recalled to reverence for the Creator by affection for their children; or so that the children, fearing lest they experience their fathers’ sins, might obey the Law of God. But those who add to their wickedness began to interpret this differently, saying, “Our fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge,” so that, feeling secure about exemption, because the sins would be repaid to their children, they would have no devotion either in spirit or in flesh. Therefore it is said to them, “The son shall not die for the father, nor the father for the son; but the soul that sins, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:2, 4). In order that they might learn that it would not be without penalty for them, but that the sins of the fathers are repaid to the children in this way: since they have followed the wickedness of their parents and have repeated the evils which should have been blotted out, they are punished more bitterly. After God showed what evil idolatry produces, He immediately added what good follows for those who love Him, saying, “And showing mercy to thousands upon thousands of those who love Me and keep My commandments” (Exod. 20:6): so that the good of a father is repaid not only up to the great‑grandson, but up to thousands upon thousands. Suppose, for instance, that someone from the seed of David loves God, knowing for certain that David lived a thousand years earlier: to this man the mercy of God is added, so that in time of need, with two reasons to support him, he may merit to receive mercy, because he himself is a worshiper of God, and because he is of the seed of one who loved God. And in this the mercy of God is praiseworthy, that He repays to those who hate Him only up to the third and fourth generation, and not to thousands upon thousands: so that, if evil is drawn out into a fifth generation, from there it again begins to have its starting‑point, so that from that point it is counted up to a third and fourth generation. But someone will say: It seems more just that more should be repaid to the originator than to the imitator. Vengeance is rightly given to the originator; but what is said about more being repaid to the sons is a punishment upon the fathers. And if you seek the reason, by the coming of the Law sinners become more guilty, like Lamech and those after Lamech. Yet it seems to some that the sins of the fathers were repaid to the children in this way: when they were led into captivity because of their fathers and remained there up to the fourth generation. If this is true, He repaid the sins of the fathers not only to those who hated Him, but also to those who loved His name: for Daniel was taken away, and the three youths, and Baruch, and Ezekiel, and Ezra was born there. It clearly appears, then, that what we said above fits the question that has been proposed.

(Exodus 28:26; Deuteronomy 7:14)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 17. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE LAW CALLS THOSE ACCURSED WHO HAVE NOT LEFT SEED IN ISRAEL, WHILE THROUGH ISAIAH IT IS SAID THAT EUNUCHS SUFFER NO DISADVANTAGE, BECAUSE THEY CANNOT GENERATE OFFSPRING? — Because it had begun to be understood in a way different from how it was spoken, therefore the prophet Isaiah later showed in what sense it had been said. For since this had been set down in the manner of a sentence of judgment on account of God’s displeasure, because those who abandoned God were struck in this way, that even though they took wives they would not leave offspring, human error seized on this as if those would be guilty before God who either did not want wives, or, having taken them, could not generate children as is usual; as though God sought nothing else but offspring, just as they are criticized through the prophet Malachi. Therefore Isaiah, in order to console those whom wrong understanding had saddened, taught that it is no hindrance if someone either cannot have children or does not wish to, provided that he keeps God’s law. For that curse applied to those who, though they could and wished to, by divine judgment standing against them were barren, so that they might have no fruit of God’s creation, which they despised; so that when they saw either that they could not generate, or that they in no way possessed those born, they might recognize this as the wrath of an outraged God and, turning back, make satisfaction. For even holy men, when they were eager for children and did not obtain this, thought that sins were standing in the way and were grieved, not knowing that it was the providence of God for whom they were being reserved. Finally, by God’s arrangement, Hannah conceived and bore Samuel (1 Sam. 1:20), and Elizabeth John (Luke 1:57), and Manoah’s wife Samson (Judg. 13:24). For the spiritual understanding in this matter is this: that those are held accursed who have not left seed that shall see God, that is, who have not instilled either a son, or a servant, or a neighbor, who will teach the fear of God upon the earth.

(Exodus 34:29)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 8. WHY DID MOSES, COMING DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAIN WITH THE TABLES OF THE LAW, HAVE A FACE SO BRIGHT THAT IT COULD NOT BE FIXED ON HIM? — Having received authority over sinners, he came down from the mountain with honor, his face glorious. For the Law was given against sinners. Moses therefore, because he had not sinned, appeared glorious, to such an extent that he could not be seen by sinners. For it was shown in him that sinners do not deserve to behold the glory of God. After the idol of the molten calf and the breaking of the tablets on which the Law had been given, Moses again went up the mountain with tablets; and when he came down after receiving the Law on them, his face became glorious, so that the children of Israel could not gaze upon his face, nor could Aaron, because he too had sinned. But with a veil placed over his face he spoke to them, so that they would remain unworthy of the glory of God as long as they continued in sins (Exod. 34:29). Therefore the Apostle says, “When one turns to God, the veil is removed” (2 Cor. 3:16), so that, cleansed by the gift of God, they might become worthy to contemplate the glory of God. In the breaking of the tablets that he had previously received, he prefigured the depraved people of the Jews, because by persisting in sins they would become unworthy of God’s promise. But in the fact that the Law was given again, another people was signified, for whom the Law given on the mountain would be of benefit.

LEVITICUS

(Leviticus 7:1; Jeremiah 7:1)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 103. HOW HAS THE LORD IN LEVITICUS COMMANDED THAT SACRIFICES AND LIBATIONS BE OFFERED, WHICH ELSEWHERE HE REJECTS? FOR IT IS CLEAR IN LEVITICUS THAT THE LORD COMMANDED THE FATHERS TO OFFER LIBATIONS OR SACRIFICES OR BURNT OFFERINGS: YET HE SAYS THEREFORE THROUGH THE PROPHET JEREMIAH: THEREFORE SAYS THE LORD, GATHER YOUR BURNT OFFERINGS WITH YOUR SACRIFICES, AND EAT FLESH; FOR I DID NOT SPEAK TO YOUR FATHERS, NOR DID I COMMAND THEM, IN THE DAY THAT I BROUGHT THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT (Jer. 7:21–22) ABOUT BURNT OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES. — If you look closely, there is really no question to be raised on this matter; nor should you think the Lord lied or changed, as if he commanded and later denied. For of this kind of sacrifices and drink offerings or burnt offerings, nothing is found that he commanded, regarding those of which he now testifies that he spoke. Notice that there are two kinds of sacrifices: one which was commanded to be offered for each specific kind, and another which was called voluntary. As for that which was commanded to be offered in various kinds, whether for sins or for firstborn, it was prescribed what it was, of what sort, and how it was to be offered. But the voluntary sacrifice was certainly not commanded, because it was left to free choice, so that if anyone wished to offer, he would offer what seemed good to him; for these sacrifices were voluntary. And because they offered these carelessly and rashly, without considering that whoever offers to one greater should offer chosen gifts, it is therefore said to them, I did not command you about these: but if you wish to offer, you ought to offer what is worthy. Therefore it is found that Cain also sinned, when he did not consider that what is better ought to be offered to God. For when they claimed to offer these to appease God, in that very act they provoked God to anger, so that in what they said they were doing well, they sinned by offering unworthy burnt offerings to God. Therefore he says in the prophet Malachi: “If you bring a blind or lame or sick animal as a victim, it is not good. Offer it to your leader or governor; if he will receive you, says the Lord almighty” (Mal. 1:8). From this it is that through Isaiah God complains of the same matter, saying: “What are your sheep of burnt offering to me? Nor in your sacrifices have you honored me. For I did not make you for this purpose, that you should toil over incense, or that you should buy incense for me with silver; nor have I desired the fat of your sacrifices: instead, you have stood before me in your sins and iniquities” (Isa. 1:11). It is therefore clear that complaints arose because, while they were offering voluntary sacrifices, they were not honoring God in them, since they offered what was unworthy, although these were in no way a matter of necessity. For if they had been commanded, they would seem to offer whatever they could by necessity; but when they offered these of their own free will, they ought to have offered such things as would show God’s service in themselves. But because their mind wandered through the desire for idols, they acted in these matters without due thought. Therefore they are reproached in a twofold way, because they dared to offer to God while acting wickedly, and they offered things that were unworthy; since wicked deeds are not redeemed by sacrifices, but by weeping and mercy. Therefore David, when he had sinned, says: “If you had willed it, I would have given sacrifices: surely you will not delight in burnt offerings. The sacrifice to God is a regretful spirit; and a broken and humbled heart God does not despise” (Ps. 50:18–19). Finally, Samuel says to Saul, who, after he had despised the command of the Lord, thought God could be appeased by a sacrifice: “For,” he says, “God does not desire sacrifice more than that his voice be heard” (1 Sam. 15:22). And Scripture says: “I desire mercy rather than sacrifice” (Hos. 6:6). The Jews, though unjust and without mercy, thought God could be made favorable by offerings; just as even now certain people, despising righteousness, think they are to be praised for their offerings. An offering is therefore good, if righteousness is preserved and mercy is not neglected; because what we ask for ourselves, we must also grant to others.

JOSHUA

JUDGES

(Judges 11:39)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 43. SINCE ABRAHAM WAS FORBIDDEN TO SACRIFICE HIS SON, WHY WAS JEPHTHAH NOT FORBIDDEN TO CARRY OUT THE SACRIFICE OF HIS DAUGHTER? (Gen. 22:11–12; Judg. 11)? — There is a great difference between Abraham’s case and Jephthah’s case. First, Abraham was legitimately born, whereas Jephthah was illegitimate, for he was the son of a prostitute. Next, Abraham was of excellent conduct, but Jephthah was a leader of bandits. Abraham was a righteous man, proven in temptation; in Jephthah, however, there is no testimony of righteousness. Abraham, therefore, was commanded to offer his son to God so that it might be shown to people how greatly Abraham trusted God, since at His command he did not hesitate even to kill his own son. For He who, contrary to worldly hope, could cause him to be born of a barren old woman, was clearly able, contrary to worldly reasoning, to raise him from the dead (Heb. 11:19). By this act Abraham’s righteousness was increased. For God showed that He did not desire the boy’s blood, but that His servant Abraham might become greater by this deed. For He wills those who love Him to suffer something, so that His advancing them may appear just. But Jephthah, a violent and thoughtless man, in foolish devotion promised a gift to God, saying: “Whatever comes out to meet me from the doors of my house when I return from the slaughter, I will offer it to God.” Was he forced to make this vow, or did he understand how a vow ought to be made? What if a dog or a donkey had met him, which the Lord forbade to be offered? Or if someone else’s son, or his wife, so that in another’s grief he might exult that he had paid his vow? Therefore, what his careless mind had vowed to another’s ruin was, by divine judgment, turned back upon himself. And Jephthah was so senseless that he did not afterwards recognize that he had vowed foolishly, so that his error, which began with him, might be corrected by him. For he ought to have understood that God does not delight in such a sacrifice, and to have prayed for pardon for his foolishness, and offered something else that was not against the Law. Instead, he showed himself “faithful” by becoming a murderer, whereas it is clear that foolish faith not only fails to benefit, but harms. Therefore in the matter of his daughter he himself was struck down, and for this reason God took no notice of such a sacrifice. For if He had forbidden it, Jephthah would have seemed to want to offer something else to Him, although he knew that what was unworthy must not be offered. But his daughter gained by it: because she, innocent, died on account of her father’s sins, she escaped the punishment of hell, which perhaps she might not have attained by living long. And as for the triumph of Jephthah’s victory, it was not achieved by his merit nor by that of the people; for it is not written that they requested God to give them a defender. Or did the Lord send Jephthah himself, or speak to him? Rather, because the Philistines were praising their gods as those who had made the sons of Israel subject to them, and were reviling the God of Abraham, therefore, for the honor of His name, God took vengeance on the Philistines, even if not for these men’s sake, yet for Abraham’s merit and His own glory. Or shall Samson be called worthy because the Spirit of the Lord came upon him while he was consorting with prostitutes (Judg. 14:6, 19; 15:14), when this is to be understood as done for the destruction of the Philistines?

1 SAMUEL

(1 Samuel 7:9) 

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 46. WHETHER SAMUEL WAS ONE OF THE SONS OF AARON, AND WHETHER HE IS TO BE CONSIDERED A PRIEST? — There are some among us who, partly occupied with secular affairs and partly less studious concerning the Holy Scriptures, fall into error, thinking that Samuel was a priest, that is, that he traced his origin from Aaron, whose offspring the Lord God ordained should be born priests, not made priests. Nor was it granted to anyone except his sons to place incense on the altar. Some, going even further astray, indeed deny that Samuel was of the line of Aaron; that is, they say he was not born a priest, and nevertheless assert that he exercised the priesthood. These must first be answered. For it is worse to deny that Samuel was born a priest and yet claim that he exercised the priesthood, than to say he was a priest from among the sons of Aaron. In the latter case it is ignorance; in the former, foolishness. For when those who think he was born a priest learn that he was not of the sons of Aaron, they will clearly see that he was not a priest, being unaware that no one was permitted to perform any priestly act unless he was of the seed of Aaron. For they know the established fact, indeed it is evident, that Korah, since he was not of the sons of Aaron and wanted to place incense upon the altar, was swallowed up with his associates by the opening of the earth (Num. 16:1–34). And Uzziah the king, since he was certainly not of the seed of Aaron but of the tribe of Judah, and boldly undertook to perform priestly functions while standing before the altar, was struck with leprosy on his forehead and therefore died (2 Chron. 26:16–21). But those who say that Samuel was not born a priest and nonetheless assert that he exercised the priesthood speak quite foolishly; and to persuade a fool of what is good is the greatest labor. For with what dullness are they led, that, while the sun is shining upon the earth, they say that it is night? For when they read, and they read this not in one place only, that it is decreed by God that no one should dare to exercise the priesthood except Aaron and his sons, they stubbornly contend that Samuel was a priest. They do not understand that if Samuel was not born a priest and yet exercised the priesthood, he must be called a shameless pretender; for God established that priests should be born, not made. And I think it is not safe to hold this opinion about Samuel. For how could it be that a praiseworthy man, praised by God’s own testimony, did what he knew was forbidden? He was certainly aware of the punishment for such belief, having seen it carried out once and again. Nor could he have sought to this by God’s judgment, whom he knew to be binding; if he had perhaps heard such a thing from God, he would rather have believed himself to be tested, knowing that God’s decree in no way can be revoked. He could more likely have believed that, under the appearance and name of God, this was being done with him in order that he be deceived by the adversary, than that God could change His judgment. Indeed, when Balaam had been forbidden by God to go to Balak, and later asked again whether he should go, God, angered with him, rebuked him through the mouth of a donkey, because the donkey, seeing the angel who was forbidding the way, refused to continue the journey begun (Num. 22:28). But Balaam, though forbidden by God to go, asked again whether He wished him to go, and therefore judged of God as of a man, who through his ignorance is changeable and alterable. Yet Balaam is nowhere praised by any divine testimony; for he was a soothsayer. But Samuel, a man dear to God and knowing that God’s judgments are fixed, how could he believe that anything should be done other than what he knew was established by God? “But,” they say, “when Eli died, and his sons who were priests, Samuel began to exercise the priesthood.” This neither the text teaches nor reason admits. In saying this, they suppose that at that time there was no one left to perform the priesthood, so that when those three were dead, unless Samuel offered the people’s gifts, the priesthood would have ceased to be exercised. This claim is hostile to God. By it God is judged negligent, as though ignorant, since He establishes something that cannot endure. For why did He decree that no one other than the sons of Aaron should exercise the priesthood until the end of the age, that is, until the times of the coming of Christ, if He knew this would fail? But if He did not know, which be far from us to say, then He was negligent; and therefore it could have happened that, when those failed, not even Samuel was a priest. But if God is provident and foreknowing, what He established remained in force; and if what He established remained in force, Samuel did not exercise the priesthood, since he was not God’s priest. For in the Old Law God decreed that priests should be born; in the New Law the Lord ordered that priests should be made. Let them now choose one of two: either prove Samuel to have been born a priest, or made a priest. Yet they agree that he was not born a priest, because they know he was not of the sons of Aaron. If therefore Samuel was not born a priest and is nowhere read or proved to have been made a priest, since God had not ordained that priests should be made, it is absolutely clear that Samuel was by no means a priest. But the objectors, with their eyes closed, say: “If he was not a priest, yet he acted in the stead of a priest, because it is written that he offered a sacrifice to God.” Who would dare deny what is proved by Scripture (1 Sam. 7:9)? Samuel indeed offered a sacrifice to God, but from this it is not shown that he acted in the position of a priest. For he is always said to offer whose offerings they are that the priest places upon the altar. And Saul offered in this very manner, that is, through a priest, just as sacrifices are now offered; and David offered, and Solomon offered, and the others likewise offered. Did they all act in the position of a priest? Although the priest performs his own proper office, yet he is said to offer in whose name the priest acts. The offering is accounted to the one whose gifts are presented. And if a man was not a priest, how could he act in the stead of a priest? Can a deacon act in the position of a priest? A captain may indeed act in the position of another captain, and a magistrate in the position of another magistrate; yet a private person cannot act in the position of any authority. How much less can one who is not a priest act in the position of a priest? With what reasoning would he dare desire to that which he knows is not permitted to him? For if a priest is lacking in some place, a priest from another place can be asked to come and take his place; yet a prophet, even if he lives a holy life, cannot perform what he knows has by no means been granted to him. For it is one thing to live well, and another to receive the authority of a certain office. Just as someone who is a priest ought not to think that his life is thereby automatically worthy, so also someone of holy conduct and life ought not on that basis claim the priesthood for himself. For although the priesthood is a good thing, it will nevertheless be evil for the one to whom it has not been granted and who ventures upon it. For if we look at what is written about the holy Samuel, we shall see what testimony Scripture gives him, saying: “And it became known,” it says, “to all the people that Samuel was faithful as a prophet to the Lord” (1 Sam. 3:20). And in the Psalm: “Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among those who call upon his name” (Ps. 98:6). Who does not notice from this distinction that the persons are separated on account of their dignities, so that Moses and Aaron are recognized as having obtained priestly dignity, whereas Samuel is regarded as having been worthy before God among the prophets, who by their prayers called upon God to protect his people, as we read? Moreover, priests are shown to have by no means been lacking, to such an extent that, when the Ark had been brought back from the Philistines by the Levite bearers, the men of Beth-shemesh offered sacrifices to God in Samuel’s absence. And when Saul had been made king, Ahimelech was the great-grandson of Eli the priest, who carried the vestment. “But here,” they say, “Samuel seems to have been a priest because he was clothed with a vestment.” As though deacons today are not vested with dalmatics, just as bishops are. And we read that David too was clothed with a vestment, and with a double vestment (2 Sam. 6:14). But Samuel, while still a little boy, was girded with a vestment (1 Sam. 2:18): could a little boy offer to God the people’s gifts? You see therefore that “vestment” is indeed one word, but it does not always signify one and the same thing. For priests carried the vestment; they were not clothed with it. Kings, however, and the Levite Samuel were clothed with the vestment. Therefore sometimes “vestment” signifies a garment, sometimes a sort of small chest which the priests carried for inquiring of the Lord.   So far as appears, it has been proven that Samuel was not a priest, but a prophet. Now we answer those who, not knowing that Samuel was not of the sons of Aaron the priest, suppose that he was a priest; for it would not have been lawful that someone descended from the line of Aaron should not be a priest. I want such people first to recognize that, if Samuel was a priest, then without doubt Elkanah his father was also a priest; it would likewise have been fitting that his sons be priests. But because they were not priests, he appointed them judges over the sons of Israel (1 Sam. 8:1), just as Samuel himself was. For we read that he judged the sons of Israel. Elkanah, however, Samuel’s father, precisely because he was not a priest, “went up,” it says, “year by year from his city Ramathaim to worship and sacrifice to the Lord Almighty of hosts; and there were Eli and his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, priests of the Lord” (1 Sam. 1:3). What could be clearer, than that Elkanah came to offer his gifts before the Lord through the priests at the appointed time, according to what Moses had established, that three times a year they should offer their gifts and tithes in the place where the Ark of the Lord and the priests were? Especially since he had two wives at the same time, which is unlawful for priests. For Elkanah was of the Levites, as the order of generations is set forth in the book of Chronicles (1 Chron. 6:33). For at that time the Levites did not yet have a fixed order of ministry established concerning the priests and the Ark of the Lord. David, indeed, in his reign arranged courses for the priests and Levites, so that from twenty years and up, which in the Law is from twenty‑five years and up, they would begin to perform their service in the Lord’s ceremonies; and so that there should be, from the sons of Aaron, that is from the line of Phinehas and Ithamar, twenty‑four classes of priests, which would perform their courses at appointed times. The Levites, moreover, were appointed to be doorkeepers of the tabernacle, bearers of the Ark of the Lord, watchmen, keepers of the vessels, and receivers of common offerings. And twenty‑four classes of singers, harp‑players, and other musicians were established, so that these too, that is, all the Levites, would have their appointed turns in time; for it was necessary for them also to have leisure, so that they could take care of their households. And not only do these matters contribute to the above‑mentioned case, namely that Samuel was not of the sons of Aaron; but also what his mother says to the Lord: “If,” she says, “you give me a son, I will lend him to the Lord all the days of his life” (1 Sam. 1:11). She would not have said this if he were to be born a priest; he would have been obliged to serve at the altar. But because he was a Levite, and as yet no law had been laid down for the Levites, but each man acted according to his own will, so that as wanderers they presumed unlawful things, for Jonathan, the son of Moses’ son, although enrolled among the Levites, presumed to exercise the priesthood for the tribe of Dan, on this account we read in the book of Judges: “Each man did what was right in his own eyes, because there was no king in Israel” (Judg. 17:6). Therefore Hannah vowed, saying, “I will lend him to the Lord,” so that he might not wander with the rest. And so that the question may be examined more fully, let us also treat that point which is said of Elkanah, that he came year by year to offer his gifts and tithes: how did he offer tithes if he possessed nothing? For the Levites did not receive fields, since they sought their livelihood from the tithes given by the people. But it can be, and so it may be understood, that he could have had the property of his wife, or a purchased possession; for they took wives from other tribes, not only they, but others as well, so that even priests took wives from other tribes. For Jehoiada the high priest took as wife from the tribe of Judah the daughter of King Joram (2 Chron. 22:11).

(1 Samuel 15:24; 2 Samuel 12:13)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 18. WHY IS IT THAT SAUL, WHEN HE SINNED, ASKED THAT PRAYER BE MADE FOR HIM SO THAT HE MIGHT BE FORGIVEN AND COULD NOT OBTAIN IT, WHILE DAVID, WHEN HE SINNED, ASKED AND OBTAINED PARDON? — It is not fitting that God’s judgment be revoked: for human weakness and ignorance ought to be instructed by God’s judgment in what it does not understand, so that from God’s decision it may grasp the truth, and recognize that nothing else ought to have been done than what it sees God has done, knowing that He is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). For if God received David’s prayer and rejected Saul’s, we must not think that God did anything unjust. Knowing with what nature each one spoke, He accepted the petition of the one whom He saw asking for pardon with a troubled heart; but He despised the other, because the pain of repentance had not touched his soul. For God is more a hearer of the heart than of the voice. Therefore it is said, Man looks on the outward appearance, but God on the heart (1 Sam. 16:7). Therefore we too are often deceived, because hoax in words and in countenance misleads us: for we cannot see what is in the heart. Wherefore we must follow God’s judgment, who examines each person according to the heart, in which the nature of each one is found. We discover that the Savior did this as well. For He did not receive the scribe when he presented himself (Matt. 8:19); but He called Levi as he sat at the tax booth (Matt. 9:9; Luke 5:27): because the scribe’s words were not followed by the heart, whereas Levi, in silence, had in his heart what the scribe had in his words. But Jesus, who, as it is written, knew what was in man (Jn. 2:25), chose Levi. Moreover, David did not wish that another should be humbled for him as Saul did, but he himself, as a pleading with a troubled heart, asked for pardon.

 (1 Samuel 26:16) 

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 35. HOW CAN DAVID STILL CALL SAUL THE ANOINTED OF THE LORD, AND DO HIM HONOR IN THIS EXCELLENCE AFTER THE LORD HAD DEPARTED FROM HIM? — David is not unaware that there is a divine institution in the office of the royal order; therefore he honors Saul, who is still placed within that same institution, lest he seem to do injury to God, who has decreed honor for these orders. For the king bears the image of God, just as the bishop does that of Christ. As long, therefore, as he is within that institution, he is to be honored, if not for his own sake, then for the sake of the order. Therefore the Apostle says, Be subject to the higher powers. There is no power except from God; and the powers that exist are ordained by God (Rom. 13:1). From this it follows that we honor even a pagan who holds power, although he himself is unworthy, since, while holding God’s order, he gives thanks to the Devil. For authority demands honor, because it deserves it. Therefore the dream of the coming famine was revealed to Pharaoh (Gen. 41:1–37); and Nebuchadnezzar, while others stood by him, alone saw the Son of God in the fiery furnace (Dan. 3:92), not indeed by his own merit, he who wished to be adored in an idol, but by the merit of the royal order.

2 SAMUEL

(2 Samuel 28:7–20)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 27. WHEN SAMUEL WAS SUPPOSEDLY RAISED UP BY THE PYTHONESS, AND HE WAS SEEN BY HER AND SPOKE TO SAUL—THIS STORY IS REPORTED IN THE BOOK OF KINGS? — I consider it an unworthy deed if assent is given in accordance with the wording of the story. For how could it happen that a man holy by birth and righteous by the works of his life might be drawn by magical art? Or if he was not drawn against his will, did he give consent? To believe either of these about a righteous man is absurd. For if he was brought unwillingly, his justice has no support; but if he came willingly, he lost the spiritual merit which, being in the flesh, he had sought: which is very absurd, because whoever departs from here righteous, remains righteous. Moreover, this is a trick of Satan, by which, so that he may deceive many, he even pretends to have the good in his power. The Apostle, among other things, says, “Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). For, in order to cause an error in which he himself might glory, he disguised himself in the guise and name of a righteous man: so that he might lie and claim that the hope proclaimed to the worshipers of God would accomplish nothing, when he pretended that the righteous going forth from here were in his power. But some are deceived by the fact that he did not lie about the death of Saul and his sons: as though it were a great thing for the Devil to foresee the day of a body’s fall beforehand, when certain signs are accustomed to appear in those who are dying, from whom the protection of God seems to have been removed. How much more the Devil, whom prophetic oracles testify to have been exalted with angelic majesty; of whose greatness the Apostle says, “Do you not know the height of Satan?” (see 2 Cor. 2:11). What wonder, then, if he was able to foresee a death that was close at hand, since this is the very thing by which he deceives and wants to be worshiped as if he were in God’s power? For Saul, made senseless by such dullness, fled to the pythoness. Corrupted by the cause of sin, he turned himself to those things which he had condemned. But if someone, on account of the story and the things expressed in words, thinks they should not be passed over, lest the logic of the narrative be empty, he will indeed do rightly, provided he does not drag this into the realm of truth, but keeps it to sight and understanding. For Saul, having become reprobate, could not have a good understanding. The narrator described Saul’s mind and Samuel’s appearance, expressing the things that were said and seen, omitting whether they were true or false. For what does he say? When he heard in what form he had been raised up, “He understood,” he says, “that this was Samuel.” He reported what Saul understood; and because he did not understand rightly, he adored someone other than God, contrary to Scripture; and thinking it was Samuel, he worshiped the Devil, so that Satan might have the fruit of his deceit. For this he strives after, that he may be worshiped as though he were God. For if Samuel had truly appeared to him, surely that righteous man would not have allowed himself to be worshiped, he who had preached that God alone is to be adored. And how could the man of God, who was with Abraham in refreshment, say to a man of disease, worthy of the burning of Gehenna, “Tomorrow you will be with me”? In these two points the unwary Satan betrayed the subtleness of his deception, both because he allowed himself to be worshiped in the guise and name of Samuel contrary to the Law, and because he falsely claimed that a man weighed down by sins, although there is a great distance between sinners and the righteous, would be with Samuel, the most righteous. In truth, it can seem reasonable if the name of Samuel is left aside, since Saul was going to be with the Devil. For he passed over to him whom he worshiped. For the Devil, always lurking under a veil, reveals himself when he invents things that clash with the persons through whom he seeks to deceive.

1 KINGS

(1 Kings 3:11)

2^ND CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 18. WHY DID SOLOMON HAVE THE SPIRIT OF WISDOM (1 Kings 3), WHEN HE DID NOT HAVE A PURE LIFE? FOR HE TOOK GREAT DELIGHT IN WOMEN, AND BY THIS HE SINNED (ibid. 11). —  At first Solomon received the spirit of wisdom by his own merit; but later, when he began to make excessive use of women and thereby to sin, if he had the spirit of wisdom, he had it by reason of his royal office, just as Nebuchadnezzar, by reason of his royal office, saw Christ in the furnace.

2 KINGS

(2 Kings 2:10)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 26. QUESTION ABOUT ELISHA: DID HE OBTAIN WHAT HE IS SAID TO HAVE ASKED TOO HARSHLY OF ELIJAH? — Elisha, eager in spirit for performing miracles and enticed by the example of his master, when he received the permission to ask for whatever he wished, greedily for good things requested that the spirit be present in him in double measure compared with what it was in his master. To him the man of God Elijah said, “You have asked a hard thing.” For in his eagerness he did not consider that the disciple is not above the master (Matt. 10:24). Yet Elijah, knowing that he had not asked this out of ambition for present glory, replied: “Nevertheless, if you see me taken from you, it shall be so for you.” (2 Kings 2:10) This meaning must be weighed carefully. Having first said with some displeasure, “You have asked a hard thing,” he added, “Yet if you see me taken up, it shall be so for you,” and therefore he did not seem to have refused him. He showed that it would be so for him as was fitting, not as he himself had requested. For Scripture intends many things to be understood completely, so that the sense gathered from the words may not be contrary to the rule of religion. Indeed, such a hard request ought in justice to have lost its reward; but because he desired the good so earnestly, God, who knows what should be given to each person, did not allow him to be deprived of the merits of his good intentions. Let us therefore see whether the merit of Elijah would allow that Elisha should deserve to receive a double portion of his gift. For it was said by the Holy Spirit through Zechariah what the merit of John would be: “He shall go,” he says, “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17). He therefore shows John to be equal to Elijah. And the Lord says, “Among those born of women there has arisen no greater prophet than John the Baptist” (Matt. 11:11). He did not say, “He is greater than all,” but, “No one is greater than he”; that is, he has an equal, but he has no superior. Elijah therefore is equal to him, certainly not lesser than he; how then is Elisha greater than Elijah, when John, than whom no one is greater, is equal to Elijah? For when Elisha came to the crossing of the waters, he did not receive honor from them so as to be able to cross, unless he invoked the God of Elijah (2 Kings 2:14); so that by this his hard request might appear corrected, since he was heard only in the name of Elijah, lest he be thought to have obtained what he had asked too harshly, as though the dispensation of the Spirit granted to Elijah were not sufficient for the merit of that time.

TOBIT

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 119. ON TOBIT. — Such is the providence of the Lord God toward us that, unwilling for us to go astray, He has given both the law and examples of good works, by which life can be conducted modestly and peacefully in the fear of God. For He who is the author of life certainly does not will that His work be subject to death. Although nature itself is not without a law, yet because the Lord is good and merciful, He has shown by writings and examples, as the present reading shows, so that there might be a greater knowledge both of what must be followed and of what must be avoided. Therefore the holy servant of God, Tobit, has been given to us as an example after the law, so that we may know how those things which we read are to be carried out; and if temptations come, we may not depart from the fear of God, nor hope for help from any other than Him, remembering that it is written: I have been young, and now am old, and I have never seen the righteous man forsaken, nor his offspring begging bread (Ps. 36:25). Therefore, whoever hopes in God with his whole mind can never be deceived. Although for a time tribulations may arise through the plots of Satan, the examples of holy men teach us that these are not permitted by God except for the increase of our merits: for if they are accepted with a calm spirit, here comfort with effect will be given to us, and in the future eternal life with glory. For since our God is just, and with Him there is no respect of persons (Rom. 2:11), He allows us to be tempted because He loves us, so that after toil He may be able to bestow upon us the richest rewards. Accordingly, when the Apostle prayed that temptations might depart from him, the Lord said, My grace is sufficient for you; for strength is made perfect in weakness. Therefore the Apostle added, When I am weak, then I am strong; and he says, I rejoice in my tribulations, that the power of Christ may dwell in me (2 Cor. 12:9–10). We are taught by Scripture how praiseworthy the holy Tobit is: neither captivity diminished his devotion, nor did the loss of his eyes persuade him to cease blessing God, nor did the exhaustion of his substance turn him aside from the path of righteousness and truth (Tob. 1–3). For necessity tests the righteous man; and to preserve righteous in poverty is true and perfect righteousness. From that very source from which the devotion of some is diminished, the praiseworthy Tobit drew increase. For, it is said, poverty humbles a man; and one who is humbled cannot preserve righteousness. But the soul of the holy Tobit, lifted up toward God, was neither broken by captivity nor cast down by poverty: for even against the edict, he committed the bodies of the slain to burial, and, confident in the generosity of God, he showed mercy out of that very little he had, knowing that mercy shown from limited resources is especially pleasing to God; as also did that widow whom the Lord in the Gospel praised highly (Luke 21:2–4). For he is truly faithful, he does not doubt the promises of God, who gives from the little he has. Therefore, consoling his soul with the hope of future things, Tobit, consecrated to God, was found strong and unwavering in temptation, showing that in necessity one must be all the more watchful in the fear of God; for if necessity does not drive us to seek God’s help, how much less will security? Holy men, being certain that God has reserved to Himself the judgment of all things that happen in this world, not only bore with tribulations and losses and other disasters or insults without distress, but even accepted them gladly: as did our apostles, who rejoiced after being beaten, because they were found worthy to suffer dishonor for the name of Christ (Acts 5:41). For the misfortunes that unjustly happen to the faithful, whether in tribulations or in insults, are signs of future merits. Therefore the just Tobit pleased God so greatly that by a double kind of merit he obtained his reward: for in the present life he recovered the sight he had lost through the ministry of an angel, and was enriched also with possessions pertaining to this present life; and in the future he was made an heir of the kingdom of heaven. In this we are taught that whoever obeys the law of God with all his heart and does not doubt His promises, God often increases his riches even in this world, and in the future grants him eternal life. There is also another point that invites us to divine service. For holy Tobit not only obtained rewards for his own righteousness; there is added to the fullness of his glory also the good that comes from those who become his imitators. For in imitators examples are praised. This too can happen for us, if we live in such a way that it is fitting for us also to have imitators.

(Tobit 12:7)

2^ND CATEGORY OT & NT

QUESTION 8. IN TOBIT IT IS SAID: “TO REVEAL AND CONFESS THE WORK OF GOD IS HONORABLE” (Tob. 12:7). BUT THE SAVIOR, WHEN PERFORMING THE WORK OF GOD, SAYS: “TELL NO ONE” (Mark 8:26). — The Savior did not say that the work of God ought to be concealed; for elsewhere he says: “Go and tell how great things God has done for you” (Mark 5:19). Rather, he sometimes rejected their testimony and checked their boasting, lest he should appear, as would seem absurd to the wise, to be bearing witness to himself as a deceiver.

JOB

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 118. ON JOB. — Great is the love, dearest brothers, of Almighty God toward the human race: when it is understood, it leads to the heavenly kingdoms; when it is not understood, it leads down to Hades. For God wills His favor to be received with gratitude and to be fruitful, so that it may profit us and give Him delight in showing mercy. Therefore, since He is good and wills all men to be saved, He has shown us a model of righteousness in His servant Job, as the present reading bears witness, so that by following him we may both avoid evil and attain to good, and not only be freed from punishment, but also receive reward. How admirable, then, is the most holy Job, who, before the written law was given, displayed in his deeds the pattern of the Law; taking no instruction from any external teaching in this matter, but guided by nature itself, in which God decreed that the seeds of righteousness should naturally reside, he preserved reverence for his Creator through devout virtue. How great, then, is the praise he deserves, and with what words should his deeds be celebrated, since we can find no equal to him either before the Law or after the Law? For although someone might be able to imitate his achievements, he is still not to be compared with him, nor will he be rightly called his equal. It would not be his own achievement that he became such a man if he merely followed another’s example. But Saint Job, having seen nothing of the kind, nor read of it in any books, showed himself to be such that he had nothing in himself derived from another, but rather imparted to others, offering the pattern of wondrous deeds by which God might be won. Therefore he is praised by the testimony of the Lord, who says: Have you considered my servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a true worshiper of God (Job 1:8). Who could have deserved so much that the Lord should bear such witness of him, unless it be this man who is found not as an imitator, but as the author of the things he did? Therefore he is proclaimed a true worshiper of God. No counterfeit impression of a fabricated truth can appear in one who has no such predecessor. Everyone who pretends, pretends to what is seen and imitated. And yet even greater things than these are said. For in these praises there were no proofs of tribulations, but only a purpose dedicated to God, established in exercise and observance. Since this did not appear to the tempter to be complete for the crown of merits, he asked that he might be allowed to test Job’s righteousness with various temptations, so that, pressed in many ways, he might somewhere be entangled and exceed due measure. For it is for this end that various punishments are usually inflicted on sinners: since no one can bear all forms of torment, one of them may wring from him a confession of the truth. Therefore the tempter was allowed to destroy and ruin all his possessions, even to the death of his sons: so that if he could bear the loss of his oxen, he might not bear that of his sheep; or if he could bear the loss of his sheep, he might not bear the loss of his camels, nor of his servants, nor of his entire substance; or if, because he was of great spirit and of pure devotion, he was not overcome by all these things, then at least he might be broken by the compelling affection of love through the immediate death of all his children. But because, before the written Law was given, he had the Law written in his heart, neither losses nor griefs made him any less devoted to God, so that he gave a pattern of loving God with all the heart above all things. How great, then, is the glory he deserves, who before the Law kept the Law, so that the Law that was to come might be shown in deeds, not words, as to how it should be observed, he being its author in action? And because the tempter is disrespectful, this glory did not seem sufficient to him for proving the righteous man, unless he manufactured something else against him which he knew could not be tolerated by a man; he asked again that he might strike Job himself with a cruel wound from the crown of his head to the nails of his feet. And when this was granted, since no trust should be placed in him, he was commanded to spare his soul for the sake of free will, and not to dare anything violent against him whom he could not overcome by right reason. Having received this power, and his cruelty raging anew within him, he struck the righteous man with a very great blow, so that there was nothing in his body that was free from injury, something no man could have endured except Job alone, who was able to conquer Satan. And when even so the hatred of the Devil could not draw from the righteous man any murmur against God, remembering his former cunning by which he deceived Adam, he strove to see if he could also deceive this man through a woman; for one is more easily deceived by someone of one’s own household. And in all these things Satan, utterly shameless, achieved nothing, indeed suffered loss: he not only found God’s servant immovable, but even his teacher. For in the very extremity of his necessity, Job not only persevered in the fear of God, but also, rebuking his wife who suggested the opposite, taught that all things which happen by God’s permission must be bravely endured (Job 2:1–10): which belongs to a double punishment of the foolish Satan, because he neither persuaded what he wished, and while envying this man, he made others learn what he did not even want this man to know. How much temptation profits the servants of God and harms the Devil we are more fully taught by this reading. For when he thinks he is harming them, he is advancing them; and when he persecutes one, he rouses many to virtue. Seeing this man protected by the helps of God, many become his imitators. Therefore, wishing to make a gain, he suffers loss. His rage is always ruinous to himself. For when he persecutes the righteous so that they may not be rewarded, he makes them more worthy; and when he envies Saint Job, he doubles his excellence in heaven and on earth; for here he is increased, and in heaven he is received with the Savior; so that all these things may contribute to the glory of the saints, and to the punishment of the Devil.

PSALMS

(Psalm 1) 

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 110. ON THE FIRST PSALM. — “Blessed is the man who has not stood in the way of sinners.” (Ps. 1:1a) But if he has stood, he is no longer blessed, but guilty and worthy of blows. For he seems to have some hope of correction, because he is not wicked, but a sinner. But if there is one who has not gone in the counsel of the wicked, and has not stood in the way of sinners, he is blessed in a twofold way. For he cannot be blessed if he does not go into the counsel of sinners yet stands in the way of sinners; for even if he is not destined for destruction, he is still accountable to punishment. Then he added, “And has not sat in the chair of pestilence.” (Ps. 1:1b) He says this is the blessedness which consists in these three steps and is guarded by this threefold rule; that is, that one neither go into the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the chair of pestilence. But since only two kinds are mentioned, that of the wicked and that of sinners, in the record of those things just mentioned, to which class did he wish to assign this third, which he added, saying, “And has not sat in the chair of pestilence”: to that of the wicked, or of the sinners? But let us see what it is to sit in the chair of pestilence, and then we shall understand to which class he assigns this. We call that the chair of pestilence which is outside the ordering of God, clearly devised for this purpose, that unjust judgments may proceed from it. For this reason it is called the chair of pestilence, because it is a corruption that produces death, just as iniquity produces condemnation. Therefore that chair which is the chair of death is not from God. For Moses received the chair of life. It was given for this purpose, that in it there might be the authority of the just judge or of the creator God. Therefore the Lord says, “The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ chair” (Matt. 23:2); and the Apostle, “There is,” he says, “no power except from God; and those that exist are ordained by God” (Rom. 13:1). Therefore he says to the leader of the people: “You indeed sit judging according to the Law, and against the Law you order me to be struck” (Acts 23:3). When he said “according to the Law,” he indicated the just and saving authority of the chair. But in that he said “against the Law you order me to be struck,” he showed that very judge to be unjust, so that, sitting in God’s chair, he judged unjustly. Therefore also Daniel says, “The kingdom is God’s, and he will give it to whom he will” (Dan. 4:14). For just as the authority of an earthly emperor runs therefore through all, so that in all there is reverence for him, so God has ordained that from the king the authority of God should begin and run through all: although the world often does not understand this, and subjects itself to others placed in power than it ought, still the ordinance is that there should be one who is feared. Where, then, this ordinance is not, there the chair of pestilence is found. Nowhere is the authority of the one God denied except among those who proclaim fear and reverence of many gods. These, then, are those who sit in the chair of pestilence, because what their priests proclaim is death. For they deem it necessary that worshippers of the one God, as fools and enemies, should either be held up to reproach or removed from this life. This is the very material of wickedness, which also extends into other areas, through which it may display the laws of its own wickedness. For at Jezebel’s command the priests of iniquity sat in the chair of pestilence, who, against the innocent Naboth, though they were not judges, plotting stubbornness, with false witnesses corrupted, pronounced a sentence of death (1 Kings 21:11–13). Therefore also in another Psalm he says, “I will not sit with the wicked” (Ps. 25:5). For this is the judgment of him whose also is the chair of pestilence. Therefore, if, while sitting in God’s chair, they oppress the innocent, the judgment will be unjust, not the chair. For where the chair of pestilence is, the judgment cannot be other than iniquitous, even though they may attach to themselves certain coverings, as it were, by which they cloak their wickedness so that those who see are deceived. For sheer wickedness cannot be put forth by itself, because it finds no buyer; and where the law of the Devil is, if he himself is named, he is shuddered at. But as honey is mixed with poison that it may lie hidden, so too they mix certain just things into the law of the Devil, and apply to it the name of truth; yet each person’s understanding must be judged, because sometimes it shows something true in order to deceive, so that when it proclaims evil things they may be thought good. Since we have asserted that the chair of pestilence is not from the ordering of God, we also call the chair of pestilence that of those who, outside the Church or against the Church, have set up chairs for themselves. For whoever presumes what is not granted is guilty; how much more if he also corrupts the tradition of him whose seat he takes? For they disturb the order begun by the Apostle Peter and preserved up to this time through the succession of bishops in an unbroken line, claiming for themselves an order without an origin, that is, professing a body without a head; therefore it is fitting to call their seat also the chair of pestilence. Nor will it be without punishment merely because they do this under the name of God. For it is clear that they conduct their own causes under the name of God. They do not do this out of zeal for God, but wishing to defend a place for themselves. Though we know that Korah and the two hundred and fifty men, who by presumption made offerings to God, were swallowed up by the opening of the earth (Num. 16:31, 35), and that King Uzziah, when he made an unlawful offering to God, was struck with leprosy on his forehead (2 Kings 15:5 and 2 Chron. 26:21). Since it has become clear that the chair of pestilence belongs to the wickedness mentioned above, let us pursue what follows. For he added: “But his will was in the law of the Lord.” (Ps. 1:2a) He says that his will is in the law of the Lord who, despising the wicked and abandoning sinners, refusing the chair of pestilence, has fixed his will in the law of God. Therefore he called this man blessed. And it continues: “And in his law he will meditate day and night.” (Ps.1:2b) It is clear that such a man, free from all allurements and untouched by those things that are opposed to the law of God, occupies himself with nothing else than the law of God; strengthened by the sacraments of the Son of God, by day he persists in good works, and by night in prayers. For this is he of whom it is said in the Song of Songs that he sleeps and his heart keeps watch (Cant. 5:2). Therefore he says: And he shall be like a tree that is planted beside streams of water. (Ps. 1:3a) Who doubts that one who meditates on the law of God has hope of receiving the reward? For just as a tree planted beside water cannot be barren, so one who diligently studies the law of God by frequent use cannot fail to obtain the effect of his work. And he added: Which will yield its fruit in due season. (Ps. 1:3b) Every plantation that is well tended gives fruit at the proper time; so too the one who obeys the law of God will have fruit at the appointed time. For then he will receive the reward of this devotion, when the Lord Jesus Christ begins to sit in judgment of the living and the dead. Then he subjoined: And its leaf shall not fall. (Ps. 1:3c) It is clear that in a tree whose leaves do not fall, he has signified life. For a tree nourished by the moisture of running water keeps its leaves. And the Lord Jesus also says: If they do these things in the green wood, what will happen in the dry? (Luke 23:31). In the green wood he signified life and fruit. Therefore, just as a tree with the help of running water does not feel dryness, so the one who studies the law of God, when temptation approaches, remains safe by the protection of God and does not lose but gains salvation, as the Apostle says: Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:21). And it continues: And all that he does shall prosper. (Ps. 1:3d) It is clear what he says, that one who keeps faith with the law of God, eager for his commandments, becomes happy in all his deeds, just like Joseph, who, because he placed the fear of God before this present life, God made all that he did prosper in his hands. And he added: Not so the wicked, not so. (Ps. 1:4a) The repetition of the phrase signifies that it will in no way turn out differently from what he promises, because nothing will be prosperous for the wicked in the future, but all things adverse, even to their destruction. Therefore he says: But like dust which the wind drives away from the face of the earth. (Ps. 1:4b) In the same way he says that the wicked perish like dust which the wind blows away from the face of the earth so that it may vanish. Once lifted away from its own substance, scattered through the air, it gradually disappears; so too the wicked, cast out by the ministering angels from the presence of God their author, without whom one cannot live, will perish. And it continues: Therefore the wicked shall not rise in the judgment. (Ps. 1:5a) What he says is fitting. For why should those rise in the judgment who chose to believe that no business of God was entrusted to them for which they would have to render an account? Since they spurned and denied the law of God, there is nothing from which they might produce an account, so as, when questioned in the judgment according to the law entrusted to them, to present their case. Therefore, found to be arrogant and rebellious against God, they rise only to see that what they refused to believe is true, so that they may perish, because they judged God to be a liar. And he added: Nor sinners in the council of the righteous. (Ps.1:5b) In this psalm the Psalmist denotes three kinds of men: the wicked, sinners, and the just, in the order in which the error began. But the wicked are strangers to these, because, as I said, they refused to live under the decree of God. Sinners, however, who act under the law of God, are to stand before the tribunal of Christ, separated from the righteous, so that they may render an account of the commandments of the law they received, in which they did not labor, so that they may have more praise than blame. The righteous, however, found to be very zealous in the exercise of fulfilling the law, are to be rewarded. And he added: For the Lord knows the way of the righteous. (Ps.1:6a) God is said to know these who, mindful of his precepts, persist in good works so that, counted as righteous, they may be crowned. But to those who, forgetful of him, are negligent about the care of their soul, he will say: Depart from me; I do not know you, workers of iniquity (Luke 13:27). And it continues: And the way of the wicked shall perish. (Ps.1:6b) Therefore the psalm is begun and ended so that, when the case of the wicked is treated, they may be shown to be accountable to nothing other than destruction. For, as I have said, God is therefore said to know the way of the righteous because they walk in his law; but the way of the wicked, because it is outside the law of God, shall perish. For all the ways of the wicked are dark (Prov. 4:19), as Solomon says, but those of the virtuous are very bright, with Christ our Lord as their guide.

(Psalm 19:4; 40) 

2^ND CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 17. HE HAS, HE SAYS, SET UP HIS TABERNACLE IN THE SUN (Ps. 18:6), THAT IS, HIS BODY IN WHICH CHRIST DWELT, WHO WAS SCOURGED BY PILATE: HOW THEN IS IT SAID IN THE PSALM OF CHRIST, THE SCOURGE SHALL NOT COME NEAR YOUR TENT (Ps. 90:10)? SINCE HE CALLED HIS BODY A TEMPLE. — The body of the Son of Man and of the Son of God is understood to be a temple. Yet God, that is, the Son of God, although he came in the flesh, dwelt nonetheless in the soul. Therefore both soul and body are the tabernacle of the Son of God, although there is one God and man, the Son of God and the son of man. Therefore from this standpoint it is said that the scourge did not come near his tabernacle; that is, his soul, in which his divinity dwells, was free from the punishment of hell or its rulers. Lest anyone think that because here he was crucified as if a sinner, though he is innocent, and the flesh suffered, his soul suffered some sorrow in the lower regions, Scripture shows that his soul could not be disturbed in hell, because he descended there for this very purpose, that is, he allowed himself to suffer, so that he might put the darkness to shame and render its rulers powerless. Hence the Lord himself says: My soul is sorrowful even unto death (Matt. 26:38). It was allowed, as belonged to its nature, to be sorrowful, immediately bearing off the trophy, and the spoils of those by whom it had been saddened even unto death, after death now established in eternal joy. It can also be understood of the whole man; for he who knew no sin could not be scourged by the law.

(Psalm 23) 

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 111. ON PSALM 23. — The title of the Psalm hints at its meaning. For, about to speak of the mystery of Christ our Lord, he marked the Lord’s day, saying: For David, on the first day of the week. For when it is said, For David, it relates to the one of whom this David bears the image, of whom the prophet says: And my servant David shall pasture them (Ezek. 37:24). Now the “first of the sabbath” is the first weekday. For after the sabbath the first day is the Lord’s day, as the Gospel affirms, saying: Now on the first of the sabbath Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the tomb, etc. (Matt. 28:1). On the Lord’s day he signified the mystery of the Savior. But so that the Psalm might be expounded according to the order of reason, he began from the person of God the Father, so that the mystery of the divinity might not be revealed to men without order. For whoever wants to lay out some case, unless he grasps its head and origin, will not be able to show its proper nature or teach what its truth is. And so the Prophet began therefore and said: The earth is the Lord’s and its fullness. (Ps. 23:1a) He preserved the truth of things by saying: The earth is the Lord’s and its fullness. For he followed the authority of the ancient saints, who said that the earth and the things that are in it belong to the Lord God. And he added: The world and all who dwell in it. (Ps. 23:1b) Lest perhaps it be thought that he had signified something less when he said, The earth is the Lord’s and its fullness, he revealed his meaning by saying, the world and all who dwell in it, so that he might teach that absolutely all the earth is the Lord’s, and the things that are in it, so that nothing should be excepted that is not God’s. As some heretics think, who, according to the saying of the apostle Peter, deny dominion to God (2 Pet. 2:10), about whom the prophetic oracles have taught that all things belong to God for condemnation. And it continues, He has founded it upon the seas; (Ps. 23:2a) that is what he expressed in another psalm, saying, You formed the earth upon the waters (Ps. 135:6): so that testimony might follow faith, he shows how he made it. For while there was confusion of things, and neither earth nor water had its own distinct form, at God’s command the earth was gathered together and fixed upon the waters, so that both earth and water might have the proper character of their origin. Therefore in the book of Kings there is the voice of God saying, Did I not make the waters? And he added: And he prepared it upon the rivers. (Ps. 23:2b) Therefore it is prepared upon the rivers, since it contains within itself stored waters, which, flowing as though through the pipes of veins, give it solidity, lest it be completely dry, fragile, and useless for cultivation. For they grant a vital effect to the roots of growing things, and at the same time they are a help against thirst in dry places. And to show that profession without a good life does not profit greatly, he says: Who shall ascend the mountain of the Lord, or who shall stand in his holy place? (Psalm 23:3-4) He sets forth what sort of person one must be who professes God as creator, lest, because he has shown that those who, as I said, deny God’s dominion are to be punished, those who confess him should think themselves free from punishment if they do not live rightly. By the mountain of the Lord he means heaven. Therefore in another psalm he says: I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from where help will come to me (Ps. 120:1). The place of the Lord is where he appears. It is said to Joshua son of Nun, when the Lord had appeared to him, The place on which you stand is holy ground (Josh. 5:16); and Jacob, where he saw God, said, This is the house of God (Gen. 28:17). And it continues: Innocent of hands and pure of heart. (Ps. 23:4b) This person he calls worthy to ascend the mountain of the Lord, that is, into heaven, or to stand in his holy place, if someone is innocent in works and has a pure heart in the cause of God, that is, of faith. A person of this kind can ascend into heaven and stand in his holy place. For when he departs from this life he ascends into heaven. Then, when the city Jerusalem descends from heaven at the coming of the Lord, he will be worthy to stand where the Lord is going to judge the living and the dead as one who is innocent; but the ungodly and sinners will be unworthy to stand in the holy place of God’s judgment, because the ungodly will rise to destruction, sinners to punishment. For if the sons of Israel, because of sin, could not bear to look upon the glorified face of Moses when he came down from the mountain (Ex. 34:29–30), how much more will a conscience burdened by sins dread to behold the Lord himself of glory sitting on the throne of his majesty? For they will hear, I do not know you, workers of iniquity (Matt. 7:23). And he added: Who has not taken his soul in vain. (Ps. 23:4c) Now he touches on the very kinds of sins. First of all, in this place, he is innocent and has a pure heart, who is free from the fornication of idolatry. For this is vanity itself, and whoever bends himself to it brings his soul into bondage to corruption. And it continues: Nor has sworn deceitfully to his neighbor. He has mentioned two causes, which are principal: those of God and of neighbor; because whoever is found upright in these will without doubt be approved in other matters also, as the Lord says, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets (Matt. 22:37–40). Who then, loving God with all his heart, would not keep his law? Or who, having love for his neighbor, would strive after sins? since it is because of fear of God that he loves his neighbor. And he added: He shall receive blessing from the Lord, and mercy from God his Savior. (Ps. 23:5) Now he shows what is the reward of one who has had faith and love in the cause of God and man, of the creator and of neighbor: that he will both be blessed by the Lord, so that he may appear praised, and will obtain mercy in those things which he has not been able to fulfill. For no one can be so watchful as never to err at all; but because he is found zealous and faithful in great matters, he may also receive mercy from his God in lesser ones. He is therefore called Savior, because he does not will the death of one who is dying, but that he should turn back and live (Ezek. 18:32). And it continues: This is the generation of those who seek the Lord, who seek the face of the God of Jacob. (Ps. 23:6) He has said there is one generation of those who seek God, and of those who seek the face of the God of Jacob, and this is not idle. For although both are good, yet by these words he has indicated two degrees. It is a good thing to seek God; it is a fullness of good to seek the face of the God of Jacob. For those are more worthy who are before the face of the judge. Of these merits, therefore, this is the generation: because innocence and purity of heart bring one to this point; just as, in turn, if one is to come to evil, unrighteousness and iniquity go before. For there are two generations: one on the side of iniquity, which is the mother of Cain; the other on the side of righteousness, which is the mother of Abel: the latter consists in faith and good conduct; the former in treachery and crooked works. These are the two laws, of good and of evil, of God and of the Devil; and whichever one a person has followed, he will be called its son. And therefore this is the generation of those who seek God: faith in God and love for neighbor, as we have said above. For whoever has faith in God is always seeking his help; nor does he show himself unjust to men who wishes to have God as his gracious protector. The sign of this is when he is called the God of Jacob, because God is known in Judah (Ps. 75:2). But why are they said to seek his face, when Moses heard, For, he says, my face shall not be seen by you (Ex. 33:20)? If therefore even Moses sought the face of God and could not see it, then these are said to seek in vain, because they are not better than Moses. But no one should be said to seek the face of God in vain, because they are therefore said to seek the face of God so that it may be known whom they seek, since they are worthy also to see him. For everyone who is sought is then known if his face is seen. But since the face of God cannot be seen by mortals, this expression stands for “face” when it is said, the God of Jacob. Diapsalma. In this passage Diapsalma signifies a change of person. For after those things which pertain to the person of God the Father, he adds those which pertain to the mystery of God the Son, so that the full order of Father and Son is preserved. For the Law was given through Moses so that it might be as an instructor for men, instructing and preparing them as a teacher of righteousness, so that they might become worthy of the year of the Lord’s expiation and the day of recompense; so that those who under the hope of the future Christ had been faithful might receive him and be able to escape Adam’s sin, being secure regarding their own, because his coming, which they had hoped for, would grant them mercy concerning those things in which it slipped upon them so that they sinned. This is what he mentioned above, saying, He shall receive mercy from God his savior. He therefore says: Lift up your gates, you princes. (Ps. 23:7a) This is the voice of the holy angels, of whom he says in the Gospel that, he says, angels came and ministered to him (Matt. 4:11). These then speak to the princes and powers against whom the Apostle says we have our wrestling (Eph. 6:12), that they should lift up the gates of their prince, that is, of the Devil, who is the prince of princes set in error, through which one goes into Gehenna. These gates are unbelief and the deceit of idolatry. And it continues: And be lifted up, you everlasting gates. (Ps. 23:7b) Faith and hope with love are everlasting gates, because what is proclaimed through truth cannot be abolished. But those gates which I said are unbelief and the deceit of idols are temporal, because no lie remains. For when the truth is revealed, it will perish. They are therefore taught to take away the gates of their prince of darkness, that is, that with the error of many gods removed, the faith of the one God may be brought in, in Christ. This is what the Apostle testifies that he was sent to teach, that he might show not only to men, but to princes and powers in the heavenly places the mystery of the one God in Christ (Eph. 3:8–12). And he added: And the king of glory shall enter. (Ps. 23:7c) He commands that the deceitful gates, subtly fashioned by the Devil, be taken away, these are presumption, through which he thought himself a god, so that the king of glory may enter, who is Christ Jesus our Lord. For faith in God enters no one’s mind unless he has removed from himself the error invented by the Devil’s transgression. And the princes mentioned above cannot receive Christ the king into the faith of the one God unless they cast from themselves the tradition by which slander is brought upon the one God; not only the earthly slander, but also that which in heavenly places has been seized by the prince of princes, Satan. For the error which they conspired among themselves, so that at the Devil’s instigation they called themselves gods, they also arranged here on earth, so that this error might be its image here. And it continues: Who is this king of glory? (Ps. 23:8) Lest it might perhaps be thought that Christ was called king of glory unnecessarily, he introduces the person of one asking and saying, Who is this king of glory? As though he were in amazement or wished to be taught whether it is true and fitting to call Christ king of glory. And therefore they answered him: The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle, so that by this being added he might learn Christ to be king of glory, not by basic words but with testimony. For the strength and power by which he subdued and crushed the Devil with his attendants show him to be the king of glory. And he added: Lift up your gates, you princes, and be lifted up, you everlasting gates; (Ps. 23:9a) that is, since by the testimony of his power, which it is wicked to contradict, you have learned that it is worthy that Christ be called king of glory, remove error from your minds. And in that he says, The king of glory shall enter, it is shown that they cannot share in the faith of Christ unless they have cleansed their hearts from all impurity of idolatry. For unless man has been renewed, the Holy Spirit will not enter him. And it continues: Who is this king of glory? (Ps. 23:9b)  This repetition brings confirmation. For everything that is heard as new is not grasped in the heart unless it is repeated. And it brings wonder and astonishment when that which has never been heard before is spoken. And he added: The Lord of hosts, he is the king of glory. (Ps. 23:10) By repeating the same, he teaches that it is rightly said that this one is king of glory, who is the Lord of hosts. For he is not undeservedly called king of glory who rules over the powers. Where the Apostle: For if they had understood, he says, they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty (1 Cor. 2:8).

(Psalm 35:7) 

2^ND CATEGORY OT & NT

QUESTION 7. WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN THE PSALM, “MEN,” HE SAYS, “AND BEASTS YOU WILL SAVE” (Ps. 35:7); AND IN THE PROPHET JONAH, “I WILL NOT SPARE,” HE SAYS, “THE CITY IN WHICH LIVE ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PEOPLE, AND MANY ANIMALS” (Jonah 4:11); WHEREAS THE APOSTLE SAYS, “DOES GOD CARE FOR OXEN?” (1 Cor. 9:9). — As far as the wording goes, it seems contradictory; but if the purpose of man and of animals is considered, it will become clear that it is not different. God takes care of all, as the maker of all; but he does not preserve animals for their own sake, he preserves animals for the sake of men, not men for the sake of animals. Therefore, in caring for men, he keeps the animals, so that his concern is not for oxen, but for human beings. For what hope is there in animals?

