Questions on the Old and New Testaments, Part 2

Questions on the Old and New Testaments, Part 2

Ambrosiaster

4th century

Anonymous Latin commentator on Paul.

Questions on the Old and New Testaments (part 2)

1 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Matthew 1:16; Luke. 3:23) 2 QUESTION 56. WHY IS IT THAT IN MATTHEW JOSEPH’S FATHER IS WRITTEN AS JACOB, AND IN LUKE AS HELI, SO THAT HE SEEMS TO BE IGNORANTLY DESCRIBED AS HAVING TWO FATHERS, OR AT LEAST SO THAT WHO HIS TRUE FATHER IS REMAINS UNKNOWN (Matt. 1:16; Luke 3:23)? — There is no doubt that Jacob was Joseph’s father. For the line from David through Solomon maintains its course and, proceeding straight, reaches Jacob, whose son is Joseph. Heli, however, the son of Matthat, holds the line from David through Nathan, David’s son, down to the time when the Savior came. Therefore each Evangelist, following from David the line of different brothers, makes, as it were, a fork: so that Matthew descends from David through Solomon to Joseph, while Luke, starting from Heli, who lived in the Savior’s time, ascends through the stock of Nathan, the son of David, and joins the tribe of both Heli and Joseph, showing that both are of one and the same stock; so that when he associates Joseph with Heli, he shows them not to differ in lineage, but to be brothers. And by this not only is the Savior shown to be the son of Joseph, but also of Heli. For by the very reasoning by which the Savior is called the son of Joseph, he is also the son of Heli, and of all the others who belong to the same tribe. Therefore the Apostle says, “whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:5).

3 Moved by divine prompting, Luke ascends from Heli through the line of Nathan to David, and through Thara, David’s father, ascends to Shem the son of Noah, and still further, beyond the Flood, reaches Seth the son of Adam, who was given in place of Abel; and in the same way he makes the Savior the son of Adam as he was said to be the son of Joseph and of Heli. Then, going beyond Adam, he assigns Christ to be the Son of God before all flesh. The opinion held by some, that Heli had taken the wife of Jacob, as the Law commanded that if anyone died without children, his brother or kinsman should take his wife and raise up seed for his brother (Deut. 25:5), and that it therefore happened that Heli fathered Joseph for Jacob, whose wife he had taken, and that in this way the genealogies were joined, so that Joseph is rightly said to have Heli as father, is neither plausible nor useful for anything. Rather, what was said above joins by genealogy two brothers, sons of one man, and shows Christ to be the Son of God before every generation. For when the Evangelist reports, saying, “And Jesus himself, when he began, was about thirty years old, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, who was the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23), that is: Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph; and he was not only Joseph’s son, but also Heli’s.

4 Not because he calls Joseph the son of Heli, but because in the same sense in which Jesus was called Joseph’s son, he was also Heli’s son, since Joseph and Heli were sons of brothers, namely of Solomon and Nathan, the sons of David. Therefore, by ascending through David to Abraham and Noah and Seth and to Adam himself, and beyond Adam, he teaches 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 indeed calls Christ the son of Adam in the same way that he was called the son of Joseph. For Mary says to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Behold, your father and I have been seeking you sorrowing” (Luke 2:48). But beyond Adam he joins Christ to God the Father, so that he who was called son of these, from Adam up to Joseph and Heli, may be understood to be before them all as the true Son of God, to the confusion of Photinus, who insists that Christ is only from Mary, and did not exist before. Of those whose son he was not, he was called son; yet of God, whose true Son he was, this was denied. If, however, which is unlikely and of no benefit, Joseph is called Heli’s son in the way we mentioned above, it will appear that the Evangelist did not say this of Christ, that he was the Son of God, but of Adam.

5 For by listing fathers in the order of successive sons, he comes to Enos, whose father he calls Seth, and Seth’s father he calls Adam, and Adam’s father he calls God; and I do not see what good there is in asserting it this way. But if, in the order we have described, all the fathers are said to be Christ’s fathers, just as he was said to be Joseph’s son, because it is written, “whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh,” (Rom. 9:5) then by this order he is read as son of Seth and son of Adam. And above all these he is designated the Son of God, so that he is said to exist before those whose son he is called. 6 (Matthew 1:16; Luke. 3:23) 7 QUESTION 6. THEREFORE, IN MATTHEW JOSEPH’S FATHER IS WRITTEN AS JACOB, AND IN LUKE AS HELI; SO THAT HE IS EITHER IGNORANTLY DESCRIBED AS HAVING TWO FATHERS, OR AT LEAST IT IS UNCLEAR WHO HIS TRUE FATHER IS? — There is no doubt that Jacob was Joseph's father. In fact, the genealogy starts from David, descends by Solomon and reaches in a straight line until Jacob, of which Joseph is the son. The genealogy of Heli, on the contrary, the son of Mathat, is true of David, but descends by Nathan, also son of David, until the time of the advent of the Savior. Now, the two evangelists, following the genealogy of each of the two brothers, made a split, that is to say that St. Matthew descends from David by Solomon to Joseph; while St. Luke ascends from Eli, contemporary with the Savior, by the line of Mathat, son of Nathan, son of David, and he unites the tribes of Eli and Joseph, to show that they are of the same family. By associating Heli with Joseph, he shows that their genealogy is no different, but that they are brothers, and that consequently the Savior is not only Joseph's son, but also Eli's son. For the same reason, in fact, that the Savior is called the son of Joseph, he is also the son of Heli and all the others who are of the same tribe, a truth which the Apostle expresses in these terms: fathers the patriarchs, and from whom came out according to the flesh, Jesus Christ.

8 (Rom. 9:5) It is by a divine inspiration that St. Luke ascends from Heli by the line of Nathan to David, and by Tharam his father, to Sem, son of Noah, and before the flood, to Seth, son of Adam, given to him to replace Abel, and he presents the Savior as sons of Adam for the same reason that he calls him sons of Joseph and Eli. He raises him even above Adam, and before the existence of all flesh, he declares that Christ is the son of God. There are some who think that Heli had married Jacob's wife, following the law's prescription that if a man died childless, his brother or one of his relatives would marry his wife and give children to his brother. (Deut. 25:5) It is then understood, say they, that Joseph was begotten for his brother Jacob, whose wife he had married. The two genealogies are thus united, and it is not extraordinary that the evangelist gives Heli as his father to Joseph. This explanation has no probability and does not solve the difficulty. On the contrary, the sentiment which we have expounded above unites the two brothers of one father, and shows that Christ was the Son of God before any generation. How, indeed, does St. Luke express himself? "And Jesus, beginning his mission, was about thirty years old, as it was believed of Joseph, who was of Heli," that is, that it was believed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was not only Joseph's son, but also Eli's son.

9 (Luke 3:23) He does not say that Joseph was son of Eli, but just as Jesus was called Joseph's son, he was also sons of Eli, because Joseph and Heli were sons of two brothers, that is, of Solomon and Nathan, sons of David, and thus going up by David unto Abraham, and Noah, and Seth, even unto Adam himself, and over Adam, he taught that the Christ was the Son of God. Indeed, saying: "Who was son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God, he shows that Christ was the son of Adam in the same way that he was called the son of Joseph, that Mary said, “and my son, why did ye do this, and behold, we, your father and I, were greatly afflicted. 10 (Luke 2:48) But he rises above Adam for to unite Christ to God the Father, in order to make it clear that if he were called the son of all who descend from Adam to Joseph and Heli, he had before all these generations the true Son of God, and thus to confuse the error of Photius, who maintained that Christ came only from Mary and had not existed before him, so that he was given for fathers those of whom he was not the son, and denied that he was the God's true son, when he really was, if we adopt the explanation as improbable as useless as we have reported above, and according to he is called the son of Heli, the story of the evangelist simply means that Christ was the son of Adam, but not that he was the son of God. In going up, indeed, from the sons to the fathers, he arrives at Enoch, whose father is Seth, the father of Seth is Adam, and Adam has for father God; but I do not see that he was otherwise useful to express oneself in this way. If, on the contrary, each of those who form the continuation of the genealogy are called the fathers of Jesus Christ, in the same sense that he was called the son of Joseph, following these words: "Whose fathers are the patriarchs, and of whom went out according to the flesh Jesus Christ;

11 (Rom. 9:5) Following this order, we understand that the Evangelist says that he was son of Seth and son of Adam. And going back above all the patriarchs, he declares that he was the Son of God to show that he existed long before those of whom he is called the Son. 12 (Matthew 1:17) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 85. HOW IS IT, THEN, THAT ALTHOUGH IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT FROM DAVID DOWN TO THE BABYLONIAN EXILE THERE ARE SEVENTEEN GENERATIONS, THE EVANGELIST SAYS THERE ARE FOURTEEN (Matt. 1:17), OMITTING AHAZIAH, WHO AFTER JORAM IS THE SON OF JEHOSHAPHAT, AND JOASH THE SON OF AHAZIAH, AND AMAZIAH THE SON OF JOASH? — Nothing should seem more credible than that the Evangelist followed the intention of the Law. And therefore, not without reason, these men were removed by the Evangelist from the number of the others. For their wickedness continued in such a way that their wickedness had no break. The evil that began with Joram ran on in this way as far as Uzziah, the son of Amaziah, so that there was no support from any side by which any one of them might remain, in part by the merit of his father, in the number of the kings. For Joram, acting wickedly, is with good reason preceded by Jehoshaphat in the list; and Uzziah, with good reason, has Jotham preserved in the list. But the continuous wickedness of those three was against God. Solomon too, by the merit of his father, is restored to the kingdom; and Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, acting wickedly, leaves Asa rightly in the number of the kings. But those three, shut in among the evildoers, acting wickedly, are therefore erased. For an example is worse, to the ruin of the line, when wickedness displays itself continually. And, to speak precisely, they are passed over because Joseph did not descend from their stock. For from Abraham the Evangelist followed the line of these generations, from which Joseph, to whom Mary was betrothed, draws his origin, she who bore Christ.

13 (Matthew 1:18) 1ST CATEGORY NT 14 QUESTION 52. IF CHRIST WAS BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT IS, IF BY HIS WORKING FLESH WAS MADE FROM MARY, WHY IS IT SAID, “WISDOM, WHICH IS CERTAINLY CHRIST, HAS BUILT A HOUSE FOR HERSELF” (Prov. 9:1)? — This question can be heard from a double point of view. First, the house of Jesus Christ is the Church, which was built by his blood. His body may also be called his house, just as it is called his temple. If it is called its temple because it is inhabited, it can also very well be called its home, as we read in the law. But if the body was formed by the operation of the Holy Spirit and we thought we could give it the name of house, we will ask why we attribute this formation to the person of Jesus Christ. The Son's operation is the Father's operation, because they have one and the same virtue. In the same way the operation of the Holy Spirit is the operation of the Son of God, because of the unity of nature and will. Whether the action comes from the Father, or from the Son, or from the Holy Spirit, it is the Trinity who acts, and all that is done by the three divine persons is the work of one God. The Son's operation is the Father's operation, because the Father and the Son have one and the same virtue.

15 In the same way, the operation of the Holy Spirit is the operation of Christ, because the Holy Spirit has received from what was his. If we consider the action of persons, it is by the operation of the Holy Spirit that Christ was made flesh, that is, made man; but if we consider the action of the divine nature, it is Christ who has worked in the virgin to become flesh; for the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ have one and the same divinity, and therefore the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of Jesus Christ. 16 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 52. IF CHRIST WAS BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT IS, IF BY HIS WORKING FLESH WAS MADE FROM MARY, WHY IS IT SAID, “WISDOM, WHICH IS CERTAINLY CHRIST, HAS BUILT A HOUSE FOR HERSELF” (Prov. 9:1)? — This question can be understood in a twofold way. First, the house of Christ is the Church, which He built for Himself by His own blood. Next, His body also can be called His house, just as it is called His temple. For if it is called the temple of God on account of His dwelling there, it will not be incorrectly called a house as well, as we read in the Law. But since the body was made by the working of the Holy Spirit, and we judge that it can be called a house, the question arises why this is referred to the person of Christ. The work of the Son is the work of the Father, because the power of both is one. In like manner, the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of the Son of God, on account of the unity of nature and 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.

17 QUESTION 52. IF CHRIST WAS BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT IS, IF BY HIS WORKING FLESH WAS MADE FROM MARY, WHY IS IT SAID, “WISDOM, WHICH IS CERTAINLY CHRIST, HAS BUILT A HOUSE FOR HERSELF” (Prov. 9:1)? — The work of the Son is the work of the Father, because the power of the Father and the Son is one. Therefore the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of Christ, because He received from Him. According to His person, therefore, Christ was made flesh, that is, born as a man, by the working of the Holy Spirit; but according to His divinity, Christ worked in the Virgin so that He might become flesh. For the divinity of the Holy Spirit and of Christ is one; and therefore the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of Christ. (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:6-7) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 53. IF ALL THINGS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REASON, WHY IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN BORN ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF JANUARY? — No one can be so dulled as to deny that God does all things with reason. Therefore Christ, descending from the heavenly seats to grant salvation to the world, also wished to teach the world itself and the seasons which he had established. He chose to be born as a man at that time when, after a great decrease, the light which is day begins to increase again, so as to turn the decline of the human race into growth in God: that the time of his birth might reasonably agree with the divine teaching, which, from the shadow of death, began to multiply men unto life.

18 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Matthew 2:2) QUESTION 63. BY WHAT REASONING DID THE CHALDEAN MAGI UNDERSTAND, FROM THE APPEARANCE OF A STAR, THAT CHRIST, THE KING OF THE JEWS, HAD BEEN BORN, SINCE A TEMPORAL KING IS USUALLY SIGNIFIED BY A STAR AS A SIGN (Matt. 2:1–2)? — These Chaldean Magi did not observe the course of the stars out of malevolence, but out of a curiosity about things. For, as can be understood, 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 them. From his report, therefore, they had learned that, by the providence of God, there would arise from Jacob one who would reign. Therefore, what is well known, he prophesied, saying, “A star shall rise out of Jacob,” etc. (Num. 23, 24). Following this tradition, then, the Magi, seeing a star outside the order of the cosmos, understood this to be the one which Balaam had prophesied would appear as the sign of the future King of the Jews. This indeed was done against the enemies of religion. For from the very quarter where it is usually discredited, it received testimony. For astrologers are enemies of the truth.

19 (Matthew 2:2) QUESTION 39. BY WHAT REASONING DID THE CHALDEAN MAGI UNDERSTAND, THROUGH THE STAR THAT APPEARED, THAT CHRIST, THE KING OF THE JEWS, HAD BEEN BORN, SINCE A TEMPORAL KING IS INDICATED BY A STAR AS A SIGN? (Matt. 2:1–2)? — These Chaldean Magi did not out of malevolence, etc. “A star shall rise out of Jacob, and a man shall arise from Israel, and he shall crush the leaders of Moab, and shall despoil all the sons of Seth, and Edom shall be his inheritance,” etc. (Num. 24:17-18) This, then, is the prophecy of Balaam, not because he was a prophet, but because God pleaded the cause of His people through him, not as a willing but as an unwilling instrument: just as those sent by Saul to seize David are found to have prophesied, and as Saul himself, when it was said, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (1 Kings 19:20–24). For by this God wished to show how great is the majesty of the God of the Jews, who, when Balaam had come to curse, turned him so that it seemed good to him to bless the people of God. For the Lord could not fear his curse, whose heart He held in His power. It is therefore understood that this prophet revealed this to his associates, who, being inquisitive about the stars, when they saw an unknown star shining with excessive brightness, so that it surpassed the sun in light (for it was seen even by day), comparing notes among themselves, realized that this was the star which Balaam had said would one day appear.

20 (Matthew 2:19, 14:1-11; Mark 6) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 11. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE FACT THAT ABOVE WE READ THAT HEROD DIED (Matt. 2:19), BUT LATER ON, AFTER MANY YEARS, WE READ THAT HEROD KILLED JOHN (Matt. 14:1–11), EVEN THOUGH JOHN OUTLIVED THE EARLIER HEROD WHO HAD DIED? — Herod was king of Judea; he had four sons: Archelaus, Herod, Philip, and Lysanias. But when Herod their father died, Archelaus succeeded him; when Archelaus died, the kingdom of the aforesaid Herod was divided into four parts, in such a way that Pilate was admitted to the fourth part of the kingdom as governor, not as king (Matt. 2:22 and Luke 3:1), while the sons of Herod were called kings. Finally, when Philip also died, his brother Herod took Philip’s wife, and it was because of this that he was criticized by John the Baptist; for this reason Herod, the son of the above-mentioned Herod, killed him. For what does it say? “Herod,” it says, “the tetrarch,” that is, placed over the fourth part of the kingdom of his father Herod. Why then is there any doubt, when the meaning of the added surname shows that this is another Herod? He is the very one who also killed James, the brother of John, with the sword, and who later, struck by the angel of God, burst forth with worms and died.

21 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT (Matthew 2:18) QUESTION 62. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ALTHOUGH THOSE WHO WERE KILLED WERE THE SONS OF LEAH, FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH, RACHEL IS SAID TO BE WEEPING FOR HER SONS (Matt. 2:18)? — As far as the historical sense goes, Rachel’s sons belong to the tribe of Benjamin. Now, in former times, because of their own crimes, namely the deeds of the Sodomites and the outrage committed against the concubine of the Levite, they were destroyed and wiped out by the other tribes (Judg. 19–20). Therefore she is said to refuse to accept comfort, knowing there is no hope for those who are known to have perished. But the sons of Leah were slain in early childhood for the sake of the Savior. Therefore he does not wish their case to be counted as the cause of her crying, because they were both innocent and killed for God’s sake, and without doubt, by the grace of reward, have been granted eternal life by Him. For this reason he says that Rachel’s crying rightly belongs to her sons, who have been erased both in the present life and in the future. The others, mourned in a bodily sense, have been comforted in a spiritual sense. But Rachel’s sons, who lived in a carnal manner, will be consumed by spiritual flames. The Evangelist therefore bears witness that the crying of Rachel was fulfilled in the death of Leah’s sons, because she began to weep for her sons at the moment when she saw her sister’s sons killed for such a cause that they should become heirs of eternal life. For when something adverse befalls a person, he grieves more bitterly over his own misfortune when he sees the happiness of another.

22 (Matthew 2:18) QUESTION 12. WHY IS IT THAT, WITH LEAH’S SONS SLAIN, WHO ARE FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH, RACHEL IS SAID TO BE WEEPING FOR HER SONS (Matt. 2:18)? — The children of Rachel, as history teaches us, were formerly devastated and destroyed by the other tribes, in punishment for their crimes against nature, and the infamous attack they levied on the wife of a Levite etc. (Matthew 3:14) 1ST CATEGORY NT 23 QUESTION 49. WHY WAS THE SAVIOR BAPTIZED, SINCE HE WAS BORN HOLY, AND WAS CALLED CHRIST THE LORD AT HIS VERY BIRTH, WHEN BAPTISM EXISTS FOR THE SAKE OF PURIFICATION AND OF SIN (Luke 2:11; Matt. 3:16)? — It is true and evident that the Savior did not need baptism; for Christ was not made but was born, as the angel said to the shepherds, “Behold, today there is born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. Indeed, John, knowing His holiness, tried to prevent Him from being baptized; but the Savior insisted that it had to be done, not, of course, on account of any sin of His, but for the fulfillment of righteousness. For it was fitting that He Himself should be an example to the future children of God, whom He taught to become children of God through Baptism; and since He promised that the Holy Spirit would be given by God to believers, He had to show this visibly in Himself, so that, once this was recognized, believers might hope to possess the Holy Spirit invisibly. For the Savior, being born of the Holy Spirit, assuredly had a purified body. The anointing of His flesh was given spiritually in the womb of the Virgin. For the Holy Spirit purified that which proceeded from the Virgin Mary into the body of the Savior; and this is the anointing of the flesh of the Savior’s body. Therefore He was called Christ also at His birth.

24 For what God used to grant through the anointing with oil by the ministry of the prophets to those who were anointed as kings, the Holy Spirit granted to the man Christ, with an additional explanation: the predecessors of Christ received only the authority of rule through anointing, but the Savior, as man, received both authority when He was born and purification when He was born. For it would have been unfitting that the Son of God should be born in a body subject to sins. Therefore, since He took up the cause of man and taught that through rebirth people become children of God, He had to be baptized, in order to show this as confirmed in Himself. What is said is easily proved and praised if it is seen to be done by the teacher; and so, too, the marks of virtue had to be revealed, so that, now appearing as the Son of God, He might, through the mystery of regeneration, bring healing to the sufferings of the body, and be an example to His future brothers, because through regeneration each person receives the power of virtue.

