Questions on the Old and New Testament

Text from OpenGreekAndLatin/csel-dev (A. Souter, ed., Pseudo-Augustini Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti CXXVII, CSEL 50, Vienna 1908 — public domain text; TEI encoding CC BY-SA 4.0). Book of Questions [of Saint Augustine] on the Old and New Testament, Questions to the Number of 127

The Book of Questions [of Saint Augustine] on the Old and New Testament, One Hundred and Twenty-Seven Questions in Number

I. WHAT IS GOD?

God is that which no conception attains. For He is more than whatever could be said or thought. Yet let us say something which, though it be unequal, may nonetheless by some reasoning accord with those things that seem worthy of God. For each and every nature surmises about God according to its own capacity, so that as greatly as nature is distant from nature, so greatly is one opinion distant from another as to what God is. For because He is above all things, it is necessary that He surpass the minds of all. For men, as far as they are able to extend the keenness of their mind, behold what God is by conception, not by definition; but the angels, who are superior to men, since they perceive something more about God, there is no doubt; the archangels, indeed, by that very fact perceive more amply; the cherubim and seraphim, however, which are said to be the powers nearest to God, perceive greater things concerning God, yet they do not comprehend utterly what God is, because no one knows the Father except the Son, nor does anyone know the Son except the Father.

Therefore God is, as it appears to men, a spirit simple in nature, light unapproachable, invisible, inestimable, infinite, perfect, needing nothing, eternal, immortal in every way, from whom all things obtained their beginning; to be venerated, to be loved, to be feared, outside of whom there is nothing, or rather in whom are all things whatsoever that are above, below, the highest and the lowest; almighty, all-holding, truly rich in all things, because there is nothing which is not His; good, just, merciful: good, because He caused to exist things that were not; just, because the things He made, so that they might advance, were released to their own free will of choice — for since they are not so perfect that they cannot fall, He decreed that the seeds of the law be within them, naturally adding the aid of the manifested law, so that its authority might be a source of advancement for men —; but merciful, because He does not readily requite those who sin, but bears with them so that He may pardon them when they are converted. He is also severe, so that by terror the things which have been well established by Him may be preserved, lest negligence beget the ruin of life; and, not to pass over what is more wonderful, so great is His clemency that, having suffered insults from those whom He made, He endures them and is the first to call them to peace. Is this not of greater power than to have founded the creature? And if He were to remain in this, His excessive goodness would harm the creature. Whence He wills to be at one time loved, at another time feared, lest those straying from Him utterly perish. Hence it is that, lest His patience be thought altogether to be despised — not to His own harm, but to ours — He says: I have held my peace; shall I always hold my peace?

And so, the good God—all the things that he made are good. Whence then evil? There is no evil except the transgression of the good, when things not permitted are presumed upon or permitted things are done in a disordered way, so that what is commanded in one place is done in another: as when what is permitted in a wife is done in a harlot; and what was to be offered to God is offered to the devil; and when, because one takes not his own but another's; and when, though it is lawful for a transgressor to be killed, an innocent man is killed. No nature, therefore, is proven to be evil. But the will is an accident of nature, conceived from causes, which is moved badly when it exceeds due measure, so that it carries out those things which are not of its own nature. And the causes of transgression arise from the senses, when we see or hear something badly. This thing produces such error, because man is not God, who alone cannot err.

The nature of men, therefore, has been released to its own free choice, so that it can do what it wills, so that, if practice makes better the good of its own nature, it may be a matter of honor, but if it weakens its own vigor, one of this kind may be held worthy of reproach. For it does what is against itself. It is no small thing that has been granted to man, that when he follows what is right, he may rejoice in himself through that whereby he sees himself made better by his own work, or at least may reckon it to himself when, though he was able, he gave no effort to make himself better by good things. But if man were not in his own power, he would have been subject to necessity, so that he would have neither the glory of a good work nor the punishment of an evil one, but would have been one of the beasts.

Since, therefore, we have been made capable of both—so that through negligence we may fail, if what we ought to hear and see well we hear badly, that is, contrary to nature and reason, but through vigilance we may guard the good of nature, and we cannot always be on guard, because, as I said, we have been made capable of both—if we sin, we are not yet condemned, unless we fail again, being now as it were destroyers. For whoever has sinned once ought to restore himself lest he sin anew, lest he be equal to the one who had conquered him, so that if again he does not sin, he may now be held superior, because, once struck down, he has twice triumphed. This is justice: that, since there is a struggle in the world, whoever is more inclined toward not sinning should be crowned.

Nothing, therefore, in the work of God is evil; and if by some certain things are called evil, such as poison, such as darkness—because, indeed, our bodies cannot bear the force of poison, it is called evil, as though they could bear fire or water—and iron or lead. Because it is far distant from gold, it will be called evil. For by comparison with light they condemn darkness, though they know it to be necessary in its own place, like lead or an earthen vessel. For assuredly they give rest after labor.

Therefore everyone who wrestles in the world ought so to strive that he not withdraw defeated in a hard struggle and become guilty, restoring himself scarcely or slowly, and perhaps amid these things his end may come, and he may depart hence with sin. For he who strives back with all his strength, if he happens to be struck down, falls like a man, nor does anyone grow angry at him, but by a certain encouragement restores his spirit. For he saw that he had set before himself the purpose of conquering, and he hopes that such a one can advance to victory, whom his enemy struck down not without wearying himself. For he who is easily conquered has no spirit of resisting, nor is he conquered, but he consents. This man sins more bitterly; one of this kind is scarcely to be admitted to pardon, one who has the desire of transgressing. For he who takes thought that he not sin, even if he should sin, does not sin harshly. For upon those who love, lesser sins sometimes creep in unawares. For the lesser they are, the more subtle, and while they are despised, they are not avoided. For the greater ones appear from afar, and through this he who sins in the greater ones, the crime is of his will.

Indeed, since above we said that sins take their origin from the senses, when against the command of the law or reason we look upon or hear something — that is, if, seeing the sun, we should think it ought to be adored on account of its beauty, then we see wrongly, because it pertains to the injury of the common Creator that what is owed to him alone should be attributed to a creature, seeing indeed that it has been forbidden by him through the law. Or when we see bodies well composed and comely, or if we covet something of our neighbor's, we look upon these otherwise than the law commands, then there occurs the sin which is called evil. But perhaps it may be said: 'nothing beautiful ought to have been made, lest we should sin,' so that our safeguarding might rest upon the deformity of others, and there should be no iron, lest homicides be committed from it, nor should a lamp be in use, lest thieves use its light for breaking in — so that what is greatly useful to all should be lacking on account of the empty talk of certain men, when it is established that we always look upon all things and yet do not always covet, because it is not their fault, but ours, when we are negligent. And this is established by the interval of creation, because we are not what God is. But thus we hear wrongly, if hearing that idols are gods we consent, or if we lend our ear to those who sing base things. But then we hear well, if hearing about God that he is one we take delight. But if anyone, hearing something against the law, assents, he sins: this will be to hear wrongly.

II. WHY GOD MADE THE WORLD.

He made it, because he is a maker; or let it be denied, if he is not. But the works themselves make manifest that he is. He made, therefore, that there might be what before was not, because without doubt it is better to be than not to be. But it is said: 'was there some empty space where he might make, or what was there before, where he made?' This vessel of election resolved this in few words. For he said, when the discourse was about God: in him we live and are moved and are, that is, that all things are in God, because he is everywhere and before all things alone, eternal, invisible to every creature.

And lest we should seem to have passed over the mystery, or rather to have been ignorant of why the world was made, we say that the apostasy of the devil dragged many angels—that is, spiritual powers—with it into transgression, while he wished to secure a kingdom for himself by impious presumption. This the prophet Isaiah signifies when he says: How is Lucifer fallen from heaven, who used to rise in the morning? that is, who appeared brighter than the rest. For he was as it were the prince of many, among whom he was more illustrious, and with whose fellowship he descended to the impious contest. For seeing beneath himself many spiritual powers—since indeed in the paradise of God he was more excellent in the knowledge of the heavenly mystery—puffed up by that very exaltation he wished to be called God, by that same reasoning, indeed, by which even in the present life we see certain men imitating his example, who, gathered together by the display of soldiery around themselves and lifted up—with their retainers furnishing in this matter the kindling of conspiracy—have wished to claim sovereignty for themselves.

Hence it is that God, in order to destroy his presumption not by power but by reason, established matter, which was a confusion of things, out of which He might make the world. For the things which had been confused together, once distinguished, produced this ornament which we see. For when the substances had been separated from one another, by their being fitted together it is called "world" (mundus), because each single thing, set apart from another, came forth into an ordered arrangement, so that here man, placed and created out of the higher and lower things—that is, out of the heavenly and the earthly—might show forth the lordship of the one God not only by voice but also by image, whereby he was made one by the one God, from whom the rest might arise. For therefore the One made one, in order to teach that all things are from One, and through this that God is one, so that the higher creature, to its own confounding, might learn the truth in man, who was formed from earth.

From this the devil became the enemy of man; for he perceived that man had been made for his accusation. Whence by his subtlety he brought it about that he might lead him into the same transgression into which he himself had fallen, so that he might make his accuser a sharer of his own damnation. For by transgression he promised him deity, in aspiring to which he himself had been cast down. And because every nature is free from crime, names come from what befalls—for the thing comes first, afterwards its signification—and through this "satan" and "devil" are names composed from his act, so that it is the signification not of his nature but of his will.

And so, in order that the purpose of God, which he decreed in the matter of created man, might stand, and that the deed of the devil, through which he encompassed man's ruin, might avail toward the heaping up of his guilt, Christ deigned to come from the sacred seats to the earth, so that he might both free man from the sentence of transgression and display the future perdition of the devil, lest anyone should 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. But if he were evil by nature, to promise him punishment would be the mark either of a madman or of an unjust person. For who would accuse him whom he sees to do nothing otherwise than his nature allows? Can one be angry at fire because it burns, or at water because it chills, since it assuredly does this not by will but by nature? Whence the devil too, if he were evil by nature, would not have will. For neither would he be able to discriminate, but he would plunge himself upon all in one and the same manner, like a blind man.

But furthermore, he does this with a certain discernment; for he spares those who do his will, he feigns indifference toward certain newcomers, against those wishing to flee to God's help he sets up stumbling-blocks and impediments, he lays snares for the servants of God, and toward those who are more ready in obedience to him he is the more hostile. Whence it is manifest that his will is in the fault. For which reason the apostle Peter says: be sober and watchful, because your adversary the devil goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. He does not seek the gentiles, he does not seek the Jews, he does not seek those of evil life and conduct, but he seeks the servants of God and of Christ, whom he knows to be enemies to himself, because they condemn his deed and his presumption.

Finally, once the law had been given, he blazed the more with envy against those who were under the law, knowing that the teachings of the law hand down one God and a good manner of life to men. Therefore, if he is thought to do these things naturally, he cannot be established as guilty, because he does this which belongs to his nature and which he is able to do, and he does not do what he cannot, because it does not belong to his nature; and so he is neither to be praised nor to be condemned. He is not to be praised, because the things he does are harmful; but he is not to be condemned, because he does these things not by will but by the impulse of nature. For we know that some, suddenly made insane, have harmed many with sword, club, stones, and bites, and that some have even killed; yet that when they were caught by contrivance and brought before the tribunals, they were by no means made guilty, for the reason that they had done these things not by will but by some impelling force I know not what, without knowing it. For how is he established as guilty who does not know what he has done? So too the devil, if he does not know the good, why is he judged to be worthy of damnation, seeing that he does not do what he does not know? Nay rather, if it could be so, he would have to be praised, because he does what he knows.

Now, we are rightly held guilty of the matter, because we do something other than what we know we ought to do. But since throughout all Scripture we see the devil constituted as guilty, and for that reason we read that Gehenna has been prepared for him, we know that he is to be condemned by the laws, because, although he knew and was able to do good, he did evil. For God, who is just, would not condemn him because he had not done good which he had not known, or because he had done evil which he had known. And so I think it has been made clear that no nature ought to be called evil, because every evil, as has become plain, arises from the will, which befalls a nature through the senses.

III. WHAT NEED WAS THERE TO SET FORTH THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD AND THE ORDER OF CREATION THROUGH MOSES, AND NOT BEFORE?

It ought not to have been described earlier, because up to then there was not, from this cause, so great an error among men. But when the error grew in the human race, so that even the sons of Israel in Egypt heard, contrary to this exposition, teachings handed down by the philosophers of the Egyptians — by whom Moses too had been instructed in all Egyptian learning — which asserts that a certain Sacla fashioned this world through evil angels, and that this same one is also seen to be the prince of the world, that is, Satan (a doctrine which Marcion followed and rushed to his death; for the Manicheans too say that man was made by the same Sacla, not this world — being more foolish than the rest; for whereas it is agreed that the world was fashioned for the sake of man, they say the world was made by God, though from another's material, but that man was created by the adversary, so that the one set up a master in another's house) — it was therefore necessary that Moses, in order to expose and remove this error, should make manifest that God is the author of the world and of man as fashioned. For having received authority through the signs and prodigies which he did, he taught without doubt that this was true which he was handing down with signs as witnesses. For who would not believe him, whose signs were so great in the things he did? Finally, hence it is that those who hold views against this teaching are known to be in error, because they strive to allege their assertions with bare words.

And so, in order to teach that nothing is coeternal with God, he sets forth the very order of created things, so that, while he first records the lesser things as made, but afterward the greater ones, none of these may be held to be uncreated; for the things that are lesser in time are greater in power, so that, if those greater things should suppose themselves to have precedence in respect of time, they may be refuted by the very weakness whereby they are made subject to the things that come after; or if these later things, by presuming upon their power, should claim primacy for themselves, they may be humbled by their very lateness — so that none of these may be seen to be anything but subject from the beginning. Indeed, first heaven was made, and earth; then light, which in its function is day; afterward 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 might be possible to dwell. But the earth, which he says was made after heaven, he does not wish to be understood as earth alone, but he signified matter, that is, all the lower things, which went forth into the whole outward form of the world. But the heaven that was made in the beginning he maintains to be not this carnal heaven, but that upper heaven which is spiritual, so that, when he says that heaven was made first, then earth, he might mark that in heaven all invisible things and in earth all visible things were created by God. For he comprehends the highest and the lowest of the whole of nature, so that whatever is in between may without doubt be believed to have been made. But the luminaries, which he established for governing the world, he affirms to have been made on the fourth day, so that, by however much they are great in power, by so much they may be inferior in time. But man he set up on the sixth day, so that he might bring the inhabitant into a house already made.

Hence it is that what displeases certain people was said: and God saw the light, that it is good. So that, because all things were said to have been made by an evil one and could not be believed to be good, Moses, in order to prove that the things which were made are good, showed that the things which He made were pleasing to God Himself, so that he might make guilty the one to whom they should be displeasing. For how could He fail to know the light, who said: let there be light, and light was made? Does anyone make what he does not know? And the light, once made, was pleasing to Him who made it. What craftsman does not rejoice in his own work? If it was said: God saw the light, that it is good, even so there are those who say 'it is evil'; what, then, if it had been left without testimony?

Therefore, having described the fashioning of the world and the origin of the first man, the line of descent held to the race of Seth, who was granted in place of Abel, and it came in order down to Abraham the father of the Jews, in order to show that Abraham believed in this God who is the maker of the world, and that this same God 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 proven reasonable; for the described lineage bears witness to this God, because the race of Christians exists from the beginning. 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, and from David, from Mary by the Holy Spirit, Christ is born. Therefore all those before, as many as had faith in the one God whom the Savior preached, must rightly be called Christians; for from the beginning the Savior was promised as one who would come. Whence in the Apocalypse he says: the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world. And so Christianity has always existed. For all these, whom I have mentioned above, from the first man created in the world, through whom the line of descent is drawn down to the Savior, had faith in this God, of whom Christ spoke, saying: And this is eternal life, that they may know thee the only and true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. It can be said, on the contrary: "If Christianity existed before, what knowledge came through Christ?" This advance of understanding the coming of Christ conferred, because it revealed the mystery of the one God who had been preached, and demonstrated what belongs to which person, and, to fulfill the righteousness of the Law, added the things that had been reserved.

IIII. WHY DID HE NOT GIVE THE LAW AT THE BEGINNING?

First, the Law, formed in letters, ought not to have been given, because it is in a certain manner implanted in nature itself, and the knowledge of the Creator, handed down by descent, was not hidden. For who does not know what befits a good life, or is ignorant that what he does not wish to be done to himself ought by no means to be done to another? But when the natural law had vanished, crushed by the habit of wrongdoing, then it was fitting that it be made manifest, so that in the Jews all might hear it—not because it had been utterly obliterated, but they lacked its greatest authority: idolatry was pursued; the fear of God was not in the lands; fornication was practiced; men were greedy with covetousness concerning their neighbor's property. Therefore the Law was given, so that both the things that were known might have authority and the things that had begun to lie hidden might be made manifest. For we find that before Moses sins were not only not hidden, but were even punished. For which reason many are also found to have been righteous; for knowing God as an avenger they feared to sin. And when this had begun to be neglected, it was necessary for the natural law to be revealed, so that all might know by open reasoning that the Lord would demand an account of human deeds. Although it is read that punishment was carried out through the flood and upon Sodom and Gomorrah, yet the forgetfulness of antiquity had covered these things, whence through Moses they were called to remembrance, for the sake of terror, to correct discipline and to reform faith in God. Wherefore the Apostle also says: the law is not laid down for the righteous, but for the unrighteous, for those who worship idols, for fornicators, and such things.

Now let us consider whether it is fitting for those who, hearing of God's judgment, laugh at its being to come — whether it will profit or harm, whether it is fortified by truth or lacks reason. A law indeed has been given to the world, but we see that it fails in the case of many: it does not therefore seem just. Why is it that here sinners are safe through their power, others make sport of the laws, the poor are oppressed, an accusation is framed against the just, those who act well are held in reproach, the pious are in want, the wicked flourish, the unjust and the corrupt are held in honor, the greedy and the plunderers grow rich, the judge is for sale? Does it not seem unjust if the Founder of things does not call these things to account — that those who here have been unjustly oppressed should be relieved, and those who by living well have suffered want should be rewarded, and those who for the sake of justice were held in reproach should be honored; but those who through their power despised the laws or mocked them by evasion, pursuing iniquity, so glorious in these things that they seemed to insult justice itself, should be humbled and confounded and subjected to torments in the sight of those in whose evils and contempt they rejoiced, so that they too, glad at the punishment of those men, may give thanks to God, with whom alone respect of persons ceases?

V. WHY WAS ABEL'S SACRIFICE ACCEPTED AND CAIN'S REFUSED?

This very thing can be gathered from the words of the reading itself, since the history is not veiled by any art of letters. For in this very passage the language of Scripture shows Abel to be prudent and devout, but Cain negligent and improvident and thereby less devout. Abel therefore chose the better of his flocks, which he might offer to God the Creator, so that of the very things he had created he might offer Him the choicest, whereby he would prove both his own dedication and its merit, so as to show both his own reverence and God as the author. This Cain, like a boor, could not perceive. For, plunging his whole mind into the earth, he could not lift the eyes of his mind to heaven, so as to look upon what might be worthy of the Creator; for he offered God gifts of whatever sort.

This same cause is also detected among the Jews of crooked mind. For they were often rebuked when they improvidently offered their gifts on the altar of God — gifts that would not seem worthy even of men — as the Lord says: You offer me the blind and the one-eyed; I will not receive these from your hands. Offer them to your overseer or your governor, if he will accept them, since it is agreed among all that the greatest gifts ought to be offered to a person of high rank. And therefore Cain's gifts were refused, as God says to him: Why are you saddened, and why has your countenance fallen? Have you not sinned, if you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly? Be still. Unto you shall be its turning, and you shall rule over it.

You see, then, that division falls into sin. Since he did not consider what would be worthy of God, he reserved the better things for his own uses. And so he was not blamed because he made an offering, but because he offered unworthy things; nor was he condemned on that account, but rather admonished to amend the deed. For unto thee, He says, shall be its turning, and thou shalt rule over it, that is, 'since I do not accept it, the gift offered by you has turned back to your own dominion,' so that henceforth he might know what he was to do. From this, envy blazed up so that he killed his brother — so that he who had first shown righteousness might be slain by the unrighteous man, and an evil example be given to men. For he was so blinded by the rivalry of jealousy that not only did he give no thanks — for the fact that he had not been made guilty, but had also learned how to amend this —, but he even added something graver, by which he deserved to be condemned.

Such is the case of the improvident and parricidal Cain, as is also that of the wicked servant, who, though it had been overlooked by his lord, becoming ungrateful, went out and was throttling his fellow servant, so that both for his past misdeed overlooked to him and for the impiety committed against his fellow servant he might be condemned as inexcusable. And yet Cain was not condemned for the present, but, confounded and guilty, he was dismissed under terror upon the earth, so that, if he should repent, he might be pardoned. Finally, fearing lest someone kill him for this deed, he says to God: My case is greater than that I should be left. If thou castest me out this day from thy face, I will also hide myself from the face of the earth, and I shall be groaning and trembling upon the earth. And it shall come to pass, that everyone who findeth me shall slay me. Cain, terrified by the words of the righteous judge God, fears to be despised by God, so that he thinks he ought to flee even from the sight of men, being certain that whoever lives with God angry can be slain even by man. But what did the Lord answer him? Not so, He says — that is, 'I have not sent you back to this, though you do not deserve to live, so that you may be slain by someone, but so that you may groan and tremble, as one who first gave an evil example upon the earth, since the fruit from the ground did not answer to your labors.' And so, everyone who slayeth Cain, He says, shall pay seven vengeances. This sentence shows that Cain was to be justly condemned. For when he saw a law given under such a threat, that no one should imitate his deed, he began to fear more, knowing what evil he had committed.

Seven vengeances, therefore, He promises, if anyone should aspire to this crime, so that, seeing from this deed that Cain had been made guilty — and while there was as yet no manifestation of the law — he might know that he would be punished with a sevenfold penalty if he did not avoid this, so that the knowledge of the law would add six blows above what Cain had deserved, so that with Cain's blow the vengeances would be numbered as seven. By this number also are to be rewarded those who, having left all things, follow the Lord and in the future will have eternal life; this is the sign that God set upon Cain, that no one who found him should slay him. For a law was laid down concerning the parricide, that if anyone had committed a homicide — since every parricide is a homicide — he would be seven times more guilty than Cain had been, so that by this severity the rest, being terrified, might restrain themselves from this crime.

VI. IF LAMECH KILLED CAIN, AS IS SUPPOSED?

They think this in vain, who suppose that Lamech spoke about Cain: I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. For Lamech had already been born in the fifth generation from Cain, that is, from Methuselah, the great-great-grandson of Cain. But Lamech mentions this for the purpose of showing that one who has sinned under a manifest law is to be bound more severely. And through this, if after Cain vengeance was taken sevenfold on his imitator, how much more is vengeance to be taken on him whom neither the deed of Cain and its rebuke, nor the sentence pronounced after him, terrified into turning his will away from so impious and cruel a crime! After Cain, then, Lamech committed a homicide, who without doubt, according to those things which were said above, paid seven vengeances. And he shows what was going to happen after Lamech to the one who would follow this example, saying: but of Lamech seventy-sevenfold — because a repentance does not follow an evil deed, he is struck with the blows of seventy-seven wounds. Whence also the Savior commanded that forgiveness be granted even to one sinning seventy-sevenfold, provided, however, that he has been converted.

But lest it be thought that another committed homicide after Cain before Lamech, because he said: of Cain vengeance was taken, as though it had already been done. But how could Lamech say of himself that vengeance had been taken on him, when the homicide was still recent, which he had confessed that he had committed, since it is established that every deed carries its sentence with it? For when there is no other hope, except that which is known to be deserved by the completed deed, the future is held as accomplished. Finally, it was said to Adam: on the day you eat, you shall die the death, and certainly they did not die at once, but after a long interval of time; but because the hope of immortality had already been lost, the future death was called present, because this began to be held in expectation. Therefore Lamech confesses that he killed a young man, and Cain, as has become clear, could not reach up to this time, or if he did reach it — which is impossible — he was an old man.

VII. WHICH TEN WORDS WERE GIVEN ON THE TABLETS, OR HOW MANY WORDS DID EACH TABLET HAVE?

He called the ten pronouncements ten words, because the Savior too signified a thought by "word" when he said, among other things, to the Jews: I too ask you one word; answer me: the baptism of John, whence was it, from heaven or from men? This thought he called a "word." In like manner also on the two tablets ten words are said to have been written, which are ten thoughts. Finally he says: let there not be for you other gods besides me — this is the first word — and he added: you shall not make for yourself any likeness of the things which are in heaven above and on the earth below, nor in the water which is under the earth. Then he added thirdly: you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not cleanse the one who takes his name in vain, that is, you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in a lie, so that you perjure yourself through it. Then in the fourth place he says: you shall keep the sabbaths of the Lord your God, and you shall not do on it any servile work. These are four words out of the ten; these pertain properly to the Lord; these are written on the first tablet.

Then in the second tablet these things are contained: the first word is: honor your father and mother; the second: you shall not kill; 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, and such things. That these were written on the second tablet the apostle Paul proves when he says: honor your father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise. How would it be first, unless he had begun with it on the second tablet? And he said 'with a promise' for this reason, because he immediately subjoined: that you may be long-lived upon the earth and that it may be well with you. This is the promise made to those who keep the commandments. And so you have both the commandments distinguished and their number completed and what things and how many are written on each tablet.

VIII. WHY, WHEN MOSES CAME DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAIN WITH THE TABLETS, DID HE HAVE A COUNTENANCE SPLENDID AND UNBEARABLE?

Having received power over sinners, he came down from the mountain with honor with a glorious face. For the law was given against sinners. Moses therefore, because he had not sinned, appeared glorious to such a degree that he could not be looked upon by sinners. For it was shown in him that sinners do not merit to gaze upon the glory of God. For after the image of the molten calf and the breaking of the tablets, on which the law had been given, Moses again ascending the mountain with the tablets, on which, when he came down having received the law, his face was made glorious, so that the children of Israel could not gaze upon his countenance, nor Aaron, because he too had sinned; but with a veil interposed he spoke to them, so that they should be for so long unworthy of the glory of God, as long as they were turned about in sins.

Whence the apostle says: when he shall have been converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away, so that, being washed by the gift of God, they might become worthy to gaze upon the glory of God. For in the breaking of the tablets, which he had received before, he signified the reprobate people of the Jews, in that, being zealous for sins, they were going to be unworthy of the promise of God. But in that the law was repeated, another future people was signified, for whom the law given on the mountain would be of profit.

VIIII. IF GOD MADE ALL THINGS GOOD AND VERY GOOD, HOW IS IT THAT HE SAYS TO NOAH: 'OF THE CLEAN AND THE UNCLEAN BRING WITH YOU INTO THE ARK,' WHEN IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE THE UNCLEAN CANNOT BE CALLED GOOD?

By reason of the fact that words have a manifold sense, they give rise to questions. For if they are referred to the matter at issue, there will be no question, because through their order the things themselves will disclose themselves. For sometimes we call 'common' that which is undivided, sometimes that which is unclean; for in two ways is a thing called 'common.' Thus the apostle Peter says: common, he says, and unclean never entered into my mouth, and the apostle Paul says: everything, he says, which is not of faith is sin, and elsewhere: the law, he says, is not of faith, and yet it is not sin. You see therefore that one and the same word does not always signify the same thing.

Therefore, when something is called (unclean), one must consider for what reason it is called so, because sometimes a thing is called unclean in comparison with better things, and sometimes it is referred to filthy deeds, so that it is understood as evil. No substance, then, is evil, because the things that are thought unclean by their substance are unclean in comparison with more beautiful things. For even bread is called unclean. And oil and lead are unclean in comparison with gold, and the raven in comparison with the peacock; and, although they are members of one body, some are called honorable and others dishonorable, though they are known not to be evil. And so all things are good in their own nature, because they are useful.

X. WHEN GOD SAYS TO ABRAHAM CONCERNING THE SONS OF ISRAEL THAT IN THE FOURTH GENERATION THEY WOULD COME OUT FROM THE POWER OF THE EGYPTIANS, HOW IS IT THAT, ON THE CONTRARY, THE LAW SAYS: 'IN THE FIFTH GENERATION THE SONS OF ISRAEL CAME OUT FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT'? IT SEEMS VERY MUCH A CONTRADICTION.

As far as the words are concerned, it seems to be a contradiction; but if the sense is sought out, it will be found to be not discordant. For the Law speaks in such a way that it can be understood by the diligent and attentive, so that the reasoning of the truth reveals itself not to the careless but to the earnest. For indeed God said: in the fourth generation, and Moses wrote: in the fifth generation, although Moses reported both, and it is impossible for him to deceive, in whom so great a power has worked. And on this account the sense must be investigated, because divine Scripture says nothing idly or improvidently. And so there are two parts, which each of them recorded. For God signified the four generations that were born in Egypt; but Moses, adding to these one more, from which these took their origin when they had entered into Egypt, says: in the fifth generation the sons of Israel came out. For he embraced together the generation that entered into Egypt and the four that were born there. For from Abraham up to the coming out of the sons of Israel from Egypt there are eight generations. For for two hundred and fifteen years from the promise made to Abraham they dwelt in Canaan, and for two hundred and fifteen in Egypt.

These are the years which the Apostle comprehends when he says to the Galatians: after four hundred and thirty years the Law was made. Therefore these four generations were born in Canaan, that is, one in Isaac, the second in Jacob, the third in Levi, the fourth in Gershon and Kohath and Merari. But when the sons of Israel had entered into Egypt, Kohath begot Amram — this is the first generation made in Egypt —; and Amram begot Aaron and Moses and Miriam, which is the second generation made in Egypt; and Aaron begot Eleazar and his brothers, which is the third generation; and Eleazar begot Phinehas in the fourth generation. These are the four generations begotten in Egypt. Whence God says to Abraham: your seed will be a stranger, and they will oppress them with servitude; but I will free them, in the fourth generation they will come out from there. See whether it is not plain that God signified nothing other than what was done in Egypt. But Moses, in order to include also that generation which entered into Egypt with its father Jacob, from which these four have their origin, said: in the fifth generation the sons of Israel came out from the land of Egypt.

XI. IF THE WILL OF A RIGHTEOUS MAN IS GOOD, HOW IS IT THAT ISAAC BLESSED NOT ESAU WHOM HE WISHED, BUT JACOB WHOM HE DID NOT WISH?

The will of a righteous man, as far as pertains to his own conscience, is good; but as far as pertains to foreknowledge, it is untouched by adverse things. For God alone is the one who judges concerning things to come. And on this account Isaac, being righteous, thought that his elder son ought rather to be blessed, insofar as it is fitting according to present humanity. 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 of man but of God, and that, because it is the dignity of an office and not the merit of a man, the blessing of God follows. Finally it was said by God in Numbers to Moses and Aaron the priests: But you, place my name upon the sons of Israel; I the Lord will bless them, so that the tradition might pour out grace to men through the ministry of the one ordained, and that the will of the priest could neither harm nor profit, but rather the merit of the one asking for the blessing.

But how great is the dignity of the priestly order, let us observe from this. It was said moreover concerning the most wicked Caiaphas, the slayer of the Savior, among other things: But this he did not say of himself, but since he was the high priest of that year, he prophesied. By this it is shown that the spirit of graces does not follow the person, whether of the worthy or the unworthy, but the ordination of the tradition, so that, although someone may be of good merit, he nevertheless cannot bless unless he has been ordained, so that he may exhibit the office of the ministry. But it belongs to God to bestow the effect of the blessing.

XII. WHY DID ABRAHAM RECEIVE CIRCUMCISION AS THE SIGN OF HIS FAITH?

If you are willing to observe, you will see that what you think to be at variance with reason is not incongruous. For believing that he would have a son, in whom all the nations would be blessed and from whom holiness was to arise, he received the sign in that part through which the begetting of children takes place and ceases, so that it might be holier. But if to some it seems a disfigurement, let them consider that Abraham rejoiced in it and that his sons were glorious by this testimony. For Achior indeed, one of the leaders of the gentiles, seeing that there was such great power in the God of Abraham that he beheaded Holofernes, the commander of the army of the Assyrians, whose might the whole earth trembled at, by his own sword through the hand of a woman, of his own accord circumcised himself, judging that by this very thing dignity had been sought for himself. Does he not display it before himself, if anyone has lost an eye or some member for the name of Christ? Does he not thrust 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 too Abraham, receiving the sign of his faith, was not disfigured but improved. Yet spiritually he signified this: that the mist of the flesh was to be circumcised from the hearts of men through faith in Christ, because carnal error stood in the way, spreading a darkness over human hearts, so that they would not recognize their Creator. But Abraham, because it was promised that from his seed the future Christ would come, who would wipe away this darkness, was for that reason circumcised, because he believed that he would have a son through whom this error would be cut off. Now see whether he did not fittingly, in that part, receive so fitting a sign.

XIII. IF THE JUDGMENT OF GOD IS JUST, WHY WERE THE INFANTS IN SODOM BURNED TOGETHER WITH THEIR PARENTS?

So that the exceedingly impious crime of the Sodomites might be observed, their sin reached even to the killing of their own children, that no trace should remain of their origin. Was it not provided in their case that, living long, they should not follow the examples of their fathers? For those slain in another's cause are freed from Gehenna. For the parents are guilty both for themselves and for these, because, in order that their works might be blotted out, all their offspring was erased. For if children are gladdened by the good deeds of their parents and are commended by their parents' privilege, so also concerning the death which is inflicted for the parents' evils they cannot complain, so that, just as they are sharers in the gain, they may be so also in the loss. Likewise in Egypt too the children were punished for the harms done by their fathers, but so that it might avail toward their correction, so that—because for other reasons they had been unwilling to believe and venerate the Lord who was in Moses—being terrified by this plague they might confess with satisfaction, lest they should feel him more grievously angered.

This death of the children, therefore, is the crime of the fathers. For in whatever manner the children rendered up their owed spirit, being about to be accusers of their parents, because they could not overcome their treachery even by the blood of their children, therefore not for the future but for the present time the children found the evils of their parents. And is it not some kind of benefit to be without glory, yet also without guilt? For if certain men, set in their last hours, strive with prayers to come to the faith of the truth, so that, if not a crown, they may at least merit pardon, how will any be able to complain on this account—those with whom it was so dealt that they had neither anything for which to pray to be forgiven, nor were held exalted who had labored not at all? Compare now the torment of a single moment to the punishment of a long time; consider also that many labor and, because they cannot persevere, not only lose the fruit of their labor but are also punished with penalty; add too that it is difficult for those born of evil men and raised or living among the most wicked to temper their mind to following the discipline of God: see therefore whether it was not rather well dealt with in the case of the children of the wicked.

XIIII. HOW IS IT THAT GOD, WHO IS PROCLAIMED JUST, PROMISED THAT HE WOULD REPAY THE SINS OF THE FATHERS UPON THE CHILDREN UNTO THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATION?

Whoever doubts that the Lord does or says nothing unjustly is mad. And so, if the words of the Lord are not suppressed, but all the things that pertain to the same question are set forth, what seems obscure will shine clear, and what is thought to be by no means just will be reckoned pious. For whoever suppresses the words of the question is either unskilled or an evader, one who is more devoted to false accusation than to teaching. Furthermore, God did indeed promise that he would repay the sins of the fathers upon the children—but upon those who hate him, that is, those who, engaged in their fathers' evils, serve idols, just as their fathers did. For that man is an enemy of God who claims the honor of his name for a creature. For just as the children of the righteous, being themselves righteous, ennoble in themselves the lineage of righteousness, while they are exalted by both their fathers' righteousness and their own, so too the children of the most wicked, being themselves most wicked, make an increase of wickedness, because they are both the children of evil men and have modeled their wickedness to the ruin of many.

God therefore seems to have spoken with terror, but it is true, and reason bears this out. For who would not execrate an evil man and the son of an evil man with a double kind of curse, just as he judges a good man and the son of a good man worthy to be honored with a double merit? And for this reason he promised to repay unto the third and fourth generation, so that, if after an evil father the son does not follow the father's faithlessness, yet the grandson, proving an imitator of his grandfather in evils, may know that he will not be immune from the severity of the sentence; or if perhaps the grandson too, following not his grandfather's footsteps but his father's, loves the covenant of God, the great-grandson may not be unaware that the sentence reaches even to him, if he be an emulator of his great-grandfather's faithlessness.

By this manifestation of the law God wished to deter the impious fathers, so that, recognizing how much evil the pursuit of idolatry produced, they might be recalled—even by affection for their children—to reverence for the Creator, or that the children, fearing lest they incur the sins of the fathers, might obey the law of God. But they, giving their attention to wickedness, began to interpret this otherwise, saying: The fathers ate a sour grape and the children's teeth were set on edge—so that, secure about impunity, because the sins would be repaid to their children, they themselves nonetheless might have piety neither of spirit nor of flesh—hence it is said to them: not "the son shall die for the father" nor "the father for the son," but: the soul that sins, it shall itself die—and that they might learn that it would not go unpunished for them, but that the sins of the fathers are repaid to the children in such a way that, because in following the impiety of their parents they reproduced the evils which ought to have been blotted out, they are punished the more harshly.

After God showed what evil idolatry produces, he immediately added what good things follow those who love him, saying: and showing mercy unto thousands of thousands, to those who love me and keep my commandments, so that he might repay the good of a father not merely down to the great-grandson, but unto thousands of thousands. For instance, if someone from the seed of David loves the Lord — who, it is agreed, certainly lived a thousand years and more before — to this man the mercy of God is added, so that in his necessity he may deserve to receive mercy for two contributing reasons: because he himself is a worshipper of God and because he is from the seed of one who loved God. And in this the clemency of God is praiseworthy, that upon those who hold him in hatred he repays down to the third and fourth generation and not unto thousands of thousands, so that if the evil be drawn out into the fifth generation, from there it may begin again to have a head, so that from that point it may be counted down to the third and fourth generation.

But someone will say: 'it seems just that more should be repaid to the originator than to the imitator.' Upon the originator a fitting punishment is imposed; but that he says more is repaid to the sons is a penalty of the fathers. And if you inquire, by the coming of the law sinners become more guilty, as were both Lamech and those after Lamech. To some, however, it seems that the sins of the fathers were thus repaid upon the sons in that they were led into captivity on account of the fathers and remained there down to the fourth generation. But if this is true, then God repaid the sins of the fathers not only upon those who hold him in hatred, but also upon those who love his name, because both Daniel was carried off and the three young men and Baruch and Ezekiel, and Ezra was born there. Clearly, then, it appears that what we said above fits the proposed question.

XV. SINCE THE LAW PROCLAIMS THE JUST MAN, AND HE IS TRULY JUST WHO HAS FULL JUSTICE, YET SOLOMON, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS: 'DO NOT BE JUST OVERMUCH.'

Excessive justice runs into sin, but tempered justice makes men perfect. For he is not without malice who is just overmuch, because if you were to respond to sinners for every single thing, there will be no lack of where you may sin. In short, God's justice is tempered. For he sometimes forgives sinners, sometimes is angry, sometimes repays not as much as they deserve; for he bears with them, so that there may be those who make progress. For the law, since it cannot soften itself, must be mitigated by us, so that it may be able to benefit those who act under it. This man, therefore, who is an imitator of God, is not just overmuch.

XVI. WHY WAS THE ANGEL, WHO WISHED TO KILL MOSES ON THE WAY, APPEASED BY THE CIRCUMCISION OF THE INFANT?

What Moses had done without deliberation, the appearance of the threatening angel corrected. And so, seeing what had been omitted through negligence, he ceased from his anger. For this reason, then, Moses saw the angel so hostile toward him and ready for vengeance, because the fault of an exalted man is a grave sin. For the more his person is regarded with esteem, the more even a slight offense of his is a most grievous sin. And so he was proceeding to the children of Israel, sent by the God of Abraham, yet he did not bear the sign of the righteousness of Abraham, in which he knew the Jews gloried—so that he would either be called a deceiver himself, or one not sent by the same God who had chosen Abraham. For while dwelling in Midian he had by no means circumcised his sons, whom he either ought not to have led with him to Egypt—he who was going to lead the others out from there—or else certainly ought to have taken along only when circumcised, on account of the things we have said above.

Therefore Zipporah, the wife of Moses—for Scripture speaks in a compressed manner—not being ignorant of the reason for which the angel seemed hostile to her husband, took it and circumcised her son, and the angel withdrew. For the anger was appeased by the same reason by which it had also been kindled. For Scripture speaks certain things in a compressed manner, which it wishes to be understood by implication from the reason set forth, just as that too which the Savior says, among other things, to the Jews: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God, that you may establish your tradition? For God said: 'Honor father and mother,' and: 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him die the death.' But you say: "Whosoever shall say to father or mother: 'Whatever gift there may be from me shall profit you,' and he has not honored his father or his mother." Without doubt the Savior said this by way of compression, so that it might be understood by implication that the priests of the Jews, while they were devoted to avarice, had spurned the law of God; for by an impious conspiracy they gave counsel to the sons that, though speaking evil of father or mother, they should offer whatever they had as if it were a gift to God, through which the sentence pronounced against those who curse would be dissolved, whence the sons, made secure, despised their parents against the commandment of God. So too 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 was seeking to kill him, might withdraw from him. This is understood by implication in this case, just as that too which we said above concerning the priests.

XVII. HOW IS IT THAT HE CALLS ACCURSED THOSE WHO HAVE NOT LEFT SEED IN ISRAEL, BUT THROUGH ISAIAH SAYS THAT IT IS NO HINDRANCE TO EUNUCHS THAT THEY CANNOT BEGET?

Since it had begun to be understood otherwise than had been intended, for that reason the prophet Isaiah showed afterward in what sense it had been said. For since this had been laid down on account of the offense against God's judgment, because those who were forsaking God were being struck down in this, so that, though they married wives, they might not leave offspring, human error so seized upon this that men supposed people to be guilty before God if any either were unwilling to take wives, or, having taken them, could not — as is usual — beget children, as though God sought nothing other than offspring, just as they are reproached through the prophet Malachi. Isaiah therefore, in order to console those whom a wrong understanding had saddened, taught that it does no harm if anyone either cannot have children or is unwilling, provided only that he keep the law of God. For the curse pertained to those who, though they could and would, were barren by the divine judgment standing in the way, so that they might not have the fruit of God's creation which they despised — so that when they saw either that they could not beget, or that they in no way possessed those they had begotten, they might recognize that it was the wrath of an indignant God and, being converted, might make satisfaction.

For holy men too, when they were desirous of children and did not obtain this, judged that their sins stood in the way, and grieved, being ignorant that it was of God's providence, for whom they were being kept. And so, by God's provision, both Anna conceived and bore Samuel, and Elizabeth John, and Manoah's wife Samson. Yet the spiritual understanding in this matter is this: that those are held cursed who shall not have left offspring that may see the Lord — that is, 'who shall not have instructed either a son or a servant or a neighbor to teach the fear of God upon the earth.'

XVIII. WHY, WHEN SAUL SINNED, DID HE ASK THAT PRAYER BE MADE FOR HIM THAT HE MIGHT BE FORGIVEN, AND COULD NOT OBTAIN IT, WHEREAS DAVID, WHEN HE SINNED, ASKED AND OBTAINED PARDON?

It is not fitting that God's judgment be called into question; for human weakness and inexperience ought to instruct itself by God's judgment in that which it does not understand, so that from God's verdict it may perceive the truth and that nothing else ought to have been done than what it sees the Lord to have done, whom it knows to be no respecter of persons. For if David's prayer was accepted and Saul's rejected, nothing must be thought to have been done by the Lord contrary to right. For knowing with what mind each of them had spoken, He accepted the petition of him whom He saw asking pardon with a troubled heart; but that other He disregarded, because grief for penitence had not touched his soul, since God is a hearer of the heart rather than of the voice. Hence it is said: 'Man looks upon the face, but God upon the heart.' Therefore we too are deceived, because pretense in words and countenance circumvents us; for what is in the heart, we cannot see.

For which reason it behooves us to follow God's judgment, who examines individuals according to the heart, in which lies each person's purpose. This too we find that the Savior did. For He did not receive the scribe who offered himself, but He called Levi, who was sitting at the tax-office, because the heart did not follow the scribe's words, whereas Levi, though silent, had in his heart what the scribe had in his words. But Jesus, who according to what is written knew what was in man, chose Levi. Moreover David did not wish another to be humbled on his behalf as Saul did, but he himself as a suppliant with a troubled heart prayed for pardon.

XVIIII. WHETHER ADAM, WHEN HE WAS MADE, HAD AN IMMORTAL OR A MORTAL BODY. (TO BE INVESTIGATED.)

God made man in such a way that, as long as he did not sin, he would flourish in immortality, so that he himself might be the author to himself either of life or of death: that, by keeping himself from sin, he might rejoice that by his own effort he was immortal, but that, if he became negligent, he might impute it to himself, because he had begun to be mortal. For as long as he continued in the Creator's law, he was worthy to eat of the tree of life, so that he could not die. For the body was not of such a kind that it seemed impossible for it to be dissolved, but the taste of the tree of life held back the corruption of the body. Finally, even after sin he could have remained indissoluble, if only he had been permitted to eat of the tree of life. For how did he have an immortal body, which was sustained by food? For an immortal being has need neither of food nor of drink. For food supplied strength, but the tree of life, in the manner of a medicine, warded off all corruption. For thus it was to man as it were an impregnable wall.

XX. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE SAYING: 'MAN ATE THE BREAD OF ANGELS', SINCE ANGELS HAVE NO NEED OF FOOD, INASMUCH AS THEY ARE SIMPLE IN NATURE AND FLOURISH IN SPIRITUAL POWER?

The bread which he calls the bread of angels is manna. Now manna is interpreted, 'What is this?' For when the children of Israel saw something white, like coriander seed, falling upon the ground, they said to one another: What is this? — which in the Hebrew tongue is said 'manni.' This bread, then, or food, was not created by the law of the world through a mixture of the elements, but came from above, provided by a spiritual plan. Nor indeed was it kept in the regions above, because it was created for a moment by the power of God for the nourishing of bodies. But it was called the bread of angels because it was created by that power by which the angelic nature subsists and lives. For without God there is life to none. Through the fact, then, that it is said to have come from heaven, it was called the bread of angels. For in order to record how great and of what kind are the benefits of God toward man, he spoke in this way, so that men, coming to know themselves, might give thanks to God, who governs his servants with such great care that he provides for them, while they are still placed in the flesh, if it be necessary, these things by which the angels live.

The apostle said among other things: and the rock was Christ, so that, because water flowed from the rock by the power of Christ, the rock was called Christ. In like manner, because the manna came from heaven by his power, the manna, that is the bread, is called Christ, so that what was then done may be reckoned to have been a figure of that thing which is now offered in the Church, so that the men — that is, the Jews — ate the bread of the Christian peoples, whom Scripture signified by 'angels.' And because the grace is now greater than it was among the prophets, and liberty was given through Christ, because where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, in comparison of the times and of the graces the Christians were called angels, with whose bread, which is Christ, the Jews — whom he called 'men' — were satisfied. Christ belongs rather to these, to whom he has both been revealed and who are deemed to be called by this name. In a twofold manner, then, the aforesaid question can be understood, so that it can be called both the bread of the heavenly angels and the bread of the Christians, according to what has been said.

XXI. WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE MADE MAN AFTER THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD, AND WHETHER WOMAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD.

This is what it is for man to have been made after the image of God: that one made one, so that just as all things are from one God, so also from one man is the whole human race. But the likeness is this: that just as the Son is from the Father, so also woman is from man, in order that the authority of a single origin may be preserved. But the Son was born from God the Father ineffably and incomprehensibly, whereas woman, as we read, was made bodily from man, so that through her birth might arise. The Son of God, however, was born for this reason, that through him the creation might come to be. In this, therefore, there is a dissimilarity; for God too was born from God, but a female from a man, because in the former case there is simplicity, and simple could not be born except from simple, spirit from spirit, God from God. Therefore man is the image of God. For thus it is written: and God made man, after the image of God he made him. Whence also the Apostle says: a man indeed ought not to veil his head, since he is the image and glory of God; 'but a woman,' he says, 'let her veil her head.' Why? Because she is not the image of God. Whence again the Apostle says: but to a woman it is not permitted to teach nor to have dominion over a man.

XXII. WHAT IT MEANS THAT SOLOMON SAYS: 'JUSTIFY YOUR SOUL BEFORE YOUR DEATH,' AND IN THE PSALM: 'NO LIVING MAN,' HE SAYS, 'SHALL BE JUSTIFIED IN THE SIGHT OF GOD'?

He justifies his soul before death who, in the hope of the life to come, attains faith, lest he die impious. But Solomon speaks of the one who lives under the law and is not righteously converted. Such a one, therefore, if he correct his mind so as to walk in the ways of righteousness, justifies his soul before death. For Solomon gave this counsel on account of the judgment to come, lest anyone, careless about himself, die in his sins; but David spoke of the perfection of righteousness, because no one shall be justified before the Lord, or be worthy of the promise, unless he has died with righteousness. For as long as he lives, he does not yet have the full merit of things to come. Whence the Savior says: he who shall persevere unto the end, this one shall be saved.

XXIII. WHETHER SOULS ARE FROM PROPAGATION LIKE BODIES.

I think it unseemly if souls are said to be generated together with bodies, so that a soul is born from a soul, which does not even befit the soul itself. Or if indeed the heavenly powers were each made singly and from them the rest were born, can it also seem credible that from the one soul of Adam the rest are born? But it does not fit, because this was possible for God alone, that the simple should generate, nor would it be granted to the rest. This is so mystical in the matter of the Savior that it is thought incredible not only by the gentiles alone or the Jews, but even by those very ones who call themselves Christians; for both the Photinians and the Arians spurn this faith.

For if at the time when the body is sown the soul too is generated from a soul, we read that a rib was taken away from Adam, yet not that a soul was born from a soul; but if the rib had a soul with it, then it was not born, but drawn off into a portion. But not even this is written. For the prophet Zechariah says, among other things: who formest the soul of man within him. Nor does Isaiah, dissenting from these words, say: thus saith the Lord God who made thee and fashioned thee in the womb. If therefore it is fashioned in the womb, then it is bestowed upon a body already formed. For since it fills all the members of the body, it is said to be shaped within the body; and just as water, though it be without shape, yet when poured into a vessel appears shaped, so also the soul, though it be by nature incorporeal and simple, is as it were shaped into the body, giving life to each of the members. And this indeed Moses handed down more plainly, saying: if anyone strike a woman who is with child and she miscarry, if it be formed, let him give a soul for a soul; but if it be unformed, let him be fined a sum of money, so as to prove that there is no soul before the form. And so, if it is given to a body already formed, it is not born in the conceiving of the body, derived along with the seed. For if it exists together with the seed, and soul from soul, then many souls perish daily, since the seed by a certain flux comes to no birth.

But if we look more closely, we shall see what we ought to follow. Let us contemplate the making of Adam; for in Adam an example was given, that from him it might be understood that a body already formed received a soul. For He could have mingled a soul with the clay of the earth and so formed the body. But it was shaped by reason, because first the house had to be framed together and so the inhabitant brought in. The soul surely, because it is spirit, cannot dwell in what is dry; therefore it is carried in the blood. When therefore the lineaments of the body have not been framed together, where will the soul be? Or does it wander outside until it be sent in, since reason teaches that it is given in such a way as to animate the body, not to wander idle? But from what source it is given, let those say who think otherwise; from the male or from the female? If from the female, it does not fit, because there is something else in the example. For they propose that both the soul was given from the man along with the rib—which we have shown to be undermined by many arguments. Whence perhaps it might seem to be given from the female, chiefly on account of the Savior, whom we know to have been born of a woman without the embrace of the flesh, from the Holy Spirit. But if they think this, they grant more to women; for they transfer the authority of the man to the woman. For since they say that the origin both of the body and of the soul is from the man, they turn themselves about, so as to say that that which is the greater is from the woman, that is, the soul, but that which is the lesser from the male, that is, the body—although it is manifest that the order of the example handed down by God cannot be changed.

XXIIII. HOW IS IT THAT, WHEN MAN AND WOMAN ARE ONE FLESH, THE MAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD, AND NOT THE WOMAN ALSO?

Man and woman are indeed of one substance, both in soul and in flesh, but the man is greater in degree, because from him is the woman, as the apostle says: the man is the head of the woman. For it is the cause that made the man greater, not the substance. For even in one body there are greater members and lesser ones, not by nature, but by order.

XXV. WHY DOES JOSEPH, AFTER HIS PROPHECY, ADJURE THE SONS OF ISRAEL THAT, WHEN THEY WERE FREED BY GOD, THEY SHOULD CARRY HIS ASHES OUT OF EGYPT?

It is settled that Joseph did not command this to the sons of Israel idly. For one who was able to prophesy must not be believed to have spoken without foresight. For since he was rather inclined toward devotion to God the creator, and knew, moreover, that he was venerated by the Egyptians on account of the administration by which he governed Egypt in its great want, he sought that after his departure the error should be taken away, being certain that it is the vanity of the common crowd to venerate the dead rather than the living as gods, lest the honor owed to the creator should be transferred to him. Here, therefore, he showed that he was free from the vain superstition of the Egyptians, when — lest it should advance to God's injury — he commanded that his ashes be carried away. And indeed we find that the apostles too followed this. For Paul and Barnabas, when they had seen that men wished to sacrifice to them, knowing that this was hateful to God, tore their garments, saying: What are you doing? We too are men like you; and thus they restrained the crowds.

XXVI. IT MUST BE INQUIRED CONCERNING ELISHA WHETHER HE OBTAINED THAT WHICH HE IS SAID TO HAVE ASKED HARSHLY FROM ELIJAH.

The holy Elisha, desirous of performing mighty works, drawn on by the example of his master, having received the power of asking whatever he wished, greedy for the good, asked that the spirit which was in his master might be in him twofold. To him the man of God Elijah said: You have asked harshly. For in his eagerness he did not consider that the disciple is not above the master. Elijah, however, knowing that he had asked this not from ambition for present glory, answered: Yet if you see me taken up from you, it shall be so for you. This sense must be weighed. But having, somewhat indignant, said: You have asked harshly, he added: Yet if you see me taken up, it shall be so for you. Did he not — since he had seemed to deny it to him — show that it would be for him as was fitting, not as he himself had asked? For scripture wishes much to be understood by implication, so that the sense gathered from the words may not be opposed to the reasoning of religion. For assuredly a harsh petition ought even to lose its merit; but because, being desirous of the good, he asked thus, God, who knows what gift is to be given to each one, did not suffer him to be deprived of his merits.

Let us therefore see whether Elijah's merit would allow that Elisha should deserve to receive a double gift of his. For it was said by the Holy Spirit through Zechariah, of what merit John was to be: He shall come, he says, in the spirit and power of Elijah — thus he shows John equal to Elijah — and the Lord says: Among those born of women there has arisen no prophet greater than John the Baptist. He did not say 'he is greater than all', but 'no one is greater than he', that is, 'he has an equal, he does not have a greater'. Elijah, therefore, is his equal, assuredly inferior to none; how then is Elisha greater than he, since 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 that he might have been able to cross, until he had named the God of Elijah, so that by this the harsh petition might seem to be rebuked, since he was heard only by the name of Elijah, lest he should be thought to have received that which he had asked harshly, as though the dispensation of the spirit granted to Elijah were not sufficient for the merit of the time.

XXVII. WHETHER THE WITCH RAISED SAMUEL, AND WHETHER HE HIMSELF WAS SEEN BY HER AND SPOKE TO SAUL — THE NARRATIVE OF WHICH IS RECOUNTED IN THE BOOK OF KINGS.

I consider it an unworthy crime, if assent be granted according to the words of the narrative. For how could it come to pass that a man both holy by birth and just in the works of his life should be drawn forth by the magic art? Or, if he was not drawn forth, that he consented? Both of which it is repugnant to believe of a just man. For if he was brought forth unwillingly, justice has no advantage; but if willingly, he lost the merit of a spiritual man, which he had sought while set in the flesh — which is utterly absurd, since he who departs hence as a just man remains just. Furthermore, this is a deception of Satan, whereby, in order to deceive the many, he pretends to have even the good in his power. Concerning which the apostle, among other things, says: Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. For in order to produce the error in which he glories, he decked himself out in the guise and the name of a just man, so that he might lie away all profit from the hope which they were proclaiming to the worshippers of God, when he pretended that the just, on departing hence, were in his power.

But this deceives certain persons, that concerning the death of Saul and of his son he did not lie — as though it were a great thing for the devil to foresee, before the day, the fall of the body, since certain signs are wont to appear to those about to die, namely to those from whom the protection of God seems to have been withdrawn. How much more the devil, whom the prophetic oracles attest to have been lofty with angelic majesty, of whose greatness the apostle says: Or do you not know the height of Satan? What wonder, then, if he could foresee death drawing near at hand, since this is the very means whereby he deceives and wishes himself to be adored as though in the power of God? For Saul was made so senseless with such dullness that he took refuge with the witch. For, corrupted by reason of his sin, he betook himself to those things which he had condemned.

But if anyone, on account of the narrative and the things which are expressed in words, should think that they are not to be passed over, lest the account of the narrative be empty, he will indeed do rightly — provided, however, that he by no means drag this over to the account of the truth, but to the sight and understanding of Saul. For, having been made reprobate, he could not have a good understanding. For the historian described the mind of Saul and the guise of Samuel, expressing the things that were said and seen, passing over whether they be true or false. For what does he say? Hearing in what guise he had been raised up: he understood, he says, that this was Samuel. He reported what he understood; and, because he did not understand well, contrary to Scripture he adored another than the Lord, and, thinking it was Samuel, he adored the devil, so that Satan might have the fruit of his deceit. For this is what he strives for: that he be adored as though God. For if Samuel had truly appeared to him, the just man would by no means have permitted himself to be adored, seeing that he had proclaimed that the Lord alone was to be adored. And how could the man of God, who was with Abraham in refreshment, say to a man of pestilence deserving of the fire of Gehenna: 'Tomorrow you shall be with me'?

By these two tokens improvident Satan betrayed the cunning of his deception, because both he allowed himself to be worshipped under the guise and name of Samuel — contrary to the law and in the person of a man weighed down by sins, though there is a great distance between sinners and the just — and he lyingly claimed that Saul would be with Samuel the most just. Yet it can seem, even if the name of Samuel be passed over in silence, that Saul was going to be with the devil. For he passed over to the one whom he worshipped. Always, then, the devil, lurking under a veil, betrays himself, while he feigns those things which are abhorrent to the persons through whom he strives to deceive.

XXVIII. WHAT MUST BE SAID AGAINST THOSE WHO ASSERT THAT THIS WORLD IS MOVED NATURALLY FROM ETERNITY AND IS SUBJECT NEITHER TO A BEGINNING NOR TO ABOLITION.

That the world exists from eternity and owes subjection to none is improbable and impossible, since we see it to be corporeal, subsisting with such great diversity, whereas nothing can be divine and eternal except what is simple, in which no diversity is seen, but there is unity. For it does not even preserve the very alternations of the seasons, so that it is variable not only in its seasons and consists of contrary substances, but also in the very alternations of the seasons — whereas an eternal thing shrinks from diversity and can be grasped neither by touch nor by sight, being as it were incorporeal. But this world is subject to passion, because both water fights against fire, and fire, if it be greater, overcomes water, and earth, since it is by nature dry and cold, suffers burning like a corporeal thing. And so it is unfitting to call the world eternal, which, since we see it to be subject to passion and to fail in its several parts through old age, we believe also to be brought to an end.

What does he think concerning man, who supposes the world eternal? Certainly man had a beginning in the world: without man, then, for whom did the annual fruitfulness of the world profit? Or did it generate without any providence? And how did the eternal generate corruptible and mortal things, when from the eternal there ought to exist the eternal? And that which is visible and is perceived and is touched — by what audacity is it called eternal? And that which is administered by the alternations of the seasons, so that the very seasons sometimes do not preserve their functions — how is it called eternal? For eternity is not corrupted, is not changed.

XXVIIII. WHY WAS IT COMMANDED THAT CIRCUMCISION BE PERFORMED ON THE EIGHTH DAY?

It was commanded that circumcision be performed on the eighth day from birth for this reason: because, according to the number and the courses of the seven days, that same day is again found to be first, as it were after the sabbath, so that it is now reckoned not the eighth but the first. For because the salvation to come through Christ was predestined on the first day — which is therefore called the Lord's day, because on it the Lord rose again, who is after the sabbath — for that reason the figure of this salvation was given in circumcision, so that a renewal to come might be discerned in the law of circumcision. And because men were to be saved through faith, which was confirmed on the first day by the resurrection of the Lord, the figure of this matter was given in circumcision on the first day, which would also be a sign of the faith of Abraham. The reason, therefore, is complete: because the sign of the past faith signified on the first day was a figure of the future faith established on the first day.

XXX. IN PROVERBS: 'THE RIGHTEOUS MAN,' IT SAYS, 'IS HIS OWN ACCUSER AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS SPEECH': IN WHAT WAY RIGHTEOUS, IF A SINNER?

All truth is righteousness. For he who confesses what he is, is righteous — since he speaks the truth —, but sinners who defend their own offenses cannot be justified. Hence one of this sort is fittingly called righteous, because in declaring his sin to be forgiven, he assuredly asks it for himself, imploring the mercy of God. For he knows what is said in the law: confess your sins, that you may be justified. But what is it to confess at the beginning of one's speech, except to acknowledge not under compulsion, but willingly? For who, even fearing God, is without sin, since offenses are mingled even in thought, and sometimes we sin unwillingly? Yet it can also be said or understood concerning this: that he is called a catechumen, so that coming to the faith he may be justified. For when he asks to be changed, without doubt he confesses himself a sinner, that he may be justified.

XXXI. WHETHER A SERPENT BY NATURE SPOKE WITH THE WOMAN, OR WHETHER THE DEVIL, CALLED A SERPENT IN A FIGURATIVE SENSE, SEDUCED HER.

As far as pertains to the historical sense, it was a serpent by nature that was spoken of, which was wiser than the other beasts that the Lord God had made upon the earth. And indeed God passed sentence upon the serpent. For what wonder is it if the devil should be wiser than the beasts, concerning whom the apostle says among other things: or are you ignorant of the depth of Satan? But the serpent was by nature so much a serpent that it was said to it: upon your breast and your belly shall you crawl, and you shall eat earth all the days of your life. These things are far removed from the condition of Satan, since he is neither corporeal nor mortal. And if it be looked at more closely, the sentence given will be seen to have done no harm to the serpent, but in that condition in which it was made, it was commanded to remain. For because it was made a minister of Satan for subjugating man, to whom God had subjected all things, therefore God, in that subjection by which he subjected all things to man, checked the exaltation of the serpent, because it had begun to be a minister of pride. For man seemed to have been made under the serpent, through whom, having received its counsel, he despised the law that had been given. But that serpents are prudent, the Lord confirms in the gospel, saying: be wise as serpents.

Therefore, since it has become clear that a serpent truly spoke with Eve, this remains: that it be determined whether it could have been so prudent and cunning as to deceive her by trickery. For even if it was more prudent than the other beasts, it was nevertheless not more prudent than human beings, since no animal is rational except man. And so it is impossible that the serpent devised this subtlety. For although it is called prudent, yet not beyond its own nature; for it neither deliberates nor devises nor takes counsel. For this reason there is no doubt that it was the devil who circumvented the woman through the serpent. For mingling himself with the serpent, he acted through it as though through an instrument, so that the woman, knowing the serpent to be prudent, would not perceive the trickery of the hidden devil. And through this, though the sentence was given bodily, it fell spiritually upon Satan, because a sentence holds fast the guilty party. For the sentence was not given by a man, such that he might by chance destroy an innocent person through error or ill will, but by God, who assuredly cannot be deceived, so that his sentence does not hold fast one who is not guilty. For because, although Satan is invisible, he carried out his trickery bodily, the sentence appears to have been given bodily, so that it may hold him spiritually, whose deed drew forth the giving of the sentence. For, cast down from the most sacred seats of the heavens, the most shameless Satan writhes upon the earth, forever groaning.

But perhaps it may be said: 'And in what language, do you suppose, did the serpent speak to the woman?' By the serpent's mouth, of course. For if today there are those who understand the barking of dogs and the howling of wolves and the trumpeting of elephants and the crowing of young birds, why could not the woman, still untutored, all the more have known and understood the hissing of serpents, since we know that many people distinguish the voices of birds? For it is also established that the devil uses the tongue of that one whose body he has entered; nor would he otherwise deceive the woman. And through this he spoke by the serpent's mouth through the serpent.

XXXII. WE READ IN SOLOMON: 'THE RICH MAN AND THE POOR MAN MET ONE ANOTHER; BUT GOD MADE THEM BOTH': HOW THEN IS THERE NO RESPECTING OF PERSONS WITH GOD?'

Far be this assertion of impiety from the minds of the faithful. For scripture, lest it should teach that the poor man is to be despised and the rich man to be honored, shows that God is the maker of both — not indeed in poverty and riches, but in that which they are. For if they differ from one another in resources, yet not in the substance of their nature. For not because occasions bring about certain outcomes in the world — some men prosperous in riches, or others ill-fated in poverty — are those therefore to be looked down upon whom God has not humbled, or those to be looked up to whom the truth has not given testimony. Plainly those are to be despised who are corrupters of morals and sacrilegious against the law of God, but those to be honored who love God and are cultivators of discipline.

For these are held to be rich in God's sight who are of good conduct, and the more contemptible they are in the world, the more honored they are in heaven. For those who have the temporal advantage of increasing their means, if they recognize themselves and understand God's will — because he gave the earth to all and commands his sun to rise upon all and pours out his rains without distinction, whereas the unfairness of the times, or chance circumstances, or want, denies to certain people those things which God gave to all — let these very ones minister to them, so that, discerning God's will, they may be rich not only in the world but also in heaven, lest the riches of a brief time shut out the eternal riches; while those, indeed, whom they think should be despised on account of their poverty, if they contemplate God's coming judgment, will there be forever rich, in the place where the rich of this age shall be in need, repenting that they were not poor.'

XXXIII. SOLOMON SAYS: 'THE YEARS OF THE WICKED SHALL BE SHORTENED.' WHEREAS WE SEE SOME OF THE WICKED LONG-LIVED.

It would indeed have been fitting that all the wicked should not only be deprived of this light more quickly, but should not even enjoy the life of a single moment of time — they who, unmindful of their Creator, ascribe the authority over their whole life to the creature. But Scripture speaks of those wicked who, though they lived under God's law, were more inclined toward idols. For they are worse than the rest of the wicked; for knowing the Lord and despising him, they obey slaves. And that it was said concerning these the Apostle proves, saying: But we know that whatsoever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law. The Gentiles, however, are not reckoned in the number of the living.

XXXIIII. IN SOLOMON HE SAYS: 'GOD MADE NOT DEATH', AND IN ANOTHER PLACE: 'GOOD AND EVIL, LIFE AND DEATH, POVERTY AND HONOR ARE FROM GOD'.

It is doubtful to no one that all good things are from God, but the evils which he mentioned are evils to us while punishment is exacted from us. For a penalty, although it be inflicted justly, nevertheless seems evil to the one suffering it. For also through the prophet God speaks to sinners, saying: I will do evils to you, that is, 'I will drive you with punishments'. But life and death are from God in this way, because he gave the law, which promises life to those who keep it, but death to those who despise it — yet that death which is called the second. For while he adjudges what each one deserves, from him comes either the acquittal unto life or the guilty verdict unto death. He is not, therefore, the inventor of death, but the judge, because the author of death is sin. How then could God make death, who knows not how to sin? But when he requites sins, death is said to be from him, though it is not from him, but from the one who sinned.

By the same reasoning poverty and riches are from God. For some, having the fear of God, spurn luxury, flee a prodigal life, and do not turn their eye away from the needy or the poor: people of this sort bring about an increase of goods. For it is written in Proverbs: Discipline takes away poverty and lowliness. But those, on the other hand, who do not have the fear of God, living more dissolutely and despising the needy, will be in want, as it is written, being not only negligent and improvident concerning themselves, but also despisers of the given law. In this way God makes the poor and the rich, because, since an offense against the law begets destitution, this is said to be done by God as the author of the law; and since some keep the discipline of the law out of dread, they become rich by God the author of the law.

XXXV. BY WHAT REASONING DOES DAVID, AFTER GOD HAD DEPARTED FROM SAUL, CALL HIM THE LORD'S ANOINTED AND SHOW DEFERENCE TO HIM?

David, not unaware that the appointment to the office of the royal order is divine, therefore honors Saul, who was still established in that same appointment, lest he should seem to do injury to God, who decreed the honor for these orders. For the king bears the image of God, just as the bishop bears the image of Christ. As long, therefore, as he is in that appointment, he is to be honored, if not for his own sake, then at least for the sake of the order. Hence the apostle says: Be subject to all the higher powers. For there is no power except from God; and those which exist have been ordained by God. This is why we honor even a pagan, provided he is placed in power, although he himself is unworthy, who, holding the order of God, gives thanks to the devil. For power demands honor, because it merits it. For it was for this reason that the dream of the coming famine was revealed to Pharaoh, and that Nebuchadnezzar alone, while others stood by him, saw the Son of God in the furnace of fire — surely not by his own merit, he who wished himself to be adored in an idol, but by the merit of the royal order.

XXXVI. IF 'THE SOUL THAT SINS SHALL ITSELF DIE,' HOW IS IT THAT ACHAN THE SON OF CHARMI SINNED AND THIRTY-SIX MEN WERE KILLED ON HIS ACCOUNT?

Scripture spoke in a different sense than has been proposed. For it did not speak of this death, which is indeed common to all, but of that which is called the second. For this latter takes up sinners; but to those who died in battle the sin of Achan was not imputed, but it harmed them in that, not being aided by divine protection, they did not prevail against their enemies. For they were not weakened on account of Achan, but because they were in no way fortified by God's help, so that, being unable to act bravely, they were killed. For they were few against many, whence they are also known to have been overcome. There is therefore no injustice in the will of God. For He has it in His power, if He wishes to help, so that if He is present, He is merciful, and if He is unwilling, He is just; for He is not a debtor to such men, that He should be held liable. For this is why Joshua the son of Nun, being grieved, tore his garments, understanding that the Lord had not without cause withdrawn His help.

XXXVII. HOW IS IT THAT THE DEATH SENT UPON JACOB CAME UPON ISRAEL, SINCE JACOB HIMSELF WAS CALLED ISRAEL?

He set two names of one people, so that from the names their merits might be understood. For assuredly he who was surnamed Israel was formerly called Jacob. For wrestling with the Savior, he understood that he whom he was seeing in bodily form was God, and therefore he was called 'a man seeing God.' Therefore the people whom he names Jacob, in this place and in this matter, he signifies as carnal, in the way that names are imposed on the newborn by their parents. But these, that is the Jews, on account of their evil deeds were not called Israelites, because they sacrificed to heifers and groves in Samaria by the zeal and command of King Jeroboam. But that people who in Jerusalem in the temple of the Lord offered sacrifices through the priests of God was called Israel. Samaria, therefore, on account of its impiety was handed over to captivity and death, but Jerusalem was preserved, because it had had kings who loved God. But when Jerusalem itself also followed the impiety of Samaria, the sentence given against Samaria overtook it.

Therefore it was said: God sent death into Jacob — that is, into the people of Samaria, who lived carnally, as we said above — and it came into Israel, that is, into the people of Jerusalem, because it followed idolatry, imitating Samaria; so that in a like manner it was led away into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, just as Samaria too was by Shalmaneser, king of the Assyrians. This means plainly: the sentence given against the wicked found the good as well, once they had ceased to be righteous. For death sent into Jacob, as was shown above, reached Israel without passing over Samaria; but since the cause for which it was sent into Samaria was found in Jerusalem as well, when sent it came thither also, into that place in which the same cause disclosed itself; because vengeance follows the cause, not distinguishing the person.

XXXVIII. IF THE HORSE AND THE MULE HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING, HOW MUCH MORE THE EARTH, A THING WITHOUT SENSE? HOW THEN IS IT THAT THE EARTH IS SAID TO BLESS GOD?

It is not to be understood as the words sound. For it is a work which, although it be mute, is said to cry out the praise of its Creator; for it exhorts those who behold it to bless the Maker, just as every well-made vessel too praises its craftsman, seeing that it is read in the Psalms: Shall the dust, he says, confess to you, or declare your truth? In every senseless substance, therefore, it is not the will — which indeed is none — but the works that bless the Author. But if you wish to take this spiritually, understand the earth to signify man according to the saying of the prophet — for he says, Remember, Lord, that we are earth — whom the works of creation exhort to break forth into the praise of his Maker.

XXXVIIII. WHAT IS IT THAT IS READ IN SOLOMON: 'THERE IS HOPE,' HE SAYS, 'IN THE DARKNESS; A DOG IS BETTER THAN A DEAD LION'?

Tenebrae signify Gentile status and ignorance. He therefore wishes it to be understood that there is more hope in a Gentile than in an apostate, by that which he added, saying: A dog is better than a dead lion, because just as the lion is stronger than all wild beasts, so too Christianity is stronger than all sects. If anyone therefore withdraws from it, he loses salvation, so that he becomes worse than a Gentile. For it can happen that a Gentile believes and acquires the salvation which the apostate has lost. And if he does not believe, the apostate is still worse. Because it is worse to have lost salvation than not to have had it. And the Savior shows that a 'dog' signifies a 'Gentile,' saying: It is not right to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs.

XL. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PROPHET SAYS: 'REJOICE, BARREN ONE, YOU WHO DO NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND CRY OUT, YOU WHO DO NOT GIVE BIRTH, FOR THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE ARE MANY MORE THAN OF HER WHO HAS A HUSBAND'?

Since the children of the earthly Jerusalem apostatized from God, joy cannot be ascribed to her, but mourning. To the reproach, therefore, of this Jerusalem the prophet says that that higher Jerusalem ought to rejoice, whom the apostle calls our mother, because without groaning and pains she has many more children than this one which brings them forth carnally with tears — the Jews, namely —, while the former brings forth Christians through faith spiritually. He calls her 'desolate' for this reason, because she herself is the life which the first Adam deserted and followed death. When, therefore, men are regenerated, they return to that life which they had deserted. This life is Christ, because he himself said: I am the life. God the Father is also life, because the Lord says: As the Father has life, so he gave life to the Son. Without doubt the Holy Spirit too is life, since the Lord says: He, he says, shall receive of Mine. And so, whoever has received of life is life. The three, therefore, are one life. This is the life through faith in which we are regenerated. She herself is our mother, just as we also read in Genesis: because she herself is, he says, — that is, life — the mother of all the living. Who are they that live, except those who believe?

XLI. WHETHER THE SPIRIT, WHICH WAS BORNE OVER THE WATERS, IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS THE HOLY SPIRIT, BECAUSE IT IS SAID: 'THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS BORNE OVER THE WATER'.

If the Holy Spirit is thought by some to be so called for the reason that he is read to be the Spirit of God, it is a weak and empty assertion. For not only does the order not permit this and reason refuse it, but the very words themselves prove feeble for establishing this claim. For with these words we frequently find something else signified in the Law; for among other things the Lord God says: My spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh. And in what follows: But I will blot out, he says, everything from man even to the beast, because he was about to bring a flood upon the earth. Can the Holy Spirit possibly be understood here? Was he not speaking about souls? For not only our souls are called spirits, but also those of the beasts. For thus it is written: And all flesh died in the water, in which was the spirit of life. And in Ezekiel the prophet it is thus said, when God promises concerning the renewal of men, saying: Thus says the Lord to these bones: I will stretch skin over you and will put my spirit in you, and you shall live. Was he speaking about the Holy Spirit and not about the soul?

All heavenly things indeed are spirits, but they differ from one another, and God too is spirit, but far otherwise. Therefore every spirit is God's; yet it is not God, except the Spirit which is from him, whose designation is this, that he be called 'holy.' For men too are called sons of God, and Christ is called the Son of God; but there is a difference, because the latter is true, the former adoptive. So too among the spirit of God there is a diversity. For the Holy Spirit is from God, consubstantial with him; but the rest are said to be spirits of God, yet they are creatures. But neither is it in keeping with the order that the Holy Spirit should be understood to be borne over the waters, since reason hands down that there is a spiritual creature over the waters, and one which has above itself another more excellent creature, because creature differs from creature in brightness. For whatever is approached near to the seat of God, the ministries are brighter. Whence the angel Raphael says among other things: I am, he says, one of the seven holy angels, who stand and dwell before the majesty of God.