(Psalm 39; 50) 

2^ND CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 12. WHY IS IT THAT IN THE LAW EVEN AARON HIMSELF IS TOLD THAT HE MUST OFFER BURNT OFFERINGS FOR HIS SINS, WHEN DAVID SAYS, “FOR FAULTS YOU HAVE NOT REQUIRED A BURNT OFFERING” (Ps. 39:7), AND LATER, “YOU WILL NOT TAKE PLEASURE IN BURNT OFFERINGS” (Ps. 50:18)? HOW DID HE COMMAND THAT THERE BE OFFERED WHAT HE DOES NOT TAKE PLEASURE IN? — It is clear that God does not take delight in burnt offerings, but that by way of satisfaction for sin, through the groaning and sorrow of the heart, pardon can be earned. He willed that the sacrifice should be a testimony of sin, so that the sinner, by the offering of the sacrifice, might confess that he had sinned. But how forgiveness might be obtained, He showed in another place, saying, “Break your bread for the hungry; if you see one naked, clothe him, and do not despise your own flesh and blood” (Isa. 58:7), or certainly, “A contrite and humbled heart, O God, you will not despise” (Ps. 50:19). First, then, He instructed that the offense must be confessed; then He showed how it can be forgiven. For He never commanded a sacrifice for an obvious, clear offense, but for sins of ignorance; because even when a man does not know, he sins, and when he thinks he is acting rightly, by a certain intention he goes astray. Such a sin, He said, can be cleansed by a sacrifice.

(Psalm 39:16) 

2^ND CATEGORY OT & NT

QUESTION 6. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN DAVID SAYS, “LET THEM BE CONFUSED AND ASHAMED WHO SAY TO ME, ‘WELL DONE, WELL DONE’” (Ps. 69:4), WHILE THE LORD SAYS, “WELL DONE, GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT” (Matt. 25:21, 23), ETC.? THAT WHICH DAVID TOOK AS SOMETHING BAD, THE SAVIOR SHOWS TO BE WORTHY OF GOOD MERITS. — This does not differ much from the previous question. For one and the same word has different meanings, as I mentioned above¹. For the detractors of David, since they supported his destruction, were rejoicing at his misfortunes. While he was suffering pressures and distresses from Saul and from his son Absalom, they said that this was rightly and well done to him. It is like when someone says, of a man who is suffering wrongs, “It serves him right”; that is, to rejoice in another’s troubles: this is to say, “He is getting what he deserves.” In a similar way, the Savior, rejoicing in good works, proclaims a man’s merit by saying, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” For he exults because the servant has made himself more worthy, saying, “Well done,” that is, “You have acted rightly, so that you might place yourself in a position of greater merit.” Therefore one word is applied to two opposite causes. For we are accustomed to say of someone, “He has been judged.” But how it is said is made clear by the cause that either follows or precedes. For sometimes it is said with reference to good, sometimes to evil; just as desire is sometimes directed to good, sometimes to evil.

1 In the second part of the New Testament questions, question 54.

(Psalm 50) 

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 112. ON PSALM FIFTY. — The Fiftieth Psalm is placed here not according in chronological order, but according to rationale. For its title is governed not by number, but by meaning. As far as history is concerned, it comes before the third. For the prophet Nathan rebuked him for his sin before his son Absalom rose up against him to deprive him of both life and kingdom. This is therefore the reason why the Fiftieth is placed here, as is evident from the Law. For there it is established that the number fifty carries remission. It comes after seven weeks and is the first that bears the type of the Lord’s Day: because just as after seven days, the first day is that which was made at the beginning, and which, after each completed week, is always the first; so also, after seven weeks, the fiftieth, when counted, is in mystery the first, and is called in a double sense the Lord’s Day: first, because it was made at the beginning by the Lord, and, always recurring upon the completion of the weekly cycle, is the first; then, because on it the Lord rose again, having triumphed over death, it is also called the Lord’s Day. Not without reason, then, in the number fifty, which we observe as mystically signifying the first, remission is contained. Indeed, the Law was given on the fiftieth day. For from the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, they were commanded on the forty-eighth day to be washed, so that, purified for two days, on the third day they might be ready to receive the Law (Exod. 19:10, 11). And what else does that washing indicate but that remission was granted on the fiftieth day, so that, purified, they might receive the Law? From that point on, with past things blotted out, they should render an account of their conduct according to the Law entrusted to them. For this same reason the Law also commanded that a purchased possession be restored in the fiftieth year (Levit. 25:10). From this, therefore, comes the title of the Fiftieth Psalm. In it King David asks for remission according to this prefigured meaning; therefore he says: Have mercy on me, O God, according to your great mercy. (Ps. 50:1a) Knowing that he had sinned gravely, King David therefore asks, saying: Have mercy on me, O God, according to your great mercy. For mercy is great when great sins are forgiven. And he adds: And according to the multitude of your tender mercies, blot out my iniquity. (Ps. 50:1b) To make clear that he had sinned grievously, he calls his sin “iniquity,” because iniquity is no light fault; and he who blots out iniquity, that is, does not credit it, abounds in mercy. He therefore tries in no way to excuse himself in his case, so that he may not only soften the mind of the Judge toward him, but also move Him to compassion. For the mind is stirred to mercy when it sees the accused confess his sins in such a way as to show that he is grieved because he has sinned. For whoever does not grieve seems to mock the judge; for he prays only to escape, meaning to commit the same again. And he continues: Wash me thoroughly, he says, from my injustice, and cleanse me from my sin. (Ps. 50:2) Since he proclaims the abundant mercy of God, he begs to be cleansed completely, so that nothing of fault or injustice may remain in him that could cause suspicion. And that he might obtain or secure this very thing, he adds: For I know my iniquity, and my sin is always before me. (Ps. 50:3) Because he knows that he has sinned grievously, he is anxious lest it be not entirely forgiven him. Considering the greatness of his sins, he fears, knowing that grave sins are not easily forgiven; and therefore he confesses with tears, keeping his sin before his eyes, in order in every way to make the Judge merciful toward him. For he knows it is written: Declare your iniquities first, that you may be justified (Isa. 43:26). And he continues: Against you alone have I sinned, and done evil before you. (Ps. 50:4a) Now, from another angle, he provides a remedy for his fault, so as to bring his petition to its effect. By this line of argument he declares himself innocent in the primary matter: for whoever sins against another god is an enemy of the God who is Creator. For he chooses another in place of Him, to whom he attributes His authority. Therefore, showing that he is free from such iniquity, he says: Against you alone have I sinned, and done evil before you; (Ps. 50:4b) that is, because I have sinned against you, and not against any other whom through error I might call god, my guilt is less than that of others, who are subject to punishment. For I am not wicked, but a sinner, because I have not sinned against you yourself, but against your Law; nor have I denied you, but, confessing you as God and Lord, I have sinned against a man. Therefore, since in that which is your own proper cause I am not guilty, forgive what I have done against a fellow-servant. For therefore I have sinned that I neither denied the honor of your name nor gave it to another. There was therefore reason for the Judge to be moved to mercy. For although many sin against Him, whom He even urges to turn back to Him, yet when those who do not sin directly against Him nevertheless ask pardon for other reasons, He readily receives them. For the Lord always wills His servants to flee to His help. Therefore he adds: That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged. (Ps. 50:4c) While asking for mercy, he prays that God may not change His justice, since justice is ordinarily a middle course such that it is not equal toward those who do not sin and those who do, that is, that it renders to each according to his works; but the innocent man in the mystery of God does not fail to understand what he asks. For knowing that God has frequently said in the Law, For I am merciful, says the Lord your God (Exod. 22:27), from there he begs that this faith may remain firm, and that God may be justified in His words, by remaining in what He has spoken, and not be overcome by the sins of men so as not to show mercy. For those who sin, knowing what God has promised to those who live well, and that He perseveres in this, judge Him to be a liar. For by living badly they do not believe that what He promised is true. Therefore King David asks that God may overcome this opinion men entertain, and may give what He has promised, so that those who, not keeping the commandments, judge that He will not give, may be put to shame. And he continues: Behold, I was conceived in iniquities. (Ps. 50:5) Now, with this added, he recalls the cause of the weakness of the human race, namely that it is easy for man to sin, so that he might soften the severity of the judgment upon himself. For he makes mention of the first fault, by which Adam, through transgression, made the human race subject to sin. Under the persuasion and deceit of the enemy, conceiving iniquity, he subjected all his offspring to iniquity, so that all born from him by breeding should be liable to sin. Therefore he added, “And in sins my mother conceived me,” (Ps. 50:5b) so that the transmission of sin from Adam would be an obstacle for those conceived and born, hindering them from living a good life; and therefore mercy should not be denied to the suppliant, since he has a hostile enemy who urges him to sin. For through sin the Devil, having subjected the first man to himself, received power to mingle with his flesh and, with a certain restraint of offenses, suggest pleasures, by which he strips captive man of life. Remembering this, the teacher of the Gentiles says: “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind” (Rom. 7:23); so that, seeing this, the Judge may stretch out his hand to one in sorrow and under assault. And it continues: “Behold, you have loved truth.” (Ps. 50:6a) Because you love truth, he says, come to the aid of the one who prays, the one whom you know lays bare the true impairments of his heart, and to every guilty person you once, moved by mercy, decreed to give help, so that the error committed on earth might be corrected by heavenly providence. For this reason he adds: “You have made known to me the uncertain and hidden things of the heart.” (Ps. 50:6b) By “uncertain and hidden things of the heart” he means those things which God has provided for the protection of the human race, just as the Apostle says: “What eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has entered into the heart of man, the things that God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor. 2:9). Who are those who love God, if not those who consent to his law, neither hiding nor excusing sins? These “hidden things of the heart” are revealed to those who love God, so that, because they grieved at being overwhelmed by sins, they might not deny it when corrected, crediting it both to themselves and to their origin, and not transferring to God as author the things they did in sin. Their hearts were illumined by spiritual brightness, so that they might see God’s providence in Christ, namely that he was going to come to condemn the sin which, from Adam’s transgression, ruled over the human race. This, then, King David prays for: that what God had decreed for the future, seeing the human race toil, he might first grant to himself, constrained by the same necessity in which he had decreed to help all; so that the gift which was to be free and could not be given before the time, might, to him, be granted in advance for his prayer and tears. He does not remain silent about how this is to happen, saying: “You will sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed.” (Ps. 50:7a) Rightly does he ask to be cleansed by the sprinkling of hyssop. For with this the sons of Israel smeared their doorposts with blood, that they might be kept safe from death (Exod. 12:22–23); so here too he prays by the sprinkling of hyssop to be cleansed from his sins, lest he be touched by death. And it continues: “You will wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” (Ps. 50:7b) Clearly, God’s work differs from man’s work: therefore he says, “I shall be whiter than snow,” because what God has done is much better than what man has done. For this reason he asks to be cleansed by the sprinkling of hyssop, so that as the bodily flesh is washed with water, in the same way, through the signification of hyssop, the stains of souls may be washed away by spiritual means. For the sprinkling of hyssop is a kind of purification, so that by means of what is visible, one may be cleansed invisibly. And it continues: “You will give joy and gladness to my hearing.” (Ps. 50:8a) There is no doubt that the voice of one proclaiming forgiveness brings joy to sinners. For who does not rejoice when he hears that pardon is being granted? For when God forgives, he is safe both in the present and the future. “And the bones that have been humbled shall rejoice.” (Ps. 50:8b) There is a twofold sense in which the bones are humbled: both in that he was humbled so that he might sin, for no one who sins is exalted, and in that afterward he, as a suppliant, might beg pardon. For he certainly, rolling in sackcloth and ashes, begged for mercy; which, once obtained, he was raised up in the exultation of his mind and the restoration of his body. And he added: “Turn your face away from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities.” (Ps. 50:9) With this form of words he asks for forgiveness, just as it was established for the future through faith in Christ, that the Savior, who is promised to him spiritually, should begin with him to grant all sins to those who are converted. For the one whose sins are not looked upon and whose iniquities are all blotted out has no basis on which he may be found guilty, and the mouths of his enemies are closed. For whoever does not look upon sins does not assign them. This is what it means to turn one’s face away from someone’s sins: not to accept an accusation against him. And what does it mean that, though he was corrected for two sins, he adds by accusing himself of many? And when he heard from the prophet Nathan that his sin was forgiven, why does he still ask with diligent prayer that he might attain pardon, unless it is because he is not acting only on his own behalf, but under the accusation of his sin he recounts the miseries of the whole people? For he asks for restoration for himself, since no one to whom forgiveness is granted is without shame, unless he is restored to his own place, so that the dignity of his position may excuse his shame; but for the others he signifies the blessing of God that was going to be in Christ, washing away all sins. And it continues: “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and establish a right spirit within my inner parts.” (Ps. 50:10) This is to ask for mercy with a good heart. He not only prays concerning past things, but is also concerned about future things, so that, as a sinner resolving to hate sin lest he sin, he may be helped by God through the spirit of righteousness which he prays to have established within his inner parts; that is, that a new spirit may be placed in him for this purpose: that it may guard him from sins, lest he be forced to do what he is known to be unwilling to do. And he can have a clean heart if he does not sin either within or without; that is, neither in deed nor in thought. Because it is almost impossible that this be observed in all things, at least in the cause of God it must be observed, which is the principal thing: that a clean heart be kept in the mystery of God and of Christ, while faith in them is preserved unaltered; for it is also said elsewhere: Who can boast that he has a pure heart, or that he is free from sins? (Prov. 20:9). Finally, King David had a clean heart in the cause of God, because he neither ever sought help from vanity, which is idolatry, nor failed to fulfill anything else that was commanded from him by God. Therefore of the rest he added: Cast me not away from your face, and take not your Holy Spirit from me. (Ps. 50:11) This is the meaning which I mentioned above: that, though assured of pardon, he is anxious about renewal. For he to whom there is only forgiveness is usually separated from the face of the Lord. For although vengeance is not taken on him, yet in the mind of the Lord or of the judge his crime is not blotted out. Therefore he prays that his sin may be utterly wiped away, and that he may be worthy to approach the face of the Lord and to prophesy again; and this came to pass. For this is what he says: And take not thy Holy Spirit from me. This is the Spirit of the prophets. And it follows: Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and strengthen me with a princely Spirit. (Ps. 50:12) He asks that the joy be given to him which was promised in Christ, that, washed from every stain and renewed, he might rejoice in the salvation he had sought; and that he might not be moved, but confirmed in the kingdom by the Holy Spirit. This Spirit he therefore called princely, because he is above every creature, through whom kings reign. And he adds: I will teach the wicked your ways, and sinners shall be converted to you. (Ps. 50:13) He says this in order that in him the wicked may learn the mercy of God, who receives and advances sinners that confess to him; nor does he neglect sinners who are converted, but encourages them while he has mercy on others. And it follows: Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God, God of my salvation. (Ps. 50:14) By saying this he shows his sin to be deserving of death, that he may proclaim how great the mercy of God is. By this he also stirs others to flee for refuge to the mercy of God. Therefore he subjoined: My tongue shall exult in your righteousness, O Lord. (Ps. 35:28) He says that he rejoices in the righteousness of the Lord, because he abides in that which he promised, saying: But my mercy I will not take away from them (Ps. 88:34). Therefore King David, joyful and secure in this respect, proclaims the righteousness of his God. And it follows: You shall open my lips, and my mouth shall declare your praise. (Ps. 50:15) So he opens his lips, while he does not allow him to be kept down on account of sin. For once freed, his mouth stands open; but the sinner’s mouth is shut: seized by shame and fear, he does not dare to speak; whereas the one absolved and liberated, exulting, proclaims the praise of the Judge. For the Apostle also, as he himself testifies, because he was free from men, says: Our mouth is open to you, O Corinthians (2 Cor. 6:11). And he added: For if you had desired a sacrifice, I would indeed have given it. (Ps. 50:16a) He speaks from what is known, knowing that holy Samuel said to King Saul, who thought that his sin could be wiped out not by sorrow of mind nor by the mercy of tears, but by the offering of sacrifice: God does not will sacrifice rather than that his voice be heard (1 Sam. 15:22); because sacrifices of that sort can do harm, but cannot appease God. For God is appeased in this way: if the soul, mindful of its sin, in tribulation and sorrow of heart, weeps over what it has done. And it follows: With burnt offerings you will not be delighted. (Ps. 50:16b) Nor is God delighted with burnt offerings in such cases. For the soul itself must make satisfaction for itself, not redeem itself from outside. These things indeed can give help. For as the mind was delighted in sins, so it must be afflicted in repentance, and then it will please God to wipe out its sins. Therefore he subjoined: A sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, you will not despise. (Ps. 50:17) He shows what kind of sacrifice for sins God accepts; for he cannot appease God who has rejoiced against his own salvation, unless he has been troubled in heart, and therefore is restored to life. Finally, every restless or undisciplined person often comes to harm, so that he injures the members of his body, which certainly cannot receive the remedy of health without pain: so also sinners cannot redeem their sins, unless the soul that has sinned has felt pain. For this is just: that because he rejoiced against reason, he should, according to reason, suffer grief. And it follows: Deal kindly, O Lord, in thy good will with Sion. (Ps. 50:18a) By Sion he means the Church, so that our perseverance may not seem unacceptable; to which, that God may fulfill his promise, he suggests this, knowing that he would then receive full remission when God should have accomplished in Christ what he had decreed: that is, that those who hope in the promised salvation may be freed from every sin; because through Christ they will be delivered not only from their own sins, but from Adam’s sin, which has come down to all by propagation. And he added: And the walls of Jerusalem shall be built up. (Ps. 50:18b) Were they destroyed? But by “the walls of Jerusalem” he means the Church, which was to be built up, ordered by faith in Christ. Its walls are understood to be holy men, as the Apocalypse of the apostle John teaches us; for both the city of Jerusalem and its walls are to be understood as the servants of God (Rev. 21:12). Knowing also through Christ the promise that was to be fulfilled for the liberation of the servants of God, the king David prays that it may be fulfilled; that is, that by faith the Church may be built up, and that those who hope for salvation from this faith may be delivered. And it follows: Then shall you accept the sacrifice of righteousness, oblations and burnt offerings. (Ps. 50:19a) He says this because he would then have oblations and burnt offerings as acceptable to himself when the Church had been built; and not at random or according to every custom, but, he says, you shall accept the sacrifice of righteousness. A sacrifice is just when a worthy gift is offered; moreover, nothing is so just and worthy a sacrifice as that we offer ourselves to God. For since God is spirit (Jn. 4:24), spiritual sacrifices are to be offered to Him, so that a living victim may be offered by one who lives. Since he had said, in the matter of sin, that God is by no means delighted with carnal sacrifices, he shows that in the future it was to be offered to God in a spiritual manner, and that He would accept it; because these are the sacrifices worthy of God: that is, in the past they were lesser, because they were carnal; now they are greater, because they are spiritual. And he added: Then they will place calves upon your altar. (Ps. 50:19b) If, by the ceasing of former sacrifices, he indicated that spiritual sacrifices would follow, what does it mean that he said, Then they will place calves upon your altar, unless that by these bodily things he signifies spiritual realities; especially since he had said that He does not take delight in carnal things? Therefore, in speaking of calves, he signified the new people, reborn through faith in Christ, whose devotion is daily poured out upon the altar of the Lord. For since he is understood to have spoken concerning the Church, the sacrifices of the Church must also be understood to have been meant as spiritual.

(Psalm 77:25)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 20. WHAT DOES THIS SAYING MEAN, “MAN ATE THE BREAD OF ANGELS”, WHEN ANGELS DO NOT NEED FOOD, SINCE THEY ARE SIMPLE BY NATURE AND ENDOWED WITH SPIRITUAL POWER? — The bread that he calls “of angels” is manna. Now manna is interpreted as “What is this?” For when the children of Israel saw something like white coriander seed fall upon the ground, they said to one another, “What is this?” (Exod. 16:15). In the Hebrew language this is called “MAN HU.” This bread or food, therefore, was not created by the law of the world, by a mixture of elements; but it came from above, provided by a spiritual ordering. Nor indeed was it kept in the heavens beforehand, since it was created by the power of God in a moment for the nourishment of bodies. It was called, however, the bread of angels because it was created by that same power by which angelic nature survives and lives. For without God there is no life. By the fact, therefore, that it is said to have come from heaven, it is called the bread of angels. In order to recall how great and of what sort God’s benefits toward man are, he spoke in this way, so that, recognizing them, they might give thanks to God, who governs His servants with such care that, while they are still in the flesh, He will, if necessary, provide for them those things by which the angels live. The Apostle said among other things, “The Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4), so that, because water flowed by Christ’s power from the rock (Exod. 17:6), Christ might be called the rock. In a similar way, because manna came down from heaven by His power, manna, that is, bread, is so called, so that what was done then may be thought to have been a figure of that reality which is now offered in the Church; so that the Christian people, whom Scripture signified in the angels, should be the “bread” eaten by men, that is, by the Jews. And because the grace is greater now than it was in the prophets, and freedom has been given through Christ, for “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17), by comparison of times and graces Christians are called angels: and the Jews, whom he called “men,” have been satisfied with the bread of these, which is Christ. For Christ belongs especially to these, to whom He has been revealed, and who are judged worthy to be called by this name. Therefore the question stated above can be understood in a twofold way: so that the bread may be called both that of the heavenly angels and that of Christians, according to the things that have been said.

PROVERBS

(Proverbs 10:27) 

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 33. SOLOMON SAYS, “THE YEARS OF THE UNGODLY WILL BE SHORTENED”; HOW THEN IS IT THAT WE SEE SOME UNGODLY PEOPLE LIVING TO AN OLD AGE? — It would indeed be fitting that all the ungodly not only should be deprived of this light more quickly, but in fact should not enjoy even a single moment of life, since, forgetful of their Creator, they attribute the authority over all life to a creature. But Scripture is addressing those ungodly people who, while living under God’s Law, were more inclined toward idols. For they are worse than other ungodly people: knowing God and despising Him, they obey servants. And that these are the ones spoken of, the Apostle proves when he says, “Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law” (Rom. 3:19). The Gentiles, however, are not counted in the number of the living.

(Proverbs 18:17) 

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 30. IN PROVERBS IT IS SAID, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN IS THE ACCUSER OF HIMSELF AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS SPEECH”. HOW IS HE RIGHTEOUS, IF HE IS A SINNER? — All truth is righteous. Therefore, because he confesses what he is, he is righteous: for he speaks the truth; but sinners who defend their own misdeeds cannot be justified. Therefore such a man is rightly called righteous, because in declaring his sin he naturally asks that it be forgiven, begging the mercy of God. For he knows what is written in the Law: “Confess your sins, that you may be justified” (Isa. 43:26). But what does it mean to confess at the beginning of one’s speech, if not to admit one’s fault not under obligation, but voluntarily? For who, even one who fears God, is without sin, since faults are mixed in even with our thoughts, and at times we sin against our will? Yet this can also be said or thought of one who is called a catechumen, so that when he comes to the faith he may be justified. For when he asks to be changed, he undoubtedly confesses himself a sinner, that he may be justified.  

(Proverbs 22:2) 

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 32. WE READ IN SOLOMON: “THE RICH AND THE POOR HAVE MET TOGETHER; THE LORD MADE BOTH OF THEM”. HOW THEN IS THERE NO RESPECT OF PERSONS WITH GOD? — Far be this wicked claim from the minds of the faithful. For, lest Scripture should teach that the poor are to be despised and the rich to be honored, it shows that God is the maker of both, not, of course, in their poverty and riches, but in the fact that they exist. For if they differ from one another in wealth, they do not differ in the substance of their nature. Nor, because the circumstances of this world bring some people gain, whether prosperous in riches or unfortunate in poverty, are those to be despised whom God has not cast down, or those to be esteemed to whom truth has not developed witness. Those are indeed to be despised who corrupt morals and are sacrilegious against the Law of God; but those are to be honored who love God and cultivate discipline. For these are held as rich before God, who live a good life; and the more they are despised in the world, the more they are honored in heaven. For those who have the benefit of time for increasing their resources, if they know themselves and understand the will of God, who has given the earth to all, and commands His sun to rise on everyone, and pours out His rain without distinction (Matt. 5:45), while the injustice of the times, or of chance, or of want denies to some what God has given to all, they themselves supply it to them, so that by fulfilling God’s will they may be rich not only in this world, but also in heaven, lest the riches of a brief time shut them out from eternal riches. But those whom people think should be despised because of their poverty, if they reflect on God’s future judgment, there they will always be rich, where the rich of this age will be in need, repenting that they were not poor.

ECCLESIASTES

(Ecclesiastes 7:17)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 15. SINCE THE LAW PROCLAIMS WHAT IS JUST, AND HE IS TRULY JUST WHO POSSESSES FULL JUSTICE, HOW IS IT THEN THAT SOLOMON SAYS, “DO NOT BE OVERLY JUST”? — Excessive justice falls into sin, while moderated justice makes people perfect. For he who is overly just is not without hatred; because if you answer sinners on every single point, you will not fail to find where you yourself sin. Indeed, God’s justice is moderated. For sometimes He pardons sinners, sometimes He grows angry, sometimes He repays them not as much as they deserve: He bears with them, so that there may be those who progress. Since the Law cannot soften itself, it must be hardened by us, so that it can be of benefit to those acting under it. Therefore this man is not overly just, who is an imitator of God.

(Ecclesiastes 13:16; Psalm 142:2)

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 22. WHY DOES SOLOMON SAY, "JUSTIFY YOUR SOUL BEFORE YOUR DEATH," AS WE READ IN A PSALM, "NO LIVING MAN WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR PRESENCE?" —A person justifies his soul before death when, through hope of future life, he reaches faith, so that he may not die in transgression. But Solomon is speaking of someone who lives under the Law and does not conduct himself justly. If such a person corrects his mind so as to walk in the paths of righteousness, he justifies his soul before death. For Solomon, because of the coming judgment, has given this advice, lest anyone careless about himself should die in his sins. David, however, spoke about the perfection of righteousness: for no one will be justified before God so as to be worthy of the promise, unless he has died in righteousness. As long as a person lives, he does not yet possess the full merit of what is to come. Therefore the Savior says, “He who perseveres to the end, he shall be saved” (Matt. 10:22; 24:13).

WISDOM

(Wisdom 1:13; Sirach 11:14) 

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 34. HOW IS IT THAT THE SAME SOLOMON SAYS, “GOD,” HE DECLARES, “DID NOT MAKE DEATH,” WHILE IN ANOTHER PLACE HE SAYS, “GOOD THINGS AND EVIL, LIFE AND DEATH, POVERTY AND RICHES ARE FROM GOD” (Wisdom 1:13; Sirach 11:14)?" — There is no doubt that all good things are from God, but the “evils” he mentioned are evils only in that God is avenging himself on us. For even though punishment is justly inflicted, it still seems an evil to the one who suffers it. Therefore God speaks through the prophet to sinners, saying, “I will bring evils upon you,” that is, “I will deal with you by punishments.” Life and death are from God in this way: he gave a law which promises life to those who keep it, but death to those who reject it, yet that death which is called the second death. For when he judges each person according to what he deserves, it is from him, whether it be freeing leading to life or guilt leading to death. He is therefore not the originator of death, but its judge, because the cause of death is sin. How then could God bring about death, he who does not know how to sin? But when he repays sins, death is said to be from him, although it is not from him, but from the one who has sinned. By the same reasoning, poverty and riches are from God. Some people, having the fear of God, despise luxury, avoid a wasteful life, and do not turn their eyes away from the needy and the poor: such people increase their store of good things. For it is written in Proverbs, “Poverty and dishonor are removed by discipline” (Prov. 13:18). But those who do not have the fear of God, living more loosely and despising the needy, as it is written, will come to want; they are not only careless and reckless about themselves, but also ridiculers of the law that has been given. In this way God has made poor and rich: because when transgression of the law gives rise to poverty, it is said to be done by God as the author of the law; and when some, through fear, keep the discipline of the law, they become rich by God, the author of the law.

(Wisdom 11:17) 

2^ND CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 20. IN WISDOM IT SAYS, “HE CREATED, IT SAYS, THE WORLD FROM UNSEEN MATTER”; AND ELSEWHERE, THAT WE HAVE BEEN MADE FROM NOTHING (Wis. 11:18 and 2:2). — That God created confused substances at the same time is shown by the meaning of the Scriptures, with darkness of course being mixed in. He called this confusion of things, that is, air, fire, water, earth, darkness, unseen matter, just as it is read in Genesis: “Now the earth, he says, was invisible and without form” (Gen. 1:2). From this confusion, therefore, he created the world by establishing the firmament, so that, with the waters gathered together within it into one place, a dwelling might be made for the human race. For when the substances had been distinguished and separated, he made in the hollow space a habitable home.

ISAIAH

(Isaiah 4:1) 

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 47. HOW DO THE SEVEN WOMEN MENTIONED IN ISAIAH, “AND SEVEN WOMEN SHALL TAKE HOLD,” ETC. (Isa. 4:1), SIGNIFY THE SEVEN CATHOLIC CHURCHES? — “And seven women,” he says, “shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let your name be called upon us; take away our reproach.” It is absolutely clear that by the seven women the seven Churches are signified: for although the Church is one, it is called sevenfold, so that the one body may consist of a sevenfold number of members. For not only we, but also the citizens above are members of the Church, whose head is Christ (Eph. 5:23). Whether therefore the Churches are called one or seven does not conflict. It is called one because it has one head, which is Christ; it is called seven because, just as the members are diverse, so also the spiritual powers, among which we too are reckoned, have diverse functions, on account of which they are called “of the air.” They are diverse for this reason, that not each one can do all things, but all together are the body of Christ: for he is the head of the body, the Church (Col. 1:18), from whom the whole body exists, that is, from whom all things in heaven and on earth have their origin. In this Church which is on earth, mention is made of all the Churches: for when in it the mystery of the Creator is proclaimed, this teaching is also revealed to the heavenly beings. When it is made known to those below, it is necessary that those above also hear. Therefore the Apostle says, “To me, the least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to enlighten all as to what is the dispensation of the mystery hidden from ages in God who created all things, so that through the Church the diverse wisdom of God might be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places” (Eph. 3:8). Through this Church, therefore, the heavenly beings are taught, because “Truth,” it says, “has sprung out of the earth” (Ps. 85:12). In order that mention of the higher ones might be made, seven Churches are here named in one people, and these seven Churches the prophet presents as suppliants to the Savior made man. For they understood that Christ was born for this purpose, that he might take away reproof, first indeed of those who were living under his Law, and then of the rest. They had also in memory that it was written, “There shall come out of Zion one who shall deliver and shall turn ungodliness away from Jacob” (Isa. 59:20). These seven Churches therefore laid hold of one man, that is, of Christ born, saying, “We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let your name be called upon us; take away our reproach.” (Isa. 4:1) What is it that they pray for? If they use their own bread and are clothed with their own garments, that is, if they live and are not naked, what do they lack? For if bread signifies life, and clothing signifies being clothed with God, for whoever is without God is called naked, therefore the Apostle says, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27); and again, “So that we may not be found naked when unclothed” (2 Cor. 5:3): what is it that they ask, that their reproach may be taken away, unless that this people is signified in the number of the seven Churches, which, living under the Law, was expecting Christ promised for the abolition of sins? Therefore they say, “We will eat our own bread,” that is, we will be fed by the words of the Law which hand on the one God: for “Not by bread alone does man live, but by every word of God” (Deut. 8:3; Matt. 4:4). “And we will wear our own apparel,” that is, we will be known by the name of our Creator: for each person is said to be clothed in that which he is and professes. Indeed, senators or officials are understood from their garments to be what they are. But because these things are not sufficient to win God’s favor, it was further ordained that through the mystery of the knowledge of the one God, man should become heir of the kingdom of heaven. For cleansed from sins by faith, and alienated from the second death (which, by the judgment pronounced on Adam, kept men in the underworld), held by none, he goes into the paradise of God the Father, of which the Lord said to the thief that he would be with him there (Luke 23:43). For although the aforesaid people, signified by the seven Churches, was under God’s law, and by devotion bound both for its own sin and for its ancestral sin, “For all,” he says, “have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23)—therefore the Churches mentioned above pray that their reproach may be taken away by the call of the name of Christ: for those who bear his sign, by which he conquered death, cannot be held by the enemy. And not only these Churches pray that the name of Christ be called upon them, but also the spiritual ones above, dwelling in the heavens. For although the spiritual and heavenly powers are such, yet they are subject to reproach if they are alienated from their Creator, and they will not be members of the body if, not recognizing their head, they wander. And the prophet bears witness in the following words to what we have explained, saying, “In that day God shall give light by counsel upon the earth.” And he added, “For the Lord shall wash away,” he says, “the filth of the sons and daughters, and shall purge the blood from their midst” (Isaiah 4:2, according to the LXX). What is more evident than that in that day, that is, when the promise of God was fulfilled and the mystery of faith was declared to men, they were enlightened, so that, purified through knowledge of the Creator, those who had been guilty of death might become heirs of eternal life? The prophet therefore spoke in a general way, so as to signify that all need the gift of God, so that both sinners and righteous may be known to have awaited the mercy of God: sinners on account of their own offenses, that they might be snatched from the jaws of death; and the righteous, absolved from their ancestral sin, with the sentence given in Adam wiped out, by which all were held by death, might enter the kingdom of God with the liberty received, now made not servants, but sons of God.

MATTHEW

(Matthew 1:1)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 3. WHY DOES MATTHEW, WHEN WRITING THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, SAY, “THE BOOK OF THE GENERATION OF JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF DAVID” (Matt. 1:1), WHEN ABRAHAM CAME EARLIER?  — Matthew began this way so that he might first speak about him, describing his genealogy from the promise of his incarnation, just as the Apostle says, “whose are the fathers, and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came” (Rom. 9:5). Therefore he said, “The book of the generation,” because the incarnation of Christ is constituted from many and diverse people, so that, since many began to exist from one, he might draw bodily lineage from all. From Jews and Gentiles, and from the worthy and the unworthy: for Ruth was a Moabitess, and Bathsheba became a wife from being an adulteress; so that, drawing the flesh of all to himself, he might call them back to their true unity. For this reason he says, “Jesus Christ, the son of David,” though Abraham came earlier, because Christ is called in a special way the son of David on account of the kingdom: so that, just as God is from God, so also a king should take his origin from a king according to the flesh. For therefore it was said to David: “Of the fruit of your womb I will set one upon your throne” (Ps. 131:11).

(Matthew 1:17)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 4. WHAT IS THE REASON THAT THE APOSTLE MATTHEW, MENTIONED ABOVE, DIVIDED ALL THE GENERATIONS INTO THREE PARTS (Matt. 1:17)? — Causes and times produce divisions. Therefore he distinguished from Abraham up to David. For the first part of the cause is from Abraham up to David, because Abraham is the father of faith and David the father of the kingdom. For Saul, having become unworthy, deprived himself of the kingdom. From David, however, up to the exile is another part of the cause, in which the Jews, having become depraved, lost the kingdom. But after the Babylonian exile up to Christ is the third part of weeping and misery, of captivity and dispersion for them; because although after the Babylonian exile and the period of seventy years, when, having been released by Cyrus, they returned to their own, they never afterwards had either cause or rest. For Judea could not rule thereafter, but they were always anxious and wandering everywhere. Indeed, at the time of Christ’s birth they were in captivity, saying: We have no king but Caesar (Jn. 19:15). For this reason Matthew made three stages of the genealogy, in order also to show the changes of merits and causes from the promise that was made up to Christ, while the seasons of the years remain in one grace until the end.

(Matthew 1:17)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 5. SO, SINCE THERE ARE FORTY-ONE GENERATIONS, THE EVANGELIST SEEMS TO HAVE COUNTED FORTY-TWO (Matt. 1:17). FOR THREE TIMES FOURTEEN, WHAT DO THEY MAKE IF NOT FORTY-TWO?  —  According to the number, forty-one generations are counted; but according to the reasoning, forty-two are demonstrated. Now Jeconiah, who was born at the time of the exile, that is, made king, as is contained in Chronicles, brought the second section to an end. And because after the exile he remained in the kingdom by the permission of King Nebuchadnezzar, the third section begins from him, which runs up to Christ. Therefore Jeconiah is counted twice, so that he both closes the second section and begins the third. For it is written therefore: “And after the exile to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Salathiel” (Matt. 1:12). Up to this Salathiel, those from Judah reigned, namely, those of whose stock Joseph is born. For Jeconiah’s first son was named Assur. But since Joseph derives his lineage through Salathiel, Assur is passed over, and Salathiel is joined to his father Jeconiah, so that the line might lead to Joseph, to whom the Virgin Mary was betrothed. And after Josiah, Jeconiah follows. But because the line comes to Joseph through Joachim, the father of Jeconiah, he (that is, Joachim) is omitted, and Jeconiah is placed in his stead, so that the number of fourteen generations should not be exceeded, and because after Jeconiah come Salathiel and his son, through whom Joseph arises.

(Matthew 1:17)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 85. HOW IS IT, THEN, THAT ALTHOUGH IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT FROM DAVID DOWN TO THE BABYLONIAN EXILE THERE ARE SEVENTEEN GENERATIONS, THE EVANGELIST SAYS THERE ARE FOURTEEN (Matt. 1:17), OMITTING AHAZIAH, WHO AFTER JORAM IS THE SON OF JEHOSHAPHAT, AND JOASH THE SON OF AHAZIAH, AND AMAZIAH THE SON OF JOASH? — Nothing should seem more credible than that the Evangelist followed the intention of the Law. And therefore, not without reason, these men were removed by the Evangelist from the number of the others. For their wickedness continued in such a way that their wickedness had no break. The evil that began with Joram ran on in this way as far as Uzziah, the son of Amaziah, so that there was no support from any side by which any one of them might remain, in part by the merit of his father, in the number of the kings. For Joram, acting wickedly, is with good reason preceded by Jehoshaphat in the list; and Uzziah, with good reason, has Jotham preserved in the list. But the continuous wickedness of those three was against God. Solomon too, by the merit of his father, is restored to the kingdom; and Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, acting wickedly, leaves Asa rightly in the number of the kings. But those three, shut in among the evildoers, acting wickedly, are therefore erased. For an example is worse, to the ruin of the line, when wickedness displays itself continually. And, to speak precisely, they are passed over because Joseph did not descend from their stock. For from Abraham the Evangelist followed the line of these generations, from which Joseph, to whom Mary was betrothed, draws his origin, she who bore Christ.

(Matthew 1:18)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 52. IF CHRIST WAS BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT IS, IF BY HIS WORKING FLESH WAS MADE FROM MARY, WHY IS IT SAID, “WISDOM, WHICH IS CERTAINLY CHRIST, HAS BUILT A HOUSE FOR HERSELF” (Prov. 9:1)? — This question can be heard from a double point of view. First, the house of Jesus Christ is the Church, which was built by his blood. His body may also be called his house, just as it is called his temple. If it is called its temple because it is inhabited, it can also very well be called its home, as we read in the law. But if the body was formed by the operation of the Holy Spirit and we thought we could give it the name of house, we will ask why we attribute this formation to the person of Jesus Christ. The Son's operation is the Father's operation, because they have one and the same virtue. In the same way the operation of the Holy Spirit is the operation of the Son of God, because of the unity of nature and will. Whether the action comes from the Father, or from the Son, or from the Holy Spirit, it is the Trinity who acts, and all that is done by the three divine persons is the work of one God. The Son's operation is the Father's operation, because the Father and the Son have one and the same virtue. In the same way, the operation of the Holy Spirit is the operation of Christ, because the Holy Spirit has received from what was his. If we consider the action of persons, it is by the operation of the Holy Spirit that Christ was made flesh, that is, made man; but if we consider the action of the divine nature, it is Christ who has worked in the virgin to become flesh; for the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ have one and the same divinity, and therefore the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of Jesus Christ.

(Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:6-7)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 53. IF ALL THINGS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REASON, WHY IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN BORN ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF JANUARY? — No one can be so dulled as to deny that God does all things with reason. Therefore Christ, descending from the heavenly seats to grant salvation to the world, also wished to teach the world itself and the seasons which he had established. He chose to be born as a man at that time when, after a great decrease, the light which is day begins to increase again, so as to turn the decline of the human race into growth in God: that the time of his birth might reasonably agree with the divine teaching, which, from the shadow of death, began to multiply men unto life.

(Matthew 2:19, 14:1-11; Mark 6)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 11. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE FACT THAT ABOVE WE READ THAT HEROD DIED (Matt. 2:19), BUT LATER ON, AFTER MANY YEARS, WE READ THAT HEROD KILLED JOHN (Matt. 14:1–11), EVEN THOUGH JOHN OUTLIVED THE EARLIER HEROD WHO HAD DIED? —  Herod was king of Judea; he had four sons: Archelaus, Herod, Philip, and Lysanias. But when Herod their father died, Archelaus succeeded him; when Archelaus died, the kingdom of the aforesaid Herod was divided into four parts, in such a way that Pilate was admitted to the fourth part of the kingdom as governor, not as king (Matt. 2:22 and Luke 3:1), while the sons of Herod were called kings. Finally, when Philip also died, his brother Herod took Philip’s wife, and it was because of this that he was criticized by John the Baptist; for this reason Herod, the son of the above-mentioned Herod, killed him. For what does it say? “Herod,” it says, “the tetrarch,” that is, placed over the fourth part of the kingdom of his father Herod. Why then is there any doubt, when the meaning of the added surname shows that this is another Herod? He is the very one who also killed James, the brother of John, with the sword, and who later, struck by the angel of God, burst forth with worms and died.

(Matthew 3:14)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 49. WHY WAS THE SAVIOR BAPTIZED, SINCE HE WAS BORN HOLY, AND WAS CALLED CHRIST THE LORD AT HIS VERY BIRTH, WHEN BAPTISM EXISTS FOR THE SAKE OF PURIFICATION AND OF SIN (Luke 2:11; Matt. 3:16)? — It is true and evident that the Savior did not need baptism; for Christ was not made but was born, as the angel said to the shepherds, “Behold, today there is born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” Indeed, John, knowing His holiness, tried to prevent Him from being baptized; but the Savior insisted that it had to be done, not, of course, on account of any sin of His, but for the fulfillment of righteousness. For it was fitting that He Himself should be an example to the future children of God, whom He taught to become children of God through Baptism; and since He promised that the Holy Spirit would be given by God to believers, He had to show this visibly in Himself, so that, once this was recognized, believers might hope to possess the Holy Spirit invisibly. For the Savior, being born of the Holy Spirit, assuredly had a purified body. The anointing of His flesh was given spiritually in the womb of the Virgin. For the Holy Spirit purified that which proceeded from the Virgin Mary into the body of the Savior; and this is the anointing of the flesh of the Savior’s body. Therefore He was called Christ also at His birth. For what God used to grant through the anointing with oil by the ministry of the prophets to those who were anointed as kings, the Holy Spirit granted to the man Christ, with an additional explanation: the predecessors of Christ received only the authority of rule through anointing, but the Savior, as man, received both authority when He was born and purification when He was born. For it would have been unfitting that the Son of God should be born in a body subject to sins. Therefore, since He took up the cause of man and taught that through rebirth people become children of God, He had to be baptized, in order to show this as confirmed in Himself. What is said is easily proved and praised if it is seen to be done by the teacher; and so, too, the marks of virtue had to be revealed, so that, now appearing as the Son of God, He might, through the mystery of regeneration, bring healing to the sufferings of the body, and be an example to His future brothers, because through regeneration each person receives the power of virtue.

(Matthew 4:3)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 7. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SAVIOR WAS BORN, THE SON OF GOD AND CALLED CHRIST: WHY THEN, AFTER BAPTISM, DID THE TEMPTER APPROACH HIM, SAYING, “IF YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD,” ETC. (Matt. 4:3)? — The Savior was born of the Virgin in such a way that He was both Christ and the Son of God, not by making, but by birth. Yet while He was still at a younger age, emptying His power, that is, concealing His own authority, He did not provoke the shamelessness of the Devil. But after He was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him, when He had appeared to human beings with the testimony of God the Father, the enemy was driven by the zeal of envy to insult Him, seeing that this event worked to his disadvantage: for he understood that the institution of baptism had been arranged for the salvation of human beings. Therefore he approaches the Savior, the author of this matter, not to approve it, but to find an opportunity to overthrow it. For temptation sometimes occurs for testing, sometimes under deceit for rebellion. He thought that he had drawn from the Savior a response in accordance with the trickery of his own will, so that he might securely possess his entire kingdom; for if, under the guidance of the Savior’s teaching, people were brought into subjection, no one would escape His condemnation.

(Matthew 4:4-10, Mark 1, Luke 4)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 8. WHY DOES THE SAVIOR, WHEN THE DEVIL IS TESTING HIM, RESIST IN NO OTHER WAY THAN WITH EXAMPLES FROM THE LAW (Matt. 4:4–10)? — The Savior not only replied to the Devil who was tempting Him, but also to the Jews through whom the wickedness of their cruelty was carried out against the Savior. For, foreseeing that the Jews would call Him an enemy of the Law, He checked the shamelessness of their father, the Devil, with testimonies from the Law, so that He might condemn the father in the sons, and the sons in the father.

(Matthew 4:2, Mark 1, Luke 4)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 9. WHY DID THE SAVIOR, AFTER HIS BAPTISM, FAST FOR FORTY DAYS AND THEN AFTERWARD GROW HUNGRY (Matt. 4:2)? FOR ONE WHO FASTED FORTY DAYS COULD HAVE ALREADY CEASED TO FEEL HUNGER. — It is written: “My son, when you come to serve God, stand fast in righteousness and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation” (Sirach 2:1). Therefore the Savior, to give us a pattern, fasted; so that we too, persistently devoted to fasting in like manner, may, with God’s help, overcome every movement of the Devil directed against us, knowing from the example of the Savior that we must especially beware of the snares of our adversary when we draw near to the fear of God. For he is grieved that we have departed from him; therefore he rages more fiercely against us. The Savior did this for us, not for Himself. Likewise His growing hungry was not for His own sake, but for ours. For when, by fasting, the temptations of the Devil had been overcome, temptations which are not recorded, precisely because they do not pertain to the advancement of doctrine, then afterward, that is, after forty days, He allowed Himself to suffer hunger (which belonged to His human nature); so that the Devil, already defeated, seeing in Him the weakness of hunger, would be stirred up once more to tempt Him, recognizing that it was a man who was overcoming him. For this was the mystery of the Savior: that because he had mocked and ruled over man when man was defeated, he should be conquered by man, so that the power of God might win victory for man; and therefore Satan became more shameful, since he sees a man and yet perceives no merely human power. He marveled, dulled with astonishment, that there was a mystery present which escaped him: that he had the power to approach, but not to ensnare. He was tormented for two reasons: seeing weakness, he drew near, and then found strength; seeing a man, he became suspicious of the power of God. Therefore He hungered, in order to make sport of Satan’s cunning. And He did not fast longer, so that He might be in harmony with Moses and Elijah.

(Matthew 11:3-10, Mark 1, Luke 7)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 10. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ALTHOUGH JOHN THE BAPTIST HAD PREVIOUSLY BORNE WITNESS TO THE SAVIOR, HE LATER SEEMED TO DOUBT, SAYING THROUGH HIS DISCIPLES: “ARE YOU THE ONE WHO IS TO COME, OR ARE WE TO EXPECT ANOTHER?” (Matt. 11:3–10). — Those who think that doubt may have entered the soul of John the Baptist slander the Savior. For either they correctly claim that John doubted, or else they in fact accuse the Savior of lack of discernment; because, as they suppose, he praised someone who was thinking wrongly about him. But since it is impossible for the Savior to be mistaken, John was rightly praised by him. If he was rightly praised, he did not doubt. For at the very time when John sent his disciples from prison to Jesus, saying, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to expect another?” Jesus then answered his disciples, saying: “Go and tell John what you see and hear. The blind see, the deaf hear, lepers are cleansed, the lame walk, the dead are raised, and blessed is he who is not scandalized by me.” (Matt. 11:3-6) And as the messengers of John were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John the Baptist: “What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed shaken by the wind, or a man clothed in soft garments? Look, those who wear soft garments are in kings’ houses. But what did you go out to see? A prophet? I tell you, yes, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written: Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.” (Matt. 11:7-10) Then the tax collectors, having been baptized with John’s baptism, praised God. How great a praise was given to John, that it should be said he is more than a prophet, and that the Savior calls blessed the one who is not scandalized in him. How then is John praised if, by doubting, he was scandalized? But surely he did not doubt. For this praise proves that he is blessed, because he was not scandalized. And the Savior also, for that very reason, broke out at that moment into praise of John, to show that John’s mind was free from the doubt of his disciples. For John, wishing to strengthen his disciples, who were amazed, in faith in the Savior, knowing that his own end was near, wanted what he said about him to be confirmed by the Savior’s own mouth. Therefore, in order to be a true witness, he calls upon the testimony of the greater one, so that by their agreement all uncertainty might be removed. This is John’s strategy: to send his doubting disciples, as it were, with his own words, so that, hearing from the Savior the same things they had heard from John, they might be made firm, knowing that the testimony of a worthy steward and of the heavenly Lord cannot be called into question. For this reason the Savior also answered as though to John, so that between John, who asks, and the Savior, who answers, they might learn the truth.

(Matthew 3:14; John 1:31-33)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 58. IN WHAT WAY, THEN, DOES JOHN CLAIM THAT HE DID NOT KNOW CHRIST BEFORE THE BAPTISM, WHEN, AS HE CAME TO BE BAPTIZED, HE SAYS TO HIM, “I OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED BY YOU, AND DO YOU COME TO ME?” (John 1:31, 33; Matthew 3:14)? HOW COULD HE NOT KNOW HIM WHOM HE TRIED TO PREVENT, HUMBLING HIMSELF BEFORE HIM? — John was endowed with such holiness even from his very cradle that he is believed neither to be deceived nor to deceive, nor to be ignorant of his Lord, who had enlightened him in the womb through the Holy Spirit. And therefore it is true that he both recognized Him when the Spirit descended upon Him, and did not previously ignore Him before He came to the baptism. For he knew Him, but he did not know whether He was the very one who was to distribute the gift of God long ago promised to the Fathers. This is what he acknowledges that he then learned, when he saw the Spirit descending upon Him. For John says that he was instructed by God in this way: “Upon whom,” he says, “you see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, He it is who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” The Apostle also bears witness to this: “For I say,” he says, “that Christ became a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the Fathers” (Rom. 15:8). This is what John did not know about the Lord: for although he was not ignorant of His greatness, yet it was hidden from him that through Him the faith of Abraham was to be fulfilled.

(Matthew 5:25)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 70. THE LORD HAS CERTAINLY COMMANDED US TO MAKE THE DEVIL OUR ENEMY: WHAT THEN DOES IT MEAN WHEN IN THE GOSPEL HE SAYS, “BE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR ADVERSARY QUICKLY” (Matt. 5:25)? WHO IS A MAN’S ADVERSARY, IF NOT THE DEVIL? — No one doubts that the Devil is the enemy of man, especially of the faithful. For he sharpens his most violent weapons against the servants of God. Just as he is the enemy of the good, so too is the Law opposed to the wicked. For who would not oppose someone who despises him? Therefore the Lord addresses the sinner, that he may agree with the commandments which condemn him as disobedient, so that he may subject himself to their will and, from being an enemy, become a friend. For the despiser of the Law is its enemy, since he resists its will. And so the Lord exhorts the sinner to reconcile himself to the Law by doing good, lest on the day of judgment it accuse him before the Judge, and, having been condemned, he suffer the penalties for having despised the Law. For, he says, to everyone who wishes to act wickedly, the discipline of the Lord seems hostile; and unless he consents to it, he will be sent into Gehenna, prepared for the Devil, who is truly the enemy of the human race.

(Matthew 11:3, Luke 7:19)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 14. JOHN TO THE LORD: “ARE YOU THE ONE WHO IS TO COME, OR SHOULD WE EXPECT ANOTHER?” (Matt. 11) — In his own person he is acting on behalf of his disciples. For John was not doubting, he who had said: “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world” (Jn. 1:29); but to satisfy his disciples he sends them with his own words, so that by the mouth of the Savior he might confirm what he himself was teaching about him, in order that after his own departure his disciples might follow Christ without any doubt.

(Matthew 11:13, Luke 16:16)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 15. WHY IS IT SAID THAT THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN, AND THAT AFTERWARD THEY RIGHTLY CEASED (Matt. 11:13)? BECAUSE THE ONE ABOUT WHOM THEY PROPHESIED HAD NOW ARRIVED. WHY THEN “UNTIL JOHN” WITH REGARD TO THE LAW, SINCE THE APOSTLE SAYS THAT WE OUGHT TO BE SUBJECT TO THE LAW: “FOR THOSE THAT EXIST,” HE SAYS, “HAVE BEEN ORDAINED BY GOD” (Rom. 13:1)? — Law indeed is one name, but it has a threefold meaning. For the first part of the Law concerns God. Therefore the Law is said to be from “reading,” so that from many things you may know what to choose. Therefore, placed amid errors, they received it so that they might choose what is true, that is, with the Devil rejected, they might choose God. But the second part of the Law is this, which is contained in the commandments, which therefore begins: “Honor your father and your mother.” The third, however, has to do with new moons and the sabbath, and with distinguishing and choosing foods, and with circumcision and the offering of animal victims. This Law, therefore, he says is to be observed only until John, and no longer. For therefore it was given, that when the appointed time was fulfilled it should cease; nor was it from the beginning, but was given for a reason, for a time, so that with the coming of the Savior the Law should cease. Therefore, what is of God remains, both the Law of the commandments and his nature, which without doubt cannot be abolished by him. For through him one progresses to the promised reward. For fear produces watchfulness.

(Matthew 11:25-26)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 100. ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. — You have heard, dearest brothers, what the Gospel proclaims when the Lord says: I confess to you, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and sensible, and have revealed them to little ones. Yes, Father, for so it was pleasing in your sight (Matt. 11:25–26). Therefore, if we look into the meaning of these words, we shall see that they were spoken by the Lord for the encouragement of believers, of those who, because they despise worldly wisdom, appear as little ones to the wise of this world, who, though praised by no testimony, still wish to be called wise. So it seemed unworthy to God to show the truth to such as these; but to the humble, who presume nothing of themselves and bend themselves to the divine will, equity requires that saving things be revealed. For this is the one who is wise before God and mindful of his own salvation: the one who sets the law of God above his own learning, seeing that it is supported not by the clatter of words, but by the power of deeds. And without doubt, he is foolish and vain who commits himself to a thing that is backed by no privilege of signs. Therefore God did not promise the kingdom to the learned of this world, but to the faithful; nor does he offer eternity to the examiners of the stars, but to those who act rightly; nor does he give glory to scholars, who try by trickery and tiny arguments to exclude the truth, but to men of good will, who are more exact in life than in speech. For God rejects those who wish to rely more on the brilliance of eloquent speech than on good deeds. Indeed, he also tries to turn the glory of God onto himself who thinks he is adorning God’s cause with words. The realities themselves ought to please by their own nature, so that not speech, but meaning is praised. For if meaning is the author of writing, and words were invented to signify things, why should not the things themselves be set forth with pure sense, so as to stir the mind more effectively toward salvation? And so our Lord chose fishermen as Apostles, simple and uneducated men, who, by keeping the faith without any deceit and by living well, might show forth God’s truth in themselves. Therefore also the Apostle Paul says: And I, coming to you, brothers, did not come with loftiness of speech or of wisdom (1 Cor. 2:1). And among other things: For, he says, the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power (1 Cor. 4:20); so that, because words are liable to contradiction, power might stand as witness to the law of God, before which every loftiness of speech yields. These things, therefore, have been set forth first, dearest brothers, for the benefit of simpler folk, lest they should perhaps think themselves unworthy of the grace of God because they are by no means trained in secular learning, whereas their simplicity advances them more toward praise; since what the worldly wise, blinded by the pride of letters, do not see, these believe, being wise not in words but in judgment. For they know that God rests in good works, and seeks faith, not polished speech. For they read that the Lord says: On whom shall I rest, if not on the humble and meek and one who trembles at my words? (Isa. 66:2). Therefore, that we may be made worthy of the promised rewards, we must do the things that are commanded by the Lord, confident that the Lord loves those who keep his words. For so he says to his disciples: If you love me, keep my commandments (Jn. 14:15); so that by serving the Lord in these things we may be able to be heirs of his kingdom through Jesus Christ our Lord.

(Matthew 15:22–28, Luke 7;17)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 17. WHY IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR AT FIRST REFUSED MERCY TO THE FOREIGN WOMAN, THAT IS, THE CANAANITE (Matt. 15:22–28), WHEN HE DID NOT DENY THE GRACE OF GRANTING SALVATION TO THE FOREIGN CENTURION AND TO THE LEPER WHOM JESUS HIMSELF CALLED A FOREIGNER (Luke 7:2–10 and 17:12–19)? — The very reason itself shows that the Savior’s action was fitting. For it would have been absurd, and would have resulted in an insult to the promise made to the Fathers, if a woman who had not confessed the God of the Jews had received the benefit promised to the nation that confessed God. Therefore at the beginning it was denied to her. But when, with neck bent, she did not deny faith in the words of the Savior, but confessed that the believing Jews are children and the Gentiles are dogs or servants, by which she joined herself to the Lord’s faith; for servants point to a master, and a master does not exist without servants, a unity was formed between the subject and the one who subjects. Therefore it is that she deserved to obtain what she had prayed for. But the centurion, who received a favor from the Savior without delay, had already involved himself in the things of God. For the leading men of the Jews say to the Lord: “He is worthy that you should grant this to him; for he loves our nation, and he himself has built us a synagogue.” (Luke 7:4-5) As for the foreign leper, the Lord called him foreign not in respect of faith but of nation. For he was a Samaritan, who are known by origin to be from the Babylonians. Yet he too did not obtain the benefit without a confession. For it had been said by the Lord to the disciples: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into the cities of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5–6); that is, that the Gospel should not be preached first to the Samaritans and the Gentiles, but to the Jews, to whom this promise had been made. But when the Jews began to reject faith in Christ, then the Savior also presented Himself to the Samaritan woman, and after the cross to the centurion Cornelius; and when sought by the Canaanite woman, He received her, because the time had not yet come for salvation to be offered to them.  

(Matthew 17:26)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 75. WHY DID THE SAVIOR PAY THE DIDRACHMA ONLY FOR HIMSELF AND PETER, AND NOT ALSO FOR THE OTHER APOSTLES (Matt. 17:26)? SINCE THEY HAD ALL FOLLOWED HIM AFTER LEAVING ALL THEIR POSSESSIONS, HE SEEMS TO HAVE OWED PAYMENT FOR ALL.  — The didrachma is understood as a head tax, not a tax on estates [what is now called “ragged gold,” because even the poor are taxed]; for indeed the Savior possessed nothing in the world, though he is Lord of the world. He was buried at the expense of others when he died; yet we, for whom the world is foreign, desire to increase our possessions, so that when we die we may protest that the world has trespassed upon us, not only by our voice but also in writing, so that by our own profession we may be condemned by him whose the world is. Therefore the Lord says, “Whoever does not leave all things and follow me, cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). [Whoever therefore holds his possessions in such a way that he does not place his hope in them, but is ready to cast them aside for the faith, is walking the path that leads to Christ our Lord.] Therefore the didrachma was to be exacted from those who conducted some business or practiced trades. But since the Savior cared for none of these things, nor did his disciples, he was in fact not accountable to be taxed. Yet because the enemy, the Devil, was always lying in wait, seeking an opportunity to overthrow the Savior if he could, he took hold of the minds of the tax collectors of the didrachma, to make them do his will, so that they came to Peter, who was the first among the Apostles, and said that the didrachma ought to be paid by their master, who was free from such burdens. For they did nothing in the world that belonged to the world; so that, since he had nothing from which to pay, he might either become a stumbling block to them, or in humility seek support from someone to pay it. Then the Lord, to show that the shortsighted Devil always plots against himself, commands the Apostle Peter to go to the sea, open the mouth of the fish he would catch, and there find the coin owed for the tax. By paying it, he would not only avoid giving offense to the collectors, nor be forced by the need of help to pay it, but would also display a sign of the greatest power, by which he might draw to himself those captured by the Devil, so that the Devil would be tormented by his own scheme and by this proof. Therefore the collectors of the didrachma say to the Apostle Peter, “Your Master does not pay the didrachma,” etc. By saying this, they approached the Master as though he should pay for all the disciples. But when the Savior orders it to be given for himself and Peter, he appears to have paid for all: for just as all were contained in the Savior because of his office as Master, so after the Savior all are contained in Peter. He appointed him to be their head, that he might be the shepherd of the Lord’s flock. For among other things he says to the disciples, “Watch and pray, that you may not enter into temptation” (Matt. 26:41). And to Peter he says, “Behold, Satan has asked to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31–32). What doubt can there be? Was he praying for Peter and not for James and John, to say nothing of the rest? It is clear that all are contained in Peter: by praying for Peter, he is recognized to have prayed for all. For it is always in the leader that the people are either rebuked or praised. For in another place he says: “I pray for those whom you have given me, Father; and I will that where I am, they also may be with me” (Jn. 17:9, 24).