25 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22, John 1:32-34) QUESTION 50. IF THEREFORE THE SAVIOR WAS BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO BE AN EXAMPLE, WHY WAS HE CIRCUMCISED, YET FORBADE OTHERS TO BE CIRCUMCISED? — Circumcision is a commandment of a past time, which had to keep authority up to Christ, so that it would last as long as it was necessary for Christ, who was promised to Abraham, to be born; and thereafter circumcision should cease, once the promise had been fulfilled. For Isaac was promised as a figure of Christ. For God said to him, In your seed shall all nations be blessed (Gen. 22:18); which means Christ. For the faith that Abraham had received was restored by Christ, so that in the seed of Abraham, which is Christ, all nations might be blessed, as had been promised to Abraham. Circumcision, therefore, was the sign of the promised Son of God, that is, of Christ; and when He was born, the sign of the promise had to cease: yet in such a way that the Promised One Himself, on coming, would receive the sign of the Father, so that it might be known that He was the One who had been promised to justify all nations through faith, by the circumcision of the heart. For just as for the father Abraham, who was to have a son according to the flesh, the bodily mark of circumcision was given; so also for those who are born spiritually, the spiritual sign is the circumcision of the heart. Therefore, it was fitting that after Christ there should no longer be fleshly circumcision.

26 (Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22, John 1:32-34) QUESTION 22. IF THEREFORE THE SAVIOR WAS BAPTIZED SO AS TO BE AN EXAMPLE, WHY, WHEN HE WAS CIRCUMCISED, DID HE FORBID THE OTHERS TO BE CIRCUMCISED? — Circumcision was granted only up to Christ; and Abraham received circumcision with Christ in view as the one promised, so that circumcision would last only until Christ, who had been promised to Abraham, should be born, He who would justify all nations by faith, just as Abraham had been justified. Therefore He had to be circumcised, so that He might be proved to be the one who had been promised to Abraham; and therefore, after that, circumcision would cease, the promise having been fulfilled. But baptism was not to cease, because it is the pattern of being born again, begun by Christ: not previously given and brought to completion up to Christ, but beginning from the time of Christ and continuing its course until the end of the world.

27 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3: 22) 28 QUESTION 54. IF CHRIST, FROM THE SEED OF DAVID, HAS BEEN MADE THE SON OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE FLESH—THAT IS, IF HE WAS BORN ALREADY THE SON OF GOD IN BOTH RESPECTS, BECAUSE HE WAS BORN HOLY—HOW THEN, AFTER HE WAS BAPTIZED, WAS IT SAID TO HIM BY THE LORD GOD, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU” (Ps. 2:7)? — Christ, the Son of God, is from eternity according to the spirit of holiness; but according to the flesh, from the seed of David He was born the Son of God, so that in both respects He is not regarded as having been made the Son of God, but as having been born. Yet that which He hears at His baptism belongs to the mystery, and is not for His own sake. For this is what everyone who is baptized hears. He alone, however, is pointed out, so that from this it may be seen that in a man, by virtue, God is revealed; whereas the others 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 Christ as man would not have been confirmed as the Son of God by the sacrament of regeneration, unless He had received the Holy Spirit, according to the appointed gift of being reborn.

29 Indeed, even the Jews were called sons of God in their devotion, not in the sacrament which now works, by which, having received the remission of sins and with the Holy Spirit coming upon them, they are called sons of God. Therefore the Savior both was born according to the flesh as the Son of God, and later was confirmed in the mystery. For that which was born of the Holy Spirit could not but be born of God; but so that the purpose of the mystery might be fulfilled, when the Spirit came upon Him nothing was diminished, but increased. 30 (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3: 22) QUESTION 45. IF CHRIST WAS MADE THE SON OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE FLESH FROM THE SEED OF DAVID, THAT IS, IF HE WHO WAS BORN IS ALREADY THE SON OF GOD IN BOTH RESPECTS, BECAUSE HE WAS SANCTIFIED AT BIRTH, HOW THEN, AFTER HE WAS BAPTIZED, WAS IT SAID TO HIM BY GOD, “YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? (Ps. 2:7)? — Christ, the Son of God according to the spirit, is from eternity; but according to the flesh, He is the Son of God from the seed of David by birth. He was not made so through baptism, because, born of the Holy Spirit, He had a purified body. In baptism, however, He hears, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you,” so that He might show through the mystery of Baptism that sons of God are made. Indeed, when the Spirit descends and remains upon Him, He hears these words, because before one has received the Holy Spirit, one is not a son of God. He hears them, therefore, not for Himself, but for us, so that in Him we might learn how we could be sons of God. For He was not baptized for Himself, but for us; just as, in another place, the Lord Himself says, “This voice has not come for my sake, but for yours, that you may believe” (Jn. 12:30), so also this was done, that He might become a pattern for us.

31 (Matthew 4:3) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 7. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SAVIOR WAS BORN, THE SON OF GOD AND CALLED CHRIST: WHY THEN, AFTER BAPTISM, DID THE TEMPTER APPROACH HIM, SAYING, “IF YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD,” ETC. (Matt. 4:3)? — The Savior was born of the Virgin in such a way that He was both Christ and the Son of God, not by making, but by birth. Yet while He was still at a younger age, emptying His power, that is, concealing His own authority, He did not provoke the shamelessness of the Devil. But after He was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him, when He had appeared to human beings with the testimony of God the Father, the enemy was driven by the zeal of envy to insult Him, seeing that this event worked to his disadvantage: for he understood that the institution of baptism had been arranged for the salvation of human beings. Therefore he approaches the Savior, the author of this matter, not to approve it, but to find an opportunity to overthrow it. For temptation sometimes occurs for testing, sometimes under deceit for rebellion. He thought that he had drawn from the Savior a response in accordance with the trickery of his own will, so that he might securely possess his entire kingdom; for if, under the guidance of the Savior’s teaching, people were brought into subjection, no one would escape His condemnation.

32 (Matthew 4:4-10, Mark 1, Luke 4) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 8. WHY DOES THE SAVIOR, WHEN THE DEVIL IS TESTING HIM, RESIST IN NO OTHER WAY THAN WITH EXAMPLES FROM THE LAW (Matt. 4:4–10)? — The Savior not only replied to the Devil who was tempting Him, but also to the Jews through whom the wickedness of their cruelty was carried out against the Savior. For, foreseeing that the Jews would call Him an enemy of the Law, He checked the shamelessness of their father, the Devil, with testimonies from the Law, so that He might condemn the father in the sons, and the sons in the father. (Matthew 4:2, Mark 1, Luke 4) 2ND CATEGORY NT 33 QUESTION 9. WHY DID THE SAVIOR, AFTER HIS BAPTISM, FAST FOR FORTY DAYS AND THEN AFTERWARD GROW HUNGRY (Matt. 4:2)? FOR ONE WHO FASTED FORTY DAYS COULD HAVE ALREADY CEASED TO FEEL HUNGER. — It is written: “My son, when you come to serve God, stand fast in righteousness and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation” (Sirach 2:1). Therefore the Savior, to give us a pattern, fasted; so that we too, persistently devoted to fasting in like manner, may, with God’s help, overcome every movement of the Devil directed against us, knowing from the example of the Savior that we must especially beware of the snares of our adversary when we draw near to the fear of God. For he is grieved that we have departed from him; therefore he rages more fiercely against us. The Savior did this for us, not for Himself. Likewise His growing hungry was not for His own sake, but for ours. For when, by fasting, the temptations of the Devil had been overcome, temptations which are not recorded, precisely because they do not pertain to the advancement of doctrine, then afterward, that is, after forty days, He allowed Himself to suffer hunger (which belonged to His human nature); so that the Devil, already defeated, seeing in Him the weakness of hunger, would be stirred up once more to tempt Him, recognizing that it was a man who was overcoming him. For this was the mystery of the Savior:

34 that because he had mocked and ruled over man when man was defeated, he should be conquered by man, so that the power of God might win victory for man; and therefore Satan became more shameful, since he sees a man and yet perceives no merely human power. He marveled, dulled with astonishment, that there was a mystery present which escaped him: that he had the power to approach, but not to ensnare. He was tormented for two reasons: seeing weakness, he drew near, and then found strength; seeing a man, he became suspicious of the power of God. Therefore He hungered, in order to make sport of Satan’s cunning. And He did not fast longer, so that He might be in harmony with Moses and Elijah. 35 (Matthew 11:3-10, Mark 1, Luke 7) 2ND CATEGORY NT 36 QUESTION 10. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ALTHOUGH JOHN THE BAPTIST HAD PREVIOUSLY BORNE WITNESS TO THE SAVIOR, HE LATER SEEMED TO DOUBT, SAYING THROUGH HIS DISCIPLES: “ARE YOU THE ONE WHO IS TO COME, OR ARE WE TO EXPECT ANOTHER? (Matt. 11:3–10). — Those who think that doubt may have entered the soul of John the Baptist slander the Savior. For either they correctly claim that John doubted, or else they in fact accuse the Savior of lack of discernment; because, as they suppose, he praised someone who was thinking wrongly about him. But since it is impossible for the Savior to be mistaken, John was rightly praised by him. If he was rightly praised, he did not doubt. For at the very time when John sent his disciples from prison to Jesus, saying, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to expect another? Jesus then answered his disciples, saying: “Go and tell John what you see and hear. The blind see, the deaf hear, lepers are cleansed, the lame walk, the dead are raised, and blessed is he who is not scandalized by me. (Matt. 11:3-6) And as the messengers of John were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John the Baptist: “What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed shaken by the wind, or a man clothed in soft garments? Look, those who wear soft garments are in kings’ houses. But what did you go out to see? A prophet?

37 I tell you, yes, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written: Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you. (Matt. 11:7-10) Then the tax collectors, having been baptized with John’s baptism, praised God. How great a praise was given to John, that it should be said he is more than a prophet, and that the Savior calls blessed the one who is not scandalized in him. How then is John praised if, by doubting, he was scandalized? But surely he did not doubt. For this praise proves that he is blessed, because he was not scandalized. And the Savior also, for that very reason, broke out at that moment into praise of John, to show that John’s mind was free from the doubt of his disciples. For John, wishing to strengthen his disciples, who were amazed, in faith in the Savior, knowing that his own end was near, wanted what he said about him to be confirmed by the Savior’s own mouth. Therefore, in order to be a true witness, he calls upon the testimony of the greater one, so that by their agreement all uncertainty might be removed. This is John’s strategy: to send his doubting disciples, as it were, with his own words, so that, hearing from the Savior the same things they had heard from John, they might be made firm, knowing that the testimony of a worthy steward and of the heavenly Lord cannot be called into question.

38 For this reason the Savior also answered as though to John, so that between John, who asks, and the Savior, who answers, they might learn the truth. 39 (Matthew 3:14; John 1:31-33) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 58. IN WHAT WAY, THEN, DOES JOHN CLAIM THAT HE DID NOT KNOW CHRIST BEFORE THE BAPTISM, WHEN, AS HE CAME TO BE BAPTIZED, HE SAYS TO HIM, “I OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED BY YOU, AND DO YOU COME TO ME?” (John 1:31, 33; Matthew 3:14)? HOW COULD HE NOT KNOW HIM WHOM HE TRIED TO PREVENT, HUMBLING HIMSELF BEFORE HIM? — John was endowed with such holiness even from his very cradle that he is believed neither to be deceived nor to deceive, nor to be ignorant of his Lord, who had enlightened him in the womb through the Holy Spirit. And therefore it is true that he both recognized Him when the Spirit descended upon Him, and did not previously ignore Him before He came to the baptism. For he knew Him, but he did not know whether He was the very one who was to distribute the gift of God long ago promised to the Fathers. This is what he acknowledges that he then learned, when he saw the Spirit descending upon Him. For John says that he was instructed by God in this way: “Upon whom,” he says, “you see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, He it is who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” The Apostle also bears witness to this: “For I say,” he says, “that Christ became a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the Fathers” (Rom. 15:8). This is what John did not know about the Lord: for although he was not ignorant of His greatness, yet it was hidden from him that through Him the faith of Abraham was to be fulfilled.

40 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Matthew 5:17) 41 QUESTION 69. IF, WHEN JOHN OR THE SAVIOR WAS PREACHING, THE LAW CEASED, HOW DOES THE SAVIOR SAY, “I HAVE NOT COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS, BUT TO FULFILL” (Matt. 5:17)? FOR IF IT HAS BEEN FORBIDDEN, HOW IS IT NOT ABOLISHED, SINCE IT HAS LOST THE AUTHORITY TO BE CARRIED OUT? — Everything that was spoken about Christ has been fulfilled; and the Lord Himself therefore fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, since He did everything that was written about Him, and did not dissolve anything, but confirmed it. For the Law and the Prophets were until Him. The Prophets spoke about Him; therefore beyond Him, what was said by them about this, namely, about Christ, cannot extend; nor after Him could the Prophets find anything of this sort, because they have neither one to speak about, and He about whom it was spoken has already come. Indeed they encompassed in their books all things: His incarnation, His manner of life, His passion, His resurrection, the revealing of His divinity, and the revelation of His future judgment. And therefore the Prophets ceased when the work of the dispensation was completed. But the Law ceased in a twofold way, and not entirely; for even that which has ceased can remain, if the condition be observed. One thing 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;

42 the burdens of the Law also ceased, which had been given on account of the hardness of the Jewish heart in foods, new moons, sabbaths, and the rest. For when mercy came, vengeance ceased. But the burdens of the Law have ceased forever. The sentence, however, ceases and is abolished for those who remain in the benefit obtained. But for those who return to the old man, the authority of the Law is revived, because, forgetful of benefits, they return under the sentence of the Law. Circumcision and the sabbath indeed were in force until that time when the commandment of the new law was preached. For they were given in such a way that, when the law of faith arrived, they should cease. Therefore the Apostle says, “Christ is the end of the Law” (Rom. 10:4). And Daniel signifies this also, when he prophesies both concerning the coming of the Lord and the weeks of time, that the anointing and judgment and sacrifice and the city itself were to cease (Dan. 9:24–27). For when the spiritual law arrived, it was necessary that the carnal things should cease. Then God was served in part by the body, now in part by the soul; formerly visibly, now invisibly; then in the flesh, now in the mind. For to God, who is spirit, one must serve in spirit (Jn. 4:24). Therefore the Law is not undone because it has ceased, but something has succeeded it when the time was fulfilled.

43 Nor is its administration or judgment accused if indulgence is given to sinners; for from this it is rather clearly shown to have been rightly and justly given, since it is not denied that those over whom it ruled were sinners, because, “The Law,” he says, “is not laid down for the righteous” (1 Tim. 1:9). Therefore, because mercy is to be preferred, righteousness must not on that account be thought shameful; for if there were no reverence for it, mercy itself would have no fruit. For unless they keep righteousness after receiving mercy, indulgence will profit them nothing. For the Law said, “You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor adore the things that are in heaven above or on the earth beneath”; and, “You shall not swear falsely”; and, “Honor your father and mother”; and, “You shall not kill, nor commit fornication, nor steal, nor bear false witness, nor covet anything that is your neighbor’s” (Exod. 20:4–17). Are these to be said to have ceased? Far from it. For without these, who could even in this life be judged acceptable? And therefore the other things which we mentioned above have ceased, new moons, sabbaths, the law of foods, sacrifices, circumcision, and so on. From this it is that the Apostle says among other things: “Rulers are not a terror to good work, but to evil. Do you wish not to fear the power? Do what is good, and you will have praise from it” (Rom. 13:3). Observing these makes men good, though not yet perfect.

44 Therefore the Savior: “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20). By adding better things to these, the Savior did not in any way dissolve the Law, but fulfilled it. For the intention of the Law pertains to man’s salvation, for example, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Lev. 24:20): so that, fearing lest he suffer what he is forbidden to do to another, he might restrain himself from wickedness. But the Savior, adding a higher righteousness to this sense, says, “But I say to you, do not resist the evil; but if anyone strikes you on your right cheek, offer him the left also” (Matt. 5:39); so that by not returning evil in kind, he may be perfect. For to repay in kind is righteousness, but not full; but if he overlooks the injury, it is full and overflowing righteousness. To retaliate brings joy for a time; to forgive brings joy for the future. Therefore the Savior fulfilled the Law, in that those whom it taught to be righteous, He made more righteous, which it could not do. Wherefore it is the joy of the Law that its disciples have become more skillful. He would indeed have destroyed the Law if He had taught men to sin with freedom. But rather He suspended the sentence, so that he who acts wickedly may have time to repent;

45 if not, the sentence returns upon him with increase, because he did not understand that he was forgiven for this purpose, that he might improve himself. 46 (Matthew 5:17) 47 QUESTION 13. IF, WHEN JOHN OR THE SAVIOR WAS PREACHING, THE LAW CEASED, HOW DOES THE SAVIOR SAY, “I HAVE NOT COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS, BUT TO FULFILL” (Matt. 5:17)? FOR IF IT HAS BEEN FORBIDDEN, HOW IS IT NOT ABOLISHED, SINCE IT HAS LOST THE AUTHORITY TO BE CARRIED OUT? — The sayings of the prophets about the coming of the Savior were fulfilled when he came; for when what was foretold has taken place, it is seen as fulfilled. But the Law, which we said was given for a time, came to an end with the time that it was forbidden to overstep; for what is fulfilled, ceases. It would have lost its authority and seemed to be destroyed if it had not ceased at the time foretold. For if a successor is appointed to someone placed in authority, is that person said to be destroyed? The Law would truly be destroyed if, at the time when it was in force, it were condemned. And he did not say that he had “finished” (implevisse) the Law or the Prophets, but that he had “fully fulfilled” (adimplere) them. Now adimplere means nothing else than to add fully. What is it, then, to add to the Prophets, if not to establish the worship of God under the name of the Trinity? For although the Prophets taught and rebuked the people in the name of God, this mystery nevertheless lay hidden. But this is what it is to “fully fulfill” the Law:

48 to add new things while the former remain, as, for example, “You have heard,” he says, “that it was said to those of old, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, do not resist the evil one; but if anyone strikes you on your right cheek, offer him the other also. (Matt. 5:38-39) This was to fully fulfill. For he did not destroy that law, but added what is better, not so that the one who takes vengeance would appear to sin, but so that the one who does not repay might be better. Therefore he willed nothing other than what the Law has in its meaning, but he brings its will to perfection. For the Law, in order to teach man righteousness and through this to make him safe, commanded that if someone struck out another’s eye, he should lose his own eye; and so that, terrified by this fear, people would not do to others what they did not want done to themselves, and through this would have salvation. But since the human race is frail and inclined to sin, it comes about that a person suffers what he does not want done to himself. Therefore the Savior, by changing the words, taught what would profit salvation, so that he might fully fulfill the sense of the Law: since people could not be saved by fear of the Law, they might, overcome by patience, be corrected as they amend themselves.

49 This command was given so that the wicked might not live off the patience of the good, while the good do not repay them as they deserve; so that, if they wish to be corrected, the good may gain benefit from this, but the others suffer a double punishment. Justice, therefore, has not been destroyed, since we see it at work even through the Apostles: for the Apostle Peter upheld it in Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–10). And the “chosen vessel” did not reject it, but used it, when he blinded Elymas the magician, who resisted the way of the Lord (Acts 13:8–11). There is also another way in which the Law is fulfilled. For the Lord says, “You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and you shall hate your enemy”; this is justice. But the Lord says, “But I say to you, Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:43–44). He certainly adds, which is to say he “fully fulfills,” because he did not destroy the old things, but, in order to make people perfect, he commanded what is better. For his enemies, that is, the wicked, whom he could not correct and amend by revenge, carried out at the dictate of justice, he willed to make safe through love and service, which also the Law held in its inner meaning. For the Law wished to remove hatred in this way: that, frightened by revenge, people would cease to be enemies.

50 And since through their own boldness people despised the fear of the Law and of nature, growing in evil, the Savior willed that hate be conquered through humility, so that in this way at least people might be bent toward the good, when they saw that hatred was not repaid them; while those who remain in their hardness would be more severely dealt with, because they were not overcome even by the humility of him whose return they ought to have experienced. Justice in revenge, therefore, has not been obliterated, but held in suspense for either outcome; since it ceases with regard to the one who has come to know himself, but, if not, it punishes the stubborn. 51 (Matthew 5:25) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 70. THE LORD HAS CERTAINLY COMMANDED US TO MAKE THE DEVIL OUR ENEMY: WHAT THEN DOES IT MEAN WHEN IN THE GOSPEL HE SAYS, “BE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR ADVERSARY QUICKLY” (Matt. 5:25)? WHO IS A MAN’S ADVERSARY, IF NOT THE DEVIL? — No one doubts that the Devil is the enemy of man, especially of the faithful. For he sharpens his most violent weapons against the servants of God. Just as he is the enemy of the good, so too is the Law opposed to the wicked. For who would not oppose someone who despises him? Therefore the Lord addresses the sinner, that he may agree with the commandments which condemn him as disobedient, so that he may subject himself to their will and, from being an enemy, become a friend. For the despiser of the Law is its enemy, since he resists its will. And so the Lord exhorts the sinner to reconcile himself to the Law by doing good, lest on the day of judgment it accuse him before the Judge, and, having been condemned, he suffer the penalties for having despised the Law. For, he says, to everyone who wishes to act wickedly, the discipline of the Lord seems hostile; and unless he consents to it, he will be sent into Gehenna, prepared for the Devil, who is truly the enemy of the human race.