XLII. WHY DID THE ANGEL SENT TO SPEAK TO MOSES APPEAR ON THE MOUNTAIN IN FIRE AND IN A BUSH?

God is exalted; it was therefore fitting that he should appear on high, in a place that is near to heaven. And because fire always seeks the higher things, growing upward toward heaven, in it the Lord of the heavens ought to appear, who strives from the ground toward the things above. But in the bush the cause of transgressions brought it about that he appeared. For because he had come down to give the Law for the sake of sins, and thorns are signified among sins — for I waited, he says, that it might make a grape, but it made thorns — and the Law had not come at once to punish, but first to reveal, therefore the fire did not burn up the bush, that is, the Law when given did not make sinners guilty concerning the past. For because sins too are not of nature, but from accident, the material of the bush, that is, of the thorns, does not have a root armed with thorns. It was therefore done with reason that the Lord should thus appear to Moses.

XLIII. SINCE WE KNOW THAT ABRAHAM WAS FORBIDDEN BY GOD TO SACRIFICE HIS SON, WHY WAS JEPHTHAH, WHEN HE OFFERED HIS DAUGHTER AS A LIBATION, NOT FORBIDDEN, BUT DISCHARGED HIS VOW TO GOD WITH HUMAN BLOOD?

There is a great distance between the case of Abraham and that of Jephthah. First of all, indeed, Abraham was born legitimately, but Jephthah was a bastard; for he was the son of a harlot. Next, Abraham was of the best manner of life, but Jephthah was the chief of robbers. Abraham was a righteous man and proven in temptation; but in Jephthah there is no testimony of righteousness whatever.

And so Abraham was commanded to offer his son to God, and to show to men how greatly Abraham believed God, seeing that he did not hesitate to slay even his own son at His bidding. For he who, against the hope of the world, was able to bring about that he should be born of a barren and aged woman — it was not doubtful that, against the reasoning of the world, He could raise him up from the dead. By this deed Abraham was heaped up with righteousness. For God showed that He had not demanded the blood of the boy, but that His servant Abraham might by this deed be made greater. For He wills that those who love Him should suffer something, so that He may seem justly to advance them.

For Jephthah, a criminal and improvident man, by a foolish devotion promised a gift to God, saying: whatever shall meet me on my return from the slaughter before the doors of my house, this I will offer to God. Was he compelled to make the vow, or did he understand in what manner he ought to make a vow? For what if a dog or an ass had met him — which God forbade to be offered? Or if another man's son, or if his wife, so that he would render his vow exulting in another's grief? Therefore, by divine judgment, the improvidence of the impious man, in that he had made a vow to another's destruction, was turned back upon that very man himself. And Jephthah was so senseless that not even afterward did he recognize that he had foolishly made the vow, so that his error, which had begun from himself, might through himself also be amended. For he ought to have understood that God does not take delight in such a sacrifice, and to have prayed for pardon of his folly and to have offered something else which was not against the law. But the fool showed himself faithful — a parricide — although it is agreed that foolish faith not only in no way profits, but even does harm. And so in the case of his daughter he himself was slaughtered, whence also God dissembled at such a sacrifice. For if He had forbidden this, He would have seemed to wish him to offer something else to Himself, whereas He knew that, as unworthy, he ought not to offer. But his daughter made a gain, because, dying innocent amid the evils of her father, she was spared the punishment of hell, which perhaps by living long she could not have attained.

But that the triumph of victory attended Jephthah, it was not his own merit that brought this about, nor that of the people; for it is not read that they were suppliant to God, that He might give them a defender. Or did God send Jephthah himself, or address him? But because the foreigners were praising their own gods, as though it were these who had made the children of Israel subject to them, reviling the God of Abraham, therefore, for the honor of His own name, God took vengeance upon the foreigners — if not on account of these men, then at least on account of the merit of Abraham and His own eminence. Or shall a man be called worthy because the Spirit of the Lord leaped upon Samson while he was consorting with harlots, when this deed is understood to have been for the destruction of the foreigners?

XLIIII. AGAINST THE JEWS.

It is written in the prophet Isaiah: My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. But perhaps the Jews may say: 'The house of God, that is, the synagogue, stands open to all.' Nor do we resist this, provided however that, as always, the circumcised be joined to the law. For the law belongs to those who have been commanded to be circumcised after the manner of Abraham. Nothing new, therefore, could seem to be shown by this example of the prophet, since anyone coming from whatever nation was not, from the beginning of Judaism, forbidden to attach himself to the law. Nothing new could be reckoned to have been said by the prophet; indeed, it would be superfluous, if Gentiles have always been admitted to serve the God of Abraham and are found never at any time to have been forbidden. And it is true, since those who subject themselves to the law are proved never not to have been received. If, then, these things are so, the prophet seems to have given his admonition superfluously, since what was once handed down has always been kept.

And could anyone be found so dull as to say that the prophet spoke a thing so superfluous and empty? I do not know for whom it would be safe even to hear this and not to forbid it. For since the Jewish people, on account of the sins in which they were offending against the Lord by seeking support from idols, being often rebuked by the prophets, were unwilling to enter the path of penitence, so as to return to God, God, to their reproach, signified that he would open his house to all nations for prayer, so that, the Jews being cast off, he might show that he would set others in their place. For if the Gentiles were always admitted to the law, as was said above, how was the prophet saying that this would come to pass, unless because he signified something other than what had been commanded before? For he could not speak of a thing that was happening daily, as though it were to be in the future. Whence it is manifest that this makes for the ruin of the Jews, to whom the prophet showed that others, these being removed, were to be called to receive the gift of the grace of God, which had been promised to the Jews.

But what was promised, the prophet Isaiah teaches, saying: There shall come out of Sion he who shall deliver and turn away impiety from Jacob; and this is the covenant to them from me. This covenant, therefore, is the abolition of sins. For this is the new covenant, which was promised through Jeremiah, saying: Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will accomplish for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah a new covenant, not according to the covenant which I disposed for their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they themselves did not continue in my covenant, and I neglected them, saith the Lord. This is their prevarication: when they made the image of the calf, then they corrupted the covenant. Whence also the tablets on which the law had been given were broken beneath the mountain, from the fact that they deserved to receive grievous precepts.

But because God is kind and merciful, he promised through the prophets that he would change the law, so that he might give another testament, which would differ from the one he had given before; so that not only what was burdensome would be changed, but also those things which had been given as a figure, that is, the sabbath and circumcision, so that, because they had long been oppressed, being relieved in all things they might as suppliants give thanks to God. And because, persisting in the ancestral transgression, they refused to turn their minds away from idols, he attests that the Gentiles, together with the remnant who kept the faith, should enjoy the testament which he had said would come; so that the faithless Jews, burdened in a twofold way, might be tormented; for they were both burdened for a time by the precepts and in the future will pay fitting penalties, because they were found faithful neither in the old nor in the new testament.

He said therefore that he would give a new testament, so that the old one, which had been given to the fathers, might cease. And through this, whoever serves God in this testament keeps neither the sabbath nor the new moons nor circumcision nor distinctions of foods, but has only the fear of God in faith, because he is not justified by the law, but by faith, as the prophet Habakkuk says: For the just shall live by my faith, so that he no longer uses many precepts to merit God, but few, Isaiah again saying the same things concerning this meaning; for he says: If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant of them shall be saved. For a word completing and shortening in righteousness. For God will make a shortened word upon the whole earth. To the remnant, who persevered in the faith of the promise while the rest were unbelieving, he shows the shortened word of the law, that is, the new testament which he promised—which would not otherwise be called a testament, unless in like manner this too were confirmed by the testimony of blood, just as also the old testament, so that the name of both is one; but in the old the precepts are many, while in the new they are few. As he promised, so that, because he had said that Abraham would be the father of many nations, the sons might be justified in the same way as the father too had been justified, so that, when the things which had begun after Abraham's faith ceased, receiving the faith through which the same Abraham was justified, they might be sons of Abraham, as it was said by the Lord. Which indeed is neither wonderful nor unheard of, that men should be justified without care of the sabbath and circumcision and the rest of the commandments of this kind.

For it was not through this that Enoch pleased God, so that he was translated, nor was Noah, by keeping these things, found alone righteous in the flood, nor was Abraham himself justified after he was circumcised: for Abraham believed God, he says, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness. He was then circumcised, so that there might be a sign in him, because he had believed, when he was old, that he would have a son. Therefore it is not circumcision that commends Abraham, but faith. And therefore for believers faith suffices for justification, so that they are sons of Abraham in faith, not in circumcision, because for these there is no need of circumcision; for that which Abraham believed is not now believed. But the Jews were for this reason commanded to be circumcised, that they might have a sign of Abraham's faith, not of their own faith, but that they might be known as his sons according to the flesh: but if they should believe, they will be his sons also unto justification.

For what does it profit to call someone the son of a powerful man, if he himself is powerless — unless it rather does harm? For it is a disgrace for the son of a man of dignity to be without honor. For the circumcision of the flesh is of so little merit that God says through the prophet Jeremiah that he will take vengeance upon all the circumcised who have foreskins, if they have not been circumcised in heart. But he is not indignant with those who, circumcised in heart, are uncircumcised in flesh, because no one has pleased God without the circumcision of the heart. Whoever, therefore, are circumcised in the flesh signify the race of Abraham according to the flesh; but those who are circumcised in heart signify the race of God according to faith, because, circumcised from every worldly error, they profess God as their parent. What, then, does the circumcision of the flesh profit, when, if faith is lacking in the Jew, he will not be able to attain to the merit of Abraham? Or what harm does the foreskin do, since no one, except him who has been emulous of the faith of Abraham, has attained to his righteousness?

Vainly, therefore, do they glory in the circumcision of the flesh, when they see that it has no merit before God. And if, as has been shown, it is better to have faith than circumcision, the Gentiles are better than the Jews, because the former have faith, while the Jews have circumcision. And whom, do you suppose, does he acknowledge more as the sons of Abraham: those who are like him according to the flesh, or those who are in faith? But it is faith that bears witness to Abraham, and through this he glories not in the flesh, but in faith. And therefore he receives as his sons those whom he sees to be imitators of his glory. For how can he call those his sons in whom he sees an abhorrence for that whereby he pleased God and was justified? He will be able to judge these, then, not as sons, but as enemies. For those who spurn the faith through which he was glorified seem to be envious of him.

It is no wonder if the Jews are found to be distrustful, by no means accepting the New Testament, since we know that they were not faithful even under the Old. For they were always rebellious and insolent against God, whence they received such commandments, through which their necks, which were inflexible, might be pressed down. For they never wished to hope for good things from God, whose so great benefits and such marvelous mighty works they had come to know. Hence it is that among other things the prophet Ezekiel says: I lifted up my hand among them in the desert, that they should be scattered among the nations and dispersed in the regions, because they did not perform my ordinances of justice and rejected my commandments; and in what follows: and I gave them commandments that were not good and ordinances of justice, in which they shall not live in them. He shows for what cause commandments so many and so harsh were given to them: namely, that, because they proved ungrateful for so great goods, at the dictate of justice they might be pressed down by more severe commandments. For he called them not good, though they are just, because they did not avail them unto justification, but unto ruin; and a punishment, although worthily inflicted, is nevertheless not good to the one suffering it. Yet after these things, because God is merciful, he promised that he would give a New Testament, in which a shortening made of the law might justify those who believe, just as Abraham was justified, so that, with the new moons and the sabbath and circumcision and the other commandments ceasing — not those which are of the natural law, that is, murder, adultery, and such things — they might be justified in the same way as Abraham also was. For, faith having been renewed after the manner of Abraham, he willed that all things should cease, so that there might be such a time as had been when Abraham believed.

But perhaps the Jews may say: 'If the things which were given by Moses have been declared to cease through the shortening of the law, was circumcision given by Moses that it should cease? And through this we have the sign of our father, since we are sons of Abraham, which on account of the testimony of our lineage ought not to cease.' Circumcision indeed was to be kept in its own time, that is, before the New Testament, which had been promised, was given. But when, by the grace of God bestowing it, the burdens of the law were commanded to cease, what need is there to be circumcised? And for this reason a new law was given, that is, a spiritual one, so that carnal things might cease and those who receive it might take its sign, so that, just as under the Old they had the sign of Abraham, from whom the Old Testament began, so also under the New they might have the sign of the Savior, who is the establisher of the New Testament. For just as from Abraham they were called Hebrews, so also 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 benefit and mercy of God — God who, no longer willing his people to be reckoned by the name of a man, deigned to establish them under the name of his own Son.

By what audacity, then, do the Jews say that we use not our own law but theirs, when David says: I will confess to you among the nations, and again: rejoice, you 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 belly, I sanctified you and set you as a prophet among the nations. Judaism certainly has its own designations; for that people is signified either in Jacob or in Samaria or in Jerusalem or in Judah or in Israel. But concerning the nations it is clear that he signifies them otherwise than as the Jews are.

Jeremiah, therefore, is our prophet. For although in all the prophets God has shown the nations to be sharers in his gift, yet to Jeremiah he speaks specially, because he gave him to us as a prophet. For this man signified the New Testament that was to come, which would benefit the nations more than the Jews, which now seems to have been made manifest. For since the preaching of the New Testament is in the whole earth, so rarely and with such difficulty is a faithful Jew found, that all the churches of the New Testament are named from the nations, just as it had been said in the prophet Hosea: I will call not my people my people, and not the beloved beloved. The Jews, therefore, having been rejected, he calls together the nations by that grace of mercy by which he deigned to call Abraham also. For not even did Abraham, uncalled, come to know the Lord. And so he who deigned to call Abraham, the same himself deigned also to call the nations.

Why, then, do they say: 'the law is ours,' when it is manifest that the gift of God belongs to all who are willing? Let this rashness of usurpation therefore cease, since the grace of God is common to all. For with what shamelessness do they deny that our Christ was promised in the law, when they see in him all the signs which the law foretold would come to pass? Since both according to the promise to Abraham all the nations are justified who believe in him, and according to the prophecy of Isaiah he was born of a virgin in Bethlehem from the tribe of Judah, as it had been promised, from the seed of David; and, according to what Jeremiah prophesied, he preached the New Testament which God had promised would come to pass; and after all the signs of his mighty works had been displayed, he humbled himself according to the sayings of the prophets, and having suffered all the things which had been foretold, on the third day he rose again, just as it is written in the prophet.

And if they should inquire into the time of the promise, just as it was shown to the prophet Daniel, they will find it fulfilled in the time in which Christ was born and suffered; for from the time of the first year of Darius king of the Persians up to the nativity and passion of the Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem, which was carried out by Vespasian, prince of the Roman Empire, the seventy weeks were fulfilled, which are 490 years. This reckoning is made clear through the reigns and through the successors of the empire, in the manner in which it is also found reckoned by Tertullian in the book which he wrote against the Jews — which, lest it should turn to his injury, since he reckoned rightly, we have passed over.

And who could be in doubt about this number, when now some three hundred years or so are found to have accrued beyond this number? It is therefore the mark of a shameless person, after so great a number has been added on top, to say of the coming of the Savior: "He has not come." For under the apostles, or at the very time when the Lord was living among men, the malice that contradicts the truth could conceal itself, so that, although it saw all the signs of the promised Christ in the Savior, it nevertheless claimed to be in doubt about the time, in order to hide its treachery. But afterwards, when many years began to pile up beyond the promised number, what shamelessness it is to deny that he has come, when it is known to have been fulfilled both by the signs and by the times! For when something is complete and does not overflow, some contentious person can say that it is not complete; but if it overflows, the contentious person's mouth is shut.

Thus the Jews too, in the time of the Savior, were able to say — though by way of deception — that the reckoning from the time of Darius up to the Lord Christ had not been correctly made, so that he might be said to be the one who was promised. For we go astray in the years and months and days of the emperors and do not reckon them out to precision. But once the times grew beyond the prescribed number of the years of Christ's promise, no excuse can be put forward for saying that the one who came is not himself the Christ — unless (which God forbid) the one who made the promise be said to have lied. For when the time of the promise has been measured out and it is denied that the one who was promised has come, of what else is the one who promised convicted than of falsehood? But that the one who made the promise is truthful, all the signs teach — the signs that were foretold and are known to be found in Christ. The Jews, however, while they blush to correct themselves, do not consider the coming judgment. For nothing is worse than for someone to deny that a thing is true which he understands is no lie.

XLV. ON THE IMAGE.

"Let us make," he says, "man to our image and likeness." Some think this ought to be understood from another passage of the reading, namely from that in which we read that God said: "Come, let us descend and confound their tongues," because, as far as appears on the surface, it is similar: for it is the utterance of one speaking in the plural number, but it differs in sense, since the reasoning too is dissimilar. For there he speaks of creating man, whom God wishes to be created to his image and likeness. But that which he says: "Come, let us descend and confound their tongues," pertains to this: that men should not understand one another; whence God may seem to have spoken to the angels, as a commander to an army. For he spoke jointly, because he was going to act through them, inasmuch as he was their creator, and on this account he says: "Let us confound their tongues." For when he says: "Let us make man to our image and likeness," he cannot be said to have spoken to the angels, because it cannot be said that the image of God and of the angels is one, as of a commander and his companions, since where the image is one, the dignity or nature cannot be dissimilar. Finally, he added: "And God made," he says, "man; to the image of God he made him," so that it was God who spoke and God who made — not another God or a different one, but the same God.

For what one said to one does not signify a different nature, but a person. For although God is one, there are nevertheless three persons; and therefore God is one, because, whether in the Son or in the Holy Spirit, it is the substance of the one God, since that which is from him cannot fail to be what he himself is. It is therefore the person of God the Father who says: Let us make; and of the Son who makes man to the image of God: whether to the Father's image or to his own makes no difference, since the image of both is one. The Son therefore made man through the Holy Spirit. For just as the Father is said to make through the Son, so also the Son makes through the Holy Spirit, as he himself says: For I cast out demons by the Spirit of God. Therefore the image of the three is one, since, whether the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit, God is one. And through this man was made one to the image of the one God. Now man is the image of God in this respect, that, just as there is one God in the heavens, from whom all spiritual things subsist, so there should be one man on earth, from whom the rest would have their carnal origin.

To some, however, it seems that man was made the image of God in respect of dominion, because he said: and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and the whole earth, since these things are seen to be subjected not only to the man but also to the woman, who it is agreed does not have the image of God. But this indeed lacks reason in a twofold way; for by this reasoning it is asserted that God did not say to the Son: Let us make man to our image and likeness, but to the heavenly dominions, which the Apostle mentions; and if man has the image of God in dominion, it is granted also to the woman, so that she too is 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 agreed that she is subjected to the dominion of the man and has no authority? For she can neither teach nor be a witness nor give a pledge nor judge: how much less rule!

XLVI. ON SAMUEL.

There are certain people among us who—partly occupied with worldly affairs, partly less diligent concerning the sacred Scriptures—suffer from an error, thinking that Samuel was a priest, that is, that he had his origin from Aaron, from whose progeny the Lord God established that priests should be born, not made. Nor was it permitted to anyone besides his sons to place incense upon the altar. Among these, some, erring still more, indeed deny that Samuel was of the line of Aaron—that is, they say he was not born a priest—and nonetheless assert that he exercised the priesthood. To these the answer must be given first. For it is worse to deny that Samuel was born a priest and yet to assert that he exercised the priesthood, than to say that he was a priest from among the sons of Aaron. For the former is ignorance, the latter folly. For when those who think him born a priest have learned that he was not from the sons of Aaron, they, though unaware, will hold it manifest that he was not a priest, because it was not permitted to anyone to perform the priesthood except to him who was of the seed of Aaron. For they have it ascertained; for it is manifest that Korah, when he was not of the sons of Aaron and had wished to place incense upon the altar, was swallowed up by a gaping of the earth together with his companions. And King Uzziah, when he was by no means of the seed of Aaron but of the tribe of Judah, and had presumed to perform the priesthood, standing before the altar was struck with leprosy on his forehead and thus expired.

But those who say that Samuel was not born a priest and nonetheless assert that he exercised the priesthood—what they say is foolish enough. And to persuade a fool of what is good is a task of the greatest labor. For by how great a dullness are they led, that, while the sun appears above the earth, they should say that it is night! For although they read—and read in more than one place—that this was decreed by God, that no one should dare to perform the priesthood except Aaron and his sons, with obstinate mind they contend that Samuel was a priest. For they do not understand that, if Samuel was not born a priest and yet performed the priesthood, he is called a presumptuous man, because God established this: that priests should be born, not made. And concerning Samuel I think it is not safe to hold this opinion. For how could it come about that a praiseworthy man, commended by the testimony of God, should do what he knew was not permitted? Of which presumption, moreover, he held for certain that punishment had been inflicted once and again. For neither by the judgment of God could he aspire to this, God whom he knew to be unchangeable; from whom, if perchance he had heard this, he would rather have believed himself to be tempted, knowing that God could in no way rescind his own sentence. For he could sooner believe that this was being done with him under the appearance and name of God, so that he might be deceived by the adversary's side, than that God could change his own judgment.

Finally, when Balaam had been forbidden by God to go to Balak, and afterward had inquired again whether he should go, God, being angered with him, rebuked him by the example of the she-ass, because the ass, seeing the angel who forbade him, was unwilling to complete the journey it had begun. But Balaam, when God forbade him to go, by asking again whether God wished him to go, judged concerning God as concerning a man, who through that which is without foreknowledge is inconstant and changeable. But Balaam is commended by no divine testimony — for he was a soothsayer —, whereas Samuel was a man dear to God and knowing that the decree of His judgments is fixed; how could he have believed that anything ought to happen otherwise than he knew had been established by God?

'But when Eli was dead,' they say, 'and his sons the priests, Samuel began to exercise the priesthood': which neither the reading teaches nor reason allows. For in saying this they suppose that there was then no one who might exercise the priesthood, so that, these three being dead, unless Samuel had offered the people's gifts, the exercise of the priesthood would have ceased; which assertion is hostile to God. For by this God is judged to be improvident; for as though unknowing He establishes that which cannot endure. For to what end did He establish that none other than the sons of Aaron should exercise the priesthood even to the end of the age, that is, until the times of the coming of Christ, if He knew this would fail? But if He does not know — which God forbid! — He was improvident; and therefore it is possible that Samuel was priest when they failed. But if God is provident and foreknowing, that which He established endured; and if that which He established endured, Samuel did not exercise the priesthood, because they were not priests. In the old law God decreed that priests be born, but in the new the Lord commanded that priests be made.

Let them now choose one of two things: let them prove either that Samuel was born a priest or made one. But they agree that he was not born a priest, because they know that he was not of the sons of Aaron. If therefore Samuel was not born a priest, and it is neither read nor proved that he was made one, because God had not decreed that priests be made — it is settled beyond doubt that Samuel was by no means a priest.

But the objectors with closed eyes say: 'If he was not a priest, yet he acted in the priest's stead, since it is read that he offered sacrifice to God!' Who would dare to deny what Scripture proves in writing? For Samuel did offer sacrifice to God, but from this he is not known to have acted in the priest's stead. For he is always said to offer, whose the oblations are, which the priest places upon the altar. And Saul offered — in this same manner, that is, through a priest, just as it is now offered — and David offered and Solomon offered and the rest likewise offered. Did they all act in the priest's stead? For although the priest discharges his own office, yet he is said to offer in whose name the priest acts; for it is imputed to him whose gifts are offered. And he who was not a priest, how could he act in the priest's stead? Can a deacon act in the priest's stead? For a prefect can act in the stead of a prefect, and a praetor in the stead of a praetor, yet a private person cannot act in the stead of any authority: how much more can he not act in the priest's stead, who is not a priest!

For with what intention does he dare to aspire to this, which he knows is not permitted to him? For if a priest is lacking somewhere, a priest of another place can, when asked, come and act in his stead; but a prophet cannot — however holy his life may be — do 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 some office. For just as one who is a priest ought not on that account to think his life commended, so also one who is of holy conduct and life will not thereby be entitled to claim the priesthood for himself. For although the priesthood is a good thing, yet it will be an evil for the man to whom it has not been granted and who presumes upon it. For if we consider what is written concerning holy Samuel, we shall see what kind of testimony Scripture gives him, saying: "And it became known," it says, "to all the people, that Samuel is faithful as a prophet of the Lord"; and in the psalm: "Let there be," it says, "Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among those who call upon his name." Who would not notice, from this distinction, that the persons have been divided by reason of their dignities, so that Moses and Aaron are recognized as having obtained the priestly dignity, while Samuel is held to have stood out as worthy of God among the prophets — who by their prayers called upon God to protect his people, as we read? And the priests are shown to have been so far from lacking, that when the ark had been brought back by the Levite bearers, the men of Beth-shemesh offered sacrifices to God in Samuel's absence. And when Saul had been made king, Ahimaas, the great-grandson of Eli the priest, was the one who carried the ephod.

"But from this," they say, "Samuel seems to have been a priest, because he was clothed with the ephod." As if deacons were not today clothed in dalmatics, just as the bishop is. But we read that David too was clothed with an ephod, and with a double ephod. Samuel, moreover, while still a little boy, was girded with an ephod: could a little boy offer the people's gifts to God? You see, then, that "ephod" is indeed a single word, but does not always signify a single thing. For the priests carried the ephod, they were not clothed with it; but the kings and Samuel the Levite were clothed with the ephod. Sometimes, therefore, "ephod" signifies a garment, and sometimes a kind of little case, which the priests carried for consulting the Lord.

As far as appears, it has been proved that Samuel was not a priest but a prophet. Now we reply to those who, not knowing that Samuel is not of the sons of Aaron the priest, suppose that he was a priest; for it was not lawful that one descended from the line of Aaron should not be a priest. And I want them first to recognize that, if Samuel was a priest, then without doubt Elkanah his father too was a priest. It would also have been fitting that his sons were priests — sons whom, because they were not priests, he appointed as judges for the sons of Israel, just as he himself, Samuel, also was. For thus we read: "that he judged the sons of Israel." But as for Elkanah the father of Samuel, in proof that he was not a priest: "he went up," it says, "from days to days out of his own city Ramathaim to worship and to sacrifice to God almighty of hosts; and there was Eli and his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the Lord."

What is so clear as this: that Elkanah came to offer his gifts before the Lord through the priests at the appointed time, according to what Moses had established, namely that three times a year they should offer their gifts and their tithes, wherever the ark of the Lord and the priests should be — and this indeed although he even had two wives at one time, which is unlawful for priests? For Elkanah was of the Levites, just as the order of the generations is contained in the book of Chronicles. For as yet the Levites did not have an established order of ministry with respect to the priests and the ark of the Lord. For it was David who, in his reign, arranged the courses for the priests and the Levites, so that from twenty years old and upward — [under the law], but from twenty-five years old and upward — they should begin to render their services in the ceremonies of the Lord; so that there should be, from the sons of Aaron, that is, of the line of Phinehas and Ithamar, twenty-four classes of priests, which should perform their courses at fixed times. And the Levites were appointed, some to be the doorkeepers of the tabernacle, and some the bearers of the ark of the Lord, and some to keep watch, and some to be the custodians of the vessels, and some to receive the various offerings. And twenty-four classes were established of singers and harpers and of the other musicians, so that these also, that is, all the Levites, should have their turns of times, because it was necessary for them also to have leisure, so that they might also take care of their own households.

And not only do these things avail for the case stated above — namely, that Samuel was not of the sons of Aaron — but also that which his mother says to the Lord: "If," she says, "you give me a son, I lend him to the Lord all the days of his life." She would not say this if he had been born a priest — for it was fitting that he should serve the altar — but because he was a Levite, and as yet the law had not been laid down for the Levites, but each one acted according to his own will, so that, wandering astray, they presumed unlawful things. For Jonathan, the son of the son of Moses, when he had been assigned among the Levites, presumed to perform the priesthood for the tribe of Dan. And on account of this we read in the book of Judges that "each one," it says, "did what pleased himself, because there was no king in Israel." For this reason Hannah made her vow, saying: "I lend him to the Lord," lest he should go astray with the rest.

And that the question may be more fully examined, let us also treat of that which was said concerning Elkanah, that he came day by day to offer his gifts and his tithes. How did he offer tithes, who possessed nothing? For the Levites did not receive fields, because they sought their sustenance from the tithes which were given by the people. But it can be, and is thus given to be understood, that he could have had the possession of his wife, either inherited or purchased; for they received wives from the other tribes, not only these, but also the rest, so that even the priests took to themselves wives from the other tribes. For Jehoiada the high priest married a wife of the tribe of Judah, the daughter of king Joram.

XLVII. ON THE READING OF ISAIAH THE PROPHET: 'AND SEVEN WOMEN SHALL TAKE HOLD OF ONE MAN, SAYING: WE WILL EAT OUR OWN BREAD AND BE COVERED WITH OUR OWN GARMENTS; ONLY LET YOUR NAME BE INVOKED UPON US. TAKE AWAY OUR REPROACH.'

In sum, the seven women signify the seven churches; for although the Church is one, yet it is called sevenfold, so that one body is composed of a sevenfold number of members. For not only we, but also the celestial beings on high, are members of the Church, whose head is Christ. Therefore, whether the churches be called one or seven, there is no discrepancy. For it is called one because it has one head, which is Christ; but it is called seven because, just as the members are diverse, so also are the spiritual powers. Among these we too are reckoned; the virtues are diverse, and for this reason they are also said to be in need. For they are diverse precisely so that individual members cannot do all things, but that all together may be the body of Christ, since he himself is the head of the body, the Church, from whom the whole body subsists — that is, from whom all things in heaven and on earth have their origin.

In this Church, therefore, which is on earth, mention has been made of all the churches, because, when the mystery of the Creator is preached to this one, a doctrine of this kind is likewise made known to the celestial beings. For when it is imparted to those below, it is necessary that those on high also hear. Whence the Apostle says: To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to evangelize among the Gentiles the incomprehensible riches of Christ, and to enlighten all men, what may be the dispensation of the mystery hidden from the ages in God, who created all things, and that it might be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavens through the Church the manifold wisdom of God. Through this Church, therefore, those on high are taught, because, as he says, truth is sprung out of the earth. For so that mention may be made of those above, here seven churches are named within one people, which seven churches the prophet brings forward as suppliants before the Savior who has become man. For they understood that Christ was born for this purpose: to take away the reproach, first indeed of those living under his law, and then of the rest. For they held in memory that it was written: There shall come out of Sion he who shall deliver and turn away impiety from Jacob.

These seven churches, therefore, laid hold of one man, that is, Christ born, saying: We will eat our own bread and be covered with our own garments; only let thy name be invoked upon us, take away our reproach. What is this that they pray for? For if they use their own bread and are clothed with their own garments — that is, if they both live and are not naked — what do they lack? For if bread signifies that which pertains to life, and clothing that which pertains to devotion to God — because he who is without God is called naked; whence the Apostle says: As many as have been baptized in Christ, you have put on Christ, and again he says: if we be stripped, may we not be found naked —, what is it that they ask, that the reproach be taken away from them, unless it be that this people is signified in the number of the seven churches, which, living under the law, was awaiting Christ promised for the abolishing of sins? Therefore they say: We will eat our own bread — that is, we shall be fed with the words of the law, which hand down one God, because man does not live by bread alone but by every word of God — and we will be covered with our own garments, that is, we are reckoned by the name of our Creator, because each one is said to be clothed with that which he both is and professes.

Finally, senators or officials are understood from their garments as to what they are. But because these things are not sufficient for meriting God's favor, he established this also, that through the sacrament of the knowledge of the one God man might be heir of the kingdom of heaven. For through faith, having been washed from his sins and from the second death — which, by the sentence pronounced in Adam, held men fast among those below — he, now alienated from it with none holding him back, proceeds into the paradise of God the Father, in which the Lord said to the thief that he would be with him. For although the people spoken of above, who were signified in the seven churches, were under the law of God and in devotion from the very origin of the world, they nonetheless had need of purification both from their own and from their forefather's transgression, because "all," he says, "have sinned and lack the glory of God." For this reason the aforementioned churches pray that their reproach may be taken away by the invocation of the name of Christ, because those who have 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 invoked over them, but also the spiritual powers on high dwelling in the heavenly places. For although they are spiritual and heavenly powers, they nonetheless lie under reproach if they should become estranged from their Creator, and they will not even be members of the body, who, not knowing their own head, go astray.

And because it is nothing other than what we have explained, in the following passages the prophet bears witness, saying: "But on that day God will give light in counsel upon the earth," and he added: "for the Lord," he says, "will wash away the filth of the sons and daughters, and will purge the blood from their midst." What could be so evident, that on that day — that is, on which the promise of God was fulfilled and the sacrament of faith was made manifest to men — they were enlightened, so that, purified through the knowledge of the Creator, those who had been guilty of death might become heirs of eternal life? The prophet therefore spoke indiscriminately, so as to signify that all have need of the gift of God, so that, whether sinners or righteous, they might be known to have awaited the mercy of God — sinners on account of their own transgressions, that they might be snatched from the jaws of death, but the righteous, absolved of their forefather's sin, the sentence pronounced in Adam being annulled — by which all were held fast by death — having received liberty, might enter into the kingdom of God, no longer servants, but sons of God.

XLVIII. GOD IS CERTAINLY PERFECTION AND IN NEED OF NOTHING: WHAT THEN WAS THE NEED FOR CHRIST THE SAVIOR TO BE BORN OF GOD, AND FOR GOD TO HAVE A SON THROUGH WHOM HE MIGHT MAKE ALL THINGS?

When God had willed that the things which did not exist should come into being, and knew that this work was by no means worthy of his majesty, first, from himself—since he is a simple nature and incorporeal—he begot a Son, who would differ in nothing from him, so that a result congruent with his greatness might correspond to it. For what more could he do than to beget another self, one who is perfect? This, therefore, is the perfect work, than which nothing could seem more excellent. For all other things are lesser; for by however much Christ is more excellent than all these, by so much the more is the creation of them inferior to his generation. There is also another point. For God, from whom are all things, wishing to found creation, first begot the Word, which he held in mystery within himself—that is, he caused it to exist. This Word he therefore named Son, in order to show that it had come forth from himself and was consubstantial with him, so that the law by which sons are from parents might make this credible, through which he might make manifest the mystery of creation, which lay hidden in him from eternity.

XLVIIII. WHY THE SAVIOR, THOUGH HE WAS BORN HOLY AND WAS CALLED CHRIST THE LORD AT HIS VERY BIRTH, WAS BAPTIZED, SINCE BAPTISM IS FOR THE SAKE OF PURIFICATION AND OF SIN?

It is true and manifest that the Savior had no need of baptism, because Christ was not made but born, as the angel said to the shepherds: behold, today there is born to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. Finally, John, knowing his holiness, tried to forbid him from baptism, but the Savior insisted that it ought to be done—not indeed on account of sin, but for the sake of fulfilling righteousness. For it was fitting that he himself should be an example to the future sons of God, he who taught that through baptism men become sons of God; and he who promised that the Holy Spirit would be given to believers ought to demonstrate this visibly in his own self, so that, once this was known, believers might have hope that they invisibly receive the Holy Spirit. For the Savior indeed, since he is born of the Holy Spirit, had a purified body. For the anointing was given to his flesh spiritually in the womb; for the Holy Spirit purified that which, from the Virgin Mary, developed into the body of the Savior. And this is the anointing of the flesh of the Savior's body, wherefore even at birth he was called 'Christ.' For what God used to bestow through the anointing of oil, by the ministry of the prophets, upon those who were anointed as kings, this the Holy Spirit bestowed upon the man Christ, with an expiation added, because the earlier anointed ones received through anointing only the power of rule. But the Savior both received power, born as a man, and was purified, born as he was. For it was unfitting that the Son of God should be born in a body subject to sins.

Therefore, taking up the cause of man and teaching that through regeneration men become sons of God, he had to be baptized, so that he might show this ratified in himself. For what is said is easily held to be proven and is made persuasive, if it is seen to be done by the master. So too, indeed, it was fitting that the signs of miracles should be performed, so that, now appearing as the Son of God through the mystery of regeneration, he might give a remedy to bodily sufferings, that he might be an example to future brothers, because through regeneration each one receives the power of miracle.

L. IF THE SAVIOR WAS BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO BE AN EXAMPLE, WHY, HAVING BEEN CIRCUMCISED, DID HE FORBID THE REST TO BE CIRCUMCISED?

Circumcision is a commandment of the past time, which had to hold authority up until Christ, so that it might run on only as long as until Christ, promised to Abraham, should be born, and thereafter, once the promise was fulfilled, circumcision might cease. For Isaac was promised as a figure of Christ. For God said to him: In your seed shall all the nations be blessed, which is Christ. For the faith which Abraham had received was restored by Christ, so that in the seed of Abraham, which is Christ, all the nations might be blessed, just as it had been promised to Abraham. And so circumcision was a sign of the promised son, that is, of Christ; and once he was born, the sign of the promise had to cease, yet in such a way that the promised one himself, on his coming, should receive the sign of the father, so that it might be known that this was he who had been promised — to justify all the nations through faith in the circumcision of the heart. For just as, to father Abraham, the circumcision of the son being born in the flesh was a bodily seal, so also, for those who are born spiritually, the circumcision of the heart is a spiritual sign; and therefore, more rightly, after Christ it was no longer necessary to be circumcised in the flesh.

LI. HOW IS IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT, WHEN MARY SAID TO THE ANGEL, 'AND WHENCE SHALL I KNOW THIS, SINCE I HAVE NOT KNOWN A MAN?', THE ANGEL GABRIEL ANSWERED: 'THE HOLY SPIRIT SHALL COME UPON YOU AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH SHALL OVERSHADOW YOU.'

To Mary, doubting about the conception, the angel proclaims its possibility, saying: the Holy Spirit shall come upon you, that is: 'do not doubt because you know not a man; for what I said,' he says, 'namely that you shall conceive, the Holy Spirit coming upon you shall bring about, so that you may conceive without a man.' And the power of the Most High, he says, shall overshadow you. The 'power of the Most High' is without doubt Christ; for this pertains to his own person. The Holy Spirit, therefore, coming upon the virgin sanctified her, by his working making a holy body from her, in which the power that is called the Son of God might be born. His overshadowing upon the virgin is this: that from the immensity of the divinity something might be in the womb of the virgin, as much as human nature could contain — which, as if from a splendor, was called the overshadowing of the power of God, and was the power of God and also God: for there is nothing of God which is not called God. For this is a bodily thing, that there should be something in the flesh and yet it cannot be called flesh, such as hairs and bones and the rest.

LII. IF CHRIST WAS BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT IS, BY HIS OPERATION WAS MADE FLESH FROM MARY, WHY WAS IT SAID: 'WISDOM', WHICH INDEED IS CHRIST, 'BUILT HERSELF A HOUSE'?

This question must be understood in a twofold sense. For, first, the house of Christ is the Church, which he built for himself with his own blood. Next, his body too can be called his own house, just as it is also called his temple. For if on account of his dwelling in it he is called the temple of God, it will not be absurd for it to be called a house as well, just as we read in the Law. But if the body was made by the working of the Holy Spirit — the body which we judge can also be called a house — then it is asked why it has been referred to the person of Christ. What the Son does is what the Father does, because there is one power belonging to both. In like manner also what the Holy Spirit does is what the Son of God does, on account of the unity of nature and of will. For whether the Father acts or the Son or the Holy Spirit, it is the Trinity that works; and whatever the three have done is the operation of the one God.

LIII. IF ALL THINGS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REASON, HOW 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 dull as to deny that God does all things with reason. Therefore Christ, descending from the sacred seats to bestow salvation on the world, in order that he might also teach that the world itself and the seasons were established by him, willed then to be born as man for increasing unto God the diminished state of the human race, at the time when, after a great diminishing, the light — which is the day — begins to receive increase, so that the time of his nativity might accord with the reason of the divine teaching, which began to multiply men out of the shadow of death unto life.

LIIII. IF CHRIST WAS MADE SON TO GOD FROM THE SEED OF DAVID ACCORDING TO THE FLESH — THAT IS, HE IS NOW BORN 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: 'THOU ART MY SON, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE'?

Christ is the Son of God from eternity according to the spirit of holiness, but according to the flesh he was born son to God from the seed of David, so that in both respects he is held to be Son to God not by being made, but by being born. But that which he hears at his baptism belongs to the mystery, not to his own case. For this all who are baptized hear. He himself, however, is only being shown forth, so that from this God may appear in the man through mighty works; but the rest are confirmed, because from this they begin to be sons of God, when they receive the Holy Spirit. For although the body of the Lord was born holy, nevertheless the man Christ had not been confirmed by the sacrament of regeneration to be the Son of God, unless he had received the Holy Spirit, according to the decree of the gift of the capacity for rebirth. For the Jews too were called sons of God in devotion, not in the sacrament which now operates, so that, having received remission of sins with the coming upon them of the Holy Spirit, they may be called sons of God. Therefore the Savior both was born the Son of God according to the flesh and was afterward confirmed in the mystery. For that which was born holy of the Holy One could not but be born to God, but, so that the purpose of the mystery might be fulfilled, by the coming upon him of the Spirit he was not diminished, but increased.

LV. WHAT WAS THE CAUSE THAT THE LORD ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BE CRUCIFIED AT THAT TIME, WHEN THE JEWS KEPT THE 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 teach that he had rightly founded all things by the nod of the Father, he willed to redeem and reform the world by his passion at that very time when he had also created it — that is, at the equinox, from which the world took its beginning and the day begins to increase over the night. And so, acting within the Roman realm, he had to suffer on none other than the eighth day before the Kalends of April, when the Romans have their equinox. For then, assuredly, this part of the world was first illuminated, and from that point the day began to receive its increase; and therefore also by the Savior's passion it was then led from darkness to light. And so no censure of the Author could seem possible, since he then reformed the fallen creature when he had also made it. Nor indeed could the beginning of creation of a fallen thing be reproached, since its restoration returns to that same point. For he willed the joy of renewal to be on the same day on which had also been the joy of the founding.

LVI. WHY IN MATTHEW THE FATHER OF JOSEPH IS WRITTEN AS JACOB, BUT IN LUKE AS HELI, SO THAT EITHER HE IS UNSKILLFULLY DESCRIBED AS HAVING TWO FATHERS, OR ELSE IT IS NOT KNOWN WHO TRULY IS HIS FATHER?

There is no ambiguity that the father of Joseph was Jacob. For the line, holding its course from David through Solomon, arrives by a straight passage at Jacob, whose son is Joseph; but Heli is the son of Matthias, who from David through Nathan, the son of the same David, holds the order down to the time at which the Savior came. Hence the individual evangelists, having followed out from David the orders of the generations of the several brothers, made as it were a fork: so that Matthew descended from David through Solomon to "Joseph," but Luke ascended from Heli, who lived in the time of the Savior, through the offshoot of Nathan the son of David, and joined the tribe of both Heli and Joseph, showing that both are of one stock — so that, when he associates Heli with Joseph, he shows them not to differ in generation, but to be brothers, and through this that the Savior is the son not only of Joseph, but also of Heli. For by the very same reasoning by which the Savior is called the son of Joseph, by that same he is also the son of Heli and of all the rest who are of the same tribe. Hence it is that the Apostle says: whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the flesh. For Luke was moved by the divine nod to ascend from Heli through the offshoot of Nathan to David, and through Terah his father to ascend to Shem the son of Noah, and to reach further, beyond the flood, to Seth the son of Adam, who was given in place of Abel, and by the same reasoning to make the Savior the son of Adam by which he was said to be the son of Joseph and of Heli; but transcending beyond Adam, he assigned Christ, before all flesh, to be the Son of God.

But as for that which seems to some — namely, that Heli took the wife of Jacob, in the manner that the Law commanded, that, if anyone had died without children, his brother or a kinsman should take his wife and raise up seed for his brother, and that it was so done that Heli begot Joseph for Jacob, whose wife he had taken, and through this the generation is joined, so that not undeservedly Joseph is said to have Heli as father — this is neither probable nor of any profit for anything.

Now, that which was said above both joins [them] through generation by means of the two brothers, sons of one man, and shows Christ to be the Son of God before every generation. For the evangelist, when he reports, says: and Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, who was of Heli — that is, Jesus was reckoned the son of Joseph, and was the son not only of Joseph but also of Heli. Not because he says that Joseph was the son of Heli, but in the same manner in which Joseph was called the father whose son Jesus was, so also he was the son of Heli, because Joseph and Heli were the sons of brothers — that is, of Solomon and Nathan, the sons of David — so that, ascending through David to Abraham and Noah and Seth and to Adam himself, and above Adam, he may teach that Christ is the Son of God. For when he says: who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God, he assuredly calls Christ the son of Adam in the very same way as he was called the son of Joseph. For Mary said to Jesus: Son, why hast thou done so to us? for behold, I and thy father, sorrowing and sad, sought thee as we went about. But above Adam he joins Christ to God the Father, so that he who was called the son of these — that is, from Adam down to Joseph and Heli — should before all these be understood to be the true Son of God, to the confounding of Photinus, who contends that Christ existed only from Mary and not before. For he was called the son of those whose son he was not, while it was denied that he was the son of God, whose son he truly was.

For if — which is improbable and serves no purpose — Joseph be said to be the son of Heli according to what we said above, the evangelist will seem to have said not concerning Christ that he was the Son of God, but concerning Adam. For, by setting the fathers in order under each of the sons individually, he comes to Enos, whose father he says is Seth, and the father of Seth he says is Adam, but the father of Adam he says is God. I do not know what usefulness there is in asserting it thus. But if, in order, as we said, the individual men are called the fathers of Christ — just as he was also called the son of Joseph, because it is said: whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh — then by that very order he is read to be the son of Seth and the son of Adam, and above all these he is assigned as the Son of God, so that he is said to exist before those very ones whose son he is named.

LVII. HOW IS IT THAT, WHEREAS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHET MALACHI: 'BEHOLD, I SEND MY ANGEL BEFORE THY FACE, WHO SHALL PREPARE THY WAY', THE EVANGELIST MARK ASSERTS THIS TO BE WRITTEN IN THE PROPHET ISAIAH?

It could not have escaped Mark what he was writing; for he was not without acquaintance with the reading, being one who, imbued from infancy with the divine writings, had been trained in the law, especially since he followed the apostles. But knowing that all things spoken are to be referred to their author, he traced these words back to Isaiah, who had first intimated this sense, saying: the voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. And so, after the words of Malachi, the evangelist immediately subjoined, saying: the voice of one crying in the wilderness, in order to join the words of both prophets, pertaining to one sense, under the person of the earlier prophet.

LVIII. ON WHAT GROUNDS DOES JOHN DENY THAT HE KNEW CHRIST BEFORE THE BAPTISM, WHEN, AS CHRIST COMES TO HIM FOR BAPTISM, HE SAYS: 'I OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED BY YOU, AND DO YOU COME TO ME?' HOW WAS HE IGNORANT OF THE ONE WHOM HE FORBADE, HUMBLING HIMSELF BEFORE HIM?

John was endowed with such great 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 both when the Spirit descended upon him he recognized him, and that, before he came to the baptism, he was not ignorant of him. For he knew him, but whether he himself was the one who was to administer the gift of God promised to the fathers, he did not know — this is what he professes that he then learned, when he saw the Spirit descend upon him. For thus John says that he was instructed by God: upon whomever, he says, you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, he it is who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. The Apostle also attests this: for I say, he says, that Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers. This is that in which John did not know the Lord; for although he was not ignorant of his greatness, yet this lay hidden from him, that through him the faith of Abraham was to be fulfilled.

LVIIII. IF BAPTISM IS A HEAVENLY MYSTERY, WHY, WHEN THE LORD SPEAKS TO NICODEMUS, WHO DOUBTS ABOUT BAPTISM, DOES HE SAY: 'IF I HAVE TOLD YOU EARTHLY THINGS AND YOU DO NOT BELIEVE, HOW, IF I TELL YOU HEAVENLY THINGS, WILL YOU BELIEVE?'

He who thinks that baptism consists in a carnal reckoning is not spiritual; nor will he be able to obtain the heavenly gift, who does not believe that he is transformed not through water, but through faith. For the water is seen, but it is the Spirit, who is not seen, that works, so that faith may be in it. For just as water washes away the filth of the body, so the Spirit washes the soul from sins, so that as visible things profit visible things, so the Spirit may profit spiritual things as well. And through this a spiritual reckoning is at work in baptism. For there is more there that is heard than is seen.

Since therefore Nicodemus, being constrained by a carnal reckoning, doubted at this point, the Savior, in order to draw him to faith, made use of a fitting example. So that, to establish an invisible thing, he might give a visible example, one that consists in hearing alone, not in sight; and it is not denied, and yet it is earthly, because it works a thing of the world. Therefore the Lord said to Nicodemus, persuading him: the Spirit breathes where it wills. And you hear its voice, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so is everyone who is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit — so that, just as the voice of the coming spirit, that is, of the wind, is indeed heard but not seen, as has been said, so also the reckoning of baptism is heard in what is said, yet how it comes about through the Spirit is not seen; nevertheless it is heard when something that is to be is proclaimed by the one who imparts the words, so that what is heard may be believed to come about, and yet the reckoning of the deed is not rendered.

Now, when Nicodemus was not led to faith even by the illustration, he then hears from the Savior: "If," he says, "I have spoken to you of earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I speak to you of heavenly things?" He called those words earthly which he had brought forward as an illustration. That is: "If, by the earthly reasoning of the illustration given — the breath of the wind — you do not believe that it can happen, because how it happens is not seen, how could it be that, if I were to give heavenly illustrations, which assuredly you do not know, you would believe?" For a man can be persuaded of what he does not know through that which he does know; as, for example, God says of Christ that he is his true Son, whereas how this is cannot be comprehended; but through that which we do know — namely, how, according to the flesh, sons come to be — we therefore believe that God has said, "Christ is my true Son," so as to signify that he is from his very self. In this way the Savior too wished to commend a matter which can be explained neither in words nor in the mind, through that which is perceptible and is heard by the ears — that is, through the illustration of the spirit, which is the wind, which sensation grasps and the ear hears, but does not know whence it comes; he wished to make believable the working of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be grasped.

But also in the Acts of the Apostles it is read in the same way: "And suddenly," it says, "there came a sound from heaven as of a strong wind coming, and it filled the whole house," and the rest. Behold, plainly by the illustration of the wind he intimates that the Holy Spirit thus came from heaven and sounded, in the manner in which a strong wind sounds over the earth. For Jeremiah too calls the wind a spirit, saying: "The wind blows in every region." And this wind, because it is in this world and is carried about through various places, we do not know whence it comes or whither it goes. But the Holy Spirit comes from heaven, as we read, to enlighten those who believe.

How then does it seem to certain people that the Savior spoke concerning the Holy Spirit: "The Spirit blows where it wills, and you hear its voice, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes," when it is established that the Savior spoke these things by way of illustration? For then he added: "So it is," he says, "with everyone who has been reborn of water and the Holy Spirit." What is so plain as that he signified the wind by the spirit? But they think that the wind was not signified for this reason, because he says: "It blows where it wills," as if not every creature, under the law set for it, has been left to its own free choice. For we too go and do what we will, acting under law. Wherefore we too shall render an account — or is it thought possible, and does it not even seem foolish, that, wishing to intimate the working of the Holy Spirit, he should give that very Spirit as the illustration? Therefore I judge the question solved in every respect.

LX. IF "THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN," HOW DOES THE SAVIOR SEND TO THE PRIESTS TO HAVE GIFTS OFFERED FOR THE CLEANSING OF LEPROSY?

This indeed was not a matter of time, but was done for the condemnation of the Jews, so that, since they did not understand that the summit of truth belonging to a better time had been brought about for the profit of their salvation, the truth might bend down to their accusation. For since they regarded the Savior as an enemy of the Law, because for mercy's sake he wished to free them from the burden of the Law—just as had been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah, for he says among other things: and I will give them a new testament, not such as I gave to their fathers—then the Savior, lest he should appear an enemy, as they supposed, by preaching new things, sent the man who had been cleansed of leprosy to the priests to offer gifts for his cleansing, just as Moses had commanded. And that he might testify that this would serve for their accusation, for a testimony, he says, to them, so that in judgment this matter might be a witness against them who called the Savior an enemy of the Law. In this the apostle Paul also followed. For although he preached that it was no longer necessary to be circumcised, he himself circumcised Timothy on account of the offense of the Jews—for he preferred to do a superfluous thing rather than that a tumult should be stirred up by false brethren—which indeed served the error of the Jews. For enough was done for them for the moment, through which they might err forever.

LXI. HOW IS IT THAT, WHEN THE JEWS ACCUSED THE DISCIPLES BECAUSE THEY VIOLATED THE SABBATH BY RUBBING EARS OF GRAIN WITH THEIR HANDS AND EATING THEM, THE SAVIOR BROUGHT FORWARD THE EXAMPLE OF DAVID, THAT HE ATE THE LOAVES WHICH IT WAS NOT LAWFUL FOR HIM TO EAT BUT ONLY FOR THE PRIESTS, THROUGH WHICH THEY DO NOT SEEM TO BE EXCUSED, BUT RATHER TO BE MADE GUILTY TOGETHER WITH DAVID, SEEING THAT DAVID DID NOT EVEN DO THIS ON THE SABBATH?

The Savior wishes to convict the hypocrisy of the Jews by many examples, showing that greater things were committed under the Law and that no one dared to accuse them, so that he might show not only once and again the Sabbath violated under the Law, but also the priestly bread unlawfully taken with the priest himself granting it, and, what is greater, by men of lofty authority. For first Joshua the son of Nun by divine command did not keep the Sabbath, and by this deed the walls of Jericho fell of their own accord. How much it profited not to have kept the Sabbath, but to have kept faith! And the Maccabees, when they had first been cut down, fought on the Sabbath and triumphed over their enemies; and the priests, in order to attend to the Lord's ceremonies, disregarded the Sabbath in the temple. But David, now anointed as king, after he had by the power of God despoiled with arms the slain foreigner, being set upon a journey and suffering the necessity of hunger, received bread from the priest, which it was not lawful for him to eat—but apart from necessity it was not lawful; it was, however, lawful if necessity demanded it—; finally the priest, seeing the necessity, did not refuse, and David, chosen by God, received it without hesitation.

Such also is the case of the sabbath, which is why circumcision on the sabbath is likewise not forbidden. For these things, which are not dangerous, are commanded to be observed in such a way that no harm is done if they are transgressed out of necessity, because they are commanded not for salvation but for reverence; but that which is altogether unlawful is always unlawful and is not softened by any necessity, so that when committed it might do no harm. For that is always unlawful which is prohibited by the laws because it is criminal. But those former things, which we said are sometimes permitted, are such as the lawful fasts, which, when broken out of necessity, do not render people guilty, if there be a cause of the stomach or the weakness of fevers. Knowing these things, therefore, the deceitful Jews accused the disciples, as though they were violating the sabbath, as was said above. But the Savior did not wish to prejudge them concerning the time of the law now fulfilled, lest they should leap forth still further into madness; rather, concerning the past, whence they thought the sabbath was the more to be vindicated, he showed them to be slanderers, and they were confounded not only in the matter of the sabbath, but also in that of the priestly bread, as was shown above.

LXII. HOW IS IT THAT, WHEN THE SONS OF LEAH, WHO WERE OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH, HAD BEEN SLAIN, RACHEL IS SAID TO BEWAIL HER OWN SONS?

As far as pertains to the history, the sons of Rachel, of the tribe of Benjamin, were long ago, for their own crimes—namely, the deeds of the Sodomites, and the rape which they had committed against the concubine of the Levite man—destroyed and blotted out by the remaining tribes. For which reason she is said to refuse to receive consolation, knowing there is no hope for those who are known to have perished. But the sons of Leah were slain in their earliest years for the Savior's sake, whence he does not wish the lamentation to be ascribed to their case, because they were slain both innocent and for God's sake, by whom without doubt, by way of a reward, they were granted eternal life. Wherefore the lamentation belongs to the sons of Rachel, who were blotted out both in the present and in the future, whereas those others, bewailed carnally, were consoled spiritually; but the sons of Rachel, having lived carnally, shall be consumed by spiritual flames. And for this reason the evangelist testifies that Rachel's lamentation was fulfilled when the sons of Leah were slain, because she then began to bewail her own sons when she saw the sons of her sister slain in such a cause, that they might stand forth as heirs of eternal life. For one to whom something adverse befalls from another's good fortune mourns his own misfortunes the more wretchedly.

LXIII. BY WHAT REASONING DID THE CHALDEAN MAGI UNDERSTAND, THROUGH THE APPEARING OF A STAR, THAT CHRIST, THE KING OF THE JEWS, HAD BEEN BORN, WHEN BY A STAR AS A SIGN A KING IS CUSTOMARILY INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE TIMES?

These Chaldean magi observed the course of the stars not out of malevolence, but out of curiosity about things. For, as we are given to understand, they were following the tradition of Balaam, who, when he had been summoned by Balak to curse the people of God, by divine prompting began to bless. Therefore from his account they had learned that by God's providence one would come from Jacob who would reign. For he — a thing which is not hidden — prophesied, saying: A star shall rise out of Jacob, and the rest. Following, then, this tradition, the magi, seeing the star outside the order of the world, understood that this was the one which Balaam had prophesied would be the sign of the King of the Jews — which indeed came to pass against the enemies of religion. For from that source it received testimony from which it is wont to be disproved; for the astrologers are enemies of the truth.

LXIIII. IN WHAT WAY IS IT PROVED THAT THE SAVIOR ROSE FROM THE DEAD AFTER THREE DAYS AND NIGHTS?

In this matter, if you look for the number according to a strict sequence of days and nights, you will not arrive at a satisfactory understanding, because Moses too fasted forty days and forty nights, and yet the full number is not found. For when he ascended during a day and descended during a day, he assuredly did not complete the whole number; but because, where there is a day, the night also is reckoned, and where there is a night, the day also is reckoned, so that from a part to the whole they are called forty days and forty nights. So it is also with what the Savior said, so that, because there are three nights, three days too are reckoned. For there is a night — lest perhaps it seem novel or contrary to reason — since night depends on day. For that it was instituted before the making of the light, from which it was called "day," rather than before the evening, which night follows, is by no means doubted.

That the Lord's passion is affirmed to take its beginning from night is not absurd; for just as light, that is, day, is the image of life, so night is the likeness of death, that is, darkness, as is plainly shown in the Scriptures, namely: sons of light and, on the contrary: of darkness. Nor is it any wonder if, although everywhere day is set before night and light before darkness, here alone the things that are subsequent are placed before the things that are prior, or that in such a matter the order of things is confused and changed, so that the night, as the standard-bearer of death, seems to be more than the day — for indeed the beginning is taken from night — since one could not otherwise steal in upon the prince of darkness except through night, and so that to some extent the Lord of light, that is, of eternal life, might be for a time made subject to the prince of darkness or of death, insofar as he might free from death both those of the past and those to come afterward. For death would not have been utterly emptied, nor the gloom of darkness ever dispersed, if it had not seen the Lord. For with so great a light stealing in, the secret place of death, in which it held dominion, vanished; nor can it be utterly conquered except by one who is seized either through his own or in his own. Rightly, therefore, in such a business does the night alone hold the primacy, in such a way that it should lose its power. And so that the Jews, not believing, might remain in perpetual night, and that the night, not the day, might become the author of so great a crime — nay rather of sacrilege — the day is made subject to the preceding night against the sequence of things, just as God and Lord of all things was made subject to the prince of wicked death, that he might release all from the snares of death.

Now if perchance this still seems contrary to someone, let him attend carefully, lest he begin to judge too harshly the fact that God, clothing himself in the person of a servant — I will not say of a man — gave himself over to death. Why then do you here seek order, where you see that all things are contrary? For what is the light which was in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it, by which it was seized? For he who knows that he is being seized for this purpose, that he be struck down, counts that time unto death. There is also the following day, on which he was heard and crucified; there is also the night that falls upon the Sabbath; there is also the Sabbath itself; there is also the evening after the Sabbath — this is what was commanded to the Jews by Moses in a figure, that they should enter into the Sabbath in the evening —, on which the Lord rose again, which embraces the Lord's Day, because a night is not reckoned without a day nor a day without a night. By this reckoning, after three days and three nights the Lord rose again.

LXV. IF THE EVANGELISTS SPOKE WITH ONE MOUTH AND ONE REASONING, HOW DID IT COME ABOUT THAT, WHILE THREE SAY — THAT IS, 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?

It is not good to wrap up truths in obscurities. For the three evangelists had one meaning, but Mark wished to make known a matter which had been passed over by them, knowing it to be necessary. For he could not be deceived, who, following the examples of the authors, learned with great devotion and diligence the things which he wrote, and was not without the Holy Spirit. What therefore he wished to show from this ought to be resolved. It must therefore be considered that the Savior was crucified not by Pilate, but by the Jews. Now as far as pertained to the Roman laws, they pronounced the Savior innocent. For Pilate said to the Jews: I find no cause in him; and when they said, Crucify him, he replied: Why, what evil has he done? Finally, persisting and wishing to lead him out of their hands, he suffered slander when they said: If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend. For everyone who makes himself a king contradicts Caesar. Thus it came about that he handed him over to their judgment. Therefore it was not Pilate who gave the sentence, but the Jews.

Finally, they were forewarned, he says, by the chief priests, that they should say: Let him be crucified. He wishes this sentence to be understood as given at the third hour, in which, persisting with unceasing shouts, yet with an interval of about three hours, during which there was a going and returning from Herod, they crucified the Savior. For everyone who is condemned is from then already counted as dead, from the moment he receives the sentence. Mark therefore made manifest that the Savior was not crucified by the sentence of the judge. For it is difficult to prove him innocent who is punished by the sentence of a judge. He therefore allowed himself to be in discord in a word, so that he might teach that what was completed at the sixth hour had been begun at the third hour, not by the laws, but by the persisting malevolence of the Jews.

LXVI. THE EVANGELIST MARK SAYS THAT THE DEMONS KNEW AND CONFESSED JESUS, BUT THE APOSTLE, ON THE CONTRARY, DENIES THAT THE PRINCES AND POWERS OF THIS WORLD KNEW THE DIVINITY OF THE LORD JESUS. FOR MARK SAYS, AMONG OTHER THINGS: 'FOR THEY KNEW HIM TO BE'; BUT THE APOSTLE SAYS: 'WHOM NONE OF THE PRINCES OF THIS WORLD KNEW; FOR IF THEY HAD KNOWN, THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF MAJESTY.' IF THE DEMONS KNEW, HOW DID THE PRINCES NOT KNOW?

To some it seems that 'the princes of this world' signified the leaders of the Jews, as though in accord with what the apostle Peter said: for you know, brethren, he says, that through ignorance you did this evil, as also did your princes. Therefore they were princes of the Jews, yet not of this world. For he says 'your princes', not of the world, seeing that they said they had Caesar as king, under whose power they had been brought. But these princes are those whom the apostle signified in another place, saying: our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of these darknesses of this world. Rightly, therefore, is the question raised. For if these did not know Jesus, how could it come about that the demons recognized him?

But it is one thing that he says the demons knew in Christ, and another that he denies the princes of this world recognized. For the demons indeed knew him to be the very one who had been promised through the law. For they saw in him all the signs which the prophets had foretold would come, and that from the seed of David, from a virgin, the redeemer of Israel would come: but the mystery of his divinity they did not know, just as neither did their princes. Finally, the devil asks the savior — though craftily — saying: if you are the son of God, and the rest. For seeing at one time his divine power, at another the weakness of the man, being in doubt as to what was true, he was tormented. Therefore the scriptures agree according to those things which have been revealed. For it is impossible that men of one spirit should disagree.

LXVII. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE SAVIOR'S SAYING WHEN PLACED ON THE CROSS: 'FATHER, FORGIVE THEM; FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO'? IF THEY DO NOT KNOW, WHAT IS IT THAT IS FORGIVEN, ESPECIALLY SINCE KING ABIMELECH SAYS TO GOD: 'WILT THOU DESTROY AN IGNORANT NATION?'

Not everyone who is ignorant is free from punishment. For that man can be excused from punishment who has found no one from whom he might learn; but for these he asks that this be forgiven, because, having someone from whom they might learn, they gave no heed. Ignorance of this kind is not permitted: therefore they will receive pardon if they are converted.

LXVIII. THE LORD ASSUREDLY TAUGHT THAT WE SHOULD PRAY FOR OUR ENEMIES: HOW IS IT THAT, ON THE CONTRARY, THE SOULS OF THE SLAIN ASK TO AVENGE THEMSELVES, DEMANDING VENGEANCE FROM GOD?

Thus the souls of the slain cry out, demanding that they be avenged, just as the blood of Abel cried out from the earth. They are, therefore, causes which are said to cry out, even though they cannot speak. For what else does the blood that has been shed demand than that it be avenged, crying out not with a voice, but by reason? For a work too is said to praise its maker through this very fact, that it delights the one who beholds it. For the saints are not so impatient as to press for something to be done which they know will come to pass at a predetermined time, which can neither be anticipated nor deferred. But by saying this he wished to show that God will avenge the blood of his saints, lest — because he now seems so patient — the impious war that is waged against the saints be thought to go unpunished; so that he might both strike terror into those who persecute God's servants and encourage those who suffer for his sake. For the soul of the one who suffers is relieved when it hears that it will be avenged by one who is powerful. For he displays it openly, if he hears that his death is displeasing to the judge; for then he holds it for certain that he is innocent. And God indeed is merciful and patient, but with measure. For he waits that the impious may believe and that sinners may amend themselves; but if not, they shall be punished, because they have despised God's long patience.

He showed an example of this matter even in the time when mercy was proclaimed, lest he should seem not patient, but insensible, and one whom neither anyone's grief nor piety would seem to move. Hence it is that he says through the prophet: I have held my peace; shall I always hold my peace? And the Lord says: Shall not God, he says, take vengeance for his servants who cry to him day and night? Thus indeed they cry out, just as we said above. If, therefore, any Christian avenges for a time, not harshly nor with blood, he does not sin; yet he will do better if he leaves it to God the judge.

LXVIIII. IF THE LAW HAS ALREADY CEASED WITH JOHN OR THE SAVIOR PREACHING, HOW DOES THE SAVIOR SAY: 'I HAVE NOT COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS, BUT TO FULFILL'? FOR IF IT HAS BEEN PROHIBITED, HOW HAS IT NOT BEEN ABOLISHED, SINCE IT HAS LOST THE AUTHORITY OF ACTING?

All the things that were said concerning Christ have been fulfilled. And the Lord himself thus fulfilled the law and the prophets, when he did all the things that were written concerning himself and dissolved nothing, but confirmed it. For the law and the prophets were until him. For the prophets spoke concerning him; therefore the things that were said by them concerning him cannot be extended beyond him, nor could any prophets of this kind be found after him, because they have nothing about which to speak, and he of whom they were speaking has already come. For they embraced all things in their volumes, and they revealed both the incarnation and the manner of life and the passion and the resurrection and the manifestation of the divinity and his future judgment, and through this the prophets ceased once the work of the dispensation was fulfilled.

But the Law ceased in a twofold manner, and indeed not wholly; for even that which ceased will be able to remain, if the condition be kept. For one part ceased in its sentence, another in the Law itself. When John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, the sentence of the Law ceased, which held sinners guilty; there ceased also the burdens of the Law, which had been given, because of the hardness of the Jewish heart, in the matter of foods, new moons, and weasels. For when mercy came, vengeance ceased. But the burdens of the Law ceased forever, whereas the sentence ceases and is abolished for those who remain in the benefit they have obtained. Yet for those who return to the old man the authority of the Law is chafed open again, because, unmindful of the benefits, they return under the sentence of the Law.

But circumcision and the sabbath held good up until that time in which the commandment of the new law should be preached. For they were given in such a way that, when the law of faith came, they would cease. Whence the apostle says: Christ is the end of the Law. For Daniel too signifies this, when he prophesies concerning the coming of the Lord and the times of the weeks, that both the chrism and the judgment and the sacrifice and the city itself would cease. For, the spiritual law having come, it was necessary that the carnal things should cease. For then God was served by a part of the body, now by a part of the soul; formerly visibly, now invisibly; then in the flesh, now in the mind, because God, who is assuredly spirit, must be served in spirit. Therefore the Law has not been abrogated because it ceased, but was succeeded when its time was fulfilled. For neither its administration nor its judgment is blamed if indulgence is given to sinners, since rather from this it is proved to have been rightly and justly given, because those over whom it ruled are not denied to have been sinners: because, he says, the Law is not laid down for the just.

Therefore, it is not to be thought that, because mercy is to be preferred, justice ought to be condemned—justice, without reverence for which mercy itself would bear no fruit. For unless they keep this justice after mercy has been received, forgiveness will profit them nothing. For the Law said: You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor worship the things that are above in heaven and the things that are below on earth, and: You shall not swear falsely, and: Honor your father and mother, and: You shall not kill, nor commit fornication, nor commit theft, you shall not give false testimony, nor covet anything of your neighbor's. Are these to be said to have ceased? Far from it. For without these, who could be judged fit even in this life? And accordingly the other things have ceased which we mentioned above—new moons, sabbaths, the law of foods, sacrifices, circumcision, and the rest. Hence it is that the Apostle says, among other things: Rulers are not a terror to good work, but to evil. Do you wish, then, not to fear the power? Do good, and you shall have praise from it. These things, when kept, make men good, yet not perfect. Whence the Savior says: Unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. For by adding to these the more excellent things, the Savior did not by any means abolish the Law, but fulfilled it. For the meaning of the Law pertains to the salvation of man, as for instance: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, so that a man, fearing lest he suffer what another was forbidden to do, might restrain himself from wickedness. But the Savior, adding a higher justice to this meaning, says: But I say to you, not to resist evil; but if anyone strike you on your right cheek, offer him the left also, so that, while he does not return like for like to the evil man, he may be perfect. For to return like for like is just, but not full; but if he overlook the injury, the justice is full and abounding. For to repay is a rejoicing for a time; but to remit provides gladness for the future.

Thus, then, the Savior fulfilled the Law, since those whom it taught justice, he made more just—which it could not do—wherefore the joy of the Law is that its disciples were made more skilled. He would plainly have destroyed the Law, if he had taught that one may sin with impunity. But moreover he suspended the sentence, so that he who does evil might have space for repenting; if not, the sentence returns upon him heaped up, because he did not recognize that he was granted this reprieve in order that he might amend himself.

LXX. THE LORD CERTAINLY COMMANDED US TO BECOME ENEMIES TO THE DEVIL; HOW THEN IS IT THAT IN THE GOSPEL HE SAYS: 'BE QUICKLY AGREEING WITH YOUR ADVERSARY'? WHO IS MAN'S ADVERSARY BUT THE DEVIL?

There is no doubt that the devil is the enemy of man, especially of the faithful; for he sharpens his more violent weapons against the servants of God. Just as, therefore, this one is the enemy of the good, so also the law is opposed to the wicked. For who does not oppose one who despises him? The Lord therefore addresses the sinner, that he may consent to the commandments — which condemn him as disobedient — that he may subject himself to their will and, from an enemy, become a friend, since the despiser of the law is also its enemy; for he resists its will. And therefore the Lord exhorts the sinner, that by acting well he may reconcile the law to himself, lest on the day of judgment it accuse him before the judge and, condemned, he pay the penalties for the law he has scorned. For to everyone who wishes to act wickedly the Lord's discipline seems an enemy; and unless he consents to it, he will be cast into the Gehenna prepared for the devil, who is truly the enemy of the human race.

LXXI. JACOB WAS CALLED THE MAN WHO SEES GOD, AND MOSES SAW GOD FACE TO FACE, AND LIKEWISE ISAIAH: 'I HAVE SEEN,' HE SAYS, 'THE GOD OF SABAOTH WITH MY OWN EYES': BUT ON THE CONTRARY JOHN THE EVANGELIST: 'GOD,' HE SAYS, 'NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN.' THIS, AS IT SEEMS, IS CONTRADICTORY.

As far as pertains to the truth of the faith, no one has ever seen God at all, neither the Father nor the Son. For what is said to be "seen" is referred to the understanding; for he was seen as if in an image. Just as we, when we do not know emperors, see them in a likeness, not in reality, so also God was seen, so that he who appeared might be understood to be God, through reasoning, not through substance, since in his own nature God cannot be seen. And that we may more truly unfold the hidden things of the proposed question, let us strive to explain the meaning of the evangelist. For John wished to bring forth something hidden, which he knew pertained to saving doctrine. Therefore he says: God no one has ever seen, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. He himself has declared him.

Let us consider the meaning of the evangelist. For in order to show that it is true that no one has ever seen God, he teaches that the Son has declared this — the Son, who indeed cannot possibly be deceived, since he is in the bosom of the Father. But what is the bosom of the Father, if not the affection in the love of the true Father toward the Son through the unity of nature? For which reason 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. Therefore, that it might avail for the condemnation of the Jews, who were unwilling to hear or to believe that Christ is the Son of God, the evangelist showed that this is the Christ who had appeared to the fathers as God; but that he who is the Father is never seen except by the Son. For when he denies that God the Father was seen and professes that God appeared to the fathers, the Son of God wishes to make himself manifest, since he himself was always seen as God by the fathers. Hence it is that among other things he says to the Jews concerning the Father: neither have you ever heard his voice nor seen his form. Behold, it is not contradictory for God to be both seen and unseen.

LXXII. (LXXVI). IN THE GOSPEL JOHN SAYS: 'THE LAW WAS GIVEN THROUGH MOSES, BUT GRACE AND TRUTH WERE MADE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST': THEREFORE BEFORE IT DID NOT EXIST. HOW THEN CAN THE LAW BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY GOD, IF THE TRUTH WAS NOT IN IT?

This is not to be passed over so casually, but it must be considered what 'the law was given through Moses' means. For the law given through Moses has manifest precepts, but he also wrote a history, which itself too is called law. And let us see what in his precepts will not be true. Perhaps that which it says: you shall not kill, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal; such are these and the rest. For as to his history, that before the coming of Christ it was not truth, this is manifest. For those things which were under a veil, what they signified, was uncertain. But when through Christ it is made manifest whose person it is that says in Genesis: let us make, and who it is that makes, and who it was that was seen in the bush or among the patriarchs, and who it was that worked in the rock, which gave waters in the desert — because the rock, he says, was Christ — thus truth is made through Christ. When those things which lay hidden or came into doubt, what they signified, was shown by Christ. For among other things the Lord says: Moses wrote of me. This before lay hidden; for there was error. For he was thought to be God the Father who was the Son, and he who was reckoned an angel was recognized to be the Son of God. And a promise had been made to Abraham, which, as long as it was not paid back, was in ambiguity. But when it was paid back at the coming of Christ, truth was made, when both that which was promised was rendered and it began to be known what had been promised. For the good faith of the one promising is then proved true, when he discharges the promise.

LXXIII. (LXXVII). WHAT IS IT THAT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE EVANGELIST MARK SAYS ABOUT CHRIST: 'ENTERING', HE SAYS, 'INTO A HOUSE HE WISHED NO ONE TO KNOW, AND HE COULD NOT BE HIDDEN'? IF THEREFORE HE WISHED AND COULD NOT, HIS WILL SEEMS TO BE WEAKENED.

It is altogether impossible that the Savior's will should not be fulfilled, nor can he will what he knows ought not to be done; therefore that which was done, this he must be said to have willed. For his will is never outside his nature. As therefore his nature does not fall under reproach, neither does his will. For that which was set forth is read to have been done in the borders of Tyre. Then he entered into a house and wished no one to know. Now it is asked in what way or why he wished no one to know. For it must be observed that this was done in the borders of the Gentiles, for whom the time of preaching was not yet. Finally, sending his disciples, he charged them, saying: go not into the way of the Gentiles, and enter not into the city of the Samaritans, but go rather to the sheep which have perished of the house of Israel.

For this reason he did not wish to be disclosed as being in the house; yet he did not refuse to be sought out, but willingly accepted it. For although it was not the time for preaching to the Gentiles, still it would have been a mark of envy not to receive those who came of their own accord to the faith. Thus it came about that the Savior, while he was not disclosed by his disciples, was nevertheless disclosed by others who had seen him entering the house, and it began to be known that he was in the house, so that those who wished to obtain benefits might come in to him. By his own, then, he did not wish to be proclaimed as being in the house. For he did wish to be sought out, and so it was done. For it was not hidden, once it was pointed out by others that he was in the house. And so the Canaanite woman, hearing about him, came in to him, begging that he would drive out the demon from her daughter—who, unless she had first subjected herself to the God of the Jews, would not have obtained the benefit. The will of the Savior, therefore, was fulfilled in accordance with what we have explained; for those things which the evangelist, aiming at brevity through compression, has drawn together, we, examining them, find what lay hidden.