(Matthew 24:20)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 19. THEREFORE THE SAVIOR SAYS, PRAY THAT YOUR FLIGHT BE NOT IN WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH (Matt. 24:20); EVEN THOUGH THE TIME OF THIS PERSECUTION CANNOT BE POSTPONED, SINCE THE APOSTLE SAYS, HE WILL BE REVEALED IN HIS OWN TIME (2 Thess. 2:6, 8); AND IN THE ACTS THE APOSTLE SAYS, APPOINTING THE TIMES AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THEIR DWELLING (Acts 17:26). AND WHY DOES HE INDICATE THAT FLIGHT IS NOT ADVISABLE IN WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH? — In winter flight is not safe: for there is cold, continual rains, snow, frost, the rivers overflow; and so it is very hard for those who flee. For they cannot hide in the woods, nor in the mountains, nor in caves. But on the Sabbath, according to the Jews, it is not permitted to go far from the city, nor to climb high, and therefore one cannot flee on the Sabbath. Just as these seasons do not allow a safe flight, because of the obstacles mentioned above, so our flight will not be safe if that foretold persecution finds us bound by carnal obstacles. For worldly desires, that is, worldly possessions, hold men like shackles, so that they cannot escape the decrees of the Devil. Therefore it must be prayed that, at the time when we must flee, there may not be in us the condition of winter and Sabbath, but that the help of God may grant us to be free from these obstacles, so that there may be nothing to enslave us to the world, captured by desire for it. Since, then, the Savior was speaking of the final persecution, which is to come from the Antichrist, he therefore mentioned winter, because it is the last time; and the Sabbath likewise, because it is the last day, so that, just as in those times flight is harsh and difficult, he might signify that at that time persecutions and afflictions will be so grievous that scarcely anyone will be able to escape them.

(Matthew 26:32; Mark 14:28)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 20. WHEN THE SAVIOR SAID THAT HE WAS GOING TO SUFFER AND THAT HE WOULD RISE AGAIN ON THE THIRD DAY, HE ADDED, “AND AFTER I HAVE RISEN, I WILL GO BEFORE YOU INTO GALILEE, THERE YOU WILL SEE ME”; AND LIKEWISE THE ANGEL SAID TO THE WOMEN (Matt. 26:32 and 28:7). — Yet he is found by the women and by his disciples in Jerusalem. To call the Savior’s words into question is unbelief; but I see that you are not doubting the Savior’s words, but seeking the meaning: why, since he was seen in Jerusalem after his Passion, did he say that he would be seen by them in Galilee. He was seen in Jerusalem, but only in part, to energize the spirits of the disciples; in Galilee, however, by all at once. Therefore, for those who were going to see him in Jerusalem in separate groups, he appointed Galilee so that he might appear to them all together, and there give commands for the ordering of their discipline.

(Matthew 27:3-10)

QUESTION 94. IT MUST BE ASKED WHETHER JUDAS ISCARIOT, THE TRAITOR OF THE LORD, ENDED HIS LIFE BY HANGING BEFORE THE PASSION OF THE SAVIOR. — After the Savior was betrayed, and as the preparation day was dawning, all the chief priests and scribes and elders gathered in the house of the high priest Caiaphas, to which they knew Jesus was to be brought, so that they might hear Him. This is confirmed by the evangelists Matthew and Mark, and from them it is clear that none of these men left the house of the governor before their wicked work was completed, since all their urgency and devotion in celebrating the Passover was that the death of the Savior should take place. Since they were therefore occupied with putting the Lord to death from morning until the ninth hour, how can Judas be shown to have returned to them the price of blood which he had received, before the Lord’s crucifixion, and to have said to them in the temple, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood” (Matt. 27:1–5), when it is certain that all the chief priests and elders were not in the temple before the Lord’s Passion? For even when He was on the cross they were still insulting Him (ibid. 41). Nor can it be proved from this that it was reported before the Passion, since there are many things which, though known to have happened earlier, are placed later in order; and again, when the context allows, something that took place afterwards may be set before what came earlier. For it is evident that the fiftieth psalm is earlier than the third. Therefore it sometimes happens that later events are anticipated. Therefore also Mary, although she is shown to have anointed the Lord’s feet with ointment at supper after the resurrection of her brother Lazarus, six days before the Passover, is mentioned beforehand by the evangelist because of the meaning of that act, who, among other things, says: “It was Mary,” he says, “who anointed the Lord with ointment” (Jn. 11:2). He reports this before Lazarus had died; and if we did not find that it happened later, we would not know at what time it took place. But perhaps it occurred after the ninth hour, so that when the wicked and most cruel Judas saw the Savior slain, and on account of this the veil of the temple torn, the earth shaken, the rocks split, the elements terrified, being seized with fear he was grieved, not unaware that he had betrayed the Just One, in whose Passion God the Judge had therefore shown His anger. Yet even after the ninth hour, as I think, the elders and chief priests were occupied; for that same evening they were going to celebrate the Passover, and on the Sabbath it was not permitted by the Law to carry money. Consequently, it seems unlikely to me on which day, indeed at what time, Judas Iscariot ended his life by hanging.

(Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:42)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 55. WHAT WAS THE REASON THAT THE LORD ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BE CRUCIFIED AT THAT TIME, WHEN THE JEWS WERE ABOUT TO CELEBRATE PASSOVER ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF APRIL?  — The Savior accomplished all things in their proper places and times. For, in order to show that he had rightly created all things according to the will of the Father, he chose to redeem and restore the world by his passion at the same time when he had created it; that is, at the equinox, from which the world began and the day starts to grow longer than the night. Therefore, since he acted under the Roman rule, he had to suffer on the eighth day before the Kalends of April, when the Romans have their equinox. For at that time this part of the world was first illuminated, and from then on the day began to increase. And so by the Savior’s passion the world was then led from darkness into light. Therefore no rebuke can be seen to fall upon the Creator, since he restored the fallen creature at the same time as he had made it. Nor can the beginning of the creation of a fallen thing be blamed, when its restoration returns to that point. For he willed that the joy of renewal should be on the same day on which there had been dedication.

MARK

(Mark 1:2; Malachi 3:1)  

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 57. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, THAT ALTHOUGH IT IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHET MALACHI, “BEHOLD, I SEND MY ANGEL BEFORE YOUR FACE, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU,” THE EVANGELIST MARK CLAIMS THAT THIS IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHET ISAIAH (Mal. 3:1; Mark 1:2)? — Mark could not have been unaware of what he was writing; for he was not lacking in learning, since from childhood he had been immersed in the divine Scriptures and trained in the Law, especially as he had followed the Apostles. Knowing that all sayings must be referred back to their original author, he attributed these words to Isaiah, who had first conveyed this meaning when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God” (Isa. 40:3). Accordingly, after the words from Malachi, the Evangelist immediately added, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness,” so that he might unite the words of both prophets, which relate to one and the same sense, under the name of the earlier prophet.

(Mark 3:17)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 24. WHY DID THE SAVIOR CALL HIS DISCIPLES “SONS OF THUNDER” (Mark 3:17), WHO WOULD SEEM FAR MORE TO BE CALLED SONS OF GOD? FOR THUNDER IS SAID TO BE PRODUCED BY THE COLLISION OF CLOUDS. —Since thunder inspires fear, for this reason He called the disciples sons of thunder, as if they were sons of Him who is to be feared. For although thunder is caused by the collision of clouds, yet it happens by the will of God and is terrifying.

LUKE

(Luke 1:27)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 86. WHAT PROVES THAT MARY, THE MOTHER OF THE LORD, IS OF THE TRIBE AND LINEAGE OF DAVID? — We will bring forward the testimony of a trustworthy witness. For the Angel says to Mary among other things: “And the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will reign in the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:32–33). How could David be called by a trustworthy witness his father, if his mother Mary were not of the seed of David?

(Luke 1:33)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 26. IN THE GOSPEL WE READ THAT THE ANGEL SAYS TO MARY, THE LORD’S MOTHER, THAT HIS KINGDOM, THAT IS, CHRIST’S, WILL HAVE NO END (Luke 1:33). AND DANIEL SAYS THE SAME; FOR HE SAYS: THEN THERE SHALL ARISE AN EVERLASTING KINGDOM WHICH SHALL NEVER BE DESTROYED (Dan. 7:14). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APOSTLE SAYS OF THE LORD: WHEN HE SHALL HAVE DELIVERED UP THE KINGDOM TO GOD AND THE FATHER (1 Cor. 15:24). HOW WILL HE HAVE AN ETERNAL KINGDOM, IF HE IS SAID TO BE GOING TO DELIVER THAT KINGDOM UP TO GOD AND THE FATHER? — In the case of the Father and the Son, that is, of God and Christ, “delivering up” is to be understood not as abolition. Consider how the Father delivered the kingdom to the Son, with the Lord Himself declaring this: All things, He says, have been delivered to Me by My Father (Matt. 11:27). If, therefore, the Father ceased to have it when He delivered it, then it could also be said of the Savior that when He delivers it, He loses it. For after the Son said that the kingdom had been delivered to Him by the Father, still preferring the Father, He said: Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent (Jn. 17:3). According to this understanding, then, the Son does not lose the kingdom when He delivers it, so that what is said by the angel and by Daniel may remain true and both be said not to differ from this sense. Whoever thinks that the testimony of either of these should be withdrawn is full of unbelief. But now, remaining in this faith, let us see what it means that the Son delivers the kingdom to the Father; for this is what, among other things, the Apostle says elsewhere: Then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). This subjection, therefore, is the very delivering up of the kingdom. Therefore in this passage an interpretation seems necessary, so that the Son being subject to the Father is not denied, and nonetheless He is said to have an eternal kingdom. This is the kingdom of the Son, because at the name of Jesus every knee bends, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Phil. 2:10). Peter the Apostle also confirms this, saying: There is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). And the Lord Himself says to the disciples: Until now you have asked nothing in My name; ask, and I will do it (Jn. 16:24). Therefore the Son reigns, since all are saved in His name, and the things that are asked are given, until the end of the world. But after all things will have confessed Christ, whether by force or by will, and have been subjected to His power to which they had resisted, the mystery of the one God will be revealed to all, and every act of thanksgiving will be referred to the Father, from whom are all things; so that, when preaching ceases, one God may be known in the mystery of the Trinity. For when all powers, all principalities and dominions will have bent the knee to Christ, then the Son will show that He is not the One from whom are all things, but His Son, and that He is seen in Him. This is the subjection and the delivering up of the kingdom. For by showing that the Father is the One from whom are all things, He subjected Himself to Him when He says that He is from Him. So great is the majesty and glory that will be seen in the coming of the Son, that all powers and choirs of angels will think that this is the unique God. But when the Savior will have said that He is not the One who is called the Father, but His Son, reigning He delivers the kingdom to the Father. In this fact both the subjection and the delivering up of the kingdom are revealed; because when He acknowledges that He is from the Father, He confesses that whatever He has belongs to the Father, referring the whole sum to Him.

(Luke 2:34)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 73. WHAT IS IT THAT SIMEON SAYS TO MARY, THE MOTHER OF THE LORD, AMONG OTHER THINGS: “THIS CHILD IS SET FOR THE FALL AND THE RISING OF MANY IN ISRAEL; AND A SWORD, HE SAYS, SHALL PIERCE THROUGH YOUR OWN SOUL ALSO, THAT THE THOUGHTS OF MANY HEARTS MAY BE REVEALED” (Luke 2:34–35)? — Simeon, a holy man, commended by divine oracles, spoke through the Holy Spirit about what would happen to people because of Christ, namely, that He would be a cause of ruin to those who, while they seemed to themselves to stand through their observance and skill in the Law, would nevertheless fall through distrust of Christ’s works, being severed from the promise given to the Fathers; but for those who possessed almost no dignity in the Law, yet believed in Christ, He would be a resurrection in Israel. [So that those who were formerly unworthy and useless might become worthy of God, and those who thought themselves to be something might be rejected.] This is what the Lord says in another place: “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind” (Jn. 9:39). Indeed, it was not the doctors of the Law, nor the Pharisees, nor the scribes who followed Christ, but fishermen, uneducated and country men. Therefore the Lord says: “Father, I thank you because you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to little ones” (Matt. 11:25). But when he adds, saying, “And a sword shall pierce through your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed,” he certainly meant that even Mary, through whom the mystery of the Incarnation of the Savior was accomplished, would waver at the death of the Lord; yet in such a way that she would be strengthened by the honor of the resurrection and by the power of the Lord. For all, in a certain stupor, doubted at the death of the Lord. Yet they did not remain in doubt. For the sword therefore passes through the soul, if doubt does not remain in the mind, but is driven out when the former strength returns and renews itself. [For who would not hesitate when he saw Him who called Himself the Son of God so humbled that He descended even to death? And because, as I have said, all uncertainty was to depart at the resurrection of the Lord, he said that the sword would pass through, not that it would fall upon, or touch some passing limb. Just as a sword that is hurled and passes close by a man causes fear and yet does not strike him, so doubt would cause grief, yet would not kill: because it did not settle in the soul, but passed through, as if touching the hearts of the disciples only as a shadow. Indeed, Cleopas and the other disciple, as they went to Emmaus, sad along the road, said among other things to the Lord Himself, not knowing that He was the Lord, “We were hoping that it was He who would redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21). They doubted, but, as soon as they recognized the Lord, the doubt passed away.] So it is also said of Joseph, that “iron passed through his soul” (Ps. 105:18). For he, though innocent, was long held in prison; it is no wonder if he doubted somewhat regarding God’s judgment about him; but because he hoped more in God, he did not remain in uncertainty. For a person is judged in that point to which he is most inclined. The Apocalypse of John confirms this. For it says: “The fearful and unbelieving shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and sulphur” (Rev. 21:8). Therefore, the one who does not remain in doubt is snatched from death: this is to escape death; for to doubt about God or about Christ is death. And therefore, the one who ceases to doubt escapes death.

(Luke 14:33)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 27. THE SAVIOR SAYS, IF ANYONE HAS NOT LEFT ALL THAT HE HAS, THAT IS, HOUSE, AND FIELD, AND THE REST, HE CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE; AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE EVANGELIST SAYS: JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA CAME, A RICH MAN, WHO WAS ALSO HIMSELF A DISCIPLE OF JESUS, WAITING FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD (Luke 14:33 and 23:50–51). HOW IS IT THAT THE EVANGELIST ACKNOWLEDGES HIM AS A DISCIPLE WHOM THE SAVIOR DENIED? FOR ZACCHAEUS WAS RICH, AND CORNELIUS THE CENTURION WAS RICH, AND THE WOMEN WHO MINISTERED TO THEM OUT OF THEIR MEANS WERE RICH. — The Apostle resolves this point briefly, saying: Those who have, let them be as though they had not; and those who use this world, as though they did not use it; and those who buy, as though they did not possess (1 Cor. 7:30–31). Whoever therefore has these things in such a way as if he did not have them, seems to have renounced them. For when he does not rely on them, nor boast himself because of them, but walks humbly, not only in appearance but also in mind, understanding himself to be a steward and minister of these things, he seems to have left all that is his. For that is said to be left which departs from desire and has no appeal.

(Luke 16:16)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 29. IF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN, FROM WHOM THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN BEGAN TO BE PREACHED (Luke 16:16), FOR HE IS INDEED THE INITIATOR OF THE NEW PREACHING, WHY DID HIS BAPTISM CEASE? — The baptism of John, once begun, did not cease; rather, what was lacking in it was added. For John only baptized; he did not give the Holy Spirit to believers, just as he himself says about the Savior: “I baptize you in water unto repentance, but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 3:11). This is what he means: Through me there is forgiveness of sins, yet the Holy Spirit is not given, so that those purified might be called sons; for this was reserved to the Savior, as Lord, so that people might not become sons of God except by receiving the Holy Spirit from the Son of God. Therefore, the effect of John’s baptism, which worked silently without questioning, yet not without mention of the Savior, so that what it accomplished might be firm, is a gift of the Trinity. This is what the Savior's goodness teaches us this by giving the form of three names, which in the beginning, under the name or person of the one God, worked one single and undivided work. Therefore, an interpretation was added to John’s baptism, giving expression to the mystery that had long been hidden; and there was added a greater gift, so that those baptized, having received the Holy Spirit, might be sons of God. It was therefore enlarged, not abolished.

(Luke 21:25; 23:45)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 105. HOW THE PROPHECY AGREES WITH THE GOSPEL, CONCERNING THE DARKENING OF THE SUN AND CERTAIN OTHER THINGS. — Since at the Lord’s first coming it was foretold that the sun would be darkened at his passion, at the very hour when it is proved to have happened, that is, at midday, for therefore it is written in the prophet Amos: “And it shall come to pass in that day, says the Lord, I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day” (Amos 8:9). On that day, therefore, from the sixth hour the sun was darkened until the ninth hour, and therefore the prophecy of the aforementioned prophet was fulfilled. The image of this event, which is to occur at the Lord’s second coming, was shown in the Lord’s passion; for at the end, when the Lord begins to come to judge the world, the heavenly lights will be released from their service, as the Lord says: “In those days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light” (Matt. 24:29). Joel the prophet has not omitted this either, so that, being signified by many, it may without doubt be believed to be fulfilled. For therefore he said: “The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and revealing day of the Lord comes” (Joel 2:31). As far as appears, this more fittingly belongs to the second coming; for then it will be openly revealed to all, as Scripture says: “Then every eye shall see him, and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him, and those who crucified him” (Rev. 1:7). Therefore, if in both comings it is contained that the sun shall be darkened in those days, what is that day on which Scripture rings that the sun and moon shall be increased? For among other things Isaiah says: “And there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every high hill, streams running with water in that day, when many shall perish and when the towers shall fall. And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, in the day when the Lord shall heal the brokenness of his people” (Isa. 30:25–26), and so forth. What day can be understood, on which the Lord promised to heal the brokenness of his people? I think this is the day which Zacharias, the father of John, pointed out when he said: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and performed the redemption of his people. And he has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David his servant, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets, who have been since the world began, that he would deliver us from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us, to perform mercy with our fathers” (Luke 1:68–72). And Simeon, among other things, said: “This child is set for the fall and for the rise of many in Israel” (Luke 2:34). This fall is that of the scribes and Pharisees and the rulers of the Jews, whom the prophet signified by the towers. These, therefore, falling through unbelief, others rose up by believing, who had previously seemed weak and sick through negligence. Where the Savior says: “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind” (Jn. 9:39); so that those who by the practice and knowledge of the Law seem to be lights may be blinded through unbelief, but the blind, that is, the unlearned or publicans, may see by believing. Their weaknesses the prophet foretold that the Savior would bear (Isa. 53:11). And so at this time of the Savior it came to pass, as we read in the Gospel, that “he took our infirmities and bore our diseases” (Matt. 8:17). All these things indeed were completed and fulfilled in the Savior’s passion: for therefore the salvation of the human race, both in heaven above and in the lower regions, was both redeemed and confirmed, since the prophecy of the aforementioned Zacharias encompasses both. For here above they were freed from the crushing of enemies by the intervention of mercy; and there below, in the underworld, when they were snatched from Tartarus. For all who hoped in the promised Christ were awaiting his coming, that, death having been conquered, they might be freed from Hades. Therefore he said: “To perform mercy with our fathers.” If anyone, however, understands this salvation also to be contained in the second coming, yet in both comings, especially in the second, the sun will be turned into darkness and the moon will not give her brightness: how then shall we perceive the sun and moon to be increased on the day when the Lord will visit his people, when in both times, in which the liberation of the people was begun and completed, we read that the sun and moon are not diminished but darkened? Unless, clearly, we understand the sun and moon to be compared to the saints; just as in another place we read that the saints are made equal to the heavenly lights, with the Apostle Paul preaching that among these men the saints in this world appear as luminaries. And in the Gospel: “Then the righteous shall shine like the sun” (Matt. 13:43). For the Lord calls righteous works “light”: therefore he says, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). Those, therefore, who, having left all that is theirs, follow the Lord for the sake of righteousness and holiness, are compared to the sun and moon as being honored sevenfold; as the Lord says: “There is no one who leaves house, or wife, or children, or fields, who will not receive seven times as much in this age” (see Luke 18:29–30). Those, then, who are now honored sevenfold can be understood to be believed in the future to become seven degrees brighter than the rest; so that their resurrection is compared to the sun and moon, while that of the others is like the stars. Therefore the brightness of the saints, which is honored sevenfold here, obtains another sevenfold in the resurrection, so that one who here has the brightness of the moon will receive the brightness of the sun in the future; and one who here is compared to the sun will be believed then to receive seven times as much. Therefore the prophet Isaiah foretold that by comparison with the sun and moon the merits of the saints would be increased, and not without reason. For if the Lord himself is called the Sun of righteousness, and the saints will be like him, as the Apostle John says: “When he appears, we shall be like him” (1 Jn. 3:2), then fittingly the saints are signified in the sun, yet the aforementioned prophet shows the sun to be greater than the moon by seven degrees For when it shows that the moon, like the light of the sun, will exist in the future, but the sun will be seven times as great; it certainly means, in the manner of speaking, that the moon will be increased sevenfold more than the sun, so that the moon will then be such as the sun is now: although the reasoning here concerns the saints, under this explanation of the luminaries it has nevertheless partly revealed their measure, so that after the increase of the sun and the moon, a saint will again be as much greater as the sun once was; and as much as one saint now differs from another saint, so much will one differ from another in the future after the reward.

(Luke 22)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 84. WHY DO WE, WHO ARE KEEPING THE PASSOVER FEAST (EASTER) BY THE PHASE OF THE MOON, REPROACH THE PAGANS FOR OBSERVING THE DAYS AND THE DIFFERENT PHASES OF THE MOON? — Far be it from Christians to be said to worship the stars, when they have been granted a spiritual cultivation, so that, despising what is seen, they may be united to what is invisible and above the heavens, and surpass all these things, destined to be with the Angels of God. For the worshipers of the stars will either be with them, or below them. How can it happen that someone should be above the things he worships? The pagans therefore do not observe the calculation of the moon, but worship the moon itself as a goddess. And having persuaded themselves that they have grasped the effects of its courses, they determine what must be done or avoided on particular days, subjecting their life and conduct in an ordered way to its supposed authority. Because they have dared to take these things outside God’s ordinance, we frequently discover that they are deceived. For God appointed these luminaries as signs for the seasons. Therefore we too keep the count of the moon, but we do not cultivate the moon itself; so that from the fourteenth moon, which according to the Law is for us the first, we may observe the rule of Easter. For God established all things in fullness: and therefore from the fourteenth up to the twenty-first, in these seven days it has been granted to us to celebrate Easter, so that some of these seven days may be enclosed between the preparation (Parasceve) and the resurrection of the Lord: so that neither the thirteenth day be in the Passion, nor the fourteenth or fifteenth in the Resurrection, lest the Passion of Christ be before the first moon as we count it, nor His Resurrection be on a day other than the first day on which the world was begun. For all the seasons of the world are numbered by the cycles of a single week, because in these days God composed the parts and ornaments of the world. In six days He fitted the world, and on the seventh He ceased, which He called the sabbath. In these seven days the order and number of the entire world are contained. For they ever return into themselves, increasing the number of the seasons. After the sabbath, therefore, it always repeats from the first day up to the seventh day, that is, the sabbath; so that we may learn that the Lord’s resurrection took place on the first day of the world’s beginning, which is called the Lord’s Day. For the Lord made that day one with the evening, and being unfolded into the sevenfold number, it begins again, so as to be the first after the week. This was so decreed from the beginning because of the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection. For in the body of the Lord almost the whole world rose again and was renewed. It is settled that we do not worship the moon, but keep the number that has been established by the moon’s course. But the Devil, who is Satan, in order that he may attach some authority to his deceit and color his fabricated lies with truth, in the first month in which he knows the Lord’s mysteries are to be celebrated, since he is not of small power, instituted mysteries for the pagans to observe, so that he might hold their souls in error for two reasons: since deceit has anticipated truth, it might seem that deceit is something better, as if by its antiquity influencing the truth. And because in the first month, in which the Romans have the equinox, as we do, that same observance is kept by them, so that they even say that expiation is made by blood, just as we by the cross: by this trickery he keeps the pagans in error, so that they think our truth to appear rather an imitation than truth, as though invented through a certain superstition in rivalry. “For,” they say, “what has been discovered later cannot be judged true.” But since among us truth is for certain, and this is from the beginning, signs of powers and wonders bear witness, so that, with power as a witness, the wickedness of the Devil may be made known. For since truth alone easily persuades, it has been set against the cunning and pre-emption of the Devil, to reveal his deception. For no one, not even among enemies, would dare deny that there is truth where power appears.

(Luke 22:50)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 104. ON THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. — Knowing that a Jewish war against Him was to come, the Lord told His disciples to get swords for themselves. (Luke 22:36) When this had been done and the war had begun under the leadership of Judas Iscariot, Peter the apostle, seeing the enemies rising up, drew his sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the priests. Then the Lord ordered Peter to put his sword back into its sheath: “For everyone,” He said, “who takes the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:51–52). Why did He order swords to be prepared, when He forbade striking, even declaring liable to death the one who strikes with the sword, since the apostle does not seem to have struck unjustly? For as far as Peter is concerned, he struck the one whom he saw armed against him. He ought indeed to have resisted the thankless servants armed for killing the Lord. If you examine each part of the case whose force we wish to explain, you will also find other points you may seek beyond these words. For what need was there that He, who relied on spiritual power, should order carnal swords to be prepared, and He who had previously commanded that on the way they should carry neither bag, nor money, nor staff (Matt. 10:10), should now order that those things be possessed which He had previously forbidden? Let us therefore begin to explain why He ordered swords to be prepared and yet forbade killing. For the sake not only of the enemies, but also of His own disciples, He commanded that arms be acquired for the coming war. For a new and marvelous thing was about to happen, that He who worked new and unheard‑of signs should so suddenly be humbled as to be subjected both to scourging and to death. Lest He should appear to suffer these things as one unaware, as if power had somehow departed from Him, He foretold all this in such a way that He would not be doubted in these matters but, foreknowing them, would prepare Himself against them; and because He was humbled willingly, He would not command a fierce resistance to His enemies. He showed Himself to be the same as He had been to such a degree that, already arrested, He restored the ear that had been cut off, so that what had fallen by the operation of the sword He gave back: not as a bodily physician, but as the Maker of bodies He refashioned His work when it had been mutilated. For physicians cannot restore limbs once cut off from the body. But in order that the power of God in Him might appear not diminished, but present as it had been, and to confirm what He had said: “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again” (Jn. 10:18), for this reason He ordered swords to be prepared, yet did not order killing. Now it remains to show why, contemplating Peter the apostle’s act, He said that the one who has used the sword will perish by the sword, though Peter does not seem to have struck unjustly. For as is indicated in Luke, he struck with the Lord Himself permitting it, and then, being forbidden, heard these words (Luke 22:49–50). It was permitted, indeed, so that He might appear able to avenge Himself but unwilling to do so; and so that His power might be shown to remain in Him as it had been, so that in both respects it would not be doubted that He could avenge Himself; while the enemies, on the other hand, would know for certain that power had been given to them by Him to do this. For He did not appear as one defeated, but as one giving Himself over to their will. Why then was the sentence given that whoever takes the sword will perish by the sword, unless because no one is permitted, except the judge, to kill anyone with the sword? But to the apostle Peter it was permitted only to the extent that he might inflict pain, not that he might kill. For this reason he was told not to strike again. He also learned that once people have become Christians, they are no longer allowed to kill. For those who are placed in mercy, it is not permitted to use harshly the law of justice, which has been entrusted to the world. But that instruction which He seems to have given to the disciples going before Him on the road, that they should take nothing for the journey, is for the sake of peace, and the grace of miracles, and the charm of teaching. For what need was there to carry anything on the road for those to whom, for the sake of signs, all things were to be offered? But when the time came in which He allowed Himself to suffer, for which rather a quarrel than a war was awaiting, He commanded His disciples to be armed: not that He who wished to suffer might resist, but, as I said, that He might show Himself foreknowing this matter and having His passion in His own power; yet humbling Himself for the sake of human salvation, which will be discussed in its proper place.

JOHN

(John 1:1-3)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 122. ON THE BEGINNING. — In the beginning was the Word (Jn. 1:1). What is “in the beginning”? For we also read in the ancient Books: In the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1). And in the Epistle of him whose Gospel it is, and about whose “beginning” we are trying to say something, it is signified in the same sense; for he says: That which was from the beginning. (1 Jn. 1:1) The Epistle therefore and the Gospel have one and the same meaning. For it is one thing that is said in the old text, In the beginning God made heaven and earth; and another when he says, In the beginning was the Word; and, That which was from the beginning (1 Jn. 1:1). For to be in the beginning, and to be from the beginning, mean one and the same thing, in the case of that which from the beginning was what it was, and did not begin to be. For that which begins to be, was not from the beginning; and therefore it is subjected to a beginning, that is, to be the first among other things in order, because, being itself made at the beginning, it began to have others after itself, which were made after it. As we read that in the beginning God made heaven and earth: he did not say, In the beginning were heaven and earth; because when they did not yet exist, and God was disposing Himself to make the world, in the beginning, that is, among the other things which were to contribute to the construction of the world, God first made heaven and earth; because beginning is the starting point of one who undertakes something that is first in order. But that which is said, that in the beginning it was, that is, the Word, is meant to have existed before the beginning of the higher and lower creation; so that it should by no means be understood as having been made first among these things which have been created, as if it were made earlier, when God was disposing Himself to make creation. Therefore, if in the beginning it was, that is, it was before all things, it always was. And so too it was the Word. Where? With God, he says, lest it should be thought unworthy and in any way subject to a beginning, it which always was with God. For it is fitting that what was before all things with God should not be subjected to any beginning. Therefore he added: And the Word was God. Now he shows plainly that what was said above applies to the Word; for he says, The Word was God: and concerning God one must not think otherwise than that He should always be said to have been. For if He began to be, He is a creature; if He is a creature, He is not God. For whatever exists is either God or a creature; and therefore the name of God does not belong to a creature. But because He did not begin to be (He was, in fact), He is rightly said to be God. But He is said to have always been with God because He is God not from Himself, but from God. On this account His name is said to be the Word of God, as the faith of the same evangelist shows in his Revelation. For he says among other things: And His name is the Word of God (Rev. 19:13). For in order that He might not be signified as the One from whom are all things, but as the One through whom are all things, that is, not as the Father but as the Son, He is called the Word of God: so that, because God cannot be without His Word, this One who is called the Word of God may be believed to have always been with God; and because the Word is not outside Him whose Word it is, this Word which was with God may be understood as signified to be not from elsewhere, but from God; and because He is from God, He is not absurdly called God. Therefore he does not make two gods by saying that God was with God. For if there were two, they would be different in nature and not of one will. For if we men, though we are of one nature, are nevertheless of different wills, how much more, where the natures are different? and neither would God be said to be with God. For the God who was and is with God does not have from Himself that He is God; otherwise, neither would He be said to be God with God, nor would the Word of God be called God the Word; but because that which is from God does not signify any other kind of being than that which God Himself is, the Word of God is called God, so that, because He is said to be the Word of God, He should not be referred to another God. And the fact that He is called God happens for this reason, lest it should tend to the injury of God, if that which was from God were not at all called God. Therefore both the unity of God has been preserved, and the fitting honor has been rendered, since He who is God from God has not been received in His own glory, but in that of Him from whom He is God. For this reason the Gospel begins to speak of the Word before it speaks of God the Father; because questions arise not concerning God, but concerning the Word of God. No one doubts about God, but about Him who is God from God. For every tongue of those in heaven and on earth confesses one God; but it is disturbed in the mystery of the one God. It trembles when it hears the Word of God called God; for it is struck by bodily representations, because the word of a man cannot be called a man; whereas God is by nature simple, not composed of members, nor having an inside and an outside, nor a before and after, nor top and bottom; but, if it can be said, He is wholly and entirely the same in all respects, nowhere variable or unlike Himself; and His one brightness is measureless. For if fire has neither front nor back, nor inside and outside, how much more its Creator? Therefore, because everything that God is, is entirely one and simple, it does not conflict, when something that is from God is called God. Therefore, partly according to a human example, and partly not according to a human example, the Son of God who is the Word of God is God. For in the same way in which sons of men are men, the Son of God is God; but because sons of men are men by mixture, in this respect the Son of God is not God by that example; because from the simple God He is simply born. And just as our word is from us, by this example it is understood that the Word of God is from Him; but because our word is not what we ourselves are, in this respect the Word of God is not from God in the same manner; because the Word of God is a reality, not a sound that fades away. Nor, because we and God share common words, will there be one and the same explanation for us and for God in the actual effect of things. For we read, In the beginning God made heaven and earth. How did He make? Perhaps as we make our works with the hand? And further on it says: And God said, Let there be light; and there was light (Gen. 1:3). Whom do we suppose God spoke to? For He surely did not speak to man, but to Him who could make, who was also going to make man, as indeed He did. But how did He speak? Perhaps as we speak, with a bodily organ? Far from it. You see, then, that certain words are indeed shared between us and God, but they differ in their effect: for God acts in a different way than we do; and He is said to speak, but not in our manner. So also the Word of God is not a word of the kind we use, which, once it is spoken, no longer exists; that Word, however, remains, because it is such a Word that it hears, and speaks, and works. Moreover, it is not only the Word of God, but also the Power and the Wisdom of God, this is the Son of God. In respect to effect, He is called the Son of God; in respect to the speech by which God addresses us through Him, He is called the Word of God; in respect to the wisdom by which God teaches us His mystery through Him, He is called the Wisdom of God; and in respect to the operation by which God made and makes all things through Him, He is called the Power of God. These titles could fit no one except the Son of God. Precisely because He is God from God, He is said to possess all that is God’s. For by being born He obtained all things of God. It would not be fitting that the Word of God, and the Power and Wisdom of God, should be called degenerate: for this is what “God the Word, the Power, and the Wisdom” means. But Christ, because He is wholly God from the whole God, is God; and He is called the Wisdom of God, and the Power, and the Word: that is, He is God from God, and with God. Therefore it is said, This was in the beginning with God. In order to overcome the minds of unbelievers, Scripture burst forth under force, to show that Christ is God, since everywhere, for the sake of the unity of God, it intends Christ to be understood as God. Now, however, in plain words it has said that He is God, and that He has always been with God, laying open the mystery of God, lest God be thought utterly solitary. It has declared that God is not called one in order that He be considered solitary, but that, although there be two or three, yet from the one, the unity is not discriminatory, because whatever is from the one is referred back to that very one, since He is one, even though all things are said to be from God. Yet there is a difference between that which properly came forth from God and that which was created from outside at His command: that is, there is a difference between that which proceeded from His substance and that which, when it in no way existed, was created by His will. For that which proceeded from the substance of God was never subsequent to His substance; whereas that which was created began to be a substance when it was created: and therefore the Trinity alone has no beginning. Therefore, the disclosure of the mystery has diminished the merit of faith: for the more hidden that which is believed is, the greater is the reward of the believer, and the lesser the punishment of the doubter. But the disclosure of the mystery, while it has made the merits of believers lesser, has stirred up greater punishments for the unbelieving. For a clearer law makes one more guilty. The testimony of the Saviour Himself, by which He called God His own Father, would have sufficed. For which of the believers would doubt that the Son in substance is in no way different from the Father? But because the unreasonableness of heretics, by inventions of unbelief, began to assail the laws of faith by receiving the Son of God otherwise than He is proclaimed, it was added, for the sake of making this known, that He was before all things with God and is God, so as to reveal what the concept of a true Son mystically contained. By this, divine mercy appears to have provided for human weakness, by unveiling what had been reserved, as enclosed, for the merits of a stronger faith. Therefore it added, saying, All things were made through Him, so that if anyone from what had been said above still hesitated in any respect, since human understanding is narrow for grasping divine things, from this he might become capable, when he hears, All things were made through Him. Therefore he would by no means think Him to be a thing made, since he hears that all things were made through Him by God; for if He Himself were a thing made, it would not have said that all things were made through Him by God: nor indeed was He made through Himself. To reveal this more fully still, it added, And without Him, it says, was made nothing: in saying this, it excluded all controversy and earthly arguments. Although there are still those who refuse to believe, nevertheless, when it shows that nothing was made without Him, it has taught that in no way ought He to be suspected of being a creature. For how can He Himself be said to be a creature, when it is said that God made nothing without Him? If God made Him, Scripture lies. But far be it. For Scripture is faithful, and, in order to cut off error, it uses as much clarity as it can for the redemption of human beings unto salvation. Finally it subjoined, What was made in Him was life (Jn. 1:2–4): in Him, that is, in the Word, it signifies that what was made is life. As the Lord Himself also says: As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself (Jn. 5:26). It is not that the Word was without life, and afterwards life was either given or made in Him; rather, He wishes the Word itself to be understood as life. If one can say of God the Father that He Himself is one thing and has in Himself another; so also of His Son: for just as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave the Son to have life in Himself. Human words are not fit to explain divine realities. Therefore what is said seems flawed, in that, while the Son of God is not a creature, that which is, is said to have been made in Him. And if it had said, “what was begotten in Him,” even so it would have seemed flawed. But to show His substantial generation, it pointed to the work made in it by such language as it could use, by which it exists, demonstrating that His generation has life in itself. For we indeed live, but we cannot give life to others, since that same life is not in our power. He, however, is said to have life in Himself precisely because He is able to give life and to create what He wills to exist and to live. For this He is said to be born, that He might be able to do all that the Father does; because He has life in Himself just as the Father has. For this is what it means that He made all things through Him and in Him: He so begot Him as to have in Himself life, through which He can make all things, not because He Himself is something other than life, but since His life can both live and create others to live, He is said to have life in Himself. For we indeed live, but we do not have life itself in us in such a way that we also give life to others. This reality the Apostle Paul also recalls among other things when he says: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn before every creature; for in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers; all things were created through him and in him” (Col. 1:15–16). Now the Gospels agree with this teaching of the two Apostles, John and Paul: for they say the same thing, that the Son of God was begotten before every creature, so that he might create spiritual powers, and the world, and the visible things that are in it. For what John said, that “what was made, in him is life,” Paul signified in the same way when he said that “in him all things in heaven and on earth were created.” And further on: “All things were created through him and in him.” “Through him” he created, because in substance he is the same God, that is, the Father in the Son; but “in him,” because he so begot the Son that he might have the power to make all things visible and invisible. This consisted in making life in him, so that he might both live, and bestow life on others for living, understanding, acting, and upon the other living beings according as he willed, as the image of God. For when he is called the image of God, this refers to both aspects: for by his express birth he possesses in himself the full likeness of the Father, and he can do whatever the Father can do, so that it is truly the Father who is seen in the Son, who is the image of the invisible God. Surely, because he called the Father invisible, he did not thereby make the Son visible, since the Son is by nature what the Father is. And since the heavenly creature is invisible, how much more its Creator? But he meant this of what is in heaven, not of what is on earth; for although the Son is invisible, yet he is seen there, that is, in the heavenly realms, by the Apostles or by others of that kind, of whom he said: “Father, I will that where I am, they also may be with me, and may see my glory” (Jn. 17:24). And elsewhere: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:8); that is, the Father in the Son, God in the image; which is God in God. As the body is the image of a bodily thing, so God is the image of God: for the Father is the pattern, and the Son is the pattern taken from the pattern, which he communicates to the Holy Spirit; “For he shall take of mine,” he says (Jn. 16:14). And therefore in the Son God is seen as in his own image. For just as no one was found worthy to open the book and its seals except the Word of God (Rev. 5:4–8), so no one is worthy to see God the Father, neither by nature nor by merits, except his true Son. For there is nothing in between that could stand as an obstacle between the Father and the Son, as he himself bears witness when he says: “Neither has anyone seen the Father, except he who is from God; he has seen the Father” (Jn. 6:46). But if in the Son the Father is seen, why is it said that no one is worthy to see God, since he is seen in the Son, because the Son does not differ from the Father? He does not differ at all in substance, because he is the true Son; it differs, however, in the degree of origin [causalitatis], because all power is from the Father in the Son; and in substance the Son is not lesser, yet in authority the Father is greater, as the Lord himself testifies, saying: “If you loved me, you would indeed rejoice, because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (Jn. 14:28). Keeping this order, the Apostle Paul also says: “One God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus, through whom are all things, and we through him” (1 Cor. 8:6): so that the first degree is “from whom are all things”; the second, “through whom are all things”; the third, “in whom are all things.” And because none of these is inferior, they are signified in the unity of God, as the Apostle says: “For from him and through him and in him are all things; to him be glory forever and ever” (Rom. 11:36).

(John 5:18)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 31. THE SABBATH IS CERTAINLY THE LAW OR A PART OF THE LAW; HOW THEN IS THE LAW NOT ABOLISHED, WHEN THE EVANGELIST SAYS, “HE NOT ONLY BROKE THE SABBATH, BUT ALSO CALLED GOD HIS FATHER” (John 5:18)? — The Savior indeed broke the Sabbath, yet without prejudice to the Sabbath that had been given. For when the time of the Sabbath was already at an end, but the Jews insisted that the Sabbath still remained in force, the Savior, by working on the Sabbaths and by commanding the sick man to carry his bed on the Sabbath, broke the Sabbath according to the understanding of the Jews. For according to true faith, to say that it had already ceased is like saying of someone that he should be called a former governor, and that he suffered an injury because the governorship itself suffered injury. Therefore the Sabbath itself was not annulled, but the men who shamelessly claimed authority from the Sabbath were confused, since a new Law had already succeeded the Sabbath.

(John 5:46)

2^ND CATEGORY OT & NT

QUESTION 2. THE GOSPEL BEARS WITNESS THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD (John 1:18; 6:46; and 1 Tim. 6:16); YET JACOB AND MOSES AND ISAIAH ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE SEEN GOD (Gen. 32:30 and Isa. 6:1). BUT SOMEONE SAYS, “NO ONE HAS SEEN THE FATHER.” WHAT OF IT? IF THE SON HAS BEEN SEEN, THEN THE FATHER HAS BEEN SEEN AS WELL, SINCE THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE ONE AND THE SAME GOD, BOTH IN SUBSTANCE AND IN IMAGE, BECAUSE OF TWO THERE IS ONE IMAGE; AND, AS HE HIMSELF SAYS, “HE WHO SEES ME, SEES THE FATHER ALSO” (John 14:9). HOW THEN HAS NO ONE SEEN GOD THE FATHER, WHEN THE SON SAYS THAT THE FATHER IS SEEN WHEN HE HIMSELF IS SEEN? BECAUSE HE IS NOT A DIFFERENT GOD. IF THEREFORE HE IS NOT ANOTHER, THEN HE, BEING ONE AND THE SAME, IS THE GOD WHO HAS BEEN SEEN. — As far as the Evangelist is concerned, he said this about God the Father, that no one has seen God, except the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. Let us believe the Son; for He has declared that no one, except Himself, has seen God. But He said this in order to teach that He Himself had always appeared to the Patriarchs and the Prophets. Therefore this does not refer to God in His unity, but to the person of the Father, of whom nothing else can be said than “God the Father.” The Son, however, says that He has been seen in such a way that He remains invisible even at the very moment when He is thought to be seen. For “seen” here is to be understood as “understood”; since He was certainly not seen with the eyes, but comprehended by the mind, and this was what it meant “to have seen”: to have understood that in what appeared there God was present. But when the Savior says, “He who sees me, sees the Father also,” He surely did not refer this to the sight of the eyes, but to that of the mind, and in order that nothing might be thought different between the Father and the Son. Neither of them, therefore, has been seen according to substance. Yet, in outward appearances, the Son alone has been seen by the mind, not by bodily eyes, because He is invisible just as the Father is.

(John 7:8-14)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 78. IT IS READ IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN THAT, AFTER THE SAVIOR HAD SAID HE WOULD NOT GO UP TO THE FEAST DAY, HE WENT UP (John 7:8, 14); THIS SEEMS TO BE A SIGN OF INCONSISTENCY. — You always conceal the meaning by abbreviating the statement. For what you call into question took place when, being in Galilee because of the uproar of the Jews, and with His brothers still not believing in Him, He was being urged to go up to Judea, because the feast day of the Jews was at hand, that He might suffer agitation. But He answered them, saying: You go up to this feast day, because the world does not hate you; but it hates Me, because I expose its works. I am not going up to this feast day, because My time is not yet fulfilled. Then His brothers went up to the feast day, but He remained in Galilee. Afterwards, He also went up to the feast day. What appears contrary, when He did not go up at the time He refused, but went up later; and He went up not as if to the feast day, but as if to a dispute? For they all went up rejoicing, as though to enjoy the pleasures of the feast day. It is therefore certain that He did not go up to the feast day. But for the Savior, that was the feast day on which by His Passion He redeemed the world. Finally, He says: Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him (Jn. 13:31). This is His feast day, on which He conquered death.

(John 8:44)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 98. ON THE GOSPEL OF SAINT JOHN. — You have heard what the most holy Gospel declares, when the Lord says to the Jews: “You are born of your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks lies, he speaks from what is his own, because he is a liar, as is his father” (Jn. 8:44). Let none of the faithful doubt that the Devil has no author of his apostasy. For he himself is the prince of all error: seeing that he was made by God of no mediocre power, he dared to imagine divinity, so that, because he saw the others beneath him, he set himself above them as a god. In fact, the names by which he is called, “Devil” and “Satan,” are formed from his deeds, not from his nature. For all evil is proved by work, so that guilt lies not in substance, but in the will conceived from causes. For when he saw himself more powerful than the rest, he swelled with pride to exercise dominion. How then is he said to have a father, when he himself is held to be the author of his wickedness? Or how is it proved that he was a murderer from the beginning? But Scripture calls the one who is his imitator by his name, so that, because he received his name from his deed, anyone who has done an evil deed is not unjustly called “devil.” Therefore the Savior in this passage called Cain “devil,” because, as a rival of his works, when he envied his brother he committed murder, leaving an example of the cruelty of murder. So too the Devil, when he envied man who was made in the image of God, he increased the wickedness of his work, presenting a pattern of error. Therefore Cain also proved to be a liar, when God said to him, “Where is Abel your brother?” Imbued with his father’s hatred, bursting out into falsehood, he said, “I do not know” (Gen. 4:9); so that, having torn away his brother’s life, he pretended not to know where he was; therefore blinded by fury, that he answered God as though He were a man whom he thought he could deceive. The Jews, therefore, having become imitators of this sort of behavior, killed even the Lord Himself, choosing to have Cain the murderer rather than God as their father, so that they might become guilty of all the blood that was shed. By killing the Author of life, they proved themselves princes of all wickedness, to such an extent that they bound even their own children to this evil, saying, “His blood be upon us and upon our children” (Matt. 27:25). For, in order to persuade Pilate that what they asked for was not evil, they said that, if it was unjust, it should be turned upon their children: because, in order to satisfy their fury, they did not even wish to spare their own children. Now, because the Devil is not evil by nature, this is more easily stated, since punishment would not be promised to him if he had not done what he did not know. For it is unjust to punish someone who does nothing other than what belongs to his nature. And this is more truly evil, if you demand from someone what you know he cannot do. Therefore, he is justly to be punished, who, though it is clear that he knows and is able to do good, does evil. This can also be observed from the words of the Savior: for He says, as mentioned above, “Your father was a murderer from the beginning, and did not stand in the truth.” (Jn. 8:44) Therefore, if he is a liar by nature, how is he said not to have stood in the truth? For he does not stand in the truth who does not remain in the truth. It is therefore clear that the Devil was in the truth, but did not persevere in it. Indeed we read in the prophet the Lord speaking therefore: “If they had stood,” He says, “in my substance” (Jer. 23:22), that is, in my law. And the Apostle to the Galatians says, “Stand firm, and do not again be held under the yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). What could be clearer? For here He commands that from now they remain in His commandments. If the Devil had kept them, he would have stood in the substance and in the law of God. For the law is a foundation for those who keep it. How then does it seem to some that the Devil was either made evil by God, or has his own origin, that is, arose from nothing, since both views appear contrary to God? For whoever says that he was made for this purpose, that he might be evil, thinks that God is imperfectly good; since one who is perfectly good does not create evil. But whoever does not believe that God is the author of his origin denies His dominion. For by this, since all things are God’s, he thinks that there is something which in no way belongs to God. Such people ought to suffer punishment, when they see everything judged by God through Christ.

(John 8:44)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 90. IF THE DEVIL HIMSELF IS SATAN, HOW IS IT THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS THE SAVIOR SAYS TO THE JEWS: “YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND YOU WISH TO DO THE DESIRES OF YOUR FATHER. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND DID NOT STAND IN THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. WHEN HE SPEAKS A LIE, HE SPEAKS FROM WHAT IS HIS OWN; FOR HE IS A LIAR, AS IS HIS FATHER” (John 8:44)? — “Devil” is not a proper name, but a common one shared with others. For in whomever the works of the Devil are found, without doubt that person must be called a devil. It is the name of a work, not of a nature. And so in this passage he means Cain as the father of the Jews; since the Jews, wanting to be his imitators, put the Savior to death. Therefore he says that Cain, because he stained himself with murder and made himself guilty of death, did not stand in the truth. For from him the pattern of brotherly murder was first given. It is this same man of whom he says, “When he speaks a lie, he speaks from what is his own,” (Jn. 8:44) to show that each one sins only by his own will. But because he is an imitator of the Devil, he added, “For he is a liar, as is his father.” For when this Devil, in order to condemn the first man to death, did so, he pretended not to know what had been commanded him by God. So too Cain, when questioned, faked ignorance of where his brother Abel was, whom he had killed (Gen. 4:9). Therefore in this passage he called Cain the devil; and his father, the devil whose works he followed. For the son of a devil is a devil. But that Devil who is Satan has no father in his wickedness. He is his own author in evil. He himself sinned first, and therefore whoever imitates him will be called his children, and he their father. Indeed, in faith we have Abraham as our father, because he first believed God; and for this reason we are designated by his name. For we are called faithful, as he is.

(John 9:6)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 33. What does it mean that, although the Savior healed almost everyone by a word, he nonetheless restored the blind man’s eyes with mud made from his spittle (John 9:6–7)? — The Savior did this to confuse those who accuse the Creator. For when he corrected a defect that had occurred in the body in no other way than the Maker had formed it, he praised the author of this work. He revised it by that very thing through which it had been created. For whatever is made, if a fall is repaired by means of that through which it was made, the workmanship will be shown to be right. And if the Savior thereby bears witness that he is God, because he repaired the damage and defects of the body, how much more is he God who is the very inventor of that body?

(John 10:9)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 34. WHAT IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR SAYS, “I AM THE DOOR; THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE ME ARE THIEVES AND ROBBERS” (John 10:7–8)? THIS STATEMENT SEEMS TO STRIKE AT THE PROPHETS.  — Because no one goes to God the Father except through faith in Christ, therefore the Savior calls himself the door of the kingdom of heaven. If, then, he uses the word “door,” what need was there for him to speak about those who came before, “As many as came before me,” (Jn. 15:30) when no question was being raised about people of the past, but rather, as a door now present, the concern would naturally be about those of the present? The Savior is speaking about the Jews, who thought they could enter the kingdom of God not through faith, but through the righteousness of the Law. Those who came before the Savior, that is, who stood before him, mocked him and opposed him, so as to turn others away from faith in him. Therefore they are called thieves and robbers. For these words were spoken at the time when the Pharisees were disputing with the man who had been born blind and enlightened, whose eyes the Savior restored when nature had refused them, whom they wished to turn away from faith in the Savior, saying that it was not through him that one could enter, because he violates the sabbath, but through the righteousness of the Law that one enters the kingdom of God. Then the Savior said: “I am the door; if anyone enters through me, he will find pasture; but if anyone seeks to enter by another way, that person is a thief and a robber.” (Jn. 10:9-10) How does this apply to the person of the Prophets? Did the Prophets say, against the teaching of Christ, that through the righteousness of the Law, without faith, one could win God’s favor, those Prophets who knew that Christ would come in the flesh? He said this, then, about those present, so that whoever were before him, standing or sitting, might be understood as thieves and robbers. For by calling the man who had been blind, they wanted to turn him away from faith in the Savior, saying: “Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner.” But he refuted them, saying: “From the beginning of the world it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind; if this man were not from God, he could do nothing” (John 9:24, 32–33). It is therefore about this man, because he persevered in faith, and about those who said, “These are not the words of one who has a demon; can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” that the Savior said, “But the sheep did not listen to them” (John 10:8–9, 21), meaning those whom he called thieves and robbers. For how could the sheep not have listened to the Prophets, when Scripture clearly shows that all good people obeyed the Prophets, and evil people the false prophets?

(John 11:35)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 35. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, WHEN HE WAS GOING TO PERFORM A MARVELOUS AND UNKNOWN ACT OF POWER, NAMELY, TO RAISE LAZARUS FROM THE DEAD, HE WEPT, OR ASKED WHERE HE HAD BEEN LAID AS THOUGH HE DID NOT KNOW (John 11:34–35)? — The Savior is both God and man, and therefore he always acted in two ways: since he has human feelings, he wept; but since he was also God, he raised the one over whom he had wept. Therefore he always proceeds from lesser things to greater: since he was seen as a man, he showed that what he appeared to be was not all he was; rather, he proved himself to be God by his works.

(John 12:41; Acts 7:55; Isaiah 6:1)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 88. IF GRACE IS GREATER AND UNDERSTANDING CLEARER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THAN IN THE OLD; WHY DID THE PROPHET ISAIAH SEE THE LORD OF HOSTS, WHO IS CHRIST, SEATED ON THE THRONE OF MAJESTY, ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF JOHN THE EVANGELIST? FOR HE SAID AMONG OTHER THINGS: “ISAIAH SAID THESE THINGS WHEN HE SAW HIS MAJESTY AND SPOKE OF HIM” (Isaiah 6:1; John 12:41). BUT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT STEPHEN THE FIRST MARTYR SAYS THAT HE SAW JESUS STANDING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD (Acts 7:55). WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT HERE HE APPEARS AS SUBJECT AFTER HIS VICTORIES, AND THERE AS LORD BEFORE HE HAD CONQUERED? —  As the occasion required, so the Lord showed himself. To the prophet he appeared as a king rebuking the people: and he showed himself as what he was, that is, seated. For the reason lay in the peace of his divinity. But the slander of the Jews caused him to appear to Stephen as standing. In Stephen the cause of the Savior was suffering violence. Therefore, with God the judge seated, he appeared standing, as one who was pleading a case: and because his cause is good, he was at the right hand of the judge. Everyone who pleads a case must stand.