52 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Matthew 5:44; Revelation 6:10) 53 QUESTION 68. SINCE THE LORD HAS CERTAINLY TAUGHT THAT WE MUST PRAY FOR OUR ENEMIES, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT IN THE APOCALYPSE THE SOULS OF THE SLAIN SEEK TO BE AVENGED AGAINST THEM, ASKING GOD FOR VENGEANCE (Matt. 5:44; Rev. 6:10)? — For the souls of the slain cry out in this way, asking to be avenged, just as the blood of Abel cried out from the earth (Gen. 4:10). Therefore, it is the causes themselves that are said to cry out, when they cannot actually speak. For what does spilled blood ask, if not to be avenged, crying out not with a voice but with its very meaning? Likewise, a work is said to praise its maker by the very fact that it delights the one who looks upon it. The saints are not so impatient that they would press for something to happen immediately which they know will take place at its appointed time, something that can neither be anticipated nor delayed. By saying this, he wished to show that God will avenge the blood of His saints, so that, because He now appears so patient, the wicked war waged against the saints would not be thought to remain unpunished; and therefore, while striking terror into those who persecute God’s servants, He might also encourage those who suffer for His sake to persevere. For the soul of the sufferer is revealed when it hears that the Mighty One will avenge it. It bears hope within itself when it hears that its death displeases the Judge:

54 then it is certain that it is innocent. And God indeed is merciful and patient, but in due measure. He waits for the wicked to believe and for sinners to improve themselves; otherwise, they will be punished, because they have despised the long patience of God. He has shown an example of this even in the time when mercy is proclaimed, so that He might not appear unfeeling rather than patient, as though neither anyone’s suffering nor compassion could move Him. Therefore it is that He says through the prophet, “I have kept silent; shall I always keep silent? (Isa. 42:14); and the Lord says, “Will not God, then, bring about justice for His servants who cry out to Him day and night? (Luke 18:7). They cry out in just the way we have said above. Therefore, if any Christian exacts justice for a time, not harshly and not with bloodshed, he does not sin; yet he will have done better if he leaves it to God the Judge.

55 (Matthew 5:44; Revelation 6:10) 56 QUESTION 12. SINCE THE LORD HAS CERTAINLY TAUGHT THAT WE MUST PRAY FOR OUR ENEMIES, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT IN THE APOCALYPSE THE SOULS OF THE SLAIN SEEK TO BE AVENGED AGAINST THEM, ASKING GOD FOR VENGEANCE (Matt. 5:44; Rev. 6:10)? — Since the Apocalypse, while testifying that future evils and tribulations will come as the result of unbelief and a wicked life, with God as avenger, also shows, by a hidden, inward vision, a model of the punishments for each sin, in order to prove that no wickedness or cruelty will remain unpunished, it says that the souls of the slain ask day and night to be avenged. This is not in fact contrary: for God, who gave this law, has promised that He will avenge Himself on the day of judgment, so that He may seem to have given this command for the present which excuses the souls of the slain if, now placed there, they ask for the day of vengeance. And yet, to speak more accurately, it is the cause that is to be understood as crying out. That in itself is never silent, but always demands vengeance: as God says to Cain, “The blood of your brother cries out to me from the earth.” What does this mean if not that the cause of the crime cries out, desiring to be avenged? For if we say, because of its produce, “The earth praises the Lord,” although it has neither voice nor understanding, so also, because of evil deeds, blood is said to cry out. For they were certainly not so impatient nor so ignorant as to ask to be avenged before the future day of judgment, lest they should request that something be done which they knew could not happen before the appointed time. And similarly the Savior says, “Will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night?”

57 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Matthew 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14) QUESTION 60. IF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN, HOW IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR SENDS THE LEPER TO THE PRIESTS TO HAVE OFFERINGS MADE FOR HIS CLEANSING (Matt. 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14)? — This was done not because of the time, but for the condemnation of the Jews: so that when they did not understand that the summit of truth, belonging to a better time, had been established for the gain of their salvation, Truth might bend down instead to their accusation. For since they regarded the Savior as an enemy of the Law, because for the sake of mercy 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 covenant, not like the one I gave to their fathers” (Jer. 31:31–32), then the Savior, so that he might not appear, as they thought, to be an enemy when preaching new things, sent the man who had been cleansed from leprosy to the priests to offer gifts for his cleansing, as Moses had commanded (Lev. 14:2). And to show that this was to serve for their accusation, he said, “For a testimony to them,” so that this matter might be a witness against them in judgment, they who were saying that the Savior was an enemy of the Law. The apostle Paul followed this as well: for although he preached that circumcision was no longer necessary, he himself circumcised Timothy because of the scandal of the Jews (Acts 16:3); for he preferred to do something unnecessary rather than have an uproar stirred up by false brothers; and this in fact contributed to the Jews’ error. Enough was done for them for the moment, through which they might err forever.

58 (Matthew 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14) QUESTION 28. IF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN, HOW IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR SENDS THE LEPER TO THE PRIESTS TO HAVE OFFERINGS MADE FOR HIS CLEANSING (Matt. 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14)? — The apostle Paul followed this. For although he preached that no one ought any longer to be circumcised, he himself circumcised Timothy because of the scandal of the Jews. For he preferred to do something unnecessary rather than be a cause of offense to the unlearned, from among whom some could be saved. The Lord in a similar way, in order to remove from the Jews what they thought of him, for they said that he was an enemy of Jewish tradition, then ordered the leper to offer gifts for his cleansing, as had been commanded by Moses, and he added, “For a testimony to them”; so that this matter might be a witness against them, because the Savior was not an enemy of the Law. Therefore something was done which already ought to have ceased. But because things that are already unnecessary are usually harmless, it was done so that it might indeed benefit those who held a wrong opinion, in order that they might be satisfied that the Savior was not an enemy of the Law.

59 (Matthew 11:3, Luke 7:19) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 14. JOHN TO THE LORD: “ARE YOU THE ONE WHO IS TO COME, OR SHOULD WE EXPECT ANOTHER?” (Matt. 11) — In his own person he is acting on behalf of his disciples. For John was not doubting, he who had said: “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world” (Jn. 1:29); but to satisfy his disciples he sends them with his own words, so that by the mouth of the Savior he might confirm what he himself was teaching about him, in order that after his own departure his disciples might follow Christ without any doubt. (Matthew 11:13, Luke 16:16) 2ND CATEGORY NT 60 QUESTION 15. WHY IS IT SAID THAT THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN, AND THAT AFTERWARD THEY RIGHTLY CEASED (Matt. 11:13)? BECAUSE THE ONE ABOUT WHOM THEY PROPHESIED HAD NOW ARRIVED. WHY THEN “UNTIL JOHN” WITH REGARD TO THE LAW, SINCE THE APOSTLE SAYS THAT WE OUGHT TO BE SUBJECT TO THE LAW: “FOR THOSE THAT EXIST,” HE SAYS, “HAVE BEEN ORDAINED BY GOD” (Rom. 13:1)? — Law indeed is one name, but it has a threefold meaning. For the first part of the Law concerns God. Therefore the Law is said to be from “reading,” so that from many things you may know what to choose. Therefore, placed amid errors, they received it so that they might choose what is true, that is, with the Devil rejected, they might choose God. But the second part of the Law is this, which is contained in the commandments, which therefore begins: “Honor your father and your mother.” The third, however, has to do with new moons and the sabbath, and with distinguishing and choosing foods, and with circumcision and the offering of animal victims. This Law, therefore, he says is to be observed only until John, and no longer. For therefore it was given, that when the appointed time was fulfilled it should cease; nor was it from the beginning, but was given for a reason, for a time, so that with the coming of the Savior the Law should cease. Therefore, what is of God remains, both the Law of the commandments and his nature, which without doubt cannot be abolished by him. For through him one progresses to the promised reward. For fear produces watchfulness.

61 (Matthew 11:25-26) 1ST CATEGORY NT 62 QUESTION 100. ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. — You have heard, dearest brothers, what the Gospel proclaims when the Lord says: I confess to you, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and sensible, and have revealed them to little ones. Yes, Father, for so it was pleasing in your sight (Matt. 11:25–26). Therefore, if we look into the meaning of these words, we shall see that they were spoken by the Lord for the encouragement of believers, of those who, because they despise worldly wisdom, appear as little ones to the wise of this world, who, though praised by no testimony, still wish to be called wise. So it seemed unworthy to God to show the truth to such as these; but to the humble, who presume nothing of themselves and bend themselves to the divine will, equity requires that saving things be revealed. For this is the one who is wise before God and mindful of his own salvation: the one who sets the law of God above his own learning, seeing that it is supported not by the clatter of words, but by the power of deeds. And without doubt, he is foolish and vain who commits himself to a thing that is backed by no privilege of signs. Therefore God did not promise the kingdom to the learned of this world, but to the faithful; nor does he offer eternity to the examiners of the stars, but to those who act rightly;

63 nor does he give glory to scholars, who try by trickery and tiny arguments to exclude the truth, but to men of good will, who are more exact in life than in speech. For God rejects those who wish to rely more on the brilliance of eloquent speech than on good deeds. Indeed, he also tries to turn the glory of God onto himself who thinks he is adorning God’s cause with words. The realities themselves ought to please by their own nature, so that not speech, but meaning is praised. For if meaning is the author of writing, and words were invented to signify things, why should not the things themselves be set forth with pure sense, so as to stir the mind more effectively toward salvation? And so our Lord chose fishermen as Apostles, simple and uneducated men, who, by keeping the faith without any deceit and by living well, might show forth God’s truth in themselves. Therefore also the Apostle Paul says: And I, coming to you, brothers, did not come with loftiness of speech or of wisdom (1 Cor. 2:1). And among other things: For, he says, the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power (1 Cor. 4:20); so that, because words are liable to contradiction, power might stand as witness to the law of God, before which every loftiness of speech yields.

64 These things, therefore, have been set forth first, dearest brothers, for the benefit of simpler folk, lest they should perhaps think themselves unworthy of the grace of God because they are by no means trained in secular learning, whereas their simplicity advances them more toward praise; since what the worldly wise, blinded by the pride of letters, do not see, these believe, being wise not in words but in judgment. For they know that God rests in good works, and seeks faith, not polished speech. For they read that the Lord says: On whom shall I rest, if not on the humble and meek and one who trembles at my words? (Isa. 66:2). Therefore, that we may be made worthy of the promised rewards, we must do the things that are commanded by the Lord, confident that the Lord loves those who keep his words. For so he says to his disciples: If you love me, keep my commandments (Jn. 14:15); so that by serving the Lord in these things we may be able to be heirs of his kingdom through Jesus Christ our Lord.

65 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5) 66 QUESTION 61. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, WHEN THE JEWS ACCUSED THE DISCIPLES OF BREAKING THE SABBATH BY RUBBING EARS OF GRAIN IN THEIR HANDS AND EATING THEM, THE SAVIOR PUT FORWARD THE EXAMPLE OF DAVID, BECAUSE HE ATE THE LOAVES WHICH IT WAS NOT LAWFUL TO EAT EXCEPT FOR THE PRIESTS ALONE (Matt. 12:1–4)? BY THIS THEY DO NOT SEEM TO BE EXCUSED, BUT RATHER TO BECOME GUILTY TOGETHER WITH DAVID: ESPECIALLY SINCE DAVID DID NOT DO THIS ON THE SABBATH. — The Savior wishes to expose the hypocrisy of the Jews by many examples, showing greater transgressions committed under the Law, and that no one dared to accuse them: so that he might show not only that the sabbath was broken once and again in the Law, but also that the priestly bread, with the priest himself permitting it, was unlawfully presumed upon; and what is more, by men under the lofty authority of his Law. For first Joshua son of Nun, by divine command, did not keep the sabbath; and when he did this, the walls of Jericho fell of their own accord (Josh. 6:15–20). How much more profitable it was not to keep the sabbath, but to keep faith! And the Maccabees, after first having been slaughtered, fought on the sabbath and triumphed over their enemies (1 Macc. 2:38, 41). And the priests, in order to attend to the rites of the Lord, disregarded the sabbath in the temple.

67 But David, already anointed as king, after he had, by the power of God, slain the Philistine and stripped him of his arms, when he was on a journey and suffered the necessity of hunger, received bread from the priest (1 Sam. 21:6), which it was not lawful for him to eat. It was not lawful except in case of necessity; but it was lawful if necessity demanded it. Accordingly, the priest, seeing the necessity, did not refuse; and David, chosen by God, accepted it without hesitation. Such also is the case with the sabbath, for which reason circumcision too is not forbidden on the sabbath. For these commands which are not dangerous are to be observed in such a way that if, because of necessity, they are transgressed, it does no harm: because they were commanded not for salvation but for reverence. But that which is in no way permitted is never permitted, nor is it diminished by any necessity so that, once done, it does no harm. For what is always unlawful is forbidden by the laws because it is criminal. Those earlier things, however, which we said are sometimes lawful, are of the sort of legitimate fasts, which, when relaxed because of necessity, do not make people guilty if the cause is the stomach or the weakness of fevers. Knowing this, the Jews wickedly accused the disciples, as if they were breaking the sabbath, as was said above.

68 But the Savior did not wish to anticipate for them the time of the fulfillment of the Law, lest they should rush further into madness; rather, from the past, from which they thought the sabbath ought more to be vindicated, he showed them to be slanderers: and they were confused not only in the matter of the sabbath, but also in the matter of the priestly bread, as has been shown above. 69 (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5) 70 QUESTION 23. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, WHEN THE JEWS ACCUSED THE DISCIPLES OF BREAKING THE SABBATH BY RUBBING EARS OF GRAIN IN THEIR HANDS AND EATING THEM, THE SAVIOR PUT FORWARD THE EXAMPLE OF DAVID, BECAUSE HE ATE THE LOAVES WHICH IT WAS NOT LAWFUL TO EAT EXCEPT FOR THE PRIESTS ALONE (Matt. 12:1–4)? BY THIS THEY DO NOT SEEM TO BE EXCUSED, BUT RATHER TO BECOME GUILTY TOGETHER WITH DAVID: ESPECIALLY SINCE DAVID DID NOT DO THIS ON THE SABBATH. — The Savior did not wish to anticipate for the Jews the time of the fulfilled sabbath. He did not judge them worthy to hear openly what is true, as being unbelievers; but he wished to convict them on the very point of which they were arrogant, that is, concerning the time when the sabbath still seemed to keep its force, when they accused the disciples because on the sabbath they plucked ears of grain and, rubbing them in their hands, ate them, although the time for keeping the sabbath was already fulfilled. Passing over this, he showed them that even then, when the law of the sabbath was still in force, the sabbath had been violated for the sake of necessity: for David did what was not lawful; and Joshua son of Nun did what was forbidden, when he ordered the armed men to march around the walls of Jericho for seven days; (Josh. 6:15–20) and the Maccabees did what was prohibited, defending themselves on the sabbath;

71 (1 Macc. 2:38, 41) And “in the temple,” he says, “the priests violate the sabbath and are without guilt. By these things he showed that the disciples were accused by the Jews more out of hatred than out of error; since, knowing that all these things were done on the sabbath by men who were willing and by holy men indeed, they accused the innocent. For the command was given to keep the sabbath in such a way that, if there were necessity, the one who violated the sabbath would not be guilty. Therefore circumcision was not forbidden on the sabbath, because there was a necessity that it be done. Therefore the disciples, being hungry, plucked ears of grain; which was not lawful according to the former time, but was made lawful by the necessity of hunger: just as David also did what was not lawful when he was hungry, knowing that hunger would excuse this. This case is like that today with legitimate fasts. If someone who is sick breaks a fast, is he made guilty? Certainly not, because there is no danger. This is sometimes permitted, just as the sabbath was among the ancients. For what is never permitted has no excuse of necessity.

72 (Matthew 15:22–28, Luke 7;17) 2ND CATEGORY NT 73 QUESTION 17. WHY IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR AT FIRST REFUSED MERCY TO THE FOREIGN WOMAN, THAT IS, THE CANAANITE (Matt. 15:22–28), WHEN HE DID NOT DENY THE GRACE OF GRANTING SALVATION TO THE FOREIGN CENTURION AND TO THE LEPER WHOM JESUS HIMSELF CALLED A FOREIGNER (Luke 7:2–10 and 17:12–19)? — The very reason itself shows that the Savior’s action was fitting. For it would have been absurd, and would have resulted in an insult to the promise made to the Fathers, if a woman who had not confessed the God of the Jews had received the benefit promised to the nation that confessed God. Therefore at the beginning it was denied to her. But when, with neck bent, she did not deny faith in the words of the Savior, but confessed that the believing Jews are children and the Gentiles are dogs or servants, by which she joined herself to the Lord’s faith; for servants point to a master, and a master does not exist without servants, a unity was formed between the subject and the one who subjects. Therefore it is that she deserved to obtain what she had prayed for. But the centurion, who received a favor from the Savior without delay, had already involved himself in the things of God. For the leading men of the Jews say to the Lord: “He is worthy that you should grant this to him; for he loves our nation, and he himself has built us a synagogue.

74 (Luke 7:4-5) As for the foreign leper, the Lord called him foreign not in respect of faith but of nation. For he was a Samaritan, who are known by origin to be from the Babylonians. Yet he too did not obtain the benefit without a confession. For it had been said by the Lord to the disciples: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into the cities of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5–6); that is, that the Gospel should not be preached first to the Samaritans and the Gentiles, but to the Jews, to whom this promise had been made. But when the Jews began to reject faith in Christ, then the Savior also presented Himself to the Samaritan woman, and after the cross to the centurion Cornelius; and when sought by the Canaanite woman, He received her, because the time had not yet come for salvation to be offered to them.

75 (Matthew 17:26) 1ST CATEGORY NT 76 QUESTION 75. WHY DID THE SAVIOR PAY THE DIDRACHMA ONLY FOR HIMSELF AND PETER, AND NOT ALSO FOR THE OTHER APOSTLES (Matt. 17:26)? SINCE THEY HAD ALL FOLLOWED HIM AFTER LEAVING ALL THEIR POSSESSIONS, HE SEEMS TO HAVE OWED PAYMENT FOR ALL. — The didrachma is understood as a head tax, not a tax on estates [what is now called “ragged gold,” because even the poor are taxed]; for indeed the Savior possessed nothing in the world, though he is Lord of the world. He was buried at the expense of others when he died; yet we, for whom the world is foreign, desire to increase our possessions, so that when we die we may protest that the world has trespassed upon us, not only by our voice but also in writing, so that by our own profession we may be condemned by him whose the world is. Therefore the Lord says, “Whoever does not leave all things and follow me, cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). [Whoever therefore holds his possessions in such a way that he does not place his hope in them, but is ready to cast them aside for the faith, is walking the path that leads to Christ our Lord. Therefore the didrachma was to be exacted from those who conducted some business or practiced trades. But since the Savior cared for none of these things, nor did his disciples, he was in fact not accountable to be taxed.

77 Yet because the enemy, the Devil, was always lying in wait, seeking an opportunity to overthrow the Savior if he could, he took hold of the minds of the tax collectors of the didrachma, to make them do his will, so that they came to Peter, who was the first among the Apostles, and said that the didrachma ought to be paid by their master, who was free from such burdens. For they did nothing in the world that belonged to the world; so that, since he had nothing from which to pay, he might either become a stumbling block to them, or in humility seek support from someone to pay it. Then the Lord, to show that the shortsighted Devil always plots against himself, commands the Apostle Peter to go to the sea, open the mouth of the fish he would catch, and there find the coin owed for the tax. By paying it, he would not only avoid giving offense to the collectors, nor be forced by the need of help to pay it, but would also display a sign of the greatest power, by which he might draw to himself those captured by the Devil, so that the Devil would be tormented by his own scheme and by this proof. Therefore the collectors of the didrachma say to the Apostle Peter, “Your Master does not pay the didrachma,” etc. By saying this, they approached the Master as though he should pay for all the disciples.

78 But when the Savior orders it to be given for himself and Peter, he appears to have paid for all: for just as all were contained in the Savior because of his office as Master, so after the Savior all are contained in Peter. He appointed him to be their head, that he might be the shepherd of the Lord’s flock. For among other things he says to the disciples, “Watch and pray, that you may not enter into temptation” (Matt. 26:41). And to Peter he says, “Behold, Satan has asked to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31–32). What doubt can there be? Was he praying for Peter and not for James and John, to say nothing of the rest? It is clear that all are contained in Peter: by praying for Peter, he is recognized to have prayed for all. For it is always in the leader that the people are either rebuked or praised. For in another place he says: “I pray for those whom you have given me, Father; and I will that where I am, they also may be with me” (Jn. 17:9, 24).