LXXIIII. (LXXVIII). IT IS READ IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. THAT WHEN THE SAVIOR HAD DENIED THAT HE WOULD GO UP TO THE FEAST DAY, HE WENT UP. THIS SEEMS TO BE THE MARK OF AN INCONSTANT PERSON.

You always conceal the sense by an abbreviated statement. For this which you call into question happened at the time when, being situated in Galilee on account of the tumult of the Jews, he was being urged by his brothers—who did not yet believe in him—to go up into Judea, because the feast day of the Jews was going to be at hand, so that he might suffer sedition. But he himself answered them, saying: Go you up to the feast day, for the world does not hate you; but me it hates, because I convict its works. I do not go up to this feast day, because my time is not yet fulfilled. Then his brothers went up to the feast day, but he himself remained in Galilee. Afterward, however, he too went up to the feast day.

What seems contrary, when he did not go up at the time when he denied it, but went up afterward, and went up not as to a feast day, but as to a conflict? For they all went up joyfully, as if to enjoy the delights of the feast day. It is certain, therefore, that he did not go up to the feast day. But that was the Savior's feast day, on which by his passion he redeemed the world. And so he says: Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. This is his feast day, on which he conquered death.

LXXV. (LXXIX). IF WE LIVE BY OUR OWN CHOICE, WHY DID THE SAVIOR SAY: 'NO ONE COMES,' HE SAYS, 'TO ME, UNLESS THE FATHER WHO SENT ME HAS DRAWN HIM,' AND THE APOSTLE, AGREEING WITH THESE: 'IT IS NOT OF HIM THAT WILLS,' HE SAYS, 'NOR OF HIM THAT RUNS, BUT OF GOD THAT SHOWS MERCY,' AND: 'ON WHOM HE WILLS HE HAS MERCY, AND WHOM HE WILLS HE HARDENS'? IN WHAT WAY IS THE CHOICE OF THE WILL FREE, WHEN BY ANOTHER'S BIDDING IT IS LED EITHER TO GOOD OR TO EVIL?

The matter stands otherwise than it has been set forth; for the meaning of this question is not that which you allege. For in no way can the case of free will be disturbed by these words, because if you thoroughly attend to the sense of what is said, you will know that from here the doctrine of free will is rather confirmed. For these things were uttered against the malevolent Jews. For when, out of the deceit of a pretense arising from envy, they asserted that Joseph was the Savior's own father and his sons the Savior's brothers, lest he should be believed to be the Son of God, then the Savior said: No one comes to me, unless the Father who sent me has drawn him. But in what way did the Father draw men to the Son, except through the works which he did through him? For thus he said: The Father, remaining in me, himself works — so that these works might draw them to faith in Christ. For the mighty deeds which the Savior did, these themselves persuaded men that God was the Father of Christ, so that whoever said that he had another father was not drawn by God to Christ. Therefore, then, God was working through Christ, so that credit might be lent to his words, by which he called himself the Son of God.

This is the drawing — not violence, but the testimony of God in Christ; and whoever has believed this is said to be drawn by him to Christ. For no one believes the Savior except him who calls God his own Father. For the apostle spoke these things which you have brought forward into the question not in order to strike down free will, but in order to forbid a man to call into question the judgment of God; he said these things, proclaiming God just; for he knows on whom he ought to have mercy. And he who inspects the heart sees through the mind of the one who asks, whether he deserves to receive. Finally, he says through the prophet: This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. For it is just that the mind of the pretender be hardened. For he who calls the true false not through error but through malevolence, so that, understanding the good, he feigns that he does not know it to be good, in order that he may turn it into evil — to such a one this indeed ought to be granted, that he truly not understand the good, lest he be saved, which he does not will. For neither is it just that he be saved against his will, who spurns salvation not through ignorance but through malice or envy. By these things, therefore, free will is confirmed rather than destroyed, so that to each one it may be answered according to his own wish.

LXXVI. (LXXII). 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). WHAT IS THIS BOOK, WHICH MAKES THE BELLY BITTER, THOUGH IT IS SWEET?

All the divine books are bitter, but to the faithless and carnal. For to idolaters it is unpleasant when they hear one God proclaimed in Christ. And Photinus at the same time is thoroughly frightened, seized with dread; Sabellius too blushes when he hears that the Father is a Father who cannot be called the Son, because from him are all things; but that the Son is on this account called Son, because he is not indeed himself the Father, but is from the Father, not the one from whom, but the one through whom are all things. Arius too is refuted, when he reads that Christ is the true Son of God; for without doubt he could not be called true, unless he were properly from God. Marcion also is convicted, learning that the Word was made flesh — he who thinks that flesh must be denied to Christ. The wicked Manichaeus too is confuted, seeing it written by the evangelist that the Savior not only adorned the vows of marriage by his presence, but even honored them with cups — he who bars the approach to marriage and exhorts to meeting together promiscuously.

These things are contained in the book which the apostle received to devour. This book is the Gospel which is titled ACCORDING TO JOHN, which is bitter not only to those who think ill, but also to the undisciplined, who refuse to be corrected, so that they advance for the worse. This revelation was made at the time when the apostle John was on the island of Patmos, banished by the emperor Domitian for the sake of the faith. Then he was in the spirit, so that he could see heavenly things, and while these things are shown to him, which are to come to pass because of impiety and debauchery and the rest. There was given to him a book which was indeed sweet in the mouth, but made the belly bitter, so that of those men who seem to be of one body, to some it was sweet. Those, because they are of upright profession, were signified in the mouth — for this is sweet in the mouth, which is true —, but to those who by heretical depravity live or think carnally, because of which they were also signified in the belly, it was bitter. For it will accuse them on the day of God's judgment. After the revelation, therefore, he was commanded to write the gospel on account of these things which we said above. And to the prophet Ezekiel likewise it was said, that he should take a book which was sweet in his mouth, when he was sent to rebuke the faithlessness of the people.

LXXVII. (LXXIII). WHAT IS THE MEANING OF WHAT SIMEON SAYS TO MARY THE MOTHER OF THE LORD, AMONG OTHER THINGS: 'THIS ONE,' HE SAYS, 'IS SET FOR THE FALL AND RESURRECTION OF MANY IN ISRAEL; AND A SWORD SHALL PIERCE THROUGH THY OWN SOUL, THAT THE THOUGHTS OF MANY HEARTS MAY BE REVEALED'?

Symeon, a holy man commended also by divine oracles, spoke through the Holy Spirit of what was to come upon men on account of Christ: that to those who seemed to themselves to stand firm through observance and expertise in the law, He would be a ruin — for through their distrust of the works of Christ they would fall, cut off from the promise of the fathers — but to those who were of almost no standing in the law, yet believed in Christ, there would be a resurrection in Israel, so that those who were previously unworthy and useless might become worthy of God, and those who were thought to be something might be rejected. This is what the Lord says in another place: For judgment I have come into this world, that they who see not may see, and they who see may become blind. And indeed it was not the doctors of the law, not the Pharisees, not the scribes who followed Christ, but fishermen, unlearned and rustic men. Hence it is that the Lord says: Father, I give thanks to thee, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones.

But as for what he added, saying: and a sword shall pierce through thy own soul, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed, this surely signified that even Mary, through whom the mystery of the Savior's incarnation was accomplished, would doubt at the Lord's death — yet in such a way that she might be strengthened by the resurrection. For all doubted, seized by a certain amazement, at the Lord's death. For who would not waver, seeing Him who called Himself the Son of God so humbled that He descended even to death? And because, as I have said, all wavering was to depart at the Lord's resurrection, he said the sword would 'pierce through,' not fall upon or strike some passing limb — so that, just as a sword thrust passing close beside a man causes fear, yet does not wound, so too the doubt caused sorrow, yet did not slay, because it did not settle in the soul but passed through, touching the hearts of the disciples as if through a shadow. And indeed Cleopas and Ammaus, going along the way in sorrow, say among other things to the Lord Himself, not knowing that it is the Lord: We were thinking that it was He who was beginning to deliver Israel. They doubted, but as soon as the Lord was recognized the doubt passed away. Similarly it was said also of Joseph, that iron pierced through his soul. This is to escape death, because to doubt concerning God or Christ is death, and thereby he who ceases to doubt escapes death.

LXXVIII. (LXXIV). WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PROPHET ISAIAH SAYS OF CHRIST: 'WHO DID NO SIN'; BUT THE APOSTLE, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS: 'HIM WHO KNEW NO SIN,' HE SAYS, 'HE MADE SIN FOR US'?

As far as the sense is concerned, the questions are different. But the words are in one respect similar, and in another respect discordant. For "he made" and "he did not make" is a contradiction; but "he did not know" and "he did not do" are similar. The prophet therefore spoke in the person of Christ: that he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; but the apostle speaks in the person of God the Father: that him — that is, Christ —, who knew no sin, he made to be sin for us. This is to be understood in two ways. For first he made him sin, when he willed him to be made flesh, so that he whom the lot did not touch might receive a body from sinful flesh, through which he is said to have been made sin. Then, when he offered him for sins, he made him sin. For the victim offered in the Law for sins was called sin.

Christ therefore did not do sin, as the prophet says, but manifestly he himself was made sin, as has been shown. But what is it to offer Christ for us, except to give power to those who wished to kill him? Which was granted for this reason, because it was going to be profitable, so that it might be the cause of his descending to the lower regions to despoil hell of the souls. For it is a superabundant and unheard-of sin to have killed him who not only had in no way sinned, but had also given life to many. The devil, made guilty by this sin, lost his boldness to contradict. For another similar thing is read in the epistle to the Galatians; for among other things: he was made, he says, a curse for us. Made by whom, if not by the Father? For by the judgment of God the cross of Christ is the curse of the Jews; for the death of the Savior cries out their sin. He therefore permitted himself to be fixed to the cross, so that his passion might profit us, so that, going forth from here with his sign, we might in no wise be held by the second death. For death fears even his servants, by whom it was conquered.

LXXVIIII. (LXXV). WHY THE SAVIOR PAID THE DIDRACHMA ONLY FOR HIMSELF AND PETER, AND NOT ALSO FOR THE REST OF THE APOSTLES, SEEING THAT THEY ALL FOLLOWED HIM WITH ALL THEIR OWN POSSESSIONS FORSAKEN?

The didrachma is understood to be a poll-tax on persons, not on estates. For the Savior possessed nothing in the world, although he is the Lord of the world, and when dead he is buried at another's expense; whereas we, to whom the world is foreign, desire to increase our resources, so that as we die we may attest — not only by voice but also by writing — that the world has been seized by us, so that by our own profession we may be condemned by him whose the world is. Hence the Lord: whoever, he says, does not forsake all things and follow me, cannot be my disciple. Whoever therefore so holds his resources that he does not place his hope in them, but is ready to cast them away for the faith, walks the way by which one goes to Christ our Lord.

The didrachma, therefore, was to be exacted from those who were conducting some business or devoting their labor to the crafts. But the Savior, who cared for none of these things, nor his disciples, was by no means one from whom it ought to be exacted. But because the hostile devil was always lying in wait, seeking an occasion, to see whether he might be able to bring down the Savior, he took hold of the minds of the collectors of the didrachma, so that they should do his will — namely, that coming to Peter, who was first among the apostles, they should say that the didrachma had to be paid by their master, though they were free from these burdens (for they were doing nothing in the world that belonged to the world) — so that, since there was no source from which he might pay, either he might be a stumbling-block to them, or at least by the lowliness of a subsidy he might seek someone from whom it might be paid. Then the Lord, in order to show that the devil is improvident and always contrives even against his own self, orders the apostle Peter to go to the sea and to open the mouth of the caught fish, and to find there the amount owed for the exaction; and when this was paid, he not only would not be a stumbling-block to the collectors, nor be brought down through the aid he had had to seek in order to pay, but would also display a sign of the greatest power, through which he might draw to himself those captured by the devil, so that the devil might be tormented by his own scheme and cunning. The collectors of the didrachma therefore say to the apostle Peter: does your master not pay the didrachma? By saying this, they confronted the master, so that he might pay on behalf of all the disciples.

But when the Savior orders it to be given for himself and Peter, he is seen to have paid for all, because, just as in the Savior all were included by reason of his mastership, so also after the Savior all are contained in Peter. For 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, lest you enter into temptation; and to Peter he says: behold, Satan has demanded to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not, and you, when at length you are converted, strengthen your brethren. Why is there any doubt? He was praying for Peter, and was he not praying for James and John, to say nothing of the rest? It is manifest that all are contained in Peter, because in another place also he says: I pray for these whom you have given me, and: I will that where I am they also may be with me.

Now let us see what the didrachma is, that is, what measure of weight or of quantity it is, or in what substance * * * * * * * *

LXXX. SURELY ONE IS EITHER A SON OF GOD OR OF THE DEVIL: THEREFORE ONE IS ALWAYS A SON, BUT SOMETIMES OF GOD, SOMETIMES OF THE DEVIL. WHY THEN WE ARE BORN MUST BE INQUIRED INTO.

The Lord, since the children of Israel often transgressed after being led out of Egypt, being angry, gave a sentence saying that none of them would enter into the land of promise except Caleb and Joshua the son of Nun, who was earlier called Auses. But those who had been born in the desert, these he said would enter, because they knew not good or evil. Now, not to know good or evil is a certain natural simplicity, which has been instructed neither toward good nor toward evil, that is, an ignorance without malice. For we are born without understanding, but our nature has this good, that it is capable of learning the truth. But the son of the devil is he who, being born, is steeped in evil things, so that he pursues those things which are hostile to the Creator, asserting many gods and that sacrifice must be made to them as rulers of the world. If this one comes to his senses and, thinking according to his nature, betakes himself to the Creator, he will be a son of God.

And through this, those who are born are neither sons of God nor of the devil. For what does the Savior say to the Jews: you are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you wish to do? You see, therefore, that men are made sons of the devil by their works and their profession; but that those are sons of God who, confessing that God is the proper Father of Christ, conduct themselves rightly. For thus God established our race, that, though born without understanding, we nevertheless have the possibility of learning either good things or evil, so that we ourselves may acquire for ourselves either evils or goods, so that we may rejoice in ourselves when, acting rightly, we are rewarded, or may impute it to ourselves, if, following depraved things, we are condemned.

LXXXI. THE APOSTLE SAYS: "WE ARE JEWS BY NATURE." HE SHOWS THEREFORE THAT JEWS ARE BORN OF JEWS — I DO NOT SPEAK OF PROSELYTES, WHO, IT IS AGREED, BECOME JEWS. FINALLY, THOSE WHO WERE BORN IN THE WILDERNESS WERE NOT CIRCUMCISED —: IF THEREFORE JEWS ARE BORN OF JEWS, WHY NOT ALSO CHRISTIANS OF CHRISTIANS? FOR PAGANS TOO ARE BORN OF PAGANS.

Not everything that is born is that which it is born from, or that from which it is born. For gold too is born from the earth, and yet it is not earth; and gems, and many other things; and food is born from wood, and an egg from a chicken. But as to why pagans are born from pagans, this is the cause: because every pagan is in ignorance, and he who is born from such a one is without understanding, both are ignorant. But there is this difference between the two: that the begetter is without doubt a blasphemer, and thereby a son of the devil; whereas the newborn infant does not know how to blaspheme, just as it does not know how to bless; yet it is a pagan, because it is without understanding. But from a Jew a Jew is born for this reason, because he is begotten under a devotion to the Creator, just as Adam said of Cain: I have brought forth a man through God. For just as pagans, undevoted to the Creator, give thanks to demons in all things that they do, so too the Jews, as suppliants of God the Creator, praise him in every act of theirs — despicable in this, that they do not know Christ, through whom are all things. In this way too a Jew is born from a Jew; for it is not, as it seems to some, because circumcision makes a Jew. For circumcision is a sign of Judaism, not Judaism itself, since circumcision is not righteousness in Abraham, but a sign of righteousness, so that those born of Abraham might have a sign by which they might be proved to be sons of Abraham — inasmuch as they were called by this name from Judas Maccabaeus, so that not only those of Judah, but also the rest, from all the sons of Jacob, were called Jews, because Judas was a leader to them. And therefore those born as Jews receive the sign, so that they may be understood to be what they are.

. 2. But a Christian is not born from a Christian, for this reason, because the very one who begets was not born, but made a Christian. Wherefore this one too, who is born, must be made, in order to be one. For he is not born through substance, but through faith, which comes to those already born. For ignorance is born with the flesh, but faith is afterward implanted by spiritual reasoning. But it is objected on the contrary: 'if indeed the one who begets was made, he ought now to beget that which he himself is, so that the dignity received might make a lineage. For senators beget senators.' But the dignity of senators has no merit with God, nor does nature itself, that is, substance, obtain the benefit, but the dignity turns on reputation and talk alone. And thereby the talk indeed runs on through the lineage of the flesh, but confers nothing other than an opinion of dignity, just as those too who are consuls or are honored with statues rejoice in vain. But when men become Christians, dignity comes to nature itself, so that the very essence of man may have the eternal benefit of incorruptibility, so that it may be not by opinion alone, but also in effect with God. This is like the case of an eloquent poor man who is in high praise and yet lacks bread or the other necessities. For this is true praise, if the dignity that is sought so profits him that he lacks nothing, while this is granted to his nature, that through itself it may live and live well with no support required; this is truly to become rich and glorious.

LXXXII. THAT THE PAGANS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ELEMENTS IS DOUBTED BY NO ONE: WHAT THEN IS IT THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS: 'WE TOO WERE IN BONDAGE UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THIS WORLD'? IF THEREFORE THE JEWS ALSO WERE IN BONDAGE TO THE ELEMENTS, HOW DID THEY DIFFER FROM THE PAGANS?

It is evident that by the addition or subtraction or alteration of a syllable the sense is perverted. For this reason it is known to all that the pagans worship the elements, but the Jews served God not by means of the elements, but 'under the elements,' on account of the new moons and sabbaths and circumcision and other such things. For these are carnal; for whatever is visible is carnal and belongs to the elements. But because it was done at God's command, God was being served, so that one might come from the visible to the invisible and, having made progress out of this care, might attain to grasping greater things, so that, being trained in these things, they might be made worthy of the spiritual promises. In that part, therefore, which I mentioned above, the Jews served under the elements; from the other part they had a spiritual law, which both forbids sinning and exhorts to the love of the Lord God, who had been promised to them as one who would come to remit their sins.

LXXXIII. IF THROUGH CHRIST THERE IS SALVATION AND TRUE AND PERFECT KNOWLEDGE, WHY DID HE NOT COME EARLIER, SO THAT OUR FOREBEARS TOO, WHO WERE IN IGNORANCE, MIGHT LEARN THE TRUTH? INDEED, AFTER THE COMING OF CHRIST MANY MORE HAVE BEEN SAVED THAN BEFORE. WHENCE, IF HE HAD COME EARLIER, MANY MORE WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. IF THEN IT IS SO, IT SEEMS BLAMEWORTHY.

No slander ought to be brought against one who shows mercy. For it is in the power of the giver, when and how much he wishes to have mercy. For one of this kind ought to be exhorted and stirred by prayers, not called back from a good work by contention. Perhaps there would be no objection, if for this mercy some return were made to him. Would anyone find fault with a physician who expends his medicines and his service for free, or will his slowness be accused by those from whom he was not sought out?

These things indeed we have said according to reason, but the goodness of the Savior does not concern itself with these things on account of human weakness; for it follows its own nature in showing mercy. Therefore he came then, when he ought to have come, following the reasoning of his own will, not of our merits. For if you should weigh our merits, he ought not to have come. He came therefore when he knew both that help ought to be given and that the benefit would be welcome. For if help be given beforehand to one upon whom necessity presses, it will indeed be welcome, yet he will not be very able to know what has been bestowed upon him; but if you bring aid to one placed in the very midst of necessity, he will know what kind of benefit he has obtained. For one rescued from tribulation will render greater thanks, just as if you offer bread to one who is hungry; but if you offer it when he is not hungry, it will certainly not be so welcome.

Therefore it was rightly done that the Lord did not come before. For first he left the human race to make use of its own will, yet not without a witness of himself, because from the very fabric of the world and the yearly gifts, which he decreed should be furnished for human uses through the ministry of the elements, he willed that his own divinity be understood and feared, seeing that even from the propagation of the first man, and then of Enoch and Noah, knowledge of him was upon the earth. But when, through a certain languor of the human race, the knowledge of God had begun to grow obsolete among men and their morals were being changed, he deigned to choose Abraham, in whom there might be a pattern of renewed knowledge of God and of morals. And since reverence was still too sluggish, afterward through Moses he gave the law in writing, which would neither grow obsolete and would strike greater fear. For the fear is greater where the authority is manifest. And because, once the law was received, the nations spurned it, not subjecting themselves to it, nor did those who received it keep it, the Lord, moved by mercy, sent his Son, who, offering himself for them and destroying death, once remission of sins had been granted to all, might offer them justified to God the Father; for it would not have been possible to descend to the lower regions except through death. For neither order nor reason demanded that he who had not died should enter the gates of Tartarus.

Is it not the case that, if someone wishes in his own land to deceive barbarians, he changes himself into their dress, so that he may be thought one of them, and thus he explores in what way he may overthrow them? So it was done also to the devil. Since by an evil practice he had overthrown man, so that he might remain in death, a remedy was found by which he might lose those whom he was wrongfully holding: namely, that one might steal in upon him, and that the one whom he supposed he had killed as a man he might find, among the lower regions, to be God. And when this was done, being found guilty he lost all whom he was holding, and thenceforth the way to heaven was opened.

Behold how much the coming of the Savior profited, so that men, knowing from what peril they have been freed, might without ceasing render thanks to him! But perhaps it may be said, on the contrary: 'If many before the law and after the law, pressed down by sins, gave themselves wholly to the flesh and were worthy to remain in Tartarus, without doubt there were those who by devotion and reverence for the Creator bridled their life by the law of nature. Were not these too detained among the lower regions when they were discharged from this life? But if he had come before, after the death of Adam, with Adam freed—who had sinned first—he would have opened the way to heaven for the rest, so that, because they had lived well, having acknowledged the Creator, the deceased might be received into heaven. It is therefore a loss that Christ did not come before.' That it is a loss is manifest, but ask whether it is just or unjust. For losses are wont to be just, concerning which it is not permitted to complain. Did the thief, caught and condemned according to the law to fourfold, dare to complain? And through this, the loss which the human race suffered was justly done, wherefore it was also permitted.

Wherefore the Savior also ought not to have come at the very beginning. For, so that the devil might not grow proud, a man made by God was set against him as an enemy, in order that, fortified by God's aids—since he was unequal—he might resist him, having received a command. But the devil, with his customary subtlety, pretended not to know what had been commanded by God, and found Eve unstable; and afterwards, promising her that, if they should touch what was forbidden, he would confer divinity upon them, he circumvented them. Then the devil, having overcome man, triumphed; the latter, being conquered, subjected his own race to sin. For which reason it was unjust to take away the spoils from the victor by force, because God does justly whatever he does—and besides, since man had sinned grievously. For by consenting, against the command of the Creator, that he should become a god, he committed idolatry, whereby he sinned against God; and therefore he ought not to have been succored at once, seeing that he had not even repented. For the mercy would not have been welcome, had he not known what he deserved. For although God can do all things, yet he does that which accords with reason, so that he may persevere blameless.

LXXXIIII. WHY, WHILE OBSERVING THE COURSE OF THE MOON IN THE RECKONING OF EASTER, DO WE REPROACH THE PAGANS FOR OBSERVING LUNAR DAYS AND MEASURE?

Far be it that Christians should be said to venerate the stars—Christians, to whom a spiritual worship has been granted, so that, despising the things which are seen, they may be joined to those things which are invisible and supercelestial, so as to transcend all these things, being destined to be with the angels of God. For the worshipers of the stars will either be with those very stars or below them. For how can it come about that anyone should be above the things which he worships? And so the pagans do not observe the computation of the moon, but venerate the moon itself as a goddess, and, supposing that they have grasped the effects of its courses, what is to be done on certain days and what is to be avoided, they have determined to subject their life and conduct in a certain order to its dominion—and these, because they have dared to usurp these things outside the ordination of God, we frequently catch out in error. For God established these luminaries for signs of the seasons, whence we too keep the number of the moon, but do not worship it itself: so that from the fourteenth moon, which according to the law is for us the first, we may observe the reckoning of Easter. For God instituted all things full; 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 of these seven some days may be enclosed from the Preparation up to the Lord's resurrection, so that neither the thirteenth may fall on the Passion, nor the fourteenth on the resurrection, nor the fifteenth—lest the Passion of Christ be before the first moon according to us, nor his resurrection be on any but the first day, on which the world was begun.

For all the times of the world are numbered by the courses of a single week, in which God composed the members and adornments of the world. For in six days he fitted out the world, and on the seventh he rested, which he called the Sabbath. For in these seven days the reckoning and number of the whole world is contained. For always returning into themselves they multiply the number of the times. For after the Sabbath it always begins again from the first day up to the seventh day, that is, the Sabbath, so that it may be learned that the resurrection of the Lord took place on the first day of the world's beginning, which day is called the Lord's Day. For the Lord made that one day, which in the evening, having unrolled into the sevenfold number, begins again, so that after the week it is the first. And this was so decreed from the beginning on account of the mystery of the Lord's incarnation and passion and resurrection. For in the body of the Lord almost the whole world rose again and was restored.

It is settled that we do not worship the moon, but that we keep the number which was established through the course of the moon. But the devil, who is Satan, in order that he might be able to lend some authority to his deceit and to color his lies with a fabricated truth, in the first month in which he knows that the Lord's mysteries must be celebrated—because he is of no mean power—established for the pagans mysteries that they should observe, so that he might hold their souls in error for two reasons: that, because the deceit comes before the truth, the truth might seem to be the deceit, as though prejudging the truth by its antiquity; and because in the first month, in which the Romans have the equinox, just as we also do, that very observance is kept by them, so that they too say that expiation is made through blood, just as we also say it is made through the cross. By this cunning he holds the pagans in error, so that they suppose our truth seems an imitation rather than the truth, as though discovered through emulation by a certain superstition. 'For that cannot', they say, 'be reckoned true which was discovered afterwards'. But because among us there is truth for certain, and this truth exists from the beginning, the signs of miracles and prodigies furnish testimony, so that, with miracle as witness, the wickedness of the devil may be made known. For since it alone is that which easily persuades men of these things, it is set against the cunning and the anticipation of the devil, so that it may reveal his pretense. For no one, even among enemies, would dare to deny that there is truth where miracle appears.

LXXXV. HOW IS IT THAT, ALTHOUGH IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT FROM DAVID DOWN TO THE DEPORTATION OF BABYLON THERE ARE SEVENTEEN GENERATIONS, THE EVANGELIST SAYS FOURTEEN, AHAZIAH BEING PASSED OVER, WHO IS AFTER JORAM THE SON OF JEHOSHAPHAT, AND JOASH THE SON OF AHAZIAH, AND AMAZIAH THE SON OF JOASH?

It should seem credible that the evangelist followed nothing but the sense of the law, and therefore not without reason were these men removed by the evangelist from the number of the rest. For the impiety of these men ran on in such continuity that their wickedness had no interval. From Joram, moreover, the wickedness that began ran on in this way all the way to Uzziah the son of Amaziah, so that there was no support on any side by which, for some part, on account of the father's merit, any one of them might remain in the number of the kings. For Joram, acting wickedly, was on account of Jehoshaphat's merit remitted into the number, and Uzziah, on account of Jotham's merit, was reserved in the number; but the wickedness of those three was continuous against God. Solomon too, on account of his father's merit, was remitted into the kingship, and Rehoboam the son of Solomon, acting wickedly, was on account of Asa's merit left in the number of the kings. But those three, acting wickedly, were shut in amid evils; therefore they were erased. For it is a worse example toward the ruin of the race when wickedness spreads itself out unbrokenly. And, to speak precisely: because Joseph is not from their line, they were passed over. For from Abraham the evangelist traced the generation of these, from whom Joseph draws his origin, to whom, betrothed, Mary bore Christ.

LXXXVI. WHAT IS IT THAT PROVES THAT MARY THE MOTHER OF THE LORD IS FROM THE TRIBE AND SEED OF DAVID?

We bring forward the words of a suitable witness. For the angel says to Mary among other things: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end. How could David be called his father by a suitable witness, if Mary were not from the seed of David?

LXXXVII. IF GOD IS ONE, WHY IS THE HOPE OF SALVATION IN THREE, AND NOT IN TWO OR FOUR OR CERTAINLY IN THE ONE HIMSELF? AND WHY WAS THE TRINITY NOT PROCLAIMED FROM THE BEGINNING?

There is almost nothing new; for the Trinity is proclaimed in such a way that one God is believed. Nothing therefore has been added, but the mystery of the one God has been revealed. In the very first beginnings, however, it was not fitting that it be made manifest, because first a thing must be proclaimed and afterwards that which has been proclaimed must be revealed, so that you may know that there is a Father, from whom are all things, that the Son is so called, through whom are all things, and that the Holy Spirit is so named, through whom all things, which indeed are from the Father but through the Son, are regenerated unto faith in the one God. These therefore are indeed three, but there is one divinity. Reason therefore brings it about that they are three, not more nor fewer. For every number reaches up to nine, because the three, while they are mutually in one another, make in number nine, since in one there are three and three in one. For he who sees one, sees three, since one differs in nothing from the other. Three therefore are one and thrice three are one; that is, in the number nine there is perfection, so far as pertains to number, because from one are all things. For with one added — from which, or in which, the three that are counted are nine — they become ten or twenty. Yet one always comes up to nine and one is added, because nine are one, so that there may be the full perfection of unity.

LXXXVIII. IF THERE IS GREATER GRACE AND CLEARER UNDERSTANDING IN THE NEW THAN IN THE OLD, WHY DID THE PROPHET ISAIAH SEE THE LORD OF SABAOTH — WHO IS CHRIST, ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF JOHN THE EVANGELIST — SEATED UPON THE THRONE OF MAJESTY (FOR HE SAID, AMONG OTHER THINGS: 'THESE THINGS SAID ISAIAH, WHEN HE SAW HIS MAJESTY AND SPOKE OF HIM'), WHEREAS IN THE NEW STEPHEN THE FIRST MARTYR SAYS THAT HE SAW JESUS STANDING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD? WHAT IS THIS, THAT HERE HE SEEMS AS IT WERE A SUBJECT AFTER HIS TRIUMPHS, AND THERE AS IT WERE LORD, BEFORE HE HAD CONQUERED?

As the case presented itself, so too did the Lord show himself. For to the prophet he appeared as a king rebuking the people, and he showed himself to be what he was; for the cause of his deity was at peace. But that he should appear standing to Stephen, the slander of the Jews brought about. In Stephen's case the cause of the Savior was suffering violence; therefore, while God the judge was 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. For everyone who pleads a case must needs stand.

LXXXVIIII.

THE SAVIOR SAYS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONCERNING THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT 'WHEN HE COMES,' HE SAYS, 'HE WILL CONVICT THE WORLD OF SIN AND OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AND OF JUDGMENT: OF SIN INDEED, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN ME; OF RIGHTEOUSNESS TRULY, BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER AND YOU WILL SEE ME NO MORE; BUT OF JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD HAS BEEN JUDGED.' HE SEEMS INDEED TO HAVE STATED THE REASON FOR CONVICTING THE WORLD, BUT IT NEEDS EXPLANATION.

Since the Jews did not believe the Savior, nor did the worldly powers — for he willed to manifest himself not only to men, but also to the princes and powers in the heavenly places, as the apostle teaches in the epistle to the Ephesians —, he showed that after his passion the Holy Spirit would prove that he had spoken true things. And this is 'to convict the world': to show it that those things are true which it refused to believe. For it refused to believe that the Savior had come from God. But the Savior, righteousness being preserved, did not fear to return to him who had sent him, and by the fact that he returned, he proved that he had come from there, because no one ascends to God except him who descended from God. The powers, therefore, seeing him ascend, were confounded, seeing to be true what they had spurned as though false. And so that righteousness convicted them, by which it was proved just that he returned whence he had come. And thus he convicts them of sin, because they not only refused to believe him, but even killed him. But of judgment he rebuked them thus, when he showed the prince of the world made guilty and crushed by him, in whose faith they had no part. For seeing souls go from the lower regions into the heavens, they recognized that the prince of this world had been adjudged, so that, made guilty, he lost in the case of the Savior what he had held.

These things indeed were seen while the Savior was ascending, but they were made plain and openly manifest when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples. For the true reproof took place at that time, when after the passion, as a testimony to the Savior, there were publicly seen by the faithless the dead rising again, the lame running, the lepers cleansed, the paralytics made firm, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the mute speaking, those possessed by demons purged, and the sick, having recovered their health, giving thanks. In this manner the Holy Spirit convicted the world, because in the name of the Savior, who had been rejected by the world, it worked the powers of all healings.

XC. 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 HE DID NOT STAND IN THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM. WHEN HE SPEAKS A LIE, HE SPEAKS FROM HIS OWN, BECAUSE HE IS A LIAR, AS IS ALSO HIS FATHER'?

"Devil" is not a proper name, but a common one. For in whomever the works of the devil are found, without doubt he must be called a devil. For it is the name of a work, not of a nature. And so in this place he signifies Cain as the father of the Jews, whose imitators the Jews, wishing to be, put the Savior to death. He says that this one, because he defiled himself with parricide and made himself guilty of death, did not stand in the truth. And from him the pattern of fratricide was given. He says that this very one, when he speaks a lie, speaks from his own, so as to show that each single person sins by nothing but his own will. But because he is an imitator of the devil, he added: because he is a liar, as is also his father. For this one, in order to condemn the first man to death, pretended that he did not know what had been commanded by God. Similarly Cain too, when questioned, feigned that he did not know where his brother Abel was, whom he had killed. Therefore in this place he called Cain a devil, but his father the devil, whose works he followed; for the son of the devil is a devil. But that devil, who is also Satan, has no father in his own malice; for he is himself the author to himself in evil. For he himself sinned first, and through this whoever have imitated him will be called his sons, and he their father. For indeed we have Abraham as our father in faith, because he himself first believed God, and through this we are reckoned by his name; for we are called faithful just as he too was.

XCI. IT MUST BE ASKED IN WHAT WAY, WITHOUT ARGUMENTS, PHOTINUS IS TO BE CONTRADICTED THAT CHRIST EXISTS BEFORE MARY.

Let us first inquire of John the Baptist, whom the Savior himself declared to be his witness. For he says, among other things, concerning the Lord: He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is of the earth and speaks of the earth; but he who comes from heaven, what he has seen and heard, to that he testifies, and no one receives his testimony. Behold, John calls all men together with himself earthly by comparison with the Lord, because he testifies that the Lord came from the heavens, but that all the rest are of the earth, that is, from lower things. And the Lord himself speaks the same things among others, saying: For I have not come down from heaven to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me, the Father's. And again the Lord speaks among other things to this effect, saying: And now I say to you that I will ask the Father. For the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I went forth from God the Father and came into this world; again I leave the world and go to the Father. Then the disciples, seeing that he had spoken plainly, say to him: Behold, now you speak openly and utter no proverb; now we know that you know all things, and you have no need that anyone should question you; in this we believe, that you went forth from God. These things need no interpretation, since this indeed is the sum of our religion: that we believe Christ, before the flesh, to have been in the heavens with God as a son with the Father.

For if it was on account of an upright manner of life and heavenly teaching that he said he had gone forth from heaven and from God and had come into the world, then all the prophets and apostles ought to have said the same things about themselves. And because he said, again I leave the world and go to the Father, perhaps it may be claimed that he signified by this that the teaching, which had come from God, having left the world, returned to God. For they have nothing else to say. For if his having come from heaven and having gone forth from God and having come into this world pertains to the cause of virtue and teaching, not to the person of the Savior, when he says, again I leave the world and go to the Father, then he returns thither whence he had come; but we see that after the Lord's departure both virtue and teaching were in the world—you see therefore that it was not of virtue and teaching that the Lord spoke, but that the Lord spoke specifically of himself.

But that if you say the words belong to the power that worked in Christ, this same power calls God its Father. See, you run into the very thing you fear, because if the power of God is the Son of God, it is assuredly that power of which the Apostle says: Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God; this came forth from God and again returned to God. And so this same power, which is Christ, testifies that it casts out demons by the Spirit of God. 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 in the apostles, so that it may appear more fully that the Lord spoke concerning his own person, because, having left the world, he returned to God. Or if you think that this power is not Christ, there will be two powers and two sons of God; and where is that which is read: the only-begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, and again: for so, he says, God loved this world, that he gave his only Son for it? You now perceive that the power of God, which worked embodied in the world, is itself one — which is called both the power of God and the Son. And let us see what the apostles believed, or in whom, when they heard from the Lord: Behold, again I leave the world and go to the Father, they answered him: Behold, now you speak plainly and speak no proverb; now we know that you know all things, and there is no need for you 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 mighty works — whether they were from God, when they saw Lazarus, already stinking on the fourth day, raised up, the eyes of a man blind from birth restored, a woman freed from an issue of blood by the touch of the hem, the nature of water changed into wine — or about the person of the Lord. Plainly no one doubted about the mighty works, seeing that some said he was Elijah, others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. For when the Jews wished to stone him, Jesus answered them: Many good works have I shown you from my Father; for which of these works do you stone me? The Jews said to him: For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because, being a man, you make yourself God. If therefore the Jews were not in doubt that they were the works of God, were the apostles in doubt?

Since, therefore, every doubt concerned the person of the Savior — for it was an unheard-of thing, one that had not burst into human comprehension, that struck men with amazement when they heard him saying that he had come forth from God and that God was his own Father —, for that reason the disciples, confessing that they had been satisfied by the plain declaration of the Lord's words, said to him: now we know that you know all things, and there is no need for anyone to question you; in this we believe, that you came forth from God. For if he did not truly come forth from God, the faith of the apostles is emptied out; but this cannot be, because it was approved by the Savior. For he answered them: do you now believe? — that is, "seeing such great signs, you did not believe." And so it was proven to the apostles that Christ had come forth from God and had come, so that through this coming-forth it should not be doubtful to believe that this one is the Son of God. For if no one has seen God, except him who is from God — this one has seen God, and if no one knows the Father except the Son — this is to have truly been with God and to have come forth from him and to have come; for no other could come forth from God, except this one who in the beginning was with God, since not any other knew or had seen God —, therefore it is not incredible for us to believe this one to be the true Son of God, just as John said in his first epistle: and we are, he says, in his true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life, and the apostle: who did not spare, he says, his own Son, and the evangelist: because he said, he says, that God was his own Father.

If, therefore, Christ is the true Son of God, how is he only a man? For he would not be called true, unless he were properly begotten from him. Or let Photinus say why he is believed to be truly the Son of God, if he is not true. Or what need was there to believe this one the Son of God, if he were one of the rest of the saints, who are worthy to be called sons of God? Or is there perhaps some unworthiness in this one, on account of which he could not be believed to be a son of God as the rest are, and is it therefore said, in order that this one, about whom it seems there is unbelief, may be believed to be the Son of God? For if he is more powerful than the rest, what need is there for it to be said, "believe that Christ is the Son of God," unless because it is commanded that he be believed otherwise than the rest — so that, since there are many who are called sons of God for the sake of holiness, this one alone may be believed the true Son of God, whence he is also called the only-begotten? For which of the saints dared to call himself a son of God — I will not even say a true one — except the Savior, aware of his own nativity that had proceeded from God? And how would he allow himself to be adored, if he did not know himself to be from God, since it is written: you shall adore the Lord your God and him alone shall you serve — seeing that the angel rebuked John, because he wished to adore him, saying to him: do not do it, for I am your fellow servant; adore God — and, since scripture testifies that God alone is to be served, the apostle: he who serves, he says, Christ, pleases God? Why? Because God and Christ, the Father and the Son, are one.

The Apostle acknowledges himself to be a servant of Christ, and he says to the Corinthians: do not become servants of men, and to the Galatians: Paul an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. He shows openly that Christ is God and man, so that he might demonstrate that his apostleship is not from man but from Christ, inasmuch as he is God, and from God the Father. And so in what follows he says: for neither did I receive it from man nor did I learn it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ. What could be so plain? For he says that he attained the teaching of God not through man, but was taught by God himself. For we have received the teaching of God through men, but the vessel of election proves that he attained nothing from the apostles, that is, from men. For if, because it is the teaching of God, it is on that account not learned through man, what praise of his own does the Apostle attest, if he learned it in the same way as the rest of the peoples?

To what end also does he say: neither did I receive it from man nor was I taught it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ? Who would doubt that in this place Christ is signified as God? But what wonder is this, when among other things he says to the Romans: whose fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things God, blessed forever? What does 'and of whom is Christ according to the flesh' mean? For he would not say this, unless he were also according to God, so that according to the flesh Christ is from the fathers, but according to divinity Christ is from God, over all things God. 'But perhaps it may be said to pertain to the person of the Father.' Yet in this place there is no mention of the Father's name, and therefore, if it is denied to be said of Christ, let the person to whom it belongs be supplied. But why should it not belong to Christ, at whose name things heavenly and earthly and infernal bend the knee? This is to be God over all things; for besides these there are no others. Let Photinus now say whether these bend the knee to a man, or whether God decreed that those heavenly powers and holy angels should adore a man. But far be it, since God decrees nothing foolish, especially since it is not permitted for anyone but God to be adored; how much more in the heavens! For a king is adored on earth as the vicar of God, but Christ, after the office of vicar has been fulfilled in the dispensation, is adored in the heavens and on the earth.

For we read that the Word was made flesh, that is, that it was incarnated from Mary with the Holy Spirit as minister, and that this Word was in the beginning with God and was God, and that this too is called the Son of God. How then does that which was in the beginning and was God not exist before Mary? Even if, being blinded, you deny that this Word is God, nevertheless you do not deny nor are you ignorant that this Word is called the Son of God and that this was with God in the beginning. By what reasoning, then, do you say that it exists after Mary, which you read existed in the beginning? For in the Apocalypse we read concerning Christ: and his name is the Word of God, which word has many interpretations. For there is nothing that is of God which is not called God, but on account of the authority of the one God he called that which was born of him the Word, so that, led by this reasoning — by which we know that our words are not except from ourselves — we might believe that Christ is from God.

Nor indeed ought it to have been put otherwise, so that he might be believed to be from him and not outside of him. For in a similar way he is also called the power and wisdom of God, so that by the same reasoning he may be understood to be from him. For if he had said (God and God), he would not have signified that he was from himself, but he would have made two gods, which is contrary to unity. This is the reasoning in the divine books, that God who is signified, Christ, does not exceed the measure of the one God.

But how foolish is that notion of yours, Photinus, in that you so punctuate at the head of John's Gospel, that the Word may not be called God? For thus you read: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was. This Word in the beginning was with God. What does this punctuation want for itself? What sense does it indicate? What rationale of piety does it signify, except only enmity against the Son of God? For what is the significance of one declaring: And the Word was with God, and God was? Is this then the wisdom of our law, to teach that there is a God? What tongue is there, what nation, what land, what sect, that would deny that God exists? And to what purpose does it say: And the Word was with God? Or what does this "Word" wish to be understood, unless it shows his rationale? 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 a mystery of God, which is therefore believed because it is not manifest to all. And therefore Scripture strives to teach what the Word is, saying: And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God. This both agrees with reason and the declaration is sound. For it shows that this Word, which in the beginning was with God, was God, so that in the sacrament of the mystery of the eternal God, which was unknown from ages and generations, God the Word may be believed to have been with God the Father.

And because it comes into doubt among the carnal, who wish Scripture to speak according to the capacity of their own understanding, faith has been established, which, following the sense of Scripture, may merit a reward. To Solomon, when he had asked wisdom from God, this response was given by the Lord: Behold, he said, I have given you a wise and prudent heart, such as there was not before you, and after you there shall not arise a man like you. What shall we say? Is what God promised true? Indeed truly. Therefore no man shall be like Solomon. And what will it seem concerning 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, a greater than Solomon is here? Now choose whom you 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, in vain has he set himself before Solomon against the promise of God; but if he is understood to be also God, worthily has he set himself before Solomon and the promise of God is undefiled, because no man has arisen like Solomon. For Christ shows himself to be superior for this reason, because he is God.

O the madness of Photinus, who refuses to confess Christ before Mary, though he hears with his own ears the one testifying that he exists 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, I am. He did not say, 'I am better,' but answered to what was asked, because he existed before the Jews supposed. Clearly Photinus cannot escape the curse of the law, because he places his hope in Christ, whom he calls a mere man, since he reads: Cursed is the man who has hope in man. But the apostle, knowing Christ to be God and therefore that hope is in him both in the present and in the future, says: If in this life only we are hoping in Christ, we are more miserable than all men. Therefore he in whom we are taught to have hope is not a mere man, because hope in man is vain. These few things we have said out of many; for it would suffice, if for a Photinus of good mind we had set down this last point alone.

XCII. IN WHAT SENSE IS IT UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE SAVIOR SAYS: 'PEACE I GIVE TO YOU, MY PEACE I LEAVE TO YOU; NOT AS THIS WORLD GIVES, DO I GIVE TO YOU'?

He who receives the peace of the Savior will incur the enmity of the world. For unless he has fallen into discord with the devil, he will not have peace with Christ. For no one can serve two masters. He therefore is at discord with the world who faithfully serves the law of God; fortified by the peace of Christ he crushes the darts of all his adversaries. For who would dare against him whom he knows to be a friend of the king? Yet the world gives peace otherwise than the Savior promised to give it. For the world gives peace either out of fear or out of entreaty; but the Savior, since he is stronger than all and certainly fears no one, gives peace unasked. This peace, therefore, is salutary, which is given for this reason, that it may be a fortification against enemies. Peace indeed is called by one name, but that of God and that of the world are distinguished by a wide interval. For the one is fragile, the other strong; the one carnal, the other spiritual; the one earthly, the other heavenly; the one is of necessity, the other of will. For Christ, needing no one, offers peace to the weak and the unarmed, the Lord to servants, the good to the wicked, God to men.

Rightly therefore he says: not as this world gives, do I give to you; for in saying this he wished to be understood the clemency of his good will. For whereas everyone gives peace in order to profit himself, this one gives it for this end, that it may profit not himself but those to whom he gives. Otherwise, then, the world gives peace than the Savior gave it, and the peace of the world does not teach a good life, does not urge toward patience, does not provoke to justice, does not exhort to mercy, does not promise eternal life. For whoever receives the peace of Christ will be a stranger to the vices of this world, which war against the soul.

XCIII. IT MUST BE ASKED WHETHER THE APOSTLES HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT AT THAT TIME WHEN THEY WERE WITH THE LORD, SINCE AMONG MANY THINGS THE EVANGELIST SAYS: 'THE SPIRIT,' HE SAYS, 'HAD NOT YET BEEN GIVEN, BECAUSE JESUS HAD NOT YET BEEN GLORIFIED,' AND IN ANOTHER PLACE: 'IF YOU LOVE ME,' HE SAYS, 'KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS, AND I WILL ASK THE FATHER, AND HE WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER PARACLETE, THAT HE MAY BE WITH YOU FOREVER, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SEE NOR KNOW HIM; YOU SEE HIM AND KNOW HIM, BECAUSE HE ABIDES WITH YOU AND IS WITH YOU.' WHAT IS THIS? HE DENIES THAT THE SPIRIT WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE PASSION, BUT HE PROMISES THAT HE HIMSELF WILL ASK THE FATHER TO SEND HIM. LIKEWISE HE ADDS THAT HE WAS WITH THEM AND ABODE AMONG THEM, BUT AFTER THE RESURRECTION HE IS READ TO HAVE BREATHED UPON THEM AND SAID TO THEM: 'RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT,' AND AT PENTECOST THE HOLY SPIRIT IS READ TO HAVE DESCENDED UPON THE APOSTLES. I SEE SUCH GREAT CONFUSIONS IN THIS MATTER THAT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT OUGHT TO BE HELD.

In all these things which have been set forth there is not one single explanation. For the forms of the individual explanations have been indicated briefly, because the Spirit is indeed one, but has many gifts. When, therefore, the Holy Spirit is read of, his office too, in which he is signified, ought to be understood. For that he both was with them and was going to come is not false, but only if you refer this not to the person but to the nature. For Christ promised that another would come from the Father, so that, because their divinity is undifferentiated, in the presence of Christ the Holy Spirit might not be thought absent, and in the coming and appearing of the Holy Spirit Christ too might be reckoned present. Therefore, although he promises that he will come, he says: you see him, because he abides with you and is with you — so that the apostles might be secure, because after the Lord's ascension they were not going to have a lesser or degenerate shepherd or king for their protection. For there is no doubt that the Spirit was not given to believers except, as the evangelist testifies, after the Lord, rising with death overcome, was glorified. For they are the words of the Lord himself, triumphing and saying: 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit, whom you are also going to receive not after these many days.' At this time, when he had arranged to ascend to the Father, he seems to have spoken this.

Now that thing which the Lord is read to have breathed upon the disciples a few days after his resurrection, and to have said, Receive the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as ecclesiastical power. For because all things in the Lord's tradition are carried out through the Holy Spirit, therefore, when the rule and form of this kind of discipline is handed over to them, it is said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. And because it truly pertains to ecclesiastical law, he at once added, saying, Whosoever's sins you shall retain, they shall be retained; if you shall remit anyone's, they shall be remitted unto them. This inspiration, therefore, is a certain grace which is poured into the ordained through the tradition, by which they may be held in higher esteem. Whence the Apostle says to Timothy: Do not, he says, neglect the grace which is in you, which was given to you through the imposition of the hands of the presbytery. It behooved, therefore, that it be done once, so that thenceforth this tradition might be believed not to be without the gift of the Holy Spirit. For just as in the Savior a form was given visibly, so that after baptism it might not be doubted that the Holy Spirit is thenceforth given invisibly to believers, so also in the aforesaid matter a form was given in the beginning, so that from it the Holy Spirit might be believed to be poured into the ecclesiastical tradition. But that the apostles might perform mighty works in the presence of the Lord, power was given, just as also earlier to the prophets.

.3. The forms, therefore, of three offices were shown by the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the apostles, of which the first is this, which pertains to ecclesiastical law in regenerating or in the other offices; the second, which was given at Pentecost, which is general — for the Holy Spirit fell not only upon the apostles, but indeed upon all believers —; the third form is that which was granted at the beginning to the apostles alone or to the ordained, in the working of signs and mighty works, until the seeds of faith might be cast for growth. For the seeds of faith are the mighty works performed through the apostles. For they themselves were set as overseers of this kind of truth, who through signs and prodigies might bear witness that our faith is not irrational. For there is no greater proof of truth than a mighty work. For this is what accuses all earthly philosophy, because it always applied itself to words alone, not having the testimony of a mighty work, by which it might demonstrate that what had been built up by words was stable. Therefore the Holy Spirit is given generally once to all believers, through whom they may be proved to be sons of God, while he remains in them. But in the working of signs and prodigies he does not remain in the man, but when called he comes or supplies what is necessary and withdraws; likewise also in the tradition or ordination he bestows grace from without, bringing also protection to those devoted to the faith.

XCIIII. IT MUST BE INQUIRED WHETHER JUDAS ISCARIOT, THE BETRAYER OF THE LORD, ENDED HIS LIFE BY THE NOOSE BEFORE THE PASSION OF THE SAVIOR.

When the Savior had been handed over, as the day of preparation was dawning, all the chief priests and scribes and elders gathered in the house of Caiaphas the high priest, to which they knew Jesus was to be led, that they might hear him. Both the evangelists Matthew and Mark bear witness to this, and that not one of them departed from the governor's house before the impious deed was completed, seeing that all their eagerness and devotion in celebrating the Passover was the death of the Savior. Since, therefore, they were occupied with the Lord's death from morning until the ninth hour, how is it proved that Judas returned to them the price of the blood which he had received, and said to them in the temple before the Lord's cross, "I have sinned, in that I have betrayed innocent blood," when it is quite certain that all the chief priests and elders were not in the temple before the Lord's passion, seeing that they were even mocking him as he hung upon the cross?

For it cannot be proved from this passage that the matter was reported before the passion, since there are many things which, though they are proved to have been done earlier, are set down last; and again there are times when the passage permits that what was done afterward be placed before. For it is surely evident that the fiftieth psalm is earlier than the third. So, then, it sometimes happens that things which are later are anticipated. Whence also, since Mary is shown to have anointed the Lord's feet with ointment at supper six days before the Passover, after the resurrection of her brother Lazarus, on account of its significance it was anticipated by the evangelist, who said among other things: "Now it was Mary," he says, "who anointed the Lord with ointment." He reports this before Lazarus died; and unless we found that it was done afterward, we would not know at what time it was done.

But perhaps it was done after the ninth hour, so that the impious and most cruel Judas, seeing the Savior slain, and on account of this the veil of the temple rent, the earth quaking, the rocks split, the elements terrified, was himself seized with fear and grieved, not unaware that he had betrayed a just man, at whose passion God the judge was so indignant. But even after the ninth hour the elders and chief priests were occupied, as I reckon. For in the evening of that same day they were to celebrate the Passover; and on the Sabbath it was not lawful to carry money according to the law: and for this reason it is not credible to me on what day, or rather at what time, Judas Iscariot ended his life by the noose.

XCV. FROM WHERE THE OBSERVANCE OF PENTECOST AROSE, OR FOR WHAT REASON.

There is no doubt that all things of our religion are strengthened by the testimony of the truth and marked out by the prerogative of the old law. For all things done in the past are known to have been done and appointed as a figure of our future faith, so that we might not doubt that we hold the truth, since we see that those 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 this is the point, whether they may be understood by us in the same way as they were appointed, so that we may fittingly discern from where and for what reason the day of Pentecost was derived. For the scriptures of the Lord open their meanings to the earnest and devout, and close them to the careless. For it was not fitting that things which have been reserved for the deserving and worthy should be seen everywhere by everyone.

Pentecost, therefore, which is reckoned the fiftieth day from Passover, has this rationale: that just as after the week the Lord's Day is the first, on which the mystery of the Passover was fulfilled unto the redemption of human salvation — because it is always necessary, after the courses of seven days, to return to the first, so that it may be shown that the age of the world is completed in the number seven —, so also after seven weeks the day of Pentecost is the first. And indeed Pentecost is never on any other day than the Lord's Day, so that everything which pertains to human salvation may be known both to have been begun and to have been fulfilled on the Lord's Day. For on the Lord's Day the world was made, and after the fall it was again reformed on the Lord's Day, the figure of which reformation was first given in circumcision, in which there was a sign of the faith to come. For after the week the day which was called the eighth is the first in mystery. For this is the day which the Lord has made. For He made one day, from which the rest received their courses. And through this He rose again on that very day which He made, and according to the number of the aforesaid reckoning He also on that very day 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 the Passover, so also the giving of the law was a figure of the evangelical preaching, because on the same day, that is, at Pentecost, the law was given, on which also the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples, so that they might receive authority and might know how to preach the evangelical law. This deed is confirmed by a twofold testimony, because it is both shown to have been predestined and is proved to be divine and supercelestial by the manifest infusion of the Holy Spirit; for unlearned men were speaking the mighty works of God in diverse tongues.—

To the children of Israel, therefore, on the third day of the third month the law was given through Moses, as is contained in the book of Exodus, which day is the fiftieth from the fourteenth of the first month, on which day the Passover was made in Egypt, that is, Pentecost. Whence it came about that, for the preaching of the law of faith, at Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles, so that the deeds of the ancients might be held as images of things to come for the security of our faith, because what has been foretold from the beginning cannot seem false. Therefore the time of remission and reformation is described in the fiftieth psalm, —so that the same providence of the fiftieth day, which is also that of the first, might be known. Hence it came about that also the manna was given from heaven to the people of the Jews on the first day, which is the Lord's Day, and that this is so is proved by the continuation of six days, on which they gathered it, and on the seventh day, that is, on the Sabbath, they rested. Now the manna is a type of the spiritual food, which by the resurrection of the Lord was made truth in the mystery of the Eucharist.

Now it remains for us to prove that the things we have said are to be understood in the way we have recalled above. The first month, in which the Passover was celebrated on the fourteenth day in Egypt—this day was the fourth day of the week (Wednesday); whence also the Law was given on the fourth day of the week. This is given to be understood from the fact that on the fifteenth day of the second month of the departure of the children of Israel a Sabbath appears to have fallen; and therefore the flock of quails was not sent to them by day, but in the evening. But in the morning there was manna; it rained upon them from heaven, that is, on the Lord's day, which is found to be the first after the week in the repetition. Then for six continuous days they gathered manna, but 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, seek and you will find that it was the fourth day of the week when the Law was given. For from the fifteenth day of the second month, when there was a Sabbath, up to the third day of the third month, on which the Law was given, there are nineteen days. Hold, then, these nineteen and go back over the fifteenth day of the second month, on which there was a Sabbath, which counting from the first is the fourteenth, and arrive at the first day of the second month and you will have another fourteen; add these on top of the nineteen mentioned above and you will find that the first day of the second month was a Sabbath. Add yet further, to the head of the first month, seventeen days, because thirteen days of the first month must be drawn back, which were before the Passover; for on the fourteenth day of the first month the Passover was made. Therefore, with the thirteen drawn back and seventeen added, you will find that the fourteenth of the first month was the fourth day of the week.

And lest you suffer weariness of reading or of examining curiously the individual members of the question, I give a shortcut, so that you may both be certain of the number of days which are from the Passover up to the giving of the Law, and from that may more easily learn on what day of the week the Passover was made. On the third day after the second month the Law was given; there are therefore two months and three days. Draw back from these the thirteen days which were before the Passover, and the remaining will be fifty days. But that the Law was given on the fourth day of the week is easily seen from this. The manna was given on the first day of the week, because for six continuous days they gathered it, and that first day was the sixteenth day of the second month. And so from this first day of the week to the eighteenth day, on which the Law was given, you will find the fourth day of the week. And from the fourth day of the week, whether you count forward or backward to the fiftieth day, it is the fourth day of the week. Therefore, because the Jews kept the Passover on the fourth day of the week in Egypt and received the Law on the fourth day of the week, but set out from Egypt on the fifth day of the week, the dedication of the Law is therefore Pentecost.

XCVI. WHETHER IT MUST BE INQUIRED IF "PASSOVER" IS INTERPRETED AS "PASSAGE," AS IT SEEMS TO THE GREEKS.

The Apostle could not be deceived, who says: Christ our passover is sacrificed, which is assuredly not his own word but the Law's, since Moses says: and it shall be, when your sons say to you: what is this service? that you shall say: this is the sacrifice of the passover of the Lord. What more is necessary for testimony? The Law speaks, the Apostle proves it; it remains only that the gainsayer be cast out as obstinate. For it is manifest that the passing-over came after the passover. For from the blood of the sacrificed lamb they placed some upon the posts of the door and upon the lintel, so that the angel passing by in the night might not strike the house in which the sign of the blood was. Therefore the blood provided salvation, not the passing-over, because, in order that the passing-over might not harm them, the blood stood in the way.

XCVII. BY WHAT REASONING THE IMPIETY OF ARIUS CAN BE ANSWERED SIMPLY FROM THE LAW.

If faith be lent to reason, the very meaning of the names Father and Son would show their unity in a natural way. For he would not be called the true Son of God, unless he had come forth from the substance of God the Father; nor indeed would the truth and justice of God suffer him to be called the true Son, if he were not from him. For he is not true, if he is not from him. But scripture says: 'he is true': therefore he is from him. For whoever denies that Christ was born of God does violence to scripture, which for this reason calls him the true Son, that it may signify that he was born of God; for if he is not from God and yet is called the true Son of God, scripture is deceitful. But if scripture does not deceive, whoever does not confess that Christ came forth from God both makes scripture void and denies that Christ is the true Son of God. For it is not will that makes a true son, but birth. 'But,' they say, 'this lies within the power of God, that he should make false things true.' Nay, the power of God is this — whence also he is worthy of all praise — that with him the true is true and the false is false. For it belongs to a liar to call the false true, which does not befit God. For God can indeed do all things, but he does not do anything except what agrees with his truth and his justice.

It is therefore manifest that Christ is for this reason called the true Son of God, that he may be understood to be his own, that is, born of his substance. Whence also the Apostle: who spared not, he says, his own Son, and in another epistle: who, when he was in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. If therefore he thought it not robbery in saying that he was equal with God, he demonstrated himself to be the true Son of God. For he could not be equal to God, unless he were from him. For those are equal who are either both true or both false. For that which has a beginning does not admit of equality with — or unity with — the eternal. For by saying that he was one with the Father, Christ made himself equal to God. For not only, it says, did he break the sabbath, but also said that God was his own Father, making himself equal to God, that is, equal. Is it not manifest that this equality descends from the property of his birth? For by saying that he was God's own, that is, true, Son, he made himself equal to God.

Hence it is that he says: he who has seen me has seen the Father also. For by the fact that they are consubstantial, he who sees the one sees them both. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has given also to the Son to have life, that is, the Father begot the Son equal to himself; and all things that are the Father's are the Son's and the things that are the Son's are the Father's: and no one can seize anything from the hand of the Father nor from the hand of the Son. And he added: I and the Father are one, and: the words which I speak to you, I do not speak from myself, but the Father remaining in me, he himself speaks; and the works that I do, he himself does. Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father in me; otherwise believe even on account of the works themselves. For because the generation is not from itself, but from him who begot it, therefore whatever it does, it calls the deed of the Father, so that through all these things that may be established, namely that Christ is for this reason called the true Son of God, so that he may be believed to be born from him, lest his essence too be reckoned to be outside the nature of the one God. His humility therefore is his greatest exaltation. For when he seems to subject himself, saying: the words which I speak to you, I do not speak from myself, but the Father remaining in me, he himself speaks; and the works that I do, he himself does, he proves that he has his origin from God and that he is his power, since he says that what he is, is not from himself, but from him. For by these things Christ is commended, not lowered. For he who speaks from himself is not the true Son.

You see therefore that the Arians misunderstand Christ from the very place where he ought to be rightly understood, and from the very place where he is proven to be the true Son of God they disapprove of him and call him false. For he asks to be glorified by the Father and promises to glorify the Father whom he entreats, so that where he seems to humble himself he may exalt. For the Father, when he gives testimony to the Son, attests his own praise; but the Son, when he proclaims the Father, manifests his own glory. For the magnificence and nobility of the Father is the high birth of the true Son. And therefore whatever is said to be the Father's, is without doubt also the Son's; and what is said to be the Son's, is also the Father's. For the Spirit is called God's, the same Spirit is called Christ's also; the Church is called God's, it is called Christ's also; God is adored, Christ also is adored; God is served, Christ also is served; the saints are called priests of God, they are called priests of Christ also; God is called the temple of the holy city, likewise Christ; the holy city is said to be illumined by the light of God, in the same way also by that of Christ; it is the seat of God, and no less of Christ also; God is judge, Christ also is, since the prophet Isaiah saw Christ, the Lord of Sabaoth, sitting on the throne of majesty, which the Arians do not deny. Of God the Father it is read that he is King of kings and Lord of lords, the same also of Christ the true Son of God. Thus everywhere the Father and the Son are made equal in divinity, so that the number of persons does not exceed the measure of the one God.

Now between the Father and the 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 — which indeed is something sublime in the Son. For from this is learned the eternity of his nobility, and that he is the true Son of the true Father. For whence comes that which is read in Genesis, when God says: Let us make man to our image and likeness? Therefore, if their image and likeness is one, how are they not also one in nature? For in spiritual things, where indeed there are no figures, nothing will be alike except through substance, so that where the image of the two is one, how will their substance not also be one? For we read that their image and likeness is one for this reason, that we might believe that the one of them differs in nothing from the other — that is, that Christ is the true Son of God, because the nativity is not unlike the one begetting. In short, the Jews, understanding that he called God his own Father, say to Pilate: We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. The Jews understood, and do Christians say that they do not understand? Those who did not believe, understood; and do those who say they believe act so that they may not understand? Let them at least admit this, that the prophet Isaiah, in order to signify that Christ is God not indeed from himself, but God from God, among other things says: After thee they shall follow bound in chains, and they shall adore thee and shall make supplication to thee, because in thee is God, and there is no God besides thee. For thou art God, and we knew it not, the God of Israel, the Saviour.

As far as pertains to a good disposition, these things are manifest. For by them both the Father is proved to be in the Son, and the Son is signified to be God of the same substance as that of which the Father is. For in whom God is, and besides whom there is no God, and who himself is God — what else can he be said to be than this which the Father is, God, and to differ in nothing? For this is what it is for two to be one. For in him is God, because although he is God, yet he is not God from himself. For he is from the Father, because he is the Son. But besides him there is no God, because he is the only Son of the Father. But he himself is God, because there is one and the same substance of God and of Christ. Therefore no ambiguity is left, so that the substance of the Father and of the Son is believed to be one. For he is the true Son, and of the true Father.

Such also is that saying of the prophet Jeremiah; for among other things he says: This is our God: no other shall be reckoned in comparison with him. He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved. After this he was seen upon earth and conversed among men. Can he be called base-born, to whom no other can be compared? Or can he be called a god other than the Father, in such a way that it profits toward his being God unto the injury of the Father? For if no other god can be reckoned in comparison with him, and he is apart from God the Father, see whether what follows ought to be said; for it is dangerous. For he will be said to be greater than the Father. For, thinking that they render honor to God the Father if they separate the Son from him, they detract from him, so that the one whom they wish to make lesser—impiously blinded in mind—they set above that one to whose authority they think this one must be bowed. But scripture, in order to teach that the Son differs in nothing from the Father—yet he would differ, if he were not true—said that no other is to be reckoned in comparison with him, because no other substance could be found similar to the substance of God, which is also that of Christ. For that Christ is of God could not be taught otherwise than by saying that no other is to be reckoned as him. For, knowing that God the Father can in no way be called subject, in order to show that his Son is equal to him, he says: no other shall be reckoned in comparison with him, because he is equal to God the Father, who is God of all; 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; for concerning this one scripture says: Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God, and certainly this is not the Father, but is his Son.

You see, therefore, that it does not prejudge against the one God to attribute the person of the Son, if He too be called one God, seeing that Scripture bears witness to this. Whence comes this, unless because the Father and the Son are one, because the unity is signified not by persons but by nature, so that they are not two in substance but one, nor two in divinity but one God, so that, whether the Father speak or the Son speak, it is said that one God has spoken? For if the Lord Himself, among other things, says concerning male and female: they are now no longer two, but one flesh, how much more are the Father and the Son not two gods, but one substance! But that the Father and the Son are called two, the cause is the nativity; yet that there be not again two gods, the cause is the one divinity. Yet by what dullness do they proclaim that Christ was created, that is, made, when they read that God made nothing without Christ? 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 away with the thought, since nothing was made without Him. For being born of God He did not begin, but existed; for nativity is nothing else than a going-forth; and a going-forth is a manifestation: and so He was not made, but brought forth. For that it might be signified that Christ existed or proceeded from the essence of God, His going-forth was called a nativity, so that, because the nativity is not unlike the begetter, it might not be doubted that Christ is consubstantial with God, and that mind which says: 'there was a time when He was not', might be condemned, because He cannot at any time not have been who, that He might be signified to have always been with God, is read to have proceeded from God. For no one has proceeded from Him where he was not.

The Arians are indeed wont to interpret thus, saying concerning the Son of God: 'Christ is therefore called the true Son of God, because He so made Him that He is true.' As if there were something that God makes false. And all those things which we have said above concerning the unity of the Father and the Son, what will they be, when they have been so strengthened and confirmed? If it be thought that here one must hold otherwise, many things established by divine oracles will be able to be torn away by the testimony of one degenerate. It must nevertheless be cut off, lest iniquity flatter itself even concerning this very point. Therefore 'He so made Him,' he says, 'that He is true,' so that will yields in place of nativity and a thing made in place of generation. 'For so much,' they say, 'must be granted to the power of God, that He can make things that are not as though they were.'

Since therefore they use this crafty cunning against the Son of God, out of these very things which they presume upon, because in the rest they have been refuted, they must be answered, so that they may appear refuted in the whole sum. For this proposition, as far as it pertains to the sense, is of no importance; but as far as it pertains to the words, it creates a fog, so that it does not quickly become apparent. For it is as if an Egyptian set in darkness, because a bad cause cannot be defended by good sense. Therefore, to defend impiety they use sacrilegious words. If, then, this is the power of God, that he made Christ to be a true Son to himself, although he was not born of him, then he made him such as he himself is, so that the making bestowed this which generation was going to give. If, therefore, you say that there is no difference between God and Christ, it could perhaps be thought that this is not maliciously asserted by you, so that what is said in word may also be so in sense, so that, because he is called true Son, he may be understood as true, through that which is of one substance with the Father—albeit not through generation, but through making, because God can do all things, as you say, so that the made thing is as if unmade.

But if, following the line of reason, you say that it cannot be that what is contained within a beginning should be equal and consubstantial with that which is eternal, you reveal the deceit of your malice, because, in order to evade the sense of the word, with a false utterance you say that Christ is the true Son of God, while denying to him that he is equal to God the Father. For he is not true, if he is unequal. Can he then be called a true Son, if the Father also is not called true? For if the Son is true, the Father also will be true; and this truth equality proves. But if they are unequal, neither of them is true. Yet since the testimony of the Scriptures cannot be made void, by which Christ is proved to be the true Son of God, he must be believed to have been born of God the Father, because, so that this truth might be confirmed, he is read to be both on a par with God and equal.

But you who proclaim the inestimable power of God say: 'God cannot generate, because he is a simple nature'; and by this you also do insult to God the Father himself. For you call him a liar, so that you may deny the Son, whom he asserts to be his own and true, and you expose your hypocrisy, because you falsely proclaim God to be powerful. For if you proclaim the power of God in that which you assert to be made true out of the false, so as to mock what is truly true, how much more ought you to embrace this—if you were of good mind—through which the true that is called true is proved, and the testimony that God the Father gave concerning his Son is confirmed as true! For the Lord says: 'But with God,' he says, 'all things are possible,' so that whatever seems impossible to men may be possible to God. For if the reasoning of the flesh is regarded, neither did a virgin give birth, nor did Jonah live in the belly of the whale, nor will the dead rise, nor did God beget a Son—because a simple nature cannot generate, since nothing is generated in the world without commixture. All these things must either be believed together or refuted together. For if the reasoning of the world is to be held, it ought to have authority in all these things; but if there is some reasoning of spiritual things, he must be called carnal who, infected by the reasoning of the world, denies that anything can come to be otherwise than as he knows.

Yet again they are accustomed to put forward another point with their evasiveness. For they say: 'Did the Father beget the Son by his will, or not?' — so that, when they have heard 'certainly by his will', at once, as enemies of the Son of God, they may reply: 'Therefore the will exists before the Son, so that from this he may appear not to be eternal, since he did not indeed receive a beginning through birth, but simply came into existence.' And yet, if they think this, not only will the will exist before the Son, but even before the Father, since the cause of generation is both the Father and the Son. Unbelief follows carnal perceptions in all things. For it introduces the cause of God as though of a man, as if he had first deliberated and pondered so as to beget, as though subject to weakness, whereas in God there was neither generation without will nor will without generation. For the will itself is generation. For, to be sure, it is a common statement: 'God made,' 'man made'; but God makes in one way, man in another. So too in the other causes; for one must speak of God in a way that is worthy of him.

They are also accustomed to raise another question about God the Father himself, saying: 'Did it come to him to beget, or is it of his nature that he should always beget?' — which they bring forward for this reason, that they may both assert God to be a liar, who testifies that he has begotten Christ, and make Christ not true but adoptive. 'For if he begot,' they say, 'he ought always to beget, so that, because he does not always beget, neither is he believed to have begotten Christ' — as though it should be denied that he made the world, because he does not make others. What irreverence, what indiscipline it is to lay down a law for God, that: 'if he begot, either he begot many or he was unable to beget one' — not even believing the Lord himself, who declared himself to be the only Son of God!

After these things which have been shown above to be equal in the Father and the Son, let us see whether those things which are written concerning the Holy Spirit accord with them, so that the Trinity, which we hold in our saving profession, may not admit a discrepancy of nature, just as it does not have a diversity of faith. For since salvation does not exist without any one of these, the power of the three 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 let us use the words of the Son as testimony to the Holy Spirit, by which he declares that the Holy Spirit does not differ from himself, so that, when the Father is witness to the Son and the Son 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. When he says that another Paraclete is to be sent, he certainly proves himself to be a Paraclete. For it is also read in the epistle of John; for he says: We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, who intercedes for our sins, and again the Lord says: I am the truth. Behold, the open unity of the Holy Spirit and the Son of God; for the things which the Son speaks about himself, the same he speaks also about the Holy Spirit.

Now what the scripture arranges toward this meaning must be set forth. It is read in Isaiah that he saw the Lord of Sabaoth seated on the throne of majesty, whom John the evangelist understood to be Christ, saying among other things: "These things Isaiah said, when he saw his majesty and spoke concerning him." This one the apostle says 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 your ear you shall hear and shall not understand," and the rest. These words were spoken by the Lord of Sabaoth. This is the one God, who whether he be understood as Father or as Son or as Holy Spirit, there is no contradiction. For their divinity and power is one. For if in the edict of one prefect's court even the other prefects are said to command, on account of the authority of one power, how much more in the rule of one God, if one of the three has spoken, will the three not incongruously be said to have spoken! For their nature and will is one.

Again, they are wont to prejudge against the Holy Spirit, that he should therefore be understood as degenerate, because he is placed third in order, though there is such simplicity in the divine scriptures that sometimes you may find the third placed first. For as the matter has presented itself, so they are also placed. For it is the wrong of no one, because their divinity is one. In short, we read in Isaiah where the Lord says: "I am the first and I am unto eternity, and my hand founded the earth, my right hand made firm the heaven," and in what follows: "I have spoken, I have called, I have brought him and made his journey prosperous. Draw near to me and hear these things: not in secret from the beginning have I spoken; when they came to be, I was there, and now the Lord has sent me and his Spirit." Whom do you wish to be the one who founded the earth? For he himself says that he was sent. Surely not the Father? Far be it. It is therefore the Son who says he was sent by God and the Holy Spirit. Behold, these things are equal between the Son and the Holy Spirit. For just as the Holy Spirit is read to be sent by the Father and the Son, so also Christ was sent by God and the Holy Spirit. For this is peculiar to the Father alone, that he not be said to be sent.

Receive the sayings of the apostle, who embraces the Trinity in another order; for he says among other things in the second epistle to the Thessalonians: "May the Lord direct your hearts in the charity of God and the patience of Christ." Whom, do you think, does he call Lord except the Holy Spirit? And what wonder is it, since the one whom Isaiah saw seated on the throne of majesty, this same one he calls the Holy Spirit the Lord of Sabaoth, as we showed above? And John the apostle signifies that God is understood in the Holy Spirit, saying among other things: "By this we know that God abides in us, and from his Spirit which he has given us." If therefore through his Spirit he himself abides in us, it is not doubted that the Holy Spirit is of God. And there is no doubt that what is of God is God. Hence it is that the apostle says: "No one knows the things which are in God except the Spirit of God." How can he know the things which are in God, unless he be of the same divinity? For an inferior nature cannot know what is in a greater one; how much more was a creature unable to know what might be in its Creator!

And in the first letter to the Corinthians, having passed over the order that is in the tradition of the faith, he begins from the Holy Spirit to recount the workings of graces and ministries, and adds the Lord Jesus, and puts God third, whom he says works both in the Holy Spirit and in the Lord, just as the Lord also says: the Father remaining in me, he himself works. For through the fact that both the Holy Spirit and Christ are from God the Father, their working is the work of God. Finally, he calls the Holy Spirit also Lord, and the Lord he calls also God — this on account of the unity of nature; when therefore in this passage he says that the same God, who is also Lord, works all things in all, he concludes below thus, saying: but all these things one and the same Spirit works, dividing to each one as he wills. What is so plain as that the three are of one working, since, when one works, the three are said to work? Why, unless because they are of one divinity? For it is not doubtful that properly the Holy Spirit works the gift of graces. But in order to teach that God and the Lord and the Holy Spirit are one on account of the indifference of nature, he shows that the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of the three. And in order to make manifest that, as far as pertains to person, it is the work of the Holy Spirit alone: but all these things, he says, one and the same Spirit works, dividing to each one as he wills. Therefore 'as he wills,' because his will is the will of God. For he did not say 'as God wills,' but 'as the Spirit wills.' For a creature forces itself to do the will of God; but the Holy Spirit naturally wills this.