(John 14:9)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 97. BY WHAT REASONING CAN THE WICKEDNESS OF ARIUS BE SIMPLY REFUTED FROM THE LAW? — If we grant authority to reason, the very meaning of the names “Father” and “Son” shows their unity. You ask, how? For the true Son of God would not be so called unless He had come forth from the substance of God the Father. Truth and justice in God would not permit Him to call someone “Son” truly if that Son were not from Himself. He is not truly the Son of God if He is not from Him. But Scripture says He is true; therefore He is from Him. Whoever denies that Christ was born of God does an injustice to Scripture, which calls Him the true Son of God precisely in order to signify that He was born of God. For if He is not from God, and yet is called the true Son of God, then Scripture is deceitful. But if Scripture does not deceive, then whoever does not confess that Christ came forth from God both nullifies Scripture and denies Christ to be the true Son of God. It is not will that makes a true Son, but birth. “But,” they say, “this falls under the power of God, that He can make what is false into true.” On the contrary, this is the power of God, for which He is worthy of all praise: that what is true with Him is true, and what is false is false. That is the mark of a liar, to call the false true; this does not apply to God. For God can indeed do all things, but He does nothing except what accords with His truth and justice. It is, then, clear that Christ is called the true Son of God so that He may be understood as His own Son, that is, born of His substance. Therefore the Apostle says: “He who did not spare His own Son” (Rom. 8:32); and in another Epistle: “Who, though He was in the form of God, did not count it robbery to be equal with God” (Phil. 2:6). If then He did not consider it robbery to declare Himself equal with God, He thereby showed Himself to be the true Son of God. For He could not be equal with God unless He were from Him. Those are equal who are either both true or both false. Beginning and eternal being, or unity, do not admit equality. By saying that He is one with the Father, Christ makes Himself equal to God. “For not only,” it says, “was He breaking the sabbath, but He also called God His Father, making Himself equal with God” (Jn. 5:18), that is, His peer. Is it not clear that this equality comes down from the property of His birth? In calling Himself God’s own Son, that is, His true Son, He made Himself equal with God. Therefore He says: “He who sees Me, sees also My Father” (Jn. 14:9). Because they are of one substance, he who sees one sees both. “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted to the Son to have life in Himself” (Jn. 5:26); that is, the Father begot the Son equal to Himself; and “all that is the Father’s is the Son’s, and what is the Son’s is the Father’s” (Jn. 17:10); and “no one can snatch anything out of the Father’s hand, nor out of the Son’s hand” (cf. John 10:29). And He adds: “I and the Father are one” (Jn. 10:30); and, “The words that I speak to you, I do not speak from Myself; but the Father who dwells in Me, He Himself speaks; and the works that I do, He does. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me; or else believe for the very works’ sake” (Jn. 14:10–12). Since generation is not from oneself but from the One who begets, therefore whatever He does, He calls it the Father’s work, so that by all these things it may be confirmed that Christ is called the true Son of God so that He may be believed to be born of Him, lest His substance be thought to lie outside the nature of the one God. His great humility is therefore His greatest praise. For when He appears to place Himself in subjection, saying, “The words that I speak to you, I do not speak from Myself; but the Father who dwells in Me, He Himself speaks; and the works that I do, He does,” (Jn.14:10) He proves that He has His origin from God and shows that He is His Power, since He says that what He is, is not from Himself but from Him. By this Christ is praised, not lowered. For one who speaks from himself is not a true Son. You see, then, that the Arians misunderstand Christ precisely where He ought to be rightly understood; and they reject Him and call Him false precisely where He is proved to be the true Son of God: for He asks to be glorified by the Father, and promises to glorify the Father whom He asks; and where He seems to humble Himself, He exalts Himself. For when the Father gives testimony to His Son, He bears witness to His own praise; and when the Son proclaims the Father, He reveals His own glory. The majesty and nobility of the Father are the nobility of the true Son. Therefore whatever is said to belong to the Father undoubtedly belongs also to the Son; and whatever is said to belong to the Son belongs also to the Father. For the Spirit is called the Spirit of God, and the same Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ. The Church is called the Church of God, and is called the Church of Christ. God is adored, and Christ is adored. Service is rendered to God, and service is rendered to Christ. The saints are called priests of God, and they are called priests of Christ. The temple of the holy city is said to be God’s, and likewise Christ’s. The holy city is said to be enlightened by the light of God, and in the same way by the light of Christ. It is the throne of God, and also of Christ. God is Judge, and Christ is Judge: for the prophet Isaiah saw the Lord of hosts seated on the throne of majesty, that is, Christ (Isa. 6:1), which the Arians do not deny. Of God the Father it is read that He is King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15), and the same is read of Christ, the true Son of God (Rev. 17:14; 19:16). Therefore everywhere Father and Son are equated in divinity, so that the number of persons does not go beyond the measure of one God. Between Father and Son there is no difference except this alone: that the Father is unbegotten, but the Son begotten; that is, the Father is from no one, but the Son is from the Father, this, indeed, is sublime in the Son. For from this we learn the eternity of His nobility, and that He is the true Son of the true Father. From where comes that which is read in Genesis, where God says, “Let us make man in Our image and likeness” (Gen. 1:26)? Therefore, if their image and likeness are one, how are they not also one in nature? In spiritual realities, where there are, of course, no outward forms, nothing will be similar except by substance; so where the image of two is one, how will their substance not be one as well? Therefore, we read that their image and likeness are one and the same, so that we might believe that the one is in no way different from the other; that is, that Christ is truly the Son of God, because His birth is not unlike that of the One who begets Him. Finally, the Jews, understanding that He called God His own Father, said to Pilate, “We have a Law, and according to the Law He must die, because He made Himself the Son of God” (Jn. 19:7). The Jews understood, and Christians claim they do not understand? Those who did not believe, understood; and those who claim to believe, act so that they may not understand? At least let them admit this: the prophet Isaiah, in order to show that Christ is God, not from Himself indeed, but God from God, says among other things: “After you they shall come, bound in chains, and they shall worship you, and shall pray in you, for in you is God, and there is no God besides you. For you are God, and we did not know it; the God of Israel, the Savior” (Isa. 45:14–15). As far as an upright mind is concerned, these things are clear. By them the Father is shown to be in the Son, and the Son is shown to be God of the same substance as the Father. In Him in whom God is, and besides Him God is not, and He Himself is God, what else can He be said to be, but what God the Father is, and in no respect different? This is what it is for the two to be one. For God is in Him, because although He is God, He is not God from Himself. He is from the Father, because He is the Son. And besides Him there is no God, because He is the only-begotten Son of the Father. But He Himself is God, because the substance of God and of Christ is one and the same. Therefore no uncertainty is left, so that the substance of the Father and of the Son may be believed to be one. For He is the true Son of a true Father. So also is that saying of the prophet Jeremiah; for he says among other things: “This is our God, and another shall not be reckoned with Him. He found out every way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. Afterward He was seen upon the earth and lived among men” (Baruch 3:36–38). Can this be said of one who is of inferior stock, with whom no other can be reckoned? Or can anything be said to be God other than the Father, such that it would advance to God as an insult to the Father? For if no other god can be reckoned with Him, and He is apart from God the Father, see whether what follows ought to be said, for it is dangerous. He would be said to be greater than the Father. Thinking that they are showing reverence to God the Father if they separate the Son from Him, they reduce from Him; so that Him whom they wish to make lesser, with wicked and blinded mind, they set above the One to whose authority they think He ought to bow. But Scripture, in order to teach that the Son differs in nothing from the Father (He would differ if He were not true), says that no other is to be reckoned with Him; because no other substance can be found similar to the substance of God, which is also that of Christ. For it could not teach in any other way that Christ is from God, than by saying that no other can be reckoned with Him. Knowing that the Son of God could in no way be called subject to God the Father, so as to show Him to be equal, it says, “No other shall be reckoned with Him”; because He is equal to God the Father, since He is God: for He is His true Son. Therefore the prophet says, “This is our God”; that is, the God of Israel. If this is He, He Himself is the one God. Of Him Scripture says, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God” (Deut. 6:4); and surely this is not the Father, but His Son. You see then that the person of the Son does not prejudice the one God, if He also is called one God: since Scripture bears witness to this. Where does this come from, unless because the Father and the Son are one, since unity is signified not by persons but by nature? Or they are not two in substance, but one; nor two in divinity, but one God: so that whether the Father speaks or the Son speaks, it is said that one God has spoken. For if the Lord Himself, among other things, concerning male and female, says, “They are no longer two, but one flesh” (Mark 10:8); how much more are the Father and the Son not two gods, but one substance? Now that Father and Son are said to be two, the cause is birth; but that they are not again two gods, the cause is the unity of divinity. With what dullness then do they preach that Christ is created, that is, made, when it is read that God made nothing without Christ (Jn. 1:3)? If therefore nothing was made without Him, He Himself will not be a thing made. For if He is a thing made, something was made without Him. But far be it; for nothing was without Him. Being born of God, He did not begin to exist, but has always existed. For birth is nothing else than proceeding forth; and proceeding forth is revealing. Therefore He was not made, but brought forth. And in order that Christ might be shown to have gone forth or proceeded from the essence of God, His birth was called a proceeding forth; so that, because His birth is not unlike the Begetter, Christ’s consubstantiality with God might be beyond doubt, and that mind which says, “There was a time when He was not,” might be condemned. For He who is read to have proceeded from God, in order that He might be shown to have always been with God, cannot at some time not have been. No one proceeds from God in a place where he was not. The Arians are accustomed to interpret therefore about the Son of God, saying, “Therefore Christ is called the true Son of God, because God made Him in such a way that He is true.” As though there were something false that God makes. And all those things which we said above about the unity of the Father and the Son, what will they be, when they have been so strengthened and confirmed, if it is thought that one must feel differently here? Will many things solidified by divine visions be able to be torn apart by the single testimony of one degenerate? Nevertheless this must be cut off, lest iniquity flatter itself even about this very point. “So,” they say, “He made Him in such a way that He is true, so that will was put in place of birth, and making in place of begetting. For so much must be granted,” they say, “to the power of God, that He can make things which are not, as though they were. Since they rely on this cunning trickery against the Son of God, we must answer them from those very points on which they believe, because they are already convicted in other matters, so that they may appear convicted in the whole sum. For this proposition, as far as its meaning is concerned, has no weight; but as far as the words are concerned, it creates obscurity so that the issue does not quickly appear. For it is as if an Egyptian were placed in the dark, because a bad cause cannot be defended with a good meaning. Therefore, to defend their wickedness, they use sacrilegious words. If, then, this is the power of God, that He could make it true that Christ is His Son, though He was not born from His own being; then He made Him such as He Himself is, so that what generation was going to bestow, the making has accomplished. If, therefore, you say there is no difference between God and Christ, it might perhaps be doubted whether this is not asserted by you unkindly, so that what is said in word might also be in meaning: that because He is called true Son, He may be understood as true, through the fact that He is of one substance with the Father, though not by generation but by making; since, as you say, God can do everything, so that what is made may be as though it were not made. But if, following the rule of reason, you say that what has a beginning cannot be equal and consubstantial with that which is eternal, you lay bare the deceit of your hatred: for, in order to evade the meaning of the word, you falsely say that Christ is truly the Son of God, while denying Him equality with God the Father. For He is not true if He is unequal. Can He be called a true Son, if the Father is not also called true? For if the Son is true, the Father will also be true; and equality proves this truth. But if they are unequal, neither of them is true. Yet since the witness of the Scriptures, by which Christ is approved as the true Son of God, cannot be made void, He must be believed to be born of God the Father: because, in order that this truth might be established, He is read as both equal to and on a par with God. But you, who proclaim the immeasurable power of God, say that God cannot beget, because His nature is simple; and by this you also do an insult to God the Father Himself. For you call Him a liar, since you deny the Son whom He declares to be His own and true; and you betray your hypocrisy, because you falsely proclaim God to be powerful. For if you proclaim the power of God in that which you assert to have been made true out of what was false, so as to mock what is true, how much more ought you to accept this, if you were of sound mind, whereby what is called true is proved true, and the testimony that God the Father gave about His Son is confirmed as true? For the Lord said, “With God,” He says, “all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26), so that whatever seems impossible to men may be possible to God. For if the reasoning of the flesh is followed, neither did a Virgin give birth, nor did Jonah live in the belly of the whale (Jonah 2:1), nor will the dead rise, nor did God beget a Son, because a simple nature cannot beget, since in this world nothing is generated without mixture. All these things must either be believed together or refuted together. For if the reasoning of the world must be maintained, it should have authority in all these matters. But if there is some reasoning proper to spiritual things, he must be called carnal who, infected with the reasoning of the world, denies that anything can be done otherwise than he knows. They are also accustomed to propose something else with their usual evasion. They say, “Did the Father beget the Son by will, or not?” so that when they hear, of course, that it was by will, they may at once, as enemies of the Son of God, reply, “Therefore the will is before the Son,” so that from this He may appear not eternal, since He did not receive a beginning by birth, but came into existence. And yet if they think this, not only will the will be before the Son, but also before the Father; because the cause of generation is the Father and the Son. Unbelief follows carnal notions in everything. For it introduces the cause of God as if He were a man, as though He had first considered and devised that He should beget, as if subject to weakness; whereas in God neither was there generation without will, nor will without generation. For the will itself is generation. Indeed, it is a common expression, “God made,” “man made”; but God makes in one way, man makes in another; and so also in other causes. Therefore must we speak of God as is worthy of Him. They also raise another question about God the Father Himself, saying, “Did it come to Him that He should beget, or is it of His nature always to beget?” They bring this forward so that they may also assert that God is a liar, who testifies that He has begotten Christ, and that they may make Christ not true, but adopted. For, they say, if He has begotten, He must always beget; so that, because He does not always beget, He may not be believed to have begotten Christ: as though it were denied that He made the world, because He does not make others. What disrespect, what lack of discipline it is, to lay down a law for God, so that if He has begotten, He must either have begotten many, or could not have begotten one; not even believing the Lord Himself, who declared Himself the only-begotten Son of God. After these things which have been shown above to be equal in the Father and the Son, let us see whether what is written about the Holy Spirit agrees with them, so that the Trinity which we hold in our saving profession may not admit a difference of nature, just as it has no diversity of faith. For although there is no salvation without any one of these, yet their power appears to be one, which gives salvation to those who believe in it. Since we have brought forward the words of the Father as testimony to the Son, now, as testimony to the Holy Spirit, let us use the words of the Son, by which he declares that the Holy Spirit does not differ from himself: so that, as the Father is witness with the Son, and the Son is witness to the Holy Spirit, the Trinity may be understood to be of one nature. The Lord therefore says among other things: I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may be with you forever, the Spirit of truth (Jn. 14:16–17). When he says that another Paraclete is to be sent, he clearly shows that he himself is a Paraclete. For this is read also in the Epistle of John; he says: We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, who intercedes for our sins (1 Jn. 2:1). And again the Lord says, I am the truth (Jn. 14:6). Behold the clear unity of the Holy Spirit and the Son of God. For what the Son says about himself, he says likewise about the Holy Spirit. Now we must set forth what Scripture arranges in this sense. It is read in Isaiah that he saw the Lord of hosts seated on a throne of majesty (Isa. 6:1), whom John the Evangelist understood to be Christ, saying among other things, These things said Isaiah when he saw his majesty, and spoke about him (Jn. 12:41). The Apostle says that this one is the Holy Spirit. For he says in the last part of the Acts of the Apostles, Well did the Holy Spirit speak to your fathers, saying, With hearing you shall hear and shall not understand, etc. (Acts 28:25–26). These words were spoken by the Lord of hosts. This is the one God, who, whether he be understood as the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, is not contrary to himself, because one is their divinity and one their power. For if, in an decree from the praetorium of one captain, the other captains also are said to command, because of the authority of a single power, how much more, under the rule of one God, if one of the three has spoken, will it not be unsuitable to say that the three have spoken? For their nature and will are one. They are also accustomed to prejudice the Holy Spirit by claiming that he must therefore be considered inferior, because he is placed third in order; though there is such simplicity in the divine Scriptures that you sometimes find the third placed first. As the occasion requires, so they are set down. For it is no injury to any of them, because one is their divinity. Indeed we read in Isaiah, with the Lord saying, I am the first, and I am forever: and my hand founded the earth, and my right hand established heaven. And in what follows: I have spoken, I have called, I have brought him, and I have made his way prosperous. Come near to me, and hear these things: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning: from the time that they came to be, I was there, and now the Lord has sent me and his Spirit (Isa. 48:12–13, 15–16). Whom do you suppose to be the one who founded the earth? For it is he who says that he has been sent. Is it the Father? Far from it. It is therefore the Son who says that he has been sent by God and by the Holy Spirit. Behold the equality between the Son and the Holy Spirit. For just as the Holy Spirit is read to have been sent by the Father and the Son, so Christ is sent by God and by the Holy Spirit. For this is proper to the Father alone, that he should not be said to be sent. Consider the words of the Apostle, who in another order embraces the Trinity: for he says among other things in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, May the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the patience of Christ (2 Thess. 3:5). Whom do you think he calls “the Lord,” if not the Holy Spirit? And what is strange in this, since he whom Isaiah saw seated on the throne of majesty, this same one he calls the Holy Spirit, the Lord of hosts, as we showed above. And the Apostle John signifies that God is understood in the Holy Spirit, saying among other things, In this we have known that God remains in us, by the Holy Spirit whom he has given us (1 Jn. 4:13). If therefore it is through his Spirit that he himself remains in us, it is not in doubt that the Holy Spirit is of God. And there is no question that whatever is of God is God. From this the Apostle says, No one knows the things that are in God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11). How can he know the things that are in God unless he is of the same divinity? For a lower nature cannot know what is in a higher; how much less could a creature know what was in its Creator? And to the Corinthians, in the first Epistle, departing from the usual order which is in the tradition of the faith, he begins with the Holy Spirit when he recalls the workings of graces and mysteries; and he adds the Lord Jesus; and in the third place he sets God, whom he says to be working in the Holy Spirit and in the Lord (ibid. 12:4–6): just as the Lord also says, The Father, remaining in me, he himself does the works (Jn. 14:10). For through that by which the Holy Spirit and Christ are “of God the Father,” their working is the work of God. In fact he calls the Holy Spirit also “Lord,” and he calls the Lord also “God,” because of the unity of nature. Therefore, since in this place he says that the same one who is God and Lord works all things in all, he concludes below, saying, But all these things are worked by one and the same Spirit, distributing to each as he wills (1 Cor. 12:11). What is more evident, that the three have one operation? For when one works, the three are said to work; why, except because they are of one divinity? For there is no doubt that the gift of graces is properly worked by the Holy Spirit. But in order to teach that God and Lord and the Holy Spirit are one because of the sameness of nature, he shows that the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of the three. And to make clear that, as far as person is concerned, this work is the Holy Spirit’s alone, he says, But all these things are worked by one and the same Spirit, distributing to each as he wills. Therefore he acts as he wills, because his will is the will of God. For he does not say “as God wills,” but “as the Spirit wills.” A creature compels itself to do the will of God; but the Holy Spirit wills this by nature. And in order that it may clearly shine forth that the Holy Spirit works all things, the Lord says among other things: “If I by the finger of God cast out devils,” etc. (Luke 11:20). He calls the Holy Spirit the finger of God, to prove that He is from God. Finally, He testifies that the Jews, who said that He cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils, blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. Moses also, because he worked signs through the Holy Spirit, is acknowledged by the magicians, who say, “This is the finger of God” (Exod. 8:19). For in the Acts of the Apostles we read: “As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said: Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2). Behold, service is rendered to the Lord, and the Holy Spirit claims this for Himself. From this it plainly appears that He is Lord, just as God the Father is. And Christ called Saul from heaven and sent him to preach (Acts 9:4); and in like manner the Holy Spirit claims this for Himself, saying, “for the work to which I have called them.” For no one is ignorant that the Savior appointed bishops for the Churches. Indeed, before He ascended into heaven, laying His hand upon the Apostles, He ordained them as bishops. The Apostle attributes this to the Holy Spirit when he says: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 20:28). And among other things Peter says to Ananias: “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart, that you should lie to the Holy Spirit?” And further on, he says: “You have not lied to men, but to God” (Acts 5:3–4). It is clear that the Holy Spirit is called God, since Ananias, who lied to the Holy Spirit, is said to have lied to God. If he had in no way wished the Holy Spirit to be understood as God, he would have said, “You have not lied to men, but to the Holy Spirit,” so that he would indicate Him as neither God nor man. And what is surprising in this? For the Apostle at one time calls a man the temple of God (2 Cor. 6:16), and at another time the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), because by nature they are one. For if the Holy Spirit were in no way understood to be God, with what boldness would he later say, “The temple of God is holy, and that temple are you” (2 Cor. 3:17)? For one God is proclaimed in all the Scriptures; but His mystery is adored in the Trinity. Therefore Scripture so speaks, that under the profession of one God, the things which are of Him, that is, His Son and His Holy Spirit, are understood to be in the same honor in which God Himself is. For the mystery of God has been revealed in order that His glory might be signified in the Trinity. Wherefore, what is from God is not called God with full authority, lest it be believed that another is made apart from Him who is the One. But understanding is given, so that we may believe that in this manner the salvation of the creature consists in the Trinity, because one is their divinity. For neither could the Creator and the creatures, the Lord and the servants, eternity and those things that are under a beginning, be joined together and placed in the same order, since without one of them salvation is for none. For everything that is God, whether the Son or the Holy Spirit, is called so to its injury, if it is reckoned outside the honor and glory of the one God. Therefore the Scriptures show Christ to be God, they show the Holy Spirit to be God, so that, seeing, they may know what He is who is shown. It is as if someone were to show a gem without crying out that it is a gem: just because he does not cry out, will that which is seen not be a gem? In the same way, through the things discussed above, the Scriptures show what we ought to believe, enclosing our understanding within the faith of the one God, in the mystery of the Trinity.

(John 14:9)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 43. WHAT REASONABLE ANSWER CAN ONE MAKE FROM THE LAW TO THE WICKEDNESS OF THE ARIANS? — If one must believe in reason, etc. It is therefore evident that Christ is called the true Son of God, as his own Son, that is, born of his substance. This is what makes the Apostle say: "He did not spare his own Son." The very reason for the names of Father and Son teaches us that the Father and the Son share the same nature. Human reason is too weak to reach the knowledge of this mystery. That is why these grand truths have received names which help to conceive the truth of the existence of the Father and the Son. Well, indeed, does not show better that Our Lord Jesus Christ proceeds from God than the name of Son of God given to Him. And as wickedness has found a way to misuse these names to give them a meaning different from that which they naturally have, Scripture adds, "He is the true Son," to silence these wicked mouths and to those evil spirits. We will even say that no one falls into heresy except by departing from the reason of names; simple and upright minds, which do not deviate from the meaning of names, remain unharmed attached to the Catholic faith. Simplicity calmly considers what has been taught to it by tradition. When doubts arise, questions arise over truths clearly and simply formulated, and that not satisfied with believing what the words express, men consider it unworthy of them not to add or not to take away something, they fall from the heights of the divine tradition. For the righteous spirits, all their concern is that their faith in God is according to tradition. Now, the only meaning of the names of Father and Son leads to the truth of the perfect unity that exists between them. It cannot be supposed that there is a difference between those whom Scripture represents under the same image, and whom the Son himself confirms when he says: "He who sees me, sees my Father." (Jn. 14:9) If, then, he who sees one of them sees them both, the Father and the Son certainly have one and the same form, which can only be so long as the Father and the Son are one and the same substance. And this does not cast doubt on what happens among men, how can one determine the existence of the true Son? when the identity of nature is supported by the property of the names of the begotten and the created; for who can generate anything other than himself? If Christ was simply called the Son of God, and the Scripture did not add for greater clarity that He is the true Son of God, to the testimony of the Apostle St. John, "We are in his true Son Jesus Christ, who is the true God and eternal life;” (Jn. 5:20) and St. Paul: "He did not spare his own Son," (Rom. 8:32) there might be some doubt as to the meaning of the only name of the Son. But Scripture clearly says that He is the true Son of God; therefore those who go against the natural signification of this expression become their own enemies. They imagine, and under the influence of a false and perverse opinion, they affirm that one must believe something other than what is contained in the reason of faith, as if they wanted to give to God more than him. Even those who believe in him do not want it. If Scripture had not added to the word Son the qualification of truth, we might perhaps doubt. One could say that these words of the Savior: "He who sees me, see my father," signifies that he is like his Father, as milk is like plaster, similar in color, but very different from nature. But, no, as these words are the words of the true Son of God, we must admit that they signify in his mind that the Father and the Son have one and the same nature, and that they do not differ in any way. If indeed the Savior said of the man and the woman, because they have the same nature: "They are no longer two but one flesh," (Matt. 19:6) how much more must one be careful not to say that the Father and the Son are two, so as not to give rise to the error that their nature is separate, divided, or at least different and dissimilar? Finally, the apostle Saint Paul confirms this unity of nature of the Father and the Son when he says: "He did not look as a trespass to be equal to God. "(Philip. 2:6) Now, where does this equality come from, if not from the unity of nature, both have one and the same image. The Apostle said, "He did not count equality with God," the Savior Himself called himself the true Son of God, for He could not be equal to God except so much as He proceeded from God: there is no equality possible except between two subjects who are both true or both false. This equality, this unity cannot exist between what had a beginning and what is eternal. So, when Jesus Christ declares that he is one with his Father, he proclaims himself equal to God. "Not only did the Jews reproach him,” says the Evangelist, (Jn. 5:18) for breaking the Sabbath, but for saying that “God was his Father and to make himself equal to God," that is, to the Father. Is it not obvious that this equality comes from birth? For it is by asserting himself the proper Son, the true Son of God, that he made himself equal to God, and that is why he said: "He who sees me, see my Father," (Jn. 14:9) that is, to say that both are of the same nature, the one who sees one sees them both. "For as the Father has life in himself, so has he given to his Son to have life in himself," (Jn. 5:26) that is to say, an equal life, etc.

(John 14:27)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 92. HOW IS IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD WHEN THE SAVIOR SAYS, MY PEACE I GIVE TO YOU; MY PEACE I LEAVE WITH YOU: NOT AS THIS WORLD GIVES, DO I GIVE TO YOU (John 14:27)?  — Whoever receives the peace of the Savior will suffer the hatred of the world. For unless a person becomes separated from the Devil, he will not have peace with Christ. For no one can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24). Therefore, the one who faithfully keeps the law of God is the one who is at variance with the world. Armed with the peace of Christ, he crushes the darts of all his adversaries. For who would dare to attack one whom he knows to be a friend of the King? Yet the world gives peace in a different way from that which the Savior promised to give. For the world gives peace either out of fear or out of appeal. But the Savior, since he is the strongest of all and fears no one, gives peace unasked. This, then, is the peace of the Savior, which is given for this reason: that it may be a defense against enemies. Peace indeed is called by one and the same name, yet the peace of God and the peace of the world are separated by a massive distance. For this peace is fragile, that one strong; this one carnal, that one spiritual; this one earthly, that one heavenly; this one arises from necessity, that one from free will. For Christ, needing nothing, offers peace to the weak and unarmed, the Lord to his servants, the good to the wicked, God to human beings. Rightly, therefore, he says, Not as this world gives, do I give to you: in saying this, he wished his kindly good will to be understood. For whereas everyone else gives peace so that he himself may benefit, he, namely, the Savior, gives it in such a way that it may benefit not himself, but those to whom he gives it. Therefore the world gives peace in a different manner from that in which the Savior has given it. And the peace of the world does not teach a good life, does not encourage patience, does not stir up to righteousness, does not encourage to be merciful, does not promise eternal life. For whoever receives the peace of Christ will be a stranger to the corruptions of this world, which wage war against the soul.

(John 16:8)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 89. THE SAVIOR, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SAYS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: “WHEN HE COMES,” HE SAYS, “HE WILL CONVICT THE WORLD CONCERNING SIN, AND RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND JUDGMENT. CONCERNING SIN INDEED, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN ME; BUT CONCERNING RIGHTEOUSNESS, BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER, AND YOU WILL SEE ME NO MORE; BUT CONCERNING JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD HAS BEEN JUDGED” (John 16:8). HE APPEARS INDEED TO HAVE STATED THE REASON FOR THE WORLD’S BEING CONVICTED, BUT THIS NEEDS EXPLANATION. — Since the Jews did not believe in the Savior, nor did worldly powers; and because he wished to reveal himself not only to human beings, but also to principalities and powers in the heavenly places, as the Apostle teaches in the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:10); he showed that after his Passion the Holy Spirit would prove that he had spoken the truth. And this is what it is to convict the world: to show it that the things it refused to believe are true. For it refused to believe that the Savior had come from God. But the Savior, having kept righteousness, did not hesitate to return to the One who had sent him; and by the fact that he returned, he proved that he had come from there. “For no one,” he says, “ascends to God except the one who has descended from God” (Jn. 3:13). Therefore, when the powers saw him ascending, they were baffled, seeing that what they had despised as false was in fact true. Therefore that righteousness convicts them, by which he was proved just, because he returned to the place from which he had come. In this way he also convicts them concerning sin, because they not only refused to believe in him, but even killed him. And concerning judgment he reproved them therefore, by showing that the prince of the world was made guilty and seized by him whose faith they did not share. For when they saw souls going from the underworld to heaven, they recognized that the prince of this world had been condemned, so that, having been made guilty in the case of the Savior, he would by right lose what he held. These things were indeed seen when the Savior ascended; but when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples, they were clearly and openly revealed. For there was true conviction then, when after the Passion and Resurrection, as a testimony to the Savior, the dead rising again, the lame running, lepers cleansed, paralytics strengthened, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the mute speaking, the possessed being cleansed, and the sick giving thanks after recovering their health, were publicly seen by the faithless. In this way the Holy Spirit convicts the world, because in the name of the Savior, who was rejected by the world, he worked the powers of every kind of healing.

(John 17:9)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 36. WHEN THE SAVIOR SAYS, “I PRAY FOR THEM WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN ME; I DO NOT PRAY FOR THE WORLD” (John 17:9), BUT THE APOSTLE JOHN, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS, “WE HAVE AN ADVOCATE WITH THE FATHER, A MEDIATOR FOR OUR SINS, AND NOT ONLY FOR OURS, BUT FOR THE WHOLE WORLD” (1 John 2:1–2), THIS SEEMS TO BE A CONTRADICTION. — Although the sense is not far different, still what the Savior says is one thing, and what the apostle John affirms is another. For the Savior prays for the disciples, that they may be kept safe from the assaults of evil; indeed he says, “I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from evil.” The apostle John, however, introduces another kind of prayer; for he says, “We have an advocate who intercedes for our sins, and for those of the whole world.” Therefore, for Christians intercession is made in a twofold way: both that their sins may be prayed for, and that they may be kept safe from the assaults of the Devil. But for those who do not believe, there is only this kind of intercession: that although they deserve to be punished for their sins and unbelief, goodness and patience may wait for them, in case they should wish to be corrected. For it is not asked that their sins be forgiven while they remain unbelieving, but that they may receive a long delay, so that, if they improve themselves, their offenses may be forgiven them. This, then, is what the Savior asks for them, as we have said.

(John 20:17)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 37. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE SAVIOR SAYS TO MARY, WHO WANTS TO TOUCH HIM OUT OF JOY, “DO NOT TOUCH ME; FOR I HAVE NOT YET ASCENDED TO THE FATHER” (John 20:1–17), WHEN IT IS READ THAT HE WAS BOTH TOUCHED AND ADORED BY THE OTHER WOMEN? — “Do not touch me” are the words of one who is impatient. For although she desired the Savior, yet while others believed in his resurrection, she stood at the tomb weeping, when she ought already to have been rejoicing. For she had heard from the apostles John and Peter that the Lord had risen. You have it therefore: “He saw the linen cloths and the napkin in one place, and he believed; for as yet he did not know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” (Jn. 20:7) But because Mary did not see him as risen, she did not believe. Excessive love made her doubt. Indeed, those whom we love, if they suffer hardship, we do not readily believe that they will escape it; whereas those whom we hate, if they are already near death, it seems unbelievable to us. Therefore to Mary, since she was astonished and suffered grief through love, though she ought to have followed the faith of the disciples, the Lord first showed himself, so that she might cease from her sorrow, yet not without reproach. Therefore she hears, “Do not touch me”; that is: You seek a carnal understanding. Hold back, and follow the spiritual realities which are not seen. “For I have not yet,” he says, “ascended to the Father.” (Jn. 20:17) This is like that saying of blessed John the Baptist, who sent his disciples to Jesus and said, “Go, say, John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect another?” (Luke 7:19–20). In his own person he is pleading the cause of his disciples. For John did not doubt, he who had said, “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world” (Jn. 1:29); but in order to satisfy his disciples, he sends them with his own words, so that by the mouth of the Savior he might confirm what he himself taught about him, so that after his departure his disciples might follow Christ without any doubt. In the same way the Savior rebukes Mary in himself, saying, “I have not yet ascended to the Father”; that is: Your heart is still weighed down to the earth; if you do not see, you do not believe. For if she had lifted up her heart to God, she would have believed, together with the disciples, that the Lord had risen.

ACTS

(Acts 2:1)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 95. WHAT WAS THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF PENTECOST AND THE REASON FOR ITS INSTITUTION? — There is no doubt that every aspect of our religion is strengthened by ancient testimony and marked by the entitlement of the Old Law. For all past events of the Old Law are known to have been done and set forth as a figure of our future faith, so that we might not hesitate to hold the truth, when we see that the things which we now both hear and believe were predestined before the ages, commended not only by words, but also by the powers of signs. But now the question is whether they are understood by us in the same way as they were prefigured, so that we may rightly recognize where and for what reason the day of Pentecost is derived. For the meanings of the Lord’s Scriptures are opened to those who are diligent and devout, and closed to the negligent. Nor was it fitting that things reserved for the worthy and deserving should be casually seen by all. Pentecost, therefore, which is the fiftieth day counted from Easter, has this basis: just as after a week the Lord’s Day is the first day, on which the mystery of Easter was fulfilled for the redemption of human salvation, because after the cycle of seven days it is always necessary to return to the first, so that it may be shown that the age of the world is completed in the number seven and comes to rest, so also after seven weeks the first day is Pentecost. Therefore Pentecost is never on any other day than the Lord’s Day, so that everything that contributes to human salvation may be known to have been both begun and fulfilled on the Lord’s Day. For on the Lord’s Day the world was made, and after the Fall it was again renewed on the Lord’s Day; a figure of this renewal was first given in circumcision, in which there was a sign of the faith to come. For after the week, the eighth day is, in mystery, the first. This is the day which the Lord has made. He made that one day from which the other courses of days would be derived. And therefore on this very day He rose, which He had made; and according to the number explained above, on this very day He gave the Law on Mount Sinai through His servant Moses: so that just as the lamb was a figure of the Lord’s Passion in the sacrament of Easter, so the giving of the Law was a figure of the preaching of the Gospel. For on the same day, that is, on Pentecost, the Law was given, on which also the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples, so that they might receive authority and know that they had the right to preach the Gospel. This event is confirmed by a double testimony, because it is shown to have been predestined, and is also proved by the revealed outpouring of the Holy Spirit to be divine and heavenly, in order to bear witness to our Law. For when unlearned men, unknown to one another, speak the mighty works of God in various languages, they show that they are divinely inspired. Therefore to the sons of Israel the Law was given by Moses on the third day of the third month, as is contained in the book of Exodus (Exod. 19:16), which day, counted from the fourteenth day of the first month, on which day the Passover was celebrated in Egypt (Exod. 12:18), is the fiftieth day, that is, Pentecost. Therefore it came about that, for the preaching of the law of faith, on Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles (Acts 2:1–4), so that the deeds of the ancients might be regarded as images of future things, for the assurance of our faith, because what has been proclaimed from the beginning cannot be considered false. Therefore the time of forgiveness and renewal is described in the fiftieth Psalm, so that the same providence of the fiftieth day, which is also that of the first, might be recognized. From this it happened that manna was given for the first time on the first day, which is the Lord’s Day, from heaven to the people of the Jews; and this is proved by the sequence of six days during which they gathered it, and on the seventh day, that is the Sabbath, they rested (Exod. 16:22, 23). Now manna is a type of spiritual food, which, through the Lord’s Resurrection, became reality in the mystery of the Eucharist. All things therefore were done so that they might return unharmed to the cause of the first resurrection, and that Satan might not boast but grow dull, he who cast man down by false hope, lest man remain in that which was brought about through Christ the Lord. Now it remains that we prove whether the things we have said are to be understood as we have already mentioned. The first month, in which the Passover on the fourteenth day was celebrated in Egypt, had this day as Wednesday. Therefore also the Law was given on a Wednesday. This may be understood from the fact that on the fifteenth day of the second month after the departure of the sons of Israel, a Sabbath is seen to have occurred; therefore the flock of quails was not sent to them in the daytime but in the evening. In the morning, however, manna rained from heaven (Exod. 16:13, 14), that is, on the Lord’s Day, which is the first found in repetition after the week. Indeed, for six consecutive days they gathered manna, and on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, they rested. From this day therefore up to the third day of the third month, on which the Law was given, examine and you will find that it was a Wednesday when the Law was given. For from the fifteenth day of the second month, when it was a Sabbath, up to the third day of the third month, on which the Law was given, there are nineteen days. Hold therefore these nineteen days, and go back to the fifteenth day of the second month, when it was a Sabbath, which, counted from the first day, is the fourteenth; and go back to the first day of the second month, and you will have another fourteen days; add these to the nineteen mentioned above, and you will find that the first day of the second month was a Sabbath. Add further to the beginning of the first month seventeen days, because thirteen days of the first month, which were before Passover, must be subtracted: for the Passover took place on the fourteenth day of the first month. With thirteen days removed, and seventeen added, you will find that the fourteenth of the first month was a Wednesday. And so that you may not suffer weariness in reading, or carefully examine each part of the question, I give you a summary, so that you may be certain of the number of days from Passover up to the giving of the Law, and from this more easily learn on which weekday Passover took place. The Law was given on the third day after the second month. There are therefore two months and three days. Subtract from these the thirteen days which were before Passover, and fifty days remain. Since the Law was given on a Wednesday, this is easily seen Manna was given on the first weekday, because they gathered it for six continuous days, and this first weekday was on the sixteenth day of the second month. From this first weekday, therefore, up to the eighteenth day, on which the Law was given, you will find a Wednesday. And from Wednesday, whether you count forward or backward to the fiftieth day, it is a Wednesday: for the Jews celebrated Passover in Egypt on a Wednesday, and on a Wednesday they received the Law; but on a Thursday they set out from Egypt. Therefore, the dedication of the Law is Pentecost.

ROMANS

(Romans 1:3)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 44. AS WE CONFESS THAT THE SAVIOR WAS BORN, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS HE WAS MADE FROM THE SEED OF DAVID (Rom. 1:3), SINCE TO BE MADE IS ONE THING AND TO BE BORN ANOTHER? — Although in this place “making” can be understood as “birth”: for “making” does indeed differ from “generation,” but only in other contexts, not where the matter concerns flesh and body. Yet the Apostle did not use such words without reason; for in another place he says, “made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4). Therefore he meant something by this expression. For the flesh of the Lord in the Virgin’s womb was not formed and the body brought into being by human seed, but by the operation and power of the Holy Spirit; that is why the Apostle spoke in this way. It is one thing to thicken blood with mingled seed and therefore to generate, and another to bring forth, not by mixture, but by power. Therefore he said “made” rather than “begotten.”

(Romans 4:15; 7:12)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 46. THE APOSTLE CALLS THE LAW GIVEN BY MOSES HOLY, JUST, GOOD, AND SPIRITUAL (Rom. 7:12, 14). ELSEWHERE HE SAYS, “FOR THE LAW WORKS WRATH,” AND, “WHERE THERE IS NO LAW, THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION” (Rom. 4:15). FOR WHERE THESE THINGS ARE NOT, THERE IS SECURITY. — By comparing his statements, you ought to have been satisfied. For those who are in doubt usually raise questions in such a way that they take the statements of one whose words may not rightly be criticized and seek out things that appear to conflict and to be hostile. If the Apostle calls the Law holy, just, good, and spiritual, he, a man outstanding in all praise and defended on every side by truth, this should serve for faith; and in regard to what seems contrary in words, it should have been examined without stubbornness and envy. For this proposition aims at exemption in sinning. When the Apostle set the law of faith before the Romans, according to the merit of the time and grace, he was speaking to those who, under the faith of Christ, had been brought under the Law. By “Law” I mean not that which is natural; for indeed the Romans were under a law which the decemvirs (official ten-man commissions in the ancient Roman Republic) sent from Athens, and later two others brought, which was written on two tablets and buried in the Capitol. Rather, I mean that law which is called the law of works: that they should be circumcised, keep the sabbath and the new moons, separate foods, be careful about cleansing vessels, and the other things contained in such a Law. This Law, then, he says, works wrath; for these things were added by God when angry, so that they might be a burden upon the unbelief of the Jews. In matters so many, it is inevitable that something be omitted. Therefore the Apostle Peter says: “Why,” he asks, “do you put a yoke upon the neck of the brothers which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Acts 15:10). Finally, God says through the prophet Jeremiah: “I gave them statutes that were not good” (Ezek. 20:25). For after many offenses and temptings of God, and insults against Moses and detractions from God, these things were given for them to observe, so that their stiff neck might be pressed down, and wherever they turned, they would have the Law, so that there might be no refreshment for them. Therefore, in order to remove them from this Law, the Apostle says, “Where there is no Law, there is no transgression,” so that they might safely, by a shorter way, serve God spiritually. “Because,” he says, “if you keep the Jewish Law, you must necessarily transgress it.” For the precepts are so many that it is impossible to fulfill them. How, then, could he be speaking of that Law which is natural? Moses wrote of it to confirm its authority, not because it did not exist before, since we read of vengeance being exacted before Moses; but he wrote to show the Romans that they ought no longer to live under the Law, though it was beneficial that they should conduct themselves under a Law. For otherwise they could not preserve justice. Accordingly he says to them: “Do you wish not to fear authority? Do good”; and, “Those who despise it bring condemnation upon themselves” (Rom. 13:3, 2). He therefore calls this Law spiritual, which he also shows to be holy, just, and good. This is the Law which we have called natural, which forbids sin: it is the guide of a good life. To this, the Law of faith being added, makes a perfect man. Now, because by a common name this Law which I called natural, and that which is called the Law of works, are both termed “law,” the Apostle appears to speak against the Law. But lest he seem to empty this Law, without which this life cannot be governed, he says, “We know that the Law is spiritual,” so that the Law which he annuls might be understood to be the Law of sabbath observance, circumcision, foods, and new moons. For that Law is therefore not called spiritual, because it punishes all sins.

(Romans 8:7)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 47. BY WHAT REASONING IS THE WISDOM OF THE FLESH HOSTILE TO GOD; OR WHAT IS THAT WISDOM ITSELF WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD (Rom. 8:7)? — This question does not differ in sense from the previous one. For by saying “flesh” it has been made clear what is signified; from this it can easily be recognized what its wisdom is. We have said, then, that all the elements are called flesh, that is, the substances of visible things: whose way of thinking is such that they believe nothing can come about without a spiritual and simple mingling, while they shrink from the notion of power and judge it foolish. For those who, distrusting spiritual things, follow carnal ones, understand and consider as true nothing other than what is contained in the order of the elements: so that they neither admit that a virgin gave birth, nor believe in the resurrection of the flesh, because the reasoning of the flesh, that is, of the elements, does not accept this. For all things that are generated in time are produced by an operative mingling: and they say that dead and dissolved bodies cannot be restored again to life, because each element, by a separated mingling, returns to its own nature. Swollen with such notions, they deny that what we believe will happen or has happened: and therefore their assertion is hostile to God, since it considers as foolish and empty that which God has done and promised He will do.

1 CORINTHIANS

(1 Corinthians 5:5)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 49. WHOSE SPIRIT DOES THE APOSTLE SAY IS TO BE SAVED, WHEN HE SAYS, “I HAVE HANDED OVER SUCH A MAN TO SATAN FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FLESH,” ETC. (1 Cor. 5:5)? — The destruction of the flesh is when a person, given over to carnal pleasures and desires, obtains hell for himself: for he acquires destruction through the work of the flesh. From these things he becomes wholly carnal, because just as a man who lives according to the Law becomes wholly spiritual, so that even the flesh is called by the same name as the soul; so too, if he lives according to the desire of the world and the pleasures of lusts, the whole man becomes flesh, making progress toward the destruction of the flesh; that is, just as the flesh, because it is frail and corruptible and mortal, when it loses the soul is deformed, lacking form, and sinks into destruction, for it perishes when it loses the strength of all its members, so also the soul is deformed by such a body, whose strength it had despised, and is punished together with the flesh in which it stained itself with vices. So that there is no advantage to the flesh through the soul, but the soul has destruction through the flesh, because it did not govern the body spiritually, though it was given to the flesh as queen, but itself teaches carnal works. Therefore, when the Church has cast out such a man, it has a spirit that is safe, namely the Holy Spirit, who is the guardian of the Church: for if they were willing to have such a man among them, who defiled his father’s wife by lust, so that they would have to be compelled by the Law not to allow him to defile everyone, and the Holy Spirit would withdraw from the Church on account of the polluted one, the Church would not have a safe spirit. For what is lost is not safe, and on the day of the Lord, found naked of the Spirit, they will not be able to be counted among the sons of God. For the Spirit bears witness that we are the sons of God (Rom. 8:16). The Apostle says this to the laity, because as yet bishops had not been appointed over the Churches in every place. Therefore he commands the people to do what he would have done if he had been ordained bishop there, namely, that by joining together with one accord they should cast him out from their company, lest they seem to consent to his deeds. For he who does not rebuke someone whom he can rebuke, but receives him as though he were not in error, provides him fuel for sinning, and for this reason he himself is defiled and drives the Holy Spirit away from himself. For to the Thessalonians likewise, among other things, he says: “May your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord” (1 Thess. 5:23). The sense is the same: for to be safe is to be whole. Therefore the king says to Daniel, “Are the seals safe, Daniel?” and he answered, “They are safe, O king” (Dan. 14:16); that is, intact. So that our spirit may be whole when he does not desert us. For those whom the Spirit deserts will no longer be whole in respect to the cause of regeneration, because they do not have him through whom they were called sons of God. Nor is it contrary to this if we say that the Holy Spirit, when we sin, deserts us and is not whole in us. For he is not whole in us when he deserts us, who was our leader and ruler; because if he is our head and we are his members, then when we do something contrary, it is not he who seems to desert us, but we who seem to desert him; and then he appears not to be whole when he loses us. For this is true and evident, that it is not he who turns away from us, but we from him when we sin. And to the Colossians, among other things, he says: “From whom the whole body, supplied and knit together, grows with a growth from God” (Col. 2:19). If we take this according to the sound of the words, it does not fit: for God does not lack anything, so as to make growth through us. But when we return to the author of our life and confess him, the Godhead, by gaining us for salvation, makes growth in us; therefore, in those who depart from him there is loss. This, then, is not to be whole, which is also to suffer loss.

(1 Corinthians 5:7)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 96. IT SHOULD BE ASKED WHETHER PASCHA IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS “PASSAGE,” AS IT APPEARS TO THE GREEKS. — The Apostle could not have been mistaken when he says, “Christ our Pascha has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7). This is not, of course, his own expression, but a word of the Law, as Moses says: “And it shall be, when your sons say to you, ‘What is this service?’ you shall say, ‘This sacrifice is the Pascha of the Lord’” (Exod. 12:26–27). What more is needed as evidence? The law speaks; the Apostle proves it this remains, that the objector be cast out as stubborn. For it is plain that the passage took place after Pascha. For of the blood of the sacrificed lamb they placed it upon the doorposts and upon the threshold, so that when the angel passed by at night he would not strike the house in which the sign of blood was found. Therefore it was the blood that brought salvation, not the passage; because in order that the passage should not harm, the blood stood in the way.

(1 Corinthians 6:8)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 50. SINCE MANY SINS SEEM TO BE COMMITTED IN THE BODY, FOR ANYONE WHO INFLICTS VIOLENCE ON ANY PART OF HIS BODY SINS, OF COURSE, AGAINST HIS OWN BODY; FOR THERE IS ONE WHO HAS MUTILATED HIMSELF, ONE WHO HAS ENDED HIS LIFE BY A NOOSE, ONE WHO HAS DRIVEN A SWORD INTO HIMSELF, WHY THEN DOES THE APOSTLE SAY, “EVERY SIN WHATSOEVER A MAN SHALL COMMIT IS OUTSIDE THE BODY; BUT HE WHO FORNICATES SINS AGAINST HIS OWN BODY” (1 Cor. 6:18)? — Do you think the Apostle was unskilled, or do you want the force of this saying explained? For when the Apostle says “body,” he does not mean the individual man alone, but he includes the woman as well, because the woman is a portion of the man. For all the above-mentioned crimes that each person violently commits against himself do not stain the whole body; it is the individual alone who sins, and therefore he alone becomes guilty. In fornication, however, the whole body is defiled, because the consent to contamination involves both the man and the woman; therefore fornication is a serious offense. It is a most wicked sin when someone seeks a partner in his crime for their joint destruction. For if a righteous man will receive a reward even on behalf of the one whom he has gained, then likewise an evil man is made guilty not only in himself, but also in the one whom he has wished to have as a sharer in his condemnation. How much more, then, does the fornicator, who is clearly by one offense in a certain way defiling himself twice? For if he sins against the flesh that is from himself, he doubly commits adultery against himself. If anyone thinks he can reshape this question so as to apply this statement either to the Church or to the body of Christ, it will not stand. For it would be said improperly and would resemble Novatian, who, in order to support the cause of his own frenzy, declares that the one who commits fornication does not sin against his own body but against Christ’s, because Christians are the members and body of Christ; so that fornication would be the same as sacrilege, and such a person would be said to sin against Christ just as one who denies Christ. But this is weak and fragile, because from every side it falls into a snare and does not escape. For if the one who fornicates sins against the body of Christ, then other sins would not be committed against Christ, such as if a Christian kills his brother, or sacrifices to idols, or commits some other kind of sin, since every sin is outside the body, except fornication. But if not every sin is outside the body, and whatever sin there is, is committed against Christ, then the one who steals, or who fabricates himself, or who lies, or who strikes his brother, or commits some such act, would be said to sin against Christ or against the Holy Spirit, which is very absurd. And yet the Apostle calls the members of the Church the body of Christ, so that we are members one of another. How, then, does the one who fornicates sin against his own body and not rather against Christ’s, since according to the mystery of the Church we are said not to be our own body, but Christ’s? And this is far from the point at issue, because the one who fornicates sins against his own body for this reason: that the whole Adam is defiled.

(1 Corinthians 9:22)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 51. WHY DID THE APOSTLE SAY THAT HE MADE HIMSELF “ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN” (1 Cor. 9:22), SOMETHING THAT SEEMS LIKE THE BEHAVIOR OF A FLATTERER AND A HYPOCRITE? — A flatterer is someone who agrees merely so as not to offend the person whose favor he wishes to gain. But someone who, in order to avoid scandal, does something that is not dangerous but only unnecessary, is working for the salvation of the one whom he does not wish to scandalize. When the Apostle Paul circumcised Timothy for the sake of the Jews and entered the temple after purification, he thereby showed himself in such a way that those who were zealous for the traditions of their fathers would not be scandalized and either kill him or think our religion was hostile to them. He was willing to allow something lesser so that he might gain something greater. For he could have sinned gravely if he had refused to act as a Jew in order to go into the temple to pray; he therefore subjected himself so that he might benefit them. To those who were under the Law, that is, the Samaritans, he agreed in this way: it is clear that they rightly confess that the books of Moses are from God, and that circumcision and the sabbaths were given by God. From these things he showed them that the Christ they were expecting was the very one he preached. For you have it written, with the Samaritan woman speaking to the Lord: “I know that the Messiah is coming; when he comes, he will tell us all things” (Jn. 4:25). According to this understanding, he followed the words of the books of Moses, who said, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers” (Deut. 18:15). To those who were without the Law he agreed from this standpoint: that they say the world and the human race were made by God. For he says, “As some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring’” (Acts 17:28). Therefore he made himself all things to all, so that he might promote their salvation.

(1 Corinthians 12:3)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 53. WHAT DOES THE APOSTLE MEAN WHEN HE SAYS, “NO ONE CAN SAY, LORD JESUS, EXCEPT IN THE HOLY SPIRIT” (1 Cor. 12:3)? CAN PHOTINUS, WHO DENIES THAT CHRIST IS GOD, CONFESS OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? AND MARCION AND MANICHAEUS, WHO DENY THAT CHRIST CAME IN THE FLESH, CAN THEY SAY “LORD JESUS CHRIST” IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? OR PROSTITUTES AND THE IMPURE, WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT DWELL IN A BODY SUBJECT TO SINS, AND WISDOM DOES NOT ENTER INTO A HATEFUL SOUL (Wis. 1:4)? — Truth is neither proved nor disproved by a person’s status; for whatever is spoken well and truly is undoubtedly spoken in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if someone is guilty in other matters, he should not on that account be opposed in this one also, when he speaks the truth. Yet he is not really being opposed, but the Lord Christ is being contradicted. For whoever denies that this man speaks the truth does an injury to Christ. But if what is said is true, and it is denied that what is true is spoken in the Holy Spirit, something which Christ himself accepts (for no good person reproves someone who speaks truth about him; nor is what is learned by tradition learned by revelation), no one who speaks the truth can be condemned.

2 CORINTHIANS

(2 Corinthians 5:14-15)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 54. THE APOSTLE SAYS THAT CHRIST DIED FOR ALL; FOR THEREFORE HE SAYS, “THEREFORE ALL HAVE DIED, AND HE DIED FOR ALL” (2 Cor. 5:14–15). BUT THE LORD HIMSELF SAYS, “THE SON OF MAN CAME TO GIVE HIS LIFE AS A RANSOM FOR MANY” (Matt. 20:28). IN THIS WAY IT SEEMS CONTRARY.  — The words indeed are different, but the meaning is one; just as again the same words can have a different meaning, for example, “Whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23); and, “The Law,” he says, “is not of faith” (Gal. 3:12), and yet it is not sin. Those whom the Savior called “many,” the Apostle indicated by “all.” For they are many, because the greatest part from every people and nation will come to believe in the Savior. These the Apostle called “all believers.” Therefore, among other things, he says, “He died for all”; that is, of course, for those who have believed and will believe. Yet He also died for those who are unwilling to believe; but since they do not accept the benefit, they are unwilling that Christ should have died for them; and therefore He does not appear to have died for those to whom He has brought no profit, but rather harm. But He is rightly said to have died for those for whom a victory has been won, who, understanding the mystery, give thanks to God through Christ our Lord.

GALATIANS

(Galatians 2:11, 14)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 55. WHY DID THE APOSTLE PAUL REBUKE HIS FELLOW APOSTLE PETER BECAUSE, FEARING THOSE WHO WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION, HE WITHDREW HIMSELF FROM THE GENTILES (Gal. 2:11, 14), WHEN PAUL HIMSELF, ALSO FEARING THOSE WHO WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION, TOOK TIMOTHY AND CIRCUMCISED HIM, SOMETHING HE WAS FORBIDDING TO BE DONE (Acts 16:3)? — Is he therefore to be rebuked as well? It is unbelievable that so great an apostle would rebuke another for something in which he knew that he himself had done. It is not right to believe that such a thing was done by so great a man; for such things belong to those who live in a carnal way. Therefore the action of the apostle Paul is free from criticism. For while he was preaching that circumcision was not necessary, yet wanting to take Timothy with him, who, although born of a Jewish mother and a Greek father, would be a scandal to the Jews if he took him, uncircumcised, as one born of a Jewess, then he submitted himself to subjection for a time, and took him and circumcised him. He did something unnecessary, with the permission of Him who had suffered. For since he was from a Jewish mother, trained from childhood in the synagogue in the sacred writings, that is, in the books of the Hebrews, he allowed himself to be circumcised in order to remove scandal from the Jews, because they had zeal for their own race. Indeed, “when Titus,” he says, “was a Greek, he was not compelled to be circumcised” (Gal. 2:3). But Timothy, because he was of a Jewish mother, as I said, the Jews did not allow to be received among the teachers while uncircumcised. The Apostle took him on for this purpose, that he might ordain him a bishop, as he did. For, being trained in the prophetic Scriptures, he was found to be a suitable teacher for asserting Christ. The apostle Peter would not have been rebuked if he had separated himself from the Gentiles according to Jewish custom, so as not to be a scandal to them. But this is what was condemned in the apostle Peter: that although he had previously lived in a Gentile manner among believing Greeks, when Jews came from James, subjected by fear, he began to teach that believing Gentiles ought to live as Jews. Therefore he hears, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile, how do you compel the Gentiles to live as Jews?” For he had caused doubt concerning the discipline of the gospel: this is a crime, in that he was destroying what he had built up. Therefore the apostle Paul calls this hypocrisy; and it is clear that if he circumcised Timothy, he did not remain silent that he was doing something unnecessary because of their scandal, and that for this reason he yielded, since he had a Jewish mother. For the Jews would not have insisted, had they not found the excuse of his Jewish mother, since they could in no way disapprove this to the Gentiles, nor easily take scandal concerning those who were not of the stock of Israel. He did this, therefore, not out of hypocrisy, but under compulsion. For the cause mentioned above involved no small element of hypocrisy. For many were reproved in this matter, so that some of the Jews and even Barnabas consented to this hypocrisy.

(Galatians 2:16)

2^ND CATEGORY OT & NT

QUESTION 5. IF NO ONE IS JUSTIFIED BEFORE GOD BY THE LAW, WHY IS IT WRITTEN: “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT CONTINUE IN ALL THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO DO THEM” (Deut. 27:26)? IF PEOPLE ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH AND NOT BY THE LAW (Gal. 2:16), WHY IS THE ONE WHO HAS NOT FULFILLED THE LAW CALLED CURSED, SINCE IT DOES NOT LEAD TO RIGHTEOUSNESS? — The Law given through Moses did indeed have righteousness, but an earthly one; so that those who kept the Law were righteous for the present, so that they would not become guilty. For the one who harms no one is righteous according to the Law. Therefore the Apostle says: “The Law is not of faith; but ‘the one who does them shall live in them’” (Gal. 3:12): that is, the one who does the Law will not die, but lives for the present; but the righteousness that is from faith justifies people before God, so that they may be rewarded in the future age. For to temporal righteousness they added the righteousness of faith. It is right to know from whom and through whom we exist, so that the true confession of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit may lead us to the heavenly kingdoms. For the ancients also, who not only kept the precepts of the Law but also loved God, having hope in the promise, were justified before God. He says that the Law alone does not justify people before God, just as faith alone, without good works, does not praise them before God; but the observance of both earthly and divine righteousness makes them perfect. Therefore the Lord says: “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20).

(Galatians 3:20)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 57. WHAT NEED WAS THERE FOR THE APOSTLE, WHEN REBUKING THE GALATIANS, TO INSERT THIS STATEMENT? FOR TO THE GALATIANS, WHO AFTER THE GOSPEL WERE TAKING REFUGE IN THE LAW, HE SAYS AMONG OTHER THINGS: “NOW A MEDIATOR IS NOT OF ONE, BUT GOD IS ONE” (Gal. 3:20), AS THOUGH THE GALATIANS DENIED THAT GOD IS ONE. YET IT WAS PRECISELY BY THIS LINE OF REASONING THAT THEY HAD BEEN LED INTO THE LAW: SO THAT THEY MIGHT BELIEVE IN ONE, UNIQUE GOD; AND THAT CHRIST HAD COME ONLY AS A MINISTER BY PREDESTINATION, TO DISPENSE THE GIFT OF GOD’S GRACE. — It is clear that the Galatians were therefore drawn into the Law in such a way that they did indeed profess Christ, but not as he ought to be confessed; rather, in the manner of Photinus, so that, since the Law proclaims one God, it would be contrary to the Law if Christ were called God. This is the device of the Jews, who, overcome by the great deeds of power, believed after the cross of Christ in such a way that, while professing Christ, they nevertheless kept the Law, as though all hope ought not to be placed in Christ. These are the ones whom the Apostle calls “false brethren” (Gal. 2:4; and 2 Cor. 11:26). These, therefore, after the tradition of the Apostles, corrupted the understanding of the Galatians, so that they made them Jews under the name of the Savior. Therefore the Apostle says that Christ came as mediator of the circumcision and the foreskin, as he says to the Ephesians: “making peace in one new man” (Eph. 2:15). If, then, Christ came as mediator, a mediator makes peace between two in such a way that he lays down a new rule, taking away the professions of both, and reconciles them, so that, following his decision, they lose their former discord. For when the Jew insists on circumcision and the Gentile on uncircumcision, there is discord; but when this is taken away from both, there is peace. If, therefore, things stand therefore, how is it, he says, that you Galatians, having become Jews, corrupt the mediation of Christ? Therefore he said to them: “You have been severed from Christ.” (Gal. 5:4) For, despising the right of reconciliation which he had established between them, they turned back to the former way of thinking of the Jews, thereby accusing both themselves and their reconciler. For whatever displeases is accused. And because this matter forced the Galatians to turn to the Law, so that they confessed one God without the mystery, as though it were hostile to the Law if Christ were called God, he says: “The mediator,” that is, the go-between, “is not of one, but of two, of course; but you, turning to the Law, have rejected the mediator; yet God is one.” By saying this, he shows that he proclaims Christ as God in such a way that he does not make him another God, nor confess two, but one God, as is also said in the Law. For when Christ is proclaimed as God from God, this does not result in another God; because that which is from God does not allow itself to be called another God. For whether he is God, or what is from God, he is one God. For there is in fact no difference between God and that which is from God. Yet he is “another.” He is “another” on account of the person by which he is called the Son; but he is the same on account of the unity of substance. Let it not seem blameworthy that I have said “person”; for some are accustomed to reject this. But let us follow the Apostle, who says: “For what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I have done so for your sakes, in the person of Christ” (2 Cor. 2:10).

(Galatians 4:12)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 60. WHEN THE APOSTLE SAYS TO THE GALATIANS, WHOM HE REBUKES AND REPROVES THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EPISTLE, BE AS I AM, BECAUSE I AM AS YOU ARE (Gal. 4:12): IF THEREFORE HE HAD MADE HIMSELF SUCH AS THEY WERE, IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO SAY, BE AS I AM. OR PERHAPS IN SOME THINGS HE HAD BEGUN TO BE AN IMITATOR OF THEM, AND IN OTHERS HE WISHES THEM TO BECOME LIKE HIM? — What of theirs could the Apostle imitate? Or what was lacking to the teacher of the Gentiles? Rather, he exhorts them to be his imitators; and since it is not impossible, he reproves them in this way when he says, Because I am what you are: for you are human, just as I am; therefore do what I do. It can also be referred to that statement where he says that he became all things to all by agreeing with them in those points where they did not differ from the truth, especially the Gentiles (1 Cor. 9:22). For there was nothing of theirs, which ought no longer to be done, that had not previously been rightly done, such as circumcision, the observance of sabbaths, new moons, foods. But if he approved anything of the Gentiles, he did not show that it should still continue. For they say that the world was made by God and by men: this always stands. If therefore in these matters, by consenting to them, he was made as they were, he exhorts them that in a similar way they too should become as he is, agreeing with his doctrine.

(Galatians 5:17)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 61. HOW ARE WE FREE IN CHOICE AND WILL, WHEN THE APOSTLE SAYS, “THE FLESH DESIRES AGAINST THE SPIRIT, AND THE SPIRIT AGAINST THE FLESH, SO THAT YOU DO NOT DO THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD” (Gal. 5:17)? AND IF THE FLESH DESIRES AGAINST THE SPIRIT, IT IS EVIL. FOR THE SPIRIT SUGGESTS WHAT IS GOOD. — Do not understand “flesh” here as the substance of flesh, but as evil deeds and unbelief signified under the name of flesh. For since all error comes from visible and worldly things, and the flesh is akin to them, because it is composed of elements, he calls every error “flesh.” He calls not only adulteries, fornications, and lusts the works of the flesh, but also idolatry, sorcery, blasphemies, and such things. Does the flesh compel to blasphemy or to idolatry? Are not these vices of the soul, when it consents to error? Yet he rightly says to those who act correctly that they are not in the flesh, but in the spirit. And yet they are in the body for this very purpose. Therefore, whoever walks well and does not despair of the hope of the faithful, though placed in the flesh, is said not to be in the flesh; but one who lives badly and is blasphemous is said to be in the flesh and to be flesh. For just as those who act well are spiritual even with the flesh, so those who live badly are carnal even with the soul itself. This is what he calls it. This error, then, which he calls flesh, desires against the spirit, that is, it suggests evil things against that same spirit, which is the law of God. For he introduces two laws, that of God and that of the Devil. Therefore he says “spirit” because the law of God is spiritual, to resist the flesh, that is, to resist the vices, so as to preserve a person for God; but the law of the Devil, which is error, opposes through the allurements of lust and the sweetness of worldly things. With these in conflict, the human being is in the middle: when he consents to the spirit, the flesh does not want it; but when he gives his hand to the flesh, he spurns the spirit, that is, he despises the law of God. Therefore, when he consents to the flesh, the spirit calls him back so that he does not do what he wishes; but when he agrees to the spirit, the flesh urges him not to do what he thinks beneficial. Yet the spirit rightly and sensibly resists and calls him back, so that it may snatch the person away from the counsels of Satan. But the flesh, which is the opposing law, therefore urges and resists the spirit of the law in order to deceive through trickery. The Apostle therefore proclaims this so as to show to human choice to which side it should commit its will, not to empty the freedom of choice, but to teach the will to which it should join itself. If, however, there were no freedom of will, neither the law of the Devil, which is the flesh, nor the law of God, which is the spirit, by opposing one another, would press a person with their counsels. For whoever entices, persuades; and whoever persuades does not use force, but ensnares; and the one who is ensnared has his will changed by certain deceits. But if there were no free will, a person would, against his will, be dragged to those things which he does not want.

(Galatians 6:1)

2^ND CATEGORY OT & NT

QUESTION 10. WHAT IS IT THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS TO THE GALATIANS: “I AM AMAZED THAT YOU ARE SO QUICKLY DESERTING HIM WHO CALLED YOU IN GRACE, FOR ANOTHER GOSPEL, WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER” (Gal. 1:6–7)? IF IT IS “ANOTHER,” SURELY IT IS NOT THE SAME; IF IT IS NOT THE SAME, HOW IS IT NOT “ANOTHER”? — Therefore he calls it “another gospel” in relation to the gospel to which they had been called, because it is not the one that the Galatians later began to follow. For, led away from the Gospel of Christ, they had been drawn into Judaism under the name of Christ, as though that were what should be followed; and they affirmed something different from what the Apostle preached. Therefore the phrase is understood, “As they persuade you.” For false apostles, when they were deceiving the believing Gentiles, claimed that what they themselves taught had been handed down by the Savior, as is contained in the Acts of the Apostles: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Moved by grief at their downfall, the Apostle writes to them, saying: “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in grace, for another gospel, which is not another.” (Gal. 1:6-7) He is amazed because, after something light and less burdensome, they were striving after harshness and burden: that is, that after the simplicity of faith they allowed themselves to be circumcised for the sake of the elements, that they observed new moons and the sabbath; they were subjected and driven by the elements, that is, to grace, not to the works of the Law. And lest he seem to have given the false apostles an opening, by allowing them to say that what the Galatians had received was different from what the tradition of truth holds, he immediately adds: “Which is not another, except that there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” (Gal. 1:7) So, the gospel to which they had been called by the Apostle was different from what they began to follow under the influence of the false apostles; yet it was not different from what Christ had handed down, so that by this they might recognize that they had been led into error, and follow faith alone, confessing Christ as God and that he is sufficient to grant salvation, through whom they had obtained the remission of sins, and not through the Law: for without the Law, the grace of God forgives sins.