79 (Matthew 24:20) 2ND CATEGORY NT 80 QUESTION 19. THEREFORE THE SAVIOR SAYS, PRAY THAT YOUR FLIGHT BE NOT IN WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH (Matt. 24:20); EVEN THOUGH THE TIME OF THIS PERSECUTION CANNOT BE POSTPONED, SINCE THE APOSTLE SAYS, HE WILL BE REVEALED IN HIS OWN TIME (2 Thess. 2:6, 8); AND IN THE ACTS THE APOSTLE SAYS, APPOINTING THE TIMES AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THEIR DWELLING (Acts 17:26). AND WHY DOES HE INDICATE THAT FLIGHT IS NOT ADVISABLE IN WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH? — In winter flight is not safe: for there is cold, continual rains, snow, frost, the rivers overflow; and so it is very hard for those who flee. For they cannot hide in the woods, nor in the mountains, nor in caves. But on the Sabbath, according to the Jews, it is not permitted to go far from the city, nor to climb high, and therefore one cannot flee on the Sabbath. Just as these seasons do not allow a safe flight, because of the obstacles mentioned above, so our flight will not be safe if that foretold persecution finds us bound by carnal obstacles. For worldly desires, that is, worldly possessions, hold men like shackles, so that they cannot escape the decrees of the Devil.

81 Therefore it must be prayed that, at the time when we must flee, there may not be in us the condition of winter and Sabbath, but that the help of God may grant us to be free from these obstacles, so that there may be nothing to enslave us to the world, captured by desire for it. Since, then, the Savior was speaking of the final persecution, which is to come from the Antichrist, he therefore mentioned winter, because it is the last time; and the Sabbath likewise, because it is the last day, so that, just as in those times flight is harsh and difficult, he might signify that at that time persecutions and afflictions will be so grievous that scarcely anyone will be able to escape them. 82 (Matthew 26:32; Mark 14:28) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 20. WHEN THE SAVIOR SAID THAT HE WAS GOING TO SUFFER AND THAT HE WOULD RISE AGAIN ON THE THIRD DAY, HE ADDED, “AND AFTER I HAVE RISEN, I WILL GO BEFORE YOU INTO GALILEE, THERE YOU WILL SEE ME”; AND LIKEWISE THE ANGEL SAID TO THE WOMEN (Matt. 26:32 and 28:7). — Yet he is found by the women and by his disciples in Jerusalem. To call the Savior’s words into question is unbelief; but I see that you are not doubting the Savior’s words, but seeking the meaning: why, since he was seen in Jerusalem after his Passion, did he say that he would be seen by them in Galilee. He was seen in Jerusalem, but only in part, to energize the spirits of the disciples; in Galilee, however, by all at once. Therefore, for those who were going to see him in Jerusalem in separate groups, he appointed Galilee so that he might appear to them all together, and there give commands for the ordering of their discipline.

83 (Matthew 27:3-10) 84 QUESTION 94. IT MUST BE ASKED WHETHER JUDAS ISCARIOT, THE TRAITOR OF THE LORD, ENDED HIS LIFE BY HANGING BEFORE THE PASSION OF THE SAVIOR. — After the Savior was betrayed, and as the preparation day was dawning, all the chief priests and scribes and elders gathered in the house of the high priest Caiaphas, to which they knew Jesus was to be brought, so that they might hear Him. This is confirmed by the evangelists Matthew and Mark, and from them it is clear that none of these men left the house of the governor before their wicked work was completed, since all their urgency and devotion in celebrating the Passover was that the death of the Savior should take place. Since they were therefore occupied with putting the Lord to death from morning until the ninth hour, how can Judas be shown to have returned to them the price of blood which he had received, before the Lord’s crucifixion, and to have said to them in the temple, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood” (Matt. 27:1–5), when it is certain that all the chief priests and elders were not in the temple before the Lord’s Passion? For even when He was on the cross they were still insulting Him (ibid. 41). Nor can it be proved from this that it was reported before the Passion, since there are many things which, though known to have happened earlier, are placed later in order;

85 and again, when the context allows, something that took place afterwards may be set before what came earlier. For it is evident that the fiftieth psalm is earlier than the third. Therefore it sometimes happens that later events are anticipated. Therefore also Mary, although she is shown to have anointed the Lord’s feet with ointment at supper after the resurrection of her brother Lazarus, six days before the Passover, is mentioned beforehand by the evangelist because of the meaning of that act, who, among other things, says: “It was Mary,” he says, “who anointed the Lord with ointment” (Jn. 11:2). He reports this before Lazarus had died; and if we did not find that it happened later, we would not know at what time it took place. But perhaps it occurred after the ninth hour, so that when the wicked and most cruel Judas saw the Savior slain, and on account of this the veil of the temple torn, the earth shaken, the rocks split, the elements terrified, being seized with fear he was grieved, not unaware that he had betrayed the Just One, in whose Passion God the Judge had therefore shown His anger. Yet even after the ninth hour, as I think, the elders and chief priests were occupied; for that same evening they were going to celebrate the Passover, and on the Sabbath it was not permitted by the Law to carry money. Consequently, it seems unlikely to me on which day, indeed at what time, Judas Iscariot ended his life by hanging.

86 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44; John 19:14; Mark 15:25) 87 QUESTION 65. IF THEY SPOKE WITH ONE MOUTH AND ONE REASONING AS EVANGELISTS, HOW DID IT HAPPEN THAT, WHILE THREE SAY—NAMELY MATTHEW, LUKE, AND JOHN—THAT THE LORD WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE SIXTH HOUR, MARK ON THE CONTRARY SAYS THAT THE SAVIOR WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE THIRD HOUR (Matt. 27:45; Luke 23:44; John 19:14; Mark 15:25)? — It is not good to wrap the truth in obscurity. For the three evangelists had one and the same meaning, but Mark wished to reveal a fact that they had omitted, knowing it to be necessary. Nor could he be mistaken, who, following the examples of the other authors, learned what he wrote with great devotion and effort, and did nothing without the Holy Spirit. Therefore what he wished to show by this must be fully explained. We must observe, then, that the Savior was crucified not by Pilate, but by the Jews. For as far as Roman law was concerned, he declared the Savior to be innocent. Pilate said to the Jews, “I find no cause in him. And when they said, “Crucify him,” he replied, “For what evil has he done? Finally, persisting and wishing to rescue him from their hands, he suffered slander from them when they said, “If you release this man, you are not a friend of Caesar. For everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar. Therefore it came about that he handed him over to their judgment (Jn. 19:4–13). Therefore Pilate did not pronounce the sentence, but the Jews did.

88 Indeed, they were warned, he says, by the chief priests to say, “Let him be crucified. He (Mark) wants the sentence given at the third hour to be understood in this way: that, continuing with constant cries over an interval of almost three hours, during which there was going and returning from Herod, they crucified the Savior. For everyone who is condemned to death is already counted as dead from the moment he receives the sentence. Mark therefore has made clear that the Savior was not crucified by the sentence of the judge. For it is hard to prove innocent the one who is punished by the judge’s sentence. Therefore he allowed himself to appear conflicting in wording, so that he might teach that what was begun at the third hour was completed at the sixth hour: not by laws, but by the persistent ill-will of the Jews. 89 Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44; John 19:14; Mark 15:25)

90 QUESTION 21. THREE EVANGELISTS SAY THAT THE SAVIOR WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE SIXTH HOUR, BUT THE EVANGELIST MARK SAYS THAT HE WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE THIRD HOUR. — It is not good to wrap the truth in obscurity. For the very harmony of the three evangelists testifies that they spoke the truth. But the fact itself shows that Mark wished to reveal some hidden meaning. Nor could he be mistaken, who, following the examples of the other authors, learned what he wrote with great devotion and effort. Therefore what he wanted to reveal by this statement must be investigated with careful watchfulness. Nor did he allow himself to differ from the three evangelists in words for no reason. Let us consider whether those may be speaking truth who said that the sentence was given at the third hour and therefore that the Savior was crucified at the third hour, although they were not able to prove it. Perhaps they know the meaning, but they do not know how to defend it. And so, with Pilate’s role for the moment set aside, let us see from where the sentence given against the Savior took its beginning, and then it will appear whether what we say can seem true. It is therefore clear that the leaders of the Jews had beforehand instructed the Jews to ask for Barabbas the robber to be released to them on the feast day, but that Jesus ought to be crucified.

91 In opposition to this, Pilate, long resisting and wishing to release the Savior, frequently going in and out to the Jews, kept saying that he saw in him no cause of death. But they, insisting, kept saying, “Let him be crucified. Therefore there were delays; and while he is mocked by the soldiers, and brought out, and clothed in a purple garment, and a crown of thorns is made for him, and he is adored, and spat upon, and scourged, and struck with the palms of the hands, for this reason he was placed on the cross at the sixth hour. He had been brought to Pilate: then Pilate went out to them, because they themselves did not enter the praetorium; and he addressed them, and heard their false accusations, and sent him to Herod, and he came back, and again Pilate questioned Jesus, and he in turn answered him, and afterward he again went out to the Jews and in conversation said that he found no cause of death in the Savior. Meanwhile, through these delays, they reached the third hour. Then, when Pilate wanted to release him, the Jews said, “Let him be crucified. Against them Pilate resisted for a long time, and when he could not prevail, he handed Jesus over to their sentence at about the sixth hour. For therefore it is written, “Then he handed him over to their will. Therefore it was rightly said that the sentence was given at the third hour, because it was not given by Pilate, but by the Jews.

92 Pilate, however, seems to have consented unwillingly: above all because of the envy of those who said, “If you release this man, you are not a friend of Caesar. (Jn. 19:12) Let us see, then, what Mark, wishing to clear this up, has followed. He wished to show that the Savior was not killed by the judge’s sentence, because it is difficult for one who receives the sentence of a judge not to seem to have been justly killed. 93 (Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:42) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 55. WHAT WAS THE REASON THAT THE LORD ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BE CRUCIFIED AT THAT TIME, WHEN THE JEWS WERE ABOUT TO CELEBRATE PASSOVER ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF APRIL? — The Savior accomplished all things in their proper places and times. For, in order to show that he had rightly created all things according to the will of the Father, he chose to redeem and restore the world by his passion at the same time when he had created it; that is, at the equinox, from which the world began and the day starts to grow longer than the night. Therefore, since he acted under the Roman rule, he had to suffer on the eighth day before the Kalends of April, when the Romans have their equinox. For at that time this part of the world was first illuminated, and from then on the day began to increase. And so by the Savior’s passion the world was then led from darkness into light. Therefore no rebuke can be seen to fall upon the Creator, since he restored the fallen creature at the same time as he had made it. Nor can the beginning of the creation of a fallen thing be blamed, when its restoration returns to that point. For he willed that the joy of renewal should be on the same day on which there had been dedication.

94 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-13) 95 QUESTION 64. HOW IS IT PROVED THAT THE SAVIOR ROSE FROM THE DEAD AFTER THREE DAYS AND NIGHTS? — In this matter, if you seek the number of days and nights in strict sequence, you will gain no true understanding. For Moses fasted forty days and forty nights (Exod. 34:28), and yet a complete numerical count is not found: for when he went up by day and came down by day, he clearly did not fulfill the entire number; but because where there is day, night is also reckoned, and where there is night, day is likewise counted, so that the part is taken for the whole, they are called forty days and forty nights. Therefore it is with what the Savior said: “As Jonah was in the belly of the sea monster three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40). And because there are three nights, three days are also to be taken. Night is indeed something that might seem new or perhaps unreasonable, since night depends on day: for before light was made, from which “day” is named, and before evening was appointed, which is followed by night, it is by no means doubted that the Lord’s Passion is confirmed to have taken its beginning from the night; this is not absurd. For just as light, that is day, is an image of life, so night is a likeness of death, that is, darkness:

96 as Scripture clearly shows the children of light, and conversely those of darkness. Nor is it surprising that, although everywhere day precedes night and light precedes darkness, here alone the things that follow are set before those that precede; or that in such a matter the order of things is disturbed and changed, as we have already indicated. For the night of death appears rather to be what truly counts, more than the day. Therefore the beginning is taken from the night, because the prince of darkness could not otherwise be entered into except by night; that is, he could not be conquered: and so that in some manner the Lord of light, that is of eternal life, might for a time be subjected to the prince of darkness or death, so that he might free both those of the past and those of the future from death. For death would not be utterly abolished, nor would the gloom of darkness ever be dispelled, if it had not seen the Lord enter in. Indeed, by such great light the hidden realm of death, in which he ruled, vanished, nor can he be utterly conquered except by one who is taken either in himself or in his own. Rightly then in such a matter night alone holds the primacy, in such a way that it loses its power: and so that the unbelieving Jews remain in eternal night, and the author of such a great crime, indeed, of such sacrilege, be not the day, but the night;

97 a day is subjected to the preceding night, contrary to the usual course of things, just as God and Lord of all things was subjected to the prince of wicked death, so that he might free all from the snares of death. If to anyone this still seems in some way contrary, let him carefully consider lest he begin to judge more harshly that God, assuming the person of a servant, not to say of a man, gave himself over to death. Why then do you seek order here, where you see everything contrary to order? For what is that light which was in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it (Jn. 1:5)? The Lord of light, who yet was apprehended. For whoever knows that he is apprehended so that he may be struck down, counts that time as death. There is also the following day on which he was examined and crucified. There is also the night that falls upon the Sabbath, and the Sabbath itself. There is also the evening after the Sabbath; this is what was commanded to the Jews by Moses in figure, that they should enter the Sabbath in the evening, on which the Lord rose: which embraces the Lord’s Day; for night is not counted without day, nor day without night. In this way, after three days and after three nights, the Lord rose.

98 (Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-13) 99 QUESTION 18. HOW IS WHAT THE SAVIOR SAID PROVEN, NAMELY THAT AFTER THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS HE WOULD RISE FROM THE DEAD, SINCE IN FACT, HAVING SUFFERED ON THE PREPARATION DAY, HE ROSE AT DAYBREAK ON SUNDAY, WHILE IT WAS STILL DARK? THEREFORE, THE NUMBER OF DAYS AND NIGHTS DOES NOT SEEM TO MATCH. — The Savior, foreknowing all that was to happen to him, declared these things, certain that he would be apprehended by the Jews for this purpose, that he might be killed, and that he himself would not resist their wickedness, although he could certainly have mocked them: for when he was already held, he restored the ear of the high priest’s servant, which the Apostle Peter had cut off with a drawn sword; so that he might show that he was not brought low by weakness, but had yielded for a time to their will by a certain providence, so that by this he might destroy the kingdom of hell. For the Devil, lacking foresight, plunged himself into the minds of the Jews, to inflame them to the death of the Savior, as though it would benefit him if the one who showed the way of truth were removed from life, not knowing what was to come against him. For since he triumphed over man’s captivity on account of sin, he was himself found guilty by the fact that he killed Christ, the innocent one, so as to hold him who knew no sin among sinners;

100 therefore it came about that he even lost those whom he legitimately held in the underworld. Therefore, the Savior, foreknowing these things, counted together the night in which he was apprehended. For every prisoner who does not believe that he will escape the hands of the judge, before he is struck already calls himself dead. Add to this the day on which he suffered, and the following night. Add also the Sabbath and the night which brightens into the Lord’s Day together with the Lord’s Day itself, and you will have fulfilled the mystery of the Lord’s words. For in the last night, while it was still dark and the day was beginning to arise, between light and darkness he rose, so that both night and day may be counted, and therefore the number foretold by the Savior may be found complete. 101 MARK (Mark 1:2; Malachi 3:1) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 57. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, THAT ALTHOUGH IT IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHET MALACHI, “BEHOLD, I SEND MY ANGEL BEFORE YOUR FACE, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU,” THE EVANGELIST MARK CLAIMS THAT THIS IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHET ISAIAH (Mal. 3:1; Mark 1:2)? — Mark could not have been unaware of what he was writing; for he was not lacking in learning, since from childhood he had been immersed in the divine Scriptures and trained in the Law, especially as he had followed the Apostles. Knowing that all sayings must be referred back to their original author, he attributed these words to Isaiah, who had first conveyed this meaning when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God” (Isa. 40:3). Accordingly, after the words from Malachi, the Evangelist immediately added, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness,” so that he might unite the words of both prophets, which relate to one and the same sense, under the name of the earlier prophet.

102 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Mark 1:34) 103 QUESTION 66. HOW IS IT THAT MARK THE EVANGELIST SAYS THAT THE DEMONS RECOGNIZED AND PROFESSED JESUS, WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND THE APOSTLE DENIES THAT THE RULERS AND POWERS OF THIS AGE KNEW THE DIVINITY OF THE LORD JESUS? FOR MARK, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SAYS: “THEY KNEW THAT HE WAS THE ONE”; BUT THE APOSTLE SAYS, “NONE OF THE RULERS OF THIS AGE KNEW HIM. FOR IF THEY HAD KNOWN, THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY” (Mark 1:34; 1 Cor. 2:8). IF THE DEMONS KNEW, HOW DID THE RULERS NOT KNOW? — To some it seems that by “the rulers of this age” he meant the leaders of the Jews, as if in line with what the Apostle Peter says: “You know, brothers, that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did” (Acts 3:17). Therefore they were rulers of the Jews, yet they were not rulers of this age. Hence he says “your rulers,” not “the rulers of the age,” since they said that they had Caesar as their king, under whose power they had been placed. But these are those rulers whom the Apostle indicated elsewhere, saying: “We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers and powers of this world, against the princes of these present darknesses” (Eph. 6:12). So the question is rightly asked: if these did not know Jesus, how could it be that the demons recognized him?

104 But what he says about the demons having known Christ is one thing, and what he says about the rulers of this age not having known him is another. For the demons knew that he was indeed the one who had been promised in the Law. They saw in him all the signs that the Prophets had said would come: that the Redeemer of Israel would come from the seed of David and from a virgin. But they did not know the mystery of his divinity, just as their rulers did not. Accordingly, the devil, though cunningly, asks the Savior: “If you are the Son of God,” etc. (Matt. 4:3). For seeing at one time divine power and at another human weakness, and hesitating as to what was true, he was in torment. Thus the Scriptures agree according to what has been revealed; for it is impossible that men inspired by one and the same Spirit should be at variance.

105 (Mark 1:34) QUESTION 48. THE APOSTLE SAYS ABOUT THE PRINCES AND POWERS OF THIS WORLD THAT, IF THEY HAD KNOWN, THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF MAJESTY; BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, MARK THE EVANGELIST SAYS OF THE DEMONS, “FOR THEY KNEW HIM TO BE.” IF THE DEMONS KNEW, HOW DID THE POWERS NOT KNOW? — To some it seems that by “the rulers and powers of this age” he meant the leading men and chiefs of the Jews, who, according to the words of the Apostle Peter, did not know what evil they were doing. For he says: “I know, brothers, that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did.” These were the rulers of the Jews, yet they could not be called rulers of this age, since they had been brought under the power of the Romans, confessing that they had no king but Caesar. But these are the rulers whom the Apostle means elsewhere when he says: “We do not wrestle against flesh, but against the rulers of this world and the princes of these darknesses.” If, then, these are the rulers who, not knowing that the Lord of glory was Christ, crucified him, how could he have been known by the demons? The demons did not know him otherwise than as the rulers of this age knew him. For they knew that he was the one who had been promised in the Law, by the signs of prophecy; but they did not know his mystery, by which he was the eternal Son of God, nor the sacrament of the Incarnation.

106 (Mark 3:17) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 24. WHY DID THE SAVIOR CALL HIS DISCIPLES “SONS OF THUNDER” (Mark 3:17), WHO WOULD SEEM FAR MORE TO BE CALLED SONS OF GOD? FOR THUNDER IS SAID TO BE PRODUCED BY THE COLLISION OF CLOUDS. —Since thunder inspires fear, for this reason He called the disciples sons of thunder, as if they were sons of Him who is to be feared. For although thunder is caused by the collision of clouds, yet it happens by the will of God and is terrifying. 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Mark 7:24) 107 QUESTION 77. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF WHAT MARK THE EVANGELIST SAYS ABOUT CHRIST AMONG OTHER THINGS: “ENTERING THE HOUSE, HE WISHED NO ONE TO KNOW, AND HE COULD NOT REMAIN HIDDEN” (Mark 7:24)? IF THEREFORE HE WISHED AND COULD NOT, HIS WILL SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN WEAKENED. — It is utterly impossible that the Savior’s will should not be fulfilled; nor can he will what he knows ought not to be done. Therefore, he must be said to have willed what in fact was done. For his will is never outside his nature. Just as his nature cannot fall under criticism, so neither can his will. For what is set forth was done in the regions of Tyre: then he entered the house and did not wish anyone to know. Now it is to be asked how or why he did not wish anyone to know. We must observe that this took place in the territory of the Gentiles, for whom the time for preaching had not yet come. Indeed, when he sent his disciples he commanded them, saying, “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter the cities of the Samaritans; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5–6). Therefore he did not wish it to be made known that he was in the house; yet he did not refuse to be sought out, but welcomed it gladly.