That the Holy Spirit works all things may shine forth plainly, the Lord says among other things: For if I cast out demons by the finger of God, and so forth. He calls the Holy Spirit "the finger of God," so as to prove that he is from God. Accordingly, he testified that the Jews, who said that he cast out demons by Beelzebub, had blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. Moses too, because he worked signs through the Holy Spirit, the magicians confess, saying: This is the finger of God. For in the Acts of the Apostles also we read: And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said: Separate for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them. Behold, the Lord is being ministered to, and this the Holy Spirit claims for himself — whence it manifestly appears that he is Lord just as also God the Father —; and Christ from heaven called Saul and sent him to preach, and this in like manner the Holy Spirit lays claim to for himself by saying: for the work to which I have called them. For no one is unaware that the Savior appointed bishops for the churches; for he himself, before he ascended into the heavens, laying his hand on the apostles ordained them bishops. This the Apostle assigns to the Holy Spirit, when he says: Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to rule the Church of the Lord Jesus. And among other things Peter says to Ananias: Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart, that you should lie to the Holy Spirit? and below: You have not, he says, lied to men, but to God. It is plain that the Holy Spirit is called God, since Ananias, who lied to him, is said to have lied to God. But if he had by no means 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 as to signify him neither God nor man. And what wonder? For the Apostle sometimes calls man the temple of God, but sometimes the temple of the Holy Spirit, for the reason that they are one in nature. For if the Holy Spirit were by no means understood to be God, with what audacity would he say below: For the temple of God is holy, which you are?

Since one God is proclaimed in all the scriptures, but his mystery is adored in the Trinity, scripture therefore proceeds in such a way that, under the profession of one God, those things which are of him — that is, his Son and his Spirit — are understood to be in the same honor in which God himself is; because the sacrament of God has been revealed for this reason, that his glory might be signified to abide in the Trinity. For this reason: that which is of God is not called God with full authority, lest it be believed to make another apart from him who is one, but he gives understanding, so that we may believe that on this account the salvation of the creature consists in the Trinity, because their divinity is one. For creator and creature, lord and servants, eternity and the things which are under a beginning, could not be joined together and set in the same rank, seeing that without one of them there is salvation for no one. For everything that is God, whether the Son or the Holy Spirit, is called to injury if it be reckoned outside the honor and glory of the one God. The scriptures therefore show Christ to be God, they show the Holy Spirit to be God, so that those who see may know what it is that is shown. It is as if someone should show a gem without crying out that it is a gem; will the thing that is seen not be a gem merely because he does not cry out? So also the scriptures show, through those things which have been treated above, what we ought to believe, enclosing our understanding within the faith of one God by the mystery of the Trinity.

XCVIII. ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.

You have heard what the most holy Gospel testifies, 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 stood not in the truth, because the truth is not in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, because he is a liar, and so also is his father. Let none of the faithful doubt that the devil has no author of his apostasy. For he himself is the prince of all error, who, seeing that he was made by God with no mean power, dared to presume deity, so that, because he saw the rest to be inferior, he might set himself forward as God. Finally, the names by which the devil and Satan are called are composed from his act, not from his nature. For every evil is proved by deed, so that it is not a subsistence in the crime, but a will conceived from causes. For while he saw himself mightier than the rest, he was puffed up to exercise domination.

How then will he be said to have a father, when he is held to be the author of his crime? or from what is it proven that he was a murderer from the beginning? But Scripture calls him who was his imitator by his name, so that, since it received the name from the deed, everyone who does an evil work is not undeservedly called a devil. Therefore in this passage the Savior called Cain a devil, because he was a rival of his works. While he envied his brother, he committed murder, leaving behind an example of the cruelty of parricide; just as also the devil, while he envied man made in the image of God, heaped up the malice of his work, offering a pattern for error. Hence therefore Cain also stood forth as a liar, when God said to him: where is Abel your brother? He, steeped in the malice of his father, bursting out into a lie, said: I do not know, so that, of the one from whom he had wrenched away life, he might pretend that he did not know where he was, thus blinded by fury, so that he answered God as though a man, whom he thought he could conceal from.

Therefore the Jews, having become imitators of this one, killed even the Lord himself, wanting rather to have Cain the fratricide as their father than God, so that they might become guilty of all the blood that had been shed. For by slaying the author of life they stood forth as the chiefs of all crime, so that they even bound their own sons to this evil, saying: his blood be upon us and upon our sons. For in order to persuade Pilate that there was nothing evil in what they were asking, they said that it would be turned back upon their own sons if it were unjust, because, in order to satisfy their fury, they were unwilling to spare even their own sons.

For since the devil is not by nature evil, from this it is more easily learned, because punishment would not be promised to one who had not done what he did not know. For it is unjust to punish him who does nothing other than what belongs to his nature; and this evil is greater, if you demand of someone that which you know he cannot do. For which reason he is justly to be punished, who, when it is agreed that he knows and is able to do good, does evil. This too can be observed from the words of the Savior; for he says, as was mentioned above: your father was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth. 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 agreed, then, that the devil was in the truth, but did not persevere. Finally we read the Lord saying through the prophet: if they had stood, he says, in my substance, that is, 'in my law', and the apostle to the Galatians says: stand fast, and do not again be confined by the yoke of servitude. What is so plain? For he commands this, that for the rest they remain in his commandments. But if the devil had kept this, he would have stood in the substance and law of God. For the law is a foundation to those who keep it.

How then does it seem to some people that the devil, or evil, was either made by God or has its own origin—that is, arose from nothing—both of which seem contrary to God? For whoever says that he was made for this purpose, that he should be evil, thinks that God is of imperfect goodness, because one who is perfectly good does not make evil; but whoever does not believe that God is the author of his origin denies God's dominion. For by this, since all things are God's, they suppose that there is something which in no way pertains to God—men who must suffer punishments when they see that all things are judged by God through Christ.

XCVIIII. WHAT THE MEANING IS OF 'LET NO TEMPTATION TAKE HOLD OF YOU BUT SUCH AS IS HUMAN.'

Not without foresight, as I judge, does the teacher of the Gentiles, our apostle, wish that temptation may take hold of us, but only that which is human, because divine temptation brings forth destruction. For by this the Jews, seized by serpents, perished; for acting under the law of God, they doubted concerning His providence. And through this he exhorts us that not divine but human temptation may take hold of us. For here he is said to tempt God who, acting under His name, hopes for salvation from idols, because he does not hold God as proven. For everything that is not proven is tempted, and what is tempted comes into doubt. And through this divine temptation is deadly, but human temptation is salutary, because, just as to doubt concerning God is destructive, so to despair concerning man on account of the law of God is most wholesome. Wherefore the apostle providently says: Let no temptation take hold of you but such as is human, so that, tempted by men on account of the law of God, we may be found strong—while carnal men doubt concerning us—but may be proven before God, because those who are not proven before God are tempted that they may be amended.

Therefore temptation is twofold; for sometimes we are tempted as though faithful, sometimes as though distrustful, so that the temptation of the faithful is human. For on account of faith we are afflicted by men—for they tempt us, to see if they can lead us away from the faith—but on account of distrust they are tempted, so that, being straitened, they may repent and return into the way, as also happened to the Jews. For when they distrusted concerning the providence of God, they were tempted by serpents, so that, seized by pain, they might be amended. For God tempts in such a way that He may correct men of this kind. There is also another temptation, by which Abraham was tempted, and Job, and also Tobias, the servants of God: so that Abraham, through the tribulation of offering up his only and most beloved son, might have a more abundant fruit of righteousness unto eternal glory; and Job, through the loss of all his substance, might be increased, enriched with riches in heaven and on earth; and Tobias, having suffered the blindness of his eyes, thus stood forth the more advanced, so that both in the present he became glorious, his eyes being received back, and for the future a perpetual brightness was preserved for him—because the just are proven for this purpose, that they may make progress. And therefore in temptation we ought to be of a stout spirit, knowing that this avails not to our diminishment but to our increase, if only we endure it with an even spirit through Christ.

C. ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

You have heard, most beloved brothers, what the gospel attests when the Lord says: I confess to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to little ones. Yes, Father, since so it seemed pleasing before you. Therefore, if we examine the sense of these words, we shall see that the things which were spoken by the Lord for the exhortation of believers pertain to those who, because they spurn worldly wisdom, appear as little ones to the wise of the world—men who, commended by no testimony, wish to be called wise. For this reason it seemed unfitting to God to show the truth to these, but to the humble, who, presuming nothing about themselves, incline themselves to God's will, saving things are to be revealed, with fairness compelling it. For here the one prudent before God and mindful of his own salvation is he who sets God's law before his own knowledge—the law which he indeed sees is not propped up by the noise of words, but by the powers of things. And without doubt he is foolish and vain who commends himself to that thing which is fortified by no prerogative of signs.

Whence God promised the kingdom not to the lettered of this world, but to the faithful; nor does he pledge eternity to the searchers of the stars, but to those who act rightly; nor does he give glory to dialecticians, who by fraud and by certain minute niceties strive to shut out the truth, but to men of good will, who are more careful in life than in speech. For God rejects those who wish to make use of the speech of brilliant discourse rather than of good deeds. For he also wishes to turn God's glory upon himself who thinks to adorn God's matter with his own words. For the things themselves ought to please through themselves, so that not the speech but the sense may be praised. For if the sense is the author of the letter, and words were invented for the sake of signifying things, why are not the things themselves rather to be brought forth with pure sense, so that they may more easily incite the mind to salvation? And therefore the Lord chose fishermen as our apostles, simple men and without letters, who, without any cunning, by keeping the faith and by living well, might show forth in themselves the truth of God. Whence also the apostle Paul says: And I, coming to you, brothers, came not in loftiness of speech or of wisdom, among other things: because, he says, the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power, so that, since words are subject to contradiction, power might stand as witness to God's law, to which all loftiness of discourse yields.

And so these things have therefore been set forth beforehand, most beloved brothers, that provision might be made for the simpler folk, lest perchance they should think themselves unworthy of the grace of God because they are by no means trained in forensic letters, since rather their simplicity is conducive to praise, when that which the prudent of the world do not see because of the pride of letters, these believe, being prudent not in words but in counsel. For they know that God rests in good works and seeks faith, not cultivated speech. For they read the Lord saying: On whom shall I rest, except on the humble and meek and one who trembles at my words? Wherefore, that we may be made worthy of the promised rewards, we ought to do the things which are commanded by the Lord, secure because the Lord loves those who keep his words. For thus he said to his disciples: If you love me, keep my commandments, so that, serving the Lord in these things, we may be able to be heirs of his kingdom through the lawgiver Christ our Lord.

CI. ON THE BOASTING OF THE ROMAN LEVITES.

While we wish to obey the commands of charity, we may perhaps fall into reproach, we who write about a matter which never at any time came into doubt, because, while we do not wish to offend friendship, we entangle the zeal which ought to have served for revealing some hidden thing—although, on account of the excessive foolishness of a certain man who asserts that which we shall lay open in what follows, the aforesaid charity has enjoined this too upon us, lest, since no one for a long time was answering these things, he should advance into what is worse and, long exercised in vain, be unable to be corrected. For this is the zeal of charity, which seeks not the things that are its own.

A certain man, therefore, who bears the name of a false god, with foolishness and the boasting of the city of Rome as his guide, strives to make the Levites equal to the priests and the deacons equal to the presbyters—I will not say to set them above. For that would be more foolish and might perhaps seem incredible, and we might be regarded not as correctors but as slanderers. By what law, then, or by what custom, by what precedent he dares to attempt this, I think no one knows: that he should make these men—to whom a seat in the church has by no means been granted—equal to those who, because they are the prelates of God, sit with dignity in the house of God and in the honor of Christ. What audacity it is to make their own ministers the equals of the presbyters! What vain presumption of rashness it is to set on a level with the priests the bearers of the tabernacle and of all its vessels, and the hewers of wood and the carriers of water! For this was the office of the Levites. It is as if subordinates were made equal to prefects, slaves to masters. For this is written, when the Lord says 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. What is plainer than this example, which even now is kept in the church?

Yet although the deacons of the Roman church may seem somewhat more immodest, they nevertheless do not presume upon the dignity of sitting in the church. But that they do not perform all the ministries of service in turn, the multitude of clerics brings about. For otherwise they would both carry the altar and its vessels, and pour water upon the hands of the priest, just as we see throughout all the churches and just as was ordained by the Lord through Moses. Or are they perhaps better than Elisha, who used to pour water upon the hands of Elijah?

Thus 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 for that reason thought more honorable than among the other churches, on account of the magnificence of the city of Rome, which is seen to be the head of all cities. If this is so, they ought to claim this also for their own priests, since, if those who are inferior are exalted on account of the magnificence of the city, how much more ought those who are superior to be exalted! For whatever is bestowed on the officials becomes an increase to the power, just as the honor of a servant advances to the praise of his master—although before God, the just judge, this honor remains to each one, an honor which was created for the several offices of the churches, so that he who is a deacon may have the honor of the diaconate throughout all the churches—for it is no ordinary honor to serve the bishop of God, at least in the church—and that the priest may be held worthy of the whole ecclesiastical honor. For the greater order has within itself and with itself also the lesser; for the presbyter performs both the office of the deacon and of the exorcist and of the lector.

But that the presbyter is to be understood as a bishop the apostle Paul proves, when, at the time he instructs Timothy, whom he had ordained a presbyter, as to what kind of man he ought to appoint bishop. For what is a bishop, except the first presbyter, that is, the highest priest? In short, he calls them nothing other than fellow-presbyters and fellow-priests; does a bishop ever call his ministers fellow-deacons? Certainly not, for they are much inferior, and it would be disgraceful for a judge to call the chief clerk his colleague. For in Alexandria and throughout all Egypt, if a bishop is lacking, a presbyter consecrates.

But how great the dignity of the priestly order is, the case of Caiaphas shows, who, though he was a most wicked man, prophesied. Why? he says, "because he was the chief of the priests." And again, that there is a great distance between a deacon and a priest, the book which we call the Acts of the Apostles proves. For when the people of Samaria had believed Philip preaching, a deacon ordained by the apostles: they sent, it says, to Peter and John that they should come and give to those who had believed the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands.

But it is out of ignorance, I believe, of the scriptures, or forgetfulness of the law, that they defend these things. He, therefore, who thinks these things are to be maintained ought to recall what befell the Levites when they held such notions. For when they presumed that there was no difference between priests and Levites, with God as judge Korah and those who agreed with him were swallowed up by the gaping of the earth, and a rushing fire consumed at once 250 men, and King Uzziah, when he presumed upon the priestly office, was covered with leprosy, so that by this example the rest, being terrified, might not dare to presume what has not been granted. For now we see deacons rashly doing what belongs to the priests, both at feasts and in prayer wishing that the response be made to them, though this is permitted to priests alone. For the order of the deacon is to receive from the priest and thus to give to the people.

Do you see what empty presumption gives birth to? For, forgetful through the elation of their minds—because they see that they are ministers of the Roman church—they do not consider what has been decreed for them by God and what they ought to observe, but constant domestic duties and officialdom take this out of their memory, which now has very great power through suggestions whether bad or good. For either they are feared, lest they make evil suggestions, or they are bought, that they may grant favors. These are the ones who cause them not to consider the principle of their own order. For while, through flattery, they illicitly comply with them, they make them headlong, so that they think more is permitted to them, seeing indeed that deference is not shown thus to the priests, and through this they think themselves to be given precedence.

'But', he says, 'by the testimony of a deacon a presbyter is made'—as though this pertained to the prerogative of greatness. For we read that the apostle Peter said to the people: choose, he says, from among you those whom we may appoint to serve the ministries of the church, I do not wish to say 'of the tables'. Behold, by the testimony of laymen deacons were created. And the apostle wishes that he who is said to be ordained bishop should have even the testimony of the gentiles; for thus he says: for it is fitting that this man have also a good testimony from those who are outside. It belongs therefore 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. For a good painter can be judged by one who does not know how to paint, and one flute-player can be approved as better than another by one who is of another art; so too he who is of a lower order can be a witness of the presbyter to be created.

There is again something whereby they are puffed up and think much is owed to them: 'for by us', they say, 'those who are to be ordained are led forward'; so that, while they are hedged about at their side, they may seem worthy of honor. Grant it to be true; for he is sent by the bishop as it were an official, that he may render service to the one being ordained. For even an emperor, that he may appear an emperor, is set in order by military attendance; yet the army is not better than nor equal to the emperor. For Haman also, though he was illustrious in military honor, was sent by the king to go in attendance upon Mordecai, so that how worthy Mordecai was might be known from the attendances upon him; so too deacons are sent in attendance upon presbyters to be created, so that all may understand them to be made worthy priests. For excepting the priests, to whom they owe attendance, deacons are set before all.

CII. AGAINST NOVATIAN.

His disciples say to Jesus: "Lord, do you wish that we say for fire to come down from heaven and consume them, as Elias 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." Although it was certainly fitting to take vengeance on the Samaritans who did not receive him, the Lord nevertheless, because he came to bestow mercy, set aside the sentence, so that thereafter, correcting themselves, they might be amended. And the prophet Elisha, indignant at the boys who were doing him insult, with God as judge took vengeance upon them, so that they were devoured by bears in that place where there is said to be no forest. But the Lord spared the harlot brought before him — namely her whom the elders of the Jews said they had caught in adultery — so that, since the merciful preaching was beginning, he might teach that she was not to be condemned but forgiven. For the law given through Moses, because it held justice unto vengeance, exercised severity in its beginnings, since it both took deadly vengeance upon that man who went out on the sabbath to gather wood, and likewise gave punishment upon the son of the Egyptian woman who had blasphemed against God, and in the matter of the molten calf struck down the sons of Israel.

Each law, therefore, shows its full meaning amid its very beginnings, so that the old law, because it was readier to take vengeance, might appear harsher amid its beginnings, so that by instilling fear it might make its hearers diligent and attentive. But the new law, because it is merciful and inclined to mercy, displayed its beginnings most gentle and most clement, so that by this very delight 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 rigor but also showed itself human and merciful; and this law which seemed clement at times took vengeance. For Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, were divinely struck down; and Elymas the magician, unbelieving and resisting the law of God, was blinded by the judgment and power of the Lord; and Herod the king, because he did not give honor to God, being struck by an angel of God, teeming with worms, expired. Lest, because mercy is preached, men should think that sin goes altogether unavenged and is committed with impunity, he established fear, showing that pardon of offenses is given for this purpose: that, as though brought to life from the dead, they might afterwards abstain from contrary things — so that this be worked at, that no one depart hence with guilt, because there will be a coming to judgment. For to each person that sentence is imputed in which he dies. Since, therefore, the new law has the fullness of mercy, lest it be held in contempt by the lovers of sins, it took vengeance upon the aforesaid persons. But the old law, although it was given for vengeance, nevertheless pardoned certain persons, lest it be considered wholly cruel, yet it took vengeance upon the many, because its purpose is prompt to punish.

Without doubt, therefore, the grace of the new law is greater than that of the old was. If, then, the grace is greater, how can it be denied that it is able to bestow this which that other law bestowed, which had the lesser grace? For it was more inclined toward severity. And so, if that law is proved to have pardoned the penitent, how can it be that this law, which is merciful, does not receive the penitent? For the Jews too were called sons of God, who, on the authority of the apostle Paul, are read to have been baptized through Moses and in the cloud and in the sea. For, being about to receive the law, they are without doubt known to have been purified, so that thereafter they might render an account of the law they had received and, if any should sin, might reform themselves through penance, the Lord saying through Isaiah the prophet: "Do penance, you who go astray, and be converted." But perhaps, on the contrary, it is said: "Penance indeed was preached, yet not remission." If, then, penance was preached by God, there is fruit for those who do penance; for the Lord would not admonish this in vain. Furthermore, the Lord, knowing that remission of sins ought to be given to the converted, commanded this, since indeed he said: "I do not will the death of the one dying, so much as that he turn back and live." And so there is a fruit of penance, as has become clear, for those converted to God. Excluded, therefore, is the impiously contrived assertion of Novatian, by which he inverts the sense of the Lord's words, saying: "The Lord says: whoever denies me, I too will deny him," so that if any Christian, for whatever cause he has denied, can now no longer return, or at any rate, on returning, is by no means received.

And where will penance be enjoined, when the Savior, after pronouncing this sentence, did not deny the apostle Peter, who was denying him? Why? Because, penance following after, he wept most bitterly over his error, [the Lord] knowing full well that the converted are pardoned and are reformed through penance. But Novatian pretends that penance is to be done. For because he does not dare openly to deny that penance is to be granted, being bound by the law he subtly strives to render it void. For when he says that "whoever denies will in no way have pardon, but will himself also be denied in the sight of the angels of God," how does he not with deceit profess that penance is to be done? And from this his fraud manifestly appears, when he adds, saying: "Whoever sins against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither here nor in the future." Although the cause by which one sins against the Holy Spirit is one thing, and to deny the Lord Jesus is another, Novatian nevertheless, in order to deny pardon to this sin, wants there to be one and the same sense in denying the Lord and in sinning against the Holy Spirit, so that by this evasion he may cut off the fruit of penance. For if to deny the Lord is the same as to have sinned against the Holy Spirit, no pardon is to be hoped for by those who deny, nor any fruit of penance, since the Lord's oracles have promised that this sin is remitted neither here nor in the future.

Hence, therefore, it appears that Novatian speaks with guile when he says that penance is to be done; for why should one repent, if the offense is denied any abolishing? For the groaning, weeping, and lamentation of penance obtains this: that one may both merit pardon and reformation. Indeed David, repenting and confessing his sin, both merited pardon and was restored to his former state, since he both remained king and afterward prophesied. This is clearly proved; for in the fiftieth psalm he repented, and afterward, having suffered persecution from his son, he prophesied; for the third psalm, according to the history, comes after the fiftieth. But perhaps it had to be that the king be forgiven, whereas the lowly ought not to be forgiven — although rather it would seem that forgiveness is more difficult for the more powerful. For God does not accept the person of man. For the more exalted a person is, the more, however light his sin, grave is the crime. For just as humility in one who petitions is exalted and magnificent, so also his fault is to be held as a crime. For, apart from those sins which are agreed to be unlawful for all, not all things are permitted to the powerful that are conceded to the lowly. For it is unseemly for a man of dignity to engage in trade, and it is notable for him to enter a tavern; for senators, too, usury is a disgrace. If, then, they are to be marked when found in these light matters, how much more are they to be made defendants, if they have sinned! Through these things, therefore, it appears that David sinned most grievously, and indeed in a double manner: yet, having been converted, he obtained pardon for both homicide and adultery and — what is more — weeping, he was reformed. For when he was reproved by the prophet

Nathan, he did not dare to conceal his sin, but confessed, saying: I have sinned against the Lord. Then the prophet answered him and said: The Lord has taken away your sin and you shall not die, because you have repented; and since he is found to have prophesied afterward, there is no doubt that this man was reformed. For Ahab too, rebuked by the prophet on account of the death of Naboth, went weeping and tore his garments and girded himself with sackcloth, and the word of the Lord came into the hand of his servant Elijah concerning Ahab, and the Lord said: Have you seen how Ahab was moved before my face? I will not bring evils in his days. And for the Ninevites, weeping over their sins while death was imminent, life was restored. Behold how great is the profit of penance!

But perhaps it may be said, on the contrary: 'It is indeed conceded, but not the crime of idolatry; for although these are grave, yet greater is the crime of idolatry.' Yet rightly has Novatian's assertion been exploded, and in no small part, whereby two grave crimes are seen to be conceded to penance, because if fornication ought not to be forgiven, as it seems to Novatian, how much more homicide or adultery! But hence his vanity appears, when these things which are graver are proved to be conceded. Wherefore now it must be inquired whether God has promised that pardon can be granted to idolaters. For everything which shall not rightly have been conceded here, neither will it be able to be conceded in the future. For here, as the Lord said, sins are either bound or loosed; but in the future there will be nothing else except reward or condemnation. For everyone who is here rightly reproved will not be able to be chosen or judged worthy in the future.

Let us therefore hear what the Lord says concerning idolaters to the prophet Jeremiah: Go, he says, and say, Return to me, O dwelling of Israel, says the Lord, and I will not set my face against you, for I am merciful, says the Lord, nor am I angry with you for ever. Yet nevertheless acknowledge your offense; you have acted impiously and have set your ways toward strangers beneath every leafy tree. Behold what God promises to those who after their fall turn back to him, that to those who return after apostasy he may remit their sins. And again God says through Jeremiah: My dainty ones have walked rough ways, they have been led like a flock plundered by enemies. Be steadfast, children, and cry aloud to God; for there will be a remembrance of you in your carrying away. For as your mind was such that you strayed from God, so, being converted, you will redouble ten times as much in seeking him; for he who has brought evils upon you will bring upon you everlasting gladness together with your salvation. O the clemency of God! In what manner he provokes the fallen to raise themselves up! In what way he exhorts them that after the error of idols they may return to him! Like a kindly father he promises to his children the perennial gladness 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 rebuild them and I will not cast them down; and I will replant them and I will not pluck them up — so that, because he had said by way of threat: He who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out, lest those sinning against God should despair of themselves, as though now those who had sacrificed to idols, having been rooted out, could not be replanted, he exhorts them, since, if they repent, they will be able to be restored to their former condition. For the sentence stands then, if the offense is not amended.

Finally, it was proclaimed to the Ninevites that after three days their city would be overthrown. Why after three days, unless either that they might repent and the sentence be taken away, or that, remaining in it, they might more justly perish? This is what he said through the prophet: I do not desire the death of the dying, so much as that he should return and live. Thus it came about that pardon was granted to the Ninevites, who were to die for the cause of their sins, since repentance followed. For why do we find that under Noah the ark was built over a hundred years, unless that, seeing and hearing what was impending, they might correct themselves? For God wishes no one to perish. Hence it is that in Solomon we read: Because, he says, the Most High has had mercy on those who repent, 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. In this sense also the Lord, grieving over the faithlessness of the Jews, says: Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often have I wished to gather your children, in the manner that a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!

Therefore throughout the whole law the Lord always exhorts sinners to turn to him, not willing that his own work should be liable to perdition, since there is no other reason for the giving of the law than that men should 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 deigned to make manifest the mystery of his Son our Lord, he willed to be more generous and more abundant in mercy, so that there might be more grace when the Son preached than there had been when the servants preached. And not undeservedly: for thus it was fitting that he should bestow greater gifts through the Son than through the servants. Finally, to believers who have turned to him he grants all their sins at once, with no lamentation of penance intervening. Whence the apostle Paul says: For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance. But afterward, if they have sinned, they will be able to earn pardon through penance, so that, because they sinned after receiving the freely-given mercy, they may be able to attain to forgiveness no longer freely, but with groaning and weeping intervening.

For it is impossible for a man not to sin. Whence 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. Thus David earned pardon and restoration when he confesses his sin. Surely the apostle is speaking to Christians; for he says in what follows: My little children, these things I write to us, that you sin not; and if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ. He says this, so that if we have sinned after baptism, we may as suppliants entreat the advocate, that he may plead with the Father on our behalf. For if among our forefathers penance had a place, how can it be that in this time it should not have a place, when the mercy of the preaching is greater? And will he who had mercy on enemies by calling them to grace not have mercy on those who have been made friends, when a price is paid? For the tribulation of the heart is the price of the penitent. But if this were true, men would grieve that from enemies they had been made friends. Or what sort of one would he have to be reckoned, if he gave mercy to enemies who did not repent, but did not give it to friends who even pray for it? Moreover, since the Lord knows that the devil exalts himself and rages more against the friends and servants of God—whence the apostle Peter says: Watch, be sober, because our adversary the devil, roaring like a lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour?

Since therefore the Lord knows that we have a dreadful and mighty adversary, if we have been conquered by him, he wishes us to flee to his help, grieving that we have been struck down, so that, restored by his power, we may fight back bravely. For just as, unless those days which the Lord speaks of be shortened, no flesh shall be saved, so also, if penance be denied to men, no one will be able to be saved. For if no one, he says, will boast that he has a clean heart. And elsewhere he says: No one is without filth, not even an infant of one day. Who will be able to escape, if penance is denied? And where is that which the Lord says, that there will be joy in heaven over a sinner doing penance?

But: 'the greater crimes,' he says, 'ought not to be pardoned — fornication and idolatry.' And where is the dominical saying, in which he promises that all sins and blasphemies shall be forgiven to men, but the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven to men? He says that absolutely all sins can be forgiven except one. Now choose, Novatian, concerning whom you wish it to have been said: concerning those not yet believing, or concerning those already believing? If concerning those not believing, how is the remission of sins given, since it is agreed that all, before they believe, sin against God and against the Holy Spirit? For some call the Lord's deeds acts of magic, assigning the work of the Holy Spirit to demons. But if you wish it to have been said concerning believers, your assertion is excluded, because all sins will be forgiven: and whoever, he says, shall speak 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 embraced all sins except that against the Holy Spirit. And so he does not wish this sin to be understood — that which is sinned against God — to be also a sin against the Holy Spirit; for if it were this, he would certainly not have excepted the latter. Since therefore he signifies another sin, when blasphemy is spoken against the Holy Spirit — for this saying pertains to the person, not to the nature of the Holy Spirit —, whether to those already believing through penance, or to those who will believe through baptism, all sins will be forgiven.

But that the Jews sinned against the Holy Spirit is another matter, and one which pertained to that time. Hence he shows that this is not forgiven to them, neither here nor in the future. For they did not sin against the Holy Spirit through error, but through malice. For, knowing and being fully aware that the works which they saw in the deeds of the Savior were of God, in order to turn the people away from faith in him they pretended that these were the works of the prince of demons. Hence it is that the Lord says to them: you have the key of knowledge, and neither do you enter yourselves nor allow others to enter. This sentence, therefore, was pronounced against the malicious, for whom no remedy can be found that they might be saved. For nothing is graver than this crime; for he feigns to be false what he knows to be true. For the Jews, who seemed to be under the law of God and to whom the promise of Christ had been made, seeing the mighty works and understanding this to be what God had promised, were blinded by envy, so that they denied this to be so, and not only denied it, but even persecuted him unto death. Therefore it is not fitting that this sin should ever have to be forgiven to these, who, with their own conscience as witness, dared to resist God, to whom they said they were devoted.

But that sins may be committed either against God or against Christ, the causes are various. For either someone, while he envies another's happiness, rises up against the Creator out of grief at his own lowliness; or, having suffered something sudden and adverse, stirred up by wrath he becomes insolent toward his parent. But in Christ's case, his incarnation provokes the injury. For while men are ignorant of the mystery of the incarnate Christ, they blaspheme, reckoning it unworthy that the Son of God, who is of an incorporeal and simple nature, should be said to have been born after the manner of men. They blaspheme, therefore, because they are ignorant of the mystery. For which reason a hand must be extended to such men when they are converted, because they stand against the truth in this way while they think they are acting on behalf of the truth. A man of this sort, when tortured and torn with hooks, says that this is true which he follows; but the Jews mentioned above thought one thing and did another, and, without judge or executioner, they are forever tortured with their own conscience as witness. For he who through error has become an enemy of the truth, when he has been converted, rejoices that he has come to know the truth. For the malevolent man has nothing to amend; for if he converts himself, he will begin to speak the truth which before he did not know to be false.

But that an injury should be done to the Holy Spirit, no cause exists; for his office gives rise to no offense, because he appears in the power of signs and wonders. For who would dare to leap up against him, seeing the dead raised? Or who would be angry at him, by whose working he sees paralytics running, the blind admit the light, the deaf hear? Or how will he not love him, whom he sees cast out unclean spirits, cleanse lepers, and at the same time heal all infirmities? To this one the Jews chose to do injury, saying that his work was the work of demons, provided only that they might satisfy the envy and hatred which they were exercising against the Savior. Therefore he shows that this sin will be remitted to them neither here nor in the world to come.

But Novatian says: "Let it be proved that the graver crimes are forgiven by name — that is, idolatry and fornication after the washing. For it is for this reason that in baptism," he says, "all sins are remitted together, so that thereafter, if they commit anything grave, they may in no way obtain pardon; because after the reception of the Holy Spirit, that which is against the Holy Spirit ought not to be admitted." Who would deny that one ought never to sin — if only it were possible? But moreover God, knowing the human race to be frail, has always attended them with saving remedies, so that after their sins they might have a means by which to restore themselves. But if the Spirit that has been given forbids that penance be granted to those who sin, then there is no providence in the New Testament, and it will seem that better provision was made for the men of old, to whom this medicine was by no means denied. And how is the grace greater in the New than in the Old? For this is the work of the enemy, who — knowing that men cannot be provided for otherwise, so as to attain to salvation, than by the intervention of penance — should give the Holy Spirit, in such a way that, if an injury be done to Him through some fear or by error, satisfaction should now have no place for reforming the man; this is to have sought an occasion for destroying the man, not for saving him. But far be it, for the Lord says: The Son of Man did not come to destroy souls, but to save them. For if God has commanded that the sins which we sin against one another mutually, if we are converted, be remitted by us to one another seventy times seven times, how much more does He Himself, if He be sinned against, pardon those who are converted! For He wills that every sinner be converted.

Whence the Apostle proves that remission was granted to fornicators and the unclean, saying: Lest perhaps when I come I should mourn many of those who sinned before and have not done penance over the uncleanness and fornication which they committed. He proves that certain ones have done penance, over whom he does not grieve but rejoices; but he signifies that some have not done penance for their fornication, on account of which he also says that he mourns them as not pertaining to life, because they have not done penance. For if penance for this crime were always to be done in this life, he would not say that he mourns them because they have not done penance, but because they do not do it. But knowing that penance is here both begun and completed, he says that "they have not done" it. For this is what he wished: that when he came to them he might have peace with their communion. Behold, it has been proved that fornicators are to be admitted to communion after penance has been done. For communion cannot be granted to them so long as they are doing penance; but then communion is to be granted, when they cease to do it by the judgment of the Church.

We now have to prove whether idolaters in particular can be granted pardon. For we read in the Apocalypse of the blessed apostle John that repentance over idolatry is proclaimed. For the bishops are admonished, whom he calls angels — that is, messengers, just as the blessed apostle Paul also says: you received me as an angel of God —, that they should grant repentance to those who sin and not suffer them to go without admonishment at all, those who cause scandals in the church, since they too are of the church. He says therefore: And to the angel of the church of Pergamum write: These things says he who has the sword sharp on both sides: I know where you dwell, where the seat of Satan is; and you hold my name and have not denied my faith in the days. In which Antipas my most faithful witness, who was slain 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 cast a scandal before the eyes of the sons of Israel, to eat things offered and to fornicate; so also you have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Likewise do penance. This he says to be the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which was also that of Balaam, that is, idolatry and fornication, over which he commands penance to be done. And because he speaks to the men of the church, he shows it by saying: These things says the Spirit to the churches.

And because there is a fruit of repentance, he indicates it thus: To him who conquers, he says, I will give to eat of the manna which is hidden — that through repentance one may conquer sins. For what is it to repent, except to grieve over things past and henceforth to abstain from those things which one had committed? —■ And to the angel of the church of Thyatira write: These things says the Son of God, who has his eyes like a flame of fire, and his feet like fine brass: I know your works and your love and faith and ministry and patience, and your last works better than the former. But I have against you, that you allow the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and teaches and seduces my servants to fornicate and to eat things offered to idols. And I gave her time to repent, and she would not do penance from her fornication. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and her adulterers with her into great tribulation, unless they do penance of their deeds, and I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he who searches the reins and hearts, and I will give to each one of you according to his works. But to you I say, and to the rest who are at Thyatira, who do not have this doctrine and who do not know the depths of Satan, as they say: I will not put upon you another burden: but nevertheless hold what you have, until I come. And to him who conquers and keeps my works unto the end, I will give him power over the nations.

Under a single letter given to the church at Thyatira he confounds and refutes the twofold error of the Novatianist heresy; for he both promises fruit to those doing penance for the sake of idolatry, and shows that in one church the evil do not contaminate the good, since they were assuredly of one communion. For he was not writing to those placed outside the church when he says: He who has ears, let him hear, he says, what the Spirit says to the churches. For in like manner the apostle Paul says: But we know that whatever the law speaks, it speaks to those who are under the law; and in another place he says: For what have I to do with judging those who are outside? Therefore he partly summons the people of one church to penance, and partly commends them, saying: But I say to you, and to the rest who are at Thyatira, whoever do not have this teaching — that is, of idolatry — , hold fast what you have, until I come; that is, <persevere unto the end', because he who perseveres unto the end, he shall be saved. In like manner also he who perseveres in evil shall be damned. And through this, just as the righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day in which he goes astray, so also the iniquity of the unrighteous shall not harm him, when he turns himself. Therefore he said: He who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out; but if he turns himself, he shall live with life. So too is that which the Lord says: He who denies me, I will deny him. But if he turns himself, he cannot be denied by the one whom he confesses.

Hence it is that he said in the psalm: No living man shall be justified in my sight. For this sentence is imputed to a man in that state in which he dies. For because in the church the evil were to be with the good until the judgment of God, the Lord himself also indicated this, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, which gathers from every kind of fish. But when they had come to the shore, they separated the good into their vessels, but the bad they cast outside. So shall it be in the consummation of the age: the angels shall go forth and shall separate from the kingdom of God all scandals and those who work iniquity. This matter is signified also in that man who was found among those reclining at table not having a wedding garment, whom alone he shows cast out from the assembly of the church, because the offense of his unworthiness did not defile the rest; and because this unworthiness of his was marked out, in that he did not have a wedding garment, he was manifest to the rest. For they saw that he, among them, was clothed otherwise.

Hence comes that saying of the apostle Paul: "But in a great house," he says, "there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay." He put this because of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who, although they were of the church, held perverse views concerning the resurrection, just as certain men of the church of the Corinthians were denying the resurrection. But Novatian holds that this great house is to be understood as the world, not the church, lest he be forced to assert that in one church there are the evil together with the good, the clean together with the unclean. Yet I think this is easily refuted. For in one house all are under one name; for although they may be diverse in their conduct, nevertheless they are reckoned in their profession under the one name of their lord. This world, however, contains men of diverse profession, so that they profess, being unlike one another, that they have both gods and lords. You see, therefore, that this could not have been said of the world, but of the church, in which those living under one name are diverse in deed. And indeed I observe that Novatian was not ignorant of this; but because he had no just grounds for complaint regarding his own secession, in order that he might not openly blush for shame, he forged for himself certain arguments through a wicked interpretation of the law, by which he might strive to excuse and to cloak the envious will of his malice.

Finally he replied to these things which we have said, saying: "I too do not refuse that penance should be performed for idolatry once committed, but I do not dare to remit it, because this crime must be remitted by the one against whom it was committed." But this he replied with guile. For he is exposed by his own interpretations, in which his fraud is made apparent. For when he says: "It is written: 'Whoever shall deny me, I too will deny him,' and he cannot lie whose words these are," he shows that the penance which he says must be performed is empty and unfruitful. For if the sentence has been given and he who gave it does not deceive, why do you compel a man to be tortured with lamentations and groanings, when you either deny the effect of this thing or confess that you scarcely know it? For everyone who gives counsel to anyone gives it assuredly to this end, that he may proclaim what benefit one may gain from it. But because you, Novatian, profess this deceitfully, you say that penance must be performed in order to mock the minds of men. For knowing openly that this cannot be denied, you act subtly, because you cut off penance not in word but in effect. Certainly you say that everyone who has sacrificed to idols sins against the Holy Spirit, for whom you contend, through the words of the law, that this sin is remitted neither here nor in the age to come. In what way, then, do you say that penance for this offense must be performed, unless it is because you deceive, as I have shown above?

But you are wont to want to cover this deceit with another trick, saying that in the same sense the Apostle Peter too said to Simon: do penance for this wickedness of yours, if perhaps it may be forgiven you. But the Apostle Peter, observing the venomous and most bitter malice of the man, therefore gave him a doubtful reply. For what mortal has so sinned as to wish to purchase the gift of God with money? This reply, then, was given to malevolence, not to error. For it is malevolence that has no remedy, since it is neither an error nor a necessity by which one might be excused, so as to be able to arrive at pardon through weeping. If, therefore, any be found in such a cause, let them hear what Simon also heard. For the Apostle Peter shows why he answered doubtfully when he says: for I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. If, then, in so grave a cause, and one that seems to be without remedy, the answer was given doubtfully, it is not doubtful that those who sin against God through error or some necessity can be forgiven, if they do fitting penance. For this has been granted to ecclesiastical law by its author, that it may both impose penance and after penance receive back.

There is also another thing that Novatian censures: 'why,' he says, 'do they hand over the body of the Lord to those whom they know to be sinners?' as if they themselves, who are judges, could be accusers. But if they have been accused and made manifest, they can be cast out. For what judge takes on the person of an accuser? For if the Lord himself endured Judas, whom he knew to be a thief and to carry off the things that were put into the purse, and did not cast out one who was not accused, one ought to use this example, so that it be not permitted to cast out one who has not been publicly exposed. For neither does it befit a just man to accuse anyone. Whence it says, Joseph, since he was a just man and was unwilling to make her a public example, wished to put her away secretly. Judas, therefore, though he was among the disciples, did not defile them by his contagion, they at any rate dissenting from his thefts, and receiving the Eucharist among them he did not pollute the innocent, nor did the Lord deny his body to him whom he knew to be a robber, because, according to the Apostle, he who takes it unworthily takes a sword unto himself — wherefore he did not even turn himself away from his kiss. For those defile sinners who consent to their evils. Whence it is said: you saw a thief and you ran along with him.

Hence it is that the Apostle reproves the people of the Corinthians, because they did not correct or avoid the one who publicly had his father's wife, so that he might amend himself, saying: do you not know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump? For since there was no leader or overseer of the church, it belonged to the people to correct the one whom they saw conducting himself so basely and obscenely among them. And through this the Apostle reproves them as, in a manner, consenting to his crime. For in this matter there was no need of an accuser or of witnesses; for he publicly had his stepmother in the place of a wife.

And so, as far as it pertains to our case, we have set forth our argument, not accusing others, but defending ourselves. But I call to witness the conscience of the Novatian, who is forever accusing us, whether he knows that all whom he keeps in his company are holy. Yet he is so angry with us that he even denies that we are Christians, though he knows that we have been dyed with that same faith on which he himself relies. Surely it is profession and life that make a Christian. If, then, you see a man professing the same things as you, and not unlike you in his life, why do you deny that he is what you are? Surely he who says "the Lord Jesus" says it in the Holy Spirit; for he speaks the truth. For all truth is from God. Why do you not assent to one who speaks true things, but deny him? You contradict one who confesses God, not by reason, but by fury. Do you not seem to be an enemy of God, you who resist one professing true things about him? Does a pagan, hearing someone say that idols are gods, deny that he is a pagan? Why do you deny to be a Christian one whom you hear professing the words of the entire faith, when you read: with the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation? But you, like an enemy — a thing which through your wrath you do not see — fight against God, denying that one who confesses these things has salvation, though the Lord says: Whoever confesses me, him also will I confess. Does he say: "If a Novatian confesses me"? But you so build up this claim, that you seem to yourself to be defending this: that he is saved who is not only a Christian, but who has also been a Novatian. Yet if confession made in Christ gives salvation, then wherever, among whomever this confession is whole, it has salvation. And so, if the tradition of this confession is corrupted among us, or its sense altered, you accuse rightly. For if this remains in us just as also in you, then by denying us you seem to deny yourself as well.

But you accuse the ministers of the faith; grant that it is true, though you cannot prove it. Yet those who have heard from these men—is what they heard true or false? For even if a vicious man has spoken the truth, it will not thereby fail to be true simply because it was spoken by a vicious man, since the matter of one's manner of life is one thing and that of one's profession another. Does not the persecutor, out of hatred for the Christian name, persecute the profession, not the manner of life? In the first place, knowing that this profits religion, when we confess that we are Christians, the sacrilegious man, when we confess, believes what he does not wish to hear, because he hates it. But you, since you are of the same profession and the same seal, do not believe us when we confess the very things that you yourself confess. If you knew us to have been reborn otherwise than you were reborn, you would rightly not believe that we are what you are. Why do I suffer persecution from a sacrilegious man, if I am not what you are? For if I professed of myself what you say of me, I would not suffer persecution. In the end, I am to be believed concerning myself, not you. For the judge seeks my profession, not yours concerning me. Why then, when I confess, do you deny, when in this cause it is true that not another's testimony but my own profession is required, whether for me or against me? I wished you to be tortured for the name against me, so that it might appear whether, when I confessed the truth, you would deny it against me, or which of us should be believed. For you propose this by a trick, so that you may seem to have a just cause for schism. For you are not unaware that in this matter my testimony concerning myself is required, not another's, and that that is held to be true which I shall have confessed, not what another shall have denied.

It is therefore manifest that those are free who, out of love for Christ, not scrutinizing the deeds of men, run together to attain faith in him, approving in these men that which they know to be useful to themselves—that is, that they may attain the tradition of the faith which is concerning Christ. For whoever thinks that, besides the ministry, anything else of the man is necessary in this matter, does injury to the tradition; for he thinks too little of the grace of God. For when he denies that the gift of God can profit one devoted to Him unless the merit of the man is present, he makes the man either superior or equal to the tradition itself, whereas the merit of the man is far removed from this office, just as the apostle Paul says concerning this same matter: I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. And so neither he who plants is anything nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.

How, in this matter, is anything to be hoped for from man, when the words that are handed on have been given [by God]? Let us therefore see what benefit it will bring if he be of good merit, or what harm if he be of bad merit. The man who approaches desires to hear the words of God, and by lending them his faith he believes that he receives salvation. What difference does it make in this matter whether the one who delivers the solemn words is of a good or a bad life, when what is required is the devout faith of the one who receives, so that he may believe with his whole soul the things which he hears? Surely, if the one who delivers them is of a bad life, will he place an impediment before the one who receives, so that he should not believe the things he hears, which are to be believed — so that that man's sin should enter into his heart and keep him from believing? Or does God, who is just, have to despise one who is devoted to Him on account of the sin of a man whom He Himself allows to be in [holy] office? Nor does even a man judge thus — a man who, as is agreed, is frequently deceived or is partial. If it were so, and the man were to plead his own cause, would he not say to God: 'Who this man is on whose account You despise me, I do not know. I came to him for Your sake, because he was called Your priest. You I sought, You I desired, You I believed; from man I hoped for nothing: why, then, should his evils harm me — a man whom I would not know had I not sought You? If his good deeds could profit me, it would perhaps seem just that his evils too should harm me. But just as his good deeds, had I believed doubtingly, would have profited me nothing, so too his evils ought to do no harm to me who believe well. For I gave my faith to his words, which are said to be given by You and which breathe You, speak You, and promise concerning You; to this man I believed nothing concerning himself nor his deeds, but I joined myself to the faith which is from You.'

According to these things, the cause of the believer is intact. For take the priests after the manner of advocates. Surely, if the advocate is of a bad life, will judgment be pronounced against his client? This is the office of an advocate, that according to the order of the law he plead the cause of his client: surely his life, if it is base, cannot harm his client's cause? For the person of the advocate can neither harm nor profit; for of whatever sort the cause has been, so too will he be answered. So too are those who wish to become Christians. They approach the priest, they tell him their desires, he speaks the words of ecclesiastical law. If the desires are true, they are received by the judge. In what way can that man either harm or profit, seeing that he does not even know the cause of his client? For to God the judge alone is it known who approaches with what mind. It belongs, therefore, to the priest to discharge the office delegated to him, but to the judge either to accept or to refuse the cause of the client. For He Himself is found to have said: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole.

You see, therefore, that by no one's help, but each one is saved by his own faith. For God has decreed this to faith, that, if it does not doubt, it may obtain everything which it wills. You, however, not as a friend but as an enemy of Christ, have gathered a people under your own name, so that they should not be Christians unless they be Novatians — whereas the apostle condemns it if anyone should say that he is of Paul or of some other. But you, judging yourself the more powerful, have set your own name above the name of Christ, as though He were not sufficient to protect His own Church.

CIII. SINCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT IN LEVITICUS THE LORD COMMANDED CONCERNING THE SACRIFICES TO BE OFFERED, HOW IS IT THAT, ANGERED AT THE PEOPLE, HE SAYS THAT HE DID NOT COMMAND THEIR FATHERS TO OFFER LIBATIONS OR SACRIFICES OR BURNT OFFERINGS? FOR THUS HE SAYS THROUGH THE PROPHET JEREMIAH: 'THUS SAYS THE LORD: GATHER TOGETHER YOUR BURNT OFFERINGS WITH YOUR SACRIFICES AND EAT THE FLESH, FOR I DID NOT SPEAK TO YOUR FATHERS NOR COMMAND THEM, ON THE DAY WHEN I BROUGHT THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT, CONCERNING BURNT OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES.'

If you attend closely, there is no reason to raise a question about this matter; and do not suppose that the Lord lied or changed, so as to command something and afterward deny it. For concerning sacrifices and libations or burnt offerings of this kind nothing is found to have been commanded, concerning which He testifies that He said nothing. For take note that there are two kinds of sacrifices: one which was commanded to be offered according to each individual kind, and another which was said to be voluntary. That one, therefore, which was commanded to be offered through its various kinds, whether for sins or for firstborn, it was commanded what and of what sort and in what manner it was to be offered. But the voluntary sacrifice was assuredly not commanded, because it was left to one's own discretion, so that, if anyone wished to offer, he might offer what seemed good to him; for these were votive sacrifices. And because they offered these carelessly and heedlessly, without deliberating that whoever offered ought to offer choice gifts to one more powerful, therefore it is said to them: 'I did not command you concerning these; but if you wish, you ought to offer things that are worthy'.

For thus it is found that Cain also sinned, when he did not consider that those things ought to be offered to God which are the better ones. For when they said that they offered these to propitiate God, in that very thing they provoked God to indignation, so that in the very matter in which they said they were doing well they sinned by offering to God unworthy burnt offerings. Hence He says in the prophet Malachi: if you bring to the sacrifice a blind or a lame or a sick animal, it is not good. But offer it to your leader or your superior, whether he will accept you, says the Lord almighty. Hence it is that in Isaiah God complains about the same matter, saying: what to me are the sheep of your burnt offering? nor in your sacrifices have you honored me. For I did not make you for this, that you should toil over incense or that you should buy me frankincense with silver, nor did I desire the fat of your sacrifices; but in your sins and iniquities you have stood before me. It is therefore clear that the complaints arose because, when they offered voluntary sacrifices, they did not honor God in them, offering unworthy things, since this was assuredly not a matter of necessity. For if they had been commanded, they seemed to offer of whatever sort out of necessity: but when they offered these of their own discretion, they ought to have offered such things as would show forth in themselves obedience to God. But because their mind wandered in desire for idols, they did these things without consideration. Therefore they are reproached with a double kind of fault, because both, acting wickedly, they dared to offer to God, and they offered things that were unworthy, since wicked deeds are not redeemed by sacrifices, but by lamentation and mercy.

Whence David says when he had sinned: "If you had wished it, I would surely have given sacrifices; in burnt offerings you will not delight. A sacrifice to God is a spirit crushed with sorrow, and a heart contrite and humbled God does not despise." Then Samuel says to Saul, who, when he had despised the commandment of the Lord, thought that God could be appeased by sacrifice: "For God does not," he says, "desire sacrifice more than that his voice be heard." And Scripture says: "I desire mercy rather than sacrifice," because, since they were unjust and unmerciful, they supposed that God was made favorable by offerings, just as even now certain people who spurn justice think themselves praised on account of their offerings. Good therefore is an offering, if justice be preserved and mercy not neglected, because what we seek for ourselves we ought also to bestow on others.

CIIII. ON THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

The Lord, knowing that the Jewish war against him was to come, told his disciples to prepare swords for themselves. And when this had been done, when the war had been begun under the leadership of Simon the Iscariot, the apostle Peter, seeing the enemies rising up, drew a sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the priests. Then the Lord told Peter to put back the sword into its sheath: "For everyone," he says, "who takes the sword shall perish by the sword." Why did he order them prepared? He who forbade the striking, designating even as guilty of death him who should strike with the sword, when the apostle does not indeed seem to have struck unjustly? For as far as concerns the matter, he struck him whom he saw armed against him. For he ought to have resisted the ungrateful servants who were armed to slay the Lord.

If you examine the individual members of the question, whose reason you wish to be laid open, you will find also other things which you may inquire into from these things said. For what need was there that this one, who was relying on spiritual power, should order carnal swords to be prepared, and that he who earlier on the way had ordered that neither a bag nor money nor a staff be carried, should now order to be had those things which he earlier forbade?

Let us begin therefore to explain why he ordered swords to be prepared and forbade the striking. For not only for the sake of the enemies, but also for the sake of his own disciples, did he command arms to be procured for the war that was to come upon them. For a new and marvelous thing was to be, that this one, who was doing new and unheard-of signs, should so suddenly be humbled that he should be subjected both to blows and to death: lest therefore he should seem to suffer these things as if unforeseeing, and as one from whom perhaps power had departed, he foretold all these things thus, so that he should not be in doubt about them, but foreknowing should prepare himself against these things, and, because he was humbled by his own will, should command that the enemies not be resisted more fiercely—showing to such a degree that he himself was the one who he had been, that, already having been seized, he restored the ear which had been cut off, (and) that he gave back what had fallen away by the working of the sword. Not indeed as a carnal physician, but as the maker of the body, he refashioned his own work that had been maimed. For physicians cannot repair cut-off members of the body. But so that the power of God might be seen not to be diminished in him, but to be present just as it had been, and that he might confirm that which he had said: "I have power to lay down my life and I have power to take it up again," for this cause therefore he ordered swords to be prepared, yet did not order to kill.

Now it remains to address why, in considering the deed of the apostle Peter, he said that the one who had used the sword would perish by the sword, since it does not seem that he struck unjustly. For, as is indicated in Luke, he struck with the Lord himself permitting it, and thus, being forbidden, he heard these words. It was permitted for this reason, namely, that they might be seen both to be able to avenge themselves and yet to be unwilling, and that the power might be shown to remain in him in whom it had been, so that in both respects it would not be doubted that they could avenge themselves, while the enemies would hold it for certain that the power had been given to them by him to do these things. For he did not appear as one conquered, but as one handing himself over to their will. Why, then, was the sentence given, that whoever takes the sword should perish by the sword, except because it is lawful for no one save the judge to kill anyone with the sword? But to the apostle Peter it was permitted only up to this point, that he should cause pain, not that he should kill. For hearing this, that he should not strike again, he learned besides that, to those who have now become Christians, it is not lawful to kill; for to those who are set in mercy it is not lawful to make use harshly of the law of the justice entrusted to the world. But that which he seems to have commanded to the disciples going ahead on the way, that they should take nothing on the way, is for the sake of peace and by the grace of virtues and the affability of teaching. For what need was there to take anything on the way for those to whom, for the sake of signs, all things were to be offered? But when the time came in which he permitted himself to suffer, on account of which a strife—rather a war—was threatening, he orders the disciples to be armed, not that he who wished to suffer might resist, but, as I said, that he might show himself both foreknowing of this matter and having his passion in his power, yet that he might humble himself for the sake of human salvation, which will be told in its own place.

CV. THAT THE GOSPEL AGREES WITH PROPHECY.

Since at the first coming of the Lord it was foretold that the sun would be darkened in his passion at the very hour in which it is proved to have happened—that is, at midday; for thus it is written in the prophet Amos: and it shall come to pass in that day, says the Lord, the sun shall set at midday and the day of light shall grow dark upon the earth—, on that day therefore the sun was darkened from the sixth hour until the ninth hour, and thus the prophecy of the aforesaid prophet was fulfilled. For the image of this thing, which is to be in the second coming of the Lord, was shown in the passion of the Lord, because in the end, when the Lord shall have begun to come in order to judge the world, the luminaries shall be released from their office, the Lord saying: in those days the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give its brightness. Which indeed the prophet Joel also did not omit, so that, since it is signified by Joel, it may without doubt be believed to be fulfilled. For thus he said: the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord comes. This, as far as it appears, agrees rather with the second coming; for then it will be openly manifested to all, as the scripture says: then shall every eye see him, and all the tribes of the earth shall wail over him, even they who crucified him.

Therefore, if in both comings this is contained—that the sun will be darkened in those days—what is that day on which Scripture sang that the sun and the moon would be enlarged? For Isaiah says, among other things: And there shall be upon every high mountain, and in every high place, water running through in that day, when many shall perish, 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, as the light of one day, in the day when he shall heal the breaking of his people, and so forth. What day can be understood, on which the Lord promised that he would heal the breaking of his people? This, I think, is the day which John's father Zechariah pointed out, saying: Blessed is the God of Israel, because he has visited and wrought the redemption of his people, and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David his servant, as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets, who are from the beginning. And he has delivered us from our enemies, and from the hands of all who hated us, to show mercy toward our fathers. And Simeon, among other things, says: This one is set for the ruin and for the resurrection of many in Israel. This <ruin> is that of the scribes and Pharisees and the leaders of the Jews, whom the prophet signified in the word 'towers.'

Therefore, when these had fallen through unbelief, others rose up by believing—those who before seemed weak and sick through negligence. Whence 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—so that those who through the cultivation and skill of the law seemed to be lights might be blinded through unbelief, while the blind, that is, the unskilled or the publicans, might see, once they believed. Their infirmities the prophet foretold that the Savior would bear. And so this was done in the time of the Savior, as is read in the Gospel, that he himself took our infirmities and healed our wounds.

Which things indeed were all accomplished and fulfilled in the Savior's passion; for thus the salvation of the human race was both redeemed and made secure, both among those above and among those below, because the prophecy of the aforesaid Zechariah embraces both. For both here among those above they were freed from the crushing of their enemies by the intervention of mercy, and there among those below, when they were snatched out of Tartarus. For all who had hoped in the promised Christ were awaiting his coming, that, death having been conquered, they might be freed from the underworld. Whence he said: to show mercy to our fathers. But if anyone should understand this salvation to be contained also in the second coming, yet in each coming, and most of all in the second, the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon shall not give her brightness. How then shall we perceive that the sun and moon are increased on the day when the Lord shall visit his people, when in both times, in which the liberation of the people was begun and fulfilled, we read that the sun and moon are not diminished but darkened? Unless plainly 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 lights, as the apostle Paul preaches, because among the rest of men the saints in this world are seen as it were as lights; and in the Gospel: then, he says, the just shall shine as the sun. For the Lord calls just works light; for thus he says: let your light shine before men, that seeing your good works they may glorify your Father, who is in heaven.

These therefore, who having forsaken all their own follow the Lord for the sake of justice and sanctity, are compared to the sun and moon, honored sevenfold, as the Lord says: there is no one who leaves house or wife or children or fields, who shall not receive sevenfold as much in this world. Those therefore who at present are honored sevenfold, it can be understood that in the future also they are believed to be about to be sevenfold brighter than the rest, so that their resurrection may be compared to the sun and the moon; but that of the rest is as the stars. The brightness therefore of the saints, which here is honored sevenfold, in the resurrection attains another sevenfold; so that he who here has the brightness of the moon in the future may receive the brightness of the sun, and he who here is compared to the sun is believed to receive sevenfold as much in the future.

The prophet Isaiah therefore foretold that by the comparison of the sun and moon the merits of the saints are increased, and not without reason. For if the Lord himself is called (the sun of justice), and the saints shall be like him, as the apostle John says: for when he shall appear, he says, we shall be like him, it is fitting that the saints are signified in the sun. Yet the aforesaid prophet shows the sun to be greater by seven parts than the moon. For when he shows the moon to be as the light of the sun in the future, but the sun sevenfold as much, he signifies that the moon is increased indeed to the measure of the sun sevenfold, so that it may be such as the sun is. Although the account of the saints is here treated, yet under this pretext he has set forth in part the quantity of the lights, so that after the increase of the sun and moon it may again be as much greater as the sun was, so that, as much as in the present a saint differs from a saint, so much may he also differ in the future after the reward.

CVI. ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS.

In the beginning God made heaven and earth. If in the beginning he made heaven and also earth, and heaven is the firmament, as appears in what follows, this is not true, because light was made first and then the firmament; for it could not signify another heaven, since it describes the making of the world as accomplished by God's working. For because men were being deceived by diverse opinions concerning the cause of the world, Moses, under God's inspiration, showed what the true account of the world was. For to some it seemed to have no beginning; to others indeed to have a beginning, but to have been fashioned by certain angels; to some, however, to have been made likewise, but by a certain Sacla, who was a god of the opposing power; but a few, following the transmission of the truth about the origin, asserted God to be its maker. Therefore on account of this diversity among those who were led astray by false opinion, Moses was compelled to show what was the true cause of this, lest the sons of Israel, rescued from the power of the Egyptians, should nevertheless not be freed from a false understanding of these things. For they above the rest were rather pursuing the zeal of error; for these in ancient times, before the rest, gave their effort to a vain philosophy. In short, Moses, through the fact that he seemed by adoption to be the son of Pharaoh's daughter, was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.

What then is it that he says: In the beginning God made heaven and earth? For if firmament does not signify it according to what we have shown above, let us see what he means. We judge that Moses, in order to remove every error concerning the lower creation and concerning the materials of the world's making, signified that in the beginning the very substances of which the world consists were made, because, if he had passed this over in silence, the substances might perhaps be thought to be eternal, reckoned as co-yoked with God, so that whoever receives the testimony of this matter cannot doubt that the world was made, since he confesses that at the beginning the substances, which went toward the material of the world, were subjected. Therefore in the beginning God made heaven and earth, that is, the upper and the lower substance. The upper is that of which heaven consists; but the lower is a certain dreggy concretion, which went forth into the dry land, which is called earth, and into darkness. Whence he says in the prophet Isaiah: I am God, who made light and created darkness, that is, water, darkness, and earth.

Therefore, when these substances had been created simultaneously before the ages — for the ages are under the firmament; for the firmament, as it seems to some, is a solidification of the waters, and it is called "firmament" for this reason, because it has been made firm by the waters congealed through divine action, and it is called "heaven" (*caelum*) from hiding or concealing. And so, because water is the greater element, it is signified first, and because a part of it advanced into the vault of the world; but the earth is the pavement. And these things indeed David also confesses to have been created through the Holy Spirit; for he says: and let the water which is above the heavens praise the name of the Lord, for he spoke and it was made, he commanded and it was created — after these elements, therefore, before the joining-together of the world, God made light, so that his works might proceed in the light; and this light, in a fixed measure, completed the course of the day. And night was made according to the measure of the day, and it likewise, when the measure of its span had been filled, was illuminated by the coming of the morning light; and thus the first day was completed, when the second began; for the night was reckoned to the day, so that together they are called one day. For because the darkness is made subject to the light, they lack authority, so that they cannot make up the number. For thirty days are called one moon (*luna*), although they have the nights along with them. And so the ministry of the light, by which it completes the span decreed for it, is called day; but the substance of the darkness, before it is illuminated, is called night. And that span which is between the setting and the rising is night. For darkness does not make the night, as light makes the day, because darkness remains in its own nature. But the approach of light makes the day, and its departure the night. Not without reason, therefore, is the night made subject to the day. -

Therefore, when the light had been made and the course of twelve hours completed, and an equal span of night likewise carried through, there was an equinox on the first day. And thereafter the day began to increase over the night, namely for three months, which are the season of spring. Then, from that increase, the day is diminished for another three months, which are the season of summer. And again an equinox occurs, so that from it the night increases over the day for another three months, which are the season of autumn. And the night begins again to be diminished from the magnitude by which it exceeds the day, until the end of the fourth season, which is winter. And the equinox of the first season occurs, when God created the world, which day is understood to be the 11th day before the Kalends of April, when the first day of the Passover is, that is, the first day of the first month. For in the Law it was commanded that on the tenth day of the first month, in the evening, they should prepare themselves to keep the 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 the beginning of the first month was from the 11th day before the Kalends of April. For in the beginning the moon was made on the fourteenth, because all things were made full; add also the three days from the evening of the tenth, and these are the three days before the luminaries which existed, so that the world was made on the 11th day before the Kalends of April, because the number of the moon comes from the eleventh to the fourteenth, to which the whole first month of the Passover is assigned, so that on the Passover, the solemn day, it may be neither outside the 11th day before the Kalends of April nor outside the fourteenth moon, because on the eleventh the world was made. And on the fourteenth moon it was made brighter with a greater light.

Between the beginning, therefore, and the brightness by which the world was illuminated, our Savior both suffered and rose again. For he suffered on the fourteenth day of the moon and rose on the first day, which is for that reason called "the Lord's" (dominicus), because he made it—he who, multiplied, makes the months and the seasons and the years. But that it might by no means be celebrated in one and the same manner, the course of the moon produces this by its waning and waxing.

Now 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 the waters; therefore it was invisible. It was unformed, moreover, for this reason: because, since it was fluid, it was not fit for cultivation.

And there was darkness over the deep. He says that there was darkness over the deep, that is, over the immense water on every side.

And the Spirit of God was borne over the water. This water he signifies as, so to speak, the surface, over which he shows the Spirit of God to have been, because it was borne over it—so that he may signify that there was darkness over the boundless depth, but the Spirit of God over the waters, because, where the Spirit of God was, there was no obscurity. For as far as it could, it illuminated the water; but the deep, that is, the immense depth, it could not illuminate; that is, it illuminated the upper waters; beneath were also the darknesses over the deep.

For this reason, moreover, he calls this "the Spirit of God," not because he wishes this to be understood as the Holy Spirit, but because over the material (hylic) creation he wishes spiritual things to be understood; and, signifying that the whole belongs to God, he calls this—which was borne over the waters—the Spirit of God, so that he may overthrow the perverse assertion which certain men employ, saying that there is something which does not belong to God. For it is neither of order nor of reason that the Holy Spirit should be said to have been over the waters, since he is over all creation. For that which is of God is above all powers and principalities and at the same time above all spiritual powers. But let it not disturb anyone's mind that it is called "the Spirit of God," since it is established that all things are God's. For God says, among other things, when about to make the flood: My Spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh; and in Ezekiel, among other matters: Thus says the Lord to these bones: I will stretch skin over you and will put my Spirit in you, and you shall live. Do these things pertain to the office of the Holy Spirit and not to the soul? This Spirit, therefore, is indeed God's, like the rest, yet it is the governor of the material substances; its order is to preside over these.

Therefore, once light had been made and the course of the day regulated and completed, on the second day He made the firmament, that is, the sky, so that the light within the firmament might regulate the day, so that it might be as it were a lamp in a house. And so this firmament was made from the above-mentioned substance of water. For now the world is being fitted together into a distinct form, so that, from the confusion of things, once the substances had been separated out, the individual parts might be arranged, which would serve toward the members of the world. For the substances which we said were made first were the raw materials of the world, and it is for this reason that it is called "world" (mundus), because things separated from one another, which had been in confusion and brought forth into distinct form, caused it to be called a world, toward the fashioning of which they served. The firmament therefore, that is, the sky, was made in the midst of the waters, so that it might divide between the water which was above the firmament and the water which was below the firmament, so that by the power of God the firmament might stand fast in the midst of the waters, having water beneath it and within it and above and around it, so that it might be hollow on the outside and fortified within, lest the waters, whether the outer or the inner, should penetrate its hollow, so that it might be as it were a house fortified and made firm, so that those dwelling in it might be secure.

On the third day He commanded the water which was under the sky, that is, within the capacity of the firmament, to be gathered together into one gathering, so that the dry land might appear, which is the earth, and it was done so. For once the breadth of the earth had been hollowed out, there came to be as it were a channel, into which all the water which was within the firmament might sink down, and then the dry land appeared. For as the water receded it was necessary that the earth should appear, made visible, 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 the herb of fodder and fruit-bearing trees for seed upon the earth.

On the fourth day again God commanded that lights be made in the firmament of the sky, that they might shine upon the earth: a greater light unto the beginning of the day and a lesser light unto the beginning of the night, and the stars. These pertain to the conception and birth and nourishment of the things which are begotten in the world, and to the signs of the seasons necessary for fixed reckonings, and also to the adornment of the whole world. For just as it pertains to the adornment of a house if its vaulted ceiling has panels picked out with gold, so too the stars, shining with varied light, furnish adornment to the world. And so to the light which was made first the splendor of the sun was added, in such a way that these are joined together and undivided; but to the night, which was dark, a light was given. And because the moon was in its fourteenth day when it was made, He speaks thus: a lesser light unto the beginning of the night; for it shone when the whole night had come to be. It was therefore said from the part with respect to the whole: unto the beginning of the night, because it does not always shine in the evening. But the greater light, which we call the sun, remains at the beginning of the day, because it was formed together with the earlier light.

For three days, then, the world was without these luminaries; for there did not yet exist the things for which their services would be of use. But when the earth brought forth the herb of fodder and fruit-bearing trees, the things which would nourish or preserve what had been produced became necessary. Therefore, since the generation of all these things is accomplished by their intervention, it was not fitting that this should be made first, lest the things which were produced from the earth should be thought to have arisen by their effect; but rather to make those first and thus these, so that it may not be doubted that those were made without these.

Then on the fifth day he commanded the waters to bring forth the creeping things of living souls and the flying birds that fly above the earth according to the firmament of heaven; and it was done so. And among other things: and God saw, it says, that they are good, and he said: increase and multiply. And he added this, "and God saw that they are good," because by certain people they are said to be evil, so that at least in this way they may blush for shame. For when they please God and their own Creator, they surely ought to displease no one. For fools are accustomed to say: "for this reason," they say, "he saw them and they pleased him, because previously he did not know." O dull-witted ones, how did he not know, he by whom what he willed was produced? Does anyone will what he does not know? And can it be said of one who is able to make something that he does not know what he makes? And what is more, he did not himself make it, but commanded that it be made; and she whom he commanded—is it not of his power that she should make it? But because all things are possible to this one, at his command she who was not able began to be able, so that it might redound to his praise; for it is a twofold power, that he should command the insensible to bring forth things sensible.

But on the sixth day he ordered that the earth should bring forth the living soul, the quadrupeds and the beasts of the earth; and it was done so, and they were produced. And God saw that they are good, and very good, because all things are necessary.

On the aforesaid day, then, God said: let us make man to our image and likeness, and let him have, he says, power over all things that have been made upon the earth. First indeed God made the substances out of which he might frame together the world; and when it had been framed together and adorned with all ornaments and honored with the necessary things, after these he made man, who might enjoy it and all the things that are in it. For although he had commanded all things upon the earth to be produced from the waters and the earth, yet, in order to make man, he is described as having taken up the slime of the earth with his hands, so that he might teach that man differs greatly from those things which he had made. For he wills it to pertain to the honor of man, when he describes him as made by the hands of God and made to the image and likeness of God, that is, to the image and likeness of the Father and of the Son.

Now what "in the image and likeness" is—though we have discussed it elsewhere, yet this passage and occasion demand that we speak of it again. For these are the words of the Father to the Son, saying: Let us make man to our image and likeness, although in every work the person of each is to be understood, of the one speaking and of the one obeying. This, then, is the image of God in man: that one was made as it were the lord, from whom the rest would arise, holding the sovereignty of God as it were His vicar, because every king has the image of God. And therefore woman was not made to the image of God. For thus it says: And God made man; to the image of God He made him. Hence it is that the Apostle says: A man indeed ought not to veil his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but woman veils herself for this reason, because she is not the glory or image of God. But the likeness of God is this in man: that, just as woman from man, likewise from the Father the Son—in this plainly unlike, that she was made, but He was born.

To some, however, it seems that the Lord made all things at once. "For if He made by a word," they say, "why should He not be said to have made all things at once? For this is the manner of men, if He be believed to have made in parts." They say, therefore, that it tends rather to the power of God, if all things are believed to have been made by Him in one day. But furthermore in this work and order we behold a great providence. For He could indeed have made all things at once, but a manifold reason prevented it; and setting all these things aside, faith must be placed in divine Scripture, which says, and often says, that in six days the Lord your God made heaven and earth and the sea and all things that are in them. For in the first place they had to be made in such a way that they might perceive and know that they were made. For when they did not see all things at once, but one today, another tomorrow, they recognized that they were contained in a beginning and could not suppose eternity for themselves, where they recognize one another in parts. For if all things had existed at once, there would be no sense of weakness in them, but they would think that they had not begun. For the things that suddenly exist together by the word of God do not perceive that they are made, unless by seeing one thing before themselves and another after themselves. And lest perchance that which was made first should think itself unmade by discerning greater things made after it, it believes concerning itself what it sees in another more excellent. Finally, the light, which is called day, has before itself heaven and earth, that is, water and dry land. But when the water itself and the dry land and the darkness had been made in confusion, they could not claim eternity for themselves, because none of these dared to claim for itself a settled state and property. Again the sun and the moon, though they are most brilliant, have many things before themselves. Thus therefore it came about that, since the more excellent things are later, and the earlier things are inferior when they see themselves, none of these might claim eternity for itself.

Furthermore, since the work was completed in six days, it contains within itself the age of the whole world, so that the works of the six days would bear the figure of six thousand years, because what was to come to pass in each several age is contained in order in the works of the six days: so that — I suppose because such great knowledge of God was not to be on earth in the earlier ages — the earlier days appeared without splendor; and that the cattle were made before man, because our ancestors, uncultivated and rustic, were going to live after the manner of cattle; but that man was made on the sixth day, this fact brought about, because in the six-thousandth year He made man at the coming of Christ, that he might not be liable to death; and that man was the image of God, because by the gift of God he was to be made a co-image with the Son of God, since John the apostle says: we know, he says, that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him. And the vessel of election says: made co-images with the Son of God. But the tree of life, which was placed in paradise, was an image of the future grace of God, which is the body of the Lord, and whoever eats it shall live forever. For the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the law given through Moses, which, when it had made known the sin that previously lay hidden, gave the knowledge of good and evil. For it showed what was good and what was evil. But that fact, that on the seventh day He rested from His works, signified this: that when the six-thousandth year was fulfilled, in the seventh millennium He would rest, the world now ceasing from every worldly work. 20. These few things out of many we have said, in order to open a way of understanding according to those things which we have shown above.

CVII. ON THE ORDER OF DAY AND NIGHT.

As far as pertains to the account of the world, we read of darkness before light. For those things which contributed to the fabric of the world and which seem to have been made together are considered to have been deprived of light, that is, water, earth, darkness, out of which the world was framed together, as is contained in the Wisdom which is called Solomon's: out of unseen matter, that is, dark matter. For the sacred volumes attest that both darkness and water were made, by the voice of the Lord Himself through Isaiah the prophet: for I, He says, am the God who made light and created darkness. Likewise also through David the Holy Spirit shows that both the waters were made and the earth was established upon the waters. This agrees both with the evangelical authority and with the apostolic tradition, in which all things are read to have been made, and, that it might make no exception, whether those which are in the heavens, he says, or those which are on earth.

In this part, then, which pertains to the earth, we read of darkness before light. This is in respect of the order of the reading, not in respect of dignity; for light is assuredly far better than darkness. Nevertheless, in the ordering of the world light received a name, so that it was called day and the darkness night, but by this reasoning, namely, that, while the darkness is illumined and the light passes on, that period—until the light returns—is called night, and that period, in which the darkness is illumined, is called day. When therefore night is spoken of, the day to come is awaited, and when day is spoken of, the night that is to be is awaited. But when these functions have ceased, as the world passes away, there will be spoken only of darkness and of light. For it cannot be called night, when the darkness is perpetual, nor day, when the light has ceased to set. For where there is eternity, these names cease, because they began with the world. In short, before the light came to be, which was called day, we do not read that there was night, but darkness; and this darkness, after it was illumined and the light had passed on, was called evening and night.

Therefore, so far as appears, night is made subject to day. For it ought not to be thought that, because darkness is read of before light, on that account it must be set before it, since both the heaven is before the sun and yet the sun is greater in brightness, and the earth is before man and the cattle and the other living creatures and yet these are made subject to man. Not therefore on this account ought night to be preferred to day, because darkness is read of first, since it is plain that light is set before darkness in dignity, and day before night in time. 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 it was evening and it was morning, one day. For unless there had been day, there would have been no night either; for there was darkness, which, when it was illumined and the day had passed, its course having been accomplished, evening came to be. And when after the evening it had grown light, the first day came to be, the night having been spent, so that night followed day. This both is fitting and is commended by reason, that the lower nature should in all things be made subject to the more excellent.