COLOSSIANS

(Colossians 2:3)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 62. IF IN CHRIST ALL THE TREASURES OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE ARE HIDDEN (Colossians 2:3), HOW IS IT THAT THE SAME SAVIOR SAYS HE DOES NOT KNOW THE DAY AND HOUR OF THE FUTURE JUDGMENT (Mark 13:32)? BUT IF HE DOES KNOW AND SAYS HE DOES NOT KNOW, HE SEEMS TO BE LYING.  — This statement contains a twofold meaning. For when it says that in Christ all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden, it means that whoever has Christ yields to Him as to all wisdom and knowledge: so that to know Christ is entirely to know, and to have comprehended all wisdom. As it is said to the Colossians: “Let no one deceive you through philosophy and empty seduction, according to the elements of this world and not according to Christ; for in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:8-9) That is, that the one who believes in Christ needs nothing for salvation, but rather abounds in this; because the fullness of the Godhead is in his faith. And again, in the same Epistle, among other things he says: “Let no one seduce you into lowliness of heart and into the worship of angels, which he has seen, exalting himself, vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the whole body, supplied and knit together, grows with a growth that is from God” (Col. 2:8–9, 18–19). Therefore, if those who believe in Christ venerate Him as the head of every principality and power, they need nothing else, but have everything that is necessary for salvation; it will not harm them to be ignorant of lower things which contribute nothing to salvation, when they know what is necessary. Those, then, are said to know everything in this sense, who know that which profits them for salvation. There is also this: that in the Savior all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden. For all the mysteries of the Father are known to Him; and He measures every creature; and not even the Father judges anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son (Jn. 5:22); and no one knows the things that are in God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11), who is also the Spirit of Christ. How then can He be said not to know the day and hour of the future judgment, whose Spirit knows the things that are in God, of whom He said that the Spirit has received from Him (Jn. 16:14–15)? If therefore the One who has received from Him knows the things that are to come, how will Christ not know, He who sent the Holy Spirit? And can it be that a judge does not know the day of the future judgment, especially since He has given all the signs by which it may be expected? Perhaps also those are truly said to be unknown to Him, to whom He says: “Amen, I say to you, I do not know you” (Matt. 25:12). Nor will the foolish and careless virgins be said to be known, because He also said, when they themselves were saying, “Lord, Lord, open to us,” “Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.” The reason, then, why He says He does not know what He knows is this. Finally, He says: “Watch, because you do not know at what hour your Lord is coming” (Matt. 24:42). Therefore, in order to make us careful and watchful, when He was questioned He said that He did not know the day and hour of the future judgment; but, so that it might be for our benefit, He denied knowing what He knows. Since we, in our ignorance of what is good for us, absolutely want to know something which, if we knew it, would harm us, Christ, the provider of our salvation, said He did not know, lest we should hear what would be against us. If someone who possesses a sword is asked for it by a person in pain, so that he may kill himself, and he replies that he does not have it, is he to be accused of lying because he denies what, if he did not deny it, he would know to have the opposite effect?

PHILIPPIANS

(Philippians 2:17)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 63. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ALTHOUGH THE APOSTLES HEALED ALL THE AILMENTS BROUGHT BEFORE THEM, THEY DID NOT GIVE HEALING TO THEIR OWN INFIRMITIES? FOR EPAPHRODITUS CERTAINLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SICK ALMOST TO DEATH (Philippians 2:27), IF THE APOSTLE’S INTERCESSION HAD BEEN HEARD. WHO COULD DOUBT THAT THE APOSTLE OFTEN PRAYED FOR THIS AND DID NOT OBTAIN IT? FOR IF HE HAD BEEN HEARD, THE SICKNESS WOULD IMMEDIATELY HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY. — Signs and wonders were therefore performed by the Apostles so that unbelief might be compelled to faith; so that, seeing deeds that are impossible for men, people might recognize from this that the preaching is of God, and prove by power that there is reason in the faith. Since words are always contradicted, a confirming power has been set as witness, and when words yield to that power, it shows that there is reason in faith which cannot be expressed in words. Among the faithful, therefore, signs and wonders are no longer necessary, but firm hope. For once it is learned that the promises are true, the soul arms itself for this purpose: that, despising present things, it may be found worthy of future ones, laying up merit for itself through labor. This is attested by Solomon, who says: “My son, when you come to the service of God, stand in righteousness and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation” (Sirach 2:1). Since man advances through temptations, these warnings are given. Therefore the Apostle says: “Through tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:21). These trials of tribulation occur in various ways, so that a persevering soul in the faith it has received may be crowned. For man is tempted not only in faith, but also in sickness, in loss, in persecution, and in the death of loved ones, so that if in these sufferings he is not drawn to seek the help of demons, he may obtain martyrdom without the shedding of blood. The Apostle therefore did not fail to obtain what he asked for Epaphroditus to his disadvantage, but to his progress: because in his own case, when he had requested, he heard, “My grace is sufficient for you; for power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9).

(Philippians 2:27)

2^ND CATEGORY OT & NT

QUESTION 11. THE APOSTLE PAUL INDICATES THAT WE MUST NOT BE GRIEVED OVER THE DEAD (1 Thess. 4:12). FOR IT IS THOSE WHO DESPAIR WHO ARE GRIEVED; AND HE HIMSELF SAYS ABOUT EPAPHRODITUS, “HE WAS SICK, NEAR TO DEATH, BUT GOD HAD MERCY ON HIM; AND NOT ONLY ON HIM, BUT ALSO ON ME, SO THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE SORROW UPON SORROW” (Phil. 2:27). — How does he forbid grief, when he declares that he himself would have had to grieve if he had died? He meant that he would have had to grieve in one way if the death of Epaphroditus had come to pass, and yet in another way he forbids grief. For here he said he would have been grieved if he had died because of the comfort of his assistance, which he was using in the Gospel. But he forbids us to grieve in such a way that we mourn the dead as though they were extinguished and lost, despairing of the resurrection. It is one thing, therefore, to seek the comfort of someone as if absent, and another to lament the destruction of someone who will not be in the future. Here comfort ceases; there despair is excluded.

1 PETER

(1 Peter 2:21)

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 64. THE APOSTLE PETER SAYS, “CHRIST DIED FOR YOU” (1 Pet. 2:21). BUT THE APOSTLE PAUL DECLARES THAT HE ALSO DIED FOR HIMSELF: “HE BECAME OBEDIENT UNTO DEATH; WHEREFORE GOD HAS GIVEN HIM A NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME” (Phil. 2:8–9). IF THIS IS SO, HE WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN IMPERFECT, SINCE HE GAINED INCREASE THROUGH HIS WORKS.  — No believer doubts that the Son of God was born perfect from God. For in being born of God the Father he received all the fullness of the Father’s divinity. Then, at that moment, he received the name that is above every name, that is, that he should be called what the Father is: God. For nothing is said to be future for him; he has all things before himself. Therefore he was born for the creation and restoration of all these things. Indeed, proper order and reason require that every knee should bend to the paternal name. The Father gave this to the Son on account of what he was going to do; yet he gave it when he begot him. For he begot him in such a way that he should be in the same honor in which the Father himself is.

REVELATION

POLEMIC

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 102. AGAINST NOVATIAN. — His disciples say to Jesus, “Lord, do you want us to say that fire should come down from heaven and consume them, as Elijah did?” And the Lord answered them, saying, “You do not know of what spirit you are. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy souls, but to save them” (Luke 9:54–56). Although it was certainly fitting to take revenge on the Samaritans who did not receive him, nevertheless the Lord, who came to grant mercy, removed the sentence, so that those who were corrected afterwards might be changed. And the prophet Elisha, angered at the boys who insulted him, took vengeance on them with God as judge, so that in that place they were eaten by bears, where there is said to be no forest (2 Kings 2:23–24); but the Lord spared the prostitute who was brought before him, namely the one whom the leaders of the Jews said they had caught in adultery (Jn. 8:11), so that, since a loving declaration had begun, he might teach that she was not to be condemned, but pardoned. For the Law given through Moses, because it had justice directed to revenge, exercised severity in its beginnings. It took funeral revenge on the man who went out to gather wood on the sabbath (Num. 15:32–36); and similarly took punishment on the son of the Egyptian woman who had blasphemed God (Lev. 24:10–14); and in the matter of the molten calf struck the sons of Israel (Exod. 32:27). Each Law, then, in its very beginnings shows its full character: the old Law, because it was more ready to punish, appeared harsher in its early days, so that by instilling fear it might make its hearers diligent and watchful. But the new Law, because it is loving and inclined easily to mercy, showed its beginnings as most gentle and most compassionate, so that by this very charm and love it might call all to forgiveness. Afterwards, however, even that Law which seemed harsher, on account of the frailty of the human race, not only softened its severity, but also showed itself humane and loving, and this Law which seemed gentle at times took vengeance. For Ananias and his wife Sapphira were struck down by God (Acts 5:5, 10). And Elymas the magician, unbelieving and opposing the law of God, was blinded by the judgment and power of the Lord (Acts 13:8–11). And King Herod, because he did not give honor to the God of heaven, was struck by an angel of God and, swelling with worms, breathed his last (Acts 12:23). Lest, because mercy is preached, people should think there is absolutely no punishment and that they may sin with freedom, fear was imposed, showing that forgiveness of sins is given for this purpose: that, as if brought to life from the dead, they should afterwards abstain from the contrary things, so that it may be brought about that no one departs from here with guilt, because there will be a coming to judgment. For the sentence in which each person dies is what is credited to him. Since, therefore, the new Law has the fullness of mercy, lest it be treated with contempt by lovers of sin, it took vengeance on the above-mentioned persons. The old Law, though given for vengeance, nevertheless pardoned some, lest it be called wholly cruel; but it took vengeance on many, because its disposition is ready to punish. Without doubt, then, the grace of the new Law is greater than that of the old. If, therefore, the grace is greater, how is it denied that this Law can grant what that Law granted, which had less grace? For the former was more inclined to severity. Therefore, if that Law is proved to have forgiven the repentant, how can it be that this Law, which is gentle, does not receive the repentant? For even the Jews were called sons of God, who, as we read on the authority of the apostle Paul, were baptized through Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 10:2). Indeed, they are known to have been purified as they were about to receive the Law, so that afterwards they might give an account of the Law they had received, and if they sinned, they might reform themselves through repentance; as the Lord says through the prophet Isaiah, “Do penance, you who err, and be converted” (Isa. 45:22). But perhaps, on the contrary, it is said: Repentance indeed was preached, but not remission. If, therefore, repentance has been preached by God, there will be fruit for those doing repentance. For the Lord would not admonish this in vain. Moreover, since the Lord knew that remission of sins must be given to the converted, he commanded this; for he said, “I do not desire the death of the sinner, only that he be converted and live” (Ezek. 18:32). And therefore there is fruit of repentance, as has become clear, for those who are converted to God. Therefore, the assertion wickedly fabricated by Novatian is excluded, by which he overturns the meaning of the Lord’s words, saying, “The Lord said, Whoever shall deny me, I also will deny him” (Matt. 10:33); so that if any Christian, for whatever reason, has denied, he can no longer return, or certainly, if he does return, he is in no way received. And where, then, is the repentance that has been enjoined? When the Savior, after having pronounced this sentence, did not deny the apostle Peter who had denied him. Why? Because, with repentance following, he wept bitterly over his sin (Matt. 26:75), knowing, of course, that forgiveness is granted to those who are converted, and that they are reformed through repentance. But Novatian pretends that repentance is to be done. Because he does not openly dare to deny that repentance should be granted, being limited by the Law, he strives subtly to frustrate it. For when he says that whoever has denied will by no means have pardon, but will himself be denied before the angels of God, how does he not deceitfully profess that repentance is to be done? From this his fraud clearly appears, when he adds, saying, “Whoever shall sin against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither here nor in the future” (Matt. 12:32). Although one cause is that by which there is sin against the Holy Spirit, and another to deny the Lord Jesus, Novatian, nevertheless, in order to deny pardon for this sin, wants there to be one and the same meaning for the one who denies the Lord and for the one who sins against the Holy Spirit, so that by this fudging he may cut off the fruit of repentance. For if denying the Lord is the same as having sinned against the Holy Spirit, there is no pardon to be hoped for by those who deny, nor any fruit of repentance; because this sin, neither here nor in the future, the Lord’s oracles have promised to remit. From this it becomes clear that Novatian speaks deceitfully when he says that penance must be done. For why should one repent, if it is denied that the sin can be removed? For the sighs, tears, and weeping of repentance obtain this: that it both merits pardon and restoration. Therefore David, repenting and confessing his sin, both obtained forgiveness (2 Kings 12:13) and was restored to his former state; for he remained king and afterwards prophesied. This is clearly proven: for in the fiftieth Psalm he repented, and afterwards, having suffered persecution from his son, he prophesied. For the third Psalm according to the historical order is after the fiftieth. But perhaps it will be said that a king had to be forgiven, whereas the lowly must not be forgiven, although it seems that it is rather more difficult to forgive those who are more powerful. For God does not regard the person of a man (Rom. 2:11). The higher one is, the more, even if his sin is slight, it is a grave crime. For just as humility in a powerful man is lofty and noble, so also his fault must be regarded as a crime. Except for those sins which are clearly unlawful for all, not everything is permitted to the powerful that is allowed to the lowly. For it is disgraceful for a man of rank to bargain in trade, and entering a tavern is noteworthy. For senators, lending at interest is a disgrace. If therefore in these lesser matters they are found worthy of censure, how much more must they be held guilty if they sin? From this, then, it appears that David sinned very grievously, and in fact in a twofold way. Yet, when he turned back, he obtained forgiveness for both murder and adultery, and what is more, he was reformed with tears. For when he was rebuked by the prophet Nathan, he did not dare hide his sin, but confessed it, saying, I have sinned against the Lord. Then the prophet answered and said, The Lord has taken away your sin, and you shall not die, because you have repented. And because he is afterwards found to have prophesied, there is no doubt that he was restored. For also Ahab, rebuked by the prophet because of the death of Naboth, went about weeping, and tore his garments, and girded himself with sackcloth; and the word of the Lord came by the hand of His servant Elijah concerning Ahab, and the Lord said: Have you seen how Ahab is moved before my face? I will not bring the evil upon him in his days (1 Kings 21:27–29). And when the Ninevites wept for their sins, with death awaiting, their life was restored (Jonah 3:10). See how great is the progress of repentance. But perhaps it may be said in reply: Repentance was granted indeed, but not for the crime of idolatry; although these sins are grave, the crime of idolatry is greater. Nevertheless, Novatian’s assertion is rightly overthrown in no small part, since two grave crimes appear to have been granted to repentance. For if fornication ought not to be forgiven, as Novatian thinks, how much less murder or adultery? Yet here his vanity is evident, since those sins which are more serious are shown to have been forgiven. Therefore now it must be asked whether God has promised that forgiveness can be granted even to idolaters. For whatever has not been lawfully granted here cannot be granted in the future. For here, as the Lord said, sins are either bound or loosed (Matt. 16:19); but in the future there will be nothing else but reward or condemnation. For everyone who is lawfully rejected here cannot be chosen or judged worthy in the future. Let us therefore hear what the Lord says about idolaters to the prophet Jeremiah: Go and say, he says, Return to me, backsliding Israel, says the Lord, and I will not set my face against you: for I am merciful, says the Lord, and I will not be angry with you forever. Nevertheless acknowledge your iniquity: you have acted wickedly, and have scattered your ways to strangers under every green tree (Jer. 3:12–13). See what God promises to those who, after their fall, turn back to Him, that after apostasy He will forgive their sins when they return. And again God says through Jeremiah: My delicate ones have walked rough ways, they were led as a flock plundered by enemies. Be steadfast, children, and cry out to God; your memory will be remembered in your captivity. For as your mind was to stray from God, being converted you will seek Him ten times as much. For He who brought evils upon you will bring upon you eternal joy with your salvation (Baruch 4:26–29). O the mercy of God! How He calls upon those who have fallen to rise up again! How He urges them, after the error of idols, to return to Him! Like a kindly father, He promises His children everlasting joy of salvation if they correct themselves. Likewise in the same prophet among other things: And I will restore them to this land, and I will build them up and not destroy; and I will plant them and not pluck them up (Jer. 24:6). Since He had threatened and said, Whoever sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out, sinners against God might despair of themselves, as though those who had sacrificed to idols, once uprooted, could not be planted again; He encourages them that, if they repent, they can be restored to their former state. For the sentence remains only if the sin is not corrected. Therefore it was proclaimed to the Ninevites that after three days their city would be overthrown. Why after three days, except that either they might repent and the sentence be lifted, or, remaining as they were, they would perish more justly? This is what He said through the prophet, I do not will the death of the dying, only that he should turn back and live. Therefore it came about that, though the Ninevites were destined to die because of their sins, they were forgiven when repentance followed. For what reason do we find the ark being built for a hundred years in the time of Noah (Gen. 5:31; 7:6), if not that, seeing and hearing what was coming, they might change themselves? For God wills no one to perish. Therefore it is that we read in Solomon: For, he says, the Most High has mercy on those who repent (Sirach 12:3). And again, You have mercy on all, because You can do all things, and You overlook the sins of men for the sake of repentance (Wis. 11:24). In this sense the Lord also, grieving over the treachery of the Jews, says: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you; how often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” (Matt. 23:37)! Therefore the Lord always, throughout the whole Law, urges sinners to turn back to Him, not wishing His workmanship to be accountable to destruction; since there was no other reason for the giving of the Law than that men might be turned from error to the truth. Yet in such a way that in the New Testament the Author of the Law appears more merciful, because at the time when He agreed to reveal the mystery of His Son, our Lord, He willed to be more generous and abundant in mercy, so that there might be more grace when the Son preached than there had been when the servants preached. And not without reason: for it was fitting that greater gifts should be bestowed through the Son than through the servants. Accordingly, to those who turn to Him in faith He grants all sins together, without any preceding cry of penance. Therefore the Apostle Paul says: “For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance” (Rom. 11:29). Afterwards, however, if they sin, they can deserve pardon through penance; so that, because they have sinned after receiving free mercy, they may no longer obtain it freely, but may reach forgiveness with intervening groans and tears. For it is impossible for a man not to sin. Therefore the Apostle John says: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:8). Therefore David deserved pardon and renewal when he confessed his sin. John the Apostle is certainly speaking to Christians. For he says in what follows: “My little children, I write these things to you so that you may not sin; and if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 2:1). He says this so that, if we sin after Baptism, we may humbly ask the Advocate to plead with the Father for us. For if among our ancestors penance had its place, how can it be that in this time it has no place, when the preaching shows greater mercy? And He who had mercy on His enemies by calling them to grace, will He not have mercy on His friends now that they are His, along with a reward? For the tribulation of the heart is the reward of the repentant. If what you say were true, men would grieve that they have been made friends from being enemies. Or what sort of person must He be thought to be, if He gave mercy to enemies who do not repent, but did not give it to friends who do? Moreover, since the Lord knows that the Devil exalts himself and rages more fiercely against the friends and servants of God, where the Apostle Peter says: “Be watchful and sober, because your adversary the Devil, like a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8), since, then, the Lord knows that we have a dreadful and powerful adversary, if we are overcome by him, He wills us to flee to His help, grieving that we have been cast down, so that, restored by His power, we may fight back bravely. For just as, unless those days which the Lord mentions were shortened (Matt. 24:22), no flesh would be saved, so also, if repentance is denied to men, no one can be saved. For “no one,” he says, “can boast that he has a pure heart” (Prov. 20:9); and elsewhere, “No one is without stain, not even an infant of one day” (Job 14:4). Who then will be able to escape, if repentance is denied? And where is that saying of the Lord, that “there will be joy in heaven over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:7)? “But more serious crimes,” you say, “must not be forgiven, fornication and idolatry.” And where is the saying of the Lord in which He promises that all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven to men, “but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven to men” (Matt. 12:31)? He declares that absolutely all sins can be forgiven, except one. Now choose, Novatian, of whom you wish this to be understood: of those who do not yet believe, or of those who already believe. If of unbelievers, how is forgiveness of sins given, when it is clear that all, before they believe, sin against God and against the Holy Spirit? For some call the deeds of the Lord magical arts, assigning the work of the Holy Spirit to demons. But if you wish it to be said of believers, your statement is excluded, since He says that all sins will be forgiven: “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him.” Therefore, whether one sins against God or against Christ, it will be forgiven to men. For He has included all sins, except that against the Holy Spirit. Therefore He does not wish that sin which is committed against God to be understood as the same as that against the Holy Spirit; for if this were so, He would not have excepted it. Since therefore He signifies another kind of sin when the Holy Spirit is blasphemed (for this saying refers to the person, not to the nature, of the Holy Spirit), all sins will be forgiven, either to those who already believe through penance, or to those who shall believe through Baptism. But that the Jews sinned against the Holy Spirit has another cause, belonging to that time. Therefore He shows that this will not be forgiven them, neither here nor in the future. For they did not sin against the Holy Spirit through error, but through hatred. Knowing and understanding that the works they saw in the deeds of the Saviour were of God, in order to turn the people away from faith in Him, they pretended that these were of the prince of demons. Therefore it is that the Lord says to them: “You have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves do not enter, and you hinder those who are entering” (Luke 11:52) Therefore this statement is made against the spiteful, for whom no remedy can be found so that they may be saved. For nothing is more serious than this crime: it pretends that what one knows to be true is false. For the Jews, who appeared to be under God’s law and to whom the promise of Christ had been made, seeing the great works and understanding that this was what God had promised, were blinded by envy so that they denied this was so; and not only did they deny it, but they also persecuted it even to death. It is therefore not right that this sin should ever be forgiven to those who, with their own conscience as witness, dared to resist the God to whom they said they were devoted. Now there are different reasons why one sins against God or against Christ. Either someone, envying another’s happiness, rises up against the Creator out of the pain of his own abasement; or, having suddenly suffered some adverse event, stirred to anger, he becomes disrespectful toward his Father. But the incarnation of Christ itself also provokes offense. For while people are ignorant of the mystery of the incarnate Christ, they blaspheme, considering it unworthy that the Son of God, who is of incorporeal and simple nature, should be said to have been born in the manner of men. They therefore blaspheme because they are ignorant of the mystery. Wherefore a helping hand must be extended to such people when they are converted, because they oppose the truth in such a way that they think they are acting for the truth. A person of this kind, once tortured and torn by the nails, declares to be true what he had persecuted. The aforementioned Jews, however, thought one thing and did another, and without judge and executioner they are always tormented by their own conscience as witness. For the one who, through error, has been an enemy of the truth, when he is converted rejoices that he has come to know the truth; but the spiteful man has nothing to correct: for if he were to turn back, he would begin to say that true which he previously did not know to be false. But as for an injury being done to the Holy Spirit, no cause exists: for his office produces no offense, since he appears in the power of signs and wonders. For who would dare hiss against him, seeing the dead raised? Or who would be angry with him, when through his effect he sees the paralyzed running, the blind receiving sight, the deaf hearing? Or how could he not love him, whom he sees casting out unclean spirits, cleansing lepers, and at the same time healing all diseases? The Jews preferred to do him an injury, saying that his work was the work of demons, provided only that, acting out their envy and hatred against the Savior, they could satisfy them. For this reason he shows that this sin is forgiven them neither here nor in the future. But Novatian says, More serious crimes are proved by name to be forgiven, that is, idolatry and fornication after the washing. For this reason, he says, all sins are forgiven at once in Baptism, so that thereafter, if they commit anything serious, they may in no way obtain pardon; because after the Holy Spirit has been received, nothing that is against the Holy Spirit ought to be committed. Who would deny that one ought never to sin, if it were possible? But since God knows the human race is weak, he has always followed them with saving remedies so that, after sins, they might have a way to be restored. If, however, the Spirit once given forbids repentance to be granted to those who sin, there is no providence in the New Testament, and it will seem that better provision was made for those of old, to whom this remedy was by no means denied. And how is grace greater in the New than in the Old? For such a view belongs to an enemy, who, knowing that people cannot otherwise be provided for so as to attain salvation than by the intervention of repentance, grants the Holy Spirit in such a way that, if any injury be done to him through some fear or through some error, then satisfaction has no place for the reforming of a person: this is to have sought an opportunity to destroy people, not to save them. But perish the thought, since the Lord says, The Son of Man came not to destroy souls, but to save (Luke 9:56). For if, when we sin against one another, God has commanded that our sins be forgiven one another, if we turn back, seventy times seven (Matt. 18:22), how much more does he himself, if one sins against him, forgive those who are converted? For he wills every sinner to be converted. Therefore the Apostle proves that forgiveness was granted to fornicators and the unclean, saying, Lest, when I come again, my God should humble me among you, and I should mourn for many of those who have sinned before, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication which they have committed (2 Cor. 12:21). He proves that some have done penance, for whom he does not grieve, but rejoices; but he indicates that some have not done penance for their fornication, and therefore he says that he mourns for them as not belonging to life, because they have not done penance. For if, in the case of such a crime, penance were to be done continually throughout this life, he would not say that he mourns for them because they have not done penance, but because they are not doing it. But knowing that penance both begins and is completed here, he says, because they have not done penance. For this is what he wanted, that when he came to them he might have peace in communion with them. Here, then, it has been proved that those who have committed fornication are to be admitted to communion after they have done penance. For they cannot be admitted to communion as long as they continue to commit the sin; but they are to be admitted when they cease from it, in accordance with the judgment of the Church. Now it remains to see whether we can prove that idolatry in particular can be forgiven. For we read in the Apocalypse of the blessed Apostle John that penance is preached even for idolatry. For the bishops, whom he calls angels, that is, messengers, as also the blessed Apostle Paul says, You received me as an angel of God (Gal. 4:14), are admonished to grant penance to those who sin, and not to allow those who cause scandals in the Church to be in no way admonished, since they too belong to the Church. He therefore says, And to the angel of the Church in Pergamum write: Therefore says he who has the sharp two-edged sword, I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is; and you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to place a stumbling block before the eyes of the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed, and to commit fornication; so you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Likewise, do penance. (Rev. 2:12-16) He says that this is the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which was also that of Balaam, that is, idolatry and fornication, for which he commands that penance be done. And because he speaks to the people of the Church, he shows this by saying, “These things says the Spirit to the Churches.” And as for what the fruit of penance is, he indicates it therefore: “To the one who conquers,” he says, “I will give to eat of the manna which is hidden”; (Rev. 2:17) so that by penance he may, as it were, conquer sins. For what is it to repent, if not to be grieved for past deeds, and from this time to abstain from those things which one has committed? “And to the angel of the Church in Thyatira write: These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like Tyrian brass: I know your works, and love, and faith, and ministry, and patience, and your works, the last of which are better than the first. But I have against you that you allow the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and teaches and seduces my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent, and she was not willing to do penance for her fornication. Behold, I will cast her into a bed; and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they do penance for their deeds; and I will kill her children with death; and all the Churches shall know that I am he who searches reins and hearts; and I will give to each of you according to his works. But to you I say, and to the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not have this doctrine and do not know the depths of Satan, as they say, I will put upon you no other burden; only hold fast what you have until I come. But to the one who conquers and keeps my works unto the end, I will give authority over the nations” (Rev. 2:12–26). Under a single letter given to the Church of Thyatira he confuses and utterly rejects the double error of the Novatian heresy: for he promises fruit even to those doing penance on account of idolatry, and in one Church he shows that the wicked do not contaminate the good, though they were of one and the same communion; for he was not writing to those placed outside the Church when he said, “He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.” (Rev. 2:29) In a similar way the Apostle Paul says, “For we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law” (Rom. 3:19). And in another place, “For what have I to do with judging those who are outside?” (1 Cor. 5:12). Therefore, men of one and the same Church he partly calls to penance, and partly praises, saying, “But to you I say, and to the rest who are in Thyatira, whoever of you do not have this doctrine, that is, of idolatry, hold fast what you have until I come”; (Rev. 2:24-25) that is, persevere unto the end, because “he who perseveres unto the end, this one shall be saved” (Matt. 10:22). Likewise, the one who perseveres in evil shall be condemned. And therefore, just as the righteousness of the righteous will not free him on the day when he goes astray, so the iniquity of the unrighteous will not harm him when he is converted. Therefore it was said, “He who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out”; (Exod. 22:20) but if he is converted, “he shall surely live.” So also is that saying of the Lord, “Whoever denies me, I will deny him” (Matt. 33). But if he is converted, he cannot be denied by the one whom he confesses. From this it is that he said in the Psalm, “In your sight no living man shall be justified” (Ps. 142:2). For this sentence is assigned to a man in which he dies. For since within the Church the wicked were to be with the good until the judgment of God, God himself indicated this, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, which gathers fish of every kind. When it was full, they brought it to shore; and they chose the good into their vessels, but cast the bad away. So it shall be at the end of the age: the angels will come out and will separate from the kingdom of God all offenses and those who do iniquity” (Matt. 13:47–49). This situation is also signified in that man who was found among the guests not having a wedding garment (Matt. 22:12–13): he shows that he alone was cast out from the company of the Church, because the crime of his unworthiness did not defile the others; and because this unworthiness of his was made evident by the fact that he did not have a wedding garment, he was revealed to the others. For they saw that he was clothed differently among them. From this comes what the Apostle Paul says: “In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay” (2 Tim. 2:20). He set this forth because of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who, though they were of the Church, held a perverse opinion about the resurrection; just as some of the Church of the Corinthians denied the resurrection. But Novatian says that this great house is to be understood as the world, not the Church, so that he may not be forced to acknowledge in one Church the wicked with the good, the clean with the unclean. I think this can be easily refuted. For in one house all are under one name: although they differ in conduct, yet in profession they are all counted under the one name of their master. But this world contains men of diverse professions, so that utterly unlike people profess that they have different gods and lords. You see, therefore, that this could not have been said of the world, but of the Church, in which, living under one name, they differ in their deeds. I note that Novatian was not ignorant of this, but because he had no just grounds for the complaints of his secession, and would have been openly ashamed, he forged certain arguments for himself through a bad interpretation of the Law, by which he might try to excuse and cover the envious will of his resentment. Finally, he replies to what we have said, saying, “Nor do I refuse that penance be done for the idolatry committed, but I do not dare to grant remission, because this crime must be forgiven by him against whom it has been committed.” He replies therefore with deceit. For he is exposed by his own interpretations, through which his fraud appears. For when he says, “It is written.” Whoever denies me, I also will deny him, and the one whose words these are cannot lie; he shows that the repentance which he says must be done is empty and fruitless. For if a sentence has been passed, and he who passed it does not deceive, why do you compel a man to be tortured with mourning and groans, when you either deny or openly profess that you do not know the outcome of this matter? For whoever gives counsel to someone gives it precisely in order to declare what benefit may come from it. But because you, Novatian, profess this deceitfully, in order to dupe human minds, you say that repentance must be done. For knowing that this cannot be openly denied, you act subtly, because you cut off repentance not by word but by intention. You certainly say that everyone who sacrifices to idols sins against the Holy Spirit, and you insist by the words of the law that this sin is not forgiven either here or in the future. How then do you say that repentance must be done for this offense, except because you deceive, as I showed above? But you are accustomed to try to cover this fraud with another trick, saying that the apostle Peter also spoke in the same sense to Simon: “Repent of this wickedness of yours, if perhaps it may be forgiven you” (Acts 8:22). But when the apostle Peter looked upon the man’s old and venomous and intensely bitter hatred, he therefore gave him an answer worded in doubt. For which mortal ever sinned in such a way as to want to buy the gift of God with money? This answer, then, was given to ill will, not to error. For this is what has no remedy; because it is neither error, nor is there any necessity by which it might be excused so as to be able through tears to attain forgiveness. If, therefore, any are found in such a case, let them hear what Simon heard. For this reason the apostle Peter answered him doubtfully, saying, “For I see that you are in the anger of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” (Acts 8:23) If then in so grave a case, one which seems without remedy, the answer was given in doubtful terms, it is not doubtful that those who sin against God through some error or necessity can be forgiven, if they perform suitable repentance. For this has been granted to ecclesiastical law by its author: that it may both impose repentance and, after repentance, may receive back. And there is still something that Novatian criticizes: “Why,” he says, “do they hand over the body of the Lord to those whom they know to be sinners?” As though those who are judges could also be accusers. But if they are accused and exposed, they can be cast out. For what judge assumes the role of accuser? For if the Lord himself endured Judas, whom he knew to be a thief, and to carry off what was put in the money bag (Jn. 12:6), nor did he cast out the one who had not been accused, we ought to make use of this example, so that it is not permitted to cast out anyone who has not been publicly detected. For it does not suit a just man to accuse anyone. Therefore Matthew says: “Joseph, being a just man and not willing to expose her, wanted to dismiss her secretly” (Matt. 1:19). Therefore Judas, though he was among the disciples, did not stain them with his contagion, since they, of course, were opposed to his thefts; and when he received the Eucharist among them, he did not defile the innocent. Nor did the Lord deny his body to him whom he knew to be a robber; for, according to the Apostle, “He who receives unworthily receives a sword unto himself” (1 Cor. 11:27). Therefore the Lord did not turn his eyes away from him. For sinners defile only those who consent to their evil deeds. Where it is said, “You saw a thief, and you ran with him” (Ps. 49:18). From this comes the reason why the Apostle reproves the people of Corinth, because they did not correct or avoid him who openly had his father’s wife, so that he might amend himself, saying, “Do you not know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:1, 6). Since there was no leader or bishop of the Church there, it belonged to the people to correct the man whom they saw behaving among them in such shameful and obscene ways. And therefore the Apostle rebukes them as if they were consenting to his crime. For in this matter there was no need of an accuser or of witnesses; he was publicly keeping his stepmother in the place of a wife. And so, as far as our cause is concerned, we have set forth our position, not accusing others, but defending ourselves. But I appeal to the conscience of the Novatians, who always accuse us, whether he knows all those who are with him to be saints. He is so angry with us that he even denies that we are Christians, though he knows that we have been initiated in the same faith on which he prides himself. Certainly it is profession and life that make a Christian. If, then, you see a man profess the same things as you do, and his life is not unlike yours, why do you deny that he is what you are? Surely, “whoever says ‘Lord Jesus’ says it in the Holy Spirit” (see 1 Cor. 12:3); for he speaks truth. For all truth is from God. Why do you not agree with the one who speaks truth, but deny? You contradict the one who confesses God, not with reason, but in madness. Do you not appear to be an enemy of God, when you resist one who speaks true things about him? Does a pagan, hearing someone say that idols are gods, deny that he is a pagan? Why then do you deny that the man is a Christian whom you hear profess the words of the full faith, when you read, “With the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10)? But you, as an enemy, in your anger fail to see that you oppose God; you deny that the one who confesses this has salvation, though the Lord says, “Whoever confesses me, I also will confess him” (Luke 12:8). Did he say, “If Novatian confesses me”? But you establish it in such a way that you seem to defend this: that he is saved who is not only a Christian, but who is also a Novatian. Yet if confession made in Christ gives salvation, then wherever and among whoever this confession is whole, it possesses salvation. Therefore, if the handing down of this confession has been corrupted among us, or its sense altered, you rightly accuse us. For if this remains in us as it does in you, by denying us you seem also to deny yourself. But you accuse the ministers of faith: grant that what you say is true, even though you cannot prove it. Those who heard it from them, did they hear truth or falsehood? For if a flawed man has spoken the truth, it will not cease to be true because it was spoken by a flawed man; for the cause of one’s conduct is one thing, and the cause of one’s profession another. Does not the persecutor, out of hatred for the Christian name, persecute the profession, not the conduct? First of all, knowing that this benefits religion, when we confess that we are Christians, the sacrilegious man believes what we confess, though he does not wish to hear it, because he does in fact hear it. But you, although you bear the same profession and seal, do not believe us who confess what you yourself confess. If you knew that we were reborn in some way different from that in which you were reborn, then you would rightly not believe that we are what you are. Why then do I suffer persecution from a sacrilegious man, if I am not what you are? For if I professed concerning myself what you say about me, I would not suffer persecution. And in the end, I must be believed about myself, not you. For the judge seeks my own profession, not yours about me. Why then do you deny me when I confess, though it is true, when in this case not another’s testimony, but my own profession is required, either for me or against me? I was unwilling, for the sake of the name, to have you tortured against me, so that it might appear, if you too were to deny the one confessing the truth against me, to whom belief would be given. For you propose this deceitfully, so that you may seem to have a just cause for schism. For you are not ignorant that in this matter my own testimony about myself is required, not another’s; and that what I have confessed is held to be true, not what someone else has denied. It is clear that those are free who, out of love for Christ and without scrutinizing the deeds of men, press forward to obtain faith in him: approving in them only what they know to be useful for themselves, that is, to obtain the tradition of the faith which is of Christ. For whoever thinks that, besides the sacrament, something else is necessary for a man in this matter, does an injury to the tradition; for he thinks too little of the grace of God. For whenever he denies that the gift of God can profit one who is devoted to him unless some human merit is present, he makes man either superior or equal to the tradition itself, whereas man’s merit is far removed from such a role. As the apostle Paul says about this same matter: I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. Therefore neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6–7). How then can anything be hoped for from man in this matter, since the words which are handed on have been given? Let us see then what advantage there will be if he is of good merit, or what disadvantage if he is of bad merit. One comes, desiring to hear the words of God, to which, by lending faith, he believes he will receive salvation. What difference does it make in this matter whether the one who delivers the solemn words is of good or bad life, since what is sought is the devoted faith of the recipient, so that he may with his whole mind believe what he hears? If the one who delivers them is of bad life, will he create an obstacle for the recipient, so that he will not believe what he hears and ought to believe, so that his sin might enter the other’s heart so that he does not believe? Or will God, who is just, despise one devoted to him because of the sin of that man whom he himself allows to be in office? Nor does man judge in this way, although it is clear that he frequently errs or is partial. If it were so, and a man were conducting his own case, would he not say to God: Who this man is whose fault makes you despise me, I do not know. I approached him on your account, because he was said to be your priest: I sought you, I desired you, I believed in you, I hoped for nothing from the man: why then should his sins harm me, whom I would not have known unless I had sought you? If his good deeds could profit me, it might perhaps seem just that his evil deeds should harm me. But just as, if I had believed his good deeds with hesitation, they would have profited me nothing, so also his evil deeds ought to harm me nothing, if I believe rightly. For I entrusted faith to his words, which are said to be given by you, and which are inspired by you, spoken by you, and promise you: to him I believed nothing about himself nor about his deeds; but I joined myself to the faith which is from you. According to this, the case of the believer is sound. Consider bishops after the manner of advocates: if an advocate is of bad life, will the judgment be against the client he has taken up? This is the advocate’s office, that according to the order of law he should plead the case of his client: can his life, if it is shameful, harm his client’s case? For the advocate’s person can neither harm nor profit; for as the case is, so will the judgment be upon it. So it is also with those who wish to become Christians: they come to the bishop, they declare to him their vows: he recites the words of ecclesiastical law. If the vows are true, they are received by the Judge: in what way then can he either harm or profit, since he does not even know the case of his client? For it is known to God alone the Judge, with what mind each one approaches. It is therefore the bishop’s task to perform the office delegated to him; but it is the Judge’s to accept or to reject the case of the petitioner. For he himself is found to have said: Daughter, your faith has made you whole (Matt. 9:22). You see then that each one is saved by his own faith, not by anyone’s assistance. For God has decreed this for faith, that if it does not doubt, it may obtain everything it wills. Yet you, not as a friend but as if an enemy of Christ, have gathered a people under your own name, so that they are not Christians unless they are also Novatianists; whereas the Apostle condemns anyone who says that he is of Paul or of some other (1 Cor. 3:4). But you, judging yourself superior, have placed your own name above the name of Christ, as though his name were not sufficient to guard his Church.

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 114. AGAINST THE PAGANS. — By what reasoning the pagans dare to confront us or attack our faith, while thinking themselves innocent, I do not see. For they have no evidence for their assertions, of their superstition, I would rather say, than of religion. Whatever they have without safeguards they put forward, so that they may themselves be regarded as authors and defenders of novelties. First of all, they claim to worship gods, yet those gods give no marks, no testimonies. They call those beings gods who did not dare to be called by that name, so that men are made the authors of gods, though God ought to be the author of men; and therefore their assertion is vain and empty. Whatever is without God cannot be stable. That what I say is clear is proved by their books, in which nothing divine is read as established by God’s command, but they claim that various sacrifices to their deities were instituted by individual men for certain reasons, so that those who appear to have no merit may at least be seen to have rightly established the very things they decreed. Since, therefore, those whom they call gods are nowhere read to have commanded any of these things, by what authority do these men act, or think their actions accepted, when they cannot show any command? And even if a command were shown, it ought first to be examined whether it was fitting or right to obey those whose deeds show no signs or wonders recommending them as divine. But when they are driven from this, they usually take refuge in the elements, saying that they worship these, by whose governance human life is ruled. From them, as above, we ask whether there is any mandate or command from God, whom even they confess to be great and supreme, and yet they neglect Him. For if such worship ought to be done, it should have been commanded by Him who is said to be their author. If, however, it is not commanded by Him, it is mere presumption and will lead to punishment, not reward; for it is an insult to the Creator when, despising the Lord, men worship His servants, and, scorning the Emperor, adore his nobles. How will this go unpunished, when we see that even in this life such conduct is avenged, and indeed harshly? But if perhaps they say that the mandate has come from the elements themselves, let them show a precept somewhere; let them at some time read anything that those elements have spoken. If they cannot show this, what penalty do they deserve who are exposed as authors of a presumed and fabricated religion? The elements are free from this wickedness. For the very luminaries of the world will accuse them before God the Judge, because in this vain counsel they in no way present themselves as authors. In like manner those whom they call gods, though it is certain that they were men, when they begin to be tormented for their sins, will by no means defend themselves as guilty in this matter, but will shift this charge onto those who, though they had not commanded it, began to worship them as gods. With what sense of shame, then, can they criticize our faith or think it deserves ridicule, when they read our law supported by testimonies of virtues, and also the voice of our Lord and God saying: “I am God, and there is none other besides me” (Isa. 45:21–22)? If He said this in bare words, He would not deserve belief, lest we appear like the pagans, who, seeing no signs of majesty in their gods, began to worship them, and, what is worse, in shameful ways. For disgraceful things are done there, which it is shameful to reveal; and they call themselves wise, because in regard to their law they are mocked like an imposter. But our God, with virtue as witness, has commanded that He be worshipped, and, so as to leave no room for suspicion, has given a law that is upright and holy, as befits God. We, indeed, who are called foolish by the pagans, would not have believed in our God had He not satisfied us also by testimonies of power; nor would we have accepted His law if we had not recognized it as pure and worthy of its own profession. Therefore it is that nothing among us is done in darkness or in secret. For whatever is known to be honorable does not fear to be made public; but that which is shameful and dishonorable cannot be made public because modesty forbids it. For this reason the pagans celebrate their mysteries in darkness, wise at least in this: they are ashamed to be mocked openly. The immoral rites that function in place of law there they do not wish to reveal, lest those who call themselves wise appear dull to those whom they call fools. Yet lest, perhaps on this account, we seem fools to them, because our law proclaims chastity, mercy, devotion, self-control: among them these things are foolish, since every good man is bad to the wicked, and the wise man senseless to the fool. They so thoroughly detest chastity that they delight even in womanish men [cinaedis], subject to their teaching; and unless such men are as they are, they will not be fit for their so‑called religion. For that reason they are mutilated and their appearance is changed, so that, from men, they become as it were women and, contrary to nature, submit to suffer what belongs to women; and only then are they deemed fit and worthy ministers of their superstition. Can one such as this be condemned, when the law makes him such? For this very reason, having lost manly conduct and dress, he is transformed into a woman, that he may freely suffer what belongs to women. What sort of mysteries can those be, where what is honorable becomes dishonorable, and what is uncorrupted becomes corrupted, when true religious worship is precisely that which makes the shameful honorable and the undisciplined modest? How can the worshippers of such a cult be rivals of the good life, when the mysteries of their law cannot be celebrated without womanish men? If, therefore, their law delights in such people, anyone who is not of that kind will be, in their view, a sinner and a fool. Therefore they call us fools. For those who practice these shameful things are judged wise by them; those who avoid and flee them, foolish. This indeed seems cleverly and perceptively unnatural by them. They therefore attach the name of wisdom to their law, so as to cover up its blameworthy features; for where there is wisdom, there is no blame. Our law, however, they call foolish, so as to keep people away from it. But if we remove the labels of wisdom and foolishness, and set aside all the hostility that the defense of both sides breeds, let the laws themselves clash with each other, so that it may appear where wisdom is, and where foolishness. But in the presence of the sign of the cross, paganism falls silent. And if that forethought which they call wisdom is present, it does not dare answer the sacred things of those whom they call foolish. For their entrails are checked, and they are concealed out of reverence for Christian majesty. It is a great matter, that the forethought they so name should fear what they call foolishness. Let us now compare the tone of the laws. Pagans even profess in writing that they worship gods and goddesses; and what they say is true, since they worship both males and females. For Janus and Saturn, Jupiter and Mercury, and Apollo and the rest, likewise Minerva, and Isis, and Fruxilla, and Venus, and Flora the harlot with the others, are gods and goddesses, as the histories both of the Greeks and of the Romans confirm. Christians, however, as poor people, whom they call fools, worship one God in mystery, from whom are all things; nor do they venerate anything that has been created by Him. For they know that He alone is sufficient and abundant for their salvation, not ignorant that if they assign His glory and name to others, they offend Him; since no emperor allows tribunes and counts to be adored together with his name. Let the laws now be compared, that it may be seen where forethought lies: with the one who worships the Creator, or the one who worships the creature; the one who worships the Lord, or the one who worships servants? Can it be that in some household, besides one, another should be called lord, just as pagans, trained in forensic writings, who seem to themselves wise, in one world created by one God, worship many gods and goddesses? For they call the stewards and managers of the world gods and by the name of God, while they are exposed as foolish. To proclaim that which brings destruction is the mark of the foolish and the irresponsible. For it is necessary that God should avenge His injury upon those who have shared the name and glory of the Lord God with their fellow-servants. Next let the teachings be considered. Our law, according to which those whom they call fools are ordered, commands that bishops and ministers be suitable, without reproach, holy and irreproachable; but, on the contrary, the tradition of the pagans lays it down that their bishops and ministers cannot be suitable for them unless they are transformed from men into women, so that they may wastefully and publicly endure women’s parts, and, with their hair dishonorably let down in water, emit a soft, quivering, and shameful voice. If they did this in public, they would be stoned by all the people. And that dog-headed creature, who restlessly carries himself about all places, seeking the limbs of the adulterous Osiris, the husband of Isis. Behold, by such ministers or teachers pagans assume for themselves the name of forethought, when this is not only not forethought, but also a crime. For to love what is obscene and shameful is destructive. And what of that which they suffer in a cave, their eyes veiled? So that they may not shudder at being disgracefully dishonored, their eyes are covered; others, like birds, beat their wings, imitating the voice of a raven; others again roar after the manner of lions; others, with their hands tied by the intestines of young chickens, are thrown over pits full of water, while someone approaches with a sword and breaks open the above-mentioned intestines, calling himself their liberator. And there are other things even more shameful. Behold in how many ways they are disgracefully misled, they who call themselves wise. But because they suffer these things in darkness, they think they can remain unknown. For all these practices, which were invented and arranged secretly by evil and shameful men, have been revealed and exposed by the holy Christian faith. When the faith was preached, those who heard, considering what good and holiness were publicly promised, joined themselves to the faith, abandoning those hidden shameful and awful things, and confessing how they had been deceived through ignorance. For at that time, long ago, almost all were involved in this error, and therefore seemed to themselves prudent, because there was no one to reprove them. For although all erred under one deceptive name of idolatry, each one nevertheless arranged his worship according to his own customs and manner of life, so that one error might have diversity arising from the vileness and life of its authors. Finally, the rites which they call those of Bacchus [Liber] are shameful and most vain, and full of madness. For it is difficult for the impure not to be touchy; therefore everywhere he is found depicted with Priapus, with whom he lived shamefully. In this way are their other rites as well. But so that future generations might be captured by these inventions, it was done through the subtlety and cunning of Satan: for although these things were not invented without his counsel, yet when each was devised, he sprinkled certain charms, by which he might entice men into error. And so it came about that, through the tradition of antiquity, deceit might be praised and the shameful invention excused. For through custom, what was shameful began not to seem shameful. For when some are dishonored, at first they blush; afterwards, with custom flattering them, shame departs and their expression is altered, especially if they see many such as themselves. For the profit of disgrace is then achieved when those who are called noble are seen to be dishonored: for dignified nobility easily finds imitators. If therefore long ago they seemed to themselves wise for this reason, because there was no one to whom this foul invention was displeasing; now, since by the mercy of God the human race has been enlightened, and it has been shown to be a crime which was believed to be law, and foolish that which was thought to be a wise invention, they ought at least to cease from this name, refusing to remain in a detected crime, knowing that the name of wisdom is alien to them. But, in order to add foolishness to the heap of their own confession, having been caught in foolishness they call fools those by whom they are refuted. Yet they accuse our faith and its generations to come; but they do not deny that nothing in its teachings can be criticized. Those who accuse our faith do not take their stand so much against us as against our author. For they declare us fools, because we have put faith in a seemingly foolish matter; but Him they pronounce a liar and deceiver, and even hateful, who would deliver a faith by which we might be deceived. Let us therefore first prove that we did not believe foolishly; then we shall plead the cause of the Author. When we lived in the error in which the pagans now remain, drawn by no signs of virtue but only receiving the bare words which they call sacred, we thought they were useful, not because divinity had praised them, but because ancient custom had handed them down. In this custom (as is no secret), deceived by various vanities, we recognized no hope of salvation. For what benefit could come from a thing invented by men? But when we came to the faith of God and believed in His Son incarnate and crucified, we were not persuaded by words, but by deeds. For we saw the dead raised, lepers cleansed, sight restored to one born blind, demons cast out, and at the same time all illnesses healed. Let it now be judged when we were foolish: when we believed in bare words, or when we believed because of deeds? For without doubt deeds come before words, since words were invented to signify deeds. Therefore, if we granted belief to human tradition, upheld by no virtue, a tradition invented to deceive the minds of men, how much more to this faith, which all the divine and deifying signs that invoke God bear witness to? Would we not rightly be judged foolish if we did not believe in virtues, we who had believed in speeches? Would we not reasonably be marked as careless and ill-advised if we did not follow the hope that calls us, we who had been subject to despair? But, they say in reply, what is believed is foolish. For it does not stand up to reason that God should have a Son, nor that bodies dead and dissolved could be restored again to life. All the philosophers and inventors of sects wounded one another with various arguments, none passing over to the other’s side; for each man remained in that in which he had been trained. Through the fact that words are accountable to contradiction, none overcame another. There was no way by which anyone could show himself the victor; but tiring one another with contradictions, they in no way persuaded each other. Therefore it came to pass that the providence of God, whose mind cannot be searched out, joined virtue to His preaching, so that the truth of preaching might be proved by the testimony of virtue; so that those who were ready to contradict words, when they saw virtue, would not dare to contradict. For what greater testimony of truth can there be than the working of virtue? If anyone, however, denies works of virtue by accusing the Scriptures, how can he call our faith foolish while denying the Scriptures? For wherever it is written about Christ that He is to be believed as the Son of God, in that same place the testimony of virtue is found. And if it seems absurd to anyone reading that Christ, the Son of God, was crucified, let him read further and he will find that He rose from the dead; and let him understand that He did not die idly nor unwillingly, He who could rise again, but that it is a mystery. Whoever he may be, he will either be silent about the cross, for if he calls the cross foolish, he will not be able to call the resurrection foolish, for the resurrection excuses the cross, or if he speaks of the cross, he will not be able to deny that there is providence in it, which he sees confirmed by the testimony of the resurrection. Either both are accepted, or both are rejected, so that whoever does not defend them does not even dare to accuse them. The reason why He allowed Himself to be crucified is a mystery to be reserved for His kindred. But He so praised this death that He declared He was glorified through it. For He says: “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again” (Jn. 10:18). Therefore He was not compelled to die, since He had the power both to die and to rise. Whoever denies this cannot say that death was inflicted on Him by force. For if he denies this, he cannot even declare that He died, because this is contained in the very place where He is read to have been handed over to death. No one condemns the last statements of a text by its earlier ones, or the earlier by the later; for what belongs to one and the same body is not in contradiction. They say deceitfully that it is foolish to believe that the dead rise again. Yet they see examples that make it credible. For all seeds necessary for use, unless they have decayed, cannot be born again. If God has decreed this in the world for the sake of men, why is it considered foolish if it is believed that He will grant the same to their bodies? Except that they themselves are fools, who do not grant to God the power which the world possesses, although the shadow of what has been done appears even now, since it is no longer the time for new virtues to be performed. For they had to be performed in the beginning, that the seed of faith through them might grow. Yet even now demons are terrified at the name of the cross of Christ; and if it is invoked more earnestly, they take flight; and the gods of the pagans, through fear and dread of the named cross, cannot give responses. If the death of Christ is a reproach, why is it a terror? For a thing that comes from a crime ought not to be feared, but despised. Who would fear a man killed for his crime? And if he were innocent, he still would not be feared, but mourned. Therefore, unless the demons, or the gods of the pagans, knew that the cross of Christ is a mystery, they would not be terrified when it is named; and, to speak more plainly, unless they were guilty, they would not be afraid. For all those who are on the Devil’s side consented to the death of Christ. Therefore all demons and all the gods of the Gentiles, when the cross of Christ is named, are shaken with terror. For everyone who is guilty of the death of an innocent man, when his name is mentioned, fear seizes his heart. For when he recalls his crime, he sees himself as guilty. How much more the demons and the gods of the Gentiles, who are guilty of the killing of the Lord and Savior of the world? But the pagans, for the sake of antiquity, insist that they hold the truth, because, they say, what is earlier cannot be false. As though antiquity or old custom could take precedence over truth. For murderers, or the unmanly, or adulterers, or other criminals could, by this means, defend their unlawful acts, because they are ancient and were begun from the very beginning of the world; whereas from this they ought rather to understand their error, since whatever is reprehensible and shameful is proved to have had an evil beginning, but whatever is honorable and holy is rightly venerated; nor can what is shameful and blameworthy have been formerly honorable and blameless. And finally, the tradition of the pagans, having been invented by man, cannot be denied; but that our Law was given by God is an evident fact. For on the mountain the majesty of God appeared to give the Law to men. And that faith might be placed in this, He first sent many signs and wonders done in Egypt, which even today books testify to, stored by Ptolemy in the library of Alexandria. Therefore, then, He consented to give the Law, that no one might doubt that it was God who delivered it. For the majesty of God was seen openly and plainly by all, with such brilliance and terror that no other god besides Him was believed to exist, and that what He commanded was held worthy of all observance. And that all things might agree with the divine order, let the given Law be examined, to see whether there is anything unjust in it, anything dishonorable, anything ridiculous. Therefore it was fitting that God should be made known; not that He should appear in a corner by deceit, He who cannot be limited; nor in a mirror, where what is seen is other than it appears through enticing fraud; nor would He deliver precepts to be kept which, because they were dishonorable, would be performed in darkness. For since the knowledge of the one God had been obliterated in the world by the habit of sinning, because falsehood had supplied a veil for the truth, the merciful and gracious God, unwilling that His work should become accountable to destruction, consented to visit the human race. He did not appear as those did who wished falsely to be called gods; but as He is the Truth of God, so He revealed Himself, that He might remove the error which, by the proclamation of false gods, had corrupted the understanding of the world. In short, more than six hundred thousand men, having gone out of Egypt, seeing and knowing that this Lord was above all from the revealing of unspeakable glory, were afraid to approach Him, but from afar, with knees bent, they worshiped Him (Exod. 20:18). Afterwards, as other signs followed besides those which He had done in Egypt, in all these wonders He was revealed as the one God. These things became known in almost all tongues; these were a terror to neighboring nations. What such thing is there among the gods of the Gentiles? To what nation, to what people have they shown their glory? What signs or powers have they performed as testimony of their divinity? Where or when are they proved to have spoken? But the irrational crowd began to worship as gods either apparitions of shadows, or demons, or images of the dead; and this practice, having been drawn into the custom of antiquity, thinks that it can defend the truth of reason for itself; whereas the rule of truth comes not from custom, which arises from antiquity, but from God, who is not proved to be God by antiquity, but by eternity. Wherefore faith is not something begun, but is without beginning. For to believe in God is the beginning on our side. For that which is believed is eternal. How then do the pagans suppose themselves to be prior, when that which they worship is after God? Is not a work after its maker? Pagans worship the works, we the Maker; they the creature, we the Creator. Surely God made the world; did He not, when He had made it, show His own knowledge? Or did He make man and not wish to be worshiped by him whom He had made? But this is absurd. Therefore man, once made, began to venerate his Creator, because this is fitting and the very cause required it. When this had grown obsolete through the negligence of men, God restored it in Abraham, so that the knowledge of God which had existed in Adam might begin again in Abraham; that those born from him might be brought up under this knowledge, and that through transmission it might not fail, nor be lacking in one who worshiped God; others also from a foreign nation being called to this knowledge of God. Therefore, the one who has come to know is under a beginning; but the one who is known is above beginning. By what reasoning, then, do the pagans say that their law existed before ours? If the world is before God, which be it far from us, then paganism can likewise be set before Christianity. Let no one be astonished at the name of Christianity. For it is to worship one God in the mystery of the Trinity. And if the name of Christ is thought to come from chrism, yet the reason of the name is prior to the chrism. For among our ancestors, those who were anointed as kings were called christs, having the image of the Christ to come, who, born of God the Father as king, is not undeservedly called Christ; because that which to these was chrism, to Him was given by birth. Him, as long as the pagans are ignorant of Him, they reject; but when they have come to know Him, they honor Him with greater devotion, rejoicing that they have passed from evil to good. For they who were so stubborn in a matter so frivolous and foolish, how much stronger and more fervent will they be when the truth is known? What then is our Christ like, who, when He is unknown, is hated; when He is known, is loved? For every wicked man, when he is unknown, is loved, when known, is hated. How many once hated Christ who now love Him, and who grieve that they hated what they did not know? For it is the mark of the foolish to hate one whom you do not know, since it must first be tested whether a thing is worthy of hatred. In short, those who today oppose will tomorrow defend, doing penance that they came to know the truth so late. For if the thing were worthy of hatred, or had any element of deceit, every day pagans would be made out of Christians. But since this is the truth, every day, every hour, without interruption, people abandon Jupiter, among whom are sophists and nobles of the world, who had confessed him to be god, and flee to Christ, to whom be honor and glory unto the ages of ages.