108 For although it was not yet the time to preach to the Gentiles, it would have been an act of envy not to receive those who came of their own accord to the faith. Therefore it came about that, while the Savior was not made known by the disciples, he was nevertheless made known by others who had seen him enter the house; and it began to be known that he was in the house, so that those who wished to obtain blessings might enter to him. By his own people, therefore, he did not wish it to be proclaimed that he was in the house. For he wished to be sought; and so it happened. For he did not remain hidden, since it was pointed out by others that he was in the house. Indeed the Canaanite woman, hearing about him, entered to him and begged that he would cast the demon out of her daughter; and she would not have obtained the blessing if she had not first subjected herself to the God of the Jews. Therefore the will of the Savior was fulfilled according to what we have explained: for when we examine those things which the Evangelist, aiming at brevity, has summarized, we discover what was concealed.

109 (Mark 7:24) QUESTION 25. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE EVANGELIST MARK, CHRIST’S WILL WAS NOT FULFILLED: FOR “ENTERING,” HE SAYS, “INTO A HOUSE, HE WISHED NO ONE TO KNOW, AND HE COULD NOT REMAIN HIDDEN” (Mark 7:24)? IF THEREFORE HE WISHED TO BE HIDDEN AND COULD NOT, HIS WILL HAS BEEN WEAKENED. — This, which has been presented in brief so that it might conceal more meaning, is read as having taken place in the regions of Tyre: for when the Savior had come into the borders of Tyre, he entered a house. And because he ought not yet to preach to the Gentiles, he ordered that no one should announce his coming to anyone: that is, he did not wish anyone to know; and it is understood that he did not wish it to be reported by his own people to anyone that he was in the house. Yet he did not wish to be sought, because the time for offering grace to the Gentiles had not come. Indeed, when the woman came, having learned from others who had seen him enter the house, she begged that the demon might be cast out of her daughter. But the Savior, knowing that it was not yet the time to grant grace freely to the Gentiles, said, “Let the children first be filled. For it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” (Mark 7:27) Then the woman agreed with the Savior’s words and received the blessing she desired. For by agreeing she joined herself to the God of the Jews. For this reason, therefore, he did not wish it to be known by his own people that he was in the house; and therefore it happened as he willed.

110 LUKE (Luke 1:27) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 86. WHAT PROVES THAT MARY, THE MOTHER OF THE LORD, IS OF THE TRIBE AND LINEAGE OF DAVID? — We will bring forward the testimony of a trustworthy witness. For the Angel says to Mary among other things: “And the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will reign in the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:32–33). How could David be called by a trustworthy witness his father, if his mother Mary were not of the seed of David? (Luke 1:33) 2ND CATEGORY NT 111 QUESTION 26. IN THE GOSPEL WE READ THAT THE ANGEL SAYS TO MARY, THE LORD’S MOTHER, THAT HIS KINGDOM, THAT IS, CHRIST’S, WILL HAVE NO END (Luke 1:33). AND DANIEL SAYS THE SAME; FOR HE SAYS: THEN THERE SHALL ARISE AN EVERLASTING KINGDOM WHICH SHALL NEVER BE DESTROYED (Dan. 7:14). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APOSTLE SAYS OF THE LORD: WHEN HE SHALL HAVE DELIVERED UP THE KINGDOM TO GOD AND THE FATHER (1 Cor. 15:24). HOW WILL HE HAVE AN ETERNAL KINGDOM, IF HE IS SAID TO BE GOING TO DELIVER THAT KINGDOM UP TO GOD AND THE FATHER? — In the case of the Father and the Son, that is, of God and Christ, “delivering up” is to be understood not as abolition. Consider how the Father delivered the kingdom to the Son, with the Lord Himself declaring this: All things, He says, have been delivered to Me by My Father (Matt. 11:27). If, therefore, the Father ceased to have it when He delivered it, then it could also be said of the Savior that when He delivers it, He loses it. For after the Son said that the kingdom had been delivered to Him by the Father, still preferring the Father, He said: Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent (Jn. 17:3).

112 According to this understanding, then, the Son does not lose the kingdom when He delivers it, so that what is said by the angel and by Daniel may remain true and both be said not to differ from this sense. Whoever thinks that the testimony of either of these should be withdrawn is full of unbelief. But now, remaining in this faith, let us see what it means that the Son delivers the kingdom to the Father; for this is what, among other things, the Apostle says elsewhere: Then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). This subjection, therefore, is the very delivering up of the kingdom. Therefore in this passage an interpretation seems necessary, so that the Son being subject to the Father is not denied, and nonetheless He is said to have an eternal kingdom. This is the kingdom of the Son, because at the name of Jesus every knee bends, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Phil. 2:10). Peter the Apostle also confirms this, saying: There is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). And the Lord Himself says to the disciples: Until now you have asked nothing in My name; ask, and I will do it (Jn. 16:24). Therefore the Son reigns, since all are saved in His name, and the things that are asked are given, until the end of the world.

113 But after all things will have confessed Christ, whether by force or by will, and have been subjected to His power to which they had resisted, the mystery of the one God will be revealed to all, and every act of thanksgiving will be referred to the Father, from whom are all things; so that, when preaching ceases, one God may be known in the mystery of the Trinity. For when all powers, all principalities and dominions will have bent the knee to Christ, then the Son will show that He is not the One from whom are all things, but His Son, and that He is seen in Him. This is the subjection and the delivering up of the kingdom. For by showing that the Father is the One from whom are all things, He subjected Himself to Him when He says that He is from Him. So great is the majesty and glory that will be seen in the coming of the Son, that all powers and choirs of angels will think that this is the unique God. But when the Savior will have said that He is not the One who is called the Father, but His Son, reigning He delivers the kingdom to the Father. In this fact both the subjection and the delivering up of the kingdom are revealed; because when He acknowledges that He is from the Father, He confesses that whatever He has belongs to the Father, referring the whole sum to Him.

114 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Luke 1:34) QUESTION 51. HOW IS IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT, WHEN MARY SAID TO THE ANGEL, “AND HOW SHALL I KNOW THIS, FOR I DO NOT KNOW MAN?”, THE ANGEL GABRIEL REPLIED, “THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON YOU, AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU” (Luke 1:34–35)? — To Mary, who was uncertain about the conception, the angel proclaims its possibility, saying, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you”; that is, Do not doubt because you do not know a man: for what I said, that you will conceive, the Holy Spirit, coming upon you, will bring about that you conceive without a man. And he says, “And the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” The power of the Most High is without doubt Christ: for this relates to his own person. Therefore, when the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin, he sanctified her by his working, producing from her a holy body, in which the Power who is called the Son of God would be born. This overshadowing of the Virgin is this: that from the immensity of the Godhead there should be something in the womb of the Virgin, as much as human nature could receive, which, as it were from the brightness, would be called an overshadowing, and would be the power of God; which power of God is also God. For there is nothing that is from God which is not called God. For this is a property of what is bodily: that there can be something in flesh that cannot be called flesh, such as hair, and bones, and strengths, and the rest.

115 (Luke 1:34) 116 QUESTION 38. HOW IS IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT, WHEN MARY SAID TO THE ANGEL, “AND HOW SHALL I KNOW THIS, FOR I DO NOT KNOW MAN?”, THE ANGEL GABRIEL REPLIED, “THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON YOU, AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU” (Luke 1:34–35)? — “To Mary, who was uncertain about the conception,” etc. “The power of the Most High is without doubt Christ. For this saying pertains to his own person; for this is a sign of the Son of God, that is, when he is called the Power of God. According to the Godhead, however, the Father is power, and the Holy Spirit is power, and of these three there is one power, because there is one substance. Therefore the Holy Spirit made flesh for the Savior from the Virgin; but the power of the Most High, that is Christ, overshadowed her by coming into the flesh made by the Spirit, so that in body and soul the power of the Son might lie hidden. But for it to lie hidden means that for a time it is not understood. It must be considered, however, what “overshadowing” is to be understood as in full. If the force of this word is expressed, the overshadowing of the power of God is understood as some kind of coming upon, so that when the body is overshadowed, it is recognized as receiving something from the power of God. But this “something” is the whole, because the divinity cannot be divided. It therefore follows:

117 “Therefore also the holy one who will be born of you shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35) For that which is born of the Holy Spirit, having in itself the overshadowing of the power of God, which is the Son of God, is without doubt born holy; that is, the body of the Son of God. For the body of the Holy One is holy. Therefore the holy Son of God was born in a holy body. Therefore indeed David spoke of the flesh of Christ: “You will not allow your Holy One to see corruption” (Ps. 16:10), so that in the holy body he himself is signified. 118 (Luke 2:34) 1ST CATEGORY NT 119 QUESTION 73. WHAT IS IT THAT SIMEON SAYS TO MARY, THE MOTHER OF THE LORD, AMONG OTHER THINGS: “THIS CHILD IS SET FOR THE FALL AND THE RISING OF MANY IN ISRAEL; AND A SWORD, HE SAYS, SHALL PIERCE THROUGH YOUR OWN SOUL ALSO, THAT THE THOUGHTS OF MANY HEARTS MAY BE REVEALED” (Luke 2:34–35)? — Simeon, a holy man, commended by divine oracles, spoke through the Holy Spirit about what would happen to people because of Christ, namely, that He would be a cause of ruin to those who, while they seemed to themselves to stand through their observance and skill in the Law, would nevertheless fall through distrust of Christ’s works, being severed from the promise given to the Fathers; but for those who possessed almost no dignity in the Law, yet believed in Christ, He would be a resurrection in Israel. [So that those who were formerly unworthy and useless might become worthy of God, and those who thought themselves to be something might be rejected. This is what the Lord says in another place: “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind” (Jn. 9:39). Indeed, it was not the doctors of the Law, nor the Pharisees, nor the scribes who followed Christ, but fishermen, uneducated and country men. Therefore the Lord says: “Father, I thank you because you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to little ones” (Matt. 11:25).

120 But when he adds, saying, “And a sword shall pierce through your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed,” he certainly meant that even Mary, through whom the mystery of the Incarnation of the Savior was accomplished, would waver at the death of the Lord; yet in such a way that she would be strengthened by the honor of the resurrection and by the power of the Lord. For all, in a certain stupor, doubted at the death of the Lord. Yet they did not remain in doubt. For the sword therefore passes through the soul, if doubt does not remain in the mind, but is driven out when the former strength returns and renews itself. [For who would not hesitate when he saw Him who called Himself the Son of God so humbled that He descended even to death? And because, as I have said, all uncertainty was to depart at the resurrection of the Lord, he said that the sword would pass through, not that it would fall upon, or touch some passing limb. Just as a sword that is hurled and passes close by a man causes fear and yet does not strike him, so doubt would cause grief, yet would not kill: because it did not settle in the soul, but passed through, as if touching the hearts of the disciples only as a shadow.

121 Indeed, Cleopas and the other disciple, as they went to Emmaus, sad along the road, said among other things to the Lord Himself, not knowing that He was the Lord, “We were hoping that it was He who would redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21). They doubted, but, as soon as they recognized the Lord, the doubt passed away. So it is also said of Joseph, that “iron passed through his soul” (Ps. 105:18). For he, though innocent, was long held in prison; it is no wonder if he doubted somewhat regarding God’s judgment about him; but because he hoped more in God, he did not remain in uncertainty. For a person is judged in that point to which he is most inclined. The Apocalypse of John confirms this. For it says: “The fearful and unbelieving shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and sulphur” (Rev. 21:8). Therefore, the one who does not remain in doubt is snatched from death: this is to escape death; for to doubt about God or about Christ is death. And therefore, the one who ceases to doubt escapes death.

122 (Luke 14:33) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 27. THE SAVIOR SAYS, IF ANYONE HAS NOT LEFT ALL THAT HE HAS, THAT IS, HOUSE, AND FIELD, AND THE REST, HE CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE; AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE EVANGELIST SAYS: JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA CAME, A RICH MAN, WHO WAS ALSO HIMSELF A DISCIPLE OF JESUS, WAITING FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD (Luke 14:33 and 23:50–51). HOW IS IT THAT THE EVANGELIST ACKNOWLEDGES HIM AS A DISCIPLE WHOM THE SAVIOR DENIED? FOR ZACCHAEUS WAS RICH, AND CORNELIUS THE CENTURION WAS RICH, AND THE WOMEN WHO MINISTERED TO THEM OUT OF THEIR MEANS WERE RICH. — The Apostle resolves this point briefly, saying: Those who have, let them be as though they had not; and those who use this world, as though they did not use it; and those who buy, as though they did not possess (1 Cor. 7:30–31). Whoever therefore has these things in such a way as if he did not have them, seems to have renounced them. For when he does not rely on them, nor boast himself because of them, but walks humbly, not only in appearance but also in mind, understanding himself to be a steward and minister of these things, he seems to have left all that is his. For that is said to be left which departs from desire and has no appeal.

123 (Luke 16:16) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 29. IF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN, FROM WHOM THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN BEGAN TO BE PREACHED (Luke 16:16), FOR HE IS INDEED THE INITIATOR OF THE NEW PREACHING, WHY DID HIS BAPTISM CEASE? — The baptism of John, once begun, did not cease; rather, what was lacking in it was added. For John only baptized; he did not give the Holy Spirit to believers, just as he himself says about the Savior: “I baptize you in water unto repentance, but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 3:11). This is what he means: Through me there is forgiveness of sins, yet the Holy Spirit is not given, so that those purified might be called sons; for this was reserved to the Savior, as Lord, so that people might not become sons of God except by receiving the Holy Spirit from the Son of God. Therefore, the effect of John’s baptism, which worked silently without questioning, yet not without mention of the Savior, so that what it accomplished might be firm, is a gift of the Trinity. This is what the Savior's goodness teaches us this by giving the form of three names, which in the beginning, under the name or person of the one God, worked one single and undivided work. Therefore, an interpretation was added to John’s baptism, giving expression to the mystery that had long been hidden; and there was added a greater gift, so that those baptized, having received the Holy Spirit, might be sons of God. It was therefore enlarged, not abolished.

124 (Luke 21:25; 23:45) 1ST CATEGORY NT 125 QUESTION 105. HOW THE PROPHECY AGREES WITH THE GOSPEL, CONCERNING THE DARKENING OF THE SUN AND CERTAIN OTHER THINGS. — Since at the Lord’s first coming it was foretold that the sun would be darkened at his passion, at the very hour when it is proved to have happened, that is, at midday, for therefore it is written in the prophet Amos: “And it shall come to pass in that day, says the Lord, I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day” (Amos 8:9). On that day, therefore, from the sixth hour the sun was darkened until the ninth hour, and therefore the prophecy of the aforementioned prophet was fulfilled. The image of this event, which is to occur at the Lord’s second coming, was shown in the Lord’s passion; for at the end, when the Lord begins to come to judge the world, the heavenly lights will be released from their service, as the Lord says: “In those days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light” (Matt. 24:29). Joel the prophet has not omitted this either, so that, being signified by many, it may without doubt be believed to be fulfilled. For therefore he said: “The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and revealing day of the Lord comes” (Joel 2:31). As far as appears, this more fittingly belongs to the second coming;

126 for then it will be openly revealed to all, as Scripture says: “Then every eye shall see him, and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him, and those who crucified him” (Rev. 1:7). Therefore, if in both comings it is contained that the sun shall be darkened in those days, what is that day on which Scripture rings that the sun and moon shall be increased? For among other things Isaiah says: “And there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every high hill, streams running with water in that day, when many shall perish and when the towers shall fall. And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, in the day when the Lord shall heal the brokenness of his people” (Isa. 30:25–26), and so forth. What day can be understood, on which the Lord promised to heal the brokenness of his people? I think this is the day which Zacharias, the father of John, pointed out when he said: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and performed the redemption of his people. And he has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David his servant, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets, who have been since the world began, that he would deliver us from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us, to perform mercy with our fathers” (Luke 1:68–72).

127 And Simeon, among other things, said: “This child is set for the fall and for the rise of many in Israel” (Luke 2:34). This fall is that of the scribes and Pharisees and the rulers of the Jews, whom the prophet signified by the towers. These, therefore, falling through unbelief, others rose up by believing, who had previously seemed weak and sick through negligence. Where the Savior says: “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind” (Jn. 9:39); so that those who by the practice and knowledge of the Law seem to be lights may be blinded through unbelief, but the blind, that is, the unlearned or publicans, may see by believing. Their weaknesses the prophet foretold that the Savior would bear (Isa. 53:11). And so at this time of the Savior it came to pass, as we read in the Gospel, that “he took our infirmities and bore our diseases” (Matt. 8:17). All these things indeed were completed and fulfilled in the Savior’s passion: for therefore the salvation of the human race, both in heaven above and in the lower regions, was both redeemed and confirmed, since the prophecy of the aforementioned Zacharias encompasses both. For here above they were freed from the crushing of enemies by the intervention of mercy; and there below, in the underworld, when they were snatched from Tartarus.

128 For all who hoped in the promised Christ were awaiting his coming, that, death having been conquered, they might be freed from Hades. Therefore he said: “To perform mercy with our fathers. If anyone, however, understands this salvation also to be contained in the second coming, yet in both comings, especially in the second, the sun will be turned into darkness and the moon will not give her brightness: how then shall we perceive the sun and moon to be increased on the day when the Lord will visit his people, when in both times, in which the liberation of the people was begun and completed, we read that the sun and moon are not diminished but darkened? Unless, clearly, we understand the sun and moon to be compared to the saints; just as in another place we read that the saints are made equal to the heavenly lights, with the Apostle Paul preaching that among these men the saints in this world appear as luminaries. And in the Gospel: “Then the righteous shall shine like the sun” (Matt. 13:43). For the Lord calls righteous works “light”: therefore he says, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). Those, therefore, who, having left all that is theirs, follow the Lord for the sake of righteousness and holiness, are compared to the sun and moon as being honored sevenfold; as the Lord says:

129 “There is no one who leaves house, or wife, or children, or fields, who will not receive seven times as much in this age” (see Luke 18:29–30). Those, then, who are now honored sevenfold can be understood to be believed in the future to become seven degrees brighter than the rest; so that their resurrection is compared to the sun and moon, while that of the others is like the stars. Therefore the brightness of the saints, which is honored sevenfold here, obtains another sevenfold in the resurrection, so that one who here has the brightness of the moon will receive the brightness of the sun in the future; and one who here is compared to the sun will be believed then to receive seven times as much. Therefore the prophet Isaiah foretold that by comparison with the sun and moon the merits of the saints would be increased, and not without reason. For if the Lord himself is called the Sun of righteousness, and the saints will be like him, as the Apostle John says: “When he appears, we shall be like him” (1 Jn. 3:2), then fittingly the saints are signified in the sun, yet the aforementioned prophet shows the sun to be greater than the moon by seven degrees For when it shows that the moon, like the light of the sun, will exist in the future, but the sun will be seven times as great;

130 it certainly means, in the manner of speaking, that the moon will be increased sevenfold more than the sun, so that the moon will then be such as the sun is now: although the reasoning here concerns the saints, under this explanation of the luminaries it has nevertheless partly revealed their measure, so that after the increase of the sun and the moon, a saint will again be as much greater as the sun once was; and as much as one saint now differs from another saint, so much will one differ from another in the future after the reward. 131 (Luke 22) 1ST CATEGORY NT 132 QUESTION 84. WHY DO WE, WHO ARE KEEPING THE PASSOVER FEAST (EASTER) BY THE PHASE OF THE MOON, REPROACH THE PAGANS FOR OBSERVING THE DAYS AND THE DIFFERENT PHASES OF THE MOON? — Far be it from Christians to be said to worship the stars, when they have been granted a spiritual cultivation, so that, despising what is seen, they may be united to what is invisible and above the heavens, and surpass all these things, destined to be with the Angels of God. For the worshipers of the stars will either be with them, or below them. How can it happen that someone should be above the things he worships? The pagans therefore do not observe the calculation of the moon, but worship the moon itself as a goddess. And having persuaded themselves that they have grasped the effects of its courses, they determine what must be done or avoided on particular days, subjecting their life and conduct in an ordered way to its supposed authority. Because they have dared to take these things outside God’s ordinance, we frequently discover that they are deceived. For God appointed these luminaries as signs for the seasons. Therefore we too keep the count of the moon, but we do not cultivate the moon itself; so that from the fourteenth moon, which according to the Law is for us the first, we may observe the rule of Easter. For God established all things in fullness:

133 and therefore from the fourteenth up to the twenty-first, in these seven days it has been granted to us to celebrate Easter, so that some of these seven days may be enclosed between the preparation (Parasceve) and the resurrection of the Lord: so that neither the thirteenth day be in the Passion, nor the fourteenth or fifteenth in the Resurrection, lest the Passion of Christ be before the first moon as we count it, nor His Resurrection be on a day other than the first day on which the world was begun. For all the seasons of the world are numbered by the cycles of a single week, because in these days God composed the parts and ornaments of the world. In six days He fitted the world, and on the seventh He ceased, which He called the sabbath. In these seven days the order and number of the entire world are contained. For they ever return into themselves, increasing the number of the seasons. After the sabbath, therefore, it always repeats from the first day up to the seventh day, that is, the sabbath; so that we may learn that the Lord’s resurrection took place on the first day of the world’s beginning, which is called the Lord’s Day. For the Lord made that day one with the evening, and being unfolded into the sevenfold number, it begins again, so as to be the first after the week. This was so decreed from the beginning because of the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection.