How then can night be said to come before day, whose name you read after "day"? For neither night nor evening would have been named unless light, once made, had produced day; and when this had passed, evening came to be, which is night: day indeed became evening, so that you may know that night is a part of day. For a day is completed when it passes; and do we not, in short, speak thus: <a year has 365 days'—certainly not without nights. For when we say "days," in that very phrase we count the nights as well. For under the authority of day we signify the night also; for if night preceded day, day too would be reckoned under the name of night. For what man would say, 'after five nights I will see you,' and not, 'after five days'? Nor do we recall having read anywhere that night is indicated before day. For, it says, Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights; and in the psalm: the sun, it says, shall not burn you by day, nor the moon by night; and, to give an example from the very beginnings themselves: let there be, it says, lights in the firmament of heaven so that they may shine upon the earth; the greater light for the beginning of the day and the lesser light for the beginning of the night. If the moon can be set before the sun, then so too night before day; but, just as the moon is beneath the sun, so also night is beneath day. And in the Gospel we have the nights signified under the authority and number of days. For the Lord says, among other things: there are some standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man in his kingdom. And he added: and it came to pass after eight days, and so on. Are not the nights also contained in this number? And in another place: these things, it says, were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day he saw Jesus coming. Did he say, 'the next night'? Again it follows: on the following day he wished to set out into Galilee; and in what comes after: and on the third day a marriage took place in Cana of Galilee.

Behold, everywhere the day is shown to hold the authority, having the night made subject to it. For if the reckoning were contained under the name of night, night would go before day. For because the Romans hold the empire, the Spaniards and Gauls and Africans and the rest who are subject to them are called Romans under their name; so too the night, because it is subject to the day, is contained under its name. But some are deceived by this, because the Jews are commanded to enter into the sabbath in the evening, not considering why it was so ordained. For assuredly on the day before they must buy food for themselves and make preparation for the sabbath and go washed. Could they do these things by night, so as to enter into the sabbath when the day had already risen? The Lord certainly rose again in the evening, and it is reckoned to the day. For the resurrection is celebrated on the day, which day is called the Lord's day — for so you read: This is the day which the Lord has made; yet there is no "Lord's night," because the day holds the primacy. For whether it be to the past day or to the future one, the night is always subject, because it is both lower in order and in nature, as the apostle says: You are sons of the day and of the light, not of the night and of darkness. And if we should reason from the consuls, we shall see that he is named first who is chosen first. Finally, it is commonly said: "With whom will so-and-so be consul?" If, then, the night too were before the day, it too would be named first. For the reckoning begins from the day to such a degree that, suppose we say, "Tomorrow is the sixth day before the Kalends," it is counted from the morning right up until another morning is reached, so that it is computed when the day and the night have passed. For the moon too was surely made at the beginning, in the morning, as a fourteenth-day moon; for once made, it had to shine the whole night through, and at the next morning it began as a fifteenth-day moon. Why, then, is it doubted, that beginnings are not to be reckoned from the day?

Because of the disputes of certain people about a matter that is plain, we have been compelled to speak at greater length, although the passage itself explains itself, in which day is signified before night by an evident reasoning. All these things have been mentioned above. We have spoken according to the origin of the world. But if we wish to speak more deeply, raising our understanding with spiritual vigor, we shall find it 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 absurd to think that light was made after darkness, because Moses says that light was indeed made, but in that part in which the world now is, not that it was created then, since all spiritual things were created before carnal ones, so that the light which was in the things above might come to be in the things below, like a lamp in a house. But by what reasoning is darkness said to be before light, since it is always seen after light? Indeed, heavenly and spiritual things are believed by nature to be light, earthly and carnal things to be of darkness, so that the nature of darkness seems to subsist by the power of light, because everything lowest belongs to what is highest. For if we inquire, we find darkness in the sun itself; for when, if you are close beside it, it appears so very bright that it cannot be perceived; but if at a distance, bright indeed, yet such that it can be looked upon; but if far off, less bright, and the farther it is, a certain kind of failing appears, which announces darkness, and so one arrives at it. So that darkness seems to take its origin from light, and thus he who made light in this manner also created darkness, in the same manner in which, making water, he at the same time created earth; so that just as earth is the solid part of water, so darkness is a failing of light.

But God alone is he who suffers no failing, who, though he is everywhere, indeed has all things within himself, is so exceedingly bright that he is seen by no one, unless he should be willing to temper himself. Finally the Savior, though he was in a body and was not enclosed, nevertheless was by no means seen unless he willed it. For surely, the fact that he was transfigured on the mountain and appeared in great brightness, this was as it were hidden in his body, and he manifested it when he willed. How then was he hidden who was not enclosed? For if with his body he entered to the disciples while the doors were shut, in what way does his divinity not penetrate all things? That is, it cannot be shut in, because it suffers no failing. Since therefore God is nowhere absent, he is nevertheless said to be there where he appears and wills to be seen. Since therefore all things are in God, because he surpasses all things, as the apostle says: for in him we live and move and are, he himself nevertheless is in no one except in whom he shall have willed. For by a certain mystery he is in all things, and by a certain providence he appears in whom he wills.

CVIII. ON THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, FROM WHAT IT RECEIVED ITS NAME.

Everything that is from God is rational, and it gives to each individual thing a beginning-cause that is its own origin, so that it may seem to be named or to subsist not absurdly, but so that the naming might display the thing which is understood to be the head of the name itself. Therefore the rationale of "man" is the cause by which he consists. Now he consists of four elements—earth, air, water, fire—with God alone as author; the fifth is the mind, like a charioteer, so that it may drive the compacted and shaped body like its commander. From this we all took our beginning, and by its name we are named. For we are called "men" (homines) on account of the soil (humus), from which our father has his origin on the outward side. Therefore cause and rationale bring it about that from the name of some one person the rest, subsisting under the same name, are called, signifying that person in themselves.

For which reason let us see whether it fits, as some suppose, that the Hebrews were so called from Heber. For it seems, as far as pertains to the name, that the origin of this name descends from there; for Heber is earlier than Abraham. But if this were true, those who are of the tribe of Heber ought to have been named after him by the same name; for Abraham was born in the seventh generation from Heber. If, then, above Abraham—or Abraham himself—was called a Hebrew, without doubt the Hebrews are named from Heber; but if it is not read that those before Abraham were called Hebrews, but rather after Abraham, then they are not called Hebrews from Heber at all, but from Abraham, seeing that the sons of Abraham are known to have first been called by this name. For in Genesis [Joseph and his brothers were called Hebrews. For knowing that there had been an Abraham who had descended from Syria into Canaan and had been multiplied, being on account of his faith filled with all abundance, called a king and a prophet and the father of many nations, who with three hundred and eighteen of his home-born men had struck down five kings—because these things were done and spoken not in a corner, so as to lie hidden—they named those who were of his seed Hebrews. It was therefore of Abraham's rank and merit that he should become the head of those who have their descent from him. For by God's judgment he was set as prince and origin in the land of Canaan, so that those begotten from him should be of another profession and manner of life than he himself had been before he descended into the land of Canaan; for he himself, renewed, was to establish a new people in devotion to God. Hence it is that the apostle Paul confesses himself a Hebrew of the Hebrews; for this seemed to be a surname of dignity. For it was a testimony and nobility of lineage that they should be surnamed from the name of him who had pleased God in many ways and who was their origin.

Let it be rejected, if it does not accord with reason; let it be spurned, if it is unequal; let it be torn down, if it is foreign to the merits of Abraham, and let us be refuted as though we were his flatterers. What is this enmity against Abraham, this rivalry, by which his enemies disparage him, and who are these, unless they are the very ones who are called his sons? What is there in which Abraham gives displeasure, that this glory should be thought foreign to him? And what is there that is pleasing in Heber, that he should be said to hold this primacy? If his manner of life could be investigated, he would perhaps be found to have worshipped idols like Terah and Nahor and the father of Nahor, who, it is agreed, were not far from him, as Joshua the son of Nun testifies, namely that these worshipped idols.

Or at any rate let those who are of the opposing view show by what reasoning this must be claimed for Heber, lest perchance his merit be suppressed by us; but there is none, because the scriptures are common to us and what is owed to each single one is in plain view. For if they think this must be defended from the name alone, it is weak and improbable. For then it would rightly be claimed for his name, if there existed some witnesses of the matter which confirmed this; for some persons of the same name could claim for themselves a thing not their own, and therefore this is true, which is established not by the name alone, but also by clear reasoning. For that it was by God's gracious favor brought about that in Abraham the human race should be visited and a saving pattern be made for men, is doubtful to no one. Therefore in him was restored what had been lost by the fault of human frailty. For he was set as a certain image, so that after his likeness the race of men might return to God, so that it might recover for men both the worship of God and the word, which had earlier been given for the use of men, because, just as in the beginning in Adam there was the image of God, so that the knowledge of Him might be on earth, so after the ruins of the human race and the forgetfulness of the truth it was reformed in Abraham, so that from him faith in God, begun again, might germinate into fruit. Whence it is not absurd that the people begun from him should obtain their appellation from his name.

But lest perchance on account of the name Heber they suffer a scruple, because the name Heber sounds more like the Hebrews, since they are called Hebrews (Hebrei), not Habraeans, let them recognize again that they are called Hebrews (Hebrei), not Heberites (Heberei); for he was called Heber, not Hebrer. If therefore they think an attack must be made from this quarter, they suffer what they do, and neither of us will have the victory from this side, except him who, having rendered the reasoning in order, shows that what he asserts is true. For he who is equal in one matter must be said to have lost, if in the other he is found unequal; for on account of the sound the letter was changed, so that they should be called Hebrei instead of Habraei, because it sounds better, since also from Judah they are not called Judai, but Judaei. For wherever it seemed absurd, the letter was changed, so that the utterance might have a well-composed sound. For instead of 'medidie' we say meridie (midday), and there are many such cases. Therefore it is fitting, as has been shown, that both the language and the people should be named with the name of Abraham.

This, then, is the language which we say was first given to Adam and to the rest, which, on account of the presumption of the tower that was built, we believe was scattered into many and confounded, so that this one no longer existed, but many arose out of it through the alteration made in certain of its words, in such a way that it did not retain its own form and yet did not perish, but was wholly confounded with the other languages. For thus was it then brought about, lest men should understand one another and dare greater things. So great a number of languages, then, is understood to have arisen at that time as there were men, who, scattered in the places in which they dwelt, each one established his own language.

But if it be judged that the language which is written to have been then one is by no means that same one, this will remain: that it was gathered piecemeal out of the other languages and pieced together into the form of a single language which Abraham used, so that, because he was the father of many nations, he might have a speech composed out of many languages and be in all respects renewed. But since those men, whom the book of Genesis records as being of one voice and speech, are read to have migrated from the east, and from there again to have been scattered by God over the face of the whole earth, assuredly the one who would remain in the language first given did not remain there. Finally, it has neither any land among men, as the other languages do, nor a nation, the Jews excepted, because it was given to the first man in paradise. And after the languages were confounded, this one which is now called Hebrew has nowhere been found. If therefore it has nowhere a place or a nation — but Abraham was by nation a Syrian —, whence this language for Abraham or for the rest of his seed, unless because either that one is the earlier or else is certainly fitted together out of many? For we see that a good many languages have things similar to it.

But it does not so agree with reason in the way that the other view does, if this one be said to be the first; for reason proves that this was not done idly. For Abraham ought to have had that same language which the first man had, so that Moses, coming and describing both the creation and man made by God, might use this speech, with which God spoke and called the man Adam, and Adam's woman was called Eve, so that this speech might be in the book of Moses which had also been in those whom he describes, that he might teach the first cause truly reformed in all things and the divine benefaction in Abraham.

CVIIII. ON MELCHIZEDEK.

We read in the book of Genesis concerning Melchizedek, and in like manner also in the epistle written to the Hebrews, that "Melchizedek," it says, "the priest of the most high God, met Abraham as he returned from the slaughter of the kings, and brought forth bread and wine, and offered it to him and blessed him, saying: Blessed art thou, Abraham, of the most high God, who made heaven and earth, who delivered thine enemies under thy hands"; and, in order to signify how this same Melchizedek was to be understood, he added: "for without doubt," he says, "that which is least is blessed by the better." Which indeed he by no means referred to the tradition of the ecclesiastical office. For who would doubt that the rule of the Lord's tradition, by which those subject to the Lord are blessed, is better than those who are blessed by it? For the mystery of the Lord works in these words, which embrace and record him. But he wished to demonstrate the proper merit and power of his person.

Who then and how great is this man, in comparison with whom Abraham is called least—Abraham who, it is agreed, holds among all the faithful the mark of the testimony of nobility and faith! Therefore this Melchizedek is not to be understood to have blessed Abraham in the way that priests among men do, so as to give a blessing by delegation with solemn words, but as something proper to himself, which he received substantially not through words but through nature, so that it is his own. But the priests, whom we call prelates, have a rule ordained with solemn words and handed down to them, which they place upon men and bless—not those whom they wish, but sometimes even those whom they do not wish, because the giver of the rule himself knows to whom the most sacred blessing ought to be given or poured out.

But he who has the blessing substantially in his nature, whom he calls a priest of the most high God, gives the blessing through his will. For the words of the blessing and his nature accord with his will. Nor does he err, so as to will where he ought not, nor to be unwilling where he ought, but on whomever he has bestowed the words, he has bestowed the effect. But our priests daily impose the name of the Lord and the words of blessing upon many, yet in few is there the effect; and there are times, again, when they bless those better than themselves. For although one may be holy, he nevertheless bends his head to receive the blessing, because it is not the priest's own but God's device. For Eli the priest blessed Hannah, and the effect followed—not indeed by the priest's merit, but by that of Hannah herself, whose pure heart God beheld.

Therefore Melchizedek is said to be better than Abraham not on account of the office of the priesthood alone, but he is also set before him by nature, so that he is understood to be beyond men. For it can in no way come about that one who is set above the friend of God, and one so faithful that out of love for him he did not hesitate to slay even his most beloved son, should be thought a man. For by what justice, by what works could he merit more than Abraham merited? For there was nothing more that he could do to commend his merits than Abraham did. For first, when he did not know God nor had seen any sign by which he might be persuaded, when God said to him: Go out from your land and from your kindred and from the house of your father, he did not delay, but at once obeyed, fulfilling the will not only of the God present but also of the Lord to come. For the Lord says: Whoever has made more of his house or parents or brothers or kinsmen than of me, is not worthy of me. What kind of man then is Abraham, and of what merit, who fulfilled the commands of the Savior before they were preached!

The Apostle teaches that hospitality is greatly to be pursued: this

Abraham cultivated [it] so devoutly and so greatly, that the apostle seems to have learned from him that this [hospitality] was to be preached. Then, advanced in years, he believed that his seed would be multiplied — a thing which seems foolish to the prudent of the world — even as the stars of heaven are, so that, before the sentence was pronounced against the prudent of this age, they seem to have been condemned by him. For afterward it was said: I will destroy the prudence of the prudent. By God's command he is circumcised — which assuredly is not done without pain — and he does not bear it grievously, that he might give to posterity a pattern of patience. From Sarah his wife, now an old woman, a son is promised to him, and he does not doubt, so that he might show to those to come that one must yield to the authority of God to such a degree that, even if he command or promise things that seem irrational, there be no wavering, because his person is more to be regarded than the words, so that what in the words seems weak or impossible, his person may confirm and make to seem possible. For it is God who promises, concerning whom it must be believed that he can do what seems impossible to men. For what offense can be judged, when one supposes more concerning God than humanity feels concerning itself?

On account of which Abraham does not hesitate to kill the son given to him by God, when that same [God] so commands, nor does he put off the time nor marvel at God's will — that God should order this son to be killed, whom he had given as a special grace of favor and of wonder — being certain that God's will ought not to be reconsidered by man, nor that the command and deed of God are without providence. And that he might fulfill this hastily with all devotion, he does not disclose it to the boy's mother, his own wife, not being unaware that women are more frail concerning their children and could bring an impediment to this devotion by the compassion of tears; and likewise he keeps it hidden from the boy himself up to the hour of his slaying, that he might obey God's command with the whole compliance of his mind, reckoning this not a parricide but a holocaust, which was being done with the just Judge as its author.

What greater things, therefore, than these could Melchizedek perform, whereby he might surpass Abraham, who, as we see, is established to have been disobedient in nothing? For Moses, to whom the Lord is read to have spoken face to face, when he was sent, was unwilling to go to the nation and to his brothers. Jonah likewise, a prophet, broke through the command given to him to preach to the Ninevites, so as to go off to another place, to which he had not been sent. Job, plainly outstanding in all things, nevertheless, moved by the loss of his children, tore his garments and shore the hair of his head; but Abraham is not read to have been saddened over the death of his dearest son — and one whom he himself had been commanded to kill — nor is he anywhere read to have trembled when God commanded him._

Therefore by these things it appears that Melchizedek is beyond man, because there was no reason why he should be better than Abraham, unless nature alone should give him precedence. For an impassible nature has beatitude through its substance, whereas human birth acquires beatitude through deeds. For because it does not possess the perfection of deity, it advances through exercise and struggle so as to become better, when it conquers more than it is conquered. For if it should so act — which is impossible — that it should never sin, it would become better than God — which be far from it! —, because a nature which is able to sin, just as also not to sin, if it should always conquer, would have to be preferred to that nature which for this reason does not sin, because it is impassible. For it would not seem a great thing not to sin, because it is not able to; but it would be magnificent if, when it were able to sin, it should not sin.

This, therefore, is the difference between the substance of God and of man: that God's substance is always blessed in the security of its invincible eternity; but man's substance becomes blessed in another way, through toil. And it is necessary that the beatitude of the impassible be one thing, and that of him who is worn down by tribulations another, so that he may at some time be able to rejoice. For the impassible beatitude is in this, that it is always blessed, whereas the passible rejoices, after great exertions, that it has escaped death. It is saddened, therefore, in order that it may be able to rejoice, nor is it perpetually secure because of the passibility of its nature; but the impassible is always blessed, because it neither knows sadness nor suspects that it can be saddened. For the nature of men also, although it attains beatitude through toil, will nevertheless not be untouched, nor will scars be lacking to it. For how can it come about that a nature which has often engaged in combat and been sometimes conquered should not be wounded? But the impassible remains always untouched, unharmed, inviolable.

Therefore Abraham would not be called least in comparison to Melchizedek, unless the nature of Melchizedek were more powerful than Abraham. For these things which we have said may perhaps seem to belong to native wit; but if we look to Scripture, still more and weightier things will be said. For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, who also blessed him, is first indeed interpreted as king of righteousness, 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 for ever. And that he might commend these things by the passages in which he had signified them, he added concerning him: You see, he says, how great this man is, to whom Abraham the prince of the fathers gave tithes of the first-fruits. For in order to show with what power and how great Melchizedek is, he praises Abraham, saying that he is prince of the fathers, that is, Abraham better than all the rest, but least in comparison to Melchizedek.

Is it not clear that this one is not a man, but something greater? For what is it that it says about him, that he is king of peace and king of justice? Draw nearer and see. For seeing the sun from afar you take it for a lamp, and looking upon silver you reckon it tin. Can any of men be called king of peace and justice? For peace is preached to men, and justice likewise; but this one is called king of peace and justice for this reason, that justice 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. For men are instructed, with justice as their teacher and with peace, to earn God. This therefore, which is the teacher of men, has Melchizedek as its king. How much better than a man, then, is Melchizedek, when the governess of men is beneath him! This is to be a king of kings.

And so when he is called king of justice and peace, he is signified to be their author. So that, just as the Lord Jesus is the author of life, so also Melchizedek is the author of justice and peace, because those who live through Christ are ruled by the dispensing of justice and peace. For into the hearts of the servants of God he pours justice and peace, to adorn the Lord's discipline. We read it written in the eighty-fourth psalm, that justice and peace have embraced each other and truth has arisen from the earth; and, in order to show of which justice it was speaking, it says that justice has looked down from heaven. This the scripture shows concerning the time of the savior, in which the justice of God was given to the world through Christ in the knowledge of the mystery of the one God, which he had promised beforehand — for it is just that the creature should know the truth of its creator —, which justice, manifested on earth, with discord taken away — discord which had been begotten from the injustice of the unknown God — made the discordant peaceful, when it established in one faith those who a little before were diverse. Thus "justice and peace embraced each other and the truth of the one God arose from the earth," with justice as teacher. For the incarnation of Christ showed what truth was to be known concerning God himself. Therefore this certainly is the justice of God. Likewise also peace, as the apostle says: "But the God of peace shall crush Satan." :':

I cannot see how this can be distinguished: since God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the God of peace, and Christ himself is likewise so — for he says, My peace I give to you — how it is said of Melchizedek that he is king of righteousness and of peace; on what grounds this is to be set apart, I do not understand. For I think that, as regards the matter, there is no difference between a king of peace and a God of peace. For because in the world no one ought to be called God — so that this name might be reserved for the one alone from whom are all things — he nevertheless established a king who should bear his image, one who, apart from the name of God, should possess all his power. But because he is earthly, he is a king of men, yet not of peace and righteousness, because he too has righteousness as his leader, which it is not permitted him to despise. For righteousness is God to him. For righteousness is a thing belonging to God, and whoever transgresses it becomes guilty before the judgment of God. Melchizedek, however, as it is given to be understood, is not called king after the manner of men, because he has under himself righteousness, which rules over kings. For no one can have righteousness under himself unless he is of such a nature that he cannot sin. And he is said to be under him for this reason, because by him it was devised in the manner of a law, by which those who can sin may be governed. Therefore the king of righteousness is the ordainer of the words devised by him, by which one may both live and believe well and blessedly.

Long and much do we labor, and still we say too little about Melchizedek, unless we return to Scripture, which itself also long knocks and cries out, that it may rouse those weighed down by heavy sleep to an understanding not of night, but of day. It says therefore that Melchizedek is without father, without mother, without genealogy, and, lest it should be understood otherwise than is fitting, it added: having neither beginning of days nor end of life. By this it shows that Melchizedek was neither born nor died. What does human subtlety argue against things so manifest? What is that cunning craftiness of wit which dares to resist things manifest, so that it does not take a meaning from the reading, but assigns a meaning to the reading? Violence is done to the Lord's Scriptures, so that it feels as enemies even those who appear to bow themselves to its authority. For some say that Melchizedek is not to be believed of in the way that has been reported in the Scriptures, and through this they turn the Scriptures to their own meaning; for whom it would be better openly not to receive the Scriptures than to act deceitfully against them, so that under the name of peace war is prepared, and under the covering of friendship the enemy lies hidden.

They say, therefore, that Melchizedek belongs not to nobility of birth, but to the lowliness of that same lineage, because he is read to have been without father and mother. For they say it was written thus for this reason, that it might be shown that he was of foreign stock, not of the tribe from which Abraham arose, because his lineage is not found in the law. "Whence he also added," they say, "'and without genealogy,' so that it might be understood that his origin was in no way at all described in the law, in order that he might be believed to have been made a good man by his own self, from parents of whatever sort." But furthermore, is Scripture so incautious that it would set down all things, arranged in order, as necessary to the matter! For first it says: without father, without mother. Let us see whether the mothers of the others are indicated in the law: who was the wife of Nahor, the grandmother of Abraham, or the mother of Terah, is nowhere read; nor who was the mother of Abraham—to say nothing of the rest. Are these, then, to be said to have been without mothers? If it had said "without father," would they not have been †corrupt†? Because the fathers of all who existed are recorded in the law, it adds: and without genealogy. If it said these things for this reason, to show that his generation is not in the law, it would have sufficed to say "without father," because of one whose father no one knows, much more is his grandfather unknown.

For the sake of clarity it says: having neither beginning of days nor end of life. Tell me, whoever you are, you violent one, how do you interpret this? What is it to have no beginning of days nor end of life? It would certainly have sufficed to say that his generation was not written in the law, and through this his origin would have to be believed to be from foreigners. It can be said that he was "translated," like Enoch, and for that reason did not die. So be it. What is it to have no beginning of the days of life? Perhaps you might say, because the day of his birth is not written. For whose day of birth is written in the law? And is this the reasoning, that one whose day of birth is not written is denied to have a beginning of the days of life? Therefore the same could be said of the others as well. And even if he had been translated as a man, he was nevertheless not without an end of life, because whatever is under the expectation of death has an end.

Cease, whoever you are that are bent on contention. For it is more profitable to be conquered by what is true than to conquer the truth by falsehoods. For it is to lose, not to conquer; because, even if in a man the truth should seem to lose, yet with God it conquers, since its reasoning is invincible. And so the mind ought to be conquered by the law, so that it may perceive what is signified by the law, and not itself give a meaning to the law by its own judgment, so as violently to set itself up as a law over the law. And hear Zerubbabel, who says: above all things truth conquers.

Now already Melchizedek showed the future mystery of the incarnation and passion of the Lord, when he first handed over to Abraham, as it were to the father of the faithful, the eucharist of both the body and the blood of the Lord — so that there might be prefigured in the father the truth which was to be in the sons. But if he is thought to be a priest as a man, after the manner in which Aaron was or as they now are, let the place of his dwelling be shown or read, or whether there was some temple or synagogue in which he gathered the people and offered their sacrifices, or what people assembled to him. For if he was a priest on earth, without doubt he had a people. And before Abraham, certainly, or in his time, there was a people who would serve God. And how was Abraham made, as it were, the head of the faith, so that from him the people might have knowledge of God? For likewise, if there was a Melchizedek who taught the fear of the one God on earth, Abraham was chosen in vain, that from him the people of God should be named. For it could have been among those who assembled to Melchizedek.

And where is that which is read in the canticle of Deuteronomy, that "when the Most High divided the nations," he says, "in the manner in which he scattered 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"? Therefore, if in the world there was no people of God apart from the sons of Abraham, by what reasoning is it thought that there was another people which had descended from the teaching of Melchizedek, when the prophet denies it? For when he names all the nations which are in the world, and says that there is no people of God except the sons of Abraham, what remains except that, apart from these, it should be denied that the rest had knowledge of God, since "God is known in Judea"? But Melchizedek, "the priest of the most high God," appeared to bless Abraham as a foretoken of the saints to come, because a blessing was to be given in the future to the people of God through him who is almost the high priest of God, whom we call the priest. This Melchizedek, therefore, appeared as the forerunner of the sacrament of the coming Son of God, because he goes before in service who is following in order. Therefore the things we have said about Melchizedek are not to be wondered at, since Scripture, for the confounding of those who clamor against it, adds still more and speaks. For after all things worthy of praise, so that it may confound the malevolent: "but being made like," he says, "to the Son of God, he remains a priest forever."

Now consider whom you are striving to think ill of, and, if you do not fear him, at least dread Christ, to whom he is reported by the authority of Scripture to be like. For step by step he gradually arrives at his natural worth, so that, if the earlier statements should disturb any — by which he was signified as king of justice and of peace, and because, having been seen in the flesh, he had neither father nor mother, that is, he appeared unbegotten, having neither rising nor setting — he might, from these last things which he subjoined, prove the earlier things credible. For who would dare to say, save a madman, that all these sublime things are unfitting to him who was designated like the Son of God, remaining a priest forever? But he cannot be like the Son of God unless he be 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 guise of a man, what doubt is there concerning the things that have been said? For we read in the psalm, Thou art, he says, a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. None of us doubts that this pertains to the person of Christ, because Christ is a priest forever in the same manner as Melchizedek also is; 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? For both are therefore read to be alike and to be of one dispensation, because they are also of one nature.

But since in every way the authority of the one God must be preserved, therefore the second and third person are made subject to the paternal name. Now Christ is the vicar of the Father and his representative, and for this reason he is also called a priest. Likewise also the Holy Spirit, being sent as it were as a representative, was called a priest of the Most High God, not the highest, as our people presume in the oblation, because, although Christ and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, nevertheless the order of each one must be preserved. Priests therefore, or legates, are so called because they display in themselves him whose legates they are; for they are his image. And for this reason Christ and the Holy Spirit, naturally having the image of God, are called his priests. In them God is seen, as the Lord says: He who has seen me has seen the Father also; and if in the deeds of the Lord God was seen, and the deeds of the Holy Spirit are works — the Lord signifying this, that I cast out demons in the Spirit of God — then in the Holy Spirit also God was seen.

CX. ON THE FIRST PSALM.

Since the prophet David, signifying spiritual reasoning through the appearance of carnal things, and pronouncing with an eager mind psalms of diverse kind and merit unto the praise of God and unto the mystery, veiled the first psalm with no covering and assigned it to no one, but established it as general, so that it might belong to those who, having been separated from evils, have fortified themselves with the fellowship of the good. For neither ought the beginning, and especially the beginning of this grace, to be sung in obscurity — since light comes before darkness, and the head of each thing is in the open — nor does the question arise from that point, but from what follows; whence he thus began, saying: Blessed is the man who has (not) gone away in the counsel of the ungodly. The counsel of the ungodly is the conspiracy of the malignant, to be understood in manifold ways. For this reason the ungodly differ from sinners — for ungodliness is the gravest sin — because all ungodliness is sin, yet not all sin is ungodliness. In what way, then, does someone go away into the counsel of the ungodly? Surely when he is called forth from himself. For in saying this he shows that, so long as one does not depart from nature, he does not incur sin. On account of this he says, 'Blessed is he who has not gone away in the counsel of the ungodly.' For ungodliness, begun by the devil with his attendants assenting, entices men, so that it may make them sharers of its own ungodliness. For he himself, sinning first against God, while he wishes to usurp for himself the primacy through tyranny, having been cast down from the sacred seats, reckoned this a consolation, if he should acquire very many companions for his own perdition. And therefore, he says, 'Blessed is the man who has not gone away in the counsel of the ungodly.' For those entice men always, who, acting under this prince, are hostile to us, as the apostle says: For your struggle is not, he says, against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers; and in another epistle he says of their tyrant, among other things: so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as though he were God. For because to sin seems sweet and the evil is not perceived unless there be loss — and through this those who deceive do not appear so long as they are ensnaring, but when they have deceived, then they are recognized —, therefore he calls blessed that man who has not been enticed into the counsel of the ungodly, so as to go into the fellowship of their ungodliness.

Therefore the first cause of impiety is this, whereby they began to be rebels against God in a malicious conspiracy, by the imitation of which idolatry took its beginning. For the transgression, begun in the regions above, descended to the earth. For while they are not content to be subject to the one God and creator, they showed themselves impious by parceling out his majesty to others, so that, having spurned him, they might choose others for themselves for worship. For this is the first cause of the human race's offense, from which, being neglected by God, they are handed over to be deluded by various enticements and passions, according to the teaching of the apostle Paul. For what work remains inviolate that has not acknowledged its author? From that point the evil, now sown, rejects restraint and, like a vine its shoots, stretches out into many directions, so that those who had not spared God would leap forth all the more easily into the insult and murder of their parents; because — to be silent about the rest, since the apostle says: For what is it to me to judge those who are outside? — Reuben, to his father's dishonor, committed defilement upon his father's concubine, and Absalom against divine law usurped the kingdom, so as to deprive his own father of rule and of life. -

Impiety has still other aspects as well, since both to despise one who begs [for help] in danger, when one could be of profit, is impiety, and, in a harsh and malicious affair, to give counsel that it may be carried out ... of this matter, nor did he escape for the present, and such things as could be found bearing on this meaning. Not without reason, therefore, is that man blessed who has not gone into the counsel of the impious. For it is a great destruction for a man, and an incurable wound, to be joined to these errors after the knowledge of God. For he must needs be dealt with more harshly who after the truth turns to what is false; and blessed is the man who, having received the knowledge of the truth, flees the counsels of the impious, because impiety is the head of error.

And it follows: and has not stood in the way of sinners, because it is impossible not to sin, just as it is possible not to be impious, since the gravest sin can be avoided, but the rest have no way by which they may creep in. For human life itself frequently, while it is not thinking of sinning, unexpectedly falls into sinning. And through this he is blessed who does not go into the counsel of the impious; that is, not even to begin evil. But since sin cannot but be begun, as I have said, he called him blessed who does not remain in it; that is, not to stand in the way of sinners. For the way of sinners is a way of life spent in sins. For he is said to walk wickedly who proceeds to this, that he seeks to sin. For while his mind does not stand in the law of God but wanders about, he is said to walk in the way of sinners, because this wandering seeks to sin. And therefore blessed is he who does not stand in the way of sinners, that is, who, with repentance following after, grieves that he has been ensnared and withdraws from the conspiracy of sinful men. Therefore just as he is blessed who has not gone into the counsel of the impious, so he will be incorrigible if he has gone, since Solomon says that «the foot of the impious will perish» and: blessed is the man who has not stood in the way of sinners. But if he has stood, he is no longer blessed, but guilty and deserving of blows. For he seems to have some hope for amendment, because he is not impious but a sinner. But if there be one who has not gone into the counsel of the impious and does not stand in the way of sinners, he is blessed in a twofold manner. For he cannot be blessed if he does not go into the counsel of the impious yet stands in the way of sinners, because, if not to perdition, he is nonetheless liable to punishment.

Then he added: and has not sat in the seat of pestilence. He says this is blessedness, which consists of these three degrees and is fortified by a threefold reasoning, that is, that one neither go into the counsel of the impious, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the seat of pestilence. But since only two kinds are held, of the impious and of sinners, in reproach, which have been mentioned above, to which of these did he wish this third to be ascribed, which he added, saying: and has not sat in the seat of pestilence? To the impious or to sinners? But let us see what it is to sit in the seat of pestilence, and then we shall understand to which kind he ascribes this. We call this the seat of pestilence, which is outside the ordination of God, which assuredly was devised for this purpose, that unjust judgments may go forth from it; for this reason it is called the seat of pestilence, which is a corruption that gives birth to death, just as iniquity also gives birth to damnation. It is therefore not from God, this seat of death; for Moses received the seat of life. For it was given for this, that in it there should be the authority of a just judge or of God the creator. Whence the Lord says: upon the seat of Moses have sat the scribes and the Pharisees; and the apostle says: there is no power except from God; for those which are, are ordained by God—

Whence he says to the ruler of the people: You indeed sit judging according to the law, and contrary to the law you order me to be struck? In that he said 'according to the law,' he signified the just and salutary authority of the chair. But that which he said, contrary to the law you order me to be struck, showed that very man to be an unjust judge, in that, sitting in the chair of God, he judged unjustly. Hence it is that Daniel too says: The kingdom is God's, and to whom he wills he will give it. Therefore, just as the authority of an earthly emperor runs through all, so that reverence for him may be in all, so God has ordained that the authority of God should begin from the king himself and run through all. Although frequently the world does not understand this, and one set in power subjects himself to another than he ought, nevertheless it is the ordinance that there be one who is feared. Where, therefore, this ordinance is not, there the chair of pestilence is found. Nowhere is the authority of the one God denied, except among those who preach the fear and reverence of many gods. These are they who sit in the chair of pestilence, because what their pontiffs preach is death. For they teach this: that the worshippers of the one God, as though foolish and enemies, should either be held in reproach or be taken from this life. This very thing is the material of impiety, which extends also into other areas, through which it may set forth the laws of its impiety. For by the command of Jezebel the prelates of iniquity sat in the chair of pestilence, who, against the innocent Naboth, though they were not judges, plotting wicked things, with false witnesses suborned, passed a sentence of death. Whence in another psalm he says: And I will not sit with the impious. For this is the judgment of him whose also is the chair of pestilence. And so, if those sitting in the chair of God oppress the innocent, it will be the judgment that is unjust, not the chair. For where the chair of pestilence is, the judgment cannot but be iniquitous, although they apply to themselves certain coverings, as it were, with which to conceal their impiety, so that those who see may be deceived. For impiety cannot be set forth by itself alone, because it finds no buyer, and, where the law of the devil is, if he himself be named, he is dreaded.

Just as poison is mixed in with something through which it may lie hidden, so also they mix certain just things into the law of the devil and attach the name of truth, but the sense of each individual thing is to be judged, since sometimes it displays something true for this reason: that it may deceive, so that, when it proclaims malicious things, they may be thought good. Since we have asserted that the seat of pestilence is not from God's ordinance, we say that the seat of those too who have set up seats for themselves outside the Church or against the Church is a seat of pestilence. For whoever presumes upon things not permitted is guilty: how much more if he also corrupts the tradition of the one whose seat he usurps! For they disturb also the order begun by the apostle Peter and preserved down to this present time through the propagation of succeeding bishops, claiming for themselves an order without origin, that is, professing a body without a head; whence it is fitting to call their seat too a seat of pestilence. For it will not be unpunished on this account, that they do these things under the name of God. For it is established that they conduct their own causes under the name of God. For they do not do these things out of zeal for God, but wishing to defend a place for themselves, since we know that Korah and the 250 men, offering to God through presumption, were swallowed up by the gaping of the earth, and that King Uzziah, when he had offered to God unlawfully, was struck with leprosy on his forehead.

Since it has become clear that the seat of pestilence pertains to the impiety spoken of above, let us pursue the rest. For he added: but his will is in the law of the Lord. He says that the will of that man is in the law of the Lord, who, having spurned the impious and abandoned the sinners, refusing the seat of pestilence, has established his own will in the law of God. On which account he called this man 'blessed.'

And there follows: and on his law he will meditate day and night. It is manifest that a man free from all enticements and immune from those things which are contrary to the law of God does nothing other than perform exercise in the law of God. Confirmed by the sacraments of the Son of God, in the day he applies himself to good works and in the night to prayers. For this is he of whom he says in the Song of Songs, that he sleeps and his heart keeps watch.

Whence he says: and he will be like a tree which is planted beside the courses of the waters. Who doubts that he who meditates on the law of God has hope of receiving a reward? For, just as a tree planted beside water cannot be barren, so also he who by frequent practice devotes himself to the law of God cannot fail to have the effect of that work.

And he added: which will give its fruit in its time. Every plantation well tended gives fruit at the fitting time: so also this man, who obeys the law of God, will have fruit at the predetermined time. For then he will receive the reward of this devotion, when the Lord Jesus Christ shall have begun to sit to judge the living and the dead.

Then he added: and its leaf shall not fall away. It is manifest that by a tree whose leaves do not drop off he signified life. For the wood, kept vigorous by the moisture of running water, retains its leaves. For the Lord Jesus also says: If they do these things in the green wood, what shall be done in the dry? By the green wood he signified life and fruit. Just as the wood, then, by the aid of running water does not suffer dryness, so also this man, who is zealous for the law of God, when temptation comes upon him, being safe under God's protection does not lose but acquires salvation, as the Apostle says: that through tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God.

And there follows: and all things whatsoever he does shall prosper. What he says is plain, that whoever keeps faith with the law of God, desirous of his commandments, becomes happy in all his acts; just as Joseph too, because he set the fear of God before the present life, God made all things that he did prosper in his hands.

And he added: not so the impious, not so. The repetition of the phrase signifies that it will altogether be no otherwise than he promises, because for the impious nothing will be prosperous in the future, but all things adverse even unto their destruction.

Whence he says: but like the dust which the wind casts forth from the face of the earth. He says the impious perish in the same way as the dust which the wind casts forth from the face of the earth that it may perish. For, lifted up from its own substance and scattered through the air, it gradually perishes: so also the impious, cast forth by the ministering angels from the face of their author God, without whom one cannot live, shall perish.

And there follows: therefore the impious do not rise again in the judgment. What he says is fitting: for to what end should they rise in the judgment, who preferred that no business of God's be entrusted to them, of which they should render an account? For those who spurn and deny the law of God have nothing whereby they might render an account, so as, when questioned in the judgment, to render their reasons according to the law entrusted to them. Therefore, having been found arrogant and rebellious against God, they shall rise again for this purpose, that they may see that what they refused to believe is true, that they may perish, because they judged God a liar.

And he added: nor sinners in the counsel of the just. In this psalm he signifies three kinds of men: of the impious and of sinners and of the just, in the order in which the error began. But the impious are estranged from these, because, as I said, they refused to live under God's decree; sinners, however, acting under the law of God, are to be set before the tribunal of Christ, separated from the just, that they may render an account of the law they received, being amended in those things in which they gave no effort, so that they might have more of praise than of blame; but the just, indeed, found much more inclined in the exercise of fulfilling the law, are to be rewarded.

And he added: because the Lord knows the way of the just. God is said to know those who, mindful of his precepts, persist in good works, so that, held to be just, they may be crowned. But to those who, unmindful of him, are negligent concerning the care of the soul, he says thus: Depart from me; I know you not, workers of iniquity.

And it follows: and the way of the ungodly shall perish. Whence the psalm was begun and ended, so that, the case of the ungodly having been treated, they might be shown liable 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 ungodly, because it is outside the law of God, shall perish, because all the ways of the ungodly are dark, says Solomon, but those of the godly are most bright, with Christ our Lord as guide.

CXI. ON PSALM XXIII.

The title of the psalm intimates its meaning. For, about to speak concerning the mystery of Christ our Lord, he signified the Lord's day, saying: To this David, the first of the sabbath. For when it is said To this David, it pertains to him whose image this David holds, of whom the prophet says: and my servant David shall feed them. Now the first of the sabbath is the first day. For after the sabbath the first day is the Lord's day, the Gospel affirming and saying: And on the first of the sabbath Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the sepulchre, and the rest. On the Lord's day, therefore, he signified the mystery of the Saviour. But that the psalm might be expounded through the order of reasoning, he made a beginning from the person of God the Father, so that the mystery of truth might be made manifest to men not without order. For he who wishes to intimate some matter, unless he grasps its head and origin, will not be able to show its proper character nor to teach what its truth is.

And so the prophet began thus and says: The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. He held fast to the faith of things, saying: The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. For he followed the authority of the ancient saints, who said that the earth and the things that are in it pertain to the dominion of the Lord God.

And he added: the world, and all who dwell in it. Lest perchance he should be thought to have signified something less, because he had said that the earth and the fulness thereof are the Lord's, he opened his meaning, saying: the world, and all who dwell in it, that he might teach that absolutely all the earth is the Lord's and the things that are in it, so that there should be nothing excepted which is not his, as certain heretics think, who, according to the saying of the apostle Peter, deny to God his dominion, to whose condemnation the prophetic oracles taught that all things are God's.

And it follows: he hath founded it upon the seas, that is, what he signified in another psalm, saying: thou hast established the earth upon the waters. That the testimony might follow the faith, he showed in what manner he made it. For while there was a confusion of things and neither the earth nor the water had its proper appearance, at God's command the earth was gathered together and made firm upon the waters, so that both the earth and the water might have the property of their origin. Whence in Kingdoms there is the voice of God saying: have I not made the waters?

And he subjoined: and hath prepared it upon the rivers. Thus it was prepared upon the rivers, since it holds within itself waters established there, which, flowing as if through the channels of veins, furnish it density, lest, being utterly dry, it should be brittle and useless for cultivation. For they furnish a vital effect to the roots of growing things, and at the same time are a help to arid places in their thirst.

And that he might show that profession without a good life does not greatly profit, he says: who shall ascend into the mountain of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place? He sets forth what sort of person he ought to be who professes God as Creator, lest — because he showed that those are to be punished who, as I have said, deny God's lordship — these who confess Him should think themselves exempt from punishment, if they should conduct themselves in no upright manner. By saying, therefore, the mountain of the Lord, he signified heaven. Whence in another psalm he says: I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence help shall come to me. But the place of the Lord is where He appears. And it is said to Joshua son of Nun, when the Lord had appeared to him: and the place in which you stand is holy ground, and to Jacob, where he saw the Lord: this, he says, is the house of God.

And there follows: the innocent in hands and clean of heart. Then he says that he is worthy to ascend into the mountain of the Lord, that is, into heaven, or to stand in His holy place, if anyone shall be innocent in works and have a clean heart in the cause of God, that is, of faith. For a person of this kind can ascend into heaven and stand in His holy place. For when this life is ended he ascends to heaven. Then, together with the city of Jerusalem, at the coming of the Lord he shall descend from heaven, worthy to stand where the Lord is about to judge the living and the dead, as an innocent man; but the impious and sinners will be unworthy to stand in the holy place of God's judgment — they who shall rise again, the impious to destruction, sinners to punishment. For if the children of Israel, by reason of sin, could not look upon the glorified face of Moses as he came down from the mountain, how much more will a conscience liable to offenses dread to gaze upon the very Lord of glory Himself seated on the throne of majesty! For they shall hear: I have not known you, workers of iniquity.

And he added: who has not received his soul in vain. Now he touches upon the very kinds of sins. For in the first place this man is innocent and has a clean heart, who is exempt from the fornication of idolatry. For this is the vanity to which whoever inclines himself subjugates his soul to corruption.

And there follows: nor has sworn to his neighbor in deceit. He mentioned two causes, which are the principal ones, that of God and that of neighbor, because whoever shall have been fit in these will without doubt be held approved in the rest also, the Lord saying: you shall love the Lord your God with your whole 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 the whole law hangs, and the prophets. Who therefore, loving the Lord with his whole heart, would not keep His law? Or who, having love for his neighbor, would be zealous for sins, since indeed for the sake of the fear of God he loves his neighbor?

And He added: he shall receive a blessing from the Lord, and mercy from God his Saviour. Now he shows what the merit is of the one who, in the cause of God and man, of the Creator and of his neighbor, has held faith and love, since he shall both be blessed by the Lord — so that he may appear as one commended — and in these matters he shall obtain mercy, in the things which he was not able to fulfill. For no one can be so circumspect that he never errs anywhere; but because he has been found solicitous and faithful in great things, in the least things he shall receive mercy from his God, who is for this reason called the Saviour, because he does not will the death of the dying man, but that he should turn back and live.

And there follows: this is the generation of them that seek him, of them that seek the face of the God of Jacob. He said that the generation of those who seek God and of those who seek the face of the God of Jacob is one, which is not idle. For although each is good, yet by these words he signified two grades. It is good to seek God, but it is a full good to seek the face of the God of Jacob. For those who are before the face of the judge are more worthy. Of these merits, therefore, this is the generation. For, in order that one may come to this, innocence and purity of heart bring it about, just as again, in order that one may be able to come to evil, injustice and iniquity run ahead, because there are two generations, one on the side of iniquity, which is the mother of Cain, the other on the side of justice, which is the mother of Abel. The latter consists in faith and good conduct, the former in faithlessness and crooked works. These are the two laws, of the good and of the evil, of God and of the devil, and whichever one a man has followed, of that one shall he be called the son. And through this, the generation of those who seek God is this: faith in God and love toward one's neighbor, as we said above. For he who has faith in God will always seek his help; nor let him show himself unjust to men, who wishes to have God favorable, of which this is the sign, when it is said: the God of Jacob, because God is known in Judea. And why are they said to seek the face of God, when Moses heard: my face, he says, shall not be seen by thee? If therefore even Moses sought the face of God and could not see it, in vain are these said to seek it, since they are not better than Moses. But no one is to be said to seek the face of God in vain, because they are for this reason said to seek the face of God, that it may be known whom they seek, since they are worthy also to see. For everyone who is sought is then recognized, if his face is seen. But since the face of God cannot be seen by mortals, this signification stands in place of the face, when it is said: the God of Jacob.

DIAPSALMA. The diapsalma in this place signifies a change of person. For after those things which pertain to the person of God the Father, it appends those things which pertain to the mystery of the Son of God, so that the complete order of Father and Son may be preserved. For the law was given through Moses, so that it might be as it were a schoolmaster to men, instructing them and preparing them, with justice as their teacher, that they might become worthy to receive the year of the Lord and the day of retribution, so that those who had been faithful in the hope of the Christ who was to come might receive him and be able to escape the sin of Adam, being secure on their own account, because his coming, which they had hoped for, would give them mercy concerning those things in which it was stealthily brought about that they should transgress. This is what he mentioned above when he said: he shall receive mercy from God his savior.

He says therefore: lift up the gates of your prince. This is the voice of the holy angels, of whom he says in the Gospel that the angels, he says, drew near and ministered to him. These therefore say to the principalities and powers, against whom the Apostle says we have our struggle, that they should lift up the gates of their prince, that is, of the devil, who is the prince of the princes established in error, through which one goes into hell. These gates are the perfidy and deceit of idolatry.

And there follows: and be lifted up, O eternal gates. Faith and hope together with charity are the eternal gates, because what is preached through the truth cannot be abolished. But those gates, which I said are the perfidy and deceit of idols, are temporal, because every lie does not endure; for when the truth has been made manifest it will perish. They are taught therefore to lift up the gates of their prince, that is, that with the error of many gods removed, the faith of one God may be introduced in Christ. This is what the Apostle testifies that he was sent to teach, so that he might show not only to men, but also to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, the mystery of the one God in Christ.

And he added: and the King of glory shall enter in. He says that the deceitful gates of the devil, composed by subtlety, must be lifted up—which are presumption, through which he esteemed himself to be God—so that the King of glory may enter in, who is Christ Jesus our Lord. For the faith of God enters no one's mind unless it has removed from itself the error of the devil devised by transgression; and the aforementioned princes cannot receive Christ the King into the faith of the one God unless they have cast from themselves the tradition through which calumny is brought against the one God—not only the earthly tradition, but also that which was usurped in the heavenly places by Satan, the prince of princes, because there they arranged the error which they conspired among themselves—that, with the devil as author, they should call themselves gods—here on earth also, so that this error might be the image of that one.

And there follows: who is this King of glory? Lest perhaps he be thought to call Christ the King of glory needlessly, he sets forth the person of one asking and saying: who is this King of glory?—one who as it were marvels or wishes to be taught whether it is true and fitting to call Christ the King of glory.

And so the answer is given to him: the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle, so that from this proposition he might learn, not by bare words but with testimony, that Christ is the King of glory. For the strength and power by which he subdued and crushed the devil together with his henchmen — these show that he is the King of glory.

And it adds: lift up the gates of your prince, and be lifted up, O eternal gates. That is: since by the testimony of that strength, which it is wicked to contradict, you have learned that Christ is worthy to be called the King of glory, remove the error from your minds.

And it says: and the King of glory shall enter in. For it is shown that they cannot share in the faith of Christ unless they have cleansed their hearts from all the uncleanness of idolatry. For unless a man has been renewed, the Holy Spirit will not enter into him.

And there follows: who is this King of glory? This repetition produces confirmation. For everything that is heard as new is not grasped by the heart unless it is repeated. For wonder produces astonishment, when something is said that has never been heard.

And it adds: the Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory. By repeating the same thing it teaches that this one is rightly called the King of glory, being the Lord of hosts. For not without reason is he called the King of glory, who is Lord over the hosts. Whence the apostle: for if they had understood, he says, they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty.

CXII. ON PSALM L.

This fiftieth psalm has been placed here not according to its position in time, but by reason. For its heading is subject not to number, but to reason. For as far as pertains to the history, it is earlier than the third. For David was first rebuked by the prophet Nathan on account of his sin, before his son Absalom rose up against him, wishing to deprive him of both life and kingdom. This, then, is the reason why it was placed as the fiftieth, which it is agreed derives from the law. For there it is provided that the number fifty holds remission. For it is, after seven weeks, the first, bearing the type of the Lord's day, because, just as after seven days the first day is that very one which was made in the beginning, which, when the week is finished, is always first, so also after seven weeks the fiftieth, being counted, is first in mystery, which by a twofold character is called the Lord's day: first, because it was made in the beginning by the Lord, which, always turning back upon itself through the completed cycles of the week, is first; then, because on it He rose again, death being triumphed over, it is named the Lord's day. Not undeservedly, then, in the number fifty, which we have observed to be signified as first in mystery, is remission contained. Finally, the law was given on the fiftieth day. For from the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, on the forty-eighth day they are commanded to be washed, so that, purified for two days, on the third day they might be prepared to receive the law. And what else does this washing indicate than the remission made on the fiftieth day, so that, being purified, they might receive the law, from which, henceforth, with past things blotted out, they might render an account of their own conduct according to the law entrusted to them? For this reason also the law commanded that a purchased possession ought to be remitted in the fiftieth year. Hence it is, then, that this psalm too was entitled the fiftieth.

For in it King David asks for remission according to the sense stated above; whence he says: have mercy on me, O God, according to thy great mercy. King David, knowing that he had sinned grievously, thus makes his petition, saying: have mercy on me, O God, according to thy great mercy. For great mercy is that which then exists, when it pardons great sins.

And he added: and according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my iniquity. That he might make manifest that he had transgressed bitterly, he calls his sin iniquity, because iniquity is not a light sin, and he who blots out iniquity, that is, does not impute it, abounds in compassion. He therefore strives to excuse nothing in his own cause, so that he may not only soften the mind of the judge toward himself, but also make him suffer along with him. For the mind is moved to mercy, when it sees the guilty one thus confess his sins, so as to show that he grieves because he sinned. For to whom he does not grieve, he seems to mock the judge, because he prays for this reason, that he may escape for the time, being about afterward to do the same things.

And there follows: thoroughly, he says, wash me from my injustice and cleanse me from my sin. Since he proclaims the great compassion of God, he prays to be cleansed to the very depths, so that there may remain in him nothing of sin or injustice, whereby he might be held suspect.

And that he might be able to obtain or secure this very thing, he added: for I acknowledge my iniquity, and my sin is always against me. Because he knows he has sinned grievously, he is anxious lest not everything be forgiven him. For considering the magnitude of his sins, he is afraid, knowing that grave sins are not easily pardoned; and therefore he confesses his sin with weeping, keeping it before his eyes, so that in every respect he may make the judge propitious to himself. For he knows that it is written: Declare thou first thy iniquities, that thou mayest be justified.

And there follows: Against thee only have I sinned, and done evil before thee. Now from another side of his case he looks out for a remedy, so that he may bring his petition to its effect. For by this line of argument he declares himself innocent in the first charge, because whoever sins against another god is an enemy of God the Author. For in his place he chooses another, to whom he ascribes His authority. Whence here, showing himself a stranger to this iniquity, he says: Against thee only have I sinned, and done evil before thee, that is: 'because I have sinned against thee and against no other, whom by error I might call god, my case is lesser than that of the rest, who are liable to perdition. For I am not impious, but a sinner, because I have sinned not against thee, but against thy law, nor have I denied thee, but confessing thee as God and Lord I have sinned in a man. Therefore, since in that which is thy own proper cause I am not guilty, pardon me for having sinned against a fellow-servant. For I have so sinned that I neither denied the honor of thy name nor gave it to another.' And so there was something whereby the judge might be moved to mercy. For since many sin against Him, whom He nevertheless exhorts to be converted to Him, while these, who do not sin against Him, yet from other causes ask for pardon, He gladly admits them. For the Lord always wills that His servants flee to His aid.

Whence he added: that thou mayest be justified in thy words, and mayest overcome when thou art judged. Asking for mercy, he prays that God may not change His justice, since justice is wont to be in the middle, so that it may be equal to those who do not sin and those who sin, that is, that He may render to each one according to his works. But he is not ignorant of what an innocent man asks for in the mystery of God. For knowing that the Lord had frequently said in the law, for I am merciful, the Lord your God, from this he asks that this faithfulness may remain and that God may be justified in His words, while He abides in that which He has spoken, and is not overcome by the sins of men, so as not to have mercy. For those who sin, knowing what God has promised to those who live well, and because they persist in it, judge Him a liar. For by living badly they do not believe that the things He promised are true. Therefore King David asks that God may overcome this thing which men suppose, and may give what He promised, so that they may be put to shame who, while they do not keep the commandments, judge that He will not give.

And it continues: for behold, I was conceived in iniquities. Now by adding this he calls to mind the cause and the weakness of the human race — because it is easy for a man to sin —, so that he may soften the Judge's scrutiny concerning himself. For he makes mention of the first cause, from which, by transgressing, Adam made the race of men liable to sin. For by the persuasion and deceit of the enemy, in conceiving iniquity, he subjected all his own seed to iniquity, so that from him all who are begotten by propagation should be liable to sin.

For this reason he added: and in offenses did my mother conceive me, so that the derivation of sin made from Adam should be an impediment to those conceived and born for the leading of a good life; and on account of this, mercy is not to be denied to the suppliant, because he has an enemy grafted into him, who persuades him to sin. For sin, which is the devil, when the first man had been subjected to him, received the power to graft itself into his flesh and, by a certain subtlety of offenses, to suggest allurements, through which, once the man is captured, it despoils him of life. Recalling this matter, the teacher of the nations says: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, so that the Judge, beholding this, may stretch out His hand to the one grieving that he has been beset.

And it continues: for behold, Thou hast loved truth. ('Because, therefore, Thou lovest truth,' he says, 'come to the aid of the one who asks, and him whom Thou knowest to set forth the true impediments of his heart — for every guilty one, once moved by mercy, Thou hast decreed to come to the aid — so that heavenly providence might amend on earth the error that has been committed.')

On account of which he subjoined: the uncertain and hidden things of my heart Thou hast made manifest to me. 'The uncertain and hidden things of the heart' — these signify those things which God has provided for the protection of the human race, just as the apostle also says: that which the eye hath not seen nor the ear heard nor hath it ascended into the heart of man, which things God hath prepared for them that love Him. Who are they that love God, except those who consent to His law by not concealing nor excusing their sins? These hidden things of the heart, therefore, have been made manifest to those who love God; and because they grieved that they were beset by offenses, nor, when rebuked, did they deny it — imputing it to themselves and to their origin, transferring to God as author the things they sinned — their hearts were illumined by a spiritual flash, so that they might see God's providence in Christ, because He was to come to condemn the sin which, from Adam's transgression, held sway over the human race. This, therefore, King David prays: that what God had decreed for the future, seeing the race of men to labor, He would first come to the aid of him bound in the same necessity in which He had decreed to come to the aid of all, so that the gift, which was to be gratuitous and could not be given before its time, might be granted to him in return for his prayer and tears.

In what way this may come about, he does not keep silent, saying: Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed. Rightly does he ask to be cleansed by the sprinkling of hyssop. For with this the children of Israel smeared their doorposts with blood, so that they might be rendered safe from death; so also here he prays to be cleansed from his sins by the sprinkling of hyssop, lest he be touched by death.

And it continues: you will wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow. It is manifest that what God makes differs from what man makes. Therefore I shall be made whiter than snow, he says, because what God has made is far better than what man has made. For this reason he asks to be cleansed by the sprinkling of hyssop, so that, just as the fleshly body is washed with water, so also through the signification of the hyssop the stains of souls may be washed away by a spiritual principle. For the sprinkling of hyssop is a kind of illumination, so that through that which is visible he may be invisibly cleansed.

And it continues: to my hearing you will give joy and gladness. There is no doubt that the voice of one proclaiming remission furnishes joy to sinners. For who would not rejoice when he hears that pardon is granted? For the one to whom God forgives is secure both in the present and in the future.

Therefore the humbled bones shall exult. The bones are humbled in a twofold manner, because he was humbled both that he might sin — for no one who sins is exalted — and that afterward, as a suppliant, he might implore forgiveness. For indeed, rolling in sackcloth and ashes, he was entreating for mercy, and, obtaining it, he was raised up by exultation of mind and refreshment of body.

And he added: turn away your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. In this manner he requests remission, just as it had been established for the future through faith in Christ, so that the Savior, who was specially promised to him, should begin from him himself to grant pardon for all sins to those who are converted. For the one whose sins are not regarded and whose iniquities are all blotted out has no ground on which to be held guilty, and the mouths of his enemies are shut. For the one who does not regard the sins does not impute them. For this is what it is to turn away one's face from someone's sins: not to accept an accusation against him. And what is this, that, although he was rebuked concerning two sins, here he adds by accusing himself concerning many? And when he had heard from the prophet Nathan that it was unknown to him, why does he thus request with earnest prayer, that he may be able to attain to pardon, unless because he is pleading not his own cause alone, but under the occasion of his own sin he narrates the miseries of the whole people? For he prays for restoration for himself, because the one who is forgiven is not without shame, unless he be restored to his own place, so that the dignity of the place may excuse the shame; but for the rest he signified the benefit of God, which was to come in Christ for the washing away of all sins.

And there follows: Create in me a clean heart, O God, and dedicate a just spirit within my bowels; that is, to beg for mercy with a good disposition. But he prays not only concerning past things; he is also anxious about future ones, that he may not sin—so that, showing that he hates to sin, he may be helped by God through the spirit of righteousness, which he prays to be dedicated within his bowels: that is, that a new spirit 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 in this way, if he offends neither within nor without, that is, neither in deed nor in thought. But since it is nearly impossible that this be preserved in all things, it must at least be preserved in the cause of God, which is the principal one, so that the heart may be kept clean in the sacrament of God and of Christ, so long as faith in them is kept inviolate—because in another psalm he says: Who shall boast that he has a clean heart, or is free from sins? Finally, King David had a clean heart—in the cause of God, because he never sought help from vanity, which is idolatry, nor did he fail to fulfill anything commanded him by God.

You may see for yourself concerning the rest. And he added: Cast me not away from thy face, and take not thy Holy Spirit from me. This is the sense which I mentioned above, that, secure concerning pardon, he is anxious about his restoration. For he to whom something is merely forgiven is wont to be separated from the face of the Lord. For although vengeance is not taken upon him, nevertheless 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 blotted out, and that he may be worthy to approach the face of the Lord and to prophesy again—which also 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 there follows: Restore to me the joy of thy salvation, and strengthen me with a principal spirit. He asks that the joy be given to him which had been promised in Christ, so that, washed of all stains and restored, he might be joyful in the salvation he had sought, and not removed but strengthened in the kingdom by the Holy Spirit, whom he therefore called principal, because he is above every creature, through whom kings reign.

And he added: I will teach, he says, the unjust thy ways, and the impious shall be converted to thee. He says this, that the unjust may learn in him the piety of God, by which he receives to himself those who confess their sins and advances them, and does not neglect the impious who are converted, but exhorts them, while he shows mercy to others.

And there follows: Deliver me from blood, O God, thou God of my salvation. By saying this he shows that his sin was worthy of death, so that he may proclaim how great God's mercy is. For by this he also provokes others to take refuge in the clemency of God.

Whence he added: My tongue shall exult thy righteousness, O Lord. He says that he rejoices in the righteousness of the Lord, because he abides in what he promised, saying: But my mercy I will not remove from them. Therefore King David, joyful and secure in this regard, proclaims the righteousness of his God.

And it continues: my lips you shall open, and my mouth shall proclaim your praise. Thus he opens his lips, so long as the cause of sin does not permit him to be subjugated. For the mouth of the freed man lies open, whereas the mouth of the sinner is shut; for, seized by shame and fear, he does not dare to speak; but the man who has been absolved or set free, dancing for joy, proclaims the praise of the Judge. For the apostle too, as he himself testifies, because he was free from all men: our mouth, he says, lies open to you, O Corinthians.

And he added: for if you had wished for sacrifice, I would surely have given it. He speaks this from what is well established, knowing that holy Samuel said to King Saul, when the latter thought that his sin could be blotted out not by grief of mind nor by the compassion of tears, but by the offering of sacrifice: God does not will, he says, sacrifice more than that his voice be obeyed, because sacrifices of this kind can cause loss, yet cannot appease God. For God is appeased in this way, if the soul, mindful of its sin, weeps with tribulation and grief of heart over what it has sinned.

And it continues: with burnt offerings you will not be delighted. God is not delighted with burnt offerings, but in causes of this kind. For the mind itself ought to make satisfaction on its own behalf, not to redeem itself from outside. For these things can furnish assistance, but the mind, in the same manner as it took delight in sins, so ought it to be afflicted in penitence, and then it will delight God to wipe away its sins.

Whence he subjoined: a sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit; a contrite and humbled heart God does not despise. He shows what kind of sacrifice for sins God accepts, because no one will be able to appease God except the man who, having rejoiced against his own salvation, has been afflicted in heart, that he may be restored to life. In short, everyone restless or undisciplined frequently meets with harm, so that he injures the members of his body, which surely cannot receive the medicine of health without pain: so too sinners cannot redeem their sins unless the soul which has sinned has felt pain. For this is just, that, because it rejoiced against reason, according to reason it should suffer grief.

And it continues: deal kindly, Lord, in your good will with Zion. By saying Zion he signifies the Church, so that our assertion may not seem improbable — to which, that God may fulfill his promise, he suggests, knowing that it will then receive full remission, when God shall have fulfilled in Christ what he decreed, that is, that those hoping in the promised salvation may be freed from all sin, because they will be freed through Christ not only from their own sins, but also from Adam's sin, which through propagation has come upon all.

And he added: and let the walls of Jerusalem be built. What does it mean that he says: 'and let the walls of Jerusalem be built'? Had they perchance been destroyed? But by saying the walls of Jerusalem he signifies the Church, to be constructed through the faith which had been appointed in Christ, whose walls are understood to be holy men, as the Apocalypse of John the apostle teaches us, because both Jerusalem the city and its walls are to be understood as the servants of God. Knowing, therefore, the promise through Christ, which was to be for the liberation of the servants of God, King David prays that it may be fulfilled, that is, that through faith the Church may be built and those hoping from this faith for salvation may be freed.

And it continues: then you will accept the sacrifice of righteousness, offerings and whole burnt offerings. He says this because offerings and whole burnt offerings would come to be acceptable then, when the Church had been built, and not indiscriminately or according to custom, but, he says, you will accept the sacrifice of righteousness. A sacrifice is righteous when a worthy gift is offered; but furthermore nothing is so righteous and worthy as that we offer our very selves to God. For since God is spirit, spiritual sacrifices are to be offered to him, so that a living victim may be offered to the living one. For because he had said that in the matter of sin God is by no means delighted by carnal sacrifices, he showed that it would come to pass that offering was to be made to God spiritually and that he would accept it, because these are sacrifices worthy of God — that is, in the past they were lesser, being as it were carnal, now greater, because spiritual.

And he added: then they will lay calves upon your altar. If, with the former sacrifices ceasing, he signified that spiritual sacrifices would succeed them, why is it that he should say: then they will lay calves upon your altar, unless because through these bodily things he signifies spiritual things, seeing that he has said that he is not delighted by carnal ones? Therefore in saying "calves" he signified the new people reborn through faith in Christ, whose devotion is daily offered as firstfruits upon the altar of the Lord. For he who is understood to be speaking about the Church must be understood to have signified also her sacrifices as spiritual.

CXIII. WHY THE SON OF GOD WAS SENT AND NOT ANOTHER.

Although everything that God does must be believed to have been done reasonably and providently, I nevertheless think it better if, after faith, the cause of the deed can also be perceived, so that what is believed may not be unknown. Whence the Lord says: and this is eternal life, that they know you the only and true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. For first it must be believed, as was said by the prophet, then what is believed must be known, because now the Holy Spirit helps one who is faithful and diligent in this matter, so that in knowing he may understand the reason of the faith. For then he has full joy in his belief, if he understands what he believes. For this is the strength of faith, this the immovable foundation: to learn the mystery of one's belief. For where there is faith alone, the devotion is not so pure, and stealthy deception can find an entrance.

Whence the vessel of election labors for this, that believers may learn thoroughly the reason of their faith. For when they have come to know how great is he in whom they have believed and what is his power, by no compact, by no reasoning will they suffer themselves to be drawn away from hope in him. Whence we read it said: taste and see how sweet is the Lord, so that by deliberate effort they may come to know the savor of his divinity, understanding that nothing is more wise than to believe in Christ. On which account the very teacher of the nations says among other things: in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and again: for I know, he says, whom I have believed, because he is able to guard my deposit. Therefore this man knows the reason of his faith and does not doubt about the power of him who understands that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in the mystery of the nativity and passion and resurrection of Christ.

Therefore, with my faith remaining firm, I long pondered within myself, that I might know why our Lord had come from his holy and heavenly seats to the earth to be made flesh, and not another of those whom the Lord himself calls holy angels. For it seems unbefitting to his person to have undertaken this work, unless the reason for the deed be known. This, in short, is what troubles many. For the foresight of God the Father could have carried out this business through another person, so as both to show the truth to men established in error, and to crush the devil — that presumptuous one and enemy of salvation — together with his satellites, and to strip him once vanquished, since the obstinacy and irreverence of most wicked servants had to be restrained by attendant servants, and the Lord of all should not undergo a matter unworthy of himself.

For the strength and power of Satan is not so great that he could not be overcome by another power of the same condition, since it is agreed that with God's help he is vanquished even by men. For although he be unequal — if we take examples from earthly things — nevertheless in some part they will accord with reason. For to pursue and slaughter the servant [Sheba] rebelling against King David, Joab his fellow-servant was sent; and against Absalom, the impious one against his father, the task was enjoined upon servants: how much more, to vanquish the tyranny of the devil, would the efficacy of one of the many holy angels have sufficed, seeing that we read that, warring against the angel Michael, he could not endure but was cast down to the earth!

Reflecting therefore often on these things with myself, this alone I knew: that he was for this reason sent by the Father, lest it should pertain to his injury, if he were to restore through another the work made through him. But to know this was a very small thing; for it was not enough for so great and admirable a cause, unless something else also were comprehended, which might avail toward the hidden understanding. So it came about that I perceived the cause to have demanded this: that he who came should come here. For reason itself touched upon this: that he should come to crush him who had usurped his dignity and merit. For after God the Father the devil wished to be called god, which he even now still contends for, although indeed the matter did not befit him, but this belonged to the Son of God, who after the Father is second as god, not by nature, but by order.

For carrying out this cause, therefore, it behooved none other to come than Christ our Lord, because he came not only to crush the devil, but also to manifest himself to every creature, so that, the person of the devil being reprobated, they might recognize this to be the one whose princedom and majesty Satan had presumed upon, and thenceforth, the truth being known, might abandon their error, holding for certain that Christ is the Son of God, who alone is God from God and the head or beginning of all those things which are in heaven or on earth, because by the virtue and power with which he overcame the tyrant Satan, he was manifested to be the very one whose dominion the impious devil, who is Satan, had presumed upon.

For while he wishes to be called god unjustly, so that he might have dominion over the spiritual powers — whence he is rebuked by the prophet who says: for you, he says, have said in your heart: I will set my temple in the clouds, and I will be like the Most High —, he deceived many, by whose conspiracy he was made the prince of error, who in the psalm are admonished, that, rejecting the lie, they may receive the truth. For it is said to them: lift up the gates of your prince, and be lifted up, O everlasting gates, and the King of glory shall enter in. For unless the error be taken away from the minds of unbelievers, they will not be able to receive the faith of the one God in Christ. For they are taught this, that, the gates being lifted away — through which one goes to the second death, which are the treachery begun by the devil — they may receive the sacraments of the faith, through which one goes to life. For these are the things which he signifies by the everlasting gates, because the truth of the faith is eternity, but treachery is temporal, because the lie is the devil's invention. For the devil, having begun his transgression in the heavens, sowed it upon the earth by urging the worship of many gods, among whom he might hold the primacy. For he wished to be the head and origin of the rest, which was not owed to him, but to the Savior. Whence he pursues him even to the earth, so that, pressing him down, he might show the transgression of his error, the truth being made manifest in himself. Whence it is said: the truth has arisen from the earth. For, cast down from the heavens, he fled to the earth, so that he might complete in lower things the deity he had contrived in the heights. Whence the apostle says: so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as though he were God. For in whatever way he wishes to fulfill his desire, even to be condemned; for being full of fury he reckons it a lesser thing to be condemned than not to fulfill the greed of his error.

CXIIII. AGAINST THE PAGANS.

On what ground the pagans should dare to contend against us, or should suppose that they attack our faith, I do not see to be settled, seeing that they have no proofs of their assertions — of their superstition, I should say, rather than of their religion. For they put forward things that have no safeguard, so that they themselves are rather held to be the authors and defenders of novelties. For in the first place they assert that they worship gods, of whom they give no tokens, no testimonies. For they call those gods who did not dare to call themselves by this name, so that men are held to be the authors of the gods, whereas God ought to be the author of men; and through this the assertion is empty and void. For whatever is without God cannot be stable. For their books prove that the things I say are manifest, in which nothing divine, nothing established at God's command is read, but they assert that individual men, for certain reasons, instituted the diverse sacrifices of the deities, and these men such as would seem of no merit, in order that the things they had established might be shown to have been worthily established. When therefore those whom they call gods are read to have commanded none of these things, by what authority do these men act, or suppose it to be credited to them, what they do not prove was commanded — since, even if it were proved to be commanded, it would first have had to be examined whether it were worthy or fitting to obey those of whom no signs or prodigies existed in their deeds to commend their divinity?

But when they are shut out by these arguments they are wont to take refuge in the elements, saying that they worship those things by whose governance human life is ruled. Of them, as above, we ask: has it been commanded or enjoined by God, whom even they themselves confess to be great and supreme — and yet they neglect him? For if it ought to be done, it had to be commanded by him who is said to be their author. But if it has not been commanded by him, it is presumption and will lead to punishment, not to reward, because it pertains to the dishonor of the Creator that, the Lord being despised, servants should be worshiped, and, the emperor being scorned, his retinue should be adored. How will this go unpunished, when we may see it avenged even in this life, and indeed rather bitterly?

But perhaps they may say that it was commanded by these very elements. Let them show a precept somewhere, let them at some point read something that these ever spoke. But if they do not show it, of what punishment are they worthy, who are exposed as the authors of a presumptuous and fabricated religion? The elements are free from this impiety. For those very luminaries of the world will accuse them before God the judge, because in this vanity of counsel they show themselves in no way to be the authors. Likewise also those whom — though it is agreed that they were men — they call gods, when they have begun to be tormented for their sins, will in this respect defend themselves as being in no way guilty, throwing this charge back upon those who, when they had given no command, they nonetheless began to worship as gods.

Therefore with what shame do they think our faith is to be reprehended or laughed at, they who see our law supported by the testimonies of mighty works, and who moreover read the very voice of our Lord and God saying: I am God and there is no other besides me? But if he said this in bare words, he was not to be believed, lest we should seem like the pagans, who, seeing no signs of the majesty of their gods, began to worship them, and, what is worse, dishonorably. For shameful things are done there, which it is a matter of decency to reveal, and they call themselves prudent, because by their own law they are mocked as by a charlatan.

Furthermore, our God commanded that he be worshiped with mighty works as witness, and, so that he might leave no room for suspicion, he handed down the law itself as honorable and holy and, as is worthy of God. But we, who are called fools by the pagans, would not have believed our God unless he had satisfied us by the testimonies of mighty works, nor would we have received his law, had we not known it to be pure and fully worthy of that very profession.

Hence it is that among us nothing is done in darkness, nothing in secret. For everything that is known to be honorable is not afraid to be made public; but that which is base and dishonorable cannot, since shame forbids it, be made public. For which reason the pagans celebrate their mysteries in darkness — prudent even in this. For they blush to be openly mocked; for the shameful things which are done there in place of a law they do not want made manifest, lest those who call themselves prudent should seem dull-witted to those whom they call fools.

But perhaps in this we seem foolish to them, because our law preaches chastity, mercy, and self-restraint. For among them these things are foolish, since to every good man the wicked man is bad, and to the prudent the fool is senseless. For they so abominate chastity that they even take delight in catamites, being subject to the tutelage of those men who, unless they were of this sort, would not themselves be fit — if it must be said — for their religion. For this is why they are castrated and change their dress, so that from men they may become, as it were, women, and, made subject contrary to nature, may suffer the things women suffer, so that then at last they may be fit and worthy ministers of that superstition of theirs. Can a man of this kind be accused, whom the law makes such? For it is for this reason that, having lost both the act and the dress of a man, he is transformed into a woman, so that he may with license suffer the things women suffer.

What sort of mysteries, then, are those thought to be, where from the honorable comes the dishonorable and from the incorrupt the corrupt, whereas this is truly the worship of religion: that it should make honorable men out of the base and modest men out of the undisciplined? How can the worshippers of it be zealous for a good life, when the mysteries of their law cannot be celebrated without catamites? If therefore their law delights in these things, whoever has not been such will be a sinner and a fool. And for this reason they call us fools. For those who cultivate these shameful things are judged prudent by them, while those who avoid and flee them are judged fools. And this indeed seems to have been fitted together by them cleverly and cunningly. For they attach the name of prudence to their law in order to cover over its reprehensible features, because where there is prudence there is no reproach. But our law they call foolish, in order to keep people away from it. Yet if the names of prudence and folly be removed, and all the ill-will be set aside which the defense of both parties breeds, let the laws themselves clash with one another, so that it may appear where prudence lies and where folly. But in the presence of the sign of the cross paganism falls silent, and, if that prudence of theirs — which they call foolish — is present, their sacred rites dare not respond; for their entrails are checked and reverence is concealed before the majesty of Christ. A great thing, that what they call prudence should fear what they call folly.

Let us now compare the tenor of the laws. The pagans profess even in their writings that they worship gods and goddesses; and what they say is true, that they worship both males and females. For Janus and Saturn, Jove and Mercury and Apollo and the rest, likewise Minerva and Isis, and that Fruit-goddess and Venus and Flora the harlot, together with the rest, are gods and goddesses, as the histories both of the Greeks and of the Romans testify. But the Christians, being poor, as it were — whom they call fools — worship one God in mystery, from whom are all things, and they venerate nothing that has been created by him. For they know that he alone suffices for them and abounds unto salvation, being not ignorant that, if they should assign his glory and name to others, they would offend him, because no emperor permits that tribunes and counts be adored in his name.