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 125. AGAINST EUSEBIUS. (widely believed to be Eusebius of Vercelli) — I remember that I once read in a certain little book by Eusebius, otherwise an outstanding man in other respects, that not even the Holy Spirit knows the mystery of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ; and I am astonished that a man of such learning inflicted this stain upon the Holy Spirit. By saying this he has in fact implied that He is of a degenerate kind. For He cannot be said to be of God if He does not know the things that are of God; because a lower nature does not know what is in a higher. But if He is of the same substance and divinity, how can He fail to know what belongs to Himself? Indeed, the Son of God, because He says, I and the Father are one (Jn. 10:30), on account of the unity of substance, quite rightly added, saying, All things that the Father has are mine; and what is mine is the Father’s (Jn. 16:15). Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is of the same divinity, on what grounds is He separated off so as not to be of the same knowledge, when He is not denied to be of the same substance? He granted what is greater while refusing what is less. A creature, after all, learns, and begins to know certain things about its author, and what it has learned will be common to it with its author; but substance or divinity cannot be common to God and to a creature. For the substance of God has nothing to learn, because there is nothing He does not know; whereas the substance of human beings does not have by nature the capacity to know, but to learn. Therefore knowledge happens to human nature; yet the substance is not changed, because the nature of man is without knowledge: for it was so created that it should acquire knowledge through exercise. Therefore substance is greater than knowledge; because it is not knowledge that acquires substance, but substance that acquires knowledge: and substance can exist without knowledge, but knowledge cannot exist without substance. In God, however, as there is substance, so also there is knowledge: for the substance which has nothing to learn, that very substance is knowledge to itself. Therefore all things in God are said to be “substantial.” For a substance to which nothing is lacking possesses all things substantially; because nothing has been added to it as a result of study. How then can it be said of the Holy Spirit that He does not know the birth of the Son of God, if He is consubstantial with Him? Can one and the same substance both know and not know? Surely the Son of God did not learn the mystery of His own birth; He knows it substantially, not by teaching. On what grounds then is the Holy Spirit said not to know, when in like manner He has nothing that He needs to learn, because He knows all things by substance? For just as the Son of God is, so also the Holy Spirit is the substance of God, as the Lord says, All things that the Father has are mine; by which He indicated that the substance of God the Father is His own substance. And He says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from what is His: And therefore, He says, I said that He will receive from what is mine, because all things that the Father has are mine. If He proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son, how can He be ignorant of the birth of the Son, when His substance is the substance of the Son? For all things that the Father has are the Son’s. Without doubt, then, the Father’s substance is also in the Holy Spirit. For the Son added, saying: And all that is mine is the Father’s. Why then is it questioned whether the Holy Spirit is of the same divinity, since He is of the same substance? For just as the Lord said of Himself that He proceeded from God, so He also bears witness concerning the Holy Spirit. And lest this could be interpreted in some other way, He says, He proceeds from the Father (Jn. 15:26); and, He will receive from what is mine (Jn. 16:14): so that to proceed from the Father is the same thing as to receive from Christ. For when it is said that He receives from the Son of God, there is no doubt that He too is from God, so that in the Holy Spirit the substance and divinity of the Father are not in doubt. Therefore whoever says that He does not know the birth of the Son of God detracts from Him from whom He is said to have received. For He does not receive something other than what He Himself is, from whom He receives; because to have received from Christ means that He has proceeded from God: and so He cannot be ignorant of the fact that He is from the One from whom He has received; nor can He be said to be ignorant of the Lord, since He has proceeded from God. Surely the Son of God, because He is from the Father as God, knows all things that are of God: why then should the Holy Spirit be denied knowledge of whatever things are Christ’s, since He has received from Him? Therefore, if the Son of God knows the things that are in God, there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit also does not ignore the things that are in the Son of God: and by the fact that He knows the things that are in the Son, He cannot be said not to know the things that are in God. For from Him from whom He receives, He has knowledge of God. And why do we labor, when the Apostle is witness in this matter, saying: No one knows the things that are in God, except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11)? Behold, in what we long labored, with the Apostle’s help we have brought it to completion. And did he perhaps prejudge [praejudicavit] the Son of God, because he said that no one knows the things that are in God except the Spirit of God? Far from it. So neither did the Son prejudge the Holy Spirit when He said: No one knows the Father except the Son. For He did not say that anyone knows the things that are in God except the one who is from God: because everything that is from God knows God and the things that are in God. For the nature of God knows itself; and when you understand that this nature is also in the Holy Spirit, by the fact that He has proceeded from the Father and received from the Son, it is not safe to say that He does not know God the Father, whose nature you acknowledge in Him. And yet the Savior so said that no one knows God the Father except the Son, as to reserve the knowledge of Him to another person: for He immediately added, saying: And to whom the Son shall choose to reveal Him (Matt. 11:27). To whom, do you think, does the Son wish to reveal Him? He can be dearer to no one than to His own Spirit: for, If anyone, He says, does not have the Spirit of Christ, that person does not belong to Him (Rom. 8:9). How then do you think the Father God has been revealed by the Son to the Holy Spirit, except in the way that the Lord Himself says, He will receive from what is mine? For God the Father cannot be revealed to a creature; because a creature cannot bear the nature of God, unless it is of the same substance: for He dwells in light inaccessible, that is, inaccessible to a creature (1 Tim. 6:16). But to some it seems for this reason to be rightly said that the Holy Spirit does not know the mystery of the birth of the Son of God, because he is said to search all things (1 Cor. 2:10); and, they say, one who searches is of course ignorant. This must be understood from another passage: for among other things God’s words are, I am God who searches the kidneys and hearts (Jer. 17:10); and in the Psalm, God, he says, searches hearts and kidneys (Ps. 7:10); and the Apostle, He who searches hearts, he says, knows what the Spirit desires, because he intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. By these examples, when the Spirit of God is said to search, it is meant that he does not ignore. He is also said to search the deep things of God: and what are the deep things of God, which he is said to see thoroughly? For to search means to penetrate hidden things, so that by this it is believed that nothing is hidden from him. For the deep mysteries of God are God’s inner realities, which cannot be searched by a creature. For it is also written that he intercedes for the saints according to God’s will, which the saints of course do not know, as the Apostle says: For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought (Rom. 8:27, 26). Therefore to know the deep things of God and not to be ignorant of the will of God signify one and the same thing. For what mystery is so deep as the will of God, which is known to the Holy Spirit, but is unknown to all others? We must also consider how it is said that no one knows what is in a man, except the spirit of the man which is in him (1 Cor. 2:11): by “spirit” he meant the soul; because no one knows what is in the soul of a man, except his soul, which is spirit. So also in God no one knows the things that are God’s, except the Spirit of God, that is, God himself. For one who is “of God” is understood to be nothing other than God. Therefore the Spirit of God knows what is in God, because he is of God. For if no one knows the thoughts of men except God, how much more can no one know God’s secrets and will unless he be of God, that is, the very same God? For he is known only to himself. For indeed in God there are no “thoughts.” For he does not debate within himself what he should do or should not do, considering whether it is beneficial; because all that is in God exists without any doubt, not by accident, but by substance; nor by effort, but by nature; for he is not changed. And therefore the Holy Spirit does not know the mysteries of God in any other way than by substance: for one substance has one and the same understanding and will. He is speaking of God, who is always one and unchangeable, whether in the Son or in the Holy Spirit. For what the Father wills, the Son also wills; and what the Son wills, the Holy Spirit likewise wills. Therefore he is sometimes called the Spirit of God, sometimes the Spirit of Christ: Who proceeds from God, he says; and, He will receive from what is mine. Therefore it is that the apostle John says: By this we know that God remains in us, by his Spirit whom he has given us (1 Jn. 3:24). Therefore, if by the Spirit of God dwelling in us God is said to dwell in us, the Spirit of God is signified to be God. Finally, this is the sign of believers, that they are children of God: that when they receive him, they dare to call themselves sons of God. For unless they had the mark of deity, they could not be called sons of God. Yet no one is a true son of God so as to be wholly from the whole, as Christ is. But by adoption they become sons of God, so that by receiving the Spirit of Christ they are called sons of God through him, by reason of the Spirit whom they have in themselves, who is of God. For in sons, even if they are adopted, some part of the father’s substance ought to be seen. In the world, because things are imperfect, sons adopted by men receive no pledge, but only a name. But because God is perfect, he does more, so that he gives his Spirit to those he adopts, through whom those adopted by him seem to have some reality; for names without realities are empty. Our Apostle supports this assertion of ours, saying: O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out (Rom. 11:33)! Yet what does he mean, that although he elsewhere says the deep things of God, that is, his secrets, are searchable, he here denies it, saying that they are unsearchable? But in this passage he spoke of the creature, because God’s secrets or judgments are unsearchable for it; whereas for the Holy Spirit, in that he knows all things that are God’s, he said that all that is in God is searchable; so that he affirms that what is unknown to the creature is not unknown to the Spirit of God. Therefore the nature of God cannot be denied, which has knowledge of what cannot be comprehended by the creature. Those who call the Holy Spirit a degenerate being of God attack the position which has declared that the salvation of the whole creation consists in the divinity of the Trinity: because if he is not consubstantial with God and Christ, it is foolish to place him in the number of the Father and the Son, so that without him there is neither salvation nor dignity for anyone. For if he does not share the same divinity, his effect would be either stupid or pointless, which be far from us. For who among wise men would deny that the Creator cannot be counted together with the creature, nor the eternal compared with one who is under a beginning, nor the Lord equated with the servant, nor the powerful compared with the powerless, nor the knowledgeable ranked with the ignorant? But now let the slander cease. He is third in order, not in nature; in rank, not in divinity; in person, not in ignorance. For just as the Son of God is second after the Father and is not lesser in divinity, so also the Holy Spirit, following after the Son, is not inferior, but equal in the divine substance. Finally, what we read of the Son of God, we read likewise of the Holy Spirit, as he himself bears witness to us. For he says: I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth (Jn. 14:16). When he said “another,” he indicated himself as Paraclete. This John explains, saying that the Son of God intercedes for our sins (1 Jn. 2:2). And the apostle Paul: The Spirit of God himself, he says, intercedes for us. Behold, Scripture shows that both are advocates. And when He called Him the Spirit of truth, He showed that He in no way differs from Himself, because He said: I am the truth (Jn. 14:6). He said that He was sent by the Father, and He Himself promised that He would send the Holy Spirit. If He is not inferior to the One who sends, then neither is the Holy Spirit inferior to Him who sends Him. For neither, because the three are each distinct, are they parts of one another, so that they might be different. For there is one power of the three, such that nothing is lacking to each. Let this be the conclusion. For already, in the little book composed against Arian wickedness, the remaining matters, which encompass the undivided unity of the Trinity, have been more fully treated.

2^ND CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 1. AGAINST THOSE WHO DENY THAT ANYTHING CONCERNS GOD. — To many whom this worldly darkness has blinded, we are most displeasing if we anxiously keep God’s commandments, if we avoid occasions of sinning, if we strive with saving zeal to accomplish every good thing, if we disregard the seductive allurements of temptations and vices, if we allow ourselves to be captured by no worldly sweetness, if we willingly undergo tortures and punishments for the name of God, if by the strength of the spirit we hold death itself in contempt. To those, namely, whose mortal sense has persuaded them that everything done is worthy neither of praise nor of blame. For they do not want any of these things to pertain to God. Some, so eager to defend their crimes and wicked deeds, say: It is of no benefit whether you live well or badly. For it is not God’s concern now to carefully rush to look upon you as you act in different ways according to your own disposition and disease, and at some point to trouble his eyes with your foul deeds. All things that are celebrated as one pleases are vain: he who pertains to God is hidden and removed from these human affairs, and therefore neither grows angry nor is moved; he has no contemplation of human affairs, none of our actions; the entire course of the whirling age, and a certain mysterious rolling of the worldly sphere, so seizes, snatches, and hurls him away that anyone is considered a fool who thinks he can call him back to the care of God. Not even the disposition of martyrs, then, is to be approved, who suppose that their God, whom they proclaim to be merciful, delights in the shedding of their blood. Nothing in us is dear to him, nothing is hateful; he rejoices in no circumstance of our death, in no integrity of our health; nor does he desire to know what is being done or where: not because it would be impossible for the divine majesty to have knowledge of almost all things that have been done or are being done, but because he does not wish to know the miseries of men and worldly vanities. Therefore, finally, it is written: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity (Eccles. 1:2). Their opinion, fixed in despair, is dissolved by the authority of the divine sense, and is likewise refuted as overthrown by their own sacred popular speech, which is held in highest use. For when amid business and various dealings faith and treachery contend, divine witness is called upon, that witness which, they say, sometimes does not know what we are doing. “God is my witness,” they say; “God see, God judge, God act, God repay.” And when the need for an oath arises, and the mind of the one who swears fears lest something befall him if he perjures himself; he both demands an oath and is confident that it can be exacted from him who has sworn falsely. And when the desired recovery and good health has been obtained, thanks are rendered to the divinity. And when, in some falling matter, one who was in near danger has escaped unharmed, they say that the good God has provided it. And when, with the contrary blowing of the winds, the waves of the stirred sea rise up, and the ship, struck on all sides, is shaken, the crowd of sailors stretch their hands to heaven, with supplicating voice beg God, and are confident that they can be heard and delivered. Where comes all this, if God has no care for us, if he does not know what we are doing? That persuasion therefore is empty. All things are known to God. Let no one flatter himself concerning the freedom of his committed crimes. The good life is of a greatest reward, and of an evil life is eternal punishment and everlasting torments. Therefore, to us who believe that God knows all things, who devoutly rush to martyrdom, an immeasurable reward, eternal life shall be given; but to the wicked, who have tried to teach that God does not know their crimes and hidden wickedness, there will be supplied a consuming flame of fire and a blaze that never ceases.

MISCELLANEOUS

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 1. WHAT IS GOD? — This is what no opinion can fully grasp. For He is more than anything that can be spoken or conceived. Yet let us say something which, though unequal, may still in some way fit what seems worthy of God. For each nature, according to its own capacity, forms a notion of God; and as nature differs from nature, so does judgment differ from judgment about what God is. Since He is above all things, it must be that He surpasses every mind. Human beings, as far as they can stretch the sharpness of their mind, look toward what God is, by opinion rather than by definition. But the angels, who are above human beings, certainly have a higher sense of God; and the Archangels more still; while the Cherubim and Seraphim, those powers said to be next to God, have yet greater thoughts of Him, though they still do not fully comprehend what God is. For no one knows the Father except the Son, nor does anyone know the Son except the Father (Matt. 11:27). Therefore God, as He appears to human beings, is spirit, simple in nature, light inaccessible, invisible, beyond measure, unlimited, perfect, needing nothing, eternal, utterly immortal, from whom all things received their beginning; One to be venerated, loved, feared; outside of whom there is nothing, indeed, in whom are all things that exist above and below, highest and lowest; almighty, all‑sustaining, truly rich in all things, because there is nothing that is not His; good, just, merciful. Good, because He brought into existence things that were not; just, because whatever He made to advance He left to the free judgment of their own liberty; yet because they are not so perfect that they cannot fall, He decreed that seeds of law should naturally exist in them, adding the help of revealed law, so that His authority might be complete for humankind; merciful, because He does not quickly repay those who sin, but bears with them so that He may forgive the repentant. He is also severe, so that, through fear, the things well created by Him may be preserved, lest negligence give rise to the downfall of life. And, lest we omit what is more wondrous, His mercy is so great that He endures insults from those He has made and Himself first calls them to peace. Is this not an act of greater power than having created the creature? Yet if His excessive goodness remained without limit in this, it would harm the creature. Therefore He wills that He be at times loved, at times feared, lest those who stray from Him perish. Therefore it is that, lest His patience be thought something to be despised, not indeed to His loss, but altogether to ours, He says: I have kept silence; shall I always keep silence? (Isa. 42:14). Therefore God is good, and all that He has made is good. Where then comes evil? Nothing is evil except the violation of good, when either what is not granted is supposed upon, or what is granted is done in a disorderly way; so that in one place a command is fulfilled, in another a sin is committed. As when what is permitted in marriage is done with a prostitute; or what was to be offered to God is offered to the Devil; or when someone does not take what is his own, but what is another’s; or when the transgressor, who ought to be killed, is spared and the innocent is killed. No nature, then, is proved to be evil. The will, however, is an accident of nature, arising from causes that are wrongly set in motion when it oversteps the measure, so that it performs acts that do not belong to its nature. The causes of transgression arise from the senses, when we see or hear something wrongly. This fault occurs because man is not God, who alone cannot err. Human nature, therefore, has been released and left to its own judgment, so that it can do what it wills: so that, if by the exercise of good it improves its nature, it may be more honorable; but if it weakens its strength, it may be reckoned worthy of such a criticism. For it does what is against itself. It is no small thing that has been granted to man: that, when he follows what right, he rejoices in himself through that by which he sees himself made better by his own work; or else rightly blames himself, who, though he could, did not take pains to better himself by good things. But if man were not master of his own power, he would be subject to necessity, so that he would have neither the glory of good works nor the punishment of evil, but would be one of the beasts. Since, then, we have been made capable of both, so that by negligence we fall into sin, if what we ought to hear and see well we hear badly and outside the rule and reason; while by watchfulness we preserve the good of our nature: and since we cannot always be cautious, because, as I said, we have been made capable of both; if we sin, we are not at once condemned, unless we sin again, now as if traitors. For whoever has sinned once must restore himself so as not to sin again, lest he be equal to him who had overcome him; so that, if he does not sin again, he is now accounted superior. For he who was once cast down will triumph twice. This is righteousness: that since life in this world is a struggle, whoever is more inclined to sin is crowned for not sinning. Nothing, therefore, in God’s work is evil. But if certain things are called evils by some, such as poison or darkness, because our bodies cannot bear the force of poison; they also call fire or water evil; and iron or lead, because they are very far from gold, are called evil. By comparison with light they condemn darkness, though they know it to be necessary in its own place, like lead or clay. For of course they give rest after labor. Therefore everyone who struggles in the world must exert himself in such a way that he does not leave conquered in some harsh affair and become guilty, scarcely or slowly restoring himself, and perhaps death comes between these things, and he departs from here with his sin. He who resists with all his strength, if he is perhaps struck down, falls as a man; and no one is angry with him, but by a kind of encouragement restores his spirit. For he sees that he had the purpose of conquering and hopes that such a one can advance to victory, whom his enemy has not thrown down without effort. For he who is easily overcome has no spirit of resistance; nor is he truly overcome, but he consents. Such a man sins more bitterly. A person of this sort should scarcely be admitted to pardon, who has a deliberate desire to sin. For he who plans how not to sin, even if he should sin, does not sin harshly. For more diligent people, lesser sins sometimes creep in. But the smaller they are, the subtler they are; and while they are despised, they are not avoided. Greater sins are plainly visible from afar. And so, when someone commits greater sins, the fault lies in his will. Now, since we previously said that sins arise from the senses when we look at or listen to something against the command of the law or reason, that is, if when we see the sun we think it should be adored because of its beauty, then we see wrongly: for it is an insult to our common Creator when what is owed to Him alone is attributed to a creature, especially since this has been forbidden by the law. Or when we look at well-formed and handsome bodies, or at something belonging to our neighbor, if we desire it and look at these things in a way other than the law commands: then we commit the sin that is called “evil.” But perhaps someone will say, “Then nothing beautiful should have been made, so that we would not sin, and our protection would depend on the ugliness of others.” If that were true, there should be no iron, lest murders be committed with it; nor should there be lamps in use, lest thieves employ their light to break in, so that what is greatly useful to all would be lacking because of the vanity of a few. Yet it is clear that we are always looking at everything, and yet we do not always desire everything; for it is not their fault, but ours, when we are careless: which is evident from the fact that we are created in time, because we are not what God is. In the same way we hear wrongly, if, when we hear that idols are gods, we consent to it; or if we lend our ear to those who sing shameful songs. But we hear well when, hearing that God is one, we take delight in it. And if anyone, hearing something against the law, gives agreement, he sins: and this will be “hearing wrongly.”

1^ST CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 4. WHY DID NOT GOD GIVE THE LAW FROM THE BEGINNING? —  First, the Law ought not to have been given in written letters at the beginning, because it was, in a certain way, implanted in nature itself, and the knowledge of the Creator, handed down, was not hidden. For who does not know what belongs to a good life, or is ignorant that what he does not want done to himself he ought by no means to do to another? But when the natural law vanished, overwhelmed by the habit of sinning, then it was necessary for the Law to be revealed, so that in the Jews all men might hear it. Not that it had been completely erased, but because they lacked its greatest authority, there was zeal for idolatry. The fear of God was not on earth. Fornication was at work. There was greedy desire for the property of one’s neighbor. Therefore the Law had to be given, so that what was already known might have authority, and what had begun to lie hidden might be brought to light. For we find that before Moses sins were not only not hidden, but even punished. And so many are found to have been righteous, who, knowing God as avenger, were afraid to sin. But when this began to be neglected, the natural law had to be revealed, so that all might know with plain reasoning that God would demand an account of human actions. Although it is read that punishment was exacted through the flood, and in Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 7, 19), yet the forgetfulness of ancient times had covered these things. Therefore, through Moses, they were recalled for the sake of instilling fear, to correct discipline and restore faith in God. Therefore the Apostle also says: For the righteous, the Law is not laid down, but for the unrighteous, idol‑worshipers, fornicators (1 Tim. 1:9), and such as these. Now let us see whether this suits those who, hearing of God’s judgment, laugh at the idea that it will come; whether it will benefit or harm; whether it is fortified by truth or lacks reason. The Law indeed has been given to the world, but we see it cease to operate in regard to many people. It therefore does not seem just that those who sin here by means of power should be safe. Some mock the laws, the poor are oppressed, accusations are fabricated against the righteous, those who act well are held up to criticism, the devout are in need, the wicked flourish, the unrighteous and the corrupters are in honor, the greedy and plunderers enrich themselves, the judge is for sale. Does it not seem unjust if the Maker of all things does not require an account of these matters: so that those who have been unjustly oppressed here might be relieved; and those who were in want because they lived well might be rewarded; and those who were in reproach because of righteousness might be honored; but those who, through their power, despised the laws or mocked them by dodging, following injustice, and so glorious in these things that they seem to insult justice itself, might be humbled and confused, subjected to torments in the sight of those in whose misfortunes and humiliation they rejoiced; so that these in turn, glad at their punishment, might give thanks to God, with whom alone there is no respect of persons (Rom. 2:11)?

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 48. GOD IS CERTAINLY PERFECTION AND IN NEED OF NOTHING; WHAT NEED THEN HAD CHRIST THE SAVIOR TO BE BORN OF GOD, AND FOR GOD TO HAVE A SON THROUGH WHOM HE MIGHT MAKE ALL THINGS? — When God willed that things which had not existed should come into being, and understood that this work was in no way worthy of His majesty, He first generated from Himself, since He is by nature simple and incorporeal, the Son, who in no way differed from Him, so that an effect might correspond fittingly to His greatness. For what more could He do than to generate from Himself another who is perfect? This therefore is the perfect work, beyond which nothing else can appear more excellent. [For all other things are lesser: for the more Christ excels all these, the more the creation of those things is inferior to His generation. And there is another point:] For God, from whom are all things, wishing to create the creature, first generated the Word which He held with Himself in mystery, that is, He caused it to exist. This Word He therefore called Son, so as to show that He came forth from Himself and is consubstantial with Him: in order that the law by which sons are from their parents might make this credible, through which He would reveal to the creature the mystery that lay hidden in Him from eternity.

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 91. HOW TO BE SOUGHT IS HOW TO CONTRADICT THE ARGUMENTS OF PHOTINUS, WHO SAYS THAT CHRIST DID NOT EXIST BEFORE MARY. — But before we speak of John, let us first examine the Baptist, whom the Savior Himself declared to be His witness. For among other things he says of the Lord: “He who comes from above is above all; he who is from the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. But He who comes from heaven testifies to what He has seen and heard, and no one receives His testimony” (Jn. 3:31–32). See how John, in comparison with the Lord, calls all others together with himself earthly, because he bears witness that He came from heaven, while all the rest are from the earth, that is, from the lower regions. And the Lord Himself, among other similar statements, says: “For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent Me, the Father” (Jn. 6:38). And again the Lord, speaking in the same sense, says: “And I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf. For the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came from God. For I came forth from the Father and have come into this world; again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father.” (Jn. 16:26-28) Then, seeing that He had spoken plainly, the disciples say to Him: “Behold, now You speak openly and You are not using any figure of speech. Now we know that You know all things and have no need that anyone should question You; in this we believe that You came forth from God” (Jn. 16:29–30). These statements need no interpretation, since this is the very summit of our faith: that we believe Christ to have been with God in heaven before His incarnation, as the Son with the Father. For if, because of His righteous life and heavenly teaching, He had said that He came from heaven and from God and came into the world, then all the Prophets and Apostles ought to have said the same of themselves. And because He said, “Again I am leaving the world and going to the Father,” (Jn. 16:28) perhaps someone might say that He meant this: that the teaching which came from God, after leaving the world, returned to God? For they have nothing else to say. For if His coming from heaven, His going forth from God, and His coming into this world refer to the cause of virtue and teaching, and not to the person of the Savior, then when He says, “Again I am leaving the world and going to the Father,” He naturally returns to the place from which He came. Yet we see that after the Lord’s departure, both His power and His teaching remained in the world. You see therefore that the Lord did not speak of power and teaching, but specifically spoke of Himself. But if you say that these words refer to the power which worked in Christ, that very power itself calls God its Father. You fall into the very thing you fear: for if the power of God is the Son of God, then that very power is the power of God of which the Apostle says that Christ is “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24): this power went forth from God and returned again to Him. Therefore this very Power, which is Christ, bears witness that He casts out demons by the Spirit of God (Matt. 12:28); this Spirit worked through the Apostles, so that you may know that the Holy Spirit, through whom the Lord worked, after the Lord’s departure worked here in the world through the Apostles. Therefore it is more clearly shown that the Lord spoke of His own person, for He left the world and returned to God. But if you think this power is not Christ, then there will be two powers and two sons of God; and where, then, is that which is written: “The only-begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father” (Jn. 1:18)? And again: “For God so loved this world, that He gave His only Son for it” (Jn. 3:16)? You now see that the power of God which worked visibly in the world is that same one which is called both the Power of God and the Son of God. And let us see what the Apostles believed, or in whom they believed, when they heard the Lord say: “Behold, again I am leaving the world and going to the Father.” For they answered: “Behold, now You speak openly and You are not using any figure of speech. Now we know that You know all things and have no need that anyone should question You; in this we believe that You came forth from God.” Now let us see whether the disciples were in doubt about the powers, whether they came from God, after they had seen Lazarus, already stinking on the fourth day, raised from the dead (Jn. 11:44), the eyes of a man blind from birth restored (Jn. 9:7), a woman delivered from her issue of blood by touching the hem of His garment (Matt. 9:20–22), and the nature of water changed into wine (Jn. 2:9). But concerning the person of the Lord no one at all doubted, nor concerning the powers, since some were saying that He was Elijah, others Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets (Matt. 16:14). For when the Jews wanted to stone Him, Jesus answered them: “I have shown you many good works from My Father; for which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him: “We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, make Yourself God” (Jn. 10:31–33). If, then, the Jews did not doubt that these were works of God, did the Apostles doubt? Since therefore all the doubt concerned the person of the Savior (for this was something unheard of, and beyond human understanding, which caused amazement in people when they heard Him say that He had come forth from God and that God was His own Father), the disciples, acknowledging that the Lord’s words had given them full assurance, said to Him: “Now we know that You know all things and have no need that anyone should question You; in this we believe that You came forth from God.” (Jn. 16:30) For if He did not truly come forth from God, the faith of the Apostles is emptied; but this cannot be, since it was confirmed by the Savior. For He answered them, “Do you now believe?” that is, seeing so many signs, you did not believe before. Therefore it was proved to the Apostles that Christ came forth from God and came, so that by this going forth it would no longer be doubtful to believe that this is the Son of God. For if “no one has seen God except Him who is from God; He has seen the Father” (Jn. 6:46), and if “no one knows the Father except the Son” (Matt. 11:27), this is truly to have been with God the Father, and to have gone forth from Him, and to have come. For no one else could go forth from God except Him who in the beginning was with God (Jn. 1:1); since no one else knew or had seen God. Therefore it is not incredible for us to believe that this is truly the Son of God. As John says in his first Epistle: “And we are,” he says, “in His true Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life (1 Jn. 5:20); and the Apostle says, “He who did not spare His own Son” (Rom. 8:32); and the Evangelist, “Because He called God His own Father” (Jn. 5:18). If therefore Christ is truly the Son of God, how is He only a man? For He would not be called a true Son unless He were properly begotten of Him. Or let Photinus say why He is believed to be the true Son of God, if He is not true. Or what need was there to believe this One to be the Son of God, if He were one of the other saints who are worthy to be called sons of God? Or is there perhaps some unworthiness in this, by which He, as the Son of God, could not be believed as the others are; and therefore it is said that this One, about whom there seems to be unbelief, should be believed to be the Son of God? For if He is greater than the others, what need is there that it should be said, “Believe that Christ is the Son of God,” if He were one of the others, unless because it is commanded that we believe differently about Him than about the others? So that, because many are called sons of God on account of holiness, this One alone may be believed to be the true Son of God, for which reason He is also called the Only-begotten. For which of the saints would have dared to call himself the Son of God, not to say the only-begotten, except the Savior, conscious of His birth proceeding from God? And how would He have allowed Himself to be adored, if He did not know that He is from God, when it is written, “The Lord your God you shall adore, and Him only shall you serve” (Deut. 6:13)? For when John wished to adore the angel, the angel reproved him, saying, “Do not do that, for I am your fellow servant; adore God” (Rev. 19:10; 22:9). And although Scripture testifies that God alone is to be served, yet the Apostle says, “He who serves Christ pleases God” (Rom. 14:18). Why? Because God and Christ, the Father and the Son, are one. The Apostle confesses himself to be the servant of Christ, and says to the Corinthians, “Do not become the servants of men” (1 Cor. 7:23). And to the Galatians, “Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead” (Gal. 1:1): he clearly shows that Christ is God and man, so that he might demonstrate that his apostleship is not from a man, but from Christ, inasmuch as He is God, and from God the Father. Finally, in what follows he says, “For I neither received it from man nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12). What could be clearer? For he says that he attained the doctrine of God not through a man, but that he was taught by God Himself. We, indeed, receive the doctrine of God through men; but the “chosen vessel” claims that he attained nothing from the Apostles, that is, from men. For if, because it is the doctrine of God, it is therefore not learned through a man, what praise is the Apostle claiming for himself if he learned in the same way as the other Apostles? Why does he say, “For I neither received it from man nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ”? Who can doubt that in this passage Christ is signified as God? But what wonder is it, when among other things he says to the Romans, “Theirs are the fathers, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever” (Rom. 9:5)? What does “from them, according to the flesh, is the Christ” mean? He would not have said this if He were not also according to God; so that, according to the flesh, He is from the fathers, but according to His divinity Christ is from God, God over all. But perhaps it might be said that this relates to the person of the Father? Yet in this passage there is no mention of the name of the Father. Therefore, if it is denied that this is said of Christ, let a person be given to whom it fittingly applies. And why should it not fit Christ, in whose name every knee bows in heaven and on earth and under the earth (Philip. 2:10)? that is, that He is God over all. For besides these there are no others. Let Photinus now say whether these bend the knee to a man; or whether God has decreed that those heavenly powers and holy angels should adore a man. Far be it, for God has decreed nothing foolish; especially since it is not permitted to adore any but God, how much less in heaven? For a king is adored on earth as the minister of God. Christ, however, after completing His mediated dispensation, is adored in heaven and on earth. We read, in fact, that “the Word was made flesh” (Jn. 1:14): that is, that this Word, which in the beginning was with God and was God, was, by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, made flesh of Mary, and that this is also called the Son of God. How then is that which was in the beginning and was God not prior to Mary? Even if, being blinded, you deny that this is God, yet you do not deny that it is the Word; nor do you ignore that this Word is called the Son of God, and that it was with God in the beginning. On what grounds, then, do you say that what you read was in the beginning is after Mary? For in the Apocalypse we read of Christ, “And His name is the Word of God” (Rev. 19:13). This “Word” has many meanings. For nothing that is from God fails to be called God; but, because of the authority of the one God, He called that which is born from Him “Word,” so that, guided by this reasoning, by which we know that our words are from none other than ourselves, we might believe that Christ is from God. Nor indeed ought it to have been said otherwise, so that He might be believed to be from Him and not outside Him. In a similar way, too, He is called the Power and the Wisdom of God, so that in the same manner He may be understood to be from Him. For if He had said “God and God,” He would not have signified that the latter was from Himself, but would have made two gods, which is contrary to unity. This is the method in the divine Scriptures: that, while Christ is signified as God, He does not exceed the measure of the one God. But how foolish is that notion of yours, Photinus, by which you so punctuate the beginning of the Gospel of John that the Word may not be called God! For you read therefore: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was. The Word was in the beginning with God.” What is the meaning of this punctuation? What sense does it convey? What principle of virtue does it express, except sheer hostility against the Son of God? For what meaning is there in pronouncing, “And the Word was with God, and God was”? Is this then the wisdom of our Scripture, to teach that God exists? What tongue, what nation, what land, what sect denies that God exists And so, to suggest what he means, he says, “And the Word was with God.” Or what does he wish this word to be understood as, unless he is showing forth His reason? For the Gospel is not written on account of God, about whom no one doubts, but on account of the Word, about whom questions arise. For it is the mystery of God, which is believed precisely because it is not revealed to all. Therefore Scripture strives to teach what the Word is, saying: “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” This agrees with reason, and the statement is complete. For it shows that this Word, which in the beginning was with God and was God, in the sacrament of the eternal mystery of God, which was unknown from ages and generations, is to be believed to have been God the Word with God the Father. And because this comes into doubt for those who are carnal, who want Scripture to speak according to the capacity of their own understanding, faith has been established, so that by following the sense of Scripture it may deserve its reward. When Solomon had asked wisdom of God, the Lord answered: “Behold, I have given you,” he says, “a wise and understanding heart, such as no one has had before you, and after you no man like you shall arise” (1 Kings 3:12). What shall we say? Is what God promised true? Yes, it is true. Therefore no man will be like Solomon. And what will be thought of Christ, who among other things says, “The queen of the South came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here” (Matt. 12:42)? Now choose whom you will believe, Photinus: God or Christ, the Father or the Son? If you believe the Father, you accuse the Son; if you believe the Son, you accuse the Father. For if Christ is only a man, He has vainly set Himself above Solomon contrary to the promise of God; but if He is understood also to be God, He has rightly set Himself before Solomon, and the promise of God remains unstained, because no man like Solomon has arisen. For Christ has shown Himself superior for this reason, that He is God. O madness of Photinus, who does not wish to confess that Christ existed before Mary, when he hears Him with his own ears testifying that He existed before Abraham! For when the Jews were disputing with Him about time, saying, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” He answered them, “Amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am” (Jn. 8:57–58). He did not say, “I am better,” but answered the question by declaring that He existed before the time the Jews supposed. Photinus clearly cannot escape the curse of the Law, because he has his hope in Christ, whom he declares to be only a man, while he reads, “Cursed is the man who has his hope in man” (Jer. 17:5). But the Apostle, knowing that Christ is God, therefore says that our hope is in Him both in the present and in the future: “If in this life only,” he says, “we are hoping in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable” (1 Cor. 15:19). Therefore He is not merely a man, in whom we are taught to have hope; for hope placed in a man is vain. We have said these few things out of many; indeed it would have been enough, had he possessed a sound mind. For Photinus this last point alone which we have set forth would be sufficient.

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 101. ON THE BOASTFULNESS OF ROMAN DEACONS [LEVITARUM].¹ — While we wish to obey the commands of love, we may perhaps fall into reproach, since we are writing about a matter that has never been questioned by anyone; for while we do not wish to offend friendship, we entangle the effort that ought to have served to reveal some hidden matter: yet on account of the excessive foolishness of a certain person who emphasizes what we set forth below, that aforementioned love has enjoined this on us, lest, since no one answered him on this for a long time, he grow worse, and, long exercised in vain, be unable to be corrected. For this is the task of love, which does not seek its own. A certain man therefore, who bears the name Falcidius, led by folly and by the boasting of the city of Rome, strives to equal deacons [levitas] with priests and deacons with presbyters: I will not say to favor them, because that would be even more foolish and perhaps seem unbelievable, and we might be regarded not as correctors but as slanderers. By what law then, or what custom, by what example he dares to undertake this, I think no one knows: namely, that he should make equal to those who, as God’s bishops, sit in the house of God and in the honor of Christ with dignity, those to whom no seat has been granted in the Church. What audacity is it to make ministers equal to presbyters themselves? What rash presumption it is to compare with priests the bearers of the tabernacle, and the cutters of all its wood and the carriers of water? For this was the office of the deacons [levitarum]. It is as if officials were equated with captains, and slaves with masters. For this is written, with the Lord saying to Moses, Take the tribe of Levi from the midst of the children of Israel, and set them before Aaron the priest, and they shall serve him (Num. 8:13). What is clearer than this example, which is still observed in the Church? Although the deacons of the Roman Church may appear a little more shameless, yet they do not presume the dignity of sitting in the Church. And if they do not perform all the ministries of service in order, that is due to the multitude of clerics. For otherwise they would also carry the altar and its vessels, and pour water on the hands of the priest, as we see in all the Churches, and as it was appointed by the Lord through Moses. Or are they better than Elisha, who poured water on the hands of Elijah (2 Kings 3:11)? Yet he defends the deacons against the presbyters, as though deacons were ordained from presbyters, and not presbyters from deacons. But because they are ministers of the Roman Church, they are therefore thought more honorable than in the other Churches, on account of the magnificence of the city of Rome, which appears to be the head of all cities. If this is so, then they ought to claim this also for their priests: for if those who are lower are exalted because of the magnificence of the city, how much more should those who are higher be raised up? For whatever is granted to the officials becomes an increase of the power: just as the honor of the servant contributes to the praise of the master. Yet before the just Judge, God, the honor remains for each here which has been assigned to the several offices of the Churches, so that whoever is a deacon has the honor of a deacon in all the Churches. For it is no slight honor to serve in the Church as minister to a bishop of God; only the priest is worthy of the whole honor of the ecclesiastical order. For the higher order has within itself and by itself the lower as well: for the presbyter performs the office of deacon and of exorcist and of reader. That “presbyter” is to be understood as “bishop,” the Apostle Paul proves, when he instructs Timothy, whom he ordained presbyter, as to what sort of man he ought to ordain as bishop (1 Tim. 3:1–7). For what is a bishop, if not the first presbyter, that is, the chief priest? Accordingly he here calls them his fellow-presbyters and his fellow-priests. Does the bishop also call the ministers his fellow-deacons? Certainly not, because they are much lower. And it is shameful for a judge to be called the head of the office staff. For in Alexandria and throughout all Egypt, if the bishop is lacking, the presbyter consecrates. How great the dignity of the priestly order is, the case of Caiaphas shows, who, although he was a very wicked man, prophesied. Why? Because, he says, he was the high priest (Jn. 11:49). And again, that there is a great difference between a deacon and a priest, the book we call the Acts of the Apostles proves. For when in Samaria they had believed Philip as he preached, Philip, a deacon ordained by the Apostles, they sent, it says, to Peter and John that they might come and give the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands to those who believed (Acts 8:14–15). But they, I think, defend these things either ignorant of the Scriptures or forgetful of the Law. He, therefore, who thinks these things ought to be asserted must recall what happened to the deacons [levitis] when they thought in this way. For when they presumed that there was no difference between priests and deacons [levitas], Korah and those who agreed with him were swallowed up by the gaping earth, by the judgment of God, and a rush of fire consumed the two hundred and fifty men together (Num. 16:31–35): and King Uzziah, when he presumed to perform the priestly work, was covered with leprosy (2 Chron. 26:19–21): so that by this example, at least, others, struck with fear, might not dare to suppose what has not been granted to them. For now we see deacons rashly doing at banquets and in prayer what belongs to priests, wanting it to be the case that people answer them, whereas this is permitted only to priests. For it is the role of the deacon to receive from the priest and so to give to the people. You see what empty presumption produces? Forgetful, in the pride of their minds, that they are ministers of the Roman Church, they do not consider what has been ordained for them by God and what they ought to observe: rather, they remove from memory these things, the constant attendance to household duties and official service, which now has great power through good or bad suggestions. For either it is feared lest they give bad advice, or they are bought so that they may grant favors. These are the people who cause them not to consider the rule of their own order. For while they unlawfully humor them with flattery, they drive them headlong, so that they think more is permitted them: since they see that priests are not so courted; and by this they suppose themselves to be preferred He says that by testimony the deacon becomes a presbyter, as though this belonged to the privilege of greatness. For we read that Peter the Apostle said to the people: “Choose from among you those whom we may appoint to serve the mysteries of the Church” (Acts 6:3). I do not wish to say, the tables. Behold, by the testimony of laypeople deacons were created. And the Apostle wants the one who is to be ordained bishop to have testimony even from the Gentiles; for he says, “For he must also have a good testimony from those who are outside” (1 Tim. 3:7). Therefore it belongs to all to give testimony, and yet not all are worthy of this honor. For all can judge, and yet not all can be what they judge. A painter can be judged good and preferred to another by someone who does not know how to paint; and a flute-player may be approved as better than another flute-player by one who practices a different art. So too a witness for the creation of a presbyter can be someone who is lower in rank. And again, they are puffed up by this and think much is owed to them: “For it is by us,” they say, “that those who are to be ordained are brought forward,” so that, since they stand at their side, they may appear worthy of honor. Suppose this is true. For he is sent by the bishop as an attendant, to render service to the one being ordained. For even the emperor, that he may appear as emperor, is established with the service of the army; yet the army is neither better than nor equal to the emperor. For Haman too, though he was illustrious in military rank, was sent by the king to go in attendance to Mordecai (Esther 6:10), so that by such acts of service it might be known how worthy Mordecai was. So also deacons are sent in attendance for the creation of presbyters, so that all may understand that they become worthy to be priests. For except for the priests, to whom they owe service, deacons are placed before all.

(1) I am not sure whether the common preference of 'levita' over 'diaconus' might not be adduced as an instance:  but my immediate purpose is to call attention to the joint occurrence in both (Ambroisaster and Damascus) of a word that never became as popular in Christian usage as 'levita’ but seems to have been fashionable in Roman church circles of that particular generation. (Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 7; CH Turner; Clarendon Press, 1906;  p. 182)

(2) Question 101 contains the name of a Roman deacon, veiled by the phrase quidam igitur qui nomen habet falsi dei. In all the editions the sentence reads quidam igitur qui nomen habet Falcidii. It is strange how such a sentence could have passed muster for over four centuries. In the eyes of some people anything is good enough to be Christian Latin. Yet the writer shows clearly by the use of the word quidam that he could give the name of the Roman deacon if he chose, and from friendship does not so choose. For the correct reading, now recovered from the manuscripts, is falsi dei, and Falcidius must disappear from the biographical dictionaries. Who is then to take his place? I think it probable that the deacon meant is Concordius, who is known to have lived at that time; then the divinity alluded to will be Concordia. This Concordius, according to the Liber Pontificalis, was a deacon of Rome and one of the prosecutors of Damasus on a capital charge. He was expelled from the Church by a synod of bishops about the end of 378, or the beginning of 379. (Alexander Souter; A Study of Ambrosiaster; The University Press, 1905; p. 181)

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 113. WHY WAS THE SON OF GOD SENT, AND NOT ANOTHER? — Although everything that God does must be believed to be done reasonably and providentially, I nevertheless think it better if, after faith, the cause of what is done can also be noticed, so that what is believed is not unknown. Therefore the Lord says: “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (Jn. 17:3). For first what is said by the Prophet must be believed, and then what is believed must be known; because the Holy Spirit helps the faithful and diligent person in this matter, so that by coming to know he may understand the rationale of faith. Then he enjoys the full joy of his believing, if he understands what he believes. For this is the strength of faith, this the immovable foundation of belief: to learn the mystery. For where there is only faith, devotion is not so pure, and deception can gain entrance. Therefore the chosen vessel labors so that believers may learn the rationale of their faith. For when they have come to know how great he is in whom they have trusted, and what his power is, they will by no means and in no way allow themselves to be turned away from hope in him. Therefore we read the saying: “Taste and see that the Lord is sweet” (Ps. 34:9), so that by deliberate effort they may know the flavor of his divinity, understanding that nothing is wiser than to believe in Christ. For this reason the Teacher of the Gentiles says among other things: “In whom are hidden all the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge of God” (Col. 2:3); and again, “I know,” he says, “whom I have believed, and that he is able to guard my deposit” (2 Tim. 1:12). Therefore this man knows the rationale of his faith and does not doubt the power of him who understands that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in the mystery of the birth, passion, and resurrection of Christ. So, with faith remaining, I long conferred with myself to know why our Lord came incarnate from holy and heavenly seats down to earth, and not another from among those whom the Lord himself calls holy angels. For it seems unfitting to his person that he should have undertaken this work, unless the cause of the deed is known. Indeed this is what troubles many. For the providence of God the Father could have carried out this business through another person, in order both to show the truth to men who were in error, and to restrain the arrogant and envious Devil, who begrudges salvation, together with his satellites, and to despoil him once defeated. For the stubbornness and irreverence of most wicked servants ought to have been curbed by subordinate ministers, so that the Lord of all should not experience something unworthy of himself. For Satan does not have such great force and power that he could in no way be overcome by another power of the same order, since it is clear that by God’s help he is even conquered by men. For although the comparison is unequal if we take examples from earthly affairs, still it suits reason in some respect. For against the servant who rebelled against King David, Joab, his fellow-servant, was sent to pursue and kill him; and against Absalom, wicked toward his father, this task was laid upon the servants (2 Kings 20:6 and 15:14): how much more would the worth of one among many have suited to conquer the tyranny of the Devil; since we read that, challenging against Michael the archangel, he could not hold out, but was cast down to the earth (Rev. 12:7–9)? Often reflecting on this, I knew only this: that he himself was sent by the Father lest it should touch the Father as an injury if a work done by him were corrected by another; but to know this was little. For it did not avail for so great and wondrous a cause, unless something else were also grasped that would help toward the secret understanding. Therefore it came about that I noticed that the cause itself demanded that the one who came should come in just this way. Reason itself required that he should come to subdue the one who had seized his dignity and merit. For after God the Father the Devil wanted to be called god, which he even now still strives for, though the matter did not belong to him, but to the Son of God, who after the Father is second as God, not by nature but by order. Therefore for dealing with this cause no one ought to have come but Christ our Lord: who came not only to subdue the Devil, but also to reveal himself to every creature; so that, with the Devil’s person rejected, they might recognize him whose rule and majesty Satan had presumed upon; and thereafter, once the truth was known, they might abandon error, being certain that Christ is the Son of God, who alone is God from God, and the head or ruler of all things, whether those in heaven or those on earth. For by the strength and power with which he overcame the tyrant Satan, he is shown to be the very one whose dominion the wicked Devil, who is Satan, had presumed upon. For when he unjustly wished to be called god so that he might rule spiritual powers (for which he is rebuked by the prophet saying, “For you have said in your heart: I will set my throne in the clouds, and I will be like the Most High” (Isa. 14:13–14), he deceived many, by whose conspiracy he became the prince of error. These are admonished in the Psalm to reject falsehood and receive truth. For it is said to them: “Lift up your gates, you princes; and be lifted up, you eternal gates; and the King of glory shall enter in.” (Ps. 24:7-10) For unless error is removed from the minds of unbelievers, they could not receive faith in the one God in Christ. For this they are taught: that, once the gates by which one goes to death, according to the unbelief established by the Devil, are taken away, they may receive the mysteries of faith by which one goes to life. These are what he signifies by the eternal gates; because the truth of faith is eternal, but unbelief is temporal, because falsehood is the invention of the Devil. For the Devil sowed on earth the transgression he had begun in heaven, urging the worship of many gods, among whom he might hold first place. For he wished to be the head and ruler of the others, which was not owed to him, but to the Savior. Therefore the Savior pursues him even to the earth, so that by subduing him he may show the transgression of his error, with the truth revealed in himself. Where it is said: “Truth is sprung out of the earth” (Ps. 84:12). For, cast down from heaven, he took refuge on earth, so that the divinity he had contemplated in the heights he might enact in the lower regions. Therefore the Apostle says: “So that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as though he were God” (2 Thess. 2:4). For in whatever way he wishes to fulfill his desire, even if it means being damned: filled with madness he considers it less grievous to be damned than not to satisfy the greed of his error.