134 For in the body of the Lord almost the whole world rose again and was renewed. It is settled that we do not worship the moon, but keep the number that has been established by the moon’s course. But the Devil, who is Satan, in order that he may attach some authority to his deceit and color his fabricated lies with truth, in the first month in which he knows the Lord’s mysteries are to be celebrated, since he is not of small power, instituted mysteries for the pagans to observe, so that he might hold their souls in error for two reasons: since deceit has anticipated truth, it might seem that deceit is something better, as if by its antiquity influencing the truth. And because in the first month, in which the Romans have the equinox, as we do, that same observance is kept by them, so that they even say that expiation is made by blood, just as we by the cross: by this trickery he keeps the pagans in error, so that they think our truth to appear rather an imitation than truth, as though invented through a certain superstition in rivalry. “For,” they say, “what has been discovered later cannot be judged true. But since among us truth is for certain, and this is from the beginning, signs of powers and wonders bear witness, so that, with power as a witness, the wickedness of the Devil may be made known.

135 For since truth alone easily persuades, it has been set against the cunning and pre-emption of the Devil, to reveal his deception. For no one, not even among enemies, would dare deny that there is truth where power appears. 136 (Luke 22:50) 1ST CATEGORY NT 137 QUESTION 104. ON THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. — Knowing that a Jewish war against Him was to come, the Lord told His disciples to get swords for themselves. (Luke 22:36) When this had been done and the war had begun under the leadership of Judas Iscariot, Peter the apostle, seeing the enemies rising up, drew his sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the priests. Then the Lord ordered Peter to put his sword back into its sheath: “For everyone,” He said, “who takes the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:51–52). Why did He order swords to be prepared, when He forbade striking, even declaring liable to death the one who strikes with the sword, since the apostle does not seem to have struck unjustly? For as far as Peter is concerned, he struck the one whom he saw armed against him. He ought indeed to have resisted the thankless servants armed for killing the Lord. If you examine each part of the case whose force we wish to explain, you will also find other points you may seek beyond these words. For what need was there that He, who relied on spiritual power, should order carnal swords to be prepared, and He who had previously commanded that on the way they should carry neither bag, nor money, nor staff (Matt. 10:10), should now order that those things be possessed which He had previously forbidden? Let us therefore begin to explain why He ordered swords to be prepared and yet forbade killing.

138 For the sake not only of the enemies, but also of His own disciples, He commanded that arms be acquired for the coming war. For a new and marvelous thing was about to happen, that He who worked new and unheard‑of signs should so suddenly be humbled as to be subjected both to scourging and to death. Lest He should appear to suffer these things as one unaware, as if power had somehow departed from Him, He foretold all this in such a way that He would not be doubted in these matters but, foreknowing them, would prepare Himself against them; and because He was humbled willingly, He would not command a fierce resistance to His enemies. He showed Himself to be the same as He had been to such a degree that, already arrested, He restored the ear that had been cut off, so that what had fallen by the operation of the sword He gave back: not as a bodily physician, but as the Maker of bodies He refashioned His work when it had been mutilated. For physicians cannot restore limbs once cut off from the body. But in order that the power of God in Him might appear not diminished, but present as it had been, and to confirm what He had said: “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again” (Jn. 10:18), for this reason He ordered swords to be prepared, yet did not order killing.

139 Now it remains to show why, contemplating Peter the apostle’s act, He said that the one who has used the sword will perish by the sword, though Peter does not seem to have struck unjustly. For as is indicated in Luke, he struck with the Lord Himself permitting it, and then, being forbidden, heard these words (Luke 22:49–50). It was permitted, indeed, so that He might appear able to avenge Himself but unwilling to do so; and so that His power might be shown to remain in Him as it had been, so that in both respects it would not be doubted that He could avenge Himself; while the enemies, on the other hand, would know for certain that power had been given to them by Him to do this. For He did not appear as one defeated, but as one giving Himself over to their will. Why then was the sentence given that whoever takes the sword will perish by the sword, unless because no one is permitted, except the judge, to kill anyone with the sword? But to the apostle Peter it was permitted only to the extent that he might inflict pain, not that he might kill. For this reason he was told not to strike again. He also learned that once people have become Christians, they are no longer allowed to kill. For those who are placed in mercy, it is not permitted to use harshly the law of justice, which has been entrusted to the world.

140 But that instruction which He seems to have given to the disciples going before Him on the road, that they should take nothing for the journey, is for the sake of peace, and the grace of miracles, and the charm of teaching. For what need was there to carry anything on the road for those to whom, for the sake of signs, all things were to be offered? But when the time came in which He allowed Himself to suffer, for which rather a quarrel than a war was awaiting, He commanded His disciples to be armed: not that He who wished to suffer might resist, but, as I said, that He might show Himself foreknowing this matter and having His passion in His own power; yet humbling Himself for the sake of human salvation, which will be discussed in its proper place. 141 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT (Luke 23:44) QUESTION 67. WHAT IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR, PLACED UPON THE CROSS, SAYS: FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING (Luke 23:34)? — If they do not know, what is it that is being forgiven, especially since King Abimelech says to God, Will you destroy a nation that is ignorant? (Gen. 20:4). Not everyone who is ignorant is free from punishment: the one who is ignorant can be excused from punishment if he has found no one from whom he could learn. But for these, he asks that this be forgiven, who, though they had someone from whom they could learn, did not make the effort. It is not permitted to be ignorant in this way. Therefore, they will receive pardon if they are converted. (Luke 23:44)

142 QUESTION 4. WHAT IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR, WHEN PLACED ON THE CROSS, SAYS: FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING? IF THEY DO NOT KNOW, WHAT IS IT THAT IS FORGIVEN, ESPECIALLY SINCE ABIMELECH SAYS TO GOD, WILL YOU DESTROY THOSE WHO ARE IGNORANT? — Not everyone who is ignorant is free from punishment. For he who could have learned and did not make the effort, has made himself guilty. The opportunity was there for him to learn, and there was someone from whom he could learn; but made more negligent by indulgence or by ill will, he becomes without excuse in his crime. Therefore the Savior says, If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin (Jn. 15:22). But the one who is ignorant through no fault of his own, he is ignorant because there was no one from whom he could learn, nor did he even hear by rumor any report of the teaching, is in every respect free from condemnation. Therefore, for those who did not make the effort to learn the truth when it was preached to them, but through ignorance killed its author, the Lord asks the Father to grant them pardon if they are converted. Therefore Peter the apostle says in the Acts, Repent, that your sins may be wiped out (Acts 3:19).

143 JOHN (John 1:1-3) 1ST CATEGORY NT 144 QUESTION 122. ON THE BEGINNING. — In the beginning was the Word (Jn. 1:1). What is “in the beginning”? For we also read in the ancient Books: In the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1). And in the Epistle of him whose Gospel it is, and about whose “beginning” we are trying to say something, it is signified in the same sense; for he says: That which was from the beginning. (1 Jn. 1:1) The Epistle therefore and the Gospel have one and the same meaning. For it is one thing that is said in the old text, In the beginning God made heaven and earth; and another when he says, In the beginning was the Word; and, That which was from the beginning (1 Jn. 1:1). For to be in the beginning, and to be from the beginning, mean one and the same thing, in the case of that which from the beginning was what it was, and did not begin to be. For that which begins to be, was not from the beginning; and therefore it is subjected to a beginning, that is, to be the first among other things in order, because, being itself made at the beginning, it began to have others after itself, which were made after it. As we read that in the beginning God made heaven and earth: he did not say, In the beginning were heaven and earth;

145 because when they did not yet exist, and God was disposing Himself to make the world, in the beginning, that is, among the other things which were to contribute to the construction of the world, God first made heaven and earth; because beginning is the starting point of one who undertakes something that is first in order. But that which is said, that in the beginning it was, that is, the Word, is meant to have existed before the beginning of the higher and lower creation; so that it should by no means be understood as having been made first among these things which have been created, as if it were made earlier, when God was disposing Himself to make creation. Therefore, if in the beginning it was, that is, it was before all things, it always was. And so too it was the Word. Where? With God, he says, lest it should be thought unworthy and in any way subject to a beginning, it which always was with God. For it is fitting that what was before all things with God should not be subjected to any beginning. Therefore he added: And the Word was God. Now he shows plainly that what was said above applies to the Word; for he says, The Word was God: and concerning God one must not think otherwise than that He should always be said to have been. For if He began to be, He is a creature; if He is a creature, He is not God.

146 For whatever exists is either God or a creature; and therefore the name of God does not belong to a creature. But because He did not begin to be (He was, in fact), He is rightly said to be God. But He is said to have always been with God because He is God not from Himself, but from God. On this account His name is said to be the Word of God, as the faith of the same evangelist shows in his Revelation. For he says among other things: And His name is the Word of God (Rev. 19:13). For in order that He might not be signified as the One from whom are all things, but as the One through whom are all things, that is, not as the Father but as the Son, He is called the Word of God: so that, because God cannot be without His Word, this One who is called the Word of God may be believed to have always been with God; and because the Word is not outside Him whose Word it is, this Word which was with God may be understood as signified to be not from elsewhere, but from God; and because He is from God, He is not absurdly called God. Therefore he does not make two gods by saying that God was with God. For if there were two, they would be different in nature and not of one will.

147 For if we men, though we are of one nature, are nevertheless of different wills, how much more, where the natures are different? and neither would God be said to be with God. For the God who was and is with God does not have from Himself that He is God; otherwise, neither would He be said to be God with God, nor would the Word of God be called God the Word; but because that which is from God does not signify any other kind of being than that which God Himself is, the Word of God is called God, so that, because He is said to be the Word of God, He should not be referred to another God. And the fact that He is called God happens for this reason, lest it should tend to the injury of God, if that which was from God were not at all called God. Therefore both the unity of God has been preserved, and the fitting honor has been rendered, since He who is God from God has not been received in His own glory, but in that of Him from whom He is God. For this reason the Gospel begins to speak of the Word before it speaks of God the Father; because questions arise not concerning God, but concerning the Word of God. No one doubts about God, but about Him who is God from God. For every tongue of those in heaven and on earth confesses one God;

148 but it is disturbed in the mystery of the one God. It trembles when it hears the Word of God called God; for it is struck by bodily representations, because the word of a man cannot be called a man; whereas God is by nature simple, not composed of members, nor having an inside and an outside, nor a before and after, nor top and bottom; but, if it can be said, He is wholly and entirely the same in all respects, nowhere variable or unlike Himself; and His one brightness is measureless. For if fire has neither front nor back, nor inside and outside, how much more its Creator? Therefore, because everything that God is, is entirely one and simple, it does not conflict, when something that is from God is called God. Therefore, partly according to a human example, and partly not according to a human example, the Son of God who is the Word of God is God. For in the same way in which sons of men are men, the Son of God is God; but because sons of men are men by mixture, in this respect the Son of God is not God by that example; because from the simple God He is simply born. And just as our word is from us, by this example it is understood that the Word of God is from Him; but because our word is not what we ourselves are, in this respect the Word of God is not from God in the same manner;

149 because the Word of God is a reality, not a sound that fades away. Nor, because we and God share common words, will there be one and the same explanation for us and for God in the actual effect of things. For we read, In the beginning God made heaven and earth. How did He make? Perhaps as we make our works with the hand? And further on it says: And God said, Let there be light; and there was light (Gen. 1:3). Whom do we suppose God spoke to? For He surely did not speak to man, but to Him who could make, who was also going to make man, as indeed He did. But how did He speak? Perhaps as we speak, with a bodily organ? Far from it. You see, then, that certain words are indeed shared between us and God, but they differ in their effect: for God acts in a different way than we do; and He is said to speak, but not in our manner. So also the Word of God is not a word of the kind we use, which, once it is spoken, no longer exists; that Word, however, remains, because it is such a Word that it hears, and speaks, and works. Moreover, it is not only the Word of God, but also the Power and the Wisdom of God, this is the Son of God. In respect to effect, He is called the Son of God;

150 in respect to the speech by which God addresses us through Him, He is called the Word of God; in respect to the wisdom by which God teaches us His mystery through Him, He is called the Wisdom of God; and in respect to the operation by which God made and makes all things through Him, He is called the Power of God. These titles could fit no one except the Son of God. Precisely because He is God from God, He is said to possess all that is God’s. For by being born He obtained all things of God. It would not be fitting that the Word of God, and the Power and Wisdom of God, should be called degenerate: for this is what “God the Word, the Power, and the Wisdom” means. But Christ, because He is wholly God from the whole God, is God; and He is called the Wisdom of God, and the Power, and the Word: that is, He is God from God, and with God. Therefore it is said, This was in the beginning with God. In order to overcome the minds of unbelievers, Scripture burst forth under force, to show that Christ is God, since everywhere, for the sake of the unity of God, it intends Christ to be understood as God. Now, however, in plain words it has said that He is God, and that He has always been with God, laying open the mystery of God, lest God be thought utterly solitary.

151 It has declared that God is not called one in order that He be considered solitary, but that, although there be two or three, yet from the one, the unity is not discriminatory, because whatever is from the one is referred back to that very one, since He is one, even though all things are said to be from God. Yet there is a difference between that which properly came forth from God and that which was created from outside at His command: that is, there is a difference between that which proceeded from His substance and that which, when it in no way existed, was created by His will. For that which proceeded from the substance of God was never subsequent to His substance; whereas that which was created began to be a substance when it was created: and therefore the Trinity alone has no beginning. Therefore, the disclosure of the mystery has diminished the merit of faith: for the more hidden that which is believed is, the greater is the reward of the believer, and the lesser the punishment of the doubter. But the disclosure of the mystery, while it has made the merits of believers lesser, has stirred up greater punishments for the unbelieving. For a clearer law makes one more guilty. The testimony of the Saviour Himself, by which He called God His own Father, would have sufficed. For which of the believers would doubt that the Son in substance is in no way different from the Father?

152 But because the unreasonableness of heretics, by inventions of unbelief, began to assail the laws of faith by receiving the Son of God otherwise than He is proclaimed, it was added, for the sake of making this known, that He was before all things with God and is God, so as to reveal what the concept of a true Son mystically contained. By this, divine mercy appears to have provided for human weakness, by unveiling what had been reserved, as enclosed, for the merits of a stronger faith. Therefore it added, saying, All things were made through Him, so that if anyone from what had been said above still hesitated in any respect, since human understanding is narrow for grasping divine things, from this he might become capable, when he hears, All things were made through Him. Therefore he would by no means think Him to be a thing made, since he hears that all things were made through Him by God; for if He Himself were a thing made, it would not have said that all things were made through Him by God: nor indeed was He made through Himself. To reveal this more fully still, it added, And without Him, it says, was made nothing: in saying this, it excluded all controversy and earthly arguments. Although there are still those who refuse to believe, nevertheless, when it shows that nothing was made without Him, it has taught that in no way ought He to be suspected of being a creature.

153 For how can He Himself be said to be a creature, when it is said that God made nothing without Him? If God made Him, Scripture lies. But far be it. For Scripture is faithful, and, in order to cut off error, it uses as much clarity as it can for the redemption of human beings unto salvation. Finally it subjoined, What was made in Him was life (Jn. 1:2–4): in Him, that is, in the Word, it signifies that what was made is life. As the Lord Himself also says: As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself (Jn. 5:26). It is not that the Word was without life, and afterwards life was either given or made in Him; rather, He wishes the Word itself to be understood as life. If one can say of God the Father that He Himself is one thing and has in Himself another; so also of His Son: for just as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave the Son to have life in Himself. Human words are not fit to explain divine realities. Therefore what is said seems flawed, in that, while the Son of God is not a creature, that which is, is said to have been made in Him. And if it had said, “what was begotten in Him,” even so it would have seemed flawed.

154 But to show His substantial generation, it pointed to the work made in it by such language as it could use, by which it exists, demonstrating that His generation has life in itself. For we indeed live, but we cannot give life to others, since that same life is not in our power. He, however, is said to have life in Himself precisely because He is able to give life and to create what He wills to exist and to live. For this He is said to be born, that He might be able to do all that the Father does; because He has life in Himself just as the Father has. For this is what it means that He made all things through Him and in Him: He so begot Him as to have in Himself life, through which He can make all things, not because He Himself is something other than life, but since His life can both live and create others to live, He is said to have life in Himself. For we indeed live, but we do not have life itself in us in such a way that we also give life to others. This reality the Apostle Paul also recalls among other things when he says: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn before every creature; for in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers; all things were created through him and in him” (Col. 1:15–16).

155 Now the Gospels agree with this teaching of the two Apostles, John and Paul: for they say the same thing, that the Son of God was begotten before every creature, so that he might create spiritual powers, and the world, and the visible things that are in it. For what John said, that “what was made, in him is life,” Paul signified in the same way when he said that “in him all things in heaven and on earth were created. And further on: “All things were created through him and in him. “Through him” he created, because in substance he is the same God, that is, the Father in the Son; but “in him,” because he so begot the Son that he might have the power to make all things visible and invisible. This consisted in making life in him, so that he might both live, and bestow life on others for living, understanding, acting, and upon the other living beings according as he willed, as the image of God. For when he is called the image of God, this refers to both aspects: for by his express birth he possesses in himself the full likeness of the Father, and he can do whatever the Father can do, so that it is truly the Father who is seen in the Son, who is the image of the invisible God. Surely, because he called the Father invisible, he did not thereby make the Son visible, since the Son is by nature what the Father is.

156 And since the heavenly creature is invisible, how much more its Creator? But he meant this of what is in heaven, not of what is on earth; for although the Son is invisible, yet he is seen there, that is, in the heavenly realms, by the Apostles or by others of that kind, of whom he said: “Father, I will that where I am, they also may be with me, and may see my glory” (Jn. 17:24). And elsewhere: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:8); that is, the Father in the Son, God in the image; which is God in God. As the body is the image of a bodily thing, so God is the image of God: for the Father is the pattern, and the Son is the pattern taken from the pattern, which he communicates to the Holy Spirit; “For he shall take of mine,” he says (Jn. 16:14). And therefore in the Son God is seen as in his own image. For just as no one was found worthy to open the book and its seals except the Word of God (Rev. 5:4–8), so no one is worthy to see God the Father, neither by nature nor by merits, except his true Son. For there is nothing in between that could stand as an obstacle between the Father and the Son, as he himself bears witness when he says: “Neither has anyone seen the Father, except he who is from God; he has seen the Father” (Jn. 6:46).

157 But if in the Son the Father is seen, why is it said that no one is worthy to see God, since he is seen in the Son, because the Son does not differ from the Father? He does not differ at all in substance, because he is the true Son; it differs, however, in the degree of origin [causalitatis], because all power is from the Father in the Son; and in substance the Son is not lesser, yet in authority the Father is greater, as the Lord himself testifies, saying: “If you loved me, you would indeed rejoice, because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (Jn. 14:28). Keeping this order, the Apostle Paul also says: “One God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus, through whom are all things, and we through him” (1 Cor. 8:6): so that the first degree is “from whom are all things”; the second, “through whom are all things”; the third, “in whom are all things. And because none of these is inferior, they are signified in the unity of God, as the Apostle says: “For from him and through him and in him are all things; to him be glory forever and ever” (Rom. 11:36).

158 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (John 1:17) 159 QUESTION 76. IN THE GOSPEL, JOHN SAYS, “THE LAW WAS GIVEN THROUGH MOSES, GRACE AND TRUTH CAME THROUGH JESUS CHRIST” (John 1:17). THEREFORE, GRACE AND TRUTH DID NOT EXIST BEFORE. HOW THEN IS THE LAW SAID TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY GOD, IF THERE WAS NO TRUTH IN IT? — This should not simply be passed over, but we must consider what it means. “The Law was given through Moses. Through Moses the given Law has clear commandments; but he also wrote the history, which is itself also called Law. Let us see if anything in its commandments is not true: perhaps what it says, “You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal” (Exod. 20:13–15)? The rest are of the same kind. But as for its history, it is clear that before the coming of Christ the truth was not present. For the things that were under a veil were uncertain in what they signified. But when it was made clear through Christ whose person it is that speaks in Genesis, “Let us make man in our image and likeness” (Gen. 1:26), and who is the one who made him; and who it was that was seen by the patriarchs in the bush (Exod. 3:2); and who acted in the rock that gave water in the desert (Exod. 17:6), “for the Rock,” he says, “was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4), therefore truth came through Christ, when the things that had been hidden, or had become doubtful as to what they signified, were shown by Christ.