Let the laws now be compared, so that it may be seen where prudence lies: with the one who worships the Creator or the one who worships the creature, with the one who serves the Lord or the one who serves slaves? Can it happen that in some household anyone besides one man be called master — as the pagans, trained in the literature of the courts, who seem to themselves prudent, in one world founded by one God venerate many gods and goddesses? For they have called the managers and agents of the world by the name of "lord" and "god," while they are exposed as improvident. But to assert that which begets ruin belongs to the improvident and foolish man, since God must needs avenge the wrong done to him upon those who have shared out to their fellow-slaves the name and glory of the Lord God.

Next let the precepts be considered. Our law, whose adherents they call fools, commands that priests and ministers be ordained holy, without crime, and blameless; but on the contrary the tradition of the pagans holds that its priests and ministers cannot be fit for it unless . . . men be transformed into women, so that they may licentiously and publicly suffer womanish things, and, with their hair shaken out unseemlily in water, may send forth a soft and quavering and shameful voice. And if they did this publicly, they would be stoned by the whole people. And that Cynocephalus, who wandering unsteadily carries himself about through all places seeking the members of the adulterer Osiris, husband of Isis: behold with what ministers, and without any masters, the pagans arrogate to themselves the name of prudence, when it is a matter not only of imprudence but even of crime! For to love things obscene and shameful is deadly. But of what sort is that, that in a cave they are mocked with veiled eyes? For lest they shudder at being basely dishonored, their eyes are veiled. Others, moreover, beat their wings like a bird, imitating the voice of the raven; others truly roar after the manner of lions; others, with their hands bound, are thrown down upon pits full of water with the entrails of chickens, while a certain one approaches with a sword and bursts through the aforesaid entrails, one who would call himself a liberator.

There are also other yet more shameful things. Behold by how many modes those who call themselves wise are basely mocked! But because they suffer these things in darkness, they think it can remain unknown. For all those things which were devised and ordained in secret by evil and shameful men, the holy Christian faith has disclosed and uncovered. For when the faith had been preached, those who heard, considering what good and holiness was publicly promised, betook themselves to the faith, leaving behind those hidden, dishonorable, and shameful things, and confessing in what manner they had been mocked through ignorance. For then already for a long time nearly all were being turned about in this error, and for that reason they seemed to themselves prudent, because there was none to rebuke them. For although all erred under one name of deceit, that of idolatry, yet each one arranged his worship according to his own customs and manner of life, so that the one error had diversity arising from the baseness and manner of life of its authors. Finally the rites which they call those of Liber are dishonorable and most vain and full of frenzy; for it is difficult for an impure man not to be wrathful. Finally he is everywhere seen painted together with Priapus, with whom he lived dishonorably.

In this manner are the rest of their sacred rites as well; but it was through Satan's subtlety and cunning that these things were brought about, so that later generations might be ensnared by these inventions. And although these things were not devised apart from his design, yet upon each of the inventions he sprinkled certain sleights, by which he might lure men into error, and thus it came about that through the transmission of antiquity a deceit was commended and a base invention was excused. For through custom what was base began not to seem base; for when certain persons are dishonored, at first they blush; but afterward, as custom soothes them, shame withdraws and the countenance is changed, especially if one should see many such persons. For the traffic of baseness is at its height when those who are called noble are seen to be dishonored; for a dishonored nobility readily finds imitators.

If therefore for this reason they long ago already seemed wise to themselves — because there was no one to whom this foul invention was displeasing — now, since by God's mercy the human race has been enlightened and it has been made plain that what passed for law was a crime, and that what was thought to have been prudently invented was foolish, they ought at the very least to cease from this title, if they wish to remain in a crime now uncovered, acknowledging that the name of wisdom is foreign to them.

But so that they may add to the heap of their own confession, being caught in folly they call those men fools by whom they are refuted. But they accuse our faith and our posterity, while in the precepts they do not deny that nothing can be found blameworthy. Those who accuse our faith take up their charge not so much against us as against our Author; for they pronounce us fools, as having given our faith as it were to a foolish matter, but him a liar and a deceiver, and moreover malicious, as one who would hand on a faith through which believers would be deceived. Therefore let us first prove that we did not believe foolishly, and then go on to plead the cause of our Author.

When we were passing our life in error — in which the pagans now remain — drawn by no signs of powers, but receiving the bare words which they call sacred rites, thinking them to be of profit, not because divinity had commended them, but because old custom had handed them down — in which, as is not hidden, mocked by various vanities, we recognized no hope of salvation; for what could a thing invented by men profit? But that we should approach the faith of God and believe his Son to have been incarnate and crucified, we were persuaded not by words, but by facts. For we saw the dead raised, lepers cleansed, sight restored to one born blind, demons cast out, and at the same time all infirmities healed.

Now let it be judged when we were fools: when we believed bare words, or when we believed facts? For without doubt facts come before words, since words were invented to signify facts. If therefore we gave our faith to a human tradition with no power to persuade — a tradition invented to mock the minds of men — how much more to this one, to which all the signs that invoke God bear witness that it is divine and deifying! Should we not rightly be judged fools, if we did not believe powers, we who had believed mere words? Should we not reasonably be marked as improvident and inconsiderate, if we did not follow a hope that calls us to it, we who had been subject to despair?

'But', they say on the contrary, 'what is believed is foolish; for it does not stand to reason that God has a son, nor that dead and dissolved bodies should be restored again to life'. All the philosophers and founders of sects have pierced one another through with diverse disputations, none passing over to another, because each one remained in that with which he had been imbued; for through the fact that words are liable to contradiction, none overcame another; for there was no ground on which anyone might show himself the victor, but wearying one another with mutual contradictions, neither in the least persuaded the other.

Hence it came about that the providence of God, whose purpose cannot be searched out, joined power to its own preaching, so that the truth of the preaching might be proved by the testimony of power, so that those who were prepared to contradict with words, seeing the power, might not dare to contradict. For what greater attestation of truth could there be than the working of power?

But if anyone should deny the works of powers, accusing the scriptures, how will he be able to call our faith foolish while denying the scriptures? For where it is written concerning Christ that he is to be believed the Son of God, in that same place the witness of power is found. And if to anyone reading that Christ the Son of God was fixed to the cross it seems absurd, let him read on and he will find that he rose again from the dead, and let him understand that he did not die idly nor unwillingly, he who was able to rise again, but that it is a mystery. Whoever, then, that man may be, either he will be silent about the cross — because, 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 about 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; for either both are accepted or both are refuted, so that he who will not defend may not dare to accuse either.

But why he permitted himself to be fixed to the cross by his kinsmen, is a mystery to be reserved. Yet this death he so commended that he testified that he was glorified through it. For he also says: I have power to lay down my soul, and: I have power to take it up again. He then was not compelled to die, who had power both to die and to rise again. He who denies this will not be able to say that death was inflicted on him by violence. For if he denies that, neither will he be able to affirm that he died, because these things are contained in that place where he is read to have been handed over to death. For no one condemns the last things from the first or the first things from the last, because that which belongs to one body is not contrary.

But concerning the dead, that they rise again, they say craftily that it is foolish to believe it. For they see examples by which it may be judged credible. For all seeds necessary for our uses, unless they have been dissolved, will not be able to be born again. If he has decreed these things in the world for the sake of men, why, if he be believed about to grant these same things to their very bodies, do they think it foolish — unless because they themselves are foolish, who grant no more to God than the world is able to do? Yet a shadow of the mighty works once performed appears even to this day. For because it is not the time for performing mighty works — for they had to be done in the beginning, so that the seed of faith might through this make its growth — nevertheless even now the demons are terrified when the cross of Christ is named, and, if it be done more earnestly, are put to flight; and the gods of the pagans, from the dread and fear of the named cross, cannot give responses.

If the death of Christ is a reproach, why is it a cause of terror? For a thing which comes from a crime ought not to be feared, but despised. For who would fear a man slain for his own crime? And if he was innocent, still he cannot be feared, but (only) mourned. Therefore, unless the demons or the gods of the pagans perceived that the cross of Christ is a sacred mystery, they would not be terrified when it is named; and, to speak more precisely, unless they were guilty, they would not fear. For all these, who are on the devil's side, consented to the death of Christ. Whence all the demons or the gods of the nations are shaken with terror when the cross of Christ is named. For everyone who is guilty in the death of some innocent person, when that man's name has been mentioned, fear seizes his heart. For, once recollection of the misdeed is had, he sees himself guilty: how much more the demons or the gods of the nations, who are guilty of the slaying of the Lord and Savior of the world!

But the pagans contend that they hold the truth on account of antiquity, because, they say, "what is earlier cannot be false" — as if antiquity or old custom could prejudge the truth. For murderers or catamites or adulterers or the rest of the criminal could by this defend their unlawful deeds, because they are ancient and began from the very beginning of the world; whereas from this they ought rather to understand their error, because what is reprehensible and base is thereby proved to have been badly begun, while what is honorable and holy is worthily cultivated; and (because) the base and reprehensible cannot be prior to the holy and irreprehensible.

And finally, it cannot be denied that the tradition of the pagans was devised by man; but that our law was given by God is an evident matter. For on the mountain the majesty of God appeared to give the law to men; and, that credit might be given to this, he sent beforehand many signs and prodigies performed in Egypt — which even today the books testify, the books stored away by Ptolemy in the library of Alexandria. Thus, then, he deigned to give the law in such a way that no one might doubt that it was God who delivered it. For openly and manifestly the majesty of God was seen by all in such great splendor and terror, that both no other god besides him was believed (to exist), and what he commanded was held worthy of all observance.

And that all things may accord with the divine plan, let the transmitted law be examined, to see whether there is anything unjust in it, anything dishonorable, anything ridiculous. Thus it was fitting for God to make himself known -- not that he who cannot be confined should appear in a corner through imposture, nor in a cave, where the thing is other than what is seen, an enticing deceit being at work; nor that he should hand down as things to be observed those which, because they were dishonorable, would be carried out in the dark.

For when the knowledge of the one God had been blotted out in the world by the habit of transgressing, because falsehood had furnished a veil for the truth, the clement and merciful God, unwilling that his own work should become liable to perdition, deigned to visit the human race -- not appearing as those did who wished to be falsely called gods, but, as the truth of God is, so he manifested himself, in order to take away the error which had corrupted the world's understanding by the proclamation of false gods. And so, above six hundred thousand men who had gone out of Egypt, seeing and recognizing that this was the Lord above all, on account of the appearance of his ineffable glory, feared to draw near to him, but adored him with knee bent from afar; and afterwards, as other signs followed -- greater than those which he had done in Egypt among all his marvels -- he was manifested to be the one God.

These things became known to nearly all tongues; these things were a terror to the neighboring nations. What such thing is there among the gods of the nations? To what nation, to what people did they show their glory? What signs or mighty works did they perform as a testimony to their divinity? Where or when are they proven to have spoken?

But the irrational common crowd began to worship either appearing shades or demons or images of the dead as gods; and this matter, having been drawn into the habit of long antiquity, supposes that the truth of reason can be defended on its own behalf -- although the truth of reason is not from habit nor from antiquity, but from God, who is proven God not by antiquity but by eternity. For which reason faith is not a thing begun, but is without beginning. For to believe in God is our beginning; for that which is believed is eternal. In what way, then, do the pagans think themselves prior, when that which they worship is after God? Is not the work after the maker? The pagans worship works, we the maker; they the creature, we the creator. Certainly God made the world: come now, having made it, did he not show forth knowledge of himself? Or did he make man and not wish to be worshiped by him whom he made? But that is absurd.

Man, therefore, having been made, began to venerate his founder, because it is both fitting and the cause demands it. And when this had fallen into disuse through the sloth of men, God restored it in Abraham, so that the knowledge of God, which had been in Adam, might begin again in Abraham, so that those begotten of him might be brought up under this knowledge, and through the line of descent there might not fail nor be lacking one who would worship God -- men of a foreign nation also being called to this knowledge of God. He, therefore, who knows is under a beginning; but he who is known is above a beginning. By what reasoning, then, do the pagans say that their law existed before ours? If the world is before God -- which God forbid! -- then paganism too can be set before Christianity.

Let no one wonder at the name of Christianity. For it is to worship one God in the mystery of the Trinity, because, though the name of Christ is thought to be from "chrism" (anointing), nevertheless the meaning of the name is prior to creation. For among our forefathers, those who were anointed into kings were called christs, bearing the image of the Christ to come, who, born of God the Father as king, is not undeservedly called Christ, because what for those men was the chrism, for him his birth conferred. And him, as long as the pagans do not know him, they reject; but when they have come to know him, they worship him more diligently, rejoicing that they have passed from evil to good. For those who were obstinate in a thing so frivolous and foolish, how much stronger and more vehement will they be once the truth is known! What sort, then, is our Christ, who when he is not known is hated, when he is known is loved! For every evil man, when he is not known, is loved, and when known is hated. How many formerly hated Christ who now love him, and who grieve that they hated him because they had not known him! For it is the mark of an imprudent man to hate one whom he does not know, because one must first test whether the thing is worthy of hatred. In short, those who today oppose him will tomorrow defend him, doing penance that they came so late to know what is true. But if it were a thing worthy of hatred, or had anything of falsehood in it, then daily pagans would be made out of Christians. But, on the contrary, since this is the truth, daily, every hour, without ceasing, men abandon Jupiter — among them sophists and nobles of the world, who had fashioned him into a god — and take refuge in Christ, to whom is honor and glory unto the ages of ages.

CXV. ON FATE.

Nothing is so contrary to a Christian as if he should devote care to the art of astrology. For this is recognized as an enemy of the law of God. For if those who are evil are born so, and on the contrary those who are good are born so, then the law will be said to have been given in vain — and not only this, but the lawgiver too will be held unjust. For he who, having given a law, compels men to act contrary to that which they were born, knowing that nature cannot be changed, seems assuredly to have given the law for this purpose: that he might have an occasion by which to sate his cruelty on the slaughter of man. For why does he forbid what he knows cannot be averted? Or how does he condemn a man for what he did not do, since he could not do it?

But if he seems just — as he is, because to think that concerning God is wicked — then he gave the law rightly and by a saving purpose, knowing that a man is able to restrain himself from that which the law forbids. Therefore, since he gave the law justly, he is by no means unjust when he takes vengeance.

And so, if faith is to be lent to the law of God, since it is proved to have been given justly, the art of astrology is to be avoided and fled. For the cunning and subtlety of the devil devised it. For because he does not dare to oppose the author openly, he accomplishes it by subterfuge, so that he may both do injury to God and, setting man at enmity with the law, punish him with the second death.

Whoever, therefore, yields to God's authority and considers it wicked that His work should be called into question, obeys the law given by Him, pressing on day and night in eager pursuit of His pursuits, and looks to nothing opposed to Him, not doubting that a human being is capable of keeping His precepts. For those who long to sin seek occasions by which they may make their sins alien to themselves, so that, while the sins are as it were to be charged to nature, the sinner may seem to be exempt from punishment. This is the aim of those who, in despair of the promised life, desire to enjoy present pleasure.

But those who, relying on the confidence of faith, await the hope of things to come, strive to fulfill what they promised at the beginning of their rebirth: that they would renounce the pomps and pleasures of Satan. With what great subtlety, then, did Satan make use, that he might make man readier to sin, whereby he might satisfy the wickedness of his envy! For when man hears that he was born in such a way that he sins, and is not ignorant that God is most just, he believes that he sins with impunity, because He who is a just judge does not condemn the man who has sinned at nature's command; nor indeed is that to be called his sin which another performed through him, if the man was deceived; for weighed down by his sins he was made subject to death. Therefore he who takes away evil also takes away every good of man. For if the sinner has no punishment, neither has the just man a crown; and why are the good praised and the wicked blamed? For if it belongs to this nature that it cannot sin, why do you praise in him what is not his own? And why do you condemn the offense in a sinner, when you know that what he sins is not his own — unless it be that he will be unjust who praises the good and accuses the evil?

But perhaps it may be said on the contrary: 'I praise the good nature in man and condemn the bad, because good wine too is praised, since it is good by nature, and bad wine is refused, since nature equally furnishes this.' If it were so, there would be nothing at issue for blame, so that the just man would be praised in such a way that he would not be judged worthy of a crown, nor would the unjust be accused in such a way that he would be said to be worthy of punishment. But furthermore, both in the present and in the future we know and read that the just are rewarded and that the unjust, subjected to punishments, are burned up — which would surely seem unjust, if this man, who had carried out the business of his own nature, should suffer punishments by the avenging fire, or if another, equally carrying out the business of his own nature, should be endowed with rewards.

But if the good man is to be praised because he did what belonged to his nature, the bad man too ought to be praised, because he likewise did what belonged to his nature, so that each one, remaining in that which he was made, should be praised; for if a man remaining in that which he was made is held blameworthy, the blame touches the author, who caused such a one to be born as would be displeasing.

But if the just man is rightly to be rewarded and the unjust man condemned, then the response is not to nature but to the will, because nature is free, while the will is the responsible cause — a will that admits of the senses' approaches and withdrawals — so that the unjust man, seeing the just man crowned but himself condemned, may lay the blame upon himself, since, trusting the senses against the law, he did evil when he could have done good. Can the sun be accused because it burns, or water because it chills? Or is water to be rewarded because it revives men afflicted with thirst, or shall the sun be endowed with prizes because it restores men with its heat after cold? For they do what belongs to their own nature, and hence are neither condemned nor praised; for they know not how to do anything else.

But since it is not as the star-gazers reckon, the account of men's acts proves it. For no one can be found who always does well or always ill. For then a man would seem to have been born so as to act well, if he remained beyond reproach; and likewise he would be fittingly reckoned to be evil, if he persisted in it so as always to do ill. But since you may sometimes see even the man you think born good acting ill, and may now and then discern the man you call born evil doing good, how do you prove this to be true, that the evil man is evil and the good man good, unless because this rather is most certain, that, wherever a man has given his mind, in that he makes progress? For there are also causes that engender sins, so that a man either envies or quarrels or turns enemy.

But those things which are forbidden by the law they commit not openly nor manifestly, but in secret. Why, unless because they reverence the law? But if, as they assert, they had been born for this, that they should do ill, they would not seek hiding-places nor show any reverence to the law, but would do everywhere those things which nature compelled. But since you see men taking pains over their sins and contriving where they may commit them secretly — for they choose places and persons and times, that they may fulfill the will of their evil purpose —, in like manner also good men by a certain judgment determine their good works, so as to dispense their good according to the time and the case of someone; which surely is now to be imputed not to nature, but to the will, which is in nature. But if it were natural, judgment would cease.

For if we discuss the matter more fully, those who are now just, we shall show to have been unjust before, but by deliberate effort they have been changed. For Abraham himself is read to have been made just through faith — before, therefore, he was not, since he is understood to have worshipped idols with his father as his leader — and Zacchaeus assuredly, to whom, after his common life, the Lord bears witness, and the vessel of election, who confesses this very thing, saying: we too were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. Since the will yields in place of nature — for a man is judged from his will, not from his nature —, without doubt all the martyrs too and the justified are good, because they were not born faithful, but reborn. And how many do we know to have been of base life and prodigal devotees of luxury, who now are continent and holy! For when the fear of God comes in, the vices are conquered which before held dominion.

But how much the fear of the law can accomplish, let us observe from this. Before Julian's edict women were not able to dismiss their husbands, but once they received the power they began to do what previously they could not do; for they began daily and without restraint to dismiss their husbands. Where did fate lie hidden for such long ages? By fear of the law, I believe, it was concealing itself.

But that which Moses handed down—how did it slip in? While the fates were sleeping, I believe. For such great things were handed over to them to be kept, and such precepts as no nation possesses. And lest anyone suppose that this should be referred to the region of the sky, scattered through nearly the whole world they keep the commandments of their law. These precepts are against the fates; for they did not exist, perhaps, for three thousand years and more from the foundation of the world; but afterward, once given, they remain until the end. That which therefore for so many thousands of years did not exist, how did it begin? For the course of the stars is from the foundation of the world.

And what is this, that, although there is so great a multitude of Jews throughout the whole world, none of them is changed so as to become a gentile, whereas we see—though rarely—that from pagans some become Jews? Behold, as far as pertains to the rite of the Jews, fate is excluded, because they both began to be outside fate and remain in that condition.

What is to be thought of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose end—of what sort it was—lies before the eyes of vengeance? It was such that all, besmirched with the infamy of filthiness, deserved to be consumed by divine fire. In the flood all were of one fate, so that by one death and at the same time they all perished, except the house of Noah. And shall the whole army of Pharaoh be said to have been born under one decree, so that the foolish error of astrology may be vindicated, because they were drowned in the Red Sea together with their king? And how many other examples there are, which we pass over, because two examples suffice for proof—how much more three!

For all nations too have diverse institutions, and what is permitted elsewhere is not permitted here, and again, what is permitted here is not permitted elsewhere. For here in the city of Rome and its territories, which is called most sacred, it is permitted to women to dismiss their husbands, although it is provided in the divine law that not even men should make use of this power, except for the cause of fornication. Behold, in this matter the barbarians are better! And it is not impossible that this could be observed here too, because it is shown to have been observed formerly. Fate therefore has been changed, because that began to be permitted which before had been forbidden.

And it is not permitted for eunuchs to be made in the Roman realm, though among others it is permitted; but that here too they could be made is beyond question; for it is proved to be done, albeit secretly. But if fear were to cease, it would be done publicly. Fear therefore hinders fate; for fate is overcome if it does not do what it wishes to do.

And the Persians, in the manner of women, wear earrings, which here is dishonorable and unlawful; but that this too could happen here is attested by the priests of the Mother who is called Great — and indeed she was great, but a harlot; yet there is this difference, that these men are catamites, those were men — and what shall we say? In all the world are these alone born under such a fate, that, being castrated, they are transformed into women, so that in the whole world only these few are found, who, it is agreed, are wretchedly deceived and, by promises of rewards, compelled to this suffering and disgrace? But if they had been born for this, they would not be compelled.

The Persians hold it lawful to have intercourse with their own daughters, which is shown to be able to happen here also, by the fact that it is proven to have been done by certain persons. But because punishment intervenes, they are seized with fear, lest they do what can be done but is not lawful. For everything that is forbidden is forbidden for this reason: lest, because it can be done, it be done; but if it were a matter of fate, it could not be done nor would it be forbidden. For if it is not of fate and yet is forbidden, it is signified that what is not of fate can be done. And what prudence is there in forbidding what cannot be done? Would anyone forbid that a man fly across from the city of Rome into Spain, or that anyone carry a mountain on his shoulders? But those things which can be done, though they ought not, are forbidden.

It is the custom of the Moors that their women wear earrings even in their noses. Is this then a matter of fate? If it were of fate, women brought here would so remain, because, if it is fate, each one carries his own fate with him; but because it is not of fate, all who come from there are changed here, seeing that to be reckoned base here which there is thought comely.

Surely among all nations number is number, and 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 palpable, or water that is not fluid or cold, or fire that is cold? So everywhere Jupiter is Jupiter, and Saturn is Saturn, and Venus is Venus; and in the same way the other signs. For this art is treated everywhere by one and the same principle.

But because among all nations the established customs remain not by the principle of the fates, which is everywhere one, as they maintain, but by the contrivance of men — for whatever seemed worthy of reason and fitting for propriety to someone who was reckoned the first among his own people, he ordained for those over whom he presided —, hence each single region or nation has its own customs which it observes, just as Solon and Lycurgus had ordained many things which were observed by the Greeks after the manner of law, which little by little, as their kingdom declined, fell into oblivion.

For to the kings of the Jews mules were pleasing for riding; but to the Romans not mules, but horses; to the kings of the Garamantes, however, who are beyond Tripoli of the Africans, bulls are pleasing for riding; but the kings of the Persians are carried on couches — for the ancient kings of the Persians were not even seen by their peoples —; and the kings of Media delight in camels for riding, so that they adorn their necks with golden collars; and throughout Africa they prefer to sit on asses rather than on horses. -.

Since all things exist everywhere, yet not all things are pleasing to all people, because each person chooses what has greater favor in his eyes. For we ourselves too have differing preferences, both in clothing and in food and in the rest of our use of things and in our very opinion. And lest this be said to be a matter of fate — since many people assert differing fates — this very fact forbids it, because our preference is frequently changed in us. For what we love for a long time, we afterward despise; and we begin to love what we previously did not gladly possess, and once a habit has been formed we remain changed.

But they say that the order of the fates is such that there is something they bring about at certain times through intervals that return to their former state, as, for instance, what they do today, they do again after a time. For they are not said to remain in one condition; for they are overcome through training and habit.

Indeed, for many ages the use of wine was unknown to the women of the Romans. For a discipline, once made into a habit, confirmed its own perception, so that it retained what it had learned to be beneficial. Were these fates present in those times and afterward died out, so that a well-devised practice should cease? But it was not fate that had discovered this, but discipline. Yet when there was a departure from the habit, the discipline perished.

And the ancient Romans were of such great restraint that they even refused gifts offered to them, reckoning a good reputation to be their riches and preferring virtue to pleasures. And either these were followed by fates, or they died out; but it was not of fate, but of discipline, which is even the tutor of fate itself. For how could that be of fate which it neither had before that time nor has now?

And what it is, I do not know, that they cast such odium upon fate, so that in all things done they call it the author, though it both is and is not? For where there is discipline, it is not; and where there is habit, it is not; and where there is chance, it is not. But where it seems to be, it is overcome by fear of the law; for lust too is restrained by fear, and the profit of money is repudiated for the sake of earning God's favor. In this part, therefore, it cannot be denied, because that which is overcome cannot fail to exist, and yet it can rightly be said that in that very thing it does not exist, because that which is overcome lacks authority.

And so, for whoever follows the law of God and holds to the habit of a good life, all those things that are called fates yield to him. For habit has such great power that it even tames wild beasts. For those who wish to live badly establish fates for themselves. For through extravagance and pleasure there arises intemperance and restlessness, which gives birth to incontinence and irascibility. And knowing this to be worthy of punishment, in order to make themselves free of it, having suffered shame, they ascribe this to the fates, while it is the demons who furnish assistance to those thinking about this matter: those who stand ready for this, that they may grant effect to those thinking evil — these they call fates, not understanding that they are the enemies of man.

For if sins did not steal into the soul through the senses, but were born from within, then rightly everything that is done amiss would be said to belong to the ... . But since they do see that the lust for sins arises through sight and hearing and through the rest of the senses, with the aid of the enemies who suggest that it be done — which is harmful and is not thought to be so as long as it is being done (for it seems sweet, when it is being done or before it is done; but once accomplished it appears to be bitter) — why do they impute it to the fates?

That it can be overcome, however, we perceive from this. For when we are thinking and are anxious about some matter, the enemies fall silent and lust grows quiet; for they cannot make their suggestions to us while we are occupied. Does anyone make some other suggestion to a person who is devoted to a given task? He does not do so, knowing either that he is not listened to, or that he is rebuffed as one who suggests importunely. So too the enemies, who are agreed to be demons; for these are the gods of the pagans, who, if they see us occupied with divine matters, do not thrust themselves forward to suggest contrary things, but lie in ambush, seeking an occasion by which to insinuate themselves.

The defenses of souls, therefore, are the constant meditation on the law of God, and action; because, if they see us idle from divine matters, they are roused up to tempt us. For they are the ones who through flesh and blood sow lusts. For although the flesh has its own motion belonging to its origin, since carnal birth is not idle, nevertheless in this matter the aid of the demons is added toward the destruction of men.

For the demons are diverse and have differing wills. There are some which, when they disturb souls, dash the bodies; but some, mingling themselves with the blood, engender desires in souls; others, joining themselves to the heart of man, suggest contrary things with flatteries; and there are some which bind the bodies alone with infirmities, as also that daughter of Abraham whom the Lord healed.

Being ignorant of all these things, the pagans call it fate, though the causes are diverse and these things are procured by the enemies, so that a man, ensnared from whatever cause, is made subject to the passions. But they call it good fate when bodies are well-tempered, or are commended by affability, having a certain charm; and that it is bad fate, if one has more heat or moisture, or if he is not sprinkled with charm, but rather disposed toward harms — those whom they call unfortunate.

Grant that these things are true. For we see these things also in animals, that they have more heat; but animals are not rational as man is, so that they might be able, by applying care, to temper their own body. For it is for this reason that the soul is the commander of the body, that it may govern it with the reins of the divine law. For those things which are suggested either by the impulse of the flesh or by the enemy, the divine law shows to be not useful — which law God therefore gave as a help, so that, when the enemy dictates evils as though they were good, we, looking to the precepts of the law, may understand that he is a seducer, because he urges something other than what the law teaches.

Thus the body is bridled, so that, because it grows hot, less is given to it and it is held back from indulgences. For just as a feverish body, if it takes food or drink, its heat increases, so too bodies of this kind, which are burned by the fervor of the blood, will blaze up more violently unless they are governed. For if you give no food to a fire, it dies down.

It belongs to the soul to guide the body; but if it lets it go, so that it goes wherever it wishes, it hurls the soul headlong, like a bridle-champing horse its heedless rider. And because the body's fervor blazes up more when enemies are at work to deceive the soul — since it is not the body that desires, but by its heat generates the soul's desires — the protection of our God must be implored for defense, that he may restrain them — because our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against princes and powers — and when these have been removed, it will be easy to check the motion of flesh and blood. For a fire is extinguished if the material by which it lives is lacking.

But to those people happen the things that are foretold by the astrologers, who believe that what they say will come to pass. For this is brought about by the subtlety of the demons, so that they may effect those things which their priests have said would come to pass, lest, being detected as false, they be exposed. But regarding those who do not lend faith to their responses, the effect of these things does not prevail, because neither are they themselves so intent as to satisfy those who do not believe them, nor does God permit them to do that through which those who trust in God and do not believe the devil might be seduced. For God has ordained all things in such a way that it may happen to each one according to his own faith, so that the free choice of the will may remain. And through this, whoever believes God, taking refuge in his aid, nothing will be able to prevail against him; for he is certain that the things which He made are in His power, and that they do not dare against Him whom they see to have the common God favorable to him.

Surely God made the world and created the sun and the moon and the stars, appointing for them their courses, by which the human race is governed. Does He not indeed have the power to command them, so that at some time they do something other than what they have as decreed? For He so established them that they are subject to His will and only then carry out their decreed courses, if nothing else has been commanded: so that, if He is asked by those to whom they minister, on the grounds that either the rains are unseasonable or that through excessive drought the crops appear barren, He may order the weather to be moderated; or if perchance, as is wont, God being angered, men live in such a way that, wandering astray through luxury and vanity, they do not do what pleases God, and the rain having been suspended for a very long time — as we read was done under Elijah and Elisha — He may stir up famine upon the earth, then, appeased by satisfaction, He may grant that showers water the dry ground.

For in the same manner is the ordering of the world, as is secular government. For just as certain men, oppressed by the governors of the provinces, run to the aid of the emperors that they may be raised up, so too men, if they see the times adverse to themselves, present themselves as suppliants to God, in whose power all things are.

But this does not seem so to the astrologers. For they say that nothing else can happen than that the stars fulfill the causes decreed for them; and they can neither be recalled nor driven to anything else, but keep the duties once established. This is the assertion of the astrologers, so that they say the fates cannot be changed nor anything obtained by prayers, because they say that God once established the plan of the whole world and handed it over to the stars as ministers, and these can be carried neither backward nor forward.

This is the error of the astrologers, by which they even assail God. For through this assertion they deny that anything can happen outside the order of the world, so that all the things which are read to have 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 assert those things which are said to have been done in accordance with the established order of the world, so that neither is a virgin said to have given birth, nor Aaron's rod to have blossomed and borne fruit, nor Sarah as an old woman to have given birth. For the plan of the world does not admit these things, since they are read to have been done by God outside the order of the world. And what wonder is it, if the author of the world did what the world cannot do?

'But he seems to have transgressed', they say, 'the plan which he established, so that he himself is said to have acted otherwise than he decreed for the world'. Come now, he established a law of making or generating for the world: did he do so for himself? And it would be a lowliness in him, if he made things in the same way as the world was founded by him. And from what would it be understood to have been made by him, if he had made what he made by the law of the world? But in order that it might be understood to have been made by God, not by the world, it was made by another order.

Surely he decreed for the sun that it should unceasingly complete its appointed courses and not have leave to stand still: is it, because he established this law for it, that he too will not be permitted to establish anything for it?

Surely it is established for judges that they are not permitted to recall a sentence given against a defendant: will the emperor himself also be under this law? For to him alone is it permitted to recall a sentence and to pardon one condemned to death: how much more ought it to be permitted to God, which was not permitted to be granted to the world, since the world is the servant of its Creator! For the world, by the law handed over to it, is able to kill, but not able to give life. Through intemperance it is able to create a blind man, but not able to restore his eyes; it is able to make one weak and sick, but not able to cure him; for this God reserved to himself, whence it might appear that he is the Lord of all. For it pertains to the overthrowing of fate that the dead have risen again, that eyes have been restored to one born blind, that the sick and the paralyzed have been made strong, and the other such things which have been done, so that to those fleeing to God, if there can be anything of fate, it can bring no hindrance. For John the Apostle says: greater, he says, is he who is in you, than he who is in this world.

For when God is entreated, he even removes the things which he has decreed. For he has assuredly decreed that vengeance must be taken upon sinners, and yet he pardons those who entreat him, because to him alone is it permitted to bind and to loose. Hence, although standing still has not been granted to the sun, under Joshua son of Nun it was ordered to stand still and obeyed his command, contrary to that which had been prescribed to it in the order of the world. But under Hezekiah something greater is recorded to have been done, because, so that Hezekiah might not doubt that what had been promised to him was true, he received such a sign as was new and unheard-of to human ears. For the sun was not, as before, ordered to stand still, but to turn back backward, seeing which Hezekiah might be certain that he was able to add fifteen years to his life — he who had made the sixth hour out of the ninth. And because what was granted to Hezekiah is against the astrologers — for they deny that anything can be added to a life —, he again received in this matter a sign which was against the astrologers. For they assert that it is impossible for the stars to do anything other than what they have fixed.

Certainly they say that it belongs to fate to have a slave or not to have one. So be it. From the beginning of the world, where were these fates? For up to the flood, and for a long series of years afterward that passed, this condition of slavery did not exist. Or did these fates perhaps begin from the times of Ninus, who is said to have been the first to begin waging wars on his neighbors and to make the captives subject to slavery? You see, therefore, that this was devised afterward and does not belong to fate, but to the working of demons, because, if it had been of fate, it would have existed from the beginning of the world. For the stars themselves are the very ones that were made in the beginning, and their course remains the same in it.

And formerly the life of men was rustic, nor was wealth pursued: how is it that now the astrologers say through the stars that men become rich and poor? Have the stars been changed, or is it the cunning and trickery of Satan, that he should say those things come about through the stars which he works through his angels, his ministers? For as the time approaches at which his destruction draws near, he devises greater things by which sin may be committed.

Behold, we know that Italy and Africa, Sicily and Sardinia have suffered from famine: let the astrologers say whether all these had one fate, since among a hundred not even the fates of two are said to be able to agree with one another. Let them blush and be silent and stretch out suppliant hands to God, in whose power are all things. But perhaps in this case fate was outwitted: what shall we say about Pannonia, which was so wiped out that it cannot have a remedy?

0 the weakness of those who profess themselves Christians with a wavering faith! For while they doubt about the promises, they also give no thought to the things that have been done. For if they were to consider the things that were accomplished by the prophets and apostles, they would never admit the fables of the astrologers. For they would know that all things are in the power of God, and they would not be terrified when evils befall the good, because in the judgment to come they will be recompensed, mindful of the apostle who says: "For it is through tribulations," he says, "that we must enter into the kingdom of God." For he who is content and awaits the judgment of his God will, being recompensed, also be vindicated. But if he desires to be vindicated in the present, or with every greediness to enjoy present resources, he doubts about the promised life, and through this, being counted among the faithless in the time to come, he will be held deserving of punishment. For God made the world for the sake of training, and honored it with all resources, setting forth two conditions, the present and the future, the heavenly and the earthly, so that they might serve for the testing of men: that he who, having spurned the future life, chose the present, might be assigned to the flesh; but he who set the future before the present might be held worthy of things spiritual; and he who, unjustly oppressed by the power of the unjust, laid his complaints before God or reserved them for the judgment to come, might, relieved, be honored with spiritual glory. Hence no one of the saints appeared glorious in the world, nor loved present delights. Hence the apostle: "Having," he says, "food and clothing, let us be content with these." But the Christian complains and grieves if anyone seems fortunate in the world, whereas the dignity and felicity of Christians has been promised not on earth, but in heaven: how then does he call himself a Christian, who wishes to glory not there, where it has been promised, but here, where it has been forbidden? For if it were expedient to enjoy present things, heavenly things would surely not be promised to those who despise these.

With what hope, therefore, do Christians lend their ears to astrologers, when they hear John the apostle crying out and saying: "Do not love this world, nor the things that are in the world"? And so, if these are the precepts of our faith or law, that the world be not loved nor the things that are in the world, how is it that certain of us complain, saddened over the felicity of others which is in the world—which before God is perhaps unhappiness—when they ought rather to rejoice, because the world does not furnish them those things by which they might be held bound, subject to human affairs?

For this felicity, once the means of security has been received, lacks concern for divine things. For he must needs be negligent concerning the divine oracles who, stuffed with all necessities, has nothing to be anxious about. For men of this sort are wont to begin to labor under another anxiety, namely that they may be enlarged in the world, which cannot happen without sin. But if it be looked at more closely, the world will be seen to be rather the enemy of those whom it is said to make blessed, for scarcely any of them thinks of heavenly things.

Christians, therefore, ought to rejoice when, though living rightly, they are pressed down in the world. For here the one who has conquered the world is he who, content with however things have turned out for him in the world, gives thanks to his God, from whom, if any temporal goods seem to have been denied him here, he hopes that eternal ones will be repaid. For to what end did God appoint a future judgment, except that those who are unjustly cast down for a time might (be exalted) in eternal life, while those are put down who, through their power despising, or not believing in, the coming judgment of God, supposed that there was impunity for their crimes?

But the champions of the fates deny that there is a future judgment. For if some are born to be good and, on the contrary, some to be bad, why do you praise or accuse, seeing that neither did the good man strive when he engaged, so as to conquer, nor was the bad man negligent, so as to be lost? These tales, indeed, they peddle among private persons. For sinners brought before tribunals have never dared to excuse their crimes by the fates, but, confessing themselves guilty, they do not deny that they rightly receive the sentence. And so the authority of the law tramples down the reasoning of the fates in such a way that it cannot even be named once the law has set itself in motion.

But how do they believe that they will escape forever, who, having conducted themselves wickedly, by a certain effort escape the severity of the law for a time, not considering that the author of the law cannot on this account overlook it? For here is the image of the law, there is the truth; and he who mocks the image cannot mock the truth. Is there any place without God, or can anyone escape his hand? But they think, flattering themselves, that whoever escapes here is now secure. And how do they judge this to be just, that while others are condemned in such cases, these should escape?

Surely God established the world and showed by what law it should be governed. For, careful of his own work, he showed it the way by which one goes to life, having appointed what guides they should use, since there is also a way that leads to death. Ought he not, then, to inquire whether those whom he set as ministers of his kingdom have governed his people by that law which he established, or whether the people accepted his edict, so that both the ministers found faithful might be worthy of praise or, being unfaithful, subjected to punishments, and likewise the people, having kept the law, might be praised, or, having despised it, condemned? This is just; this the case demands.

How, then, does it displease certain people to believe in a future judgment? But this the madness of the astrologers has devised. For how could they accept a future judgment, who resist the present one, since they contend that judgment lies in one's nativity? And because the truth, when it is thought to be pressed down, rises again, they themselves, who assert that the good and the bad are not made but born by a certain judgment of nature, nevertheless requite those who sin and do not allow sins to go unpunished. For with rods, with the mill, with chains they lay hold within of those whom outwardly they assert to have been born incorrigible. Does any prudent man punish one whom he knows cannot be corrected? That indeed is the mark either of a fool or of an unjust man.

But lest they should say that this very thing happens by fate — because he who is under fate does not do what he wills — so that even they themselves have it as natural to take vengeance upon those whom they know to remain naturally unconvertible; and truly, since it must be put thus, so that whatever is said to belong to fate is reckoned to folly. For how foolish it is that,* when they call someone born evil, they do not prove him good whom they assert to have been born good! For how can he be judged good who is caught doing an unjust deed? For what is so unjust as that he should be beaten who is said to have been able to do nothing other than what he did?

And if all things happen by fate, how did the law creep in, which does not permit that to be done which belongs to fate? For if the law be taken away, unlawful things will everywhere be done openly, and the powerful cannot be endured, nor will there be liberty, because even he who now does not contemplate evil, once fear is removed, will begin to be evil. In short, we read that the law was given for the sake of the wicked.

But this very thing too, perhaps, belonged to fate, that the law should be given. And by what reasoning do the fates subsist, if they generate that by which they are destroyed, since the law declared that what belongs to fate ought to be done contrariwise? Therefore they lack reason, if they generate things contrary to themselves, and they are unjust, because they cause men to be born unto damnation; and if they are unjust, they ought not to have authority, because everything unjust is liable to punishment. ,

Or perhaps they say that the law is of no profit, because he who has been born in such a way that he is evil cannot be changed through the law? But if this is so, the law was given superfluously; and how did the fates cause a superfluous thing to be born, since 'nothing is without fate'? And so the fates act both for themselves and against themselves. But if this is so, that cannot stand which through inconstancy of reason does not hold firmness.

But perhaps for this reason they held the law to be of fate, that those whom the fates cause to be born evil should be condemned by the law, so that fate and the law might agree unto the punishment of these? What will be said to this, except that both the laws and the fates deserve to be condemned by their own judgment, if with equal injustice they contrive this, that those should be slain who did evils not of their own accord, but with the fates driving them? To these things the law speaks contrariwise, because the fates are to be condemned by their own profession. For they do not deny that those who are evil belong to fate in that they are evil. But the law is so far opposed to the fates that it denies that the evil belong to fate in that they are evil, but rather to their own will; wherefore it will duly establish them as guilty. Nothing therefore is common to the law and the fates, since that is denied by the law which is asserted by the fates.

But by what reasoning will they be said to have been born who prohibited the astrologers from the city of Rome — which right, as is not unknown, was observed, and they were certainly pagans? How do things happen by fate which are against fate? But if there is fate, it does not act against itself: these men do not have fate, who act against fate; and if these do not have fate, there is no fate.

(But,' they say, 'there is a fate assigned to each individual determining by what death he shall die.' But if this is so, the murderer is not to be accused. For he will defend himself on a twofold ground: both that he himself did this under the compulsion of the fates, and that the other was slain under the compulsion of the fates. Yet amid these things the law is struck at, because it punishes the murderer brought before it. In like manner too there is born one who is to be an adulterer, and she who is to be an adulteress, and the one against whom the adultery is committed. But if this too is so, then even now the law is impugned, which punishes adulterers; for if it were truly a matter of fate, then that man too ought to be punished who has such a fate that he suffers adultery. For he himself is found to be a participant, because his fate allowed the adultery to take place. It would therefore be just that they should either be condemned together or acquitted together; amid these things the law appears unjust.

And therefore, if the fates are from God, the law will not be God's, because to condemn what one has done befits not only not God, but not even a prudent man. But since no one ever dared to speak against the law or to deny that it is from God, it will not be possible to say that the fates are from God, because these things God punishes through the law. For when what is done under the impulse of the fates is condemned, without doubt the fates are condemned.

'But evil souls,' they say, 'are born for this purpose, that they may do evil.' So be it. But the innocent ought not to be born with such a fate that they can be killed by them. For if those souls were evil, they ought not to be born, but to be punished, lest they kill the innocent. But it is not the souls, which they imagine to be evil, that kill the innocent, but the fates, which cause men to be born in such a way that they are killed. And through this 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 are to be condemned together with him.

And since they are said to decree for each individual in what manner they shall die — whether by the sword or by the noose or by a fall or by shipwreck or otherwise — they assign the same to many. For no one can alone diverge from the fates of all. But if anyone should be found to diverge, then it is not a matter of fate, but of chance; and if in the death of one it is chance, it will be so in the death of many also, and then it will not be a matter of fate. Anaxagoras, cast into a ball by the king's command, expired crushed, which befell no other man. And a woman fixed a stake into the temples of Sisera, king of the Philistines, and thus he gave up his spirit. In this manner no one has died. And formerly men were fixed to the cross, which afterwards remains prohibited by edict. If it was a matter of fate, how did it cease? For when what is a matter of fate is prohibited and does not happen, fate is overcome. Or if it was not a matter of fate, then men were not fixed to the cross by fate, but by the judgment of the law. And so it is that men are not condemned by fate, but convicted by their own evil deeds. :..

Among the Etruscans, it is said, there was born a certain man so beautiful of face as none ever was; and because he was a good man, lest he fall under anyone's suspicion — since he allured even the eyes of respectable women — he wounded his own face with seven blows, that he might condemn the beauty which is desired by all. Behold in what way, if there are fates, they were overcome! But perhaps it may be said: 'It belonged to nature that he was born beautiful, but to fate that his appearance was wounded.' Yet if this is so, then fate is no longer something born [with one], but an accident is the cause; and if it is a matter of accident, it will not belong to fate, but to deliberation, or at any rate to outcome, so far as concerns the remaining parts.

For what else is it to conquer fate, except to change nature? But if it were assuredly from God, it could neither be changed nor conquered. For it is read, as recorded in a certain legal document, that a woman once bore five children [at a birth]: how was it filched from the fates, that nature should decree for her alone this thing which did not belong to fate? Had it been of her fate, a good many women would have been burdened with this lot. And when a certain man was setting out for foreign parts, he entrusted his wife to a friend whom he knew to be faithful — not indeed a boy, but of mature age — who, that he might be a more careful guardian of her, cut himself [i.e. castrated himself], so that he might sleep beside her cautiously, without anyone's suspicion. What do we think: did this belong to fate or to deliberation? But how did that belong to fate which is contrary to it? For he who conquers what is inborn in him — this man empties fate of its force.

And in studies, too, the cause is certainly assigned to the fates, so that one may know something or else be unable to grasp it. Therefore all senators have one fate — for none of the senators is without letters — and the nations which are without letters have one fate, and all slaves are of one fate; for no one of the slaves is a senator.

But if you call fate that which is born [with a man], whatever is added on will be outside of fate. Or if what is added comes from fate, why does it come through labor? For then it would be called a matter of fate, if it befell a man against his will. For that which impends without forethought is said to belong to the fates; but that which is thought out and long pondered and acquired through the exercises that come between — why should it be said to belong to fate?

Some one man is born a eunuch, others are made eunuchs: where will fate be? In that one, I believe, who was born so; but as for those who are made so, what is to be said about them? For it is a different matter. Or if these have been made eunuchs by fate, then that other one was born a eunuch contrary to fate. And why is a eunuch so rarely born, so 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 are the fates which decreed this for these people? For in the time of the emperor Constantius it is well known that a girl in a part of Campania was changed into a male and brought to Rome: what fates brought this about? Others, I suppose, which you do not know.

O, if only you would keep silent about this name [of fate] and refer some things to outcome and to chance, you would grant certain things to providence! For so much can the virtue and diligence of minds accomplish, that it not only resists nature, but even amends itself or leaves itself unamended, because it has judgment over itself.

For it is related that the women of the Scythians, who were called Amazons, because—when their husbands, occupied in a distant war, were long absent—for the sake of offspring mingled with slaves and killed every male that was born, keeping the females, in such a way that none of them devoted her labor to woolworking, but from the earliest age they were trained in wrestling-ground and in arms. So great was their valor and their industry in their exploits, that reigning through a long series of years they subdued not a few nations and put all Asia under tribute. What could be said to these things? Were these events matters of fate—things that were carried on thus through so many years, so that they made void all that are thought to be of fate? First, that against nature women should reign, having spurned husbands; then, that they mingled with their own slaves; thirdly, that all the males born were killed, while the females were kept alive, with such prosperity attending them that a kingdom begun without husbands they extended with great forces and over long periods. Certainly this was never done since the foundation of the world, except in Scythia alone—lest perchance they should say that, when the world is renewed after one thousand four hundred and sixty years, such things come to pass, since indeed the world is now being carried on in its six-thousandth year.

And [it holds] so long as one does what he has imitated. For M. Crassus was called (Agelastus), because he is reported to have laughed once in his life; and C. Junius was surnamed (Brutus), because by a shrewd design he feigned himself a fool, lest he should be killed by the proud king on account of the greatness of his money; and in the times of Constantine one who was called Samsucius pretended to be a fool for thirty years, in order, as he himself afterward said, to divert the emperor from his weariness. Where is the principle of the fates, when each one does what he wishes? It is excluded.

But of what sort is this, that the assertors of the fates are given over to supplications, though these are contrary to them? For they both commend their years and inquire about marriages and about a journey and about purchases and about honors. But if it is a matter of fate, why do you pray, why do you supplicate for that which is going to happen even against your will? "But I ask," he says, "whether I ought to buy." Therefore that which you say you ought then to do, if you have learned that it is advantageous, does not rest in fate. For if it is a matter of fate, you ask in vain, since—whether you will or will not, whether you ask or do not ask—you are going to do it.

But because this asseveration is not fixed even among those men themselves, therefore, being uncertain, they make trial, lest they should find something else to be true than what they have handled. But the more prudent among them, who seem [wiser], say: "It is not on account of the fates that we supplicate, since we know these can by no means be changed, but for the sake of those things which are alongside the fates, lest they do us anything adverse." Come now, if some person or other has a good fate and alongside it there is something that seems contrary, what will it be able to be, when a good fate is denied to be changeable, just as an evil one also is? Surely supplication is made about this thing which is alongside the fate, that it may not do harm—for it will do harm unless supplication has been made—: how then is that fate said to be unchangeable, when this thing, which is neighboring [to it], is feared? For this would not be feared, unless that [fate] were believed able to be changed. But because the cause consists rather in this—that you may not say fate is changed—without doubt you supplicate without cause.

But see whether this too—your supplicating—may be a matter of fate, for whatever you assign to fate is wont to be without salt. Surely supplication is not a bad thing: why then should it not be said to belong to fate? If, then, that which one supplicates for shall be of fate, whose part will it be to supplicate and not obtain? For if it was of fate, he ought to obtain what he supplicates for. But if it is of fate to supplicate and not to obtain, fate is foolish, because it makes a man supplicate whom it knows will not obtain. But if that which makes him supplicate does not know whether he can obtain, fate will be improvident and devoid of reason, because all ignorance is want of understanding, and want of understanding is indeed folly. Into this quarter falls the whole discourse of the pagans. Let the pagans see to it, who, wrapped about with a fog, do not see the light. For, ensnared by an ancient error, they refuse to lend their ears to the truth, which formerly lay hidden.

What shall we say of certain Christians, who, changed in name alone, lay claim to the vanity of their former error, so dulled that they contend that the Lord himself acted under fate, saying: "he himself said: my hour has not yet come"—as though this hour were not a matter of will, but the necessity of a fated condition, whereas he was signifying the hour of his own will, in which he permitted himself to suffer; for at the last he says: I have power to lay down my soul, and I have power to take it up again. Fatal necessity therefore ceases where there is the power of the will.

And in what way is he called Savior by us, if the things we do or that befall us are of fate? For he is called Savior for this reason, because he showed us the way of salvation. And so, if it was shown by him, it was not of fate, because it both formerly lay hidden and—what is said to be of fate—they contend comes about unforeseen. For here lies the merit of faith, which cannot be said to be from fate, because what is believed was not heard in other ages; for they say that the fates furnish this, which is bound up in the daily converse of men.

Now by what reasoning are they said to be able to grant this, which they are caught not knowing? This is why the apostle says: whom none of the princes of this world knew. These are the principalities and powers having under them the evil angels, who under the name of the fates carry out their own pleasures, according as it has been agreeable to them, just as the workers of evil are wont to confess. For there are some whom they love, others they do not love, certain ones they hate. And each one suggests to each person that which he loves, because they too have diverse pleasures: to some the lust of one kind of debauchery, to others of another, to some wantonness of pleasures, to some wrath, to certain ones avarice; for some they procure gains, for others losses, for some a charism, for others hatreds and also hindrances. And sometimes at fixed seasons, being sated, they rest in idleness; but sometimes indeed they do not thrust themselves upon a mind occupied with some reasoning, because they do not rule, but they creep in seeking an opportunity by which to catch. Therefore the judgment of the will is free, but while through a certain sloth we are made negligent concerning our own selves, they, soliciting us, persuade us to adverse things; especially if they find us thinking something that is not of the law, they will come, in that very thing helping, that we may fulfill what the law forbids. For if the fear of God be in the soul, neither flesh nor blood nor principalities and powers prevail, because they are checked by the supports of God, so that they are overcome without toil.

But if we were not of our own power, how would the Lord say: ask and it shall be given you; for everyone who asks shall receive? If therefore he who wishes to ask shall receive, then it is no longer that which is wont to be said: 'not what we will, but what has been given,' because the will is incited by the Savior to ask and to receive what it has asked. But they say that this belongs to fate, that whether one asks or does not ask, one nevertheless obtains what fate holds, whether it be evil or good. But the Lord, excluding this, says: daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole, so that it is no longer of fate, when faith receives the benefit. And again: if thou believest, he says, all things are possible to him that believeth: assuredly he placed the merit in the will, because it is the good of faith, not of nature. But faith is a thing that is added, which rouses the will to exercise, so that, since it is not in nature, the will, which is in nature, having received faith may establish merit for it before God. For the nature of men is like a stone, which, although it does not have fire in its substance, nevertheless has it in potency, so that by work it may create what it does not seem to have, because it does not exist, but as it were in seed. So it is in potency, so that through exercise it may be generated, and, if the exercise be lacking, it may not exist, because the seed too, unless it be worked, does not generate, but remains itself alone. The accession therefore causes it to generate. So too man does not have faith in nature, but the seed of faith, which, unless it be provoked and exercised, will not give fruit, that is, will not have faith. For those believing in the fables of the astrologers exterminate the seed of faith, which bears witness both to the Creator and to his justice. For the work recognizes its maker and testifies that it loves with equal right the things it has made.

Therefore we advise fleeing from this art by every means. For those curious about it are also enemies of God and are never without anxiety; for they are always in suspense, awaiting what they know to be uncertain. But we, who believe that all prosperous things come from God and that, if any adversities arise, they are restrained by his command, let us live in simplicity, secure in his protection, yet not unaware that, even if something adverse should befall us who act well, once endured it will profit toward the crown.

CXVI. THE ACCOUNT OF THE PASSOVER.

The Passover, most beloved brothers, is named from the passion, as the prefiguration of this tradition teaches us, which was accomplished in Egypt through God's servant Moses, Scripture saying: this is the immolation of the Passover of the Lord. What then is the reason that the sacred mystery was celebrated through blood, and the restoration of life through death, so that, when death thought it was making increase, having received the blood of the Savior it should flow away diminished, and, when it reckoned it had accomplished something by its power, weakened it should perish? For death was found for death through its own work, by divine provision, so that, because it always wills evil, it might be yielded to for a time, in order that, destroyed in justice by its own work, it could not complain that a kingdom had been taken from it. For although God can do all things, yet he does nothing that would be absurd to reason. For the justice which he demands, this he also practices, not presuming upon his power.

Great therefore is the providence toward the human race, that, keeping justice, he thus loosed those things which had been justly decreed and rescued man from death, although he was held not undeservedly. But because he had been deceived by the envy of the devil, it was just that this one be helped. For he was held by the sentence of God, but Satan had wrought this. Whence, just as it seemed just to rescue this one, so it was unjust to do this through power with justice neglected. For man, conquered by the persuasion of the devil, so that he might receive mercy, the devil as it were as accuser spoke against it. Whence this was done, that this one, who gloried in the sin of man, should be caught sinning, so that then at last, having been made guilty, he would not dare to speak against it. Thus it came about that the Son of God was born a man and, preaching justice, provoked the devil, because he forbade men from his vices, so that he even killed him who knew no sin.

Then he was found to have sinned, and indeed more grievously than the man whom he was accusing. For when, by God's decree on account of sin, he claimed the man for himself, since whoever sins belongs to the party of the devil, he was found to have sinned the more, when he slew the one who had not sinned, so as to usurp him for himself. Therefore through death destruction crept in upon death, and, so that blood might be recovered, blood was poured out; because, as I have said, death, which is the devil, since he was found to have sinned unto the death of the Savior, lost the Savior's blood together with that of us all — because, just as through the one Adam who sinned he held all in death, so through the one who did not sin he lost all. Therefore the blood of the Savior, poured out unjustly, obtained this by way of reward: that, recovering with triumph the blood of its own origin, it might recall it to its former state with its substance made better. For death, once conquered, could not gainsay the one who had conquered it. Blessed therefore is the mystery of the Passover, which redeemed by our blood, death being vanquished through death, just as poison is wont to be overcome by poison.

CXVII. ON ABRAHAM.

This patriarch's faith was so preeminent and admirable that all the other righteous ones acknowledge him, by God's own judgment, as the father of belief, and that no one is worthy of God and dear to Him unless he has been called Abraham's son. For the prerogative of his honor and merit is his faith, which, since he does not hesitate to give it even in incredible matters, among other things he became worthy even to see the Savior in the likeness of the incarnation then to come, as the Lord says and proves to the Jews: Abraham your father desired to see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced. For he who deservedly became the father of faith, it was fitting that he should foresee the hope of his future sons, which, with God propitious and provident, by the grace of inheritance should overflow from the human and dutiful father into his obedient sons.

Let us now see what this faith believed, so that it attained to such great honor and glory by divine judgment. For we have praised the faith, but what it believed we have not yet said. For the Lord, leading him out, showed him the stars of heaven and said: Canst thou number them? So shall thy seed be. And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. It would not be a great thing to have believed God, were it not that what he believed the world judges not to be believed and foolish, because that lies not within the hope of the things of nature. Whence Abraham, one man out of the world, because he believed this, being set apart from the worldly, was justified.

That he believed this, therefore, is made a great thing by the faithlessness of worldly wisdom, against whose hope to have believed this is of the greatest merit. For the despair of the worldly is the merit and hope of Christians; for the cause of the wicked produces the reward of the good, since faith is stronger and fuller when it commits itself the more to things incredible. For a man already withered believed that from an aged wife he would have seed, which on account of its abundance could not be numbered, not so much regarding this which was shown as reckoning that he who showed it could not lie. And therefore it was reckoned to him unto righteousness. For to believe a thing that is absurd and known to be impossible is the mark of a dullard, unless there be a person who counsels that this be believed. Hence Abraham is both of admirable faith and of a skilled heart, since he both believes that which is incredible and commits himself to him whom not to believe is both foolish and dangerous.

For this proves our faith to be reasonable, because it believes that none other than God is able to do what he promises. This, then, is the bulwark of faith, this its triumph. Which indeed the wise men of the world, perceiving the nature of things, because this cannot be, say it is foolish to believe, not knowing that, according to the apostle, that which is foolish of God is wiser than men. For they would justly judge us fools, if we believed this of the nature of things, which is proven unable to be. But further, those things which the nature of things cannot do, we believe that God is able to do, if he has promised. What foolishness can be detected in this matter? But if the work which is believed possible is unworthy of God, then faith is rightly compared to dullness; but if it is worthy, through that which is impossible for a creature, why is faith not to be praised, which gives so much to the Creator as the creature is denied the power to do?

Great, therefore, and admirable is Abraham, who against the world's judgment did not hesitate to believe God, because he is able to do what he promises. By birth a Chaldean, he appeared a master of belief: although skilled in astrology, he nevertheless set God before human counsel, esteeming it worthy that this be believed of God, namely that whose manner of coming to be cannot be investigated. For the power of God confirmed his weakness, because, in order to attest the singular greatness of his majesty, he would arrange to do things which are impossible and unheard-of to the world, and by that deed would show himself Lord of creation, and the creature would subject itself to him whose work would seem impossible to all others—by whose unbelief the most faithful Abraham is the more exalted. For his faith is the punishment of the unbelieving, and the faithlessness of the unbelieving is his glory; for he is the father of the faithful and the judge of the unfaithful. For by his example both the good are granted eternal life and the evil will pay eternal punishments. For at that time, when the world was still a little child in knowledge and not yet illumined by signs and wonders which might draw it to faith, he did not deny faith to God against his own knowledge.

Therefore holy Abraham, most faithful, was given as an example to the human race. For in him all the nations were prefigured as coming to salvation through faith; and so that the superabundant increase of his faith might be known, he is tested and commanded to sacrifice his son to God — a thing which had never been done — and he is neither disturbed by the novelty of the matter nor does he dispute whether, at God's command, a parricide ought to be committed by him who had threatened that no homicide should occur. Thus, fearless and untroubled concerning the will of God, he does not hesitate to be provident in what God commands, and this son, whom two old people had received from a promise — the reward of faith, the token of merits, and in whom all hope from the promise of the future seed was held. And that he might fulfill it with all devotion, he did not disclose it to the boy's mother, lest he bring some impediment to his dedication, knowing that mothers are more inclined to love in their affection toward their sons; and therefore he concealed it from her, not doubting that what God commands ought to be fulfilled, so that by this example we might be taught to carry out God's commandments with all care.

For if the most faithful Abraham is found obedient in a matter so grave and harsh, how much more we, to whom those things are enjoined which can be borne! O faith dedicated to God and hope firm in the Lord, which is so dear and sweet that it is set before the affections of parents and children, as Scripture says: Taste and see how sweet the Lord is!

Now our patriarch, the most faithful Abraham, because he was a prophet, knew what he ought to follow. Therefore, according to what the Lord has now said, he then did, so that he set God in love before a son, however dearest, as the Lord says: If anyone, because he loves father or mother or children above me, is not worthy of me. Whence the patriarch, that he might prove himself worthy before the Lord above all others, did not even refuse to kill his son.

CXVIII. ON JOB.

Great is the love, most beloved brethren, of almighty God toward the human race, which, when understood, indeed leads to the heavenly kingdoms, but, when not understood, leads down to hell. For God wills His benefit to be pleasing and fruitful, that it may both profit us and delight Him to show mercy.

Therefore, since He is good and wills all men to be saved, He has shown us an example of righteousness in Job His servant, as the present reading testifies, so that by following it we may be able both to be free from evil and to come to good, being not only free from punishment but also rewarded.

How admirable, then, is most holy Job, who before the law was set down in writing displayed by his works the exemplar of the law, learning in this matter no teachings from anyone, but with nature herself as guide — nature in which God decreed that the seeds of righteousness should naturally reside — preserved reverence for the Creator with pious devotion!

How great a praise, then, is he worthy of, and with what words ought his deeds to be extolled—he for whom we can find no equal either before the law or after the law? And yet, if anyone could marvel at his deeds, he would no longer be one to be compared with him, nor would he rightly be called similar to him. For it would not have been his own that he had proved himself such, because he would have followed another's example. But holy Job, since he had seen nothing of the kind nor read of it repeatedly in books, showed himself such that he had nothing bestowed upon him from anyone, but he himself bestowed upon the rest, offering a pattern of wondrous deeds for earning favor with the Lord. Wherefore he is commended also by the testimony of the Lord, who says: Have you considered my servant Job? For there is no one like him on earth, a true worshipper of God.

Who could merit so much, one to whom the Lord bears such testimony, except this man, who is found to be not an imitator, but the author of the things he did? Whence also he is declared a true worshipper of God. For no pretense of fabricated truth can be seen in him who has no one such before him. For everyone who feigns feigns that which he is seen to imitate.

And yet greater still than all these are the things that may be said. For among these praises there were no proofs from tribulations, but rather a purpose dedicated to God, established in practice and in observances; and because to the tempter this did not seem full for a crown of merits, he asks that it be permitted him to test his righteousness by various temptations, so that, being constrained in many things, he might somewhere become stuck and be able to exceed the bounds—because for this reason various punishments are wont to be inflicted upon sinners, that, since no one can bear all torments, some one of them may elicit from him a confession of the truth.

And so it was permitted to the tempter to exterminate and destroy all that was his, even to the death of his children, so that, if he should bear the loss of the oxen, he might not bear that of the sheep; or if he should bear that of the sheep as well, he might not bear the loss of the camels, nor of the servants, nor of his whole substance; or if, because he was of great spirit and of sufficiently pure devotion, he should not be overcome by all these, then at least, with the affection of love compelling him, he might be broken by the death of all his children at once. But because, before the law was set forth, he had the law written in his heart, no losses nor bereavements made him less in his devotion to God, so that he might set a pattern that God is to be loved with the whole heart above all things. How great a glory, then, is he worthy of, who kept the law before the law, so that he might demonstrate the law which was to come—in what manner it was to be kept—not in words, but as a doer in deeds!-

And because the tempter is irreverent, and this glory did not seem to him sufficient for the testing of a just man, unless he should contrive something else against him which he knew could not be borne by a man, he asks again that he might strike that very man with a savage wound from head to toenails. And when this had been permitted — because no trust ought to be placed in him — it was commanded to him that he should preserve his life, on account of free will, lest he should venture anything violent against the one whom he could not overcome by the right of reason. Having therefore received power, with the ferocity of his cruelty breaking out afresh within him, he struck the just man with an exceedingly great plague, so that there was nothing in his body that was free from a wound — which no man could endure, save Job alone, who was able to conquer Satan. And when not even thus did the wickedness of the devil draw forth from the just man anything against God, he was mindful of his former craftiness, by which he deceived Adam, to see whether he could deceive this man too through a woman, since one is easily deceived through a member of his own household.

And in all these things gaining nothing, nay rather suffering loss, the most shameless Satan found the servant of God not only immovable but even a master. For, set in that very necessity, he not only endured in the fear of God, but even, rebuking his wife who was suggesting the contrary, taught that all things which happen by God's permission must be bravely endured. This pertains to the twofold punishment of the improvident Satan, because he neither persuaded this man of what he wished and, while he envies this man, he made others learn what he did not wish even this man to know.

How much, therefore, 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 advances them, and when he persecutes one, he provokes many. For many, seeing this man protected by the helps of God, become his imitators. Wishing therefore to make gain, he lost; for his fury is always harmful to himself. For while he does not allow the just to be just lest they be rewarded, he makes them the more worthy, and when he is jealous of holy Job, he doubled his merit in heaven and on earth, because both here he was increased and into heaven he was received with the Savior, so that all these things profit the glory of the saints, but the punishment of the devil.

CXVIIII. ON TOBIT.

So great is the providence of the Lord God concerning us that, not wishing us to err, he gave both a law and examples of good works, by which a modest and tranquil life may be led with the fear of God. For he who is the author of life does not at all wish his work to be subject to death. Although nature itself is not without a law, yet because the Lord is good and merciful, in order that there might be a greater knowledge of those things which are to be followed and of those which are to be avoided, he showed it by writings and by examples, as the present reading testifies.

The servant of God, therefore, holy Tobit, was given to us as an example after the law, so that we might know in what manner the things we read are done and, if temptations should come, that we might not withdraw from the fear of God nor hope for help from any other source than from him, mindful that it is written: I have been young and have grown old, and I have never seen the just man forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread.

Therefore he who hopes in God with his whole mind can never be deceived. Although for a time tribulations may arise through the snares of Satan, the examples of holy men teach us that these are not permitted by God except for the increase of our merits, because, if they are borne with an even mind, consolation will be given us here with real effect, and in the future eternal life with glory. For our God, since he is just, and there is no respect of persons with him, permits us to be tempted because he loves us, so that after our labor he may be able to give us the most abundant rewards. Finally, to the apostle, who was praying that his temptations might cease, the Lord says: My grace is sufficient for thee; for strength is made perfect in weakness. Hence he goes on to say: When I am weak, then am I stronger, and: I rejoice, he says, in my tribulations, that the strength of Christ may dwell in me.

Scripture therefore teaches us how praiseworthy holy Tobias was, whose devotion neither captivity diminished, nor did the loss of his eyes persuade him to bless God any the less, nor did his exhausted substance turn him away from the way of justice and truth. For necessity proves the just man, and to preserve equity in want is true and perfect justice. For from that very thing whereby the devotion of some is diminished, from that Tobias, worthy of praise, made increase. For want, it says, humbles a man; and he who is humbled cannot preserve justice. But the mind of holy Tobias, lifted up to God, was neither broken by captivity nor humbled by want, because even against the prohibition he committed the bodies of the slain to burial, and, secure concerning God's bounty, he was merciful out of his very own scanty means, knowing that this mercy which is done out of little pleases God more, just as that widow also did, whom the Lord commended in the Gospel. For this man is truly faithful, this man does not doubt concerning the promises of God, who bestows out of little.

Therefore, consoling his mind with the hope of things to come, Tobias, dedicated to God, was found robust and strong in temptation, showing that in necessity one must be all the more vigilant in the fear of God, because if necessity does not drive one to God's help, how much more does security! Certain therefore that God had reserved to himself the judgment of all those things which are done in this world, the holy men did not bear grievously their tribulations and losses and the rest of their ruinous afflictions or insults, but even received them gladly, just as our apostles also did, who, when they were beaten, rejoiced because they were counted worthy to suffer insult for the name of God. For the ruinous afflictions which are unjustly inflicted upon the faithful, whether in tribulations or in insults, are the signs of future merits.

And so the just Tobias pleased God to such a degree that he obtained the reward of his merits in a twofold kind. For both in the present he recovered, through the ministering angel, the sight which he had lost, being enriched also with abundance of the things that pertain to the present life, and in the future he was made an heir of the kingdom of heaven, so that in this we might be taught that he who obeys the law of God with his whole heart and does not doubt concerning the promises—God both takes care of him in this world and in the future grants him eternal life.

There is also another thing that invites us to divine service. For holy Tobias not only obtained the merits of his own righteousness, but there also accrues to the sum of his glory even from the good deeds of those who become his imitators. For in imitators examples are praised, which will be able to accrue to us as well, if we live in such a way that it is fitting that we too have imitators.

CXX. ON FASTING.

It is fitting, dearest brothers, that the most devoted priest of God and overseer of the people of Christ exhort the people placed under his care in sound doctrine, as the apostle commands, so that we may perform the work of faith, in accordance with the observance of the season, with all care and diligence and with an eager and devoted spirit. For although it is not hidden what the fasts profit—those which are now to be celebrated as the feast day of Easter draws near—yet it ought not to be passed over in silence. For devotion is stirred up when those things which, though they are not unknown, are nevertheless reviewed again. For such is the character of our nature that it grows sluggish if the practice of reading ceases, because just as iron, unless it is put to use, breeds rust, so also the soul, unless it more frequently exercises itself in the divine readings, sins will be born in it. Hence it is that in the psalm he calls that man blessed who day and night meditates on the law of the Lord.

Finally, although the divine sayings are known, yet when they have been recalled from the sacred volumes, the devout heart receives them as if they were new. For the desire of the soul toward the works of salvation is aroused. Whence the apostle to Timothy, among other things, says: that you may revive the grace of God which is in you. Therefore fasts are necessary for us, just as medicine for wounds. For they confer a remedy of eternal life, yet in such a way that they are commended by the testimony of two things, that is, by prayer and by mercy.

Fasts therefore mitigate the intemperance of the body, restrain adverse impulses, take away the pressure upon the soul, as the Lord says: do not be given over to food and to drunkenness, lest your hearts be weighed down. For when the soul has been freed from food and drink, then it recognizes itself better. For just as in a dirty mirror a man does not see himself as he is, so also, if he has been weighed down with food and drunkenness, he perceives himself to be other than he is. Then lust is stirred up, anger is kindled, pride is inflamed, dissoluteness is engendered. Whence the apostle says: do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissoluteness. But if the body has been made temperate by the interposition of fasting, the soul, having recovered knowledge of itself, understands with what devotion it ought to serve its Redeemer.

For the most part, therefore, fasts are necessary. For under Queen Esther, when the Jewish people had been placed in peril, they were delivered by the support of fasts. And the Ninevites, when they had heard from the prophet the appointed day of their destruction, by a fast being proclaimed deserved to escape. And our righteous men and prophets, when they wished to obtain something from God, humbled themselves by fasting, as David says: in fasting I humbled my soul. For the Savior also, who had no need of it, fasted in order to give us an example.

And so there is no doubt that fasting is beneficial. For a person shows in this way that he desires to obtain what he asks, when he afflicts himself with fasting. Whence it is said: prayer is good with fasting. Therefore, in order that prayer may be acceptable, it wants to have the solace of fasting; and because none of these things is firm without piety, he added: and almsgiving, he says, with righteousness, so that almsgiving, with righteousness preserved, may commend prayer with fasting. Finally, Cornelius' mercy commended his prayer and fasting. For he himself, though abounding in resources, fasted, yet he also fed those who had nothing, so that the fullness of the latter made his fasting acceptable. Therefore fasting has need of certain things and ought to lack certain things, so that it may be able to merit what it asks

CXXI. THE PRAISE AND GLORY OF EASTER.

O holy and salutary day of Easter, to be proclaimed with all praise, on which death was vanquished, the kingdom taken away from the devil; the sacrament of God made manifest, the decree that was against us made void; the gates of hell shattered, the bound loosed, the imprisoned released, the blind enlightened, the ignorant endowed with knowledge, the impious made merciful, the unjust made just; forgiveness of sins granted, reconciliation of enemies, correction of error, declaration of truth; sons acquired for God out of the lost; pride cast down, humility exalted; the poor enriched, the rich emptied; the mountains levelled, the valleys filled, the hills laid low; shamelessness trampled, modesty cherished; to souls the means to reach heaven granted, liberty restored, captivity broken asunder and dissolved; the darkness grew numb, malice was confounded, filth was purified; Satan cast down, hell emptied, our Lord Christ Jesus proven to be the true Son of God, the flesh, to the confounding of the prudent of this world, raised into the heavens, and the things heavenly, earthly, and infernal shown to be of the one God and Lord!.

And so, most beloved brethren, we ought to keep and venerate this feast day, devoted to God, with moderation of life and gladness of soul, avoiding what is base and dishonorable, that we may be worthy to come to the fruit of Easter through Christ our Lord, to whom is honor and glory unto the ages of ages. Amen.

CXXII. ON THE BEGINNING.

In the beginning was the Word. What is 'in the beginning'? For we read also in the old books: In the beginning God made heaven and earth, and in the epistle of him whose gospel it is, about whose beginning we are attempting to declare something, it is signified in the same sense; for he says: That which was from the beginning. Therefore the epistle and the gospel have one sense. For it is one thing that he says in the old (scripture): 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. For to be 'in the beginning' and to be 'from the beginning' signifies one thing, because that which was from the beginning did not begin to be. For that which begins to be was not from the beginning, and therefore it is made subject to a 'beginning', so that it is said: it began to be in the beginning, that is, so that among the rest it may be first in order, because it, being itself made in the beginning, began to have others after itself, who 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, since they did not exist and God was disposing to make the world, 'in the beginning', that is, among the rest of the things that served for the fabric of the world, he first made heaven and earth, because a beginning is the starting-point of something commencing, which is first in order.

But that which is said, that in the beginning it was, that is the Word, is signified to have existed before the commencement of the creation above and below, so that it should by no means be understood to have been made first among these things which were created, because it was in the beginning, when God was disposing to make the creation. Therefore if it was in the beginning, that is, it was before all things, it always was, and therefore the Word also was.

It was with God, he says, so that what always was with God might by no means be undeservedly reckoned to be made subject to a beginning. For it is fitting that what was with God before all things should be subject to no beginning.

Whence he also added: And the Word was God. Now he shows openly that the things said above are congruent with the Word, because the Word, he says, is God, and concerning God one ought not to think otherwise than that he is said always to have existed. For if he began, he is a creature; if he is a creature, he is not God; for whatever exists is either God or a creature, and through this the name of God does not belong to a creature. But because he did not begin to be — for he was —, he is worthily called God.

But he is said always to have been with God because he is God not from himself, but from God. For which reason his name also is called 'the Word of God', as the faith of the same evangelist demonstrates in his Revelation; for he says among other things: And his name is the Word of God. For so that not he from whom are all things should be signified, but he through whom are all things, that is, not the Father but the Son, he was called 'the Word of God', so that, because God cannot be without a word, this one, who is called 'the Word of God', may be believed always to have been with God, and, because a word is not outside him whose word it is, this Word, which was with God, may be understood to be signified as being not from elsewhere, but from God, and, because it is from God, it is not absurdly called God.