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 115. CONCERNING FATE. — Nothing is so contrary to a Christian as paying attention to the art of astrology. For this is recognized as hostile to the law of God. For if some are born who are evil, and conversely others who are good, then the giving of the Law is said to be in vain; and not only this, but the Lawgiver will also be considered unjust. For if, having given the Law, he compels men to act against what they were born to be, knowing that their nature cannot be changed, he seems to have given the Law for this purpose, that he might have an occasion to satisfy his cruelty with the destruction of man. For why does he forbid what he knows cannot be turned aside? Or how does he condemn a man who has not done what he was unable to do? If, however, this seems unjust, as indeed it is, because it is wicked to think this of God, then he gave the Law rightly and for salvation, knowing that man is able to restrain himself from that which the Law forbids. Therefore, since he justly gave the Law, he is certainly not unjust when he enforces it. And so, if faith is to be given to God’s Law, because it is proven to have been given justly, the art of astrology must be shunned and fled from. For the cunning and subtlety of the Devil discovered it. Because he does not dare to openly oppose the Author, he works by elusion, so that he may both do injury to God and, by making man an enemy of the Law, punish him with the second death. Whoever yields to the authority of God, and judges it wicked to call his work into question, obeys the Law given by him, applying himself to its study day and night, and does not look toward anything opposite, not doubting that man is able to keep his commandments. For those who desire to sin seek a grounds by which they can make their sins seem not to be their own; so that, while sins are said to be, as it were, attributable to nature, the sinner appears to be free from punishment. This is the plan of those who, in despair of the promised future life, desire to enjoy present pleasure. But those who, relying on the confidence of faith, await the hope of future things, strive to fulfill what they promised at the very beginning of their rebirth: that they would renounce the pomps and pleasures of Satan. With what great subtlety, then, has Satan acted, so that he might make man more eager to sin, by that through which he could satiate the wickedness of his envy? For when a man hears that he was born in such a way that he must sin, and knows that God is most just, he believes he sins with freedom; because a judge who is just does not condemn one who sinned under the obligation of nature. Nor indeed should it be called his sin, that another committed through him. Therefore man has been deceived: weighed down by sins, he has become subject to death. Therefore, whoever takes away all evil from man, also takes away all good. For if the sinner has no punishment, neither has the righteous a crown. Why are the good praised and the wicked blamed? For if it belongs to this nature that he cannot sin, why do you praise in him what does not belong to him? And why do you condemn the sinner for his offense, when you know that what he does in sin is not his own? What else will he be but unjust, who praises the good and accuses the evil? But perhaps it might be said in reply: I praise good nature in man, and condemn evil nature; for good wine is praised, since by nature it is good, and bad wine is rejected, though by nature it equally produces this quality. If it were so, there would be no cause for blame, so that the righteous would be praised in such a way that he would not be judged worthy of a crown; nor would the unrighteous be accused in such a way that he would be declared worthy of punishment. Yet we both know and read that in the present and in the future the righteous are rewarded, and the unrighteous are burned, subjected to punishments; which would surely seem unjust, if one who acted according to his nature were to suffer penalties from avenging fire, or another, who likewise carried out the work of his nature, were to be honored with rewards. If, however, the good man is to be praised because he did what belonged to his nature, the wicked man should also be praised, because he likewise did what belonged to his nature, so that each, remaining in what he was made, should be praised. For if one who remains in what he was made is considered blameworthy, the blame touches the Author, who caused such a one to be born as would be displeasing. But if the righteous man is rightly to be rewarded, and the wicked rightly condemned, then the response is no longer to nature but to the will; because nature is free, but the will is the cause, which undergoes approaches and withdrawals by the senses; so that the unrighteous man, seeing the righteous crowned, and himself condemned, credits it to himself, who, trusting his senses against the Law, did evil when he could have done good. Can the sun be accused because it burns, or water because it cools? Or is water to be rewarded because it refreshes men who suffer thirst, or will the sun be granted rewards because it restores men with its warmth after cold? For they do what belongs to their nature; therefore they are neither condemned nor praised, since they do not know how to do anything else. But since things are not as the star-gazers suppose, the logic of actions proves it. For no one can be found who always does good, or always does evil. For he would then appear to have been born so as to act well, if he remained perfect; and he would rightly be judged to be evil, if he continued always to act wickedly. But since you see that the one whom you think to have been born good sometimes acts badly, and that the one whom you say was born evil sometimes is seen to do good, how do you prove this to be true, that the evil man is evil and the good man good, except that this is more certain: that in whatever direction a person has set his mind, in that he advances? For there are also causes that generate sins, so that a man may quarrel through jealousy, or become an enemy. Those things, however, which are forbidden by the Law are not committed openly and obviously, but secretly. Why, unless because they fear the Law? But if, as they claim, they had been born for this purpose, to do evil, they would not seek hiding places, nor show any reverence for the Law; rather, they would do everywhere those things which nature compels. But when you see that sins are arranged and that ways are devised so they may be secretly committed, for they choose places, persons, and times in order to carry out the will of their evil intention, so too, in a similar way, the good also distinguish their good works by a certain judgment, so that, according to the time and for the sake of some particular cause, they may distribute their good. This, of course, is no longer to be attributed to nature, but to the will that exists within nature. For if it were natural, judgment would cease. For if we examine the matter more fully, we shall show that those who are now righteous were previously unrighteous, but, having applied themselves, they were changed. For Abraham himself is read to have been justified by faith (James 2:23 and Rom. 4:3). Therefore, before this he was not righteous, since he is understood to have worshipped idols under the guidance of his father. And Zacchaeus too, to whom after a common sort of life the Lord bears witness (Luke 19:9). And the vessel of election, who also admits this, saying, “We too were by nature children of wrath, like the rest” (Eph. 2:3); because the will yields superiority over nature. For one is judged by the will, not by nature. Without doubt all the martyrs and the righteous became good; for they were not born faithful, but reborn. And how many do we know to have lived a shameful life, extravagant devotees of luxury, who are now self-controlled and holy? For when the fear of God draws near, the vices that once ruled are overcome. Let us consider from this how powerful the fear of the law can be. Before Julian’s edict, women were unable to dismiss their husbands. But once the power was granted, they began to do what previously they could not do; they began to dismiss their husbands freely every day. Where had fate hidden itself for so many ages? I suppose it was concealed by fear of the law. And how did that come to be which Moses handed down? I suppose fate was asleep. For so many and such great things were entrusted to them to observe, such as no other nation possesses as precepts. And lest anyone think this should be attributed to the influence of the heavens, scattered over almost the whole world they keep the commands of their law. These precepts stand against fate. For they surely did not exist for three thousand years and more from the founding of the world; but once given, they remain until the end. How then did that which did not exist for so many thousands of years begin? For the course of the stars has been in place from the foundation of the world. And what of this: since there is such a multitude of Jews throughout the whole world, no one among them is changed so as to become a Gentile, whereas we see that from among pagans, though rarely, some become Jews? Behold, as far as the Jewish rite is concerned, fate is excluded; for they both began to exist outside fate and remain within it. What shall we say of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose end, such as it was, lies before our eyes as an act of vengeance (Gen. 19:24)? It came to pass that all, stained with the disgrace of every kind of filth, were consumed by divine fire. In the Flood all were under one fate, so that all perished with one death and at the same time, except the household of Noah (Gen. 7). And the whole army of Pharaoh would have to be said to have been born under a single decree, so that the foolish error of astrology might be punished, since they were drowned in the Red Sea with their king (Exod. 14:24). And how many other great examples there are which we pass over, because two examples are enough for our purpose; how much more, then, with so many mysteries? For all nations have different customs: what is allowed in one place is not allowed here; and again, what is allowed here is not allowed elsewhere. For here in the city of Rome and its territories, which is called most holy, it is permitted for women to dismiss their husbands, although in the divine law it is ordained that not even men should make use of this power, except in the case of fornication (Matt. 5:32). See, in this matter the barbarians are better. And it is not impossible that this could also be observed here, because it is shown to have been observed before. Therefore fate has been changed, because what was previously forbidden has begun to be permitted. And it is not permitted to make eunuchs in the Roman realm, whereas among others it is permitted: yet that they could be made here also is in itself clear; for the fact, though done secretly, is proven; and if fear ceased, it would be done openly. Fear therefore restrains fate; for it is overcome, if a person does not do what he wishes to do. And the Persians wear earrings in the manner of women, which here is dishonorable and unlawful: that it could also be done here is attested by the priests of the Mother (goddess) who is called the Great; and indeed she was great, but a harlot: yet in this they differ, because these are womanish men, those were men. And what shall we say? Are these the only people in the whole world who are born by this fate, to be mutilated and transformed into women, so that in the whole world these few are found; whom it is well known are ensnared by threats and compelled by promised rewards to this pain and disgrace? If they were born for this, they would not need to be forced. The Persians are allowed to have intercourse with their own daughters, which is shown to be possible here as well, by the fact that it is proved to have been done by some. But because punishment intervened, they were corrected by fear, so that they do not do what can be done, but is not lawful. For everything that is forbidden is forbidden for this reason: that, since it can be done, it may not be done. If, however, it were of fate, it could not be done, nor would it be forbidden. For if it were not of fate and yet were forbidden, it would be indicated that something can be done which is not of fate. And what wisdom is there in forbidding what cannot be done, as if someone forbade anyone to fly from the city of Rome to Spain, or to carry a mountain on his shoulders? Rather, those things which can be done, though they ought not to be, are forbidden. It is the custom of the Moors that women also wear earrings in their noses; is this of fate? If it were of fate, those who came here would remain so; for if something is fated, each person carries his fate with him. But because it is not of fate, all who come from there are changed here, when they see that what is considered seemly there is regarded as shameful here. Certainly, among all nations number is number; earth is earth; and water is water; and air is air; and fire is fire. Can there anywhere be found earth that is not dry, or air that is tangible, or water that is not flowing and cold, or fire that is cold? So everywhere Jupiter is Jupiter; and Saturn is Saturn; and Venus is Venus. Likewise with the other signs. For this art is treated everywhere according to one and the same method: but because the customs remain different among all nations, this is not due to the ordering of fates, which are the same everywhere, as they (the astrologers) maintain, but to human invention. For whatever someone, who was thought to be the first among his people, decided to be reasonable and fitting for modesty, he established for those over whom he presided. From this, each region or nation has its own rules which it observes. Therefore Solon and Lycurgus established many ordinances to be kept by the Greeks with the force of law, which, as their kingdoms gradually declined, were forgotten. For the kings of the Jews preferred mules for riding; the Romans, however, not mules but horses; the Garamantes, who are above Tripoli in Africa, preferred bulls for their kings to ride: but the kings of the Persians are carried in chariots; for the ancient kings of the Persians were not even seen by the people: and the kings of Midian take delight in camels for riding, so that they even adorn their necks with golden collars: and throughout Africa they prefer to sit on donkeys rather than on horses. Although all things exist everywhere, not all are pleasing to everyone; for each person chooses what is more pleasing to him. For even among ourselves there is a different will, in clothes, and in food, and in other usages, and in our opinions themselves. This fact shows that those who claim that many people have different fates cannot ascribe this to fate, because our will often changes. For what we have long loved later displeases us; and we begin to love what we previously did not gladly possess, and once a habit is formed we remain changed. But if they say there is an order of fates, so that they produce certain effects in certain recurring periods at returning intervals of time, so that, for example, what they do today they do again after a while: at any rate, they are not said to remain fixed in one thing. For they are overcome by discipline and habit. So, for many ages Roman women were unfamiliar with the use of wine. Discipline, having been strengthened by habit, confirmed their judgment, so that they held fast to what they had learned to be beneficial. Were there fates of this kind in those times, and have they since died, so that this well-devised practice has ceased? But these things came not from fate, but from discipline. And when there is a departure from custom, discipline perishes. And the ancient Romans were of such self-control that they even refused gifts that were offered, considering good reputation as wealth, and preferring virtue to pleasures: and these either were succeeded by other fates, or they passed away; but it was not a matter of fate, but of discipline, which is even the educator of fate itself. For how can something be of fate which neither had it before its time, nor has it now? And indeed I do not know why they cast such blame upon fate, as to say that it is the author of all deeds, while it both is and is not. For where discipline is, fate is not; and where habit is, fate is not; and where chance is, fate is not: and where it seems to exist, it is overcome by fear of the law; for desire itself is checked by fear, and the pursuit of money is renounced for the sake of gaining God’s favor. In this area, therefore, it cannot be denied, because what is overcome cannot fail to exist; and yet it can rightly be said that even in this very point it does not exist, because what is overcome lacks authority. Therefore, whoever follows the law of God and holds to the custom of a good life, to such a one all things that are called “fates” give way. For habit has such power that it even tames beasts. For those who choose to live wickedly appoint their own fates for themselves. For through excess and pleasure come greed and restlessness, which give birth to lack of self-control and anger. And knowing that this deserves punishment, in order to make themselves appear blameless, they attribute shame to the fates, when demons offer their help to those who think about such things; for they also ordain this, that they grant fulfillment to those who think evil: these they call fates, not understanding that they are enemies of man. For if sins did not enter the soul through the senses, but arose from within, then everything that is done wrong would rightly appear to be the work of the fates. But since they see that the desire for sins arises through sight and hearing and through the other senses (with the enemies helping, who have suggested doing what is contrary; and this is not considered while it is being done: for it seems sweet when it is being done, or before it is done; but once completed it appears to be bitter), what do they credit to the fates? That it can be overcome we notice from this: for when we are thinking and anxious about some matter, the enemies fall silent, and desire grows quiet; for they cannot whisper suggestions to us while we are occupied. Does anyone, when someone is dedicated to some matter, suggest something else to him? He does not, knowing either that he will not be heard, or that he will be rejected as one who importunately suggests. So too with the enemies, who are known to be demons; for these are the gods of the pagans, when they see us occupied with divine things, they do not intrude to suggest the opposite, but lie in wait, looking for an opportunity to intrude. The safeguards of souls, therefore, are constant meditation on and practice of the law of God; for if they see us idle in divine matters, they are stirred up to harass us. They are the ones who sow desires through flesh and blood. For although the flesh has its own movement from its origin, since carnal nature is not idle, yet in this matter the help of demons is added for the destruction of men. For there are various demons, having different wills. Some, when they disturb souls, strike down bodies; others, mingling themselves with the blood, generate desires in souls; others, joining themselves to the heart of man, with coaxing suggest what is contrary; and there are some that only bind bodies with illnesses, as in the case of that daughter of Abraham whom the Lord healed (Luke 13:11-16). The pagans, knowing none of this, call it fate, though the causes are different, and these things are brought about by enemies, in order that, for whatever reason, a man may be provoked and subjected to passions. They call it good fate when bodies are well-balanced or are praiseworthy for their friendliness, having a certain charm; but say that fate is evil if they have too much heat or moisture, or if someone is not sprinkled with grace, but rather is ready for misfortunes, such they call “unfortunate.” Suppose these things to be true. We see the same even in animals, that they have more heat; but animals are not rational as man is, so that they could, with proper care, temper their body. For this reason the soul is the ruler of the body, to govern it with the reins of the divine law. For the divine law shows that the things suggested either by the impulse of the flesh or by the enemy are not beneficial. God gave this law as a help so that, when the enemy dictates evils as if they were good, by looking at the precepts of the law we may recognize him as a deceiver, because he persuades what the law does not teach. Therefore the body is restrained, so that, since it is hot, less is given to it, and it is held back from delights. For just as in a feverish body, if it receives food or drink, the heat increases; so also such bodies as are inflamed by the heat of the blood will blaze the more fiercely unless they are governed. For if fire lacks fuel, it goes out. It is the soul’s task to lead the body. But if it lets the body go where it wills, it will hurl it down, like a mad horse with a careless rider. And because the heat of the body flares up more strongly through the activity of the enemies to deceive the soul, for it is not the body that desires, but by its heat it generates desires in the soul, the assistance of our God must be pleaded for protection, that he may restrain them: for our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers (Eph. 6:12). When these are removed, it will be easy to curb the motion of flesh and blood. For a inferno is extinguished if it lacks the material on which it feeds. Those things, however, happen to people about which the astrologers speak, who believe that what they say will happen in the future. For this is brought about by the craft of demons, so that they may bring to pass the things their priests have said will occur, lest they be exposed as false and cease to be believed. But in the case of those who do not give credence to their oracles, the effect of these things does not prevail; for neither are they themselves so intent on satisfying those who do not believe in them, nor does God allow them to act in such a way that those who trust in God and do not believe the Devil are deceived. For God has ordered all things in such a way that events correspond to each person’s faith, so that the freedom of the will may remain; and therefore nothing can prevail against the one who believes God and flees to his help. For he is certain that what God has made is in his power, and that nothing dares act against him whom it sees to have the common God as his gracious protector. Surely God made the world, and created the sun and the stars, assigning them courses by which mankind is governed: does he not have the power to command them at times to do something other than what has been decreed for them? For he established them in such a way that they are subject to his will, and only then do they carry out the courses decreed for them, if no other command has been given: as, for instance, if he is asked by those whom they serve, because either the rains are untimely, or because, through excessive drought, barren fruits appear, he orders the weather to be moderated; or if perhaps, as often happens, people live with God angry, while wandering in luxury and vanity they do not do what pleases God, he keeps the rain suspended for a very long time, so that, as we read was done in the time of Elijah and Elisha, he may stir up famine over the earth, and when he is appeased by their satisfaction, he grants that the rains may water the dry ground (1 Kings 18:43). For in the same way the ordering of the world exists as secular government does. For just as some, oppressed by the governors of provinces, have recourse to the help of emperors so that they may be lifted up again, so also, if people see adverse times for themselves, they should present themselves as petitioners to God, in whose power all things are. But this does not seem right to the astrologers. For they say that nothing else can happen than that the stars fulfill the causes decreed for them; and that they can neither be recalled nor driven to anything else, but once having been fixed they observe their duties. This is the assertion of the astrologers, namely, that they say fates cannot be changed, nor can anything be obtained by prayers; because they say that God once established the entire order of the world, and handed it over to the stars as ministers, such that things can neither be done earlier nor later than appointed. This is the error of the astrologers, with which they also attack God. For through this assertion they deny that anything can be done outside the order of the world; so that all the things which are read as having been done by God in the world, if they are at variance with the law of the world, they deny are to be believed: but they affirm those things which are said to have been done according to the statutes of the world, so that neither can it be said that a virgin gave birth, nor that Aaron’s rod flowered and produced fruit (Num. 17:8), nor that Sarah, an old woman, gave birth (Gen. 21:2). For the order of the world does not include these things, because they are read as having been done by God outside the order of the world. And what wonder is it, if the maker of the world did what the world cannot do? But, they say, he would seem to have transgressed the order which he established, if he is said to have acted otherwise himself than he decreed for the world. Come now, he established a law for the world for acting or generating; did he establish one for himself? And would it have been his humility, if he acted in the same way as the world was created by him? And how would it be understood as having been done by him, if he had done what he did by the law of the world? But in order that it might be understood as having been done by God, not by the world, it was done according to another order. Certainly he decreed for the sun that it should unceasingly fulfill its appointed courses, and not have leave to stand still; yet will it not be permitted to him who imposed this law on it to make it stand still? Certainly it is decreed for judges that it is not lawful to revoke a sentence passed on an accused person; will the emperor himself also be under this law? For he alone is allowed to revoke a sentence and absolve a man condemned to death, and to grant pardon himself: how much more ought it to be permitted to God to do what ought not to be granted to the world, since the world is the servant of its Creator? Indeed, by the law handed over to it, the world can kill, but it cannot make alive; through excess it can make a man blind, but it cannot restore his eyes; it can make him feeble and sick, but it cannot heal him: for this God reserved to himself, so that it might be clear that he is Lord of all. For it pertains to the overthrowing of fate that the dead have risen; that the eyes of a man born blind have been restored; that the sick and paralytics have been strengthened; and the other things that have been done, so that, for those who flee to God, whatever there may be of fate cannot bring any hindrance. For the apostle John says: “He who is in us,” he says, “is greater than he who is in this world” (1 Jn. 4:4). For when he is pleaded, God even removes what he has decreed. For he certainly decreed that sinners should be punished, and yet he forgives those who plead to him; because to him alone it is permitted to bind and to loose. Therefore, although no pause is granted to the sun, under Joshua it was ordered to stand still, and it obeyed his command (Joshua 10:12–13), contrary to what had been prescribed for it in the order of the world. Under Hezekiah, however, something greater is read to have been done; for, in order that Hezekiah might not doubt that what had been promised to him was true, he received a sign of such a kind that it was new and unheard of by human ears. For it was not, as before, that the sun was ordered to stand still, but to go back (2 Kings 20:11): seeing this, Hezekiah could be certain that he who had made the ninth hour become the sixth could add fifteen years to his life. And because what was granted to Hezekiah is against the astrologers, for they deny that life can be lengthened, he again receives a sign in this matter which is against the astrologers. For they assert that it is impossible for the stars to do anything other than what has been fixed. Certainly they say it is fate that a man should have a slave or not have one. Granted. Where were these fates from the beginning of the world? For down to the flood and below, through many ages that passed, this condition of slavery did not exist. Or did these fates perhaps begin in the time of King Ninus, who is said to have been the first to wage wars on his neighbors and to make those he captured subject to slavery? You see, then, that this was discovered later, and is not a matter of fate but of the actions of demons; for if it were a matter of fate, it would have existed from the beginning of the world. For the stars themselves are those that were made in the beginning, and their course remains the same even now. And formerly human life was rural, and there was no pursuit of riches: how is it that now astrologers say through the stars that people become rich and poor? Have the stars perhaps been changed? No, it is the cunning and deceit of Satan, so that he may say that things are brought about by the stars which he actually performs through his angels, his ministers. For as the time approaches when his destruction draws near, he devises greater things by which people may sin. Behold, we know that Italy, Africa, Sicily, and Sardinia have suffered from famine; let the astrologers say whether all these had one and the same fate, when it is said that among a hundred men not even the fates of two can agree with one another. Let them be ashamed and be silent, and stretch out praying hands to God, in whose power are all things. But perhaps, one may say, in this point fate has slipped in? What shall we say of Pannonia, which has been so wiped out that it can find no remedy? O their weakness! for with a wavering faith they profess to be Christians. For while they doubt the promises, they do not even think about the things that have already been done. For if they considered the deeds accomplished by the Prophets and Apostles, they would never accept the tales of astrologers. They would know that all things are in the power of God, and they would not be terrified when evils happen to the good; for in the future judgment they will be rewarded, remembering the Apostle who says: “Through many tribulations,” he says, “we must enter into the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:21). For being content, and awaiting the judgment of his God, he will both receive his reward and be avenged. For if he desires to be avenged in the present, or with all greed longs to enjoy present wealth, he doubts the life that has been promised; and by this he will be accounted in the future among the faithless, and deemed worthy of punishment. For God made the world for the sake of discipline, and adorned it with all resources, setting forth two ends, one present and one future, one heavenly and one earthly, so that it might be a testing ground for man: that he who, spurning the future life, chose the present one, might be assigned to the flesh; but he who preferred the future to the present might be deemed worthy of spiritual things; and that he who was unjustly oppressed by the power of the unjust, if he laid down or resigned his complaints before God, might in the future judgment be lifted up and honored with spiritual glory. Therefore none of the saints has appeared glorious in the world, nor has any of them loved present delights. Therefore the Apostle: “Having,” he says, “food and clothing, with these let us be content” (1 Tim. 6:8). But whoever is a Christian even grieves if he seems to be fortunate in this world, since the dignity and happiness of Christians has not been promised on earth, but in heaven. How can he call himself a Christian who does not wish to glory there, where it has been promised, but here where it is forbidden? For if it were advantageous to enjoy present things, surely heavenly rewards would not be promised to those who despise them. With what hope, then, do Christians lend their ears to astrologers, when they hear the Apostle John crying out and saying: “Do not love this world, nor the things that are in this world” (1 Jn. 2:15)? Therefore, if these are the precepts of our faith or law, that the world should not be loved, nor the things that are in the world; why is it that some among us complain, saddened by the prosperity of others which is in the world, and which perhaps is regarded as misfortune before God; whereas they ought rather to rejoice because the world does not grant them the things by which they would be bound and held liable to earthly affairs? For this so‑called happiness, received as an opportunity for security, is devoid of concern for divine things. For such a man must necessarily be careless about divine oracles, who, being filled with all necessities, has nothing to trouble him. But men of this sort usually begin to be troubled by another kind of anxiety, namely, that they may increase their greatness in this world, which cannot happen without sin. Yet if one looks more closely, it will be seen that the world is rather an enemy of those whom it is said to make happy. For scarcely any one of them thinks of heavenly things. Christians must therefore rejoice when, while they live rightly, they are oppressed in this age. For he conquers the world who, being content with how things turn out for him in this life, gives thanks to God, from whom, if certain temporal things seem to be denied here, he hopes that eternal ones will be repaid. For why did God appoint a future judgment, if not that those who are unjustly pressed down for a time may be granted eternal life, while those are cast down who, through their power, despised or did not believe in the future judgment of God, and thought that crimes would go unpunished? But the defenders of fate deny that there will be a future judgment. For if some are born to be good, and others on the contrary to be evil, why do you praise or accuse, when the good man has not struggled in conflict to win, nor the evil man been negligent so as to perish? What is this that they peddle among private persons? For when sinners are brought before judges, they have never dared to excuse their crimes by fate; rather, confessing themselves guilty, they do not deny that they rightly receive sentence. Therefore the authority of the law tramples down the notion of fate, so that they cannot even be named when the law is set in motion. But how do those who have behaved wickedly believe that they will escape forever, who by some means avoid for a time the severity of divine law, not considering that the author of the law cannot for his part overlook this? For here there is an image of the law, there the truth itself: and he who mocks the image cannot mock the truth. Is there any place without God, or can anyone escape his hand? Yet they, flattering themselves, think that whoever escapes here is already safe. And how do they judge this to be just, that while others are punished in such cases, these should escape? Surely God established the world and showed by what law it should be governed. For loving his work, he showed it the way that leads to life, ordaining with what guides it should be accompanied; for there is also a way that leads to death. Should he not therefore inquire whether those whom he has appointed as ministers of his kingdom have governed his people by the same law under which he established them; whether the people have received his edict; whether the ministers, if found faithful, deserve praise, or, if unfaithful, are subject to punishment? In like manner the people, if they have observed the law, are praised; if they have despised it, they are condemned. This is his right; this is what the cause demands. How then is it that some dislike believing that there will be a future judgment? But this notion has been invented by the madness of the astrologers. For how can they accept a future judgment who contradict the present, since they insist that judgment lies in the birth? And because reward is attributed to birth, they themselves are foolish, who, claiming that by a certain natural judgment people are not made good and bad but are born so, assign recompense to sinners and do not allow sins to go unpunished. For they chastise the wicked with rods and chains within, those whom they assert to have been born hopeless outwardly. Can any sensible person correct those whom he knows cannot be improved? This would indeed be either foolish or unjust. But let them not say that this very thing happens by fate; for he who is under fate does not do what he wills, so that they too would have it as a natural property to exact vengeance on those whom they know will remain by nature unchangeable; and in truth it must be said that whatever is said to belong to fate must be assigned to folly. For how foolish it is that, when they say someone is born evil, they do not approve as good even him whom they claim to be born good. How can he be judged good who is found doing something unjust? For what is so unjust as that a man should be thought unjust who is said to have been unable to do anything other than what he did? And if all things are under fate, how did the law come in, which does not allow what is of fate to be done? For if the law were removed, unlawful things would everywhere be done openly; the powerful could not be endured, nor would there be freedom, because even he who now does not think evil, with fear removed, would begin to be evil. Indeed we read that the law was given because of the wicked. But perhaps it too came about by fate, that the law should be given? And how do fates stand, if they generate that which destroys them? Whatever is of fate, the law forbids to be done. Therefore they lack reason if they produce things contrary to themselves. And they are unjust, because they cause men to be born for damnation; and if they are unjust, they ought not to have authority, since everything unjust is liable to punishment. Or perhaps they may say that the law is of no benefit, because he who is born so as to be evil cannot be changed by the law; if that is so, the law was given in vain. And how did the fates bring forth something unnecessary, since nothing is without fate? Therefore the fates both act for themselves and against themselves; and if this is so, that cannot stand which, through inconsistency of reason, has no firmness. But perhaps the fates wished there to be a law for this reason, that those whom the fates cause to be born evil should be condemned by the law, so that it might suit the fates to apply punishment from the law. What can be said to this, except that both laws and fates deserve by their own judgment to be condemned, if with equal injustice they contrive that those should be killed who did evil not of their own will but under the compulsion of the fates? To this the law is opposed, because the fates, by their own profession, are to be condemned. For they do not deny that those who are evil are such by fate. The law, however, is so far opposed to the fates that it denies that the wicked are such by fate, but by their own will; for which reason it rightly ordains that they be punished. Therefore the law and the fates have nothing in common, since the law denies what the fates affirm. And how will those be said to be born under fate who banished the astrologers from the city of Rome? It is well known that this was long maintained, and they were certainly pagans. How can things done against fate be caused by fate? But if there is fate, it does not act against itself. Those who act against fate do not have fate; and if these have no fate, there is no fate. “But there is,” they say, “a fate that determines for each person by what kind of death he shall die.” If this is so, the murderer is not to be blamed. For he will defend himself in a twofold way: both that he himself acted under the agency of fate, and that the other was killed under the agency of fate. But in all this the law is struck down, because it punishes the murderer who is brought before it. In a similar way, the one who is an adulterer is born so, and the woman who is an adulteress, and the one with whom adultery is committed. If this too is the case, even now the law is assailed, because it punishes adulterers; and if this truly were of fate, he also ought to be punished who has such a fate that he must suffer adultery. For he too is found to be a participant, because his fate allowed adultery to be committed. It was therefore just that either they be condemned together or absolved together. In all this the law appears unjust. Therefore, if the fates are from God, the law will not be from God, because it is not fitting either for God or for a wise man to condemn what he himself has made. But since no one has ever dared to speak against the law or to deny that it is from God, the fates cannot be said to be from God, because God punishes those things through the law. For when that which is done under the compulsion of the fates is condemned, without doubt the fates are condemned. “But wicked souls,” they say, “are born for this purpose, that they may do evil.” Granted. Yet wicked souls ought not to be born by fate, so that the innocent might be able to be killed by them. For if those souls were wicked, they ought not to be born, but to be punished, so that they might not kill the innocent. But it is not the souls, which they imagine to be wicked, that kill the innocent; it is the fates, which cause men to be born in such a way that they are killed. And therefore it is not the souls, but the fates that are unjust; and if they are unjust, they are not from God: therefore they are from the Devil; and if they are from the Devil, they must be condemned together with him. And since they are said to determine for each person how he will die, by the sword, or the noose, or a fall, or shipwreck, or otherwise, they provide the same thing in many ways. For no one can alone depart from the fates of all. But if anyone is found to depart, then it is no longer fate, but a happening. And if in the death of one it is a mere happening, so it will be in the deaths of many; and then it will no longer be fate. Anaxarchus¹, thrown into a mortar by order of the king, was crushed and died, something that has happened to no other man. And a woman drove a stake into the temples of Sisera, king of the Philistines, and so he gave up his spirit (Judges 4:21). In this way no one else has died. And formerly men used to be nailed to a cross, which afterwards, by an edict, was prohibited. If this was due to fate, how did it cease? For when what is of fate is forbidden and does not happen, fate is overcome. Or if it was not of fate, then men were not crucified by fate, but by the judgment of the law. And therefore it is that men are not condemned by fate, but found guilty by their own evil deeds. Among the Tuscans there is said to have been a man born so handsome in face as no one ever was; and because he was a good man, lest he fall under suspicion, since he even enticed the eyes of respectable women, he wounded his own face with seven gashes, so that he might condemn the beauty which was desired by all (Valerius Maximus, book 4, chapter 5). See how, if there are fates, they have been overcome. But perhaps it may be said, It was of nature that he was born handsome, and of fate that his face was wounded. But if this is so, fate is no longer something one is born with, but an accidental cause. And if it is accidental, it will not be of fate, but of deliberation, or perhaps of mere happening, so far as the remaining circumstances are concerned. For what else is it to conquer fate than to alter nature? But if it was so fixed that it could neither be changed nor overcome, then neither could it be conquered. For we read that it is recorded in a certain legal book that a woman once bore five children at a birth: how was it stolen from the fates that nature decreed this for her alone, which was not of fate? But if it had been of fate, a number of women would have been burdened with this lot. And when a certain man was setting out for foreign lands, he commended his wife to a friend whom he knew to be faithful, not, of course, to a boy, but to a man of mature age. In order to be a more careful guardian of her, that man mutilated himself, so that he might sleep safely with her without anyone’s suspicion. What are we to think, was this of fate or of counsel? But how could it be of fate when it is contrary to it? For whoever overcomes what is inborn in him, this one empties fate of its power. And certainly in the pursuit of studies the question of fates is involved, as to whether someone can or cannot grasp something. Therefore all senators have one and the same fate; for no senator is without education: and the peoples who are without education have one fate, and all slaves are of one fate; for none of the slaves is a senator. But if what one is born as is called fate, whatever is acquired afterwards will be outside of fate. Or if what happens comes from fate, why does it come by labor? It would then be said to be of fate if it happened to a man against his will. For what happens without forethought is said to be of the fates; but what is devised and long weighed, and obtained by intermediate exercises, why is this said to be of fate? Someone is born a eunuch, others become eunuchs; where will fate be? In him, I suppose, who is born so; but what is to be said of those who become such? For it is one thing to be born, another to become. Or if these are made eunuchs by fate, then that one was born a eunuch against fate. And why is a eunuch so rarely born that it seems incredible? There was a certain woman in the city of Rome who is known to have had eleven husbands; and another man who had twelve wives; what fates are these that decreed this for them? For in the time of the Emperor Constantine it is well attested that a girl in a part of Campania was changed into a male and brought to Rome: what fates brought this about? Other fates, I suppose, which you do not know. Oh, if only you would be silent about this word, and refer some things to chance and accidents, and accept some to providence! For the power of virtue and the industry of souls is so great that it not only resists nature, but even corrects or fails to correct itself, because it has judgment over itself. For it is told that the women of the Scythians, who are called Amazons, when their husbands were occupied in a distant war and long absent, for the sake of offspring united themselves with their servants, and killed every male child that was born, leaving only the females, so that none of them devoted herself to weaving, but from earliest youth they were trained in the wrestling school and in the use of arms. So great was their courage in the conduct of affairs that, reigning through a long succession of years, they subdued several nations and placed all Asia under tribute. What can be said to this? Were these things of fate which were carried out in such a way for so many years that they emptied of meaning all those things which are thought to be of fate? First, that contrary to nature women, rejecting men, ruled; then that they mingled with their own slaves; thirdly, that all the males born were killed and the females preserved alive. So great a prosperity followed them that, without men, they propagated a kingdom begun with great forces over long periods. Certainly this deed from the foundation of the world has never taken place except in Scythia alone: lest perhaps they should say that, since the world is renewed every one thousand four hundred and sixty years, such things come about; although the world is now in its six thousandth year, during which time a person does what he has imitated. For Crassus was called Agelastus (“the Unlaughing”) because he is said to have laughed once in his life. Why was Junius surnamed Brutus? Because by shrewd counsel he pretended to be foolish, lest he be killed by the proud king on account of the greatness of his wealth. In the time of Constantine a certain man called Samatius pretended to be a jester for thirty years, so that he might, as he himself afterwards said, distract the emperor from his irritations. Where is the logic of the fates, when each person does what he wills? It is excluded. But how is this, that the supporters of fates are devoted to supplications, when these are opposed to them? For they commend to them their years, and inquire of them about marriages, and about journeys, and about purchases, and about promotions. But if it is of fate, why do you pray, why do you supplicate for what will come to pass even against your will? “But I ask,” he says, “whether I ought to buy.” Therefore, what you say you ought to do then, if you have learned that it is practical, does not depend on fate. For if it is of fate, you ask in vain; for whether you will or not, whether you inquire or do not inquire, you will do it. But the fact that this assertion is not fixed even among them themselves is the reason why they try uncertain things, lest they find something true other than what they are dealing with. But those among them who seem more wise say, “We do not offer prayers because of fate, since we know it cannot in the least be changed, but for the sake of those things that are alongside fate, so they may not do anything adverse to us.” Come now, if some person has a good fate, and next to him there is something that appears contrary, what can this be, since the good fate is said to be unchangeable, just like the bad? Clearly you pray that what is beside fate may not harm you; for it will harm you unless prayer is made. How then is that fate said to be unchangeable, when what is near it is feared? For it would not be feared unless it were believed that it could be changed. But since you insist most of all on this point, that fate not be said to change, you undoubtedly pray without cause. See rather whether what you pray is itself of fate, since you usually assign to fate whatever is without evil. Certainly prayer is not an evil thing: why then should it not be said to belong to fate? If therefore it will be of fate that one prays, whose will it be to pray and not obtain? For if it was of fate, he ought to obtain what he prays for. But if it is of fate to pray and not obtain, fate is foolish; for it makes a man pray whom it knows will not obtain. And if it does not know whether he can obtain what it causes him to pray for, fate will be irresponsible and without reason; for all ignorance is folly, and folly is stupidity. Into this position falls the entire speculation of the pagans. Let the pagans consider this, who, surrounded by darkness, do not see the light. Ensnared by ancient error, they refuse to lend their ears to the truth which previously lay hidden. What shall we say of certain Christians who, in the Savior, as if only changed in name, still defend the vanity of their former error, so dulled in mind that they struggle that God Himself acted under fate, saying, “He Himself said, My hour has not yet come” (Jn. 2:4); as though this hour were not a matter of will, but a necessity of fatal condition, whereas He meant the hour of His own will, in which He would allow Himself to be handed over. Indeed He says, “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again” (Jn. 10:18). Therefore, where there is the power of the will, the necessity of fate ceases. And how is He called Savior by us, if the things we do or that happen to us are of fate? For He is called Savior because He showed us the way of salvation; and so, if this way has been shown by Him, it was not of fate, because before it was hidden. And as for what is said to be of fate, they argue it comes to pass unexpectedly. But this is the merit of faith, which cannot be said to be from fate, because what is believed was not heard of in previous ages. For they say that fate grants what concerns human conduct. Yet how can fate be said reasonably to grant what it is found to be ignorant of? From this comes what the Apostle says, “None of the princes of this world knew” (1 Cor. 2:8). These are the princes and powers who have evil angels under them and, under the name of “fates,” bring about their pleasures as they wish, just as sorcerers are accustomed to confess. For there are some whom they love, others they do not love, some they hate. And each of them suggests to each person that which he loves, since they themselves have different pleasures: for some they acquire lust of varied wickedness, for others gifts, for others pleasure, for others immorality, for others anger, for some greed, for others gains, for others losses, for others favor, for others hatred, and also hindrances. And sometimes, at certain times, when they are gratified, they rest in idleness; at other times for a reason, at other times they do not intrude upon an occupied mind; for they do not rule, but creep in, seeking an opportunity by which they may ensnare. Therefore the decision of the will is free; but when through some desire we become negligent toward ourselves, those who trouble us suggest adversities: above all, if they find us thinking of something that is not of the divine law, they come at that very point to help us fulfill what the law forbids. For if the fear of God is in the soul, neither flesh, nor blood, nor princes, nor powers prevail; for with God’s help they are so pursued that they are overcome without labor. But if we were not within our own power, how would the Lord say, “Ask, and it shall be given you; for everyone who asks, receives” (Matt. 7:7–8)? If then whoever wills to ask will receive, that common saying no longer holds, “We do not have what we want, but what is given”; because the will is stirred by the Savior to ask and to receive what it has asked for. But they say that this is of fate, that whether he asks or does not ask, he still obtains by fate that which is either evil or good. However, the Lord, excluding this, says, “Daughter, your faith has made you well” (Matt. 9:22). It is no longer of fate when faith receives the benefit. And again He says, “If you believe, all things are possible to the one who believes” (Mark 9:22): He has indeed placed the merit in the will; for faith is a good of the will, not of nature. Faith, moreover, is something that comes from outside, which rouses the will to exercise itself; so that, since it is not in nature, the will, which is in nature, once it has received faith, may establish merit for itself before God. For the nature of men is like a stone which, though it does not have fire in its substance, still has it in strength, so that by work it produces what it seems not to have, because it does not yet exist, but is, as it were, in seed; it is in strength so that through exercise it may be generated, and if the exercise is lacking, it is not produced; for seed also, unless it is exercised, does not bring forth, but remains seed alone. It is the addition that makes it generate. So too man does not have faith in nature, but has the seed of faith, which, unless it is urged and stirred up, will not bear fruit, that is, will not have faith. Those who believe in the fates of astrologers destroy the seed of faith, which bears witness both to the Creator and to His justice. For the work recognizes the maker, and with right and love and deed bears witness to Him. We exhort that this craft [arte] be shunned in every way. For indeed, those who are curious about Him are enemies of God, and they are never without anxiety: for they are always on edge, awaiting what they hardly know for certain. But we, who believe all favorable things about God, and that if any adversities arise they are restrained by His will, should live humbly, secure in His protection; yet not unaware that even if anything adverse happens to us while we act well, endured patiently it will lead to a crown.

1 The text reads “Anaxagoras,” but it is probably a scribal error because it was actually “Anaxarchus,” Greek philosopher of the school of Democritus, that Nicocreon, tyrant of Cyprus, had him crushed alive by a mortar to avenge himself for an injury he had received.

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 120. ON FASTING. — It is fitting, dearest brothers, that the priest of God and the leader of the people of Christ should most devoutly exhort the people under his care with sound teaching, as the Apostle commands (Titus 1:9), so that we may perform the work of faith, in keeping with the season, with all care and diligence, with a cheerful and devout mind. For the fasts which are now to be observed as the feast day of Easter approaches, what they accomplish, though it is not unknown, must still not be left unsaid. Devotion is stirred up when those things which may not be unknown are nevertheless recounted. For such is the nature of our disposition that it grows sluggish if the practice of reading ceases. For just as iron, if it is not used, produces rust, so the soul, if it is not more frequently exercised in divine readings, will give birth to sins. Therefore in the Psalm he calls that man blessed who meditates on the law of the Lord day and night (Ps. 1:2). And although the divine sayings are well known, yet when they are recalled in the sacred volumes, the devout heart receives them as if they were new. For the soul’s desire for works of salvation is awakened. Therefore the Apostle says to Timothy among other things: Stir up, he says, the grace of God that is in you (2 Tim. 1:6). Therefore fasting is necessary for us, as medicine is for wounds. It brings healing for eternal life; yet it must be praised by the witness of two things, that is, prayer and mercy. Fasting, then, softens the greed of the body, restrains contrary impulses, removes the oppression of the soul, as the Lord says: Do not give yourselves over to eating and drunkenness, lest your hearts be overcharged (Luke 21:34). For when the soul has been freed from excessive food and drink, then it recognizes itself better. Just as in a tarnished mirror a man does not see himself as he truly is, so if he is weighed down by food and drunkenness, he feels himself to be other than he is. Then lust is roused, anger is kindled, pride is inflamed, and luxury is created. Therefore the Apostle: Do not, he says, be drunk with wine, in which is depravity (Eph. 5:18). But if the body is moderated by the addition of fasting, then, having regained knowledge of itself, the soul understands with what devotion it ought to serve its Redeemer. Therefore in great measure fasting is necessary. For under Queen Esther, when the Jewish people were in danger, they were delivered with the help of fasts (Esther 4:16). And the Ninevites, when they heard from the prophet the appointed day of their overthrow, merited to escape when a fast was proclaimed (Jonah 3:7). And our righteous ones and prophets, whenever they wished to obtain something from God, humbled themselves with fasting, as David says: I humbled my soul with fasting (Ps. 35:13). And the Savior himself, who had no need of it, fasted in order to give us an example (Matt. 4:2). Therefore it is beyond doubt that fasting is beneficial: for in this way a man shows that he truly wishes to obtain what he asks, when he afflicts himself with fasting. Therefore it is said: Prayer is good with fasting (Tobit 12:8). So that prayer may be acceptable, it seeks to have fasting as its companion. And because none of these things is firm without holiness, he added: And almsgiving with righteousness; so that almsgiving, preserved with righteousness, may praise prayer together with fasting. Indeed, the mercy of Cornelius commended his prayer and fasting. (Acts 10) For he, though rich in possessions, fasted; and he also fed those who had nothing, so that their fullness made his fasting acceptable. Therefore fasting needs certain things, and must do without certain things, so that it may be able to obtain what it asks for.

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 121. PRAISE AND GLORY OF THE PASSOVER. — O holy and saving day of Easter, to be proclaimed with every praise, on which death was conquered, the Devil’s kingdom taken away, the mystery of God revealed, the decree that was against us cancelled; the gates of hell devastated, the bound released, the confined sent forth, the blind enlightened, the ignorant endowed with knowledge, the wicked made merciful, to the wicked and unjust the remission of sins granted, enemies reconciled, error corrected, truth declared; sons for God gained from the lost, pride cast down, humility exalted; the poor enriched, the rich stripped; mountains leveled, valleys filled, hills laid low; shamelessness trampled, modesty adorned, to souls the possibility of heaven given, freedom restored, captivity broken and dissolved: darkness grew dull, wickedness was baffled, filth cleansed, Satan cast down; hell made void: our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Son of God, approved, flesh to the confusion of the wise, the world lifted up to heaven, heavenly, earthly, and hellish things shown to be of one God and Lord! And so, dearest brothers, we must celebrate and venerate this feast day, devout to God with modesty of life and gladness of soul, avoiding shameful and dishonorable things, so that we may merit to come to the fruit of Easter through Christ our Lord, to whom belong honor and glory for ever and ever.

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 124. ONE WORK VARIES ACCORDING TO PERSONS, INTO PRAISE OR CONDEMNATION. — Mercy is one and the same in rich and poor, but it is ascribed differently to the rich and to the poor, because it is more to be praised in the poor than in the rich. For the poor man did not fear to give out of his small means, hoping that God would repay him both in the present and in the future. For he believes the Scripture which says that he who gives to the poor shall not lack (Prov. 28:27). Therefore that poor widow, while the rich were putting in many gifts, she alone deserved to be highly praised by God, because she did not fear to give out of her want (Luke 21:2–4). The rich give generously, being secure in their riches, but the poor man is secure in the Lord. Therefore the rich do well when they give to those in need, but the poor do much better. And therefore the reward of the poor man is one thing, and that of the rich man another. For if the rich man does not do this, he shall be beaten: such is not so greatly required of the poor man. Therefore the merciful poor man is praiseworthy. Theft in a poor man and in a rich man is one and the same sin, but it makes the rich man more guilty: for the poor man steals because of need, but the rich man, though he has abundance, not being content with what is his own, takes what belongs to others; and what is worse, he is accustomed to rob the poor: and therefore the punishment of each differs. Righteousness in the poor man and in the rich man is one and the same; but it is more praiseworthy in the poor man. For to keep justice in poverty is a magnificent thing. The rich man, however, seems to keep Righteousness because he is free from want. Therefore each is Righteousness, but it is greater to keep Righteousness in necessity. Pride is one thing, but it is more to be condemned in the poor man than in the rich: for the rich man is puffed up by abundance, but the poor man is proud in his hardship, which borders on madness, and therefore the poor man is more guilty. Humility is one thing, but it is more to be praised in the rich man. For what great matter is it if the poor man appears humble, whom poverty itself makes humble? But it is magnificent if the one who is praised by rank and wealth bends himself down, not claiming for himself what he knows he deserves. Therefore humility is good in all, but much more in the rich man. The cause of learning and study is one and the same; but it is more praiseworthy in the rich man. For the poor man, since no privilege praises him, has taken pains to have something for which he might be sought after: but the rich man, since he already had that by which he might be praised, by applying effort has increased himself, so that he might be necessary in a double way; for he has not allowed his mind to be drawn off by his riches so as not to flourish by his own qualities. And therefore he is more worthy of praise than the poor man, who, if he had not devoted himself to studies, would have remained utterly of no account. The former, then, was made eager for study by his will, the latter by necessity. Lust is the same in poor and rich, but it is more damnable in the poor man than in the rich. For poverty itself ought to call the poor man back from the desire for luxury: he ought to consider that he has nothing with which to fulfill this desire, and that while he rushes to satisfy it, he must necessarily commit many other evils, by which perhaps he will not even escape in the present; or at least, by spending even what he has, he will remain a beggar with a bad reputation. But the rich man is stirred to sensual pleasure by the abundance of delights: moreover, the rich are secure of freedom, knowing that judgments are for sale, and that they will not even be criticized by anyone. For who would dare to rebuke a man supported by status and wealth? Therefore they are more inflamed, so that they even carry this out violently. For they are not only not criticized at all, but are held in great honor, and can glory that they are such. But if both, that is, poor and rich, are chaste, the chastity of the rich man differs greatly from the chastity of the poor man. For the poor man can be restrained by humility, so that he cannot fulfill what he desires, or by fear of the laws: but the rich man, who can be attracted to pleasure by many supporting causes, is praiseworthy if he turns his mind away from it. Therefore the chaste rich man is worthy of one sort of reward, and the chaste poor man of another. But if a king is chaste, it is a very glorious thing, that having everything in his power he does not touch what he knows he can do with liberty. He truly fears God, he truly keeps his commandments, who, having the laws in his power, contemplates the future judgment of God. And so it is a great thing that he who in the present has no one to fear, overcomes that which delights; since delight can do so much that it not only does not fear future things, but not even present ones. Therefore those who overcome this earn much, but more so those who in the present rule over laws and men. For the others fear both men and laws; and on this account they keep their resolve. Lest they be ashamed before men, they keep what they have long maintained; and lest they be condemned, they abstain from forbidden things: but he who through his dominion fears neither laws nor is ashamed of men, is of great glory if he restrains himself.

1^ST CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 126. ON THE PERSON WHO HAS RECEIVED FAITH IN CHRIST. — It is written: “The righteousness of the righteous shall not benefit him on the day that he goes astray; and the wickedness of the wicked shall not harm him when he turns back” (Ezek. 18:26–27). And the Lord in the Gospel says: “He who does not believe is already judged” (Jn. 3:18); by this indicating that the one who believes is not subject to judgment for the reception of a sentence, but will be found worthy of praise by the merit of faith. Therefore, the knowledge of God has this privilege, that it obtains the remission of sins. For the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God is deemed worthy to be freed from all sins. Long wandering in error, tossed by the waves of ignorance in various ways, he has at last been enlightened and has received the flashing light of truth, in which, after great storms, he rests in safety. It is fitting that after this knowledge he restrain himself from those things which he used to do long before when he was set in ignorance. For what does knowledge profit if the former way of life remains? One is seen to have known God if he changes his life and corrects his conduct. For once God is known, he must be feared, because he is proclaimed as the one who will judge: so that the faithful may receive the fruit of their righteousness, and the wicked, that is, the unbelieving, may pay the due penalties for their faithlessness. It is fitting that the righteous rejoice in the future, where Christ will reign with his own: so that righteous as in this world, where the Devil is prince, they are exposed to reproach and injuries, so in the kingdom of Christ they may appear glorious for the sake of him for whom they were judged shameful by worldly people. But the unrighteous, who seem to flourish falsely, resisting the truth by lies, are to be afflicted in punishment; so that those who appeared glorious by hoax may appear exceedingly despised and humbled by the reality. Then the righteous will rejoice that they have believed, when they see the faithless tormented; and the faithless will not even regret that they did not believe except when they see the glory of those whom they considered foolish and shameful because they believed, and their own punishment. Therefore, from the fact that someone professes to be a Christian, he must strive not to sin and arm himself against vices; and because it is impossible always to win, if he is overcome he should grieve lest he be overcome again; for the one who is grieved that he has been beaten restores himself. Whoever, then, resists has a basis on which he can excuse himself if he has been overcome. He shows that he had the desire to win, though he was by no means able. From this there is hope that he can repair himself, so that by constant reflection he may be found more skillful and stronger in the contest. But the one who rises for the purpose of sinning, having become inexcusable, bears a very serious charge. It is worse to live under the profession of God and yet have the will to sin than for someone to be ignorant of God and live shamefully and in defilement. For such a person does not know whom he ought to fear; the other one, knowing, despises. Believers therefore receive remission of sins; yet they will not be glorious unless, after receiving faith, they live in the fear of God, so that, having struggled against the enemies of the Christian name, they may win victory and therefore deserve the reward by conquering more than they are conquered. But the one who understands God and does not approach his faith so as to live as a Christian, but instead wants to receive faith at the end so that he may die a Christian, either is ashamed to live as a Christian, or devotes himself to sins which he thinks can be forgiven him when he has believed, this person, I think, does not have a good case. For he does not want to become or live as a Christian as long as he is in the world, but wants to sin; or he is ashamed to become a Christian. What sort of God does he hope for, from whom, while he is ashamed to serve as a soldier, he wants to receive wages? Such a man is a mocker. Knowing he no longer has time to sin, with death at hand, then he wants to become a Christian; so that, because he can no longer sin, he may say that he believes in Christ, who hates sinning, not that he no longer wishes to sin, but that he cannot, because death has come first. To such people it ought to be read that “God is not mocked” (Gal. 6:7). Indeed, such persons are even accustomed to give such instructions that faith should be given only to those already failing and out of their senses, merely still breathing, fearing that they might recover and be ashamed because they have become Christians. For them the words of the Gospel must be recited: “Whoever,” says the Lord, “is ashamed of me and of my words in this generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in the kingdom of his Father” (Matt. 10:33). But perhaps they say: knowing that the human race is frail, therefore we want to receive faith at the end of life, so that we may no longer sin. Yet faith must be received in such a way that one knows what he is receiving. Then it will bring its benefit, if he both knows it and professes it. “For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10). And therefore, one who by then no longer knows where he is, how can he be said to receive? He has received who professes that he has received, knowing that he has received. If they believe that remission of sins is given to those who believe, they ought to know that this one believes whose heart bears witness that he believes. For God, who promised, is the inspector of the heart: he accepts the one whom he sees believing in his heart. Therefore, whose heart does not regard the words of faith, how will he have its benefit? So the person who does not lightly become a Christian upon receiving faith can be seen to act rightly, in that he is observed to strive not to sin easily. But the one who rushes to sin does not want to receive faith, specifically so that he may not be compelled to live well, which he appears unwilling to do; but he wants to obtain faith at death, hoping for exemption and remission of past evils, so that he may be secure both regarding the past and the future, since as a dying man he can no longer sin. But this is done neither with good counsel nor with a clean conscience, that he should want to receive faith then, when he can no longer sin, rather than when he does not want to sin. To such people the saying applies: “Let us do evil that good may come”—that is, let us sin now, and at the last let us believe, and it will be forgiven us. And so it is added: “Their condemnation is just” (Rom. 3:8). For it is not fitting that forgiveness of sins be granted to those who, already knowing God, who wills that no one should sin and hates sinners, are eager to sin, refusing to consider that the gift of God benefits those who, ignorant of God, sin in such a way that they do not know God will judge. But the one who has heard and reflected within himself, and has the intention of sinning, not because he is overcome by some compelling cause, but because he wishes to sin, is hardly to be forgiven. For there are two causes which bring about the remission of sins: one is the gift, the other is repentance, so that whoever has sinned after receiving the gift should be restored through repentance. For since he did not remain in the grace received so as to persevere in freedom, but again subjected himself to sin, he obtains the blotting out of sin by weeping and groaning; for he sinned knowingly and deliberately: not that anyone is ignorant of sin itself, but the one who does not know that God will judge thinks that what he does in sin will be without punishment. Therefore, if a Gentile begins to grow weak and, in the very despair of life, considers within himself the faith and hope that have been promised, he has a complete case for his sins to be forgiven when he believes, and for him not to be held in the underworld, bearing with him the sign of death overcome and despoiled, even though he does not possess dignity or reward. For there ought to be some difference between the one who, stirred by love of his Lord, did not fear to fight against His enemies, arming himself with self‑control and with the observance of all virtues, so that he might resist evil, always anxious as to how he may defend the dominion of his Lord; and the one who, having made common cause with the enemies of his Lord and standing by their side, at the end of life returned to his Lord, not in order to claim the kingdom of his Lord, but so that it might benefit himself alone to be a citizen before being a soldier. For he who wishes to live as a Christian so as to be rewarded after death knows that “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the future glory that shall be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18). And therefore, having taken up the armor of faith, he does not hesitate to engage with principalities and powers, so that, being a victor in this world, he may be crowned after this world. For it is fitting that the one who, among the faithless and rebels, bears witness to the kingdom of his Lord in the present should receive a reward for this in the future: so that the enemies of God, seeing the witness of Christ appear exalted in the kingdom of God because of the truth of his confession, may grieve in confusion that they judged false what has been shown to be true; and also that those who believed late, confessing God not in life but in death, when they see how great is the glory of those who, fighting under the armor of Christ, have waged the battles of their Emperor devoutly and faithfully, may regret not that they lived as Christians, but that they were Christians only in death. For one who had no intention of living as a Christian can seem hardly suitable to die as a Christian: perhaps already on the point of death he wished to be called a Christian precisely because the time for sinning was now past. “Lest,” he says, “what is believed should prove true, I wish to become a Christian, losing nothing if what is believed is false”; and because at death it is not the will to sin, but the act of sinning, that ceases, he tests whether faith may be able to profit after death, whereas its usefulness would certainly have been this: that vices and sins should be corrected here, where they had been committed. For a person then shows that he has condemned his past deeds when, following the rule of faith, he appears to change his conduct and his life. For if before he sinned on this account, that he did not know God, when he comes to know Him, he ought no longer to sin, lest it be pointless that he has come to know Him. For a person ought to be made perfect by the knowledge of God. Indeed, before his profession, a Christian ought to understand that he must prove himself more by his works than by his name. For this reason the commandments were given, superior to all other laws and belonging to holiness, so that from these the worship of God might be seen: otherwise they will hear, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46). By which He then indicated that it is beneficial to call the Lord “Lord” if His commandments are kept: for he seems a mocker who calls him Lord whose precepts he despises. To such a person the words of the Law must be recited, which say that God is not mocked. Therefore he will be condemned by his own words, because he calls Him Lord whom he shows by his deeds that he is in no way afraid of.

2^ND CATEGORY OT

QUESTION 11. IF THE JEWS HAD RECEIVED HARSH COMMANDMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR DISTRUST AND SLANDERS, WHAT HAD THEIR SONS DONE WRONG THAT THEY TOO SHOULD BE BOUND BY THESE COMMANDMENTS? — The Law was given to the fathers, and it would be a burden also to their similar sons. For afterwards they sinned against God not less, but perhaps even more, than their fathers had. For God, who foreknows all, gave this Law especially for the sons, because all their fathers died in the wilderness.

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 1. WHY HAVE THE DEEDS AND SAYINGS OF THE LORD BEEN ARRANGED IN WRITING IN FOUR BOOKS BY FOUR AUTHORS? — It was fitting that the acceptable year of the Lord, as the prophet says (Isa. 61:2), should be contained in four books as if in four seasons. For just as the year unfolds in four seasons, in such a way that they need one another, so too the deeds and sayings of the Lord have been set forth in four books, in such a way that each one needs the others; yet together they form perfect fullness. And as to why they were ordered by four writers, this was the reason: because the names of the seasons are different, so also the titles of the Gospels should be different. And if anything in their wording seems contrary, yet in meaning they do not differ, thanks to an interpretation suitably adapted to the matter: just as the seasons, although they clearly differ in name, in climate, and in the course of the stars, yet do not differ in the effects of the things they bring forth.

2^ND CATEGORY NT

QUESTION 2. SINCE IT IS CERTAIN THAT WE HAVE FOUR AUTHENTIC BOOKS OF THE FACTS AND WORDS OF OUR LORD, IN WHAT ORDER SHOULD WE PLACE THEM? — Since it is agreed that four books have been duly written of the deeds and words of the Lord, one must know what their order is. The Gospel is arranged more by design than by time. Matthew, therefore, must be placed first, because he took his beginning from the very promise, that is, from Abraham, to whom the promise of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ was made. After him comes Luke, because he relates how this incarnation took place. Third is Mark, who bears witness that the Gospel preached by Christ was promised in the Law. But fourth is John, because he clearly declares as God the one who was promised to Abraham as to be incarnate, of whom Luke tells how he was incarnate, and whose Gospel Mark shows to have been preached according to the prophet Isaiah, saying in an open voice: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

2^ND CATEGORY OT & NT

QUESTION 9. ON THE ETERNITY OF THE SON. — Since there are some who, the darkness of error not yet dispelled and the decay of an old and stagnant life not yet cleansed or wiped away, still think in an earthly way and hesitate either about the Son of God, or whether the two are one (for the treacherous and stubborn nation of the Jews, to whom the fountain of the Law and the treasures of the mysteries were opened, does not merely doubt, but denies with wicked words), I will briefly explain as far as the short scope of this discussion allows. For hope is kept intact for the ignorant, if they are willing to learn; punishment is appointed as eternal for those who refuse. Since God Almighty, in His greatness and goodness, surpasses all, He ought to have brought forth and revealed from Himself something great and supremely good. But if He had produced something that fell short of the standard of His own excellence, it would seem either that He was unable to do more, which cannot apply to the Almighty, or that He was unwilling, which cannot apply to One most gracious. Certainly, for the supreme God it would not have been great to make something placed beneath Himself, which could not possess the power of complete supremacy. Above Himself, then, there was nothing; for there is nothing that can surpass God. Beneath Himself, it would have been too little, because what is less is not fitting for what is greatest. Therefore, creating His Son as His own very likeness, He brought forth from Himself, as it were, another Himself; and therefore that highest and greatest good which comes to us from God has overflowed to us through His extension to us. We must also understand this reasoning at the same time: God, who founded this world, and who among the other wonders of beauty and order also granted to created nature the power of generating offspring sufficient for each kind of its own, must surely first have possessed in Himself what He would later give. For no one gives what he himself does not possess. He who therefore had a Son perfectly corresponding to Himself in every aspect of likeness, that is, One with one, the virtuous with the virtuous, the good with the good, the blessed with the blessed, the greatest with the greatest, the everlasting with the eternal, certainly had before the world the primacy of a begotten offspring, from which He imparted a pattern to things that were to come into being, so that the seeds of all that would be begotten would be compelled to match their own generative principles. But when we say that the Son was brought forth, we must not understand this as if He had a birth similar to ours, and was born in the way we see mortals being born, when, at the breaking forth of offspring, things come into existence which did not exist before. For those creatures, conceived from seeds implanted from elsewhere, are fused together from the union of underlying elements into the form proper to their kind; but this (generation) is divine: without any aid of external mixture, God brought forth and produced from Himself that which He always had in Himself and with Himself. For if we say that light is born from the sun because it proceeds and flows from it, we do not say this in such a way as though the sun could ever be, or ever was, without light, so that at some point in time it generated from itself something later than itself, but rather in the sense that what it has always possessed with itself, that light, born from it, so to speak, without any distinction of beginning from when it first started to shine, it always illuminates from itself like a renewing gift. In this way, the Son of God, adhering to the Father absolutely from eternity, has also retained this likeness to Him, so that He has neither a beginning nor an end. And as God is eternal without origin, so also the Son is eternal; and as God is one, simple, and the same, so He is joined with the Father in such a way that, though distinguished by names and relations, they are yet the same, one in both, and each in the one, united in an inseparable majesty. Therefore God, having brought forth the Son not drawn from conflicting materials, but produced out of the simple and unique stock and seedbed of His own nature, always possessing Him in Himself, and never at any time having let Him go by any separation from Himself, holds and embraces Him in such a way with Himself that nothing in either of them is altered from that unity.

INDEX OF QUESTIONS

1^ST CATEGORY QUESTIONS ON THE OLD TESTAMENT

(PL 35 2214-2250)

1-47

QUESTION 1. WHAT IS GOD? (pg. 402)

QUESTION 2. WHY DID GOD CREATE THE WORLD? (pg. 15)

QUESTION 3. WHAT NEED WAS THERE FOR MOSES TO EXPLAIN LATER, AND NOT EARLIER, THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD AND THE ORDER OF CREATION? (pg. 20)

QUESTION 4. WHY DID NOT GOD GIVE THE LAW FROM THE BEGINNING? (pg. 406)

QUESTION 5. WHY WAS ABEL’S SACRIFICE ACCEPTED, AND CAIN’S REJECTED? (pg. 63)

QUESTION 6. DID LAMECH KILL CAIN, AS SOME THINK? (pg. 65)

QUESTION 7. WHAT ARE THE TEN WORDS GIVEN ON THE TABLETS; OR WHAT DID EACH TABLET CONTAIN, AND HOW MANY WORDS DID EACH HAVE? (pg. 110)

QUESTION 8. WHY DID MOSES, COMING DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAIN WITH THE TABLES OF THE LAW, HAVE A FACE SO BRIGHT THAT IT COULD NOT BE FIXED ON HIM? (pg. 115)

QUESTION 9. IF ALL THE CREATURES THAT GOD MADE WERE GOOD AND VERY GOOD, WHY DID HE SAY TO NOAH, "BRING WITH YOU INTO THE ARK OF PURE AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS, SINCE NO ONE CAN CALL GOOD WHAT IS UNCLEAN?” (GEN. 1:31; 7:2) (pg. 35)

QUESTION 10. GOD HAVING FORETOLD TO ABRAHAM THAT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WOULD BE FREED FROM THE DOMINION OF THE EGYPTIANS. THE FOURTH GENERATION, WHY DOES THE LAW SAY, "THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SHALL COME FORTH OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT INTO THE FIFTH GENERATION?" (pg. 95)

QUESTION 11. IF THE WILL OF THE RIGHTEOUS MAN IS GOOD, WHY DID NOT ISAAC BLESS ESAU AS HE WISHED, BUT JACOB WHOM HE WOULD NOT BLESS? (pg. 101)

QUESTION 12. WHY DID ABRAHAM RECEIVE THE SIGN OF HIS FAITH, THE SACRAMENT OF CIRCUMCISION? (pg. 96)

QUESTION 13. IF GOD’S JUDGMENT IS JUST, WHY WERE INFANTS IN SODOM BURNED TOGETHER WITH THEIR PARENTS? (pg. 99)

QUESTION 14. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT GOD, WHO IS PROCLAIMED AS JUST, HAS PROMISED TO REPAY THE SINS OF THE FATHERS UPON THE CHILDREN TO THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATION?  (pg. 111)

QUESTION 15. SINCE THE LAW PROCLAIMS WHAT IS JUST, AND HE IS TRULY JUST WHO POSSESSES FULL JUSTICE, HOW IS IT THEN THAT SOLOMON SAYS, “DO NOT BE OVERLY JUST”? (pg. 171)

QUESTION 16. WHY DID THE ANGEL WHO WANTED TO KILL MOSES, IN THE ROUTE, BE APPEASED BY THE CIRCUMCISION OF HIS CHILD? (pg. 106)

QUESTION 17. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE LAW CALLS THOSE ACCURSED WHO HAVE NOT LEFT SEED IN ISRAEL, WHILE THROUGH ISAIAH IT IS SAID THAT EUNUCHS SUFFER NO DISADVANTAGE, BECAUSE THEY CANNOT GENERATE OFFSPRING? (pg. 113)

QUESTION 18. WHY IS IT THAT SAUL, WHEN HE SINNED, ASKED THAT PRAYER BE MADE FOR HIM SO THAT HE MIGHT BE FORGIVEN AND COULD NOT OBTAIN IT, WHILE DAVID, WHEN HE SINNED, ASKED AND OBTAINED PARDON? (pg. 127)

QUESTION 19. WAS ADAM'S BODY, WHEN IT WAS CREATED, IMMORTAL OR SUBJECT TO DEATH? (pg. 62)

QUESTION 20. WHAT DOES THIS SAYING MEAN, “MAN ATE THE BREAD OF ANGELS”, WHEN ANGELS DO NOT NEED FOOD, SINCE THEY ARE SIMPLE BY NATURE AND ENDOWED WITH SPIRITUAL POWER? (pg. 165)

QUESTION 21. WHAT IT MEANS THAT GOD MADE MAN IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD, AND WHETHER WOMAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD? (pg. 33)

QUESTION 22. WHY DOES SOLOMON SAY, "JUSTIFY YOUR SOUL BEFORE YOUR DEATH," AS WE READ IN A PSALM, "NO LIVING MAN WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR PRESENCE?" (pg. 171)

QUESTION 23. CAN SOULS, THEN, BE TRANSLATED JUST LIKE BODIES? (pg. 36)

QUESTION 24. WHY, SINCE MAN AND WOMAN ARE ONE FLESH, IS MAN THE IMAGE OF GOD AND NOT WOMAN? (pg. 31)

QUESTION 25. WHY DID JOSEPH, AFTER PREDICTING THE FUTURE, REQUEST THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL TO CARRY HIS ASHES FROM EGYPT WHEN GOD DELIVERED THEM? (pg. 104)

QUESTION 26. QUESTION ABOUT ELISHA: DID HE OBTAIN WHAT HE IS SAID TO HAVE ASKED TOO HARSHLY OF ELIJAH? (pg. 132)

QUESTION 27. WHEN SAMUEL WAS SUPPOSEDLY RAISED UP BY THE PYTHONESS, AND HE WAS SEEN BY HER AND SPOKE TO SAUL—THIS STORY IS REPORTED IN THE BOOK OF KINGS? (pg. 179)

QUESTION 28. WHAT CAN WE SAY TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THIS WORLD EXISTS NATURALLY FROM ALL ETERNITY, AND THAT IT HAS NEITHER BEGINNING NOR END? (pg. 19)

QUESTION 29. WHY WAS IT COMMANDED THAT CIRCUMCISION TAKE PLACE ON THE EIGHTH DAY? (pg. 98)

QUESTION 30. IN PROVERBS IT IS SAID, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN IS THE ACCUSER OF HIMSELF AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS SPEECH”. HOW IS HE RIGHTEOUS, IF HE IS A SINNER? (pg. 168)

QUESTION 31. WHETHER, WITH THE WOMAN, A SERPENT SPOKE ACCORDING TO ITS NATURE, OR WHETHER THE SERPENT, ACTUALLY MEANING THE DEVIL, DECEIVED HER? (pg. 60)

QUESTION 32. WE READ IN SOLOMON: “THE RICH AND THE POOR HAVE MET TOGETHER; THE LORD MADE BOTH OF THEM”. HOW THEN IS THERE NO RESPECT OF PERSONS WITH GOD? (pg. 168)

QUESTION 33. SOLOMON SAYS, “THE YEARS OF THE UNGODLY WILL BE SHORTENED”; HOW THEN IS IT THAT WE SEE SOME UNGODLY PEOPLE LIVING TO AN OLD AGE? (pg. 167)

QUESTION 34. HOW IS IT THAT THE SAME SOLOMON SAYS, “GOD,” HE DECLARES, “DID NOT MAKE DEATH,” WHILE IN ANOTHER PLACE HE SAYS, “GOOD THINGS AND EVIL, LIFE AND DEATH, POVERTY AND RICHES ARE FROM GOD” (Wisdom 1:13; Sirach 11:14)?"  (pg. 172)

QUESTION 35. HOW CAN DAVID STILL CALL SAUL THE ANOINTED OF THE LORD, AND DO HIM HONOR IN THIS EXCELLENCE AFTER THE LORD HAD DEPARTED FROM HIM? (pg. 129)

QUESTION 36. IF THE SOUL THAT SINS SHALL ITSELF DIE, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT ACHAR, THE SON OF CHARMI, SINNED, AND THIRTY MEN WERE KILLED ON HIS ACCOUNT?  (pg. 118)

QUESTION 37. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT DEATH WAS SENT INTO JACOB AND CAME INTO ISRAEL, WHEN JACOB HIMSELF IS CALLED ISRAEL? (pg. 177)

QUESTION 38. IF A HORSE AND A MULE DO NOT HAVE UNDERSTANDING, HOW MUCH LESS SO DOES THE EARTH, A THING WITHOUT SENSATION? WHAT THEN DOES IT MEAN WHEN THE EARTH IS SAID TO BLESS THE LORD (Ps. 31:9; Dan. 3:74)? (pg. 145)

QUESTION 39. WHAT IS THIS THAT IS READ IN SOLOMON: “THERE IS HOPE,” HE SAYS, “FOR ONE WHO IS JOINED TO ALL THE LIVING; FOR A LIVING DOG IS BETTER THAN A DEAD LION” (Eccles. 9:4)?" (pg. 169)

QUESTION 40. WHAT DOES THE PROPHET MEAN WHEN HE SAYS, “REJOICE, O BARREN ONE WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND CRY ALOUD, YOU WHO DO NOT LABOR, BECAUSE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE ARE MORE THAN THOSE OF HER WHO HAS A HUSBAND." (pg. 179)

QUESTION 41. AND IS THE SPIRIT WHO WAS MOVING OVER THE WATERS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS THE HOLY SPIRIT, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, “THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS MOVING OVER THE WATERS” (Gen. 1:2)?" (pg. 23)

QUESTION 42. WHY WAS THE ANGEL WHO WAS SENT TO SPEAK TO MOSES APPEARED TO HIM ON THE MOUNTAIN IN THE MIDST OF FIRE AND A BUSH? (pg. 105)

QUESTION 43. SINCE ABRAHAM WAS FORBIDDEN TO SACRIFICE HIS SON, WHY WAS JEPHTHAH NOT FORBIDDEN TO CARRY OUT THE SACRIFICE OF HIS DAUGHTER? (Gen. 22:11–12; Judg. 11)? (pg. 119)

QUESTION 44. HOW COULD IT BE SHOWN FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHETS, ALREADY RECEIVED AMONG THE GENTILES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, THAT THE PROMISE WHICH GOD MADE TO ABRAHAM HAS BEEN FULFILLED THROUGH THE COMING OF CHRIST? (pg. 75)

QUESTION 45. HOW MAN WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, AND WHETHER THIS WAS FOR DOMINION, AND WHETHER WOMAN TOO? (pg. 31)

QUESTION 46. WHETHER SAMUEL WAS ONE OF THE SONS OF AARON, AND WHETHER HE IS TO BE CONSIDERED A PRIEST? (pg. 121)

QUESTION 47. HOW DO THE SEVEN WOMEN MENTIONED IN ISAIAH, “AND SEVEN WOMEN SHALL TAKE HOLD,” ETC. (Isa. 4:1), SIGNIFY THE SEVEN CATHOLIC CHURCHES? (pg. 174)

1^ST CATEGORY QUESTIONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

(PL 35 2250-2386)

48-127

QUESTION 48. GOD IS CERTAINLY PERFECTION AND IN NEED OF NOTHING; WHAT NEED THEN HAD CHRIST THE SAVIOR TO BE BORN OF GOD, AND FOR GOD TO HAVE A SON THROUGH WHOM HE MIGHT MAKE ALL THINGS? (pg. 407)

QUESTION 49. WHY WAS THE SAVIOR BAPTIZED, SINCE HE WAS BORN HOLY, AND WAS CALLED CHRIST THE LORD AT HIS VERY BIRTH, WHEN BAPTISM EXISTS FOR THE SAKE OF PURIFICATION AND OF SIN (Luke 2:11; Matt. 3:16)? (pg. 196)

QUESTION 50. IF THEREFORE THE SAVIOR WAS BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO BE AN EXAMPLE, WHY WAS HE CIRCUMCISED, YET FORBADE OTHERS TO BE CIRCUMCISED? (pg. 197)

QUESTION 51. HOW IS IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT, WHEN MARY SAID TO THE ANGEL, “AND HOW SHALL I KNOW THIS, FOR I DO NOT KNOW MAN?”, THE ANGEL GABRIEL REPLIED, “THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON YOU, AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU” (Luke 1:34–35)? (pg. 244)

QUESTION 52. IF CHRIST WAS BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT IS, IF BY HIS WORKING FLESH WAS MADE FROM MARY, WHY IS IT SAID, “WISDOM, WHICH IS CERTAINLY CHRIST, HAS BUILT A HOUSE FOR HERSELF” (Prov. 9:1)? (pg. 190)

QUESTION 53. IF ALL THINGS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REASON, WHY IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN BORN ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF JANUARY?  (pg. 191)

QUESTION 54. IF CHRIST, FROM THE SEED OF DAVID, HAS BEEN MADE THE SON OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE FLESH—THAT IS, IF HE WAS BORN ALREADY THE SON OF GOD IN BOTH RESPECTS, BECAUSE HE WAS BORN HOLY—HOW THEN, AFTER HE WAS BAPTIZED, WAS IT SAID TO HIM BY THE LORD GOD, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU” (Ps. 2:7)? (pg. 198)