160 For among other things the Lord says, “Moses wrote about me” (Jn. 5:46). This had previously been concealed; indeed there was error. For he who was the Son was thought to be God the Father; and he who was supposed to be an angel was recognized as the Son of God. And a promise had been made to Abraham, which, so long as it was not fulfilled, remained in uncertainty; but when it was fulfilled with the coming of Christ, it became truth: when both what was promised was rendered, and it began to be known what it was that had been promised. For the faith of the one who promises is then proved true when he fulfills the promise. 161 (John 1:17) 162 QUESTION 30. IN THE GOSPEL, JOHN SAYS, “THE LAW WAS GIVEN THROUGH MOSES, GRACE AND TRUTH CAME THROUGH JESUS CHRIST” (John 1:17). THEREFORE, GRACE AND TRUTH DID NOT EXIST BEFORE. HOW THEN IS THE LAW SAID TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY GOD, IF THERE WAS NO TRUTH IN IT? — We must see what this means, “The Law was given through Moses. Through Moses, however, the given Law has clear commandments, and what in it would not be true? “You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery”? (Exod. 20:13–15) Such are the rest as well. But he also wrote the history in which, up to the coming of the Savior, what the truth was had not been revealed. When therefore it is revealed through Christ whose person says, “Let us make,” (Gen. 1:26) and who it is that acts; and who it was that was seen in the bush or by the patriarchs; (Exod. 3:2) and who it was that acted in the rock when he himself brought forth water (Exod. 17:6), “for the Rock,” he says, “was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4): truth therefore comes through Christ, as those things that had been in doubt are understood in what they signify. Therefore the Law given through Moses makes sinners guilty; but the grace that was promised in the Law, when it comes, by forgiving sins deprives sinners of death. There was therefore an order: first to give the Law, and afterwards mercy, which then becomes grace when it forgives sins.

163 For before, it was a promise, which afterwards becomes grace. “For,” he says, “there shall come out of Zion one who will deliver and turn away ungodliness from Jacob” (Isa. 59:20, LXX). This promise, through Christ, became grace, when he freely forgives sins. But how could he forgive sins if he had not first given the Law, through which, when people had become guilty, he might grant pardon? For he would not give except what was owed to himself. But it could not be owed unless the Law had gone before. 164 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (John 3:2) 165 QUESTION 59. IF BAPTISM IS A HEAVENLY MYSTERY, WHY DOES THE LORD, WHEN SPEAKING WITH NICODEMUS WHO DOUBTED CONCERNING BAPTISM, SAY: “IF I HAVE TOLD YOU EARTHLY THINGS, AND YOU DO NOT BELIEVE, HOW WILL YOU BELIEVE IF I TELL YOU HEAVENLY THINGS? (John 3:12)? — Whoever thinks Baptism consists in a merely bodily way is not a spiritual man; nor can he obtain the heavenly gift if he does not believe that he is changed not by water only, but by faith. For the water is seen, but the unseen Spirit is at work, so that faith may be in him. For just as water washes bodily filth, so the Spirit cleanses the soul from sins; so that, as visible things profit from visible means, so also the Spirit benefits spiritual things. And therefore a spiritual understanding is applied in Baptism. For there is more there in what is heard than in what is seen. Therefore, when Nicodemus, instructed by carnal reasoning, doubted, the Savior, in order to draw him to faith, used a fitting example, so as to give a visible example to confirm an invisible reality, one that consists only in hearing, not in sight, and is not disputed, and yet is earthly because it concerns a thing of this world. Therefore the Lord said to Nicodemus, urging him: “The Spirit blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born again of water and the Holy Spirit”;

166 so that just as the sound of the coming spirit, that is, of the wind, is indeed heard but not seen, as has been said, so also the nature of Baptism is heard when it is spoken of, yet the manner in which it is effected by the Spirit is not seen. Nevertheless, what is to come is announced by the one who conveys the words and is preached, so that what is heard may be believed to happen, although the explanation of how it happens is not given. But when even by this example Nicodemus was not led to faith, then he heard from the Savior: “If I have told you earthly things,” he says, “and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? These words he called “earthly,” which he had set forth by way of example; that is: “If by an earthly reasoning,” he says, “from the example given, of the spirit, that is, 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 examples, which you certainly do not know, you would believe? For a man can be persuaded of what he does not know by means of what he does know; for instance, God says of Christ that He is truly His Son, in a way that cannot be comprehended as to how this is so.

167 Yet through what we know according to the flesh about how sons exist, we believe that God therefore said, “Christ is my true Son,” in order to signify that He is from His own substance. In this way, the Savior, whose reality can be explained neither by words nor by the mind, wished to praise Him by means of something perceptible and audible to the ears, namely, by the example of the spirit which is the wind, which the senses grasp and the ear hears, but one does not know where it comes. In this manner He wished to make credible the work of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be comprehended. And in the Acts of the Apostles we read in the same way: “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the whole house” (Acts 2:2), etc. Behold, clearly by the example of the wind he indicates that the Holy Spirit therefore came from heaven and made a sound, just as a strong wind upon the earth. For Jeremiah also calls the wind “spirit,” saying, “The wind blows in every region. Because it is in this world and is carried about through various places, we do not know where it comes or where it goes. But the Holy Spirit comes from heaven, as we read, to enlighten believers.

168 How then does it seem to some that the Savior spoke about the Holy Spirit when He said, “The Spirit blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes or where it goes,” when it is clear that the Savior spoke this by way of example? Indeed, He added: “So is everyone who has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit. What is more obvious, that “spirit” here means “wind”? Yet they think that wind is not meant because He says, “where it wills it blows,” as if every creature, subject to a law imposed upon it, were not nevertheless released to its own freedom of action. We too go and do what we will, acting under law; for which reason we shall render an account. Or is it thought possible, and not foolish, that in wishing to indicate the operation of the Holy Spirit He should give that very Spirit as the example? Therefore I consider the question to be resolved in every respect.

169 (John 3:2) 170 QUESTION 16. SINCE THE SAVIOR SAYS THAT THE BAPTISM OF JOHN IS FROM HEAVEN, WHY, WHEN HE SPEAKS TO NICODEMUS ABOUT BAPTISM AND HE IS IN DOUBT, DOES HE SAY: “IF I HAVE TOLD YOU EARTHLY THINGS AND YOU DO NOT BELIEVE,” ETC.? — What he said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe,” does not refer to Baptism; because we know that our baptism is spiritual, although it is celebrated through water: but the reasoning there is of a heavenly kind. For it is not the water that purifies, but God, invisibly and incomprehensibly. It does, however, apply to the imitation of the example given, that is, to what he said, “The Spirit blows where he wills, and you hear his voice, but you do not know where he comes or where he goes. By this example he wished to instruct Nicodemus unto faith, so that he would believe that a man is reborn through water and the Spirit, yet that it cannot be grasped how this happens: for it happens spiritually. For just as you hear the voice of the spirit, that is, of the wind, which is a sound, but you do not know where it comes or where it goes, so also with one who is reborn: you do not know how he is changed, yet you sense that it happens, because you perceive the change itself. For if the wind blows where it wills, how much more does the Spirit who is from God sanctify whom he wills?

171 But he said, “He blows where he wills,” because every creature, although governed under the Law, is nevertheless left to its own choice. If, however, anyone thinks that this spirit is to be understood as the Holy Spirit, it does not stand; since for the sake of an example he set forth this spirit, by which he might persuade what he had said, that a man must be reborn of water and the Spirit, and this was not believed by Nicodemus. For surely the example is one thing, and that which is confirmed by the example is another. If therefore it is given as an example, it is not the Holy Spirit, but the worldly spirit which is called wind. For wishing to praise a spiritual reasoning to unbelieving Nicodemus, he gave the example of the spirit, so that through it the operation and working of the Holy Spirit might be believed. We do know, however, that the Holy Spirit came from heaven, so that he might pour himself into believers, as we read that it happened to the Apostles at the beginning, and that the sound was then called a voice. For it is therefore written, “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a mighty rushing spirit. (Acts 2:2) This sound he calls a “voice” in the passage in question. By the example of the spirit, that is, the wind, he shows the works of the Holy Spirit, so that the saying of the Savior might stand.

172 For what else is it when he says, “And there came a sound from heaven as of a mighty rushing spirit”? Therefore indeed he said that the Holy Spirit descended and sounded like a mighty wind. This, then, is the spirit he gave as an example. Finally he says, “So is everyone who is born again. And as for this one, we do not know where he comes; but the Holy Spirit came from heaven. 173 (John 5:18) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 31. THE SABBATH IS CERTAINLY THE LAW OR A PART OF THE LAW; HOW THEN IS THE LAW NOT ABOLISHED, WHEN THE EVANGELIST SAYS, “HE NOT ONLY BROKE THE SABBATH, BUT ALSO CALLED GOD HIS FATHER” (John 5:18)? — The Savior indeed broke the Sabbath, yet without prejudice to the Sabbath that had been given. For when the time of the Sabbath was already at an end, but the Jews insisted that the Sabbath still remained in force, the Savior, by working on the Sabbaths and by commanding the sick man to carry his bed on the Sabbath, broke the Sabbath according to the understanding of the Jews. For according to true faith, to say that it had already ceased is like saying of someone that he should be called a former governor, and that he suffered an injury because the governorship itself suffered injury. Therefore the Sabbath itself was not annulled, but the men who shamelessly claimed authority from the Sabbath were confused, since a new Law had already succeeded the Sabbath.

174 (John 5:46) 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT 175 QUESTION 2. THE GOSPEL BEARS WITNESS THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD (John 1:18; 6:46; and 1 Tim. 6:16); YET JACOB AND MOSES AND ISAIAH ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE SEEN GOD (Gen. 32:30 and Isa. 6:1). BUT SOMEONE SAYS, “NO ONE HAS SEEN THE FATHER. WHAT OF IT? IF THE SON HAS BEEN SEEN, THEN THE FATHER HAS BEEN SEEN AS WELL, SINCE THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE ONE AND THE SAME GOD, BOTH IN SUBSTANCE AND IN IMAGE, BECAUSE OF TWO THERE IS ONE IMAGE; AND, AS HE HIMSELF SAYS, “HE WHO SEES ME, SEES THE FATHER ALSO” (John 14:9). HOW THEN HAS NO ONE SEEN GOD THE FATHER, WHEN THE SON SAYS THAT THE FATHER IS SEEN WHEN HE HIMSELF IS SEEN? BECAUSE HE IS NOT A DIFFERENT GOD. IF THEREFORE HE IS NOT ANOTHER, THEN HE, BEING ONE AND THE SAME, IS THE GOD WHO HAS BEEN SEEN. — As far as the Evangelist is concerned, he said this about God the Father, that no one has seen God, except the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. Let us believe the Son; for He has declared that no one, except Himself, has seen God. But He said this in order to teach that He Himself had always appeared to the Patriarchs and the Prophets. Therefore this does not refer to God in His unity, but to the person of the Father, of whom nothing else can be said than “God the Father.

176 The Son, however, says that He has been seen in such a way that He remains invisible even at the very moment when He is thought to be seen. For “seen” here is to be understood as “understood”; since He was certainly not seen with the eyes, but comprehended by the mind, and this was what it meant “to have seen”: to have understood that in what appeared there God was present. But when the Savior says, “He who sees me, sees the Father also,” He surely did not refer this to the sight of the eyes, but to that of the mind, and in order that nothing might be thought different between the Father and the Son. Neither of them, therefore, has been seen according to substance. Yet, in outward appearances, the Son alone has been seen by the mind, not by bodily eyes, because He is invisible just as the Father is.

177 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (John 6:44; Romans 9:16-18) 178 QUESTION 79. IF WE LIVE BY OUR OWN FREE WILL, WHY DID THE SAVIOR SAY, “NO ONE COMES TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER WHO SENT ME DRAWS HIM” (John 6:44); AND WHY, AGREEING WITH THIS, DID THE APOSTLE SAY, “IT IS NOT OF HIM THAT WILLS, NOR OF HIM THAT RUNS, BUT OF GOD THAT SHOWS MERCY,” AND, “HE HAS MERCY ON WHOM HE WILL, AND WHOM HE WILL HE HARDENS” (Rom. 9:16, 18)? HOW IS THE WILL’S CHOICE FREE, WHEN AT ANOTHER’S NOD IT IS LED EITHER TO GOOD OR TO EVIL? — The case stands otherwise than you propose. For in no way can the position of free will be disturbed by these texts; because if you thoroughly attend to the meaning of the words, you will realize that from this the doctrine of free will is rather strengthened. For these sayings were spoken against the ill‑disposed Jews. Since, from a deceit born of envy, they were asserting Joseph, his own father, and his sons, his brothers, to be the Savior’s relatives, so that he might not be believed to be the Son of God, then the Savior said, “No one comes to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. But how did the Father draw to the Son, except through the works which he did through him? For therefore he says, “The Father abiding in me, he does the works” (Jn. 14:10), so that these works might draw to faith in Christ.

179 For the miracles that the Savior did themselves persuaded that God was the Father of Christ, so that whoever said he had another father would not be drawn by God to Christ. Therefore God worked through Christ so that credence might be given to his words, in which he said that he was the Son of God. This is a drawing, not of violence, but the testimony of God in Christ; and whoever believed this is said to be drawn by him to Christ. For no one believes in the Savior unless he calls his Father God. Now the Apostle did not say what you have brought into question in order to strike down free will, but to prevent God’s judgment from being called into review; therefore he spoke, proclaiming God to be just: for he knows on whom he ought to have mercy. For the examiner of the heart foresees the mind of the suppliant, whether he deserves to receive. Therefore he says through the prophet, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Isa. 29:13). For it is just that the spirit of the pretender should be hardened. For whoever, not through error, calls what is true false, but through hatred, so that, knowing what is good, he pretends not to know what is good, in order to turn it into evil, this man must surely have granted to him that he truly should not understand the good, lest he be saved, which he does not want.

180 For it is not just that he be saved against his will who rejects salvation, not through ignorance, but through wickedness or envy. By these things, then, free will is more confirmed than destroyed, so that each one is answered according to his own desire. 181 (John 6:44; Romans 9:16-18) 182 QUESTION 32. IF WE LIVE BY OUR OWN FREE CHOICE, WHY DOES THE SAVIOR SAY, “NO ONE,” HE DECLARES, “COMES TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER WHO SENT ME DRAWS HIM”; AND WHY DOES THE APOSTLE, IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS, SAY, “IT IS NOT OF HIM WHO WILLS, NOR OF HIM WHO RUNS, BUT OF GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY”? BY THESE STATEMENTS THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL SEEMS TO BE DISTURBED. FOR IF NO ONE GOES UNLESS DRAWN, THEN IT WILL NOT BE THE FAULT OF THE ONE WHO DOES NOT GO, SINCE HE IS NOT DRAWN. AND IF THE ONE WHO ASKS AND STRIVES DOES NOT RECEIVE, BUT GOD GIVES TO WHOM HE WILLS, THEN THE PERSON WHO WILLS AND DOES NOT OBTAIN WILL BE WITHOUT BLAME AND GUILT; AND THE GUILT WILL FALL BACK ON THE ONE WHO SPURNS THE PETITIONER. — In no way can the position of free will be disturbed by these statements. For if you refer the words to the case for which they were spoken, you will know that from this the doctrine of free will is rather strengthened. For when the Jews, out of the zeal of their hatred, were saying about the Savior, “Is not this the son of Joseph, whose father we know? How then does this man say, ‘I have come down from heaven’? (Jn. 6:42) to this Jesus replied, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. (Jn. 6:44) Now we must see how the Father draws.

183 Let the word of the Savior himself be taken; for he says, “The works that I do, the Father does. (Jn. 14:12) “Believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me. (Jn. 14:11) If, then, the Father works in the Son, and the works are what invite to faith, he rightly said that no one comes to me except him whom the Father draws. But he draws when he works through the Son. For if he wants to be believed, how does he take away the will of free choice? And if he criticizes the unbeliever, on what grounds does he draw someone who is unwilling? He spoke this, of course, to the Jews, who were saying that he had another father than the one who truly is. For no one believes in the Savior unless he calls his Father God. The Apostle likewise did not say what has now been set forth in order to strike down free will, but to show that God’s judgment is just, who cannot be deceived in granting or not granting mercy. For there is one who asks and does not deserve to receive; another asks and does deserve to receive. For this one pleads not with words alone, but with deeds; that one with tongue alone; this one also with a repentant heart; such a one can obtain. Indeed, what is said in the Law? “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

184 (Is. 29:13) If, then, two ask and only one of them receives, it must be understood that he asked in such a way as to be worthy to receive; for God, who is just, gives only to the one whom he knows should be given to. You see, then, that free will is not denied but confirmed. For if you had heard two men ask with one mind and one behavior, and yet one of them was heard and the other despised, you might rightly think that there is no free will and that God is a respecter of persons. 185 (John 7:8-14) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 78. IT IS READ IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN THAT, AFTER THE SAVIOR HAD SAID HE WOULD NOT GO UP TO THE FEAST DAY, HE WENT UP (John 7:8, 14); THIS SEEMS TO BE A SIGN OF INCONSISTENCY. — You always conceal the meaning by abbreviating the statement. For what you call into question took place when, being in Galilee because of the uproar of the Jews, and with His brothers still not believing in Him, He was being urged to go up to Judea, because the feast day of the Jews was at hand, that He might suffer agitation. But He answered them, saying: You go up to this feast day, because the world does not hate you; but it hates Me, because I expose its works. I am not going up to this feast day, because My time is not yet fulfilled. Then His brothers went up to the feast day, but He remained in Galilee. Afterwards, He also went up to the feast day. What appears contrary, when He did not go up at the time He refused, but went up later; and He went up not as if to the feast day, but as if to a dispute? For they all went up rejoicing, as though to enjoy the pleasures of the feast day. It is therefore certain that He did not go up to the feast day. But for the Savior, that was the feast day on which by His Passion He redeemed the world. Finally, He says: Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him (Jn. 13:31). This is His feast day, on which He conquered death.

186 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (John 7:39; 14:15-17; 20:22; Acts 2:1) 187 QUESTION 93. WE MUST ASK WHETHER THE APOSTLES HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT DURING THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE ON EARTH WITH THE LORD, BECAUSE AMONG MANY THINGS THE EVANGELIST SAYS, “THE SPIRIT HAD NOT YET BEEN GIVEN, BECAUSE JESUS HAD NOT YET BEEN GLORIFIED” (John 7:39); AND IN ANOTHER PLACE, “IF YOU LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS, AND I WILL ASK THE FATHER, AND HE WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER PARACLETE, THAT HE MAY REMAIN WITH YOU FOREVER, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE IT NEITHER SEES HIM NOR KNOWS HIM; BUT YOU KNOW HIM, BECAUSE HE DWELLS WITH YOU AND IS IN YOU” (John 14:15-17). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? HE DENIES THAT THE SPIRIT WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE PASSION; YET HE PROMISES THAT HE WILL ASK THE FATHER TO SEND HIM. AGAIN HE ADDS THAT THE SPIRIT WAS WITH THEM AND REMAINED AMONG THEM. AFTER THE RESURRECTION, HOWEVER, IT IS WRITTEN THAT HE BREATHED ON THEM AND SAID, “RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT” (John 20:22). AND AT PENTECOST IT IS WRITTEN THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCENDED UPON THE APOSTLES (Acts 2:1-4). I SEE SO MANY DIFFICULTIES IN THIS MATTER THAT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT OUGHT TO BE HELD. — In all these things that have been set forth, there is not one single cause. For the forms of the individual causes have been briefly indicated; for although there is one Spirit, he has many gifts. Therefore, when the Holy Spirit is mentioned, his office must be understood, in which way he is meant.

188 For that he was both with them and was yet to come is not false, provided you do not refer this to the person, but to the nature. For Christ promised that another would come from the Father, so that since their divinity is indistinguishable, the Holy Spirit should not be thought absent when Christ is present, and when the Holy Spirit comes and appears, Christ should be considered present as well. Therefore, when he promises that he will come, he says, “You will see him, because he will dwell with you and will be in you,” (Jn. 14:17) so that the Apostles might be confident that after the Lord’s Ascension they would not have a lesser or inferior 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, having conquered death, rose again and was glorified. For these are the words of the triumphant Lord himself, who says, “For John indeed baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, whom you will receive not many days from now” (Acts 1:5); this he is seen to have said at the time when he determined to ascend to the Father. As for that which is read, that the Lord breathed upon the disciples a few days after his Resurrection and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” (Jn. 20:22) this is understood to be the transfer of ecclesiastical power.

189 For since all things in the Lord’s tradition are carried out through the Holy Spirit, therefore, when the rule and pattern of this discipline are handed down to them, it is said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. And because this truly belongs to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, he immediately added, saying, “Whose sins you retain, they shall be retained; and whose you forgive, they shall be forgiven” (John 20:23). This breathing, therefore, is a certain grace poured in through ordination, by which they might be held in greater esteem. Therefore the Apostle says to Timothy, “Do not neglect the grace that is in you, which was given you through the laying on of the hands of the presbytery” (1 Tim. 4:14). It had to be done once, so that thereafter this tradition might not be believed to exist without the gift of the Holy Spirit. For just as in the Savior a visible pattern was given, so that after Baptism the Holy Spirit might from this time be believed to be given invisibly to believers without doubt, so also in the case mentioned above a pattern was given in the beginning, so that from then on the Holy Spirit might be believed to be poured into ecclesiastical tradition. But in order that the Apostles might work miracles while the Lord was present, power was given, as it had been previously to the Prophets. Therefore the forms of three offices of the gift of the Holy Spirit were shown in the Apostles.