And so the fact that God was with God does not make two gods. For if there were two, they would be diverse in nature and not of one will. For if we humans, though we are of one nature, are nevertheless of diverse will, how much more where the nature too is diverse! And He would not even be said to be God with God. For God, who was and is with God, does not have from Himself that which He is as God; otherwise, He would neither be said to be God with God, nor would the Word of God' be called God the Word. But because that which is of God signifies its being to be nothing other than what God is, the Word of God* has been named God—so that, because He is called 'the Word of God,' it might not be referred to another God, while that He is called God serves lest it redound to the injury of God, if that which was of God were by no means called God. Therefore both the unity of God has been preserved and the due honor rendered, since this One, who is God of God, has been received not into His own glory, but into the glory of Him of whom He is God.

For this reason the Gospel begins to speak of the Word before it speaks of God the Father, because the questions are raised not about God, but about the Word of God. For no one doubts concerning God, but concerning Him who is God of God. For every tongue of things heavenly and earthly confesses one God, but is troubled in the mystery of the one God. For it trembles on hearing that the Word of God is called God'); for it is battered by bodily notions, because the word of a man cannot be called a man—whereas God is assuredly simple in nature, not composed of members, nor one who has an inside and an outside, nor before and after, nor top and bottom, but, if it may be said, wholly the same throughout all things, never varying or unlike—and His one brightness is immense; for if fire has no front and back, or inside and outside, how much more its Creator!—; therefore, because all that God is is wholly one, there is no discrepancy when that which is of God is called God.

Therefore in part by a human example, and in part by one not human, the Son of God, who is the Word of God, is God. For by that same principle by which the sons of men are men, the Son of God is God. But because the sons of men are men from intermingling, it is not by this example that the Son of God is God, because He was born simply from the simple God. And just as our word is from us, by this example it is understood that the Word of God is of God; but, because our word is not this which we ourselves are, it is not by this principle that the Word of God is of God, because the Word of God is a substance, not a sound that perishes.

For not because we and God have terms in common will there be one and the same manner for us and for God in the effecting of things. For we read: In the beginning God made heaven and earth. In what way did He make them? Was it perhaps, as we make things, by the labor of the hand? And in what follows: And God said, it says, Let there be light; and light was made. In what way do we suppose God spoke, since assuredly He did not speak to a man, but to Him who could make—who was also going to make man, as indeed He did? Was it as we speak, with a bodily organ? Far be it. You see, therefore, that terms are indeed common to us and to God, but they differ in effect; for God makes otherwise than we make, and He is said to speak, but not after our manner.

So too the Word of God is not a word such as ours is, which, after it comes to be, is not; but that Word abides, because it is such a word as both hears and speaks and works. And it is not only the "Word of God," but also the "power and wisdom of God"; this is the Son of God, who, as regards effect, is called the Son of God; but as regards the address by which God addresses us through him, he is called the Word of God; as regards wisdom, moreover, by which God teaches us his mystery through him, he is called the wisdom of God; but as regards operation, because through him God made and makes all things, he is called the power of God.

These things could belong to no other than the Son of God. For because he is God from God, he is called all the things of God. For by being born he obtained all the things of God. For it would not have been fitting that the Word of God and the power and wisdom of God should be called degenerate; for this is what God is: Word, power, wisdom. But Christ, because he is wholly God from wholly God, is called both the wisdom of God and the power and the Word of God — this is to be God from God and with God.

For this reason he says: this was in the beginning with God; for in order to overcome the minds of the unbelieving, Scripture, being constrained, burst forth, so as to show that Christ is God; whereas in every place, on account of the unity of God, it wishes Christ to be understood to be God, but now with open voice it has said that he is God and has always been with God. Disclosing the mystery of God, lest he be thought altogether solitary, it declared that God is not called one in such a way that he should be reckoned solitary, but that, although there be two or three, yet, being from one, they do not prejudice the unity, because that which is from one is referred to that very one, since he is one.

Although all things are said to be from God, yet it is one thing that properly came to exist from God and another that came to be by a nod: from without is that which is created by God; that is, it is one thing that proceeded from his substance and another that, whereas it in no way existed, was created by his will, because that which proceeded from the substance of God never came to be through substance, but that which was created then began into substance when it was created; and through this the Trinity alone has no beginning.

The disclosure, therefore, of the mystery diminished the merits of faith, because, the more hidden is that which is believed, the more abundant is the reward of the believer and the less the penalty of the doubter. But the disclosure of the mystery, just as it made believers merit less, so it has aroused greater penalties for the doubters. For a more manifest law makes one the more guilty.

For the testimony of the Savior would have sufficed, by which he had called God his own Father. For what believer would doubt that the Son differs in nothing from the Father in substance? But because the perversity of the heretics had begun, by the fabrications of infidelity, to assail the laws of faith by taking the Son of God otherwise than he is proclaimed, it was added, to make manifest, that he was before all things with God and is God, so as to declare what the true meaning of "Son" mystically contained; whereby the divine clemency is seen to have provided for human weakness, so as to open what, being closed, it had reserved for the merits of a stronger faith.

Hence he added, saying: all things were made through him. So that if anyone, from the foregoing, were to be in doubt about anything — since the understanding of men is too narrow to grasp divine matters — he might from these words become capable, when he hears: all things were made through him, so that he would by no means suppose him to be a created thing, because he hears that all things were made by God through him. But if he too were a created thing, he would not have said that all things were made by God through him; for neither did he himself come to be through himself.

And in order to convey this still more absolutely, he added: and without him, he says, was nothing made. In saying this he shut out all controversy and earthly arguments. Although there are some who lack faith, nevertheless, when he shows that nothing was made without him, he taught that one ought in no way to suspect him to be a created thing. For how can he be said to be a created thing, when it is said that God made nothing without him? For if he did make it, Scripture lies. But far be it, for Scripture is faithful, which, in order to cut away error, employs as much manifestation as it can for redeeming the salvation of men.

Finally he added: what was made, he says, in him is life. "In him," that is, in the Word, he signifies that what was made is life. Just as the Lord himself also says: as the Father has life in himself, so has he given also to the Son to have life in himself, not because the Word was without life and afterward life was either given or made in him, but he wishes the Word itself to be understood to be life. If of God the Father it can be said that he himself is one thing and what he has in himself another, so also of his Son, since as the Father has life in himself, so has he given also to the Son to have life in himself.

For human words are not adequate for explaining divine matters; therefore what is said seems faulty, that, although the Son of God is not a created thing, what is made is said to be in him. And if he had said, "what is begotten is in him," even so it seemed faulty. But in order to show his substantive generation, he demonstrated the work made upon it — with such language as he was able to use — through which he came to exist, since his generation has life in itself.

For we indeed live, but we cannot give life to others, since not even the same life is within our power; but he is said to have life in himself for this reason, that he is able to give life to and to create whatever he wills, that they may be and may live. For he is said to have been born for this, that he might be able to do all things which the Father does, because he thus has life in himself as the Father also has it — that is, to have made all things through him and in him, to have begotten him thus, so that he might have in himself the life through which he might be able to do all things. Not because he himself is anything other than life, but since his life has this power, that it both lives and can create other things that live, he is said to have life in himself. For we live, but we do not so have life in ourselves as to give life also to others. This same meaning the apostle Paul also recalls, saying among other things: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn before every creature, for in him were all things founded in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and unto him.

The gospels of the two apostles John and Paul agree; for they say the same things, that the Son of God was begotten before all creation, in order that he might create the spiritual powers and the world and the visible things that are in it. For what John said, that what was made is life in him, this same thing Paul also signified, saying that in him all things were founded in the heavens and on earth.

And in what follows: all things were created through him and unto him. "Through him" he created, because in substance he is the same God, that is, the Father in the Son; but "unto him," because he so begot the Son that he might have the power of making all things visible and invisible. This was to have made life in him, that he might both live and furnish to others the life of living, acting, understanding, and to the other living creatures as well, according to what he willed, as it were the image of God.

For while he is called the image of God, it refers to both, because through his expressed birth he both has in himself the full likeness of the Father and can do whatever the Father can, so that it is true that the Father is seen in the Son, who is the image of the invisible God.

Did he then, because he called the Father invisible, make the Son visible, since assuredly the Son is by nature that very thing which the Father also is? And since the heavenly creature is invisible, how much more its creator! But he signified this—what is in the heavens, not what is on earth—because, although the Son too is invisible, yet there, that is, in the heavenly places, he is seen by the apostles—or by others of the like sort, of whom he said: Father, I will that where I am these also may be with me and may see my glory; and in another place: Blessed, he says, are the pure in heart, for they shall see God, that is, the Father in the Son, God in the image, which is God in God.

Just as the body is the image of a bodily being, so too God is the image of God, because the Father is the exemplar, but the Son the exemplar from the exemplar, which he shares with the Holy Spirit: for "of mine," he says, "he shall receive." And therefore God is seen in the Son 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, so also no one is worthy to see God the Father, neither by nature nor by merits, except his true Son. For there is nothing intermediate that stands in the way between the Father and the Son, with himself as our witness, who says: for no one has seen the Father, except him who is from God, this one has seen God.

But if the Father is seen in the Son, why is no one said to be worthy to see God, since he is seen in the Son, because the Son differs in nothing from the Father? He plainly differs in nothing in substance, because he is the true Son; but he differs in cause or degree, because all power is in the Son from the Father, and, if the Son is not less in substance, yet the Father is greater in authority, with the Lord himself testifying and saying: if you loved me, you would rejoice, because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Observing this measure, the apostle Paul 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, so that the first grade is that from which are all things, the second that through which are all things, the third that in which are all things. And because none of these is degenerate, 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.

CXXIII. WHETHER ADAM POSSESSED THE HOLY SPIRIT?

I have found that certain of our brethren have not fully learned the scriptures, but out of simplicity of mind assert that Adam, when made, received the Holy Spirit, which by sinning he lost, just as it is now given to believers—being led by this reasoning, by which it is usually asserted by very many that man was restored through faith in such a way that, being returned to his former state, he received all that which Adam had attained in the beginning; and that he ought to be called a man made perfect, who—"if he did not have," they say, "the Holy Spirit, was imperfect."

But I say that not only man, but also all the things that God made, which cannot be said to have received the Holy Spirit, are perfect. For all the kinds of animals are perfect in their own kind, so as to fulfill that for which they were made; so also man is perfect in his own kind, so as to be able to discern evils from goods, the crooked from the right. For he is an intelligent animal, perfect for that for which he was made; for he is capable of learning, of devising, of doing, so that what he cannot fulfill by power he may fulfill by understanding.

And how have they dared to say that man was born perfect and knowing everything, whom they see to know nothing beyond what is learned here? For what he does not learn here, he does not know. Finally, since he does not learn here what he himself is, he does not know it. He therefore who does not know what he himself is, how does he know all things, since it is less to know oneself than the rest? But because he learns about the rest, yet does not learn about himself, he knows about others, but does not know about himself—neither what he is, 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 a man, but God, nor, having been deceived, would he 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 which are of God. Was it not, because the ass spoke to Balaam, beyond its perfection? For it received the power to do what belonged not to its own nature, but to ours.

And so, because man is more excellent than the other animals, are those therefore to be called imperfect? Or because the holy angels are not what God is, are they imperfect? Or because the luminaries and stars are inferior to the higher angels, or because the clouds obscure the sun and moon with their veil, are they less perfect? And because the members need one another, because the feet cannot do what the hands can, are they to be called imperfect? God forbid. For all things are firm and perfect according to their own places and grades, so as to fulfill that for which they were made

Therefore all things are perfect, because their creator too is perfect, but in comparison with him they are imperfect. For God is perfect through all things, as the fount and origin of all. For the things that have been made are indeed perfect, but with respect to that for which they were made, so that in another respect they are not perfect, because the one has need of the other, so that it is perfect in that which it does not lack, not in that which it lacks; and therefore all things are both perfect and imperfect. The hands have need of the feet, because, unless they walk, the hands will be idle. Again the feet have need of the hands; for they cannot shoe themselves nor tend to themselves.

Since, then, the body is perfect in its members, yet it cannot fly nor carry as much as a mule can. Although they are perfect in these respects, yet they do not know how to govern themselves nor can they apply medicine to themselves. Whence it has been said: Do not become like the horse and the mule, which have no understanding. And both water and fire, though they are opposed to one another, are perfect in their own kind; for they fulfill that for which they were made. For fire cooks and consumes, purifies and warms; but water washes, cools, irrigates, refreshes the thirsty. -

And so, although all things are perfect in their own kind, yet without man they can do nothing, nor can man, however more perfect he may be, do anything without them. Hence the apostle calls us both imperfect and perfect. For in comparison with unbelievers we are perfect, because we have come to know God; but, because we know the things that have been promised less than we ought, since in this life we cannot grasp as much as is the thing that is believed, we are imperfect. Therefore, since they suppose that the perfection of Adam is restored to believers, let us see whether this restoration has anything beyond of the divine gift more than what Adam had obtained.

For Adam, (having been made,) 'was placed in paradise, that he might work there and keep it'. That is, that he might till the earth and keep the precepts of God, through which he might know that he had thus received dominion over all things, yet in such a way that he himself might live under the law of the creator, lest dominion should exalt him and, puffed up with pride, he should become forgetful of his maker. He was placed, therefore, that his life might be sustained by food; but through Christ this has been granted, that those who rise again should not need food or drink, because what is mortal in man will be converted into life. Adam was made that he might dwell on the earth; but faith has deigned to bestow that our habitation should be in the heavens.

Scripture itself bears witness, for it says, the first man Adam was made into a living soul, but the second man into a life-giving spirit. The first man, it says, from the earth, earthly; the second man from heaven, heavenly: as is the earthly, such also are the earthly; as is the heavenly, such also are the heavenly. What is so plain as that Adam did not have the Holy Spirit? For he was made into a living soul, but through Christ into a life-giving spirit, so that man might be in some respect like the creator and be what he believes. For because the mystery of faith, which has been given for salvation, is threefold, he becomes threefold in body, soul, and the Holy Spirit, through whom we are called sons of God, which Adam is by no means proved to have been called; for he was made earthly. But the sons of God, born not carnally but spiritually, are called heavenly.

Behold, it is settled that the gift of God bestowed far more grace in the time of the Savior than Adam had received, because he was not only restored but also improved: restored in this, that he was washed clean of sins, improved in the rest. For this both justice and reason demanded, that the mercy of God should then be more abundant in bestowing benefits, when he willed the mystery of his divinity to become known to the creature, so that, coming to know what was unknown from ages and generations — that the sacrament of the one God consists in a Trinity — they might, on account of this dedication, as it were, of the new state, having been washed clean of their sins, be moreover justified, and, adopted by God, receive the Holy Spirit, through whom they may be seen to have the mark of adoption. For those adopted by God ought to have the mark of God the Father, so that not undeservedly they may be called sons of God.

This gift was promised through the prophets, that it should be given at the time when the mystery of God was to be declared in triumph, death having been vanquished, so that the creature might know that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God. Whence also the evangelist says: the Spirit, he says, had not been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified. For this is the glorification, when through his own power it is recognized to be what he testified concerning himself; and this glorification gave this gift, which had been promised through the prophet Joel. For God says: because in the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and so forth. And the Apostle, among other things: but when the kindness, he says, and love toward 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 of renewal, through the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out upon us abundantly through Christ Jesus our Savior, that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The Apostle confirmed what had been promised through the prophet Joel, namely that God fulfilled this after Jesus was glorified, so as to pour out the Holy Spirit upon those who believe in Christ; and that this is 'to become an heir of eternal life' — to receive the Holy Spirit, so that, since the Spirit is eternal, he who has received him may have eternal life; for it is the pledge of immortality.

For he who has received him and remains in his love, once this life has been pierced through, passes into the heavens to him whose Spirit he has. For it is incongruous that one who departs hence having the Holy Spirit should be held among those below. For the sign in a man of the victory of Christ, by which he conquered death, is his Spirit, so that in whomever his Spirit shall have been, he cannot be held by those below. And on account of this, in the saints of old the Holy Spirit was not present as he now is in the faithful, because upon departing from the world they were among those below; and it cannot be said that the Holy Spirit, by reason of Adam's sin — which through the propagation of the race made all his seed subject to those below — was at the same time held together with them by the sentence given to Adam.

That there was, then, a holy spirit with the prophets and with just men is not in doubt: with the prophets on account of dispensation, but with the just for the sake of holiness, as one reads concerning holy Simeon, because the Holy Spirit, it says, was with him — not that it might be a sign of adoption in him, but by the grace of his merits; for men began to be sons of God through believing at that time when the Son of God was made manifest, once death had been conquered for the whole of creation.

But if it be said that the Holy Spirit was in Adam or the rest in the same way as it now is in the faithful, what new gifts did God give when he dedicated the kingdom of his Son within us? And in what way is the coming of the Savior called a time happy and blessed above all others, if he bestowed those things which had already been bestowed? And where is that which the Savior says to the disciples: many, he says, prophets and just men desired to see the things which you see and to hear the things which you hear, and did not hear them?

By what reasoning, therefore, will it be possible to say that the blessedness of this time conferred nothing more of a gift than what was conferred on the ancients? This indeed works to the injury of the Savior, that he should have had nothing new which he might give at the rise of his empire to those receiving him, since the rich are wont to take pains at this, that on the festal day of their birth they may give sought-out party-favors to those invited. How great, then, is the injury to the Lord, that to those whom he has invited to a new and unheard-of feast day, worthy of all praise, he should be said not to have had untried things which he might give! And where is that saying of John the evangelist, which says: he came unto his own, and his own received him not; but as many as received him, to them he gave 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? Therefore how is it not unwonted, that which God gave to those believing in Christ, when he gave them power to become sons of God — that is, brothers of his own Son — not of the will of flesh and blood or of man, but of God, that they might be born spiritually? Or if that grace is proved to have been granted before, then let it be said that the coming of Christ conferred nothing new.

Adam's making, certainly, was fleshly and earthly, not spiritual. For he was not born of God without flesh and blood, but was made from the earth by God. And therefore he could not receive the Holy Spirit, he who was not spiritual and to whom it was not granted to call God Father in prayer. For those who receive the Holy Spirit, to them is given the power that, through the fact that they have the Spirit of God, they may call that One the Father of Christians in prayer. And because this was not granted before, the former men cannot be said to have had the Holy Spirit. These, therefore, who suppose that Adam or the rest had the Holy Spirit do not know what gift of God they have, nor can they render fitting thanks to him who, receiving more than the rest, say that they have obtained nothing further.

CXXIIII. THAT ONE AND THE SAME WORK DIFFERS ACCORDING TO PERSONS, WHETHER UNTO PRAISE OR UNTO CONDEMNATION.

There is one and the same mercy in the rich man and in the poor man, but it is reckoned one way to the rich man and another way to the poor man, because it is more to be praised in the poor man than in the rich. For the poor man did not fear to give freely out of his scanty means, hoping that it would be repaid to him by God both in the present and in the future. For he believes the Scripture which says that he who gives to the poor shall not want. Whence also that poor widow, when the rich were casting in much, alone deserved to be commended by the Lord, because she did not fear to give freely out of her want. But the rich give freely being secure in their riches, whereas the poor man is secure in the Lord. The rich, then, do well when they give freely to the needy, but the poor do much better, and for this reason the reward of the poor man is one thing and that of the rich man another. For the rich man, if he does not do this, shall be beaten; but from the poor man not so much is required, and therefore the poor man who is merciful is praiseworthy.

Theft in the poor man and in the rich is one sin, but it makes the rich man more guilty, because the poor man commits theft through want, whereas the rich man, though he abounds, not content with his own takes what belongs to others. And, what is worse, they are wont to despoil the poor: and for this reason the punishment of the two differs.

The justice of the poor man and of the rich is also one, but it is more praiseworthy in the poor man. For to keep justice in destitution is a magnificent thing; but the rich man seems to keep justice for this reason, that he is a stranger to want. Therefore each is just, but it is a greater thing to keep justice in necessity.

Pride is one, but it is more to be condemned in the poor man than in the rich, because the rich man is lifted up by his abundance, whereas the poor man is proud in destitution, which belongs to madness, and for this reason the poor man is the more guilty.

Humility is one, but it is more to be praised in the rich man. For what great thing is it if the poor man appears humble, whom his very want makes humble? But it is a magnificent thing if he who is distinguished by rank and wealth bows himself down, not claiming for himself what he knows he deserves. Therefore in all humility is good, but much more so in the rich man.

The cause of learning and study is one, but it is more praiseworthy in the rich man. For the poor man, since he was commended by no prerogative, gave his effort so that he might have something by which he could be sought after; but the rich man, since there was no lack of that by which he might be commended, by the labor he applied increased himself, so that he might be needed by a twofold kind; for he was not, being enticed away by his wealth, drawn back in mind, so as to flourish the less through himself, and therefore this man is more worthy of praise than the poor man, who, if he had given no effort to studies, would have remained worthless in all respects. The former, then, was made eager for study by will, the latter by necessity.

Libido is the same in the poor man and the rich, but it is more damnable in the poor man than in the rich. For his very want ought to call the poor man back from the desire of luxury; for he ought to consider that he does not have the means to satisfy this, and that, while he hastens to satisfy it, he must of necessity commit many other evils, from which perhaps he may not even escape for the present, or at any rate, by spending this very thing which he has, he will be left a beggar with a mark of disgrace. But the rich man is provoked by an abundance of delights to the pleasure of lust, especially because such men are free from care about impunity, knowing that judgments are for sale and that they are not even called to account by anyone. For who would dare to accuse a man upheld by rank and wealth? Whence they are the more inflamed, so that they even do this violently. For not only are they in no way censured, but they are even held in great honor, so that they can even boast, because they are such men.

. 8. But if both, that is, the poor man and the rich, be chaste, the chastity of the rich man differs greatly from the chastity of the poor. For lowliness can call the poor man back, lest he be able to satisfy what he wishes, or the fear of the laws; but the rich man, since he can be enticed to pleasure by many favoring circumstances, is praiseworthy if he turns his mind away from this. Therefore the chaste rich man is worthy of one reward and the chaste poor man of another. But if a king be chaste, it is a thing of great glory, that, having all things in his power, he does not touch what he knows can be done by him with impunity. This man truly fears God, this man truly keeps His precepts, who, having the laws in his power, contemplates the future judgment of God. And so it is a great thing that, when in the present he has no one whom he fears, he should conquer what delights him, since the delight can be so strong that he fears not only future things but even present things not at all. Whence they merit much who overcome this, but more so this man, who in the present rules over laws and men. For the rest fear both men and laws, and therefore they keep their resolve. For, lest they blush before men, they preserve what they have long held, and, lest they be condemned, they abstain from forbidden things; but this man, who by his dominion neither fears the laws nor blushes before men, is of great glory if he abstains.

CXXV. AGAINST EUSEBIUS.

I remember that I read in a certain little book of Eusebius, once a man distinguished in other respects, that not even the Holy Spirit knows the mystery of the nativity of the Lord Jesus Christ; and I marvel that a man of such great learning has inflicted this blemish upon the Holy Spirit. For in saying this he has signified that He is degenerate. For it cannot be said that He is of God, if He does not know the things that are God's, because a nature that is inferior does not know what is in one that is superior. But if indeed He is of the same substance and divinity, how can He not know the things that are His own? Finally the Son of God, because, He says, I and the Father are one on account of the unity of substance, not without reason added, saying: all things that are the Father's are mine, and the things that are mine are the Father's.

Wherefore, if the Holy Spirit is of the same divinity, on what ground is he set apart, so as not to be of the same knowledge, when it is not denied that he is of the same substance? You concede what is greater, and you withhold what is less. For a creature learns and begins to know something about its author, and there were things it had learned that were shared in common with its author; but substance or divinity cannot be common to God and to a creature. For God's substance has nothing to learn, because there is nothing it is ignorant of; but the substance of human beings does not have it in their nature to know, but to learn. And so knowledge accrues to the nature of human beings, yet the substance is not changed thereby, because man's nature lacks knowledge; for the substance was so founded that through exercise it might acquire knowledge.

Therefore substance is greater than knowledge, because knowledge does not acquire substance, but substance acquires knowledge; and substance exists without knowledge, yet knowledge cannot exist without substance. But in God, just as there is substance, so also there is knowledge; for the substance, which has nothing to learn, is itself substance-as-its-own-knowledge. Wherefore all things in God are said to be substantial. For substance, to which nothing is lacking, has all things substantially, because nothing has accrued to it through study.

How then can it be said of the Holy Spirit that he does not know the nativity 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 nativity; for he knows it substantially, not through instruction. On what ground, then, is the Holy Spirit said not to know, when likewise he too has nothing to learn, because he knows all things through substance?

For just as the Son of God, so also the Holy Spirit is the substance of God, since the Lord says: all things that are the Father's are mine, by which he signified that the substance of God the Father is his own substance; and he says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives of his own: and therefore, he says, I said: he shall receive of mine, because all things that are the Father's are mine. If he proceeds from the Father and receives of the Son, how does he not know the nativity of the Son, when his substance is the substance of the Son? For all things that are the Father's are the Son's. Without doubt, then, the substance of the Father is in the Holy Spirit. For the Son added, saying: and all things that are mine are the Father's.

What then is doubted concerning the Holy Spirit, whether he is of the same divinity, when he is of the same substance? For just as the Lord said of himself that he proceeded from God, so also he testifies concerning the Holy Spirit. And lest this could be interpreted otherwise: he proceeds from the Father, he says, and: he shall receive of mine, so that to proceed from the Father is the same as to receive of Christ. For when he is said to receive of the Son of God, it is not doubted that he too is of God, so that in the Holy Spirit the substance and divinity of the Father is not doubted.

And so the one who says that this Spirit does not know the birth of the Son of God detracts from him from whom he is said to have received; for he received nothing other than that very One from whom he received, since to have received from Christ signifies to have proceeded from God, and therefore he cannot be ignorant of what this One knows from whom he received, nor is he to be said to be ignorant of God, since he proceeded from God.

Certainly the Son of God, because he is from God the Father, knows all the things of God: why then should the Holy Spirit be denied to know the things that are Christ's, since he has received from him? And so, if the Son of God knows the things that are in God, there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit also is not ignorant of the things that are in the Son of God, and, through that by which he knows the things that are in the Son, he is not to be said to be ignorant of the things that are in God. For from him, from whom he received, he has knowledge of God.

And why do we labor, when the apostle is a witness in this matter, saying: no one knows the things that are in God except the Spirit of God? Behold, that over which we long sweated, with the apostle's help we have accomplished. And did he in any way prejudge 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 too the Son did not prejudge the Holy Spirit, when he said: no one knows the Father except the Son. For he said that no one knows the things that are in God except him 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 same nature is also in the Holy Spirit, through that by which he proceeded from the Father and received from the Son, it is not safe to say that he is ignorant of God the Father, whose nature you recognize in him.

And yet the Savior spoke thus, that no one knows God except the Son, so as to reserve to another person the knowledge of this One. For he immediately added, saying: and to whomever the Son shall wish to reveal him. To whom, do you suppose, does the Son wish to reveal him? For no one can be dearer to him than his own Spirit, because, he says, if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this one is not his. Therefore, in what way do you suppose God the Father is revealed by the Son to the Holy Spirit, except in the way the Lord himself says: he shall receive of mine? For God the Father cannot be revealed to a creature, because it cannot bear the nature of God, unless it be of the same substance; for he dwells in light inaccessible—inaccessible, that is, to a creature.

But to some it seems 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 and <he who searches), it says, 'assuredly does not know'. This ought to be understood from another passage; for they are the words of God, saying among other things: I am the God who searches the reins and the hearts, and in the psalm: God, it says, searching the hearts and the reins, and the apostle: he who searches, he says, the hearts, knows what the Spirit desires, because he makes petition for the saints according to the will of God.

His examples show that when the Spirit of God is said to search, it does not mean that He is ignorant. He is said to search "even the deep things of God": and what are the deep things of God, which He is said to see through? For to search means to penetrate hidden things, so that through this nothing may be believed to be hidden from Him. For the deep things of God are the inner mysteries of God, which cannot be searched out by a creature. For He is also read to make intercession for the saints according to the will of God, which the saints certainly do not know, as the Apostle says: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought. 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 is so deep a mystery as the will of God, which is known to the Holy Spirit but unknown to all the rest?

For it must be considered in what manner it was said, that no man knows the things that are in a man except the spirit of the man which is in him. By "spirit" he signified the mind, because no man knows what is in the mind of a man except his mind, which is the spirit. So too in God no one knows the things that are in Him except the Spirit of God, that is, God Himself.

For He who is of God is understood to be nothing other than what God is. 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 the secrets and the will of God unless he be of God, that is, the same God Himself! For He is known to Himself alone.

For assuredly in God there are no thoughts. For He does not deliberate within Himself what He should do or what He should not do, weighing whether it is expedient, because all things that are in God are without hesitation not by accident but by substance, and not by pursuit but by nature, because He does not change. And on account of this the Holy Spirit knows the mysteries of God in no other way than by substance; for one substance has one perception and will.

He speaks of God, who is ever one and unchangeable, whether in the Son or in the Holy Spirit. For what the Father wills, this the Son also wills, and what the Son wills, the same the Holy Spirit also wills. For this reason He is sometimes called the Spirit of God, sometimes the Spirit of Christ, because, He says, He proceeds from God, and: He shall receive of mine.

Hence it is that John the Apostle says: hereby we know that God abides in us, by His Spirit, which He has given us. Therefore if, when the Spirit of God abides in us, God is said to abide in us, it is signified that the Spirit of God is God.

Finally, this is the sign of believers, that they are the sons of God, so that, when they receive Him, they may dare to call themselves the sons of God. For unless they have the sign of the Godhead, they cannot be called the sons of God; for since anyone who is not a true son of God, so as to be whole from whole, as Christ also is, but they become sons of God through adoption, so that, receiving the Spirit of Christ, they may through Him be called sons of God, through that which is of God, namely the Spirit whom they have in themselves. For in sons, although they be adoptive, nevertheless the substance of the father ought to be seen in some part.

For in the world, because things are imperfect, sons adopted by human beings receive no pledge but only the name; but God, because he is perfect, does more, in that he gives his Spirit to those he has adopted, through whom the adopted are seen to possess some truth from him, since names without substance are empty.

Our Apostle supports this assertion of ours, saying: O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! How is it that, although elsewhere he says that the deep things of God, that is, his secrets, are searchable, in this place he denies it, saying that they are unsearchable? But in this place he spoke of the creature, because the secrets or judgments of God are unsearchable to it; yet to the Holy Spirit, in that he knows all the things of God, he said that all things which are in God are searchable, so that what is unknown to the creature he may affirm the Spirit of God does not fail to know. Therefore the nature of God cannot be denied to exist, which holds known that which cannot be comprehended by the creature.

Those who say the Holy Spirit is of a lower kind assail God's purpose, who declared that the salvation of the whole creation consists in the divinity of the Trinity; for if he is not consubstantial with God and Christ, it is absurd to place him in the number of the Father and the Son, such that without him there is neither salvation nor dignity for anyone. For if he is not of the same divinity, it was done either foolishly or gratuitously — which be far from it. For who among the prudent would deny that the Creator cannot be numbered together with the creature, nor the eternal be compared with him who exists under a beginning, nor the Lord be made equal with the servant, nor the powerful be set alongside the powerless, nor the knowing be reckoned with the ignorant?

But now let the slander cease. For he is third in order, not in nature; in degree, not in divinity; in person, not in ignorance. For just as the Son of God is second from the Father and is not less in divinity, so too the Holy Spirit follows from the Son, not unequal, but equal in the divinity of substance.

Finally, the things we read concerning the Son of God, these same things we read also concerning the Holy Spirit, with himself as our witness. For he says: I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth. When he said 'another,' he signified that he himself is a Paraclete. This the apostle John declares, saying that the Son of God intercedes for our sins, 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, since he said: I am the truth. He said that he himself was sent by the Father, and he himself promised that he would send the Holy Spirit. If he himself is not unequal to the one who sends him, neither is the Holy Spirit unequal to him. Nor, because they are three, is each one member of the other, such that they could be diverse. For the power of the three is one, so that nothing is lacking to the individuals.

Let this be the end; for now, in the little book composed against the Arian impiety, the remaining matters have been fully treated, which embrace the undivided unity of the Trinity.

CXXVI. ON HIM WHO RECEIVES.

It is written that "the righteous person's righteousness will profit him nothing on the day he goes astray," and that "his own injustice will not harm the unjust person, when he has converted"; and the Lord in the Gospel says: "whoever has not believed is already judged," so that by this he might mark out the one who has believed as not being subject to judgment for receiving a sentence, but as destined to be worthy of praise by the merit of his faith.

Therefore the knowledge of God has this prerogative, that it obtains remission of sins. For the one who believes Jesus to be the Son of God stands forth worthy to be freed from all sins. For having long wandered off course through error, when he was being tossed about through diverse waves of ignorance, once illumined by the flashing of truth he has gained an anchorage, in which, after excessive storms, he may rest secure — a person whom it befits, after knowledge, to abstain from those things which, once placed in ignorance, he had for a long time been doing. For what does knowledge profit, if the former manner of life remains? For from this a person is seen to have come to know God: if he changes his life and his manner of living.

For God, once known, ought to be feared, because he is proclaimed as one who will judge, so that both the faithful may receive the fruit of their righteousness and the impious, that is, the unbelievers, may pay penalties suited to their faithlessness. For it is fitting that the righteous rejoice in the future, where Christ will reign with his own, so that those who in this world are subject to reproach and injuries — in which the devil is prince — may appear glorious in the kingdom of Christ, on whose account they were judged contemptible by the worldly; but the unrighteous, because they falsely seem to flourish, resisting the truth through falsehood, may be afflicted in punishment, so that those who through deceit were seen as glorious may through the truth appear despised and exceedingly humbled. For then the righteous rejoice that they have believed, when they see the faithless tormented; and it will not repent the faithless of not having believed, unless they see the glory of those men and their own punishment — those men whom, because they believed, they reckoned foolish and contemptible.

Therefore, from the fact that a person professes himself to be a Christian, he ought to strive for this: not to sin. For he ought to arm himself against the vices and — because it is impossible always to conquer — if he has been conquered, to grieve, lest he be conquered again, because the one who grieves that he has been conquered restores himself. Therefore the one who resists has grounds on which to excuse himself, if he has been conquered. For he shows that he had the will to conquer, but that he simply did not prevail. Concerning such a one there is hope, because he can restore himself, so that by constant practice he may be found more skilled and stronger in the contest.

For the one who rises up for this purpose, that he may sin, is both inexcusable and has a most grievous case. For it is worse to live under the profession of God and to have the will to sin, than if a person were ignorant of God and conducted himself basely and defilingly. For the latter does not know whom he ought to fear, whereas the former, knowing, holds him in contempt.

Believers, therefore, receive the remission of sins; yet they will not be glorious unless, after receiving the faith, they have lived under the fear of God, so that, having struggled against the enemies of the Christian name, they may win the victory, so that they may be able to merit the reward, so long as they conquer more than they are conquered.

For whoever understands God and yet does not come to faith in him, so as not to live as a Christian, but wishes to receive the faith at the end, so that he may die a Christian—either he is ashamed to live as a Christian, or he devotes himself to the sins which he supposes can be remitted to him once he has come to believe—this man, I think, does not have a good case, because, in order that he may go on sinning as long as he is in the world, he does not wish to become and live as a Christian, or is embarrassed to be called a Christian. What sort of God does he hope for, from whom he wishes to receive pay, though he is ashamed to serve him as a soldier? A man of this kind is a mocker. For, knowing that he no longer has time to sin, with death imminent, then he wishes to become a Christian, so that, because he can no longer sin, he may say that he believes in Christ—Christ, who abhors that sin be committed—so that it is not now that he is unwilling to sin, but that he is unable, since death forestalls him. To such men this ought to be read: that God is not mocked.

For men of this kind are also accustomed to give such instructions, that faith be given to them when they are already failing and beside themselves, merely gasping, fearing lest they escape and be put to shame because they have become Christians. To these the words of the Gospel ought to be recited, which say: "For whoever is ashamed of me," he says, "and of my words in this generation, of him also will the Son of Man be ashamed, when he comes in the kingdom of his Father."

But perhaps they may say: "Knowing that the human race is frail, for this reason we wish to receive the faith at the end of life, so that we may no longer sin." But faith ought to be received in such a way that what is received is understood. For he will have the benefit of it then, if he knows it and professes it—for with the heart it is believed unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation—and through this, one who no longer knows where he is, how can he be said to receive? For that man has received who professes that he has received, knowing that he has received; for if they believe that remission of sins is given to believers, they ought to know that he believes who believes with his own heart as witness, since God, who has promised, is the inspector of the heart; for he receives that very one whom he sees believing with the heart. And so, one whose heart does not attend to the words of faith, how will he have the benefit of it?

Therefore this man—who is discerned to act in this way so that he may not sin easily—can be seen [rather] to fear to become a Christian by receiving the faith. For the one who hastens to sin, for this reason does not wish to receive the faith, lest he be compelled to live well, which he seems unwilling to do; but at death he wishes to obtain impunity, hoping also for the remission of past evils, so that he may be secure both about the past and about the future, since, being about to die, he assuredly will no longer be able to sin.

But this is done neither with good counsel nor with a clean conscience, that he should wish to receive the faith then, when he no longer can sin, not when he is unwilling to sin. To these applies that saying: "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 remitted to us." And therefore he added: "Whose condemnation," he says, "is just." For it is not fitting that remission of sins be given to those who, already knowing God—God who wills that no sin be committed and holds sinners in hatred—yet crave to sin, being unwilling to notice that the gift of God profits those who, not knowing God, sin in such a way that they do not know that God will judge. But one who has heard and pondered it within himself and has the deliberate wish to sin—not so that he is overcome by some compelling cause, but so that he may sin willingly—it is hard for him to be pardoned.

For there are two grounds which secure the remission of sins: one of the gift, the other of penance, so that whoever has sinned after the gift may reform himself through penance. For because he did not remain in the grace he had received, so as to persevere in freedom, but again subjected himself to sin, by lamentation and groaning he obtains that his sin be blotted out. For he sinned knowingly and deliberately — not that anyone is ignorant of sin, but he who does not know that God will judge thinks that what he sins will go unpunished.

And on this account a gentile, if he begins to fall ill and, in the very despair of life, ponders within himself concerning the faith and the promised hope, has a complete case, so that to him, thus believing, his sins are remitted and he is not held fast in the nether world, bearing with him the sign of death conquered and despoiled — although he may not have dignity or reward, because there ought to be some difference between him who, provoked by love of his Lord, did not fear to fight against His enemies, arming himself with continence and with watchfulness against all vices, that he might be able to resist evil, ever anxious how he might defend his Lord's dominion, and him who, consorting with his Lord's enemies and taking his stand with them, returned to his Lord at the end of life, not that he might champion his Lord's kingdom, but that he might profit himself alone — a discharged veteran before being a soldier.

For that man, who prefers to live as a Christian so that after death he may be rewarded, knows that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy of the glory to come which shall be revealed in us; and on this account, having taken up the arms of faith, he does not hesitate to engage against the principalities and powers, so that, proving victor in the world, he may be crowned after the world. For it is fitting that he who, amid the faithless and the rebellious, presently bears witness to his Lord's kingdom should in the future obtain the reward for this thing, 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, confounded that they had reckoned false what has been declared to be true; and likewise also those who believed late, confessing God not in life but in death, seeing how great is the glory of those who, soldiering under the arms of Christ, wage their emperor's wars devotedly and faithfully, may repent that they did not live as Christians, but died as Christians.

For he may seem by no means fit to die a Christian, who had no wish to live a Christian. For perhaps, being now about to die, he wished for this reason to be called a Christian, because now there was no longer time for sinning. (Lest perchance, he says, what is believed be true, I wish to become a Christian, losing nothing if what is believed is false.) So that, because now in death not the will to sin but the committing of sin ceases, he makes trial whether faith can profit after death — whereas this indeed would have been useful, that here the vices and sins should be amended, where they had been committed.

Then indeed someone proves that he has condemned his past deeds when, following the line of the faith, he is seen to change his conduct and life. For if he previously sinned because he did not know God, then when he comes to know him he ought to sin no longer, lest it be in vain that he has known him; for a person ought to have made progress from the knowledge of God. For a Christian ought to be recognized before his profession: they are proved more by their works than by their name. For this reason commands were given, purer than the other laws and pertaining to holiness, so that from these the worship of God might appear; otherwise, they will hear: Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say? By this he then signified that it profits to call the Lord "Lord" only if his commands are kept; for one who calls him Lord whose precepts he despises seems to be a mocker. To such a person the words of the law must be recited, which say that God is not mocked. And so he will be condemned by his own words who calls him Lord, whom by his works he shows that he in no way fears.

CXXVII. ON THE SIN OF ADAM AND EVE.

I judge it doubtful to no one that this world was fashioned for the sake of man, which, although it consists of diverse substances, is nevertheless one, fitted together out of many members, so that from these, by mutual works reciprocal to one another, the things that would be necessary for man might be brought forth. For a house was made for man together with provision, in such a way that each of them might come to be upon the earth according to its kind — that is, so that, once made, they might have this power implanted in them, that the offspring of each of their kinds might be created upon the earth. For origins were established, whose seed might advance toward the procreation of the kinds to be multiplied upon the earth.

Whence Scripture bears witness, saying: and God blessed them, saying: increase and multiply upon the earth. In a like manner also the race of men was blessed, which meaning we behold in the law; for we see it written: the people grew and was multiplied in Egypt. For by the same blessing with which those things were blessed that were created for the use of man, by that blessing man too was blessed, so that likewise from male and female the offspring of the human race might grow and be multiplied upon the earth, and so that, just as the seeds were to be improved through cultivation, so also the race of men, with care applied, might be zealous for this: that, having received the knowledge of the Creator, it might bridle its own life so as to earn him, that at the same time all things might advance to the praise and glory of the Creator.

And since these words signify nothing other than this, the things themselves bear witness. For all things that were made have, by God's nod, been multiplied and improved upon the earth. Nor indeed could anything grow otherwise than as God's will and blessing decreed for the seeds. In what way, then, can it be said that something is done wrongly or is not permitted, which by God's blessing and with him favoring it produces increase? The tradition of this matter both remained in the synagogue and is now celebrated in the church, that the creature of God should be joined under God's blessing — not indeed through presumption, since by the Author himself the form was thus given.

But if it is thought that it ought to cease, then it will have to cease when those things too are going to cease which were likewise blessed so that they might multiply; for, if the generation of human beings ceases, to what purpose are those things born which have been blessed upon the earth? For the world cannot in part act and in part cease. For either the whole of it works or the whole of it rests in idleness. Is a body of any use, some of whose members are vigorous while some grow torpid?

Why then is that which has been blessed by God asserted by certain people to be a filthy and defiled work, unless it is that they are in a manner laying hands upon God himself? For they would not censure this unless they thought ill of God, the author of this work. For because they openly fear to disparage God, they nevertheless accuse him through the work devised by him. For when the work is displeasing, the author is censured.

But if men of this sort were to read, or rather to accept, the Scriptures, they would be mindful of Balaam, who says: How, he says, shall I curse whom God blesses? For in vain is he accused who is praised by the judge; rather, he is his own accuser who calls him guilty whom the laws defend. Who, then, are you, who judge that you must condemn what you read to have been blessed by God, unless either you deny that this is God or accuse the Scripture of being false?

For there are those who, receiving as it were new things, think the old ones must be repudiated. But the new precepts made known to the peoples through Christ do not disagree with these. For he himself, being invited, did not disdain to go to a wedding, and not only did he honor it with his presence, but he even supplied what was lacking for its joy. For it is written that wine gladdens the heart of man. And that he might show that he had done this according to the will of God his Father, when the Jews asked whether it was permitted for a man to dismiss his wife, he answered, saying among other things: Because from the beginning God made male and female, and said: For this reason a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be in one flesh. And so they are now not two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. This is why, being invited, he went willingly to the wedding, lest he should seem to weaken the deed of God his Father; but rather, showing that the teaching of the old and the new law agree, he not only did not forbid marriage, but even deigned to be present, granting them his testimony, since God is the author of them, and by a salutary 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 now leaving the world, he entrusted his mother to John his disciple. For which reason we too are taught, through all the commandments of the old and the new law, to honor our parents; and unless we do this, it has been provided by the law that we shall incur a curse.

And so what presumption is it, or from what law does it proceed, to block off access to marriage, when both the new and the old law seem to favor these things in every respect? But this is what we read, that "what is beyond this is from evil." Hence the apostle says that men of this kind have a seared conscience, who forbid marrying and teach that one must abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of. For they are marked out as doing this in the hypocrisy of enmity, that they may accuse the law handed down by God.

Others, being zealous in this way, stretch out hands opposed to the saving precepts, so as to commend the injunctions of perverse doctrine, and through this they are said to have a seared conscience. For with a corrupted mind they know one thing and profess another, just as the Jews also, who, not being ignorant that the deeds of the Savior were the works of the Holy Spirit, out of envy said that he cast out demons by Beelzebub, in order to turn the people away from faith in him. Such also is the cunning of those mentioned above, since, in order that they may feign themselves to be lovers of chastity and holiness, they even say that marriages are to be condemned, so that by this they may be commended and may turn the people away from the truth, and, that they may pretend to be zealous for abstinence, they teach that one must be temperate in foods, so that by these things they may show that they, as strangers to the world, are hastening to the heavenly kingdoms. By which, enticing the minds of men, they thereafter teach that unlawful things are lawful and condemn lawful things as if they were forbidden.

These are the deceptions of Satan, that he may invert the causes, so that, as if insinuating something new, he may exclude the truth, in which there is nothing new, because the whole is eternal. Why does he not perceive that this notion has been contrived by the adversary? For who would dare to reject God's device, and that which never harmed anyone except the adversary of the truth, who, in order to cloak his own impurity, proclaims a holiness which he does not love, and, while by this he shows himself to be as it were of good will, urges unlawful things as if lawful? For he commends himself, that he may deceive more readily, and through this, when the imprudent have been captured, he suggests things by which he may make them greater sinners, because, in order to bring some remedy to his own cause, he greatly urges men to sin, seeking from it a great consolation, while he shows that many are the associates of his crime, reckoning the punishment light, as though it would be grievous, if he should see many with him in Gehenna. Let men look to it amid their other sins, while they are overcome by vices, or through ignorance they will defend as not to be punished here what is not.

What contrary concupiscence deceives, or what darkness obstructs, that what is true may not be seen! For letters are wont to seem to signify something else, when they are either not well pronounced or improperly distinguished. But when it is read: "God made," and "he blessed what he made," who would dispute this? Who would doubt? For who would think that what he hears blessed is cursed, unless he were animated by another spirit? And indeed if it were said to be the voice of a man, perhaps some deception might be believed: God is said to speak, and you doubt? God blesses, and is he reprobate?

But perhaps under God's name Moses introduced an error! Let the signs and wonders done through Moses in Egypt satisfy you; let the marvels that were accomplished at the Red Sea for the liberation of the sons of Israel persuade you; hear the magicians confessing that "this is the finger of God"; agree with the apostle when he says: "For I would not," he says, "have you ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized unto 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 of the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ." And from what source did the apostle speak these things? Scripture is at hand, in which we read that Christ our Lord said to the Jews: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me also, for Moses wrote of me." Who would deny faith to this concord? Who would dare to say that what is one disagrees with itself? Who is of so evil a mind as to contend that an undivided love should appear as enmity? Behold, you have both the testimonies of words and the examples of mighty deeds, which may subject your mind to the truth, so that you may think nothing true except what the books of the catholic Church contain.

Since therefore it has been proved that the same God existed in the old covenant who is now ours, and that he is true by many proofs of mighty deeds, his authority ought to be so far preferred that even that which is judged by us to be harsh and perhaps absurd ought to be accepted and understood otherwise than we suppose, if it is commended by the judgment of God, because we ought rather to believe God than ourselves. For our weakness and inexperience is wont to judge as useful the things that are harmful, and to reckon false things as true — which it is impious even to suspect concerning God, for he is not a nature that can be deceived —: how much more ought there to be no doubt about marriages when God speaks! For it is a matter open and simple.

Certainly every man rejoices when he has attained the esteem of God, and believes himself made better while he learns the mystery of the Creator, which assuredly he would not attain unless he were born. Why then does he bewail that in which he rejoices, and condemn what he glories in 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 truth. But if it is evil to be born, the knowledge will not be good; for to what purpose will knowledge be of use, if birth is condemned? — because, if it is neither expedient nor right to be born, it is empty that one who is to be condemned should learn. But since no one is so dull as to deny that the knowledge of God is profitable to men, it is both good and useful. For through it birth is made better, so that it may merit more than had been conferred on Adam, because believers shall reign in heaven, not on earth, in the paradise of God the Father, not in that in which Adam had been bidden to labor bodily.

For if the feast of dedication was celebrated at Jerusalem—that is, the festival of the dedication of the Lord's temple was observed—how much more must the birth of the man himself be celebrated, who is more truly the temple of God, and for whom, moreover, a temple has been built by hands for the rendering of thanks to God! For our body is the better temple, because this one was constructed by the work of God, but that one by human labor, and this one exists under the hope of eternity, that one under the hope of destruction. And so whoever knows that he was born by God's ordaining ought, in order to give thanks to Him while holding the knowledge of His mystery, to rejoice on his birthday, seeing that his nativity has advanced him. But truly those ought not to have been born who, forsaking their Creator, assign His glory to others. For the nativity of such men advances toward punishment; yet it is not the nativity that incurs the guilt, but the will.

But who are you, who forbid marriages? Perhaps Marcion, since you suppose the body to have been fashioned not by God but by the devil, and you contend that the soul, by a certain error, suffered a fall, so that it might come into the regions of darkness, in which the world now is. How then could it be freed from here, if it were forbidden to be born? For once born you recognized your fall and by deliberate effort brought this about, that you might return to your ancestral seat, restored to your source. And indeed you say you give thanks to Christ, through whom you rejoice to have attained this knowledge. But come now, if you had not been born, the knowledge would have ceased, nor would liberation have followed. And so, if you rejoice that the soul is freed, favor the nativity; for if you resist the nativity, you are an enemy of souls.

Or if you are a Manichaean, who reject marriages as though contrary, I ask of you: since, if bodies were not at all begotten, how would the soul be rescued from here—the soul which you assert has been poured out into the region of darkness and clings to material things? For you have it written in your books that it is freed by being born, so that the souls, taken up by the moon as they depart from bodies, are handed over to the sun, which you assert to be the god of your souls. For you rejoice when you are called Manichaeans. For through this name you demand your liberation—which surely you would not know, had you not been born. And so it plainly appears that you condemn marriages through hypocrisy. For while professing sanctity, you secretly pursue uncleanness, which has been exposed not only privately but even by the edicts of emperors.

Hear now, O Catholic, that by the testimony of the Gospel a person's birth is beneficial. For when Symeon, a righteous man, wished to depart from this world, thinking that knowledge of the Creator without acquaintance with His mystery was enough for him, it was not permitted to him unless he should make an increase in his perception of God, so that he might have the full reward of his faith. And so, receiving the newborn Savior in his hands, he blessed God and said: Lord, now dismiss Your servant according to Your word in peace, for my eyes have seen Your salvation. It was plainly shown that there is a benefit of God in a person's birth, when to a righteous man pondering death it was answered that he would not die before he had seen the Christ of the Lord. For he was making such progress in life that he became worthy even in the present to see the one whom he hoped for as his deliverer after death. He, therefore, who was kept back in life and not permitted to die unless he had seen the fruit of his hope, so that he might be secure because he would pass from life to life — how can it be said that birth did not benefit him?

For if it is an evil that we are born, then paradise would not be promised, nor eternal life, nor the kingdom of heaven, but rather the punishment of Gehenna and perdition, so that he who knew himself born unto perdition would fear to beget another, so that it might not be lawful to beget one unlawfully born.

But perhaps it may be said: 'The kingdom of heaven is indeed promised, but to the faithful and to those who act well.' Rightly so. You see, then, that men do not become guilty because they were born, but because they have conducted themselves badly. For the kingdom of heaven was not promised to the unborn, so that those to whom it will not be given should charge it to their birth; rather it was promised to those who are born and act well, so that neither may birth profit the one who acts badly, nor be able to harm the one who acts well.

For by the faithful and by those who act well birth is made better, but by the unfaithful and by those who act badly it is made worse. For birth is like a tree that is grafted, because, if it is grafted with a good shoot, it will become better and will be called good, but if it is grafted with a bad shoot, it will both be worse and will be called not good, but bad. So too, if good teaching is added to birth, it will produce good fruits; but if bad teaching, it will produce bad fruits. Thus, just as a tree is necessary, so that there may be something in which the graft is set, so too birth is necessary, so that there may be something in which progress is made.

But it is answered on the contrary: 'If birth is useful, why is there rebirth?' We would not be reborn unless birth were useful. For to be reborn is to be renewed, and he who is renewed is restored. Therefore the capacity for rebirth does not accuse birth, but reforms it, and that which is reformed is proved to have been well established from the beginning. Therefore, in that we are reborn, we are changed by design, having received the purification of the body, so that we may be restored to the pristine state of Adam. But the body was stained by the soul's sin, and, once the design has been repaired and made better through faith, it

is washed clean, so that, just as it had been polluted through contempt of God, so through obedience it may be washed clean, that it may escape the sentence given to Adam and be able to rise again.

Therefore, if sin began from the soul, why is the nature of the body accused, since in the cause of Adam's sin there was no bodily desire, but the soul, enticed by the hope of divinity, «transgressed God's command, so that it might also subject its own body to sin and human beings might be born under sin»? And this indeed in no way harms a human being—provided that he obeys the law of God—except that he dies; for which matter the benevolence of God has promised a reward, so that, since they are found faithful in devotion to their Creator, but through the transgression of Adam have been made subject to corruption and to death, on account of this they may receive from God the judge more than had been granted to Adam: namely, that in the future they may both be glorious and have eternal life and be called adopted sons of God, so that it may be a gain that they were born.

From this point I will now return to the remaining part of the reading. When man had been placed in paradise, he received these commands: «Of every tree,» he says, «that is in paradise for food, you shall eat; but of the tree whereby good and evil are discerned, you shall not eat of it.» All the trees which he mentions are fruit-trees created for eating. Accordingly they are called by the one name "trees," but they are understood as various in their fruits; yet they are all trees, and the manner of eating is one, although the things that are eaten are diverse. For when he had created many fruit-trees for man to eat, as I have said, he forbade that one tree be eaten from, so that they might have reverence for the Creator in some part—they who had received all things in their power—while one tree was reserved, over which they would not have license, so that they might be mindful of the law of their condition.

In what way was the kind of sin to be understood from the sentence? For this sentence fits also the murderer and the evildoer and the adulterer and the disreputable. Achar too, the son of Charmi, when he had sinned, was adjudged to be destroyed with all his own. In what way can the kind of sin be understood from the sentence? That the offense was great can be recognized, yet the kind of the offense cannot be understood. For we know that others too were condemned by this sentence, though they are known to have offended otherwise. For both Aman and the Sodomites are known to have perished with all their own. For so it comes about that both those guilty of one sin are struck by a diverse sentence, and sinners of a diverse crime are punished by one and the same kind. On which account, in the case of Adam and Eve, the kind of sin cannot be understood from the sentence given.

For although their sin was one, yet according to their own person the man and the woman received the sentence, and likewise also the serpent, so that not only did they not remain in that which they had been made, but also labor was added to them for punishment. For when all cattle and living creatures had been made subject to man, as we read, the serpent indeed raised itself up against this ordinance and by guile, through deceit, had subjected to itself the man whom it had encircled. For without doubt he who captures someone brings him within himself. On which account the serpent, lest it should have the effect of its cunning, is by the sentence of God called back and repressed beyond what it had been made, so that it should not be above man, so that by its craftiness it might grieve not only to have accomplished nothing, but even to have made itself worse. For although it is read to have been more prudent than the other beasts, after it deceived man, it was made cursed by all the beasts of the earth.

After the sentence pronounced against the serpent, it follows that the woman too, whom he had allied to himself for the despising of God's law, should receive her sentence. For it says: Filling I will fill up thy sorrows and thy groaning: in sadness shalt thou bring forth sons, and to thy husband shall be thy turning, and he shall have dominion over thee. Let no one confirm the very thing that he censures. If sons were granted for the reason that she had usurped intercourse, then the usurpation gained more. If, because he said, in sadness shalt thou bring forth sons, you thereupon suppose that generation took its beginning, where then will be that which was said, increase and multiply? Understand therefore that this was added only for punishment, so that, since it had before been granted through gladness, sadness was placed underneath by way of punishment. And so that, being harder and multiplied, it might ever press upon the woman, there is added the turning to the husband, that there might be a source from which it might again be renewed unto her.

If the Lord was condemning intercourse in his servants, why did he add, to thy husband shall be thy turning? Let no one set up as a punishment the very thing that he condemns, since a punishment is assuredly the contrary of the condemned thing and never proceeds from one and the same source, but on the contrary. But if they were one and the same, no one would fear condemnation. Again, would anyone be sentenced to that from which he saw that a transgression against the law had been committed? This would be to confirm sin, not to punish it. If therefore the woman's turning to the husband is both from the fact that she had intercourse, and not from what is true, let the turning that was simply granted before be believed to have been imposed upon her, together with the utmost servitude, on account of punishment. For since through the woman the man had been made subject — he who without doubt seemed the superior, by whose counsel she had acted and thought that what she urged was profitable, so that the deed of God seemed to be undone by the subtlety of the serpent — the ordinance is restored through the sentence of God, so that the woman may return to the subjection of her condition, humbled to the man, as it had been established; and there is added to her what is added for punishment, when she hears: Filling I will fill up thy sorrows and thy groaning: in sadness shalt thou bring forth sons, and to thy husband shall be thy turning, and he shall have dominion over thee.

Had it been decreed in any other way than that the woman should be subject to the dominion of the man? Hence therefore it appears that the woman was recalled to that which she had been made, with an addition. Whence it says: Filling I will fill up thy sorrows and thy groaning. What does he fill up? He adds in that which is less; he is not seen to work in that which is not. Here therefore the sentence which had gone before, increase and multiply, does not begin unto creating, but unto the ruin of the creature which had been granted. To the woman for the bearing of sons sorrow is added, difficulty is imposed; no new form of procreation is composed. For if from this generation is rightly hoped for, it can be understood that generation came into being rather by the choice of the serpent than of the Lord, and truly it is, as he says, a brood of vipers. But if anyone considers himself born in this way, let him consider what he deserves, seeing that on account of sin the pain from birth was amplified for her, so that she who was to have but a little of the pain of sons, the cause of her offense grew for her, because they are brought forth both with groaning and sorrow, and once born are not held without sadness.

Now for a third time such a sentence is pronounced against the man: "Because," he says, "you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I had commanded you not to eat, of that you have eaten; cursed is the earth in your works, and in your sorrows you shall eat of it all the days of your life: thorns and thistles shall it bring forth for you," and the rest. Here too, that is, Adam, is recalled to that for which he had been made, but with loss. For before he had been set to work the ground simply, so that the result of labor might follow him; but when he scorned the commandment of God, believing that better provision was made for himself by the serpent's counsel than God had made, he was recalled to his former appointment with the cost of labor, so that the earth should answer him but little according to his labor — cursed not for his own sake, but for his works' sake — and so that it might be shown that God's purpose cannot be overturned, nor can anyone provide better than God. For no one can love another's work more than the very one who made it, since the apostle says, "For no one," he says, "hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ also does the Church."

Let us now look at what follows in the law, whether it agrees with its beginnings. Abraham, when he had pleased God, among the other things that pertain to the reward of his faith, when he was already an old man, was even judged worthy to beget a son. How then can it be blamed that this seems to have been granted as a reward — that, because he himself had done God's will, God should fulfill his will? Which will would by no means have been fulfilled had it not been harmless, nor would God fulfill it. For he saw that what was asked wrongly or ignorantly, especially by one who was pleasing to himself — this is not fitting even for a man. Anna too, when she was barren and loved God, asked that she might have a son, and she received one. But if it had been something contrary, she could have been warned by the one whom she loved not to demand a harmful thing. And the most holy Samuel, born of her, begot sons and yet did not diminish the merits of his righteousness. For in his early age he was ever increased, so that in his old age he might be commended by a fuller testimony of God. And Zacharias the priest, a just man, in his old age by God's nod begot a son, and when that son was born he was granted to prophesy. On what grounds, then, is that blamed which is proved to be no hindrance at all? And who would deny that a thing ought to be called good which harms no one?

And that something may be said in this place about the apostles, it bears upon the strength of the case. Certainly holy John was a guardian of holiness; but his fellow disciple, equally holy Peter, is known to have had a wife and children, and, so that he might receive the primacy among the apostles, the begetting of children did not stand in his way. How then is that thought worthy of condemnation which does not hinder one's merits?

Hence the Apostle shows that a man who has a wife, if in other respects he keeps the commandments, can and ought to be made a priest. But if this were unlawful, he certainly could not say that a sinner ought to be made a priest. And what could be so plain? For it is the utterance of the same Apostle, who says: concerning virgins I have no commandment from the Lord. For when the Corinthians were being harassed by heretics, who in hypocrisy were teaching that marriage was to be condemned, they consulted the Apostle by letter as to whether it was permitted to marry or to send away a wife. Then the Apostle instructed that a wife ought not to depart from her husband, though he had had an occasion for saying, if he had known that this was what should be taught, that it was not permitted for a man to marry in any manner whatsoever. What he knew had not been delivered to him, he shows that he cannot teach. Who then among the disciples would dare to teach what has not been delivered by the master, and whom he hears preaching: I wish young women to marry, to bear children?

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 those already ordained are not permitted to come together with them?' Who does not know that each single person has a law according to his own status and dignity? For there is something that is altogether not permitted to all generally; there is again something that is permitted to some and not permitted to others; and there is something that at one time is permitted, but at another time is not permitted. To fornicate is never permitted to anyone; but to engage in trade is at one time permitted and at another time not permitted. For before someone is a churchman, it is permitted to him to engage in trade; once he has been made one, it is no longer permitted. And for a Christian to come together with his own wife is at one time permitted, but at another time not permitted. For on account of the days of procession it is at times not permitted to come together, because one must abstain even from what is lawful, so that what is asked for may more easily be obtained. Whence the Apostle: by consent, he says, one must abstain for a time, that you may have leisure for prayer. For also according to the law, on a fast day it is not permitted to strike or to quarrel, though afterward it is permitted, because a greater reverence is owed to the causes of God.

Is everything that is permitted among ordinary people permitted in the presence of the emperor? How much more so in the affairs of God! And for this reason his prelate ought to be purer than the rest, for he is seen to bear the very person of God. For he is his vicar, so that what is permitted to the rest is not permitted to him, because he must daily perform the office of Christ, whether praying for the people, or offering, or baptizing. And this is not permitted to him alone, but also to his minister, because he too ought to be cleaner, since the things he ministers are holy. For just as in comparison with a lamp shadows are not only dark but also foul, while in comparison with the stars a lamp is a murky gloom, and in comparison with the sun the stars are cloudy, while in comparison with the brightness of God the sun is night, so too the things that are permitted and clean for us are, in comparison with the dignity of God, as it were unlawful and unclean; for although they are good, yet they are not fitting for the person of God. Is not the tunic of an ordinary man, however clean, nonetheless foul and unlawful for the emperor? Likewise also, is not a Saxon garment foul and unlawful for a senator? And for this reason the prelates of God ought to be purer than the rest, because they bear the person of Christ; and the ministers of God ought to be cleaner. For no one ministers to the emperor unkempt; therefore they minister clothed in bright, clean garments: but since God is by nature most bright, his ministers ought to be clean by nature rather than by garments.

QUESTIONS [OF SAINT AUGUSTINE] ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT.

I.

I huius recensionis = I recensionis quaestionum numero CXXVII.

II. AGAINST THOSE WHO DENY THAT ANYTHING PERTAINS TO GOD.

To many, whom this worldly wisdom has blinded, we are exceedingly displeasing, if we anxiously keep God's precepts, if we flee occasions of sinning, if we strive to fulfill all good things with a saving zeal, if we disregard the seductive enticements of allurements and vices, if we allow ourselves to be captured by no worldly sweetness, if of our own accord we undergo tortures and punishments for the name of God, if we despise death itself by the strength of the spirit — displeasing, no doubt, to those whom this mortal sense has persuaded that everything which is done is worthy of neither praise nor blame. For they are unwilling that any of these things should pertain to God.

Some people, indeed, in their eagerness to defend their own sins and crimes, say: "It profits nothing whether you live well or badly. For God has no concern now about this—so as to be anxiously in a hurry to watch you as you conduct yourself in various ways according to your own bent and sickness, and at times to defile his eyes with your foul deeds. All things are empty, which are performed however it has pleased one. He who belongs to God is set apart and removed from these human affairs, and therefore he is neither angered nor moved. He has no contemplation of human affairs, none of our conduct; the whole course of the whirling age and a certain inexplicable rolling of the worldly sphere so seizes, snatches, and casts him about, that whoever supposes he can be recalled to God's care is thought a fool. Nor indeed is the disposition of the martyrs to be approved, who reckon that their God—whom they proclaim to be merciful—takes delight in the shedding of their own blood. Nothing in us is dear to God, nothing hateful; he rejoices in no condition of our death, in no soundness of our health, nor does he desire to know what is done or where, not because it is impossible for the divine majesty to have knowledge of nearly all things that have been done or are being done, but because he is unwilling to know the miseries of men and the vanities of the world. And so, in short, it is written: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity."

Just as their opinion, buttressed by despair, is dissolved by the authority of the divine sense, so it is refuted and overthrown by their own common speech, which is held to be in greatest use. For when, amid dealings and the contracts of various parties, good faith and treachery contend, the divinity is called as witness—the very divinity that is denied to know at times what we do. "He is witness," they say, (God: may God see, may God judge, may God act, may God repay.) And when it comes to the necessity of an oath, and the mind of the one swearing fears lest something befall him if he perjures himself, and he exacts an oath, he trusts that recompense can be made to him by the one who has sworn falsely to him. And when longed-for health and good soundness has been obtained, thanks are rendered to the divinity; and when, upon some material falling, one nearby escapes unharmed by chance, God is said to have granted it as good; and when, roused by the adverse blast of the winds, the waves of the sea rise up and the ship, battered on every side, is shaken, the crowds of those sailing stretch out their hands to heaven, beseech God with suppliant voice, and trust that they can be heard and freed. Whence come these things, if God has no concern for us and is ignorant of what we do?

Empty, therefore, is that persuasion: all things are known to God. Let no one flatter himself concerning the impunity of the crimes he has committed. The greatest fruit of a good life, of a bad one perpetual punishment and eternal torment. Therefore to us, who believe that God knows all things, who devoutly hasten to martyrdom, inestimable fruit—perpetual life—will be granted; but to the impious, who have taught that God does not know their crimes and the secrets of their misdeeds, a consuming flame of fire and a burning ever unfailing will be furnished.

III.

III—XII = II-XI.

XIII.

XIII = XXXV

XIIII.

XIIII-XXXVI = XII-XXXIIII

XXXVII. WHY DID GOD SAY: 'MY SPIRIT SHALL NOT REMAIN IN THESE MEN, BECAUSE THEY ARE FLESH, AND THEIR YEARS SHALL BE A HUNDRED AND TWENTY'?

Since in those days there were giants upon the earth, pestilent and proud, puffed up by the loftiness of their stature, walking after the desires of the flesh, born as apostates, then, since it displeased God, He promised that He would destroy the human race by a flood, and He appointed a time, so that, if perchance anyone, having heard of the wrath of God and His indignation over this matter, should wish to correct himself, he might have space to amend himself. Accordingly, on this reckoning the ark is seen to have been built over a hundred years. But before the beginning of the ark, twenty years are reported to have passed.

But the narrative seems to obscure this, in what it adds after speaking of the number of Noah's years. For this sentence is recognized to have been pronounced before Noah was five hundred years old. For what does it say? My spirit shall not remain in these men. And therefore it also added, because malice increased upon the earth: I will destroy man from the face of the earth, even to the beast — which assuredly was fulfilled when the flood took place. For we recall that even after the flood men lived many years, and Aaron the brother of Moses is recorded to have lived a hundred and twenty-three years. But Moses himself brought it about that he could not pass beyond a hundred and twenty years, because at the contradiction of the water he did not glorify God. For he was about to enter the land of promise, had not sin stood in the way. For it seems to some that this saying pertains to the time of Moses, although Jehoiada the priest is found to have lived a hundred and thirty years.

XXXVIII. WHAT THE BLESSING OF JACOB CONTAINS, WHICH HE GAVE.

Not only from present circumstances did he foretell the future of each single tribe, but he also signified, in the Jewish people, future things concerning things to come, of which as yet there was not even a shadow. For he showed what each single tribe would be in morals, faith, discipline, luxury, wantonness, contempt of the faith, so that, though they were of one stock, they would nevertheless not preserve one character. For some advanced toward the better, others grew worse, others remained as they were, so that through this they might not claim for themselves the prerogative of their descent, since it had been foretold by that very man that certain of these, who assuredly would be of his origin, would be reprobate, indeed that many would perish, so that others were signified as entering in, who to the disgrace and condemnation of those men would be grafted into the nature from which those had fallen away. Therefore he declared that in all the tribes there would be a mixed people, by which variety were to be understood both the good, but few, and the bad, but many. And although he gave the scepter to Joseph his son for a time, he nevertheless set Judah over all, not because all who were of Judah would be worthy, but because the Savior, who is truly king, was to arise from that tribe according to the flesh.

XXXVIIII.

XXXVIIII = XLII

XL. WAS THERE NO OTHER SIGN THAT WAS PERFORMED BY MOSES OPENLY BEFORE PHARAOH EXCEPT THE SERPENT?

Whoever thinks this reprehensible, let him say what else ought to have been done; for he surely made a serpent, one that would both strike terror yet do no harm, in that by a certain sluggishness it is rather slow to injure. For if he had made a lion or a bear or some other such thing, how would those who were present escape? For he did not wish to kill anyone, but only to instill fear and to display power, so that, because the first transgression began through the serpent, likewise also the recollection of the knowledge of God and the amendment of morals might come about by the sign of the serpent, so that, in the manner in which sin was committed, in that same manner it might also be amended; just as also the sin committed through a woman was taken away through a woman, namely Mary the mother of the Lord, from whom Christ, being born, condemned sin. Eve, still a virgin, transgressed, just as Mary too was a virgin. In this way, then, the things that had perished were recalled to their former state, because the kingdom had both been lost through the tasting of the tree and was again sought through the tree. For the Lord, it says, has reigned from the tree. In like manner the world too was reformed in that same [season] in which it was made, that is, at the beginning of the first month, which is the Passover. There will therefore be no evil nature except transgression alone, since sin was amended through that by which it was also committed.

XLI. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE FACT THAT IN THE PSALM IT SAYS, 'MEN AND BEASTS YOU WILL SAVE,' AND TO THE PROPHET JONAH HE SAYS, 'I WILL NOT SPARE THE CITY IN WHICH DWELL 120 THOUSAND MEN AND MUCH CATTLE,' BUT ON THE CONTRARY THE APOSTLE SAYS, 'IS IT ABOUT OXEN THAT GOD IS CONCERNED?'

As far as the words are concerned, it seems contrary; but if the case of man and of the cattle be examined, it will be made clear that it is not at all divergent. God takes care of all things as the maker of all, but he does not preserve the cattle for their own sake; rather, for the sake of men he preserves the cattle, not men for the sake of the cattle. And so he who takes care of men guards the cattle, so that his care is not for the oxen but for men. For what hope is there in cattle?

XLII. WHETHER ADAM, WHEN MADE BY GOD AND GIVEN LIFE, RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT, SINCE IT IS WRITTEN: 'GOD BREATHED INTO HIS FACE THE SPIRIT OF LIFE'?

It was not in keeping with order that he should receive the Holy Spirit, because this was reserved by God for later, so that in the last days, when the mystery of the one God was made manifest, it might be given to believers. From the beginning, indeed, the Trinity was proclaimed, but the understanding of it was, as it were, under a veil. For the person of God the Father was first proclaimed and made manifest without any hesitation or veiling, because from him are all things. But the persons of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit were not passed over in silence, yet neither were they made manifest. In short, a question is raised by the faithless concerning the Lord and concerning the Holy Spirit. For certain madmen say that the Holy Spirit is the Father himself, just as Sabellius too says that the very one whom he calls the Son is the Father. But concerning the person of God the Father no one is in doubt.

When, therefore, the manifestation of the Trinity takes place, then at last the Holy Spirit is given to believers, so that both his person may be made manifest and those who receive him may have a sign that they are sons of God, through the fact that they have within themselves the Spirit of God, who is assuredly from God. For this is the signification of perfection, when it is known that there is both a Father and a Son and a Holy Spirit. This perfection bestows this gift. For the Son of God, coming and disclosing and manifesting these things, was bound to give something more, and it was fitting that he bestow this perfection upon believers, because perfection or salvation is not in the Son alone nor in the Father alone, but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Whence John the Evangelist says that of his fullness we have all received, grace for grace, because the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Christ, the law's fulfillment.

It is made plain that, with the coming of the Savior, the fullness of truth was accomplished; for the things which lay hidden and that which was promised, when it is revealed and made manifest, become the fullness of truth. Then believers, having received the Holy Spirit, become sons of God. For the inspiration, which is read to have been made by God into Adam, is the handing over of a soul. For "spirit" is frequently put for "soul," as the Gospel says among other things: "and," it says, "her spirit returned to her"; and in the psalm: "a spirit," it says, "afflicted, and a contrite heart, God does not spurn." Frequently, however, some manuscripts do not read thus: "and God inspired," but: "God breathed into his face the spirit of life, and man was made into a living soul." Not because he said "the spirit of life" did he thereby signify the Holy Spirit; for he also says thus concerning the animals: "in which was the spirit of life." It is called the spirit of life because it animates bodies unto life.

XLIII.

XLIII = XXXVI

XLIIII.

XLIIII = XXXVII

XLV. "HE HAS SET," IT SAYS, "HIS TABERNACLE IN THE SUN," THAT IS, HIS BODY, IN WHICH CHRIST DWELT, BECAUSE HE WAS BEATEN WITH SCOURGES BY PILATE: HOW THEN, IN THE PSALM, CONCERNING CHRIST: "THE SCOURGE SHALL NOT DRAW NEAR TO YOUR TABERNACLE," SEEING THAT HE CALLED HIS BODY A TEMPLE?

Both the son of man and the Son of God is understood to have a body as a temple. God, however, that is, the Son of God, although he came in the flesh, nevertheless dwelt in the soul; therefore both the soul and the body are the tabernacle of the Son of God, even though the Son of God and Son of man is one God and man. Therefore in this respect the scourge is said not to have drawn near to his tabernacle, that is, to his soul, in which his divinity dwells: it was immune from the punishment of hell or of its princes. Lest, because here he was crucified as though a sinner, though he is innocent, and the flesh suffered something of sorrow, his soul should be thought to be among those below, Scripture shows that his soul could not be troubled among those below, since he descended for this purpose, that is, permitted himself to suffer, in order to confound the darkness and to send back the princes of those regions dulled. Whence the Lord himself also says: My soul is sorrowful even unto death. For it was permitted, as belonged to his nature, that he should be sorrowful, forthwith bringing back the trophies and the spoils of those by whom it had been made sorrowful even unto death, after death now established in eternal joy. It can also be understood of the whole man, since he who knew no sin could not be scourged by the law.

XLVI. WHY, WHEN ADAM WAS PLACED IN THE WORLD, DID HE RECEIVE A COMMANDMENT OR LAW, THOUGH HE HIMSELF HELD DOMINION OVER THE REST?

Although Adam was placed as lord in the world, nevertheless, because he assuredly did not have it from himself but received it from God, he ought to have received a sign of this fact from a law, so that he himself, who is seen to be lord, might through the law be made subject to him who had given him this power — that the authority of the Creator might beget reverence in him through the law, lest so great a dominion should exalt him and he should become forgetful of God his maker.

XLVII. THE OLD LAW ALLEGES THAT GOD SWORE — FOR THUS IT SAYS: 'THREE TIMES HAVE I SWORN BY MY OWN SELF, SAITH THE LORD' —, BUT THE SAVIOR FORBADE SWEARING: HOW DID HE NOT DESTROY THE OLD THINGS?

Before the knowledge of God existed on earth, it was fitting to summon men to an unheard-of hope in no other way than that a promise should be made to them by an oath, made assuredly by him whom they did not know as was fitting. But when he began to be known, it was assuredly not fitting that he should swear, whom it would not be right to suppose could lie. Therefore the Lord commanded that not even his servants should any longer swear, but that they should so establish themselves that trust might be placed in their words. For the sacrament of an oath demands either the treachery or the deceit of an inconstant person, so that, because they are wont to deceive men, they may perhaps out of fear reverence God; or else it will be enough even for him who is deceived, since from this he acquires the offense.