QUESTION 55. WHAT WAS THE REASON THAT THE LORD ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BE CRUCIFIED AT THAT TIME, WHEN THE JEWS WERE ABOUT TO CELEBRATE PASSOVER ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF APRIL?  (pg. 231)

QUESTION 56. WHY IS IT THAT IN MATTHEW JOSEPH’S FATHER IS WRITTEN AS JACOB, AND IN LUKE AS HELI, SO THAT HE SEEMS TO BE IGNORANTLY DESCRIBED AS HAVING TWO FATHERS, OR AT LEAST SO THAT WHO HIS TRUE FATHER IS REMAINS UNKNOWN (Matt. 1:16; Luke 3:23)? (pg. 183)

QUESTION 57. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, THAT ALTHOUGH IT IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHET MALACHI, “BEHOLD, I SEND MY ANGEL BEFORE YOUR FACE, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU,” THE EVANGELIST MARK CLAIMS THAT THIS IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHET ISAIAH (Mal. 3:1; Mark 1:2)? (pg. 236)

QUESTION 58. IN WHAT WAY, THEN, DOES JOHN CLAIM THAT HE DID NOT KNOW CHRIST BEFORE THE BAPTISM, WHEN, AS HE CAME TO BE BAPTIZED, HE SAYS TO HIM, “I OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED BY YOU, AND DO YOU COME TO ME?” (John 1:31, 33; Matthew 3:14)? HOW COULD HE NOT KNOW HIM WHOM HE TRIED TO PREVENT, HUMBLING HIMSELF BEFORE HIM? (pg. 204)

QUESTION 59. IF BAPTISM IS A HEAVENLY MYSTERY, WHY DOES THE LORD, WHEN SPEAKING WITH NICODEMUS WHO DOUBTED CONCERNING BAPTISM, SAY: “IF I HAVE TOLD YOU EARTHLY THINGS, AND YOU DO NOT BELIEVE, HOW WILL YOU BELIEVE IF I TELL YOU HEAVENLY THINGS?” (John 3:12)? (pg. 270)

QUESTION 60. IF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN, HOW IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR SENDS THE LEPER TO THE PRIESTS TO HAVE OFFERINGS MADE FOR HIS CLEANSING (Matt. 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14)? (pg. 214)

QUESTION 61. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, WHEN THE JEWS ACCUSED THE DISCIPLES OF BREAKING THE SABBATH BY RUBBING EARS OF GRAIN IN THEIR HANDS AND EATING THEM, THE SAVIOR PUT FORWARD THE EXAMPLE OF DAVID, BECAUSE HE ATE THE LOAVES WHICH IT WAS NOT LAWFUL TO EAT EXCEPT FOR THE PRIESTS ALONE (Matt. 12:1–4)? BY THIS THEY DO NOT SEEM TO BE EXCUSED, BUT RATHER TO BECOME GUILTY TOGETHER WITH DAVID: ESPECIALLY SINCE DAVID DID NOT DO THIS ON THE SABBATH. (pg. 219)

QUESTION 62. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ALTHOUGH THOSE WHO WERE KILLED WERE THE SONS OF LEAH, FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH, RACHEL IS SAID TO BE WEEPING FOR HER SONS (Matt. 2:18)? (pg. 194)

QUESTION 63. BY WHAT REASONING DID THE CHALDEAN MAGI UNDERSTAND, FROM THE APPEARANCE OF A STAR, THAT CHRIST, THE KING OF THE JEWS, HAD BEEN BORN, SINCE A TEMPORAL KING IS USUALLY SIGNIFIED BY A STAR AS A SIGN (Matt. 2:1–2)? (pg. 192)

QUESTION 64. HOW IS IT PROVED THAT THE SAVIOR ROSE FROM THE DEAD AFTER THREE DAYS AND NIGHTS?  (pg. 232)

QUESTION 65. IF THEY SPOKE WITH ONE MOUTH AND ONE REASONING AS EVANGELISTS, HOW DID IT HAPPEN THAT, WHILE THREE SAY—NAMELY MATTHEW, LUKE, AND JOHN—THAT THE LORD WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE SIXTH HOUR, MARK ON THE CONTRARY SAYS THAT THE SAVIOR WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE THIRD HOUR (Matt. 27:45; Luke 23:44; John 19:14; Mark 15:25)? (pg. 228)

QUESTION 66. HOW IS IT THAT MARK THE EVANGELIST SAYS THAT THE DEMONS RECOGNIZED AND PROFESSED JESUS, WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND THE APOSTLE DENIES THAT THE RULERS AND POWERS OF THIS AGE KNEW THE DIVINITY OF THE LORD JESUS? FOR MARK, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SAYS: “THEY KNEW THAT HE WAS THE ONE”; BUT THE APOSTLE SAYS, “NONE OF THE RULERS OF THIS AGE KNEW HIM. FOR IF THEY HAD KNOWN, THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY” (Mark 1:34; 1 Cor. 2:8). IF THE DEMONS KNEW, HOW DID THE RULERS NOT KNOW? (pg. 237)

QUESTION 67. WHAT IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR, PLACED UPON THE CROSS, SAYS: FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING (Luke 23:34)? (pg. 258)

QUESTION 68. SINCE THE LORD HAS CERTAINLY TAUGHT THAT WE MUST PRAY FOR OUR ENEMIES, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT IN THE APOCALYPSE THE SOULS OF THE SLAIN SEEK TO BE AVENGED AGAINST THEM, ASKING GOD FOR VENGEANCE (Matt. 5:44; Rev. 6:10)? (pg. 211)

QUESTION 69. IF, WHEN JOHN OR THE SAVIOR WAS PREACHING, THE LAW CEASED, HOW DOES THE SAVIOR SAY, “I HAVE NOT COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS, BUT TO FULFILL” (Matt. 5:17)? FOR IF IT HAS BEEN FORBIDDEN, HOW IS IT NOT ABOLISHED, SINCE IT HAS LOST THE AUTHORITY TO BE CARRIED OUT? (pg. 205)

QUESTION 70. THE LORD HAS CERTAINLY COMMANDED US TO MAKE THE DEVIL OUR ENEMY: WHAT THEN DOES IT MEAN WHEN IN THE GOSPEL HE SAYS, “BE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR ADVERSARY QUICKLY” (Matt. 5:25)? WHO IS A MAN’S ADVERSARY, IF NOT THE DEVIL? (pg. 211)

QUESTION 71. JACOB IS CALLED “THE MAN WHO SEES GOD,” AND MOSES SAW GOD FACE TO FACE; LIKEWISE ISAIAH SAYS, “I HAVE SEEN THE LORD OF HOSTS WITH MY EYES.” BUT ON THE OTHER HAND JOHN THE EVANGELIST SAYS, “NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN GOD” (Gen. 32:28; Exod. 33:11; Isa. 6:5; 1 John 4:12); THIS, AS FAR AS IT APPEARS, IS CONTRADICTORY. (pg. 102)

QUESTION 72. WHEN IT IS READ IN THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN: “GO,” HE SAYS, “AND TAKE THE BOOK FROM THE HAND OF THE ANGEL, AND DEVOUR IT, AND IT WILL MAKE YOUR BELLY BITTER, BUT IN YOUR MOUTH IT WILL BE SWEET AS HONEY” (Rev. 10:8–9): WHAT IS THIS BOOK THAT MAKES THE BELLY BITTER WHILE IT IS SWEET? (pg. 355)

QUESTION 73. WHAT IS IT THAT SIMEON SAYS TO MARY, THE MOTHER OF THE LORD, AMONG OTHER THINGS: “THIS CHILD IS SET FOR THE FALL AND THE RISING OF MANY IN ISRAEL; AND A SWORD, HE SAYS, SHALL PIERCE THROUGH YOUR OWN SOUL ALSO, THAT THE THOUGHTS OF MANY HEARTS MAY BE REVEALED” (Luke 2:34–35)? (pg. 246)

QUESTION 74. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PROPHET ISAIAH SAYS OF CHRIST, “HE COMMITTED NO SIN,” WHILE THE APOSTLE, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS, “HIM WHO KNEW NO SIN, HE MADE SIN FOR US” (Isa. 53:9; 2 Cor. 5:21)? (pg. 333)

QUESTION 75. WHY DID THE SAVIOR PAY THE DIDRACHMA ONLY FOR HIMSELF AND PETER, AND NOT ALSO FOR THE OTHER APOSTLES (Matt. 17:26)? SINCE THEY HAD ALL FOLLOWED HIM AFTER LEAVING ALL THEIR POSSESSIONS, HE SEEMS TO HAVE OWED PAYMENT FOR ALL. (pg. 223)

QUESTION 76. IN THE GOSPEL, JOHN SAYS, “THE LAW WAS GIVEN THROUGH MOSES, GRACE AND TRUTH CAME THROUGH JESUS CHRIST” (John 1:17). THEREFORE, GRACE AND TRUTH DID NOT EXIST BEFORE. HOW THEN IS THE LAW SAID TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY GOD, IF THERE WAS NO TRUTH IN IT? (pg. 268)

QUESTION 77. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF WHAT MARK THE EVANGELIST SAYS ABOUT CHRIST AMONG OTHER THINGS: “ENTERING THE HOUSE, HE WISHED NO ONE TO KNOW, AND HE COULD NOT REMAIN HIDDEN” (Mark 7:24)? IF THEREFORE HE WISHED AND COULD NOT, HIS WILL SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN WEAKENED. (pg. 239)

QUESTION 78. IT IS READ IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN THAT, AFTER THE SAVIOR HAD SAID HE WOULD NOT GO UP TO THE FEAST DAY, HE WENT UP (John 7:8, 14); THIS SEEMS TO BE A SIGN OF INCONSISTENCY. (pg. 279)

QUESTION 79. IF WE LIVE BY OUR OWN FREE WILL, WHY DID THE SAVIOR SAY, “NO ONE COMES TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER WHO SENT ME DRAWS HIM” (John 6:44); AND WHY, AGREEING WITH THIS, DID THE APOSTLE SAY, “IT IS NOT OF HIM THAT WILLS, NOR OF HIM THAT RUNS, BUT OF GOD THAT SHOWS MERCY,” AND, “HE HAS MERCY ON WHOM HE WILL, AND WHOM HE WILL HE HARDENS” (Rom. 9:16, 18)? HOW IS THE WILL’S CHOICE FREE, WHEN AT ANOTHER’S NOD IT IS LED EITHER TO GOOD OR TO EVIL? (pg. 276)

QUESTION 80. CERTAINLY, EACH PERSON IS EITHER A SON OF GOD OR OF THE DEVIL: HE IS THEREFORE ALWAYS A SON, BUT SOMETIMES OF GOD, AND AT OTHER TIMES OF THE DEVIL. WHAT THEN WE ARE BORN AS MUST BE INQUIRED. (pg. 289)

QUESTION 81. THE APOSTLE SAYS, “WE WHO ARE JEWS BY NATURE” (Gal. 2:15): THEREFORE HE SHOWS THAT JEWS ARE BORN FROM JEWS; I AM NOT SPEAKING OF PROSELYTES, WHO ARE CLEARLY MADE INTO JEWS. INDEED, THOSE WHO WERE BORN IN THE WILDERNESS WERE NOT CIRCUMCISED, AND YET THEY WERE JEWS. THEREFORE IT IS NOT CIRCUMCISION THAT MAKES A JEW, BUT BIRTH BROUGHT FORTH UNDER DEVOTION TO GOD THE CREATOR. IF THEN JEWS ARE BORN FROM JEWS, WHY NOT ALSO CHRISTIANS FROM CHRISTIANS? FOR PAGANS TOO ARE BORN FROM PAGANS. (pg. 337)

QUESTION 82. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE PAGANS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ELEMENTS; WHAT, THEN, DOES THE APOSTLE MEAN WHEN HE SAYS, “WE TOO WERE IN BONDAGE UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THIS WORLD”? (Gal. 4:3). IF, THEREFORE, THE JEWS ALSO WERE SERVING UNDER THE ELEMENTS, HOW WERE THEY DIFFERENT FROM THE PAGANS?  (pg. 344)

QUESTION 83. IF SALVATION AND TRUE AND PERFECT KNOWLEDGE ARE THROUGH CHRIST, WHY DID HE NOT COME EARLIER, SO THAT OUR PREDECESSORS WHO WERE IN IGNORANCE MIGHT LEARN THE TRUTH? INDEED, AFTER THE COMING OF CHRIST MANY HAVE BEEN SAVED, MORE THAN BEFORE. WHENCE, IF HE HAD COME EARLIER, MANY MORE WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. IF THIS IS SO, IT SEEMS BLAMEWORTHY. (pg. 408)

QUESTION 84. WHY DO WE, WHO ARE KEEPING THE PASSOVER FEAST (EASTER) BY THE PHASE OF THE MOON, REPROACH THE PAGANS FOR OBSERVING THE DAYS AND THE DIFFERENT PHASES OF THE MOON? (pg. 253)

QUESTION 85. HOW IS IT, THEN, THAT ALTHOUGH IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT FROM DAVID DOWN TO THE BABYLONIAN EXILE THERE ARE SEVENTEEN GENERATIONS, THE EVANGELIST SAYS THERE ARE FOURTEEN (Matt. 1:17), OMITTING AHAZIAH, WHO AFTER JORAM IS THE SON OF JEHOSHAPHAT, AND JOASH THE SON OF AHAZIAH, AND AMAZIAH THE SON OF JOASH? (pg. 188)

QUESTION 86. WHAT PROVES THAT MARY, THE MOTHER OF THE LORD, IS OF THE TRIBE AND LINEAGE OF DAVID? (pg. 242)

QUESTION 87. IF GOD IS ONE, WHY IS HOPE OF SALVATION IN THREE, AND NOT IN TWO OR FOUR, OR SURELY IN THE ONE HIMSELF? AND WHY WAS THE TRINITY NOT PREACHED FROM THE BEGINNING? (pg. 414)

QUESTION 88. IF GRACE IS GREATER AND UNDERSTANDING CLEARER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THAN IN THE OLD; WHY DID THE PROPHET ISAIAH SEE THE LORD OF HOSTS, WHO IS CHRIST, SEATED ON THE THRONE OF MAJESTY, ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF JOHN THE EVANGELIST? FOR HE SAID AMONG OTHER THINGS: “ISAIAH SAID THESE THINGS WHEN HE SAW HIS MAJESTY AND SPOKE OF HIM” (Isaiah 6:1; John 12:41). BUT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT STEPHEN THE FIRST MARTYR SAYS THAT HE SAW JESUS STANDING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD (Acts 7:55). WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT HERE HE APPEARS AS SUBJECT AFTER HIS VICTORIES, AND THERE AS LORD BEFORE HE HAD CONQUERED? (pg. 294)

QUESTION 89. THE SAVIOR, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SAYS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: “WHEN HE COMES,” HE SAYS, “HE WILL CONVICT THE WORLD CONCERNING SIN, AND RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND JUDGMENT. CONCERNING SIN INDEED, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN ME; BUT CONCERNING RIGHTEOUSNESS, BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER, AND YOU WILL SEE ME NO MORE; BUT CONCERNING JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD HAS BEEN JUDGED” (John 16:8). HE APPEARS INDEED TO HAVE STATED THE REASON FOR THE WORLD’S BEING CONVICTED, BUT THIS NEEDS EXPLANATION. (pg. 312)

QUESTION 90. IF THE DEVIL HIMSELF IS SATAN, HOW IS IT THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS THE SAVIOR SAYS TO THE JEWS: “YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND YOU WISH TO DO THE DESIRES OF YOUR FATHER. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND DID NOT STAND IN THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. WHEN HE SPEAKS A LIE, HE SPEAKS FROM WHAT IS HIS OWN; FOR HE IS A LIAR, AS IS HIS FATHER” (John 8:44)? (pg. 288)

QUESTION 91. HOW TO BE SOUGHT IS HOW TO CONTRADICT THE ARGUMENTS OF PHOTINUS, WHO SAYS THAT CHRIST DID NOT EXIST BEFORE MARY. (pg. 416)

QUESTION 92. HOW IS IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD WHEN THE SAVIOR SAYS, MY PEACE I GIVE TO YOU; MY PEACE I LEAVE WITH YOU: NOT AS THIS WORLD GIVES, DO I GIVE TO YOU (John 14:27)? (pg. 311)

QUESTION 93. WE MUST ASK WHETHER THE APOSTLES HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT DURING THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE ON EARTH WITH THE LORD, BECAUSE AMONG MANY THINGS THE EVANGELIST SAYS, “THE SPIRIT HAD NOT YET BEEN GIVEN, BECAUSE JESUS HAD NOT YET BEEN GLORIFIED” (John 7:39); AND IN ANOTHER PLACE, “IF YOU LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS, AND I WILL ASK THE FATHER, AND HE WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER PARACLETE, THAT HE MAY REMAIN WITH YOU FOREVER, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE IT NEITHER SEES HIM NOR KNOWS HIM; BUT YOU KNOW HIM, BECAUSE HE DWELLS WITH YOU AND IS IN YOU” (John 14:15-17). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? HE DENIES THAT THE SPIRIT WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE PASSION; YET HE PROMISES THAT HE WILL ASK THE FATHER TO SEND HIM. AGAIN HE ADDS THAT THE SPIRIT WAS WITH THEM AND REMAINED AMONG THEM. AFTER THE RESURRECTION, HOWEVER, IT IS WRITTEN THAT HE BREATHED ON THEM AND SAID, “RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT” (John 20:22). AND AT PENTECOST IT IS WRITTEN THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCENDED UPON THE APOSTLES (Acts 2:1-4). I SEE SO MANY DIFFICULTIES IN THIS MATTER THAT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT OUGHT TO BE HELD. (pg. 280)

QUESTION 94. IT MUST BE ASKED WHETHER JUDAS ISCARIOT, THE TRAITOR OF THE LORD, ENDED HIS LIFE BY HANGING BEFORE THE PASSION OF THE SAVIOR. (pg. 227)

QUESTION 95. WHAT WAS THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF PENTECOST AND THE REASON FOR ITS INSTITUTION? (pg. 316)

QUESTION 96. IT SHOULD BE ASKED WHETHER PASCHA IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS “PASSAGE,” AS IT APPEARS TO THE GREEKS. (pg. 325)

QUESTION 97. BY WHAT REASONING CAN THE WICKEDNESS OF ARIUS BE SIMPLY REFUTED FROM THE LAW? (pg. 295)

QUESTION 98. ON THE GOSPEL OF SAINT JOHN. (pg. 286)

QUESTION 99. WHAT IS THAT SAYING OF THE APOSTLE, “LET NO TEMPTATION TAKE HOLD OF YOU EXCEPT WHAT IS HUMAN” (1 Cor. 10:13)? (pg. 328)

QUESTION 100. ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. (pg. 217)

QUESTION 101. ON THE BOASTFULNESS OF ROMAN DEACONS. (pg. 424)

QUESTION 102. AGAINST NOVATIAN. (pg. 360)

QUESTION 103. HOW HAS THE LORD IN LEVITICUS COMMANDED THAT SACRIFICES AND LIBATIONS BE OFFERED, WHICH ELSEWHERE HE REJECTS? FOR IT IS CLEAR IN LEVITICUS THAT THE LORD COMMANDED THE FATHERS TO OFFER LIBATIONS OR SACRIFICES OR BURNT OFFERINGS: YET HE SAYS THEREFORE THROUGH THE PROPHET JEREMIAH: THEREFORE SAYS THE LORD, GATHER YOUR BURNT OFFERINGS WITH YOUR SACRIFICES, AND EAT FLESH; FOR I DID NOT SPEAK TO YOUR FATHERS, NOR DID I COMMAND THEM, IN THE DAY THAT I BROUGHT THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT (Jer. 7:21–22) ABOUT BURNT OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES.  (pg. 116)

QUESTION 104. ON THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. (pg. 255)

QUESTION 105. HOW THE PROPHECY AGREES WITH THE GOSPEL, CONCERNING THE DARKENING OF THE SUN AND CERTAIN OTHER THINGS. (pg. 250)

QUESTION 106. ON GENESIS. (pg. 6)

QUESTION 107. ON THE ORDER OF DAY AND NIGHT. (pg. 26)

QUESTION 108. ON THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHERE IT TOOK ITS NAME. (pg. 68)

QUESTION 109. ON MELCHIZEDEK. (pg. 84)

QUESTION 110. ON THE FIRST PSALM. (pg. 140)

QUESTION 111. ON PSALM 23. (pg. 147)

QUESTION 112. ON PSALM FIFTY. (pg. 156)

QUESTION 113. WHY WAS THE SON OF GOD SENT, AND NOT ANOTHER? (pg. 428)

QUESTION 114. AGAINST THE PAGANS. (pg. 380)

QUESTION 115. CONCERNING FATE. (pg. 432)

QUESTION 116. THE REASON FOR THE PASSOVER. (pg. 108)

QUESTION 117. ON ABRAHAM. (pg. 72)

QUESTION 118. ON JOB. (pg. 136)

QUESTION 119. ON TOBIT. (pg. 134)

QUESTION 120. ON FASTING. (pg. 457)

QUESTION 121. PRAISE AND GLORY OF THE PASSOVER. (pg. 459)

QUESTION 122. ON THE BEGINNING. (pg. 259)

QUESTION 123. DID ADAM HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT? (pg. 38)

QUESTION 124. ONE WORK VARIES ACCORDING TO PERSONS, INTO PRAISE OR CONDEMNATION. (pg. 460)

QUESTION 125. AGAINST EUSEBIUS. (pg. 392)

QUESTION 126. ON THE PERSON WHO HAS RECEIVED FAITH IN CHRIST. (pg. 463)

QUESTION 127. THE SIN OF ADAM AND EVE. (pg. 46)

2^ND CATEGORY QUESTIONS ON THE OLD TESTAMENT

(PL 35 2386-92)

1-20

QUESTION 1. AGAINST THOSE WHO DENY THAT ANYTHING CONCERNS GOD. (pg. 399)

QUESTION 2. AND IS THE SPIRIT WHO WAS MOVING OVER THE WATERS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS THE HOLY SPIRIT, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, “THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS MOVING OVER THE WATERS” (Gen. 1:2)?" (pg. 23)

QUESTION 3. WHEN ADAM WAS MADE BY GOD AND GIVEN LIFE, HE RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT; FOR IT IS WRITTEN, “GOD BREATHED INTO HIS FACE THE SPIRIT OF LIFE” (Gen. 2:7). (pg. 44)

QUESTION 4. WHY DID GOD IMPOSE UPON ADAM THAT HE HAD PLACED IN THE WORLD A COMMANDMENT, A LAW, AFTER HAVING GIVEN HIM DOMINION OVER ALL CREATURES? (pg. 45)

QUESTION 5. WHY DOES GOD SAY, “MY SPIRIT SHALL NOT REMAIN IN THESE MEN, BECAUSE THEY ARE FLESH; THEIR YEARS SHALL BE ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY,” ETC. (Gen. 6:3)? (pg. 67)

QUESTION 6. WHAT DOES THE BLESSING OF JACOB, WHICH HE GAVE TO HIS SONS (Gen. 48, 49), CONTAIN? (pg. 103)

QUESTION 7. WHY DID THE ANGEL SENT TO SPEAK TO MOSES APPEAR IN THE FIRE AND IN THE BUSH? (pg. 105)

QUESTION 8. THERE WAS NO OTHER SIGN THAT MOSES PERFORMED OPENLY BEFORE PHARAOH EXCEPT THE SERPENT (Exod. 7:10) (pg. 107)

QUESTION 9. IF THERE IS ONE GOD, WHY IS HOPE OF SALVATION IN THREE, AND NOT IN TWO, OR FOUR, OR CERTAINLY IN ONE? AND WHY WAS THE TRINITY NOT PREACHED EARLIER? (pg. 414)

QUESTION 10. WHY WERE CIRCUMCISION AND PRECEPTS GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE, WHICH PREVIOUSLY DID NOT EXIST AND NOW ARE NO LONGER HELD IN AUTHORITY? (pg. 97)

QUESTION 11. IF THE JEWS HAD RECEIVED HARSH COMMANDMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR DISTRUST AND SLANDERS, WHAT HAD THEIR SONS DONE WRONG THAT THEY TOO SHOULD BE BOUND BY THESE COMMANDMENTS? (pg. 468)

QUESTION 12. WHY IS IT THAT IN THE LAW EVEN AARON HIMSELF IS TOLD THAT HE MUST OFFER BURNT OFFERINGS FOR HIS SINS, WHEN DAVID SAYS, “FOR FAULTS YOU HAVE NOT REQUIRED A BURNT OFFERING” (Ps. 39:7), AND LATER, “YOU WILL NOT TAKE PLEASURE IN BURNT OFFERINGS” (Ps. 50:18)? HOW DID HE COMMAND THAT THERE BE OFFERED WHAT HE DOES NOT TAKE PLEASURE IN? (pg. 154)

QUESTION 13. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT DEATH WAS SENT INTO JACOB, THAT IT HAS COME INTO ISRAEL, SINCE JACOB HIMSELF IS ISRAEL?  (pg. 177)

QUESTION 14. IF THE SOUL THAT SINS SHALL ITSELF DIE, HOW IS IT THAT, WHEN CHARMI SINS, THIRTY‑SIX MEN APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN KILLED ON HIS ACCOUNT? (pg. 118)

QUESTION 15. WHAT IS IT THAT THE PROPHET SAYS: REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN, YOU WHO DO NOT GIVE BIRTH; BREAK FORTH AND CRY OUT, YOU WHO DO NOT LABOR IN CHILDBIRTH, BECAUSE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE ARE MORE NUMEROUS THAN THOSE OF HER WHO HAS A HUSBAND?  (pg. 179)

QUESTION 16. IF A HORSE AND A MULE DO NOT HAVE UNDERSTANDING, HOW MUCH LESS SO DOES THE EARTH, A THING WITHOUT SENSATION? WHAT THEN DOES IT MEAN WHEN THE EARTH IS SAID TO BLESS THE LORD (Ps. 31:9; Dan. 3:74)? (pg. 145)

QUESTION 17. HE HAS, HE SAYS, SET UP HIS TABERNACLE IN THE SUN (Ps. 18:6), THAT IS, HIS BODY IN WHICH CHRIST DWELT, WHO WAS SCOURGED BY PILATE: HOW THEN IS IT SAID IN THE PSALM OF CHRIST, THE SCOURGE SHALL NOT COME NEAR YOUR TENT (Ps. 90:10)? SINCE HE CALLED HIS BODY A TEMPLE. (pg. 146)

QUESTION 18. WHY DID SOLOMON HAVE THE SPIRIT OF WISDOM (1 Kings 3), WHEN HE DID NOT HAVE A PURE LIFE? FOR HE TOOK GREAT DELIGHT IN WOMEN, AND BY THIS HE SINNED (ibid. 11).  (pg. 132)

QUESTION 19. IN SOLOMON IT IS SAID, “HOPE IS IN THE DARKNESS, AND A LIVING DOG IS BETTER THAN A DEAD LION.” (Eccles. 9:4).”  (pg. 169)

QUESTION 20. IN WISDOM IT SAYS, “HE CREATED, IT SAYS, THE WORLD FROM UNSEEN MATTER”; AND ELSEWHERE, THAT WE HAVE BEEN MADE FROM NOTHING (Wis. 11:18 and 2:2). (pg. 173)

2^ND CATEGORY QUESTIONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

(PL 35 2392-2412)

1-65

QUESTION 1. WHY HAVE THE DEEDS AND SAYINGS OF THE LORD BEEN ARRANGED IN WRITING IN FOUR BOOKS BY FOUR AUTHORS? (pg. 468)

QUESTION 2. SINCE IT IS CERTAIN THAT WE HAVE FOUR AUTHENTIC BOOKS OF THE FACTS AND WORDS OF OUR LORD, IN WHAT ORDER SHOULD WE PLACE THEM? (pg. 469)

QUESTION 3. WHY DOES MATTHEW, WHEN WRITING THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, SAY, “THE BOOK OF THE GENERATION OF JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF DAVID” (Matt. 1:1), WHEN ABRAHAM CAME EARLIER?  (pg. 181)

QUESTION 4. WHAT IS THE REASON THAT THE APOSTLE MATTHEW, MENTIONED ABOVE, DIVIDED ALL THE GENERATIONS INTO THREE PARTS (Matt. 1:17)? (pg. 182)

QUESTION 5. SO, SINCE THERE ARE FORTY-ONE GENERATIONS, THE EVANGELIST SEEMS TO HAVE COUNTED FORTY-TWO (Matt. 1:17). FOR THREE TIMES FOURTEEN, WHAT DO THEY MAKE IF NOT FORTY-TWO?  (pg. 182)

QUESTION 6. THEREFORE, IN MATTHEW JOSEPH’S FATHER IS WRITTEN AS JACOB, AND IN LUKE AS HELI; SO THAT HE IS EITHER IGNORANTLY DESCRIBED AS HAVING TWO FATHERS, OR AT LEAST IT IS UNCLEAR WHO HIS TRUE FATHER IS?  (pg. 183)

QUESTION 7. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SAVIOR WAS BORN, THE SON OF GOD AND CALLED CHRIST: WHY THEN, AFTER BAPTISM, DID THE TEMPTER APPROACH HIM, SAYING, “IF YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD,” ETC. (Matt. 4:3)? (pg. 200)

QUESTION 8. WHY DOES THE SAVIOR, WHEN THE DEVIL IS TESTING HIM, RESIST IN NO OTHER WAY THAN WITH EXAMPLES FROM THE LAW (Matt. 4:4–10)? (pg. 201)

QUESTION 9. WHY DID THE SAVIOR, AFTER HIS BAPTISM, FAST FOR FORTY DAYS AND THEN AFTERWARD GROW HUNGRY (Matt. 4:2)? FOR ONE WHO FASTED FORTY DAYS COULD HAVE ALREADY CEASED TO FEEL HUNGER. (pg. 202)

QUESTION 10. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ALTHOUGH JOHN THE BAPTIST HAD PREVIOUSLY BORNE WITNESS TO THE SAVIOR, HE LATER SEEMED TO DOUBT, SAYING THROUGH HIS DISCIPLES: “ARE YOU THE ONE WHO IS TO COME, OR ARE WE TO EXPECT ANOTHER?” (Matt. 11:3–10).  (pg. 203)

QUESTION 11. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE FACT THAT ABOVE WE READ THAT HEROD DIED (Matt. 2:19), BUT LATER ON, AFTER MANY YEARS, WE READ THAT HEROD KILLED JOHN (Matt. 14:1–11), EVEN THOUGH JOHN OUTLIVED THE EARLIER HEROD WHO HAD DIED? (pg. 193)

QUESTION 12. SINCE THE LORD HAS CERTAINLY TAUGHT THAT WE MUST PRAY FOR OUR ENEMIES, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT IN THE APOCALYPSE THE SOULS OF THE SLAIN SEEK TO BE AVENGED AGAINST THEM, ASKING GOD FOR VENGEANCE (Matt. 5:44; Rev. 6:10)? (pg. 211)

QUESTION 13. IF, WHEN JOHN OR THE SAVIOR WAS PREACHING, THE LAW CEASED, HOW DOES THE SAVIOR SAY, “I HAVE NOT COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS, BUT TO FULFILL” (Matt. 5:17)? FOR IF IT HAS BEEN FORBIDDEN, HOW IS IT NOT ABOLISHED, SINCE IT HAS LOST THE AUTHORITY TO BE CARRIED OUT?  (pg. 205)

QUESTION 14. JOHN TO THE LORD: “ARE YOU THE ONE WHO IS TO COME, OR SHOULD WE EXPECT ANOTHER?” (Matt. 11) (pg. 216)

QUESTION 15. WHY IS IT SAID THAT THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN, AND THAT AFTERWARD THEY RIGHTLY CEASED (Matt. 11:13)? BECAUSE THE ONE ABOUT WHOM THEY PROPHESIED HAD NOW ARRIVED. WHY THEN “UNTIL JOHN” WITH REGARD TO THE LAW, SINCE THE APOSTLE SAYS THAT WE OUGHT TO BE SUBJECT TO THE LAW: “FOR THOSE THAT EXIST,” HE SAYS, “HAVE BEEN ORDAINED BY GOD” (Rom. 13:1)? (pg. 216)

QUESTION 16. SINCE THE SAVIOR SAYS THAT THE BAPTISM OF JOHN IS FROM HEAVEN, WHY, WHEN HE SPEAKS TO NICODEMUS ABOUT BAPTISM AND HE IS IN DOUBT, DOES HE SAY: “IF I HAVE TOLD YOU EARTHLY THINGS AND YOU DO NOT BELIEVE,” ETC.? (pg. 270)

QUESTION 17. WHY IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR AT FIRST REFUSED MERCY TO THE FOREIGN WOMAN, THAT IS, THE CANAANITE (Matt. 15:22–28), WHEN HE DID NOT DENY THE GRACE OF GRANTING SALVATION TO THE FOREIGN CENTURION AND TO THE LEPER WHOM JESUS HIMSELF CALLED A FOREIGNER (Luke 7:2–10 and 17:12–19)? (pg. 222)

QUESTION 18. HOW IS WHAT THE SAVIOR SAID PROVEN, NAMELY THAT AFTER THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS HE WOULD RISE FROM THE DEAD, SINCE IN FACT, HAVING SUFFERED ON THE PREPARATION DAY, HE ROSE AT DAYBREAK ON SUNDAY, WHILE IT WAS STILL DARK? THEREFORE, THE NUMBER OF DAYS AND NIGHTS DOES NOT SEEM TO MATCH. (pg. 232)

QUESTION 19. THEREFORE THE SAVIOR SAYS, PRAY THAT YOUR FLIGHT BE NOT IN WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH (Matt. 24:20); EVEN THOUGH THE TIME OF THIS PERSECUTION CANNOT BE POSTPONED, SINCE THE APOSTLE SAYS, HE WILL BE REVEALED IN HIS OWN TIME (2 Thess. 2:6, 8); AND IN THE ACTS THE APOSTLE SAYS, APPOINTING THE TIMES AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THEIR DWELLING (Acts 17:26). AND WHY DOES HE INDICATE THAT FLIGHT IS NOT ADVISABLE IN WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH? (pg. 225)

QUESTION 20. WHEN THE SAVIOR SAID THAT HE WAS GOING TO SUFFER AND THAT HE WOULD RISE AGAIN ON THE THIRD DAY, HE ADDED, “AND AFTER I HAVE RISEN, I WILL GO BEFORE YOU INTO GALILEE, THERE YOU WILL SEE ME”; AND LIKEWISE THE ANGEL SAID TO THE WOMEN (Matt. 26:32 and 28:7). (pg. 226)

QUESTION 21. THREE EVANGELISTS SAY THAT THE SAVIOR WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE SIXTH HOUR, BUT THE EVANGELIST MARK SAYS THAT HE WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE THIRD HOUR. (pg. 228)

QUESTION 22. IF THEREFORE THE SAVIOR WAS BAPTIZED SO AS TO BE AN EXAMPLE, WHY, WHEN HE WAS CIRCUMCISED, DID HE FORBID THE OTHERS TO BE CIRCUMCISED?  (pg. 197)

QUESTION 23. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, WHEN THE JEWS ACCUSED THE DISCIPLES OF BREAKING THE SABBATH BY RUBBING EARS OF GRAIN IN THEIR HANDS AND EATING THEM, THE SAVIOR PUT FORWARD THE EXAMPLE OF DAVID, BECAUSE HE ATE THE LOAVES WHICH IT WAS NOT LAWFUL TO EAT EXCEPT FOR THE PRIESTS ALONE (Matt. 12:1–4)? BY THIS THEY DO NOT SEEM TO BE EXCUSED, BUT RATHER TO BECOME GUILTY TOGETHER WITH DAVID: ESPECIALLY SINCE DAVID DID NOT DO THIS ON THE SABBATH. (pg. 219)

QUESTION 24. WHY DID THE SAVIOR CALL HIS DISCIPLES “SONS OF THUNDER” (Mark 3:17), WHO WOULD SEEM FAR MORE TO BE CALLED SONS OF GOD? FOR THUNDER IS SAID TO BE PRODUCED BY THE COLLISION OF CLOUDS. (pg. 239)

QUESTION 25. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE EVANGELIST MARK, CHRIST’S WILL WAS NOT FULFILLED: FOR “ENTERING,” HE SAYS, “INTO A HOUSE, HE WISHED NO ONE TO KNOW, AND HE COULD NOT REMAIN HIDDEN” (Mark 7:24)? IF THEREFORE HE WISHED TO BE HIDDEN AND COULD NOT, HIS WILL HAS BEEN WEAKENED. (pg. 239)

QUESTION 26. IN THE GOSPEL WE READ THAT THE ANGEL SAYS TO MARY, THE LORD’S MOTHER, THAT HIS KINGDOM, THAT IS, CHRIST’S, WILL HAVE NO END (Luke 1:33). AND DANIEL SAYS THE SAME; FOR HE SAYS: THEN THERE SHALL ARISE AN EVERLASTING KINGDOM WHICH SHALL NEVER BE DESTROYED (Dan. 7:14). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APOSTLE SAYS OF THE LORD: WHEN HE SHALL HAVE DELIVERED UP THE KINGDOM TO GOD AND THE FATHER (1 Cor. 15:24). HOW WILL HE HAVE AN ETERNAL KINGDOM, IF HE IS SAID TO BE GOING TO DELIVER THAT KINGDOM UP TO GOD AND THE FATHER? (pg. 242)

QUESTION 27. THE SAVIOR SAYS, IF ANYONE HAS NOT LEFT ALL THAT HE HAS, THAT IS, HOUSE, AND FIELD, AND THE REST, HE CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE; AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE EVANGELIST SAYS: JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA CAME, A RICH MAN, WHO WAS ALSO HIMSELF A DISCIPLE OF JESUS, WAITING FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD (Luke 14:33 and 23:50–51). HOW IS IT THAT THE EVANGELIST ACKNOWLEDGES HIM AS A DISCIPLE WHOM THE SAVIOR DENIED? FOR ZACCHAEUS WAS RICH, AND CORNELIUS THE CENTURION WAS RICH, AND THE WOMEN WHO MINISTERED TO THEM OUT OF THEIR MEANS WERE RICH. (pg. 248)

QUESTION 28. IF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN, HOW IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR SENDS THE LEPER TO THE PRIESTS TO HAVE OFFERINGS MADE FOR HIS CLEANSING (Matt. 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14)? (pg. 214)

QUESTION 29. IF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN, FROM WHOM THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN BEGAN TO BE PREACHED (Luke 16:16), FOR HE IS INDEED THE INITIATOR OF THE NEW PREACHING, WHY DID HIS BAPTISM CEASE? (pg. 249)

QUESTION 30. IN THE GOSPEL, JOHN SAYS, “THE LAW WAS GIVEN THROUGH MOSES, GRACE AND TRUTH CAME THROUGH JESUS CHRIST” (John 1:17). THEREFORE, GRACE AND TRUTH DID NOT EXIST BEFORE. HOW THEN IS THE LAW SAID TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY GOD, IF THERE WAS NO TRUTH IN IT? (pg. 268)

QUESTION 31. THE SABBATH IS CERTAINLY THE LAW OR A PART OF THE LAW; HOW THEN IS THE LAW NOT ABOLISHED, WHEN THE EVANGELIST SAYS, “HE NOT ONLY BROKE THE SABBATH, BUT ALSO CALLED GOD HIS FATHER” (John 5:18)?  (pg. 274)

QUESTION 32. IF WE LIVE BY OUR OWN FREE CHOICE, WHY DOES THE SAVIOR SAY, “NO ONE,” HE DECLARES, “COMES TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER WHO SENT ME DRAWS HIM”; AND WHY DOES THE APOSTLE, IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS, SAY, “IT IS NOT OF HIM WHO WILLS, NOR OF HIM WHO RUNS, BUT OF GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY”? BY THESE STATEMENTS THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL SEEMS TO BE DISTURBED. FOR IF NO ONE GOES UNLESS DRAWN, THEN IT WILL NOT BE THE FAULT OF THE ONE WHO DOES NOT GO, SINCE HE IS NOT DRAWN. AND IF THE ONE WHO ASKS AND STRIVES DOES NOT RECEIVE, BUT GOD GIVES TO WHOM HE WILLS, THEN THE PERSON WHO WILLS AND DOES NOT OBTAIN WILL BE WITHOUT BLAME AND GUILT; AND THE GUILT WILL FALL BACK ON THE ONE WHO SPURNS THE PETITIONER. (pg. 276)

QUESTION 33. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ALTHOUGH THE SAVIOR HEALED ALMOST EVERYONE BY A WORD, HE NONETHELESS RESTORED THE BLIND MAN’S EYES WITH MUD MADE FROM HIS SPITTLE (John 9:6–7)? (pg. 291)

QUESTION 34. WHAT IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR SAYS, “I AM THE DOOR; THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE ME ARE THIEVES AND ROBBERS” (John 10:7–8)? THIS STATEMENT SEEMS TO STRIKE AT THE PROPHETS. (pg. 292)

QUESTION 35. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, WHEN HE WAS GOING TO PERFORM A MARVELOUS AND UNKNOWN ACT OF POWER, NAMELY, TO RAISE LAZARUS FROM THE DEAD, HE WEPT, OR ASKED WHERE HE HAD BEEN LAID AS THOUGH HE DID NOT KNOW (John 11:34–35)? (pg. 293)

QUESTION 36. WHEN THE SAVIOR SAYS, “I PRAY FOR THEM WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN ME; I DO NOT PRAY FOR THE WORLD” (John 17:9), BUT THE APOSTLE JOHN, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS, “WE HAVE AN ADVOCATE WITH THE FATHER, A MEDIATOR FOR OUR SINS, AND NOT ONLY FOR OURS, BUT FOR THE WHOLE WORLD” (1 John 2:1–2), THIS SEEMS TO BE A CONTRADICTION. (pg. 313)

QUESTION 37. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE SAVIOR SAYS TO MARY, WHO WANTS TO TOUCH HIM OUT OF JOY, “DO NOT TOUCH ME; FOR I HAVE NOT YET ASCENDED TO THE FATHER” (John 20:1–17), WHEN IT IS READ THAT HE WAS BOTH TOUCHED AND ADORED BY THE OTHER WOMEN? (pg. 314)

QUESTION 38. HOW IS IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT, WHEN MARY SAID TO THE ANGEL, “AND HOW SHALL I KNOW THIS, FOR I DO NOT KNOW MAN?”, THE ANGEL GABRIEL REPLIED, “THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON YOU, AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU” (Luke 1:34–35)? (pg. 244)

QUESTION 39. BY WHAT REASONING DID THE CHALDEAN MAGI UNDERSTAND, THROUGH THE STAR THAT APPEARED, THAT CHRIST, THE KING OF THE JEWS, HAD BEEN BORN, SINCE A TEMPORAL KING IS INDICATED BY A STAR AS A SIGN? (Matt. 2:1–2)? (pg. 192)

QUESTION 40. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PROPHET ISAIAH SAYS OF CHRIST, “HE COMMITTED NO SIN,” WHILE THE APOSTLE, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS, “HIM WHO KNEW NO SIN, HE MADE SIN FOR US” (Isa. 53:9; 2 Cor. 5:21)? (pg. 333)

QUESTION 41. CERTAINLY, WHOEVER IS NOT A SON OF GOD IS OF THE DEVIL: THEREFORE HE IS ALWAYS A SON, BUT SOMETIMES OF GOD, SOMETIMES OF THE DEVIL. WHAT THEN ARE WE BORN AS? (pg. 289)

QUESTION 42. WE MUST ASK WHETHER THE APOSTLES HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT DURING THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE ON EARTH WITH THE LORD, BECAUSE AMONG MANY THINGS THE EVANGELIST SAYS, “THE SPIRIT HAD NOT YET BEEN GIVEN, BECAUSE JESUS HAD NOT YET BEEN GLORIFIED” (John 7:39); AND IN ANOTHER PLACE, “IF YOU LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS, AND I WILL ASK THE FATHER, AND HE WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER PARACLETE, THAT HE MAY REMAIN WITH YOU FOREVER, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE IT NEITHER SEES HIM NOR KNOWS HIM; BUT YOU KNOW HIM, BECAUSE HE DWELLS WITH YOU AND IS IN YOU” (John 14:15-17). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? HE DENIES THAT THE SPIRIT WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE PASSION; YET HE PROMISES THAT HE WILL ASK THE FATHER TO SEND HIM. AGAIN HE ADDS THAT THE SPIRIT WAS WITH THEM AND REMAINED AMONG THEM. AFTER THE RESURRECTION, HOWEVER, IT IS WRITTEN THAT HE BREATHED ON THEM AND SAID, “RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT” (John 20:22). AND AT PENTECOST IT IS WRITTEN THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCENDED UPON THE APOSTLES (Acts 2:1-4). I SEE SO MANY DIFFICULTIES IN THIS MATTER THAT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT OUGHT TO BE HELD. (pg. 280)

QUESTION 43. WHAT REASONABLE ANSWER CAN ONE MAKE FROM THE LAW TO THE WICKEDNESS OF THE ARIANS? (pg. 308)

QUESTION 44. AS WE CONFESS THAT THE SAVIOR WAS BORN, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS HE WAS MADE FROM THE SEED OF DAVID (Rom. 1:3), SINCE TO BE MADE IS ONE THING AND TO BE BORN ANOTHER? (pg. 319)

QUESTION 45. IF CHRIST WAS MADE THE SON OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE FLESH FROM THE SEED OF DAVID, THAT IS, IF HE WHO WAS BORN IS ALREADY THE SON OF GOD IN BOTH RESPECTS, BECAUSE HE WAS SANCTIFIED AT BIRTH, HOW THEN, AFTER HE WAS BAPTIZED, WAS IT SAID TO HIM BY GOD, “YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? (Ps. 2:7)? (pg. 198)

QUESTION 46. THE APOSTLE CALLS THE LAW GIVEN BY MOSES HOLY, JUST, GOOD, AND SPIRITUAL (Rom. 7:12, 14). ELSEWHERE HE SAYS, “FOR THE LAW WORKS WRATH,” AND, “WHERE THERE IS NO LAW, THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION” (Rom. 4:15). FOR WHERE THESE THINGS ARE NOT, THERE IS SECURITY.  (pg. 320)

QUESTION 47. BY WHAT REASONING IS THE WISDOM OF THE FLESH HOSTILE TO GOD; OR WHAT IS THAT WISDOM ITSELF WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD (Rom. 8:7)?  (pg. 322)

QUESTION 48. THE APOSTLE SAYS ABOUT THE PRINCES AND POWERS OF THIS WORLD THAT, IF THEY HAD KNOWN, THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF MAJESTY; BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, MARK THE EVANGELIST SAYS OF THE DEMONS, “FOR THEY KNEW HIM TO BE.” IF THE DEMONS KNEW, HOW DID THE POWERS NOT KNOW? (pg. 237)

QUESTION 49. WHOSE SPIRIT DOES THE APOSTLE SAY IS TO BE SAVED, WHEN HE SAYS, “I HAVE HANDED OVER SUCH A MAN TO SATAN FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FLESH,” ETC. (1 Cor. 5:5)? (pg. 323)

QUESTION 50. SINCE MANY SINS SEEM TO BE COMMITTED IN THE BODY, FOR ANYONE WHO INFLICTS VIOLENCE ON ANY PART OF HIS BODY SINS, OF COURSE, AGAINST HIS OWN BODY; FOR THERE IS ONE WHO HAS MUTILATED HIMSELF, ONE WHO HAS ENDED HIS LIFE BY A NOOSE, ONE WHO HAS DRIVEN A SWORD INTO HIMSELF, WHY THEN DOES THE APOSTLE SAY, “EVERY SIN WHATSOEVER A MAN SHALL COMMIT IS OUTSIDE THE BODY; BUT HE WHO FORNICATES SINS AGAINST HIS OWN BODY” (1 Cor. 6:18)? (pg. 326)

QUESTION 51. WHY DID THE APOSTLE SAY THAT HE MADE HIMSELF “ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN” (1 Cor. 9:22), SOMETHING THAT SEEMS LIKE THE BEHAVIOR OF A FLATTERER AND A HYPOCRITE? (pg. 327)

QUESTION 52. WHAT DOES THE APOSTLE MEAN WHEN HE SAYS, “LET NO TEMPTATION SEIZE YOU EXCEPT WHAT IS HUMAN” (1 Cor. 10:13); AS THOUGH HE WERE WISHING THIS TO HAPPEN? AND WHAT IS THIS HUMAN TEMPTATION? FOR BY THIS HE SHOWS THAT THERE IS ALSO A DIVINE TEMPTATION. (pg. 328)

QUESTION 53. WHAT DOES THE APOSTLE MEAN WHEN HE SAYS, “NO ONE CAN SAY, LORD JESUS, EXCEPT IN THE HOLY SPIRIT” (1 Cor. 12:3)? CAN PHOTINUS, WHO DENIES THAT CHRIST IS GOD, CONFESS OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? AND MARCION AND MANICHAEUS, WHO DENY THAT CHRIST CAME IN THE FLESH, CAN THEY SAY “LORD JESUS CHRIST” IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? OR PROSTITUTES AND THE IMPURE, WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT DWELL IN A BODY SUBJECT TO SINS, AND WISDOM DOES NOT ENTER INTO A HATEFUL SOUL (Wis. 1:4)? (pg. 331)

QUESTION 54. THE APOSTLE SAYS THAT CHRIST DIED FOR ALL; FOR THEREFORE HE SAYS, “THEREFORE ALL HAVE DIED, AND HE DIED FOR ALL” (2 Cor. 5:14–15). BUT THE LORD HIMSELF SAYS, “THE SON OF MAN CAME TO GIVE HIS LIFE AS A RANSOM FOR MANY” (Matt. 20:28). IN THIS WAY IT SEEMS CONTRARY.  (pg. 332)

QUESTION 55. WHY DID THE APOSTLE PAUL REBUKE HIS FELLOW APOSTLE PETER BECAUSE, FEARING THOSE WHO WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION, HE WITHDREW HIMSELF FROM THE GENTILES (Gal. 2:11, 14), WHEN PAUL HIMSELF, ALSO FEARING THOSE WHO WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION, TOOK TIMOTHY AND CIRCUMCISED HIM, SOMETHING HE WAS FORBIDDING TO BE DONE (Acts 16:3)? (pg. 336)

QUESTION 56. THE APOSTLE SAYS, “WE ARE JEWS BY NATURE.” (Gal. 2:15) THEREFORE HE SHOWS THAT JEWS ARE BORN FROM JEWS. INDEED, THOSE WHO WERE BORN IN THE DESERT, THOUGH NOT CIRCUMCISED, WERE JEWS. CIRCUMCISION, THEREFORE, DOES NOT MAKE SOMEONE A JEW, BUT BIRTH BROUGHT FORTH UNDER THE DEVOTION TO GOD THE CREATOR. IF, THEN, JEWS ARE BORN FROM JEWS, AND PAGANS ARE BORN FROM PAGANS, SO TOO CHRISTIANS ARE BORN FROM CHRISTIANS.  (pg. 337)

QUESTION 57. WHAT NEED WAS THERE FOR THE APOSTLE, WHEN REBUKING THE GALATIANS, TO INSERT THIS STATEMENT? FOR TO THE GALATIANS, WHO AFTER THE GOSPEL WERE TAKING REFUGE IN THE LAW, HE SAYS AMONG OTHER THINGS: “NOW A MEDIATOR IS NOT OF ONE, BUT GOD IS ONE” (Gal. 3:20), AS THOUGH THE GALATIANS DENIED THAT GOD IS ONE. YET IT WAS PRECISELY BY THIS LINE OF REASONING THAT THEY HAD BEEN LED INTO THE LAW: SO THAT THEY MIGHT BELIEVE IN ONE, UNIQUE GOD; AND THAT CHRIST HAD COME ONLY AS A MINISTER BY PREDESTINATION, TO DISPENSE THE GIFT OF GOD’S GRACE. (pg. 342)

QUESTION 58. IF SALVATION AND TRUE AND PERFECT KNOWLEDGE ARE THROUGH CHRIST, WHY DID HE NOT COME EARLIER, SO THAT OUR PREDECESSORS WHO WERE IN IGNORANCE MIGHT LEARN THE TRUTH? INDEED, AFTER THE COMING OF CHRIST MANY HAVE BEEN SAVED MORE THAN BEFORE; WHERE, IF HE HAD COME EARLIER, FAR MORE WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. IF THIS IS SO, IT APPEARS OPEN TO CRITICISM. (pg. 408)

QUESTION 59. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT PAGANS ARE UNDER THE ELEMENTS. WHAT THEN DID THE APOSTLE MEAN WHEN HE SAID, “WE TOO WERE SERVING UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THIS WORLD”? (Gal. 4:3) IF THEREFORE THE JEWS ALSO WERE UNDER THE ELEMENTS, HOW DO THEY DIFFER FROM THE PAGANS? (pg. 344)

QUESTION 60. WHEN THE APOSTLE SAYS TO THE GALATIANS, WHOM HE REBUKES AND REPROVES THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EPISTLE, BE AS I AM, BECAUSE I AM AS YOU ARE (Gal. 4:12): IF THEREFORE HE HAD MADE HIMSELF SUCH AS THEY WERE, IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO SAY, BE AS I AM. OR PERHAPS IN SOME THINGS HE HAD BEGUN TO BE AN IMITATOR OF THEM, AND IN OTHERS HE WISHES THEM TO BECOME LIKE HIM? (pg. 347)

QUESTION 61. HOW ARE WE FREE IN CHOICE AND WILL, WHEN THE APOSTLE SAYS, “THE FLESH DESIRES AGAINST THE SPIRIT, AND THE SPIRIT AGAINST THE FLESH, SO THAT YOU DO NOT DO THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD” (Gal. 5:17)? AND IF THE FLESH DESIRES AGAINST THE SPIRIT, IT IS EVIL. FOR THE SPIRIT SUGGESTS WHAT IS GOOD.  (pg. 348)

QUESTION 62. IF IN CHRIST ALL THE TREASURES OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE ARE HIDDEN (Colossians 2:3), HOW IS IT THAT THE SAME SAVIOR SAYS HE DOES NOT KNOW THE DAY AND HOUR OF THE FUTURE JUDGMENT (Mark 13:32)? BUT IF HE DOES KNOW AND SAYS HE DOES NOT KNOW, HE SEEMS TO BE LYING.  (pg. 351)

QUESTION 63. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ALTHOUGH THE APOSTLES HEALED ALL THE AILMENTS BROUGHT BEFORE THEM, THEY DID NOT GIVE HEALING TO THEIR OWN INFIRMITIES? FOR EPAPHRODITUS CERTAINLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SICK ALMOST TO DEATH (Philippians 2:27), IF THE APOSTLE’S INTERCESSION HAD BEEN HEARD. WHO COULD DOUBT THAT THE APOSTLE OFTEN PRAYED FOR THIS AND DID NOT OBTAIN IT? FOR IF HE HAD BEEN HEARD, THE SICKNESS WOULD IMMEDIATELY HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY. (pg. 353)

QUESTION 64. THE APOSTLE PETER SAYS, “CHRIST DIED FOR YOU” (1 Pet. 2:21). BUT THE APOSTLE PAUL DECLARES THAT HE ALSO DIED FOR HIMSELF: “HE BECAME OBEDIENT UNTO DEATH; WHEREFORE GOD HAS GIVEN HIM A NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME” (Phil. 2:8–9). IF THIS IS SO, HE WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN IMPERFECT, SINCE HE GAINED INCREASE THROUGH HIS WORKS.  (pg. 355)

QUESTION 65. WHEN IT IS READ IN THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN: “GO,” HE SAYS, “AND TAKE THE BOOK FROM THE HAND OF THE ANGEL, AND DEVOUR IT, AND IT WILL MAKE YOUR BELLY BITTER, BUT IN YOUR MOUTH IT WILL BE SWEET AS HONEY” (Rev. 10:8–9): WHAT IS THIS BOOK THAT MAKES THE BELLY BITTER WHILE IT IS SWEET? (pg. 355)

2^ND CATEGORY QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT

(PL 35 2412-16)

1-12

QUESTION 1. WHAT IT IS TO HAVE MADE MAN IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD; AND WHETHER WOMAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD. (pg. 33)

QUESTION 2. THE GOSPEL BEARS WITNESS THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD (John 1:18; 6:46; and 1 Tim. 6:16); YET JACOB AND MOSES AND ISAIAH ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE SEEN GOD (Gen. 32:30 and Isa. 6:1). BUT SOMEONE SAYS, “NO ONE HAS SEEN THE FATHER.” WHAT OF IT? IF THE SON HAS BEEN SEEN, THEN THE FATHER HAS BEEN SEEN AS WELL, SINCE THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE ONE AND THE SAME GOD, BOTH IN SUBSTANCE AND IN IMAGE, BECAUSE OF TWO THERE IS ONE IMAGE; AND, AS HE HIMSELF SAYS, “HE WHO SEES ME, SEES THE FATHER ALSO” (John 14:9). HOW THEN HAS NO ONE SEEN GOD THE FATHER, WHEN THE SON SAYS THAT THE FATHER IS SEEN WHEN HE HIMSELF IS SEEN? BECAUSE HE IS NOT A DIFFERENT GOD. IF THEREFORE HE IS NOT ANOTHER, THEN HE, BEING ONE AND THE SAME, IS THE GOD WHO HAS BEEN SEEN. (pg. 275)

QUESTION 3. THE OLD LAW ALLEGES THAT GOD SWORE AN OATH; FOR IT SAYS, “BY MYSELF I HAVE SWORN, SAYS THE LORD” (Gen. 22:16). BUT THE SAVIOR FORBADE SWEARING (Matt. 5:34): HOW THEN DID HE NOT DESTROY THE OLD THINGS? (pg. 100)

QUESTION 4. WHAT IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR, WHEN PLACED ON THE CROSS, SAYS: FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING? IF THEY DO NOT KNOW, WHAT IS IT THAT IS FORGIVEN, ESPECIALLY SINCE ABIMELECH SAYS TO GOD, WILL YOU DESTROY THOSE WHO ARE IGNORANT? (pg. 258)

QUESTION 5. IF NO ONE IS JUSTIFIED BEFORE GOD BY THE LAW, WHY IS IT WRITTEN: “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT CONTINUE IN ALL THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO DO THEM” (Deut. 27:26)? IF PEOPLE ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH AND NOT BY THE LAW (Gal. 2:16), WHY IS THE ONE WHO HAS NOT FULFILLED THE LAW CALLED CURSED, SINCE IT DOES NOT LEAD TO RIGHTEOUSNESS?  (pg. 341)

QUESTION 6. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN DAVID SAYS, “LET THEM BE CONFUSED AND ASHAMED WHO SAY TO ME, ‘WELL DONE, WELL DONE’” (Ps. 69:4), WHILE THE LORD SAYS, “WELL DONE, GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT” (Matt. 25:21, 23), ETC.? THAT WHICH DAVID TOOK AS SOMETHING BAD, THE SAVIOR SHOWS TO BE WORTHY OF GOOD MERITS. (pg. 155)

QUESTION 7. WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN THE PSALM, “MEN,” HE SAYS, “AND BEASTS YOU WILL SAVE” (Ps. 35:7); AND IN THE PROPHET JONAH, “I WILL NOT SPARE,” HE SAYS, “THE CITY IN WHICH LIVE ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PEOPLE, AND MANY ANIMALS” (Jonah 4:11); WHEREAS THE APOSTLE SAYS, “DOES GOD CARE FOR OXEN?” (1 Cor. 9:9).  (pg. 153)

QUESTION 8. IN TOBIT IT IS SAID: “TO REVEAL AND CONFESS THE WORK OF GOD IS HONORABLE” (Tob. 12:7). BUT THE SAVIOR, WHEN PERFORMING THE WORK OF GOD, SAYS: “TELL NO ONE” (Mark 8:26).  (pg. 136)

QUESTION 9. ON THE ETERNITY OF THE SON. (pg. 470)

QUESTION 10. WHAT IS IT THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS TO THE GALATIANS: “I AM AMAZED THAT YOU ARE SO QUICKLY DESERTING HIM WHO CALLED YOU IN GRACE, FOR ANOTHER GOSPEL, WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER” (Gal. 1:6–7)? IF IT IS “ANOTHER,” SURELY IT IS NOT THE SAME; IF IT IS NOT THE SAME, HOW IS IT NOT “ANOTHER”?  (pg. 349)

QUESTION 11. THE APOSTLE PAUL INDICATES THAT WE MUST NOT BE GRIEVED OVER THE DEAD (1 Thess. 4:12). FOR IT IS THOSE WHO DESPAIR WHO ARE GRIEVED; AND HE HIMSELF SAYS ABOUT EPAPHRODITUS, “HE WAS SICK, NEAR TO DEATH, BUT GOD HAD MERCY ON HIM; AND NOT ONLY ON HIM, BUT ALSO ON ME, SO THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE SORROW UPON SORROW” (Phil. 2:27). (pg. 354)

QUESTION 12. WHY IS IT THAT, WITH LEAH’S SONS SLAIN, WHO ARE FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH, RACHEL IS SAID TO BE WEEPING FOR HER SONS? (pg. 194)