XLVIII. WHY, IN THE LAW, WAS IT SAID EVEN TO AARON HIMSELF THAT HE SHOULD OFFER HOLOCAUSTS FOR HIS OWN SINS, WHEN DAVID SAYS: 'FOR OFFENSES THOU HAST NOT REQUIRED A HOLOCAUST' AND IN WHAT FOLLOWS: 'THOU WILT NOT BE DELIGHTED WITH HOLOCAUSTS.' HOW DID HE COMMAND THAT TO BE OFFERED IN WHICH HE IS NOT DELIGHTED?

It is manifest that God does not take delight in holocausts, but that pardon can be earned by the groaning and grief of the heart in satisfaction for sin. He willed, moreover, the sacrifice to be a testimony of sin, so that through the offering of the sacrifice the sinner might confess that he had sinned. But in what way remission was to be obtained, he himself shows in another place, saying: break your bread to the one who is hungry; if you see one naked, clothe him, and you shall not despise the members of your own household, or certainly: a contrite and humbled heart God does not spurn. First, therefore, he admonished that the offense must be confessed, then he showed in what way it can be pardoned. For he never commanded a sacrifice for a manifest offense, but for things done in ignorance, because a man sins even when he does not know it and, when he thinks he is acting rightly, he transgresses through a certain intention. Such a sin he said could be purged through sacrifice.

XLVIIII. WHY DID SOLOMON HAVE THE SPIRIT OF WISDOM, WHEN HE DID NOT HAVE A PURE LIFE? FOR HE TOOK EXCEEDING DELIGHT IN WOMEN AND THROUGH THIS SINNED.

First, by his own merit he received the spirit of prudence, but afterward, once he began to make excessive use of women and through this to sin, if he had the spirit of wisdom, he had it by the merit of his kingship, just as Nebuchadnezzar too, by the merit of his kingship, saw Christ in the furnace.

L. IN TOBIT: 'IT IS HONORABLE,' HE SAYS, 'TO REVEAL AND CONFESS THE WORKS OF GOD'; BUT THE SAVIOR, WHILE DOING A WORK OF GOD: 'TELL NO ONE,' HE SAYS.

The Savior did not say that the works of God ought to be concealed — for in another place he says: go, and tell how much God has done for you — but he sometimes refused their testimony and repressed their boasting, lest he should seem, what is absurd to prudent men, himself to bear testimony to himself like a seducer.

LI. WHY WERE CIRCUMCISION AND THE PRECEPTS GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE, WHICH FORMERLY DID NOT EXIST NOR ARE NOW HELD IN AUTHORITY?

Circumcision is a sign of the faith of Abraham, so that, when this sign was seen in his sons, his sons might be known to be his who, believing in God, had received this sign; but the precepts of the sabbaths were given both as a testimony of things past and of things to come, of which they would hold the figure. For this sabbath, which is fulfilled in the completed week, is a figure of the future sabbath, which will give rest in the eternal things; but the law of foods was not given at the beginning of the law, but when, with faithlessness as their leader, they were unwilling to give faith to the words and promises of God, they received, according to the hardness of their heart, precepts that were not good, as the prophet Jeremiah says. For this was done so that their neck might be pressed down for their advancement — for the whole of creation ought not to have been subjected to proud and stubborn men — but afterward, when the mercy of God came, the liberty of eating was restored, whence the apostle Peter says: why do you impose a yoke upon the neck of the brethren, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?

LII.

LII = XXXVIII

LIII.

LIII = XXXVIIII

LIIII. IN WISDOM: 'WHO CREATED,' HE SAYS, 'THE WORLD OUT OF UNSEEN MATTER' AND ON THE CONTRARY: 'BECAUSE WE WERE MADE OUT OF NOTHING.'

The sense of the scriptures declares that God created the confused substances simultaneously. With the darkness indeed thoroughly mingled in, he called this confusion of things — that is, air, water, and dark earth — an unseen matter, as is read in Genesis: "But the earth was," he says, "invisible and unformed." From this confusion, therefore, he created the world by establishing the firmament, so that within it, with the waters gathered together into one, a dwelling place might be made for the human race. For with the substances distinguished and separated, he made a habitable house in the hollow.

LV.

LV. LVI = XL. XLI

QUESTIONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.

I.

I = XLVIII.

II.

II = LXXXVII

III. WHY WERE THE LORD'S DEEDS AND WORDS ARRANGED INTO SCRIPTURE IN FOUR VOLUMES AND BY FOUR WRITERS?

It was fitting that the acceptable year of the Lord, as the prophet says, be contained by four volumes, as though by four turns of season. For just as the year unfolds through four seasons in such a way that they have need of one another, so also the deeds and words of the Lord have been set down in four books, in such a way that one has need of the other; yet together they are made perfect in their fullness. And that they should be arranged by four writers, this was the reason: that, since the names of the seasons are diverse, the names of the gospels too should be diverse. And if any things seem contrary in their words, yet they do not disagree in sense, through an interpretation fitted to the matter — just as the seasons, though they seem indeed diverse in name, in air, and in the course of the stars, yet do not disagree in the effect of the things that are brought forth.

IIII. SINCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT FOUR BOOKS OF THE LORD'S DEEDS AND WORDS WERE DULY COMPOSED, IT MUST BE KNOWN WHAT THEIR ORDER IS.

The gospel is gathered by arrangement rather than by time. Matthew, therefore, must be placed first, because he took his beginning from the promise itself, that is, from Abraham, to whom the promise of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ was made. After him Luke, because he narrates in what manner this incarnation came about. Third, Mark, who testifies that the gospel, which was preached by Christ, was promised in the law. But fourth, John, because he shows with open voice that this one — who was promised to Abraham as about to be incarnated, and of whom Luke told in what manner he was incarnated, and of whom Mark showed that his gospel was preached according to the prophecy of Isaiah — is God, saying: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

V. WHY, IN DESCRIBING THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, DOES MATTHEW SAY: 'THE BOOK OF THE GENERATION OF JESUS CHRIST, SON OF DAVID,' WHEN ABRAHAM IS PRIOR?

For this reason he thus began, so as to speak first about him, describing the genealogy from the promise of his incarnation, just as the apostle says: whose are the fathers, and from whom Christ came according to the flesh. Therefore he said: the book of generation, because the incarnation of Christ consists of many and diverse elements, so that — since from one man diverse people began to be — he might draw his bodily substance from all: from Jews and gentiles, and from the worthy and the unworthy, since Ruth was a Moabitess and Bathsheba was made a wife after being an adulteress, so that, drawing the flesh of all to himself, he might recall them to their native unity. And for this reason he says: of Jesus Christ, the son of David, although Abraham is earlier, because Christ is called son of David in a special way on account of the kingdom, so that, just as God from God, so also he might take his origin as king from a king according to the flesh. For thus it was said to David: of the fruit of thy womb I will set upon thy throne.

VI. WHY IS IT THAT MATTHEW THE APOSTLE, MENTIONED ABOVE, DIVIDED ALL THE GENERATIONS INTO THREE PARTS?

Causes and times produce the divisions; therefore he marked off 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 been rendered unworthy, deprived himself of the kingdom —; but from David up to the deportation is another part of the cause, in which the Jews, having been made reprobate, lost the kingdom; and after the deportation of Babylon up to Christ is the third part, of lamentation and misery, of their captivity and dispersion, because, although after the deportation of Babylon and the period of seventy years, when they were released by Cyrus and returned to their own land, yet they never had any pause or rest. For neither could Judea reign afterward, but they were always anxious and wandering about. For assuredly at the time of Christ's nativity they were captives, saying: we have no king but Caesar. For this cause, then, Matthew made three stages of the generation, in order to show the changes both of merits and of causes from the promise that was made up to Christ, but that the seasons of the years continue up to the end in one grace.

VII. WHY, SINCE THERE ARE FORTY-ONE GENERATIONS, DOES THE EVANGELIST SEEM TO HAVE COUNTED FORTY-TWO? FOR WHAT DO THREE TIMES FOURTEEN MAKE BUT FORTY-TWO?

According to the number, forty-one generations are counted, but according to the reckoning, forty-two are proved.

Now Jechoniah was begotten during the transmigration, that is, he was made king, as is contained in Chronicles; he brought the second part to an end, and, because after the transmigration he remained in the kingship by the permission of King Nebuchadnezzar, from him begins the third part, which runs up to Christ. And therefore he is counted twice, so that Jechoniah both concludes the second part and inaugurates the third. For it stands thus: and after the transmigration of Babylon Jechoniah begot Salathiel. Now up to this Salathiel there reigned those who are from Judah, but from whose root Joseph is born. For Jechoniah had a first son by the name of Asyr, but since Joseph traces his origin through the root of Salathiel, Asyr being passed over, Salathiel was joined to Jechoniah his father, so that one might arrive at Joseph, to whom the Virgin Mary had been betrothed. For after Josiah too Jechoniah follows, but because through Joachim the father of Jechoniah one arrives at Joseph, that one, that is Joachim, being passed over, he placed Jechoniah, so as not to exceed the number of fourteen generations, and because after Jechoniah comes Salathiel and his son, through whom Joseph arises.

VIII.

VIII = LXXXV

VIIII.

VIIII = XLVIIII

X.

X = L

XI.

XI = LIIII

XII.

XII = LII

XIII.

XIII = LI

XIIII.

XIIII = LIII

XV.

XV = LV.

XVI.

XVI = LVI

XVII. WHY DID THE SAVIOR, AFTER HIS BAPTISM, FAST FORTY DAYS AND AFTERWARD HUNGER? FOR HE WHO HAD FASTED FORTY DAYS — COULD HE NOT NOW HAVE BEEN WITHOUT HUNGER?

It is written: Son, when you draw near to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare your soul for temptation. And therefore the Savior fasted, in order to give us a pattern, so that in like manner we too, applying ourselves to fasts, may by God's help overcome every movement of the devil set against us, knowing by the Savior's example that then the more the snares of the adversary are to be guarded against, when we draw near to the fear of God. For he grieves that we have withdrawn from him; therefore he rages the more against us. This the Savior did for us, not for himself.

Likewise also, that he hungered was not on his own account, but on ours. For when by fasts the temptations of the devil had been overcome — which for that reason were not written down, because they do not pertain to profit — afterward, that is, after the forty days, he permitted himself to suffer hunger, so that — since it belonged to man — he might suffer hunger, so that the devil, seeing it, who had already been overcome, might by the weakness of hunger in him be incited again to tempt, seeing that he was a man, by whom he was being conquered.

For this was the mystery of the Savior: that, because [Satan] insulted and lorded it over conquered man, he should be conquered by man, so that the power of God might win the victory for man. Thus Satan was rendered all the more contemptible, since he both beholds a lowly man and perceives a power that is not man's. For, dulled by amazement, he marveled that there was present a mystery which lay hidden from him, such that there was power to approach, but no power to entrap. For he was tormented by two causes. For, seeing the weakness, he approached, and he found power, so that, beholding a man, he was made suspicious about the power of God. To this end, therefore, He hungered: to mock the cunning of Satan. But He did not fast any longer, so that He might be in accord with Moses and Elijah.

XVIII. IF 'THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN,' FROM WHOM THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN WAS PROCLAIMED — FOR HE IS THE INITIATOR OF THE NEW PREACHING — WHY DID HIS BAPTISM CEASE?

The baptism begun by John did not cease, but that which was lacking to it was added. For John only baptized; he did not give the Holy Spirit to those who believed, just as he himself says concerning the Savior: I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance, but he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit. This is what he means: *through me is the remission of sins, yet the Holy Spirit is not given, so that the purified might be called sons; for this was reserved to the Savior, inasmuch as He is Lord, that they should not become sons of God unless they had received the Holy Spirit from the Son of God'. The effect, therefore, of John's baptism — which he worked silently, without questioning, yet not without mention of the Savior, so that what he did might be firm — is the gift of the Trinity, which the condescension of the Savior displayed in giving the form of the three names, which from the beginning under the name or person of the one God wrought a single and undivided work. An interpretation, therefore, was added to John's baptism, with the signifying of the mystery that had long lain hidden; and a further gift was added, so that the baptized, having received the Holy Spirit, might be sons of God. It was therefore amplified, not emptied.

XVIIII. WHY ARE 'THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS UNTIL JOHN' RIGHTLY SAID TO HAVE CEASED? BECAUSE HE OF WHOM THEY PROPHESIED HAS NOW COME. WHY 'THE LAW UNTIL JOHN,' WHEN THE APOSTLE SAYS THAT WE OUGHT TO BE SUBJECT TO THE LAW? 'FOR THE THINGS THAT ARE,' HE SAYS, 'ARE ORDAINED BY GOD.'

Of the Law there is indeed one name, but it has a threefold meaning. For the first part of the Law is about God; for if the Law is named from choosing (lectio), so that out of many things you may know what to choose, then men, being set amid errors, received it so that they might choose the true, that is, that rejecting the devil they might choose God. But the second part of the Law is this: the one contained in six precepts, which begins thus: Honor father and mother. The third, however, lies in the new moons and in the Sabbath, and in the distinguishing and choosing of foods, and in circumcision, and in the offering of victims of cattle. This Law, therefore, he says is to be kept up until John, not beyond. For it was given in such a way that, when its time was completed, it should cease. For it was not from the beginning, but a cause for it was given for a time, so that at the coming of the Savior the Law should cease. Therefore, concerning God there remains both the Law of the precepts and its nature, which is without doubt from him and cannot be abolished. For through it one advances toward the promised reward. For fear begets carefulness.

XX.

XX = LXVIIII

XXI.

XXI = LX

XXII. THE SABBATH IS CERTAINLY THE LAW, OR A PART OF THE LAW: HOW THEN IS THE LAW NOT VOIDED, WHEN THE SABBATH HAS BEEN DISSOLVED, SINCE THE EVANGELIST SAYS: 'BECAUSE HE NOT ONLY BROKE THE SABBATH' AND THE REST?

The Savior did indeed break the Sabbath, but without prejudice to the Sabbath that had been given. For while the time of the Sabbath was now ceasing, yet the Jews asserted that the Sabbath still remained, the Savior, by working on the Sabbaths and by commanding the sick man to carry his bed on the Sabbaths, was breaking the Sabbath according to the understanding of the Jews. For according to the faith of the truth, how is such a thing valid if it be said of what had already ceased—just as it is if it be said of someone who is to be called a former prefect and has suffered a wrong, because the prefecture has suffered a wrong? Therefore the Sabbath was not dissolved, but the men who imprudently claimed the authority of the Sabbath were deluded, since a new law had already succeeded the Sabbath.

XXIII. WHY DID THE SAVIOR CALL HIS DISCIPLES SONS OF THUNDER, WHO WOULD SEEM RATHER TO BE CALLED SONS OF GOD? FOR THUNDERS ARE SAID TO BE PRODUCED BY THE COLLISION OF CLOUDS.

Since thunders strike terror, for this reason the Lord called the disciples sons of thunder, as it were the sons of him who is to be feared. For although thunders are produced by the collision of clouds, yet they are produced by the will of God and are terrible.

XXIIII.

XXIIII = LVIIII

XXV.

XXV = LXI

XXVI.

XXVI = LXIII

XXVII.

XXVII = LXII

XXVIII. IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE SAVIOR, BEING BORN THE SON OF GOD, WAS ALSO CALLED CHRIST: WHY THEN, AFTER THE BAPTISM, DID THE TEMPTER APPROACH HIM SAYING: 'IF YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD' AND THE REST?

Thus the Savior was born from a virgin in such a way that he was both Christ and the Son of God, not by manufacture, but by birth. But while still in his younger age, emptying his power — that is, concealing it from his authority — he did not provoke the impudence of the devil. But when he had been baptized, with the Holy Spirit descending upon him, since it had been made plain to men by the testimony of God the Father who he was, the enemy was led by the rivalry of jealousy to envy, seeing that this deed stood against his own interest; for he understood that the ordinance of baptism had been provided for the salvation of men. And therefore he approaches the Savior, the author of this thing, not to approve it, but to find an opening for overturning it. For temptation sometimes takes place for proving, sometimes cunningly for subversion. For he supposed that he had, as it were, drawn out from the Savior — according to the guile of his own will — an answer whereby he might possess his whole kingdom, secure that, with the leader of the Savior's teaching brought into subjection, no one would escape his death.

XXVIIII. WHY DID THE SAVIOR RESIST THE DEVIL WHO TEMPTED HIM IN NO OTHER WAY THAN BY THE EXAMPLES OF THE LAW?

The Savior answered not only the devil who tempted him, but also the Jews, through whom he carried out the impiety of his cruelty against the Savior. For, foreknowing that the Jews would call him an enemy of the law, he restrained the impudence of their father [the devil] by the testimonies of the law, so that he might condemn the father in the sons and the sons in the father.

XXX.

XXX = LVII.

XXXI.

XXXI = LVIII.

XXXII. THE GOSPEL TESTIFIES THAT «NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD»: BUT AGAINST THIS, JACOB AND MOSES AND ISAIAH ASSERT THAT THEY SAW GOD. BUT SOMEONE SAYS: «NO ONE HAS SEEN THE FATHER». WHAT OF IT? IF THE SON WAS SEEN, THE FATHER TOO WAS SEEN, SINCE INDEED THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE BOTH ONE GOD, BOTH IN SUBSTANCE AND IN IMAGE, BECAUSE THE IMAGE OF THE TWO IS ONE, AND, AS HE HIMSELF SAYS: «HE WHO SEES ME, SEES THE FATHER ALSO.» HOW THEN HAS NO ONE SEEN THE FATHER GOD, WHEN THE SON SAYS THAT THE FATHER IS SEEN WHEN HE HIMSELF IS SEEN, SINCE NEITHER IS THERE ANOTHER GOD? IF THEREFORE THERE IS NOT ANOTHER, HE HIMSELF IS THE SAME, BECAUSE HE IS ONE, GOD WAS SEEN.

As far as it pertains to the evangelist, he said this concerning God the Father, that no one has seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he himself has declared him. Let us believe the Son; for he himself has declared that no one, except himself, has seen God. But he said this for this reason, to teach that he himself had always appeared to the patriarchs and prophets. This, therefore, does not pertain to the one God, but to the person of the Father, of whom it cannot be said otherwise than God the Father. But the Son says that he was seen in such a way that he is nevertheless invisible, in that very thing, when he is thought to be seen. For here "seen" is understood, because he was surely not seen with the eyes, but understood with the mind, and this was to have seen — to have understood — in that which appeared that God was there present. But when the Savior says: he who sees me, sees the Father also, he by no means referred this to the sight of the eyes, but to that of the mind, and so that nothing might be thought to be different between the Father and the Son. Neither of them, therefore, was seen according to substance; but in the surrounding appearance the Son alone was seen with the mind, not with carnal eyes, because he is invisible just as the Father.

XXXIII. HOW IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR, AT FIRST, DENIED MERCY TO THE FOREIGN WOMAN — THAT IS, THE CANAANITE — WHEN HE DID NOT REFUSE THE BENEFIT OF GRANTING HEALTH EITHER TO THE FOREIGN CENTURION OR TO THE LEPER, WHOM JESUS HIMSELF CALLED A FOREIGNER?

The reason itself indicates that the Savior's deed was fitting. For it was absurd, and it worked to the injury of the promise made to the fathers, if a woman who had not confessed the God of the Jews were to receive the benefit promised to a people confessing God. Therefore at the outset it was denied to her. But when, with her neck bowed, she did not refuse faith to the Savior's words, but confessed that the Jews who believe are the sons, while the gentiles are dogs or servants — through which she joined herself to the Lord's faith, because servants point to a master, and a master is not without servants — a unity was made of the one subjected and the one subjecting. Hence it is that she deserved to obtain what she prayed for. The centurion, however, who received the benefit from the Savior without delay, had long before steeped himself in the things of God. For the elders 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. But the Lord called the leper a foreigner, not by faith, but by nation. For he was a Samaritan, and it is established that they are by origin descended from the Babylonians. And yet even this man did not obtain the benefit without confession, because it had been said to the disciples by the Lord: Go not into the way of the gentiles, and enter not into the city of the Samaritans, but go rather to the sheep that have perished of the house of Israel; that is, that it should not be preached to the Samaritans and the gentiles before the Jews, whose this promise had been. But when the Jews began to reject the faith of Christ, then the Savior offered himself both to the Samaritan woman and, after the cross, to the centurion Cornelius; but when he was entreated by the Canaanite woman, he received her, because it was not yet the time that salvation should be offered to her.

XXXIIII.

XXXIIII = LXIIII,

XXXV.

XXXV = LXV

XXXVI.

XXXVI = LXVII

XXXVII.

XXXVII = LXVI

XXXVIII.

XXXVIII = LXVIII

XXXVIIII. THE APOSTLE PETER SAYS: 'CHRIST DIED FOR US,' BUT THE APOSTLE PAUL ASSERTS THAT HE ALSO DIED FOR HIMSELF: HE WAS, HE SAYS, 'OBEDIENT UNTO DEATH; ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH GOD GAVE HIM A NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME.' AND IF THIS IS SO, HE WILL SEEM TO HAVE BEEN IMPERFECT, HE WHO THROUGH HIS OWN WORKS MADE AN INCREASE.

That the Son of God was born perfect from God, no faithful person doubts. For he received all things of the paternal divinity in being born of God the Father. Then, therefore, he received the name which is above every name — that is, that he should be called what the Father is, God. For nothing is said to be future with him; for he has all things before himself. Therefore he was born to create and restore all these things. For surely order and reason hold this, that to the paternal name every knee should bow. This the Father granted to the Son on account of those things which he was going to do; and he granted 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.

XL.

XL = LXXII.

XLI.

XLI = LXXIII

XLII. JOHN TO THE LORD: 'ARE YOU THE ONE WHO IS TO COME, OR DO WE AWAIT ANOTHER?'

Under his own person he pleads 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 sin of the world; but, in order to satisfy his disciples, he sends them with his own words, so that he might confirm by the Savior's own mouth what he himself was teaching about him, so that after his own departure his disciples might follow Christ without any doubt.

XLIII. HOW IS IT THAT, THOUGH THE SAVIOR HAD HEALED ALMOST ALL BY A WORD, HE NEVERTHELESS RESTORED THE BLIND MAN'S EYES BY MEANS OF MUD MADE FROM SPITTLE?

The Savior did this for the confounding of those who accuse the creation. For when he mended the defect — an accident — of the body in no other way than the Creator had made it, he commended the author of this work. For he mended it by means of that from which it had been fashioned. For everything that comes to be, if when it has fallen it is restored by means of that from which it had been made, will be proved to have been rightly made. For if the Savior attests himself to be God by these things, because he mended the damages and defects of the body, how much more is he God who is the inventor of the body itself!

XLIIII. HOW IS IT THAT, WHEN HE WAS ABOUT TO PERFORM AN ADMIRABLE AND UNKNOWN MIRACLE — NAMELY, ABOUT TO RAISE LAZARUS FROM THE DEAD — HE WEPT, OR SOUGHT THE PLACE WHERE HE HAD BEEN LAID AS IF IGNORANT OF IT?

The Savior is God and man, and through this he always played two roles, so that he wept because he had the affection of a man, but, because he was also God, he raised up this man whom he had wept over. Therefore one always comes from the least things to the greater, so that, because he was seen to be a man, he might prove himself to be that which he appeared; but he asserted himself to be God by his works.

XLV. HOW IS IT THAT ABOVE WE READ THAT HEROD HAD DIED, BUT BELOW, AND AFTER MANY YEARS, THAT HEROD KILLED JOHN, THOUGH ABOVE, AFTER HEROD'S DEATH, JOHN HAD OUTLIVED HIM?

Herod was king of Judea; he had four sons — Archelaus, Herod, Philip, and Lysanias; but when Herod their father died, Archelaus succeeded him, and when he died the kingdom of the aforesaid Herod was divided into four parts, so that Pilate was admitted into the fourth part of the kingdom as a governor, not as a king, while the sons of Herod were called kings. Then, when Philip in turn had died, Herod his brother took his wife, concerning whom he was rebuked by John the Baptist, for which reason Herod, the son of the aforementioned Herod, killed him. For what does it say? Herod, it says, the tetrarch, that is, one placed in the fourth part of the kingdom of his father Herod. Why then is there any doubt, when the meaning of the added surname shows this to be another Herod? For he is the very one who also killed with the sword James, the brother of John, who afterwards, struck by an angel of God, expired teeming with worms.

XLVI.

XLVI = LXXXVI

XLVII.

XLVII = LXXV.

XLVIII. WHY DOES THE APOSTLE SAY THAT HE MADE HIMSELF ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE ACT OF A FLATTERER AND A HYPOCRITE?

That flatterer is the one who gives his consent for this reason: that he may not offend the one whom he desires to keep favorable to himself. For whoever does something on account of a stumbling-block — something not indeed dangerous, but superfluous — is concerned for the salvation of the one whom he does not wish to suffer a stumbling-block. When Paul the apostle circumcised Timothy on account of the Jews and, having been purified, entered into the temple, he assuredly showed himself to be such a man precisely so that those who were zealous for the ancestral tradition might not, having suffered a stumbling-block, either kill him or suppose our religion to be hostile to themselves. He was therefore willing to concede less, that he might be able to gain more. For he could have sinned gravely if he had not made himself a Jew in going into the temple to pray; he therefore subjected himself, that he might profit them. And with those who were under the law, that is, the Samaritans, he consented on this ground, on which it is agreed that they rightly confess those books of Moses to be from God, and circumcision and the sabbaths to have been given by God. And by these things he was showing them the Christ, whom they hoped to be this very one whom he was preaching. For thus you have it when the Samaritan woman says to the Lord: I know that the Messiah is coming; when therefore he shall have come, he will announce all things to us. According to this sense, then, he was pursuing the words of the books of Moses, who said that the Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brethren. But with those who were without the law, he assented in this respect, because they say that the world was made by God, and the race of men. For he says: as certain ones among you have said: for we too are of his race. Thus therefore he became all things to all, that he might further their salvation.

XLVIIII.

XLVIIII = LXXVI

L. SINCE WE PROFESS THE SAVIOR TO HAVE BEEN BORN, HOW IS IT THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS HE WAS MADE FROM THE SEED OF DAVID, WHEN IT IS ONE THING TO BE MADE AND ANOTHER TO BE BORN?

Although in this passage the making may be understood as the making of a birth — for a making does indeed differ from a generation, but in other cases, not where the reckoning of flesh and body is at issue —, nevertheless the apostle did not without cause speak in words of this kind, because in another place also he says: made from a woman. Therefore by this saying he signified something. For since the flesh of the Lord was not compacted in the womb of the Virgin from human seed and made into a body, but by the working and power of the Holy Spirit, for this reason the apostle spoke thus. For it is one thing to coagulate blood and to generate with seed mingled in, and another to procreate not by admixture but by power. Therefore he said made, because it was unbegotten.

LI. WHY DID THE APOSTLE SAY TO THE GALATIANS, WHOM HE SO REBUKES AND CONVICTS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EPISTLE: 'BE', HE SAYS, 'AS I ALSO AM, BECAUSE I AM AS YOU'? IF THEREFORE HE SHOWED HIMSELF TO BE SUCH AS THEY WERE, IT WAS SUPERFLUOUS TO SAY: 'BE AS I ALSO AM'; OR PERHAPS IN CERTAIN THINGS HE HAD BEGUN TO BE AN IMITATOR OF THEM, AND IN CERTAIN THINGS HE WISHES THEM TO BE IMITATORS OF HIMSELF?

Which of them could imitate the apostle? Or what did that teacher of the nations lack? But he urges them to be imitators of him, and since it is not impossible, he thus rebukes them when he says: 'because I am what you are. For you are men, just as I too am; therefore do what I do.' It can also be referred to this, namely that since he says he became all things to all men by way of assent, in those matters in which they did not differ from the truth, especially the Gentiles. For there was none of those things which by now ought least to be done, but which formerly had been rightly done, such as circumcision, the observance of the sabbaths, of new moons, of foods. But if he approved anything of the nations, he shows that it ought not now to cease. For they say that the world was fashioned by God and for men — this always stands —: if therefore in these matters he became one consenting with them, just as they also do, he urges them that in a similar way these too may become, just as he also is, consenting to his teaching.

LII. IN WHAT WAY WE ARE FREE IN CHOICE AND WILL, WHEN THE APOSTLE SAYS: 'THE FLESH LUSTS AGAINST THE SPIRIT, BUT THE SPIRIT AGAINST THE FLESH, SO THAT YOU DO NOT DO THE THINGS THAT YOU WISH'? AND IF THE FLESH LUSTS AGAINST THE SPIRIT, IT IS EVIL; FOR THE SPIRIT SUGGESTS GOOD THINGS.

The flesh) In this place you are not to understand the substance of the flesh, but the evil acts and the perfidy signified in the flesh. For inasmuch as every error is from things visible and worldly, and the flesh is akin to them — for it is composed of the elements —, he calls every error 'flesh.' He calls works of the flesh not only adulteries and fornications and debaucheries, but also idolatry and sorceries and blasphemies and such things. Does the flesh compel blasphemy or idolatry? Are these not vices of the soul, while it consents to error? But to those who act rightly he says that they are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, and yet assuredly they are still in the body. He therefore who 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 he who acts badly and is a blasphemer is said to be in the flesh, because, just as those who act well are spiritual together with the flesh itself, so those who live badly are carnal together with the soul itself. For this is what is meant by what he says.

This error, then, which he calls 'flesh,' lusts 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. Hence he speaks of the spirit, for the reason that the law of God, which is spiritual, fights against the flesh, that is, against the vices, in order to preserve man for God; but the law of the devil, which is error, contradicts through the enticements of luxury and worldly sweetness. Between these, then, which are at war, stands man in the middle, who, when he consents to the spirit, the flesh does not wish it; but when he gives his hand to the flesh, he spurns the spirit, that is, he despises the law of God. Him, therefore, who consents to the flesh the spirit calls back, lest he do what he wishes; but him who assents to the spirit the flesh solicits, lest he do what it thinks useful. But the spirit rightly and providently contradicts and calls back, in order to snatch man away from the counsels of Satan; whereas the flesh, which is the adverse law, solicits and resists the law of the spirit for this reason, that through deceit it may deceive.

Therefore the apostle makes these things public in order to show to human choice the thing to which it should commit its will—not to empty out the choice of liberty, but he teaches choice the thing to which it should join itself. But if there were no choice of the will, then neither the law of the devil, which is the flesh, nor the law of God, which is the spirit, would, by opposing one another, be plying man with their counsels. For he who plies, persuades; and he who persuades, does not apply force but circumvents; and he who is circumvented—his will is changed by certain deceptions. But if there were no free choice, man would be dragged unwilling to those things which he does not will.

LIII. FOR WHAT REASON IS THE WISDOM OF THE FLESH AN ENEMY TO GOD, OR WHAT IS THAT WISDOM WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD?

This question does not differ in sense from the preceding one. For in saying what "the flesh" signifies, it has been made clear; whence what its wisdom is can easily be discerned. We have said, then, that all the elements are called flesh, that is, the substances of visible things, whose reasoning is such that they judge nothing can come to be without a spiritual commixture, shuddering at and deeming foolish the account of a simple power. For these men, who, distrusting spiritual things, follow after carnal things, have no other wisdom and think nothing true except what the reasoning of the elements contains, so that they believe neither that a virgin gave birth nor in the resurrection of the flesh, because the reasoning of the flesh, that is, of the elements, does not admit this—for all things that are begotten in time are generated by the working of a mixture—and that bodies which have died and been dissolved cannot again be restored to life, because each single element, once the mixture has been separated out, returns into its own nature. Puffed up in these ways, they deny that what we believe either will be or has been done, and through this their assertion is an enemy to God, since it deems foolish and empty what God has made and what He has promised He will do.

LIIII.

LIIII = LXXVII

LV. HOW IS IT THAT, WHEN JOHN THE BAPTIST HAD FIRST BORNE WITNESS TO THE SAVIOR, HE AFTERWARD DOUBTED, SAYING THROUGH HIS DISCIPLES: 'ART THOU HE THAT IS TO COME, OR DO WE LOOK FOR ANOTHER?'

Those who think that John doubted disparage the Savior. For either they rightly claim that he doubted, or else they surely charge the Savior with ignorance, since — as they think — he praised a man who thought ill of himself. But since it is impossible for the Savior to be deceived, 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 do we await another?" then Jesus answered his disciples, saying, "Go, tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind see, the deaf hear, the lepers are cleansed, the lame walk, the dead rise again; and blessed is he who has not been scandalized in me." And as John's messengers were departing, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning 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? Behold, those who are clothed in soft things are in the houses of kings. But what did you go out to see? A prophet? I tell you, more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written: Behold, I send my angel before your face, who shall prepare your way." Then even the tax collectors praised God, having been baptized with the baptism of John.

But how great is the praise given to John, that he was said to be more than a prophet! And the Savior calls blessed the man who is not scandalized in him: how was John being praised if by doubting he was scandalized? But he assuredly did not doubt. For the praise proves that he is blessed, because he was not scandalized. For the Savior also, for this reason, at that very time burst forth into the praise of John, that he might show John's mind to be free from the doubt of his disciples. For John, wishing to strengthen his wavering disciples in the faith of the Savior, knowing that his own end was imminent, wished those things which he was saying about him to be confirmed by his mouth. Therefore, that he might be a true witness, he calls upon the testimony of a greater one, so that by their agreement all ambiguity might be removed. This was John's device: to send his own, as it were with words of doubt, so that, hearing from the Savior the same things which they had heard from John, they might be confirmed, knowing that the testimony of a worthy steward and of the heavenly Lord could not be called into doubt. Therefore the Savior also answered, as it were, John, so that between John questioning and the Savior answering they might learn the truth.

LVI.

LVI = LXXVIII

LVII. WHAT DOES THE APOSTLE MEAN WHEN HE SAYS TO THE GALATIANS: 'I MARVEL THAT YOU ARE SO QUICKLY TRANSFERRED FROM HIM WHO CALLED YOU INTO GRACE, TO ANOTHER GOSPEL, WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER? IF IT IS SURELY ANOTHER, IT IS NOT THE SAME; IF IT IS NOT THE SAME, HOW IS IT NOT ANOTHER?

For this reason he said "another" gospel, to which they had been called, because this is not the one that the Galatians had afterward begun to follow. For, drawn away from the gospel of Christ, they had been dragged into Judaism under the name of Christ, as though this were the thing to be followed, and they affirmed something other than what the apostle preached. Whence it is subjoined: "as they persuade you." For the false apostles, when they were deceiving the believing Gentiles, used to say that what they themselves were teaching had been handed down by the Savior, as is contained in the Acts of the Apostles: that unless you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved. Hence the apostle, moved by grief at their overthrow, writes to them, saying: I marvel that you are thus so quickly removed from him who called you into grace, unto another gospel, which is not another.

He marvels, then, that after a mild and less burdensome matter they should be zealous for harshness and for a burden — that is, that after the simplicity of faith they should permit themselves to be circumcised in place of the rudiments, and should observe the new moons and the sabbath, being made subject to the rudiments. And lest he should seem to have given occasion to the false apostles, who said that what the Galatians had received was other than what the tradition of the truth holds, he at once subjoined: which is not another, unless there are some who trouble you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. It was therefore another gospel, to which they had been called by the apostle, than the one they had begun to follow at the instigation of the false apostles; yet it was not other than what Christ had handed down, so that even by this they might recognize that they had been led into error, and might follow faith alone, professing Christ to be God and that he suffices to grant salvation — he through whom they had obtained the remission of sins, not through the law, because without the law the grace of God bestows pardon for transgressions.

LVIII. SINCE MANY SINS ARE SEEN TO BE COMMITTED AGAINST THE BODY — FOR EVERYONE WHO INFLICTS VIOLENCE ON HIMSELF IN ANY PART OF THE BODY ASSUREDLY SINS AGAINST HIS OWN BODY; FOR THERE IS ONE WHO CASTRATES HIMSELF, THERE IS ONE WHO ENDS HIS LIFE BY A NOOSE, THERE IS ONE WHO THRUSTS THE SWORD INTO HIMSELF —, WHY DOES THE APOSTLE SAY: "EVERY SIN," HE SAYS, "WHATSOEVER A MAN SHALL DO, IS WITHOUT THE BODY; BUT HE THAT FORNICATETH SINNETH AGAINST HIS OWN BODY"?

Do you think the apostle was unskilled, or do you desire the force of the saying to be explained? For the apostle, in saying (body), did not signify the single man, but comprehended together also the woman — because the woman is a portion of the man. For all the above-mentioned crimes, which each one violently commits against himself, do not defile the whole body; for he sins as an individual, and by this he alone becomes guilty. But in fornication the whole body is polluted, because the consent to the contamination holds both the man and the woman: therefore fornication is a grave transgression. For sin is committed most wickedly when someone seeks a companion for his crime unto perdition. For if, as one living well shall receive a reward even for him whom he has gained, then the evil man becomes guilty not only in himself, but also in that other whom he wished to have as a partner of his damnation — how much more he who fornicates, who, it is agreed, in a single transgression contaminates himself twice, in a certain manner! For if he sins against the flesh, which is of himself, he assuredly commits adultery against himself twice.

But if anyone thinks he can transform 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 he will be like the Novatianists, who, in order to buttress the ground of their fury, declare that the one who fornicates sins not against his own body but against Christ's, because Christians are members and the body of Christ, so that fornication would be the same thing as sacrilege, so that such a person is said to sin against Christ, just as one who denies Christ. But this is indeed weak and fragile, because on whatever side you take it, it gets caught in the snare and does not escape. For if the one who fornicates sins against the body of Christ, then the other sins will not be committed against Christ — as when a Christian kills his brother, or sacrifices to idols, or commits some other kind of sin — because every sin is outside the body except fornication. But if not every sin is outside the body, but whatever it may be is committed against Christ, then the one who steals, or who perjures himself, or who lies, or who strikes his brother, or commits some other such thing, is said to sin against Christ or against the Holy Spirit — which is utterly absurd. And yet the Apostle calls the Church the members and 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? Because, according to the mystery of the Church, we are said to be not our own body but Christ's. And this is far from the point, because the one who fornicates for this reason sins against his own body: since the whole of Adam is contaminated.

LVIIII.

LVIIII = LXXVIIII .

LX. WHY THE APOSTLE PAUL REPROVED PETER, HIS FELLOW APOSTLE, BECAUSE, 'FEARING THOSE WHO WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION, HE WITHDREW HIMSELF' FROM THE GENTILES, WHEN HE HIMSELF ALSO, FEARING THOSE WHO WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION, 'TAKING TIMOTHY CIRCUMCISED' HIM, WHICH HE FORBADE TO BE DONE — AND SO MUST HE HIMSELF ALSO BE REPROVED?

It is incredible that so great an apostle reproved another in a matter in which he knew he himself had given way. It is not permissible to believe that this was done by so great a man, because such things befit those who live carnally. The deed of the Apostle Paul is therefore free from reproach. For when he preached that circumcision should not be practiced, yet wishing to take Timothy with him — who had been born of a Jewish mother but a Greek father — and this would be a scandal to the Jews, that he should take up an uncircumcised man born of a Jewish woman, then he submitted himself to the constraint for the moment and, taking him, circumcised him. He therefore did a superfluous thing, with the permission of him who suffered. For because he was of a Jewish mother, instructed from infancy in the synagogue in the sacred letters — that is, in the volumes of the Hebrews — he permitted himself to be circumcised, in order to remove the scandal from the Jews, because they had zeal for their own race. Finally, he says, since Titus was a Greek, he was not compelled to be circumcised. But Timothy, because he was of a Jewish mother, as I said, the Jews would not allow to be taken up among the teachers uncircumcised. For this purpose the Apostle took him up, in order to ordain him bishop, as indeed he did. For, instructed in the prophetic letters, he was found a suitable teacher for asserting Christ.

For the apostle Peter would not have been reprehended if it had been out of fear of the Jews that he separated himself from the Gentiles, so as not to be a stumbling block to them. But this was what was reprehended in the apostle Peter: that, although before, among believing Greeks, he lived in the manner of the Gentiles, yet when Jews came from James, being made subject to fear, he taught that men from among the Gentiles ought to Judaize. Hence he hears: "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of the Gentiles, how do you compel the Gentiles to Judaize?" For he had caused doubt about the evangelical teaching — which is a crime — while he was destroying what he had built. Therefore the apostle Paul calls this "dissimulation," concerning whom it is agreed that, if he circumcised Timothy, he did not keep silent that he was doing a superfluous thing on account of the stumbling of those men, and that he therefore yielded, because he had a Jewish mother. For the Jews would not have pressed the matter, were it not on account of the occasion of the Jewish mother, since by this discovery they would be able to reprove it before the Gentiles, and would not easily take a stumbling block from these things, seeing that they were not of the stock of Israel. Therefore he did this not by dissimulation, but by constraint; for the aforesaid cause held no small dissimulation. For many were reprehended in this cause, so that some of the Jews and Barnabas consented to this dissimulation.

LXI. WHICH SPIRIT THE APOSTLE ASSERTS IS TO BE SAVED, WHEN HE SAYS THAT A MAN OF THIS SORT IS DELIVERED OVER TO SATAN UNTO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FLESH?

The destruction of the flesh is when someone, given over to carnal pleasures and desires, procures hell for himself; for he acquires destruction from the work of the flesh. For from these things the whole man becomes carnal, because, just as a man living according to the law is made wholly spiritual, so that even the flesh is called that which the soul is, so, if he lives according to the desires of the world and the pleasures of lusts, the whole man becomes flesh, advancing unto the destruction of the flesh; that is, just as the flesh, because it is fluid and corruptible and mortal, when the soul is lost is deformed — lacking form, it dissolves into destruction; for it perishes when it loses the vigor of all its members —, so also the soul is deformed by such a body, by whose vigor it had been despised in the punishment together with the flesh, in which it defiled itself with vices, so that there is no advancement for 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 as queen to the flesh, but it itself teaches carnal works.

Therefore, when the Church casts out such a man, it keeps its spirit saved, namely the holy one, which is the Church's caretaker, because, if they should permit such a man to be among them — one who has polluted his father's wife with lust —, so that they might be able by the law to compel him, lest he contaminate all, and the Holy Spirit should depart from the Church on account of the polluted one, the Church will not keep the Spirit saved. For what is lost is not saved even on the day of the Lord. Stripped of the Spirit, they cannot be found reckoned among the sons of God. For the Spirit bears witness that we are the sons of God.

This is what the apostle says to the people, because as yet bishops had not been ordained for the churches in all places. Therefore he orders the people to do this, which he himself would have done if a bishop had been appointed there, namely, that acting together they should cast that man out of their assembly, lest they should seem to consent to his deeds, because whoever does not rebuke him whom he can rebuke, but receives him as though he were not erring, supplies him with kindling for going on offending — and by this cause he too is defiled, putting the Holy Spirit to flight from himself.

For to the Thessalonians he says in like manner, among other things: May your spirit be kept whole, and your soul and body, without complaint at the coming of our Lord. The very same meaning is here; for this is what it is to be 'safe,' namely to be 'whole.' For the king says to Daniel: Are the seals safe, Daniel? And he answered: They are safe, O king, that is, 'whole' — so that our spirit may be whole for us, when it does not desert us. For those whom the spirit deserts will no longer be whole in the matter 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 spirit itself deserts us when we sin and is not whole. For it is not whole precisely while it deserts us — it who was our leader and ruler — because, if he is our head, we too are his members. But when we do anything against him, it is not he that deserts us, but we who seem to desert him; and then he seems not to be whole, when he loses us. For this is true and manifest, that it is not he who turns himself away from us, but we from him, when we sin. And to the Colossians he says among other things: from whom the whole body, supplied and knit together, grows with the increase of the Lord — which, if we take it according to the sound of the words, does not fit — for God lacks nothing that he should make increase through us — but rather, when we return to the author of our life and confess him, the Godhead acquires us unto salvation and makes increase in us; therefore in those who withdraw from him there is loss. This, then, is to be not whole, which is also to suffer loss.

LXII. WHY THE SAVIOR SAYS, 'PRAY THAT YOUR FLIGHT BE NOT IN WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH,' SINCE THE TIME OF THIS PERSECUTION CANNOT BE DEFERRED, THE APOSTLE SAYING, 'WHO WILL BE REVEALED IN HIS OWN TIME,' AND IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES: 'DETERMINING,' HE SAYS, 'THE TIMES AND THE BOUNDS OF THEIR HABITATION'? AND WHY IS IT NOT PERMITTED TO FLEE IN WINTER OR TO GO OUT ON THE SABBATH [DOES IT SIGNIFY]?

In winter flight is not safe; for there are frosts, constant rains, it snows, it freezes, the rivers overflow; and therefore for those fleeing it is exceedingly hard. For they cannot lie hidden in the woods, nor in the mountains, nor in caves. But on the Sabbath, according to the Jews, it is not permitted to go out from the city a great distance, nor to climb high, and on this account you cannot flee on the Sabbath. And just as these seasons do not make flight safe on account of the impediments mentioned above, so also our flight will not be safe, if the aforesaid persecution finds us bound by fleshly impediments. For worldly desires and mundane resources hold men fast like fetters, and they cannot escape the seduction of the devil. Therefore, then, it must be prayed that at the time when we must flee, the condition of winter and of the Sabbath be not found in us, but that the help of God may render us free from these impediments, so that there be nothing that, having taken us captive by desire of itself, may consign us to the world. Since therefore the Savior was speaking of the last persecution, which is to come in the time of Antichrist, he therefore set down winter, which is the last season; and likewise the Sabbath, which is the last day, so that, just as in these seasons flight is harsh and difficult, so he might signify that in that time the persecutions and afflictions to come would be so grievous that scarcely anyone could escape them.

LXIII.

LXIII = LXXX

LXIIII.

LXIIII = LXXXI

LXV. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS: 'NO ONE CAN SAY THE LORD JESUS EXCEPT IN THE HOLY SPIRIT'? THEREFORE CAN PHOTINUS, WHO DENIES THAT CHRIST IS GOD, CONFESS OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? AND CAN MARCION AND MANICHEUS, WHO DENY THAT CHRIST CAME IN THE FLESH, THESE MEN SAY THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? OR HARLOTS AND FILTHY MEN, SINCE THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT DWELL IN A BODY SUBJECT TO SINS AND WISDOM DOES NOT ENTER INTO A MALEVOLENT SOUL?

Truth is neither proved nor disproved from the person; for whatever is spoken well and truly is without doubt spoken in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if someone is guilty in other matters, it ought not on that account to be held against him in this, that he speaks the truth. Nor yet is it held against him, but rather Christ the Lord is contradicted. For he who denies that this man speaks the truth does injury to Christ. But if the truth is spoken, and it is denied that what is true is spoken in the Holy Spirit — which Christ also admits (for no good man refutes one who speaks true things about himself; nor indeed is that learned by revelation which is learned through tradition) — no one speaking the truth will be able to be disproved.

LXVI. IF NO ONE IS JUSTIFIED IN THE LAW BEFORE GOD, WHY IS IT WRITTEN: 'CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HAS NOT CONTINUED IN ALL THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO DO THEM'? IF MEN ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH AND NOT THROUGH THE LAW, WHY IS HE CURSED WHO HAS NOT FULFILLED THE LAW, SINCE IT DOES NOT AVAIL FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS?

The Law given through Moses did indeed possess a righteousness, but an earthly one, so that those keeping the Law might be righteous for the present, that they might not become guilty. For he is righteous under the Law who harms no one. Hence the Apostle: The Law, he says, is not of faith, but he who does these things shall live in them — that is, the one doing the Law shall not die, but shall live for the present; but the righteousness which is of faith justifies men before God, so that they may be rewarded in the age to come. For to the temporal righteousness they added the righteousness of faith. For it is right to know from whom and through whom we are, so that the true confession of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit may lead us on to the heavenly kingdoms; for even the ancients, who not only kept the Law of the commandments but also loved God, having hope in the promise, have been justified before God. For he says that the Law alone does not justify men before God, just as neither does faith alone; excepting good works, it commends to God, but when righteousness both earthly and divine has been kept, it makes them perfect. Hence the Lord says: Unless your righteousness shall abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

LXVII. IF IN CHRIST ALL THE TREASURES OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE ARE HIDDEN, HOW IS IT THAT THE SAME SAVIOR SAYS CONCERNING THE DAY AND HOUR OF THE FUTURE JUDGMENT THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW IT? BUT IF HE KNOWS IT AND SAYS THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW IT, HE SEEMS TO LIE.

This saying contains a twofold sense. For he says that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ in such a way that whoever has Christ in place of all wisdom and knowledge yields to him, so that to know Christ is to know the whole and to have comprehended all wisdom, as he says to the Colossians: Let no one circumvent you through philosophy and empty seduction according to the elements of this world and not according to Christ, because in him dwells all the fullness of divinity bodily — that is, that he who believes in Christ lacks nothing for salvation, but that this abounds to him, because the fullness of divinity is in his faith. And again in the same epistle he says among other things: Let no one seduce you in humiliation of heart and in the superstition of angels, which he sees, exalting himself, vainly puffed up in the mind of his flesh and not holding the head, from which the whole body, supplied and brought forth, grows into the increase of God. If therefore those believing in Christ venerate the head of every principality and power, they lack nothing, but have all that is needful for salvation; it will in no way harm them not to know the lower things, which contribute nothing to salvation, when they know that which is necessary. In this manner, therefore, those are to be said to know the whole who know that which profits them unto salvation.

There is also this point: 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 himself measures every creature; and the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, and no one knows what is in God except the Spirit of God, which is also the Spirit of Christ. How, then, is he to be said not to know the day and hour of the coming judgment—he whose Spirit knows the things that are in God, and of whom he said that it "received of his own"? If, then, the one who received of his own knows the things that are to come, how does Christ, who sent us the Holy Spirit, not know them? And can it be that the judge does not know the day of the coming judgment, seeing that he has given all the signs of when it is to be expected? Perhaps too these may be said truly not to be known—those to whom he will say: "Amen I say to you, I know you not." Nor will the foolish and improvident virgins be said not to be known, because he said also—when they themselves said: "Lord, Lord, open to us"—: "Amen I say to you, I know you not." There is, then, a reason why he says he does not know what he does know. Finally, thus he says: "Watch therefore, because you know not at what hour your Lord will come." In order, then, that he might make us anxious and watchful, when questioned he said he did not know the day and hour of the coming judgment, but so that it might profit us, he denied that he knew what he does know. Since, then, we are ignorant, what does it profit us—for we want to know that which, if we know it, will do us harm—but Christ, the provider of our salvation, lest we should hear what would be against us, said that he did not know. Surely, if to someone set in pain and demanding a sword, that he might destroy himself, the one who has it should answer that he does not have it, he will not be liable to be charged with lying for denying it—since, if he did not deny it, he would know the opposite?

LXVIII.

LXVIII = LXXXII

LXVIIII. THE SAVIOR SAYS: "WHOEVER DOES NOT LEAVE ALL HIS POSSESSIONS," THAT IS, HOUSE AND FIELD AND THE REST, "CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE"; AND ON THE CONTRARY THE EVANGELIST SAYS: "THERE CAME," HE SAYS, "JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA, A RICH MAN, WHO ALSO HIMSELF WAS A DISCIPLE OF JESUS, WAITING FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD": HOW IS IT THAT THE EVANGELIST DECLARES HIM A DISCIPLE, WHOM THE SAVIOR DENIED? FOR ZACCHAEUS TOO WAS RICH, AND CORNELIUS THE CENTURION WAS RICH, AND THE WOMEN WHO MINISTERED TO HIM OUT OF THEIR OWN MEANS.

The apostle resolves this meaning in a few words, saying: let those who have be as though not having, and those who use this world as though they used it not, and those who buy as though not possessing. Whoever, then, has these things in such a way as though he had them not, is seen to have left them. For when he does not presume upon them nor boast himself, but walks humbly not only in bearing but also in mind, understanding that he has been given as a steward and minister of them, he is seen to have left all his possessions. For this is said to be left, which withdraws from desire and holds no favor.

LXX. HOW IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR SAYS TO MARY, WHO WISHES TO TOUCH HIM OUT OF JOY: "TOUCH ME NOT; FOR I HAVE NOT YET ASCENDED TO THE FATHER," WHEN IT IS READ THAT BY THE OTHER WOMEN HE WAS BOTH TOUCHED AND ADORED?

They are the words of one indignant, saying: Touch me not. For although she longed for the Savior, yet, while others believed in his resurrection, she stood weeping at the tomb, when she ought already to have rejoiced. For she had heard from the apostles John and Peter that the Lord had risen. For thus you have it: and he saw the linen cloths and the napkin in one place, and he believed; for as yet they did not know the Scriptures, that it behooved him to rise again from the dead. But Mary, because she had not seen him risen, did not believe. For her excessive love made her doubt. In short: those whom we love, if they suffer some misfortune, we do not believe that they escape it; but those whom we hate, if they are already near death, it is incredible to us. To Mary therefore, since she was stunned and was suffering grief through love — she who ought to have followed the faith of the disciples — the Lord first showed himself, that she might cease from grief, yet not without indignation. Hence she hears: Touch me not, that is: 'You are following the carnal sense; abstain from it and follow the spiritual things, which are not seen.' For, he says, I have not yet ascended to the Father.

This is like that saying of John the Baptist sending his disciples to Jesus and saying: Go and say: John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, Are you he who is to come, or do we look for another? Under his own person he pleads 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 sin of the world; but in order to satisfy his disciples, he sends them with his own words, so that he might confirm by the Savior's mouth what he himself was teaching about him, so that after his departure his disciples might follow Christ without any doubt. So also the Savior reproves Mary in himself, saying: I have not yet ascended to the Father, that is: 'Your heart is still pressed to the ground, you who, if you do not see, do not believe.' For if she had lifted up her heart to God, she would have believed with the disciples that the Lord had risen.

LXXI. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE SAVIOR SAYS: 'I AM THE DOOR; THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE ME ARE THIEVES AND ROBBERS'? WHICH SAYING 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 words of a door, what need was there for him to say concerning those before: as many as came before me, since no question was being raised about the past, but rather, as a present door, he was complaining about present matters? For the Savior speaks of the Jews, who thought to enter into the kingdom of God not through faith, but through the righteousness of the law. For coming before the Savior, that is, standing before him, they disparaged him, contradicting him, so as to turn others also away from faith in him, whence they were called thieves and robbers. For at that time these things were said, when the Pharisees were disputing with him who had been born blind, to whom the Savior restored the eyes which nature had denied, whom they wished to turn away from faith in the Savior, saying that it could not be through this one, because he violates the sabbath, but that the kingdom of God is entered through the righteousness of the law. Then the Savior said: I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he shall be saved and shall find pasture; but if anyone wishes to enter by another way, he is a thief and a robber.

How does this pertain to the person of the prophets? Were the prophets thieves and robbers? Did the doctrine of the prophets concerning Christ say that one could earn God's favor through the righteousness of the law without faith — the prophets who knew that Christ would come in the flesh? Therefore he said this about those present, so that whoever existed before him, whether standing or sitting, are to be understood as thieves and robbers. For those who called that man aside, the one who had been blind, wished to turn him away from faith in the Savior, saying: Give honor to God; we know that this man is a sinner — men whom he refuted, saying: From the beginning of the world it was never heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing. Concerning this man, then, because he persevered in the faith, and concerning those who said: These words are not those of one who has a demon; can a demon open the eyes of the blind? — the Savior said: But the sheep did not hear them, namely those whom he called thieves and robbers. For how did the sheep not hear the prophets, when it is established in the Scriptures that all the good obey the prophets and the evil obey the false prophets?

LXXII. THE APOSTLE SAYS THAT CHRIST DIED FOR ALL; FOR HE SPEAKS THUS: 'THEREFORE ALL ARE DEAD, AND HE DIED FOR ALL', BUT THE LORD HIMSELF SAYS: 'THE SON OF MAN CAME TO GIVE HIS LIFE AS A REDEMPTION FOR MANY': IN THIS WAY THERE IS A CONTRADICTION.

The words indeed are different, but the sense is one, just as again the same words have a different sense, as for instance: that which is not of faith is sin, and: the law, he says, is not of faith, and yet it is not sin. Those, then, whom the Savior called (many), these the Apostle designated as 'all.' For they are many, since the greatest part out of every people and nation is going to believe in the Savior. These believers the Apostle called (all); for so among other things he says: and he died for all, namely for those who have believed and are going to believe. He also died even for those who are unwilling to believe; but while they do not receive the benefit, they are unwilling that Christ should have died for them, and on this account he does not seem to have died for those to whom he profited nothing but rather did harm. But he is rightly said to have died for those for whom the victory has been won, who, understanding the mystery, give thanks to God through Christ our Lord.

LXXIII. HOW IS IT THAT DAVID SAYS: 'LET THEM BE CONFOUNDED AND ASHAMED WHO SAY TO ME: 'AHA, AHA', BUT THE LORD SAYS, 'WELL DONE, GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT', AND THE REST? THAT WHICH DAVID TOOK AS A REPROACH AND AN EVIL, THIS THE SAVIOR SHOWS TO BE WORTHY OF GOOD MERITS?

This does not differ greatly from the earlier question. For one and the same word has different meanings, as I mentioned above. For the detractors of David, since they favored his ruin, rejoiced at his misfortunes. For while he was suffering pressures and distresses from Saul and from his son Absalom, they said that it was rightly and well done. It is like when someone says of a man who suffers wrongs: 'It is well for him this, to rejoice in evils' — that is to say: 'It is rightly done to him; for so he deserves.' In a similar way the Savior too, glad at good works, pronounces a man's merit, saying: Well done, good and faithful servant. For he exults, because the servant made himself more worthy, saying: 'well,' that is: 'you have done rightly, so as to lay up a greater merit.' Therefore one and the same word is fitted to two contrary cases. For we are accustomed to say of someone: 'he has been sentenced,' but in what sense it is said, the cause either following or foregoing makes clear; for sometimes it is said toward good, sometimes toward evil, just as desire also is sometimes fitted to good, sometimes to evil.

LXXIIII.

LXXIIII = XCVIIII

LXXV. THE APOSTLE CALLS THE LAW GIVEN BY MOSES HOLY AND JUST AND GOOD AND SPIRITUAL, AND ELSEWHERE HE SAYS: 'FOR THE LAW WORKS WRATH' AND: 'WHERE THERE IS NO LAW, NEITHER IS THERE TRANSGRESSION.' FOR TO BE WITHOUT THESE IS SECURITY.

By comparing the sayings themselves you ought to have satisfied yourself sufficiently. For doubters are wont to make questions in such a way that the sayings of one man — and one whom it is not lawful to reprehend — are sought out as conflicting and hostile. For if the apostle calls the law holy and just and good and spiritual, a man preeminent in all praise and on every side fortified with truth, this would suffice for faith; and concerning that which seems contrary, inquiry ought to have been made without obstinacy.

For this proposition wishes for impunity in sinning. For the apostle indeed, when he preferred the law of faith on account of the merit of the time and grace among the Romans, who under the faith of Christ had been led into the law — 'into the law' I say, not that which is natural (for the Romans were indeed under the law which the ten men sent from Athens, and afterward two others, had brought, which was written on two tables, which were buried in the Capitol), but that same one which is called the law 'of works,' that they should be circumcised, observe the sabbath and the new moons, distinguish foods, be anxious about the cleansing of vessels, and the rest which are contained in a law of this kind — this law, then, he says works wrath. For on this account these things were added by an angry God, that they might be a burden to the perfidy of the Jews; for out of so many things it is necessary that something be passed over. Whence the apostle Peter says: Why do you impose a yoke upon the neck of the brethren, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Finally God says through Jeremiah the prophet: I gave them precepts that were not good. For after many offenses and temptings against God and insults done to Moses and disparagements made concerning God, these things were given, which they should observe, that their hard neck might be pressed down and, wherever they turned, they might have the law, so that there might be no refreshment for them.

So in order to remove them from this law, the apostle says: where there is no law, neither is there transgression, so that being untroubled they might be able to serve God spiritually by a shortcut, "(because)," he says, "those who keep the law of the Jews must necessarily transgress; for so many are the precepts that it is impossible to fulfill them."

For how could he say this about that law which is natural? — the law which Moses wrote for this reason, that he might confirm its authority, not because it did not exist before, since we read that vengeance was taken before Moses — but rather that he might set forth that the Romans ought no longer to live under the law, whom it was expedient to conduct themselves under law; for otherwise they could not preserve righteousness. Finally he says to them: do you wish not to fear the power? Do good; and: those who despise it acquire damnation for themselves.

Therefore he calls this law spiritual, which he also shows to be holy and just and good. This is the law which we have called natural, which forbids sinning; for it is the guide of a good life. To this, when the law of faith is added, it makes a person perfect. For because both this law, which I have called natural, and that law, which is called the law of works, are designated by a common name, the apostle seems to speak against the law; <but> lest he should seem to nullify this law, without which this life cannot be governed, he says: we know that the law is spiritual, so that it might be understood as distinct from that law which he nullifies. that the law of the sabbath and of circumcision and of foods and of new moons was to be understood. For that law is called spiritual for this reason, because it lays aside all sins.

LXXVI. IF THE JEWS RECEIVED HARSH COMMANDMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR DISTRUST AND DISPARAGEMENTS, WHAT HAD THEIR SONS SINNED, THAT THEY TOO SHOULD BE BOUND BY THESE COMMANDMENTS?

The law was given to the fathers, which would be a like burden to the sons. For afterward they sinned against God not less, but perhaps more, than their fathers. For God, being foreknowing, gave this law rather to the sons, because those others all perished in the wilderness.

LXXVII. WHEN THE SAVIOR SAYS: 'I PRAY FOR THEM. FOR THOSE WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN ME, I DO NOT PRAY FOR THE WORLD', THE APOSTLE JOHN, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS: 'WE HAVE AN ADVOCATE WITH THE FATHER, AN INTERCESSOR FOR OUR SINS, AND NOT ONLY FOR OURS, BUT FOR THE WHOLE WORLD': THIS SEEMS CONTRADICTORY.

Although the sense does not differ greatly, nevertheless what the Savior says is one thing, and what the apostle John affirms is another. For the Savior prays for his disciples, that they may be kept safe from the assault of the evil one. Finally he says thus: I do not pray 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 asks for our sins and for those of the whole world. For Christians, therefore, he asks in a twofold manner, because he both prays for their sins and that they may be kept safe from the assault of the devil. But for those who do not believe, this is the only entreaty: that, when they deserve to be punished for their sins and unbelief, the goodness and patience of God may wait for them, in case they should perhaps be willing to be corrected. For he does not ask that the sins be pardoned to those who distrust, but that they may receive a long delay, so that, if they should amend themselves, their offenses may be forgiven them. This, therefore, the Savior asks for them, as we have said.

LXXVIII. IN THE GOSPEL WE READ THAT THE ANGEL SAYS TO MARY THE MOTHER OF THE LORD THAT 'OF HIS KINGDOM', THAT IS, CHRIST'S, 'THERE SHALL BE NO END', AND DANIEL SPEAKS OF THIS IN THE SAME SENSE; FOR HE SAYS: THEN SHALL ARISE AN ETERNAL KINGDOM, WHICH SHALL NEVER BE DESTROYED'. AGAINST THIS THE APOSTLE SAYS OF THE LORD: 'WHEN HE SHALL HAVE DELIVERED UP', HE SAYS, 'THE KINGDOM TO GOD AND THE FATHER'. HOW WILL HE HAVE AN ETERNAL KINGDOM, WHICH HE IS SAID TO BE ABOUT TO DELIVER UP TO GOD AND THE FATHER?

In the case of the Father and the Son, that is, of God and Christ, a handing over is understood, not an abolition. For consider in what manner the Father handed over the kingdom to the Son, the Lord himself attesting this very thing: for all things, he says, have been handed over to me by my Father. If therefore the Father ceased to have it when he handed it over, it can also be said of the Savior that, when he handed it over, he lost it. For the Son, after he said that the kingdom had been handed over to him by the Father, still preferring the Father, says: but this is eternal life, that they may know thee the only and true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. According to this sense, then, the Son too does not lose the kingdom when he hands it over, so that these things may be true, and the angel and Daniel are said not to be at variance with this sense. For whoever thinks that the testimony of these ought to be disparaged is full of faithlessness.

But now let us see, remaining in this faith, what it is for the Son to hand over the kingdom to the Father; for this is what, among other things, the Apostle says in another place: then shall the Son himself also be subject to him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all. This subjection, therefore, is itself the handing over of the kingdom. And so in this place an interpretation seems necessary, so that both the Son may not be denied to be subject to the Father, and nonetheless he may be said to have an eternal kingdom, that is, the kingdom of the Son, because in his name every knee is bowed, of things heavenly, earthly, and infernal. This also the Apostle Peter affirms, saying: there is no other name given under heaven, in which we must be saved. And the Lord himself says to his disciples: hitherto you have not asked anything in my name: ask, and I will do it. Thus the Son reigns, when all things are saved in his name and the things that are asked are given, even to the end of the world.

But after all things shall have confessed Christ, whether by force or by will, and shall have been laid beneath the power of him whom they had resisted, the mystery of the one God shall be made manifest to all, and every giving of thanks shall be referred to the Father, from whom are all things, so that, preaching having ceased, the one God may be known in the mystery of the Trinity. For when all powers and principalities and dominions shall have bowed the knee to Christ, then the Son shall make manifest that it is not he from whom are all things, but the Son of him, and that he is seen in himself. This is the subjection and the handing over of the kingdom. For in showing that it is the Father from whom are all things, he subjects himself to him, when he says that he is from him. For so great a brightness and majesty shall be seen at the coming of the Son, that all the powers and choirs of angels shall think this one to be the singular God. But the Savior, when he shall have said that he is not the one who is called the Father, but his Son, while reigning hands over the kingdom to the Father. In this matter is made manifest both the subjection and the handing over of the kingdom, because, when he professes that he is from the Father, he confesses that whatever he has is the Father's, referring the whole sum to him.

LXXVIIII.

LXXVIIII = LXXXIII

LXXX. WHAT NEED WAS THERE FOR THE APOSTLE, IN REBUKING THE GALATIANS, TO INSERT THIS — FOR, TO THE GALATIANS WHO WERE TAKING REFUGE IN THE LAW AFTER THE GOSPEL, HE SAYS AMONG OTHER THINGS: 'FOR A MEDIATOR IS NOT OF ONE, BUT GOD IS ONE' —, AS THOUGH THE GALATIANS WERE DENYING THE ONE GOD, SEEING THAT THEY HAD BEEN LED INTO THE LAW ON THIS VERY GROUND, THAT THEY SHOULD BELIEVE IN A GOD WHO IS ONE AND SINGULAR, BUT THAT CHRIST HAD COME MERELY AS A MINISTER BY PREDESTINATION TO DISPENSE THE GIFT OF GOD'S GRACE?

It is clear that the Galatians had been led into the law in such a way that they also professed Christ, but not as is fitting, but after the manner of Photinus: namely, that because the law proclaims one God, it is against the law if Christ be called God. This is a contrivance of the Jews, who, overcome by the mighty works of his powers, believed in Christ after the cross, yet in such a way that, while professing Christ, they nevertheless kept the law, as though not all hope were to be placed in Christ. These are they whom the apostle calls false brethren. These men, then, after the tradition of the apostles, had corrupted the understanding of the Galatians, so as to make them Jews under the name of the Savior. Hence the apostle says that Christ came as an arbiter between circumcision and uncircumcision, as he says to the Ephesians: making peace in one new man. If therefore Christ came as an arbiter, and an arbiter makes peace between two parties in such a way that he lays down a new rule, taking away from both their professions, he reconciles them so that, following his verdict, they may lose their former discord. For while the Jew champions circumcision and the Gentile uncircumcision, discord arises; but when this is taken away, peace comes about.

'If, then, these things are so, how is it,' he says, 'that you, O Galatians, having become Jews, corrupt the arbitration of Christ?' Therefore he said to them: you have been made void of Christ. For, spurning the right of reconciliation which he had established between them, they turned back to the former understanding of the Jews, accusing both themselves and the reconciler; for everything that displeases is accused: and because this matter had compelled the Galatians to turn to the law, so as to confess one God without the mystery, as though it were hostile to the law if Christ were called God, he says: an arbiter, that is, a mediator, is not of one — but assuredly of two; but you, having turned to the law, have refused the arbiter —, God nevertheless is one.' By saying this he testifies that he does not proclaim Christ as God in such a way as to make another God or to profess two, but that God is one, as was also said in the law, because, when Christ is proclaimed as God from God, it does not tend toward another God, since that which is from God does not allow itself to be called another God. For whether it be God, or that which is from God, God is one. For there is assuredly no difference between God and that which is from God; yet he is another. For he is another with respect to the person by which he is named Son, but the same with respect to the unity of substance. Lest it seem blameworthy that I have said 'person'; for some are wont to reject it, but let us follow the apostle who says: for what I have granted, if I have granted anything, it was for your sake in the person of Christ.

LXXXI. WHEN THE SAVIOR SAID THAT HE WOULD SUFFER AND WOULD RISE AGAIN AFTER THE THIRD DAY, HE ADDED: 'AND AFTER I HAVE RISEN, I WILL GO BEFORE YOU INTO GALILEE; THERE YOU WILL SEE ME'. AND THE ANGEL SAID THE SAME TO THE WOMEN. YET HE IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN SEEN BY THE WOMEN AND BY HIS DISCIPLES IN JERUSALEM.

To call the words of the Savior into question is the mark of an unbeliever, but I see that you do not doubt the Savior's words but seek their meaning: why, when he was seen in Jerusalem after his passion, he said that he would be seen by them in Galilee. In Jerusalem he was indeed seen, but piecemeal, to restore the spirits of the disciples; in Galilee, however, by all of them together. Therefore, to those who were going to see him in parts in Jerusalem, he appointed Galilee, so that he might appear to all at once and give precepts for setting the discipline in order.

LXXXII. THE APOSTLE PAUL INDICATES THAT ONE MUST NOT BE GRIEVED OVER THE DEAD; FOR IT BELONGS TO THOSE WITHOUT HOPE TO GRIEVE. YET HE HIMSELF SAYS OF EPAPHRODITUS: 'HE WAS SICK,' HE SAYS, 'NEAR TO DEATH. BUT GOD HAD MERCY ON HIM; AND NOT ON HIM ONLY, BUT ON ME ALSO, LEST I SHOULD HAVE SORROW UPON SORROW'. HOW DOES HE FORBID GRIEVING, WHEN HE HIMSELF DECLARES THAT HE WOULD HAVE GRIEVED, IF EPAPHRODITUS HAD DIED?

The Apostle indicated that he would have grieved over the death of Epaphroditus, had it come to pass, in one way, and he forbids grieving in another way. For here, on account of the comfort of his help, which he was making use of in the gospel, he said that he would have grieved if he had died; but he forbids us to grieve in such a way that we should not mourn the departed as though they were extinguished and lost, despairing of the resurrection. It is therefore one thing to seek comfort as for one absent, and another to grieve over the destruction of one who no longer will be. In the former case consolation ceases; in the latter despair is shut out.

LXXXIII. HOW IS IT THAT, ALTHOUGH THE APOSTLES HEALED ALL THE SICK BROUGHT TO THEM, THEY NEVERTHELESS GAVE NO REMEDY TO THEIR OWN SICK? FOR SURELY EPAPHRODITUS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SICK EVEN TO THE POINT OF DEATH, IF THE APOSTLE'S INTERCESSION HAD BEEN HEARD. FOR WHO WOULD 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 mighty works were therefore performed by the apostles in order that unbelief might be compelled to faith, so that, seeing deeds which are impossible for men, they might recognize from this that the preaching was of God and might prove by the mighty work that there is reason in faith; so that, since words are always contradicted, a mighty work was set forth as a witness, and when words yield to it, it signifies that there is in faith a reason which cannot be expressed in words. Among the faithful, therefore, signs and wonders are no longer necessary, but rather a firm hope. For after it is learned that the things which have been promised are true, the mind arms itself for this, that, despising present things, it may prove itself worthy of things to come, laying up merit for itself through toil — as Solomon testifies, who says: Son, when you come to the service of God, stand in righteousness and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation. Because a man makes progress through temptations, these admonitions have been given. Whence the apostle says: Through tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. These temptations of tribulations happen in various ways, so that the mind, persevering in the faith it has received, may be crowned. For a man is tempted not only in faith, but also in sickness and in loss and in persecution and in the death of those dear to him, so that, if in these sufferings he has not been led away to the aid of demons, he may earn martyrdom without the price of blood. Not, therefore, to the harm of Epaphroditus did the apostle fail to obtain what he asked, but to his advantage, because in his own case too, when he had made his request, he heard: My grace is sufficient for you; for strength is made perfect in weakness.

LXXXIIII.

LXXXIIII = XCV

LXXXV.

LXXXV = LXXI

LXXXVI.

LXXXVI = LXXXIIII

LXXXVII.

LXXXVII = LXXXVIIII

LXXXVIII.

LXXXVIII = XC

LXXXVIIII.

LXXXVIIII = XCII

XC.

XC = XCIII

XCI.

XCI = XCVI

XCII. ON THE ETERNITY OF THE SON.

Since there are certain persons who, with the darkness of error not yet dispelled, and with the rot of a lethargic life neither purged nor wiped away, judging by an earthly understanding, doubt either concerning the Son of God or that two are one — for the treacherous and stubborn nation of the Jews, to whom the fountain of the law and the treasuries of the sacraments lay open, does not waver, but denies it with wicked utterances — I shall set forth briefly, as far as a more compressed treatment allows. For hope is left whole to the ignorant, if they are willing to learn; but perpetual punishment is appointed for those who dissemble.

God, the almighty, since he is more excellent in greatness and goodness, was bound to bring forth from himself and to display something great and supremely good; yet, if he had brought forth anything that fell short of the measure of his own excellence, he would seem either to have been unable to do more — which does not apply to one who is almighty — or to have been unwilling — which does not apply to one who is most kind. Assuredly it would have been no great thing for the most high God to have made something which, being placed within himself, was not to possess the force of his full supremacy. Above himself, then, there was nothing — for there is nothing that surpasses God —; below himself would have been too little, because what is less than the greatest was not fitting. And so, creating his Son most like himself, he brought forth from himself as it were a second self, and thus that highest and greatest good, which is supplied to us from God, overflowed to us through the propagation of him to us.

Nay, this reasoning too must at the same time be understood: that God, who founded this world — who among the other marvels of beauty and ordered arrangement also bestowed on the nature of things the power of creating, for the bringing forth of the offspring of each one's own kind — himself certainly first possessed what he gave. For no one gives what he does not himself have. He, therefore, who had a Son corresponding to himself in every part of likeness — that is, being one he had an only one, being upright an upright one, being good a kindly one, being blessed a blessed one, being greatest a greatest one, being everlasting an eternal one — certainly possessed, before the world, the sovereign primacy of his begotten offspring, from which he imparted the pattern to things coming into being, so that the shoots of things begetting were constrained to answer to their own seeds. Nor indeed did lawful order allow it otherwise than that he who was to be the father of things ought first to be a father in his own right — that is, of his own offspring.

But when we said that the Son was brought forth, it is not to be understood as though he had a birth like ours and was born in the way we see mortals born, when, with the offspring bursting forth, things come into existence which before were not. For those things, conceived from seeds implanted from elsewhere, coalesce out of the diversity of the elements into the assembly of their own kind's form; but here, divinely, with no aid of external admixture, he drew out and brought forth from himself that which he had within himself and with himself always. For, just as, if we say that light is born from the sun, because it proceeds and flows forth from it, we by no means say it in such a way as though the sun could at some time be, or ever was, without light, so that it begot the light at some time later than itself, but rather in the sense that, that which it has always held with itself, it — namely light begotten of itself without any distinction of a beginning that was commenced — since it always shines, always illuminates by it out of itself as by a renewing gift: so the Son of God, cleaving to the Father from eternity, held this likeness of him too, that he has neither a rising nor a setting. And as God is everlasting without origin, so also the Son is everlasting; and as God is one, simple and the same, so is he so commingled with the Father that, though distinct in names and in relations, they are nevertheless the same, one in both and each in the other, continuous in inseparable majesty.

God therefore so contains and embraces within himself the Son — not drawn from discordant materials, but brought forth from the simple and single stock and seed-plot of his own nature, always held within himself and never let go from himself by any separation — that nothing in the two is changed from that unity.

XCIII.

XCIII = XCI

XCIIII.

XCIIII = XCVII

XCV.

XCV non exstat.