190 The first is this, which relates to ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the work of regeneration and other offices. The second is that which was given at Pentecost, which is general; for the Holy Spirit fell not only upon the Apostles, but also upon all believers. The third form is that which was granted only to the Apostles for the working of signs and wonders, until the seeds of faith could be sown for growth. For the miracles performed by the Apostles are the seeds of faith; for they themselves were appointed overseers of this truth, who, by signs and wonders, might bear witness that our faith is not irrational. For there is no greater proof of truth than power; this is what condemns all earthly philosophy, because it has always labored only in words, not having the testimony of power, which might show that what was established by words was stable. Therefore the Holy Spirit is given once, in a general way, to all believers, by whom they are proved to be sons of God, while he remains in them. But in the working of signs and wonders, he does not remain in man, but comes when called, or suggests what is necessary, and departs. Likewise, in tradition or ordination from without he bestows grace, also bringing protection to those devoted to the faith.

191 (John 7:39; 14:15-17; 20:22; Acts 2:1) 192 QUESTION 42. WE MUST ASK WHETHER THE APOSTLES HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT DURING THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE ON EARTH WITH THE LORD, BECAUSE AMONG MANY THINGS THE EVANGELIST SAYS, “THE SPIRIT HAD NOT YET BEEN GIVEN, BECAUSE JESUS HAD NOT YET BEEN GLORIFIED” (John 7:39); AND IN ANOTHER PLACE, “IF YOU LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS, AND I WILL ASK THE FATHER, AND HE WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER PARACLETE, THAT HE MAY REMAIN WITH YOU FOREVER, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE IT NEITHER SEES HIM NOR KNOWS HIM; BUT YOU KNOW HIM, BECAUSE HE DWELLS WITH YOU AND IS IN YOU” (John 14:15-17). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? HE DENIES THAT THE SPIRIT WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE PASSION; YET HE PROMISES THAT HE WILL ASK THE FATHER TO SEND HIM. AGAIN HE ADDS THAT THE SPIRIT WAS WITH THEM AND REMAINED AMONG THEM. AFTER THE RESURRECTION, HOWEVER, IT IS WRITTEN THAT HE BREATHED ON THEM AND SAID, “RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT” (John 20:22). AND AT PENTECOST IT IS WRITTEN THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCENDED UPON THE APOSTLES (Acts 2:1-4). I SEE SO MANY DIFFICULTIES IN THIS MATTER THAT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT OUGHT TO BE HELD. — In the matters he has set forth, there is not just one cause. Briefly, etc. For there is no doubt that the Spirit was not given to believers until after the Lord, having conquered death, was glorified.

193 For before the Ascension the Lord gave the disciples a pattern of how those who had been baptized ought to receive the Holy Spirit, a pattern which is now preserved by the bishops. Therefore, three forms of the office of the gift of the Holy Spirit were given to the Apostles. The first is the general one, which was given at Pentecost; for the Holy Spirit fell not only upon the Apostles, but also upon all believers, so that men of one nation spoke the mighty works of God in different tongues. The second form is specific. For it does not belong to all believers, but only to bishops, that by the laying on of hands they may give the Holy Spirit to the baptized; this, among bishops, may be called general. The third form is that which was granted to the Apostles alone, in the working of signs and miracles for the increase of faith. For the powers wrought by the Apostles are the seeds of faith. Therefore, in due order of offices, the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles: first, that He might fall upon them, as upon the other believers, at Pentecost. Then, as the first priests, that, like bishops, they might lay hands on believers and give them the Holy Spirit. For that wonders should be done through the Apostles is a grace of time, not of persons;

194 but they are blessed because the time found them when the Lord poured out His gift upon the earth, that they might receive power, as an example for believers, to work powers through the Holy Spirit. But when, while the Lord was present, they were sent to cast out demons and perform the other powers, power was given to the Apostles to command demons, or other ailments of the sick, without the call of the name, and the effect of salvation followed. This, namely, is the power of reason which the prophets used, Elijah and Elisha, in the working of powers. Finally, the Savior says to His disciples, “Amen, amen, I say to you; if you ask anything of the Father in my name, He will give it to you. Until now you have asked nothing in my name; ask, and you shall receive” (John 16:23–24). Therefore, since they worked powers without the invocation of the name, as I said above, yet not entirely without the power of the name. For by the fact that they were sent by Him who was a terror to demons and to sufferings, by that very fear the demons fled, and illnesses were cured. Therefore the name of the Lord was working silently. Finally, the Apostle Peter says to the Jews among other things: “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you denied and crucified, this man stands before you whole” (Acts 3:16); indeed, no other name has been given under heaven in which we must be saved.

195 (John 8:44) 1ST CATEGORY NT 196 QUESTION 98. ON THE GOSPEL OF SAINT JOHN. — You have heard what the most holy Gospel declares, when the Lord says to the Jews: “You are born of your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks lies, he speaks from what is his own, because he is a liar, as is his father” (Jn. 8:44). Let none of the faithful doubt that the Devil has no author of his apostasy. For he himself is the prince of all error: seeing that he was made by God of no mediocre power, he dared to imagine divinity, so that, because he saw the others beneath him, he set himself above them as a god. In fact, the names by which he is called, “Devil” and “Satan,” are formed from his deeds, not from his nature. For all evil is proved by work, so that guilt lies not in substance, but in the will conceived from causes. For when he saw himself more powerful than the rest, he swelled with pride to exercise dominion. How then is he said to have a father, when he himself is held to be the author of his wickedness? Or how is it proved that he was a murderer from the beginning?

197 But Scripture calls the one who is his imitator by his name, so that, because he received his name from his deed, anyone who has done an evil deed is not unjustly called “devil. Therefore the Savior in this passage called Cain “devil,” because, as a rival of his works, when he envied his brother he committed murder, leaving an example of the cruelty of murder. So too the Devil, when he envied man who was made in the image of God, he increased the wickedness of his work, presenting a pattern of error. Therefore Cain also proved to be a liar, when God said to him, “Where is Abel your brother? Imbued with his father’s hatred, bursting out into falsehood, he said, “I do not know” (Gen. 4:9); so that, having torn away his brother’s life, he pretended not to know where he was; therefore blinded by fury, that he answered God as though He were a man whom he thought he could deceive. The Jews, therefore, having become imitators of this sort of behavior, killed even the Lord Himself, choosing to have Cain the murderer rather than God as their father, so that they might become guilty of all the blood that was shed. By killing the Author of life, they proved themselves princes of all wickedness, to such an extent that they bound even their own children to this evil, saying, “His blood be upon us and upon our children” (Matt. 27:25).

198 For, in order to persuade Pilate that what they asked for was not evil, they said that, if it was unjust, it should be turned upon their children: because, in order to satisfy their fury, they did not even wish to spare their own children. Now, because the Devil is not evil by nature, this is more easily stated, since punishment would not be promised to him if he had not done what he did not know. For it is unjust to punish someone who does nothing other than what belongs to his nature. And this is more truly evil, if you demand from someone what you know he cannot do. Therefore, he is justly to be punished, who, though it is clear that he knows and is able to do good, does evil. This can also be observed from the words of the Savior: for He says, as mentioned above, “Your father was a murderer from the beginning, and did not stand in the truth. (Jn. 8:44) Therefore, if he is a liar by nature, how is he said not to have stood in the truth? For he does not stand in the truth who does not remain in the truth. It is therefore clear that the Devil was in the truth, but did not persevere in it. Indeed we read in the prophet the Lord speaking therefore: “If they had stood,” He says, “in my substance” (Jer. 23:22), that is, in my law.

199 And the Apostle to the Galatians says, “Stand firm, and do not again be held under the yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). What could be clearer? For here He commands that from now they remain in His commandments. If the Devil had kept them, he would have stood in the substance and in the law of God. For the law is a foundation for those who keep it. How then does it seem to some that the Devil was either made evil by God, or has his own origin, that is, arose from nothing, since both views appear contrary to God? For whoever says that he was made for this purpose, that he might be evil, thinks that God is imperfectly good; since one who is perfectly good does not create evil. But whoever does not believe that God is the author of his origin denies His dominion. For by this, since all things are God’s, he thinks that there is something which in no way belongs to God. Such people ought to suffer punishment, when they see everything judged by God through Christ.

200 (John 8:44) 1ST CATEGORY NT 201 QUESTION 90. IF THE DEVIL HIMSELF IS SATAN, HOW IS IT THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS THE SAVIOR SAYS TO THE JEWS: “YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND YOU WISH TO DO THE DESIRES OF YOUR FATHER. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND DID NOT STAND IN THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. WHEN HE SPEAKS A LIE, HE SPEAKS FROM WHAT IS HIS OWN; FOR HE IS A LIAR, AS IS HIS FATHER” (John 8:44)? — “Devil” is not a proper name, but a common one shared with others. For in whomever the works of the Devil are found, without doubt that person must be called a devil. It is the name of a work, not of a nature. And so in this passage he means Cain as the father of the Jews; since the Jews, wanting to be his imitators, put the Savior to death. Therefore he says that Cain, because he stained himself with murder and made himself guilty of death, did not stand in the truth. For from him the pattern of brotherly murder was first given. It is this same man of whom he says, “When he speaks a lie, he speaks from what is his own,” (Jn. 8:44) to show that each one sins only by his own will. But because he is an imitator of the Devil, he added, “For he is a liar, as is his father.

202 For when this Devil, in order to condemn the first man to death, did so, he pretended not to know what had been commanded him by God. So too Cain, when questioned, faked ignorance of where his brother Abel was, whom he had killed (Gen. 4:9). Therefore in this passage he called Cain the devil; and his father, the devil whose works he followed. For the son of a devil is a devil. But that Devil who is Satan has no father in his wickedness. He is his own author in evil. He himself sinned first, and therefore whoever imitates him will be called his children, and he their father. Indeed, in faith we have Abraham as our father, because he first believed God; and for this reason we are designated by his name. For we are called faithful, as he is. 203 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (John 8:44)

204 QUESTION 80. CERTAINLY, EACH PERSON IS EITHER A SON OF GOD OR OF THE DEVIL: HE IS THEREFORE ALWAYS A SON, BUT SOMETIMES OF GOD, AND AT OTHER TIMES OF THE DEVIL. WHAT THEN WE ARE BORN AS MUST BE INQUIRED. — When the Lord, after bringing the sons of Israel out of Egypt, saw that they often sinned, He grew angry and pronounced a sentence, saying that none of them would enter the promised land except Caleb and Joshua son of Nun, who was previously called Auses. But as for those who had been born in the desert, He declared that they would enter, because they did not know good or evil. Now not to know good or evil is a certain natural simplicity, which has not yet been trained for evil. This is ignorance without hatred. For we are born without understanding, but our nature has this good, that it is capable of learning the truth. A son of the Devil, however, is one who, being born and steeped in evil things, devotes himself to those things that are hostile to the Creator, affirming that there are many gods and that sacrifices must be offered to them as if they were rulers of the world. If such a one comes to his senses and thinks in accordance with his nature, turning himself to the Creator, he will be a son of God. And therefore those who are born are neither sons of God nor sons of the Devil. For what does the Savior say to the Jews?

205 “You are of your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father” (Jn. 8:44). You see then that by their works and their profession people are made sons of the Devil; but those are sons of God who, confessing that the Father of Christ is their own God, live rightly. For God has so ordered our race that we are born without understanding, yet have the capacity to learn either good or evil, so that we ourselves may acquire either evil or good: that we may rejoice in ourselves when, acting rightly, we are rewarded; or that we may blame ourselves if, following wicked ways, we are condemned. 206 (John 8:44) 207 QUESTION 41. CERTAINLY, WHOEVER IS NOT A SON OF GOD IS OF THE DEVIL: THEREFORE HE IS ALWAYS A SON, BUT SOMETIMES OF GOD, SOMETIMES OF THE DEVIL. WHAT THEN ARE WE BORN AS? — When the Lord, after bringing the sons of Israel out of Egypt, saw that they often sinned, being angered, He did not allow any of them to enter the promised land, except Caleb and Joshua son of Nun. But He said that their sons, who had been born in the desert, would enter, because they did not know good or evil. Now not to know good or evil is a certain natural simplicity, which has been trained neither to good nor to evil; that is, ignorance without hatred. For we are born without understanding, but our nature is capable of learning the truth. A son of the Devil, however, is one who, born and instilled with evil things, applies himself to what is opposed to the Creator, saying that there are many gods and that sacrifices must be offered to them as if they were rulers of the world. If such a one comes to his senses, returning to his natural righteousness and receiving faith in Christ, he will be a son of God; and therefore those who are born are neither sons of God nor of the Devil. For what does the Savior say to the Jews? “You were born of your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father.

208 (Jn. 8:44) You see then that by their works and profession sons of the Devil are brought forth. For God has so ordered our race that, though born without understanding, we can nonetheless be trained in either direction, so that whether to good or to evil we are in some way our own authors: that we may rejoice in ourselves when, acting rightly, we are rewarded; or blame ourselves if, following evil ways, we are subjected to punishments. For this reason He left us to our own judgment, so that we may neither complain about our evils, nor, in vain, as if sons of God by faith, boast of ourselves if we are crowned. God, the creator and author of our being, wished us to have something that is properly our own, so that we might not be ashamed to glory in the faith which we have in God. For whatever a person does not have by his own power is unfamiliar to him, so that he can neither glory in good things nor be held guilty for evil ones.

209 (John 9:6) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 33. What does it mean that, although the Savior healed almost everyone by a word, he nonetheless restored the blind man’s eyes with mud made from his spittle (John 9:6–7)? — The Savior did this to confuse those who accuse the Creator. For when he corrected a defect that had occurred in the body in no other way than the Maker had formed it, he praised the author of this work. He revised it by that very thing through which it had been created. For whatever is made, if a fall is repaired by means of that through which it was made, the workmanship will be shown to be right. And if the Savior thereby bears witness that he is God, because he repaired the damage and defects of the body, how much more is he God who is the very inventor of that body?

210 (John 10:9) 2ND CATEGORY NT 211 QUESTION 34. WHAT IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR SAYS, “I AM THE DOOR; THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE ME ARE THIEVES AND ROBBERS” (John 10:7–8)? THIS STATEMENT SEEMS TO STRIKE AT THE PROPHETS. — Because no one goes to God the Father except through faith in Christ, therefore the Savior calls himself the door of the kingdom of heaven. If, then, he uses the word “door,” what need was there for him to speak about those who came before, “As many as came before me,” (Jn. 15:30) when no question was being raised about people of the past, but rather, as a door now present, the concern would naturally be about those of the present? The Savior is speaking about the Jews, who thought they could enter the kingdom of God not through faith, but through the righteousness of the Law. Those who came before the Savior, that is, who stood before him, mocked him and opposed him, so as to turn others away from faith in him. Therefore they are called thieves and robbers. For these words were spoken at the time when the Pharisees were disputing with the man who had been born blind and enlightened, whose eyes the Savior restored when nature had refused them, whom they wished to turn away from faith in the Savior, saying that it was not through him that one could enter, because he violates the sabbath, but through the righteousness of the Law that one enters the kingdom of God. Then the Savior said: “I am the door;

212 if anyone enters through me, he will find pasture; but if anyone seeks to enter by another way, that person is a thief and a robber. (Jn. 10:9-10) How does this apply to the person of the Prophets? Did the Prophets say, against the teaching of Christ, that through the righteousness of the Law, without faith, one could win God’s favor, those Prophets who knew that Christ would come in the flesh? He said this, then, about those present, so that whoever were before him, standing or sitting, might be understood as thieves and robbers. For by calling the man who had been blind, they wanted to turn him away from faith in the Savior, saying: “Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner. But he refuted them, saying: “From the beginning of the world it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind; if this man were not from God, he could do nothing” (John 9:24, 32–33). It is therefore about this man, because he persevered in faith, and about those who said, “These are not the words of one who has a demon; can a demon open the eyes of the blind? that the Savior said, “But the sheep did not listen to them” (John 10:8–9, 21), meaning those whom he called thieves and robbers. For how could the sheep not have listened to the Prophets, when Scripture clearly shows that all good people obeyed the Prophets, and evil people the false prophets?

213 (John 11:35) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 35. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, WHEN HE WAS GOING TO PERFORM A MARVELOUS AND UNKNOWN ACT OF POWER, NAMELY, TO RAISE LAZARUS FROM THE DEAD, HE WEPT, OR ASKED WHERE HE HAD BEEN LAID AS THOUGH HE DID NOT KNOW (John 11:34–35)? — The Savior is both God and man, and therefore he always acted in two ways: since he has human feelings, he wept; but since he was also God, he raised the one over whom he had wept. Therefore he always proceeds from lesser things to greater: since he was seen as a man, he showed that what he appeared to be was not all he was; rather, he proved himself to be God by his works. (John 12:41; Acts 7:55; Isaiah 6:1) 1ST CATEGORY NT 214 QUESTION 88. IF GRACE IS GREATER AND UNDERSTANDING CLEARER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THAN IN THE OLD; WHY DID THE PROPHET ISAIAH SEE THE LORD OF HOSTS, WHO IS CHRIST, SEATED ON THE THRONE OF MAJESTY, ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF JOHN THE EVANGELIST? FOR HE SAID AMONG OTHER THINGS: “ISAIAH SAID THESE THINGS WHEN HE SAW HIS MAJESTY AND SPOKE OF HIM” (Isaiah 6:1; John 12:41). BUT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT STEPHEN THE FIRST MARTYR SAYS THAT HE SAW JESUS STANDING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD (Acts 7:55). WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT HERE HE APPEARS AS SUBJECT AFTER HIS VICTORIES, AND THERE AS LORD BEFORE HE HAD CONQUERED? — As the occasion required, so the Lord showed himself. To the prophet he appeared as a king rebuking the people: and he showed himself as what he was, that is, seated. For the reason lay in the peace of his divinity. But the slander of the Jews caused him to appear to Stephen as standing. In Stephen the cause of the Savior was suffering violence. Therefore, with God the judge seated, he appeared standing, as one who was pleading a case: and because his cause is good, he was at the right hand of the judge. Everyone who pleads a case must stand.

215 (John 14:9) 1ST CATEGORY NT 216 QUESTION 97. BY WHAT REASONING CAN THE WICKEDNESS OF ARIUS BE SIMPLY REFUTED FROM THE LAW? — If we grant authority to reason, the very meaning of the names “Father” and “Son” shows their unity. You ask, how? For the true Son of God would not be so called unless He had come forth from the substance of God the Father. Truth and justice in God would not permit Him to call someone “Son” truly if that Son were not from Himself. He is not truly the Son of God if He is not from Him. But Scripture says He is true; therefore He is from Him. Whoever denies that Christ was born of God does an injustice to Scripture, which calls Him the true Son of God precisely in order to signify that He was born of God. For if He is not from God, and yet is called the true Son of God, then Scripture is deceitful. But if Scripture does not deceive, then whoever does not confess that Christ came forth from God both nullifies Scripture and denies Christ to be the true Son of God. It is not will that makes a true Son, but birth. “But,” they say, “this falls under the power of God, that He can make what is false into true. On the contrary, this is the power of God, for which He is worthy of all praise: that what is true with Him is true, and what is false is false.

217 That is the mark of a liar, to call the false true; this does not apply to God. For God can indeed do all things, but He does nothing except what accords with His truth and justice. It is, then, clear that Christ is called the true Son of God so that He may be understood as His own Son, that is, born of His substance. Therefore the Apostle says: “He who did not spare His own Son” (Rom. 8:32); and in another Epistle: “Who, though He was in the form of God, did not count it robbery to be equal with God” (Phil. 2:6). If then He did not consider it robbery to declare Himself equal with God, He thereby showed Himself to be the true Son of God. For He could not be equal with God unless He were from Him. Those are equal who are either both true or both false. Beginning and eternal being, or unity, do not admit equality. By saying that He is one with the Father, Christ makes Himself equal to God. “For not only,” it says, “was He breaking the sabbath, but He also called God His Father, making Himself equal with God” (Jn. 5:18), that is, His peer. Is it not clear that this equality comes down from the property of His birth? In calling Himself God’s own Son, that is, His true Son, He made Himself equal with God. Therefore He says: “He who sees Me, sees also My Father” (Jn. 14:9).

218 Because they are of one substance, he who sees one sees both. “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted to the Son to have life in Himself” (Jn. 5:26); that is, the Father begot the Son equal to Himself; and “all that is the Father’s is the Son’s, and what is the Son’s is the Father’s” (Jn. 17:10); and “no one can snatch anything out of the Father’s hand, nor out of the Son’s hand” (cf. John 10:29). And He adds: “I and the Father are one” (Jn. 10:30); and, “The words that I speak to you, I do not speak from Myself; but the Father who dwells in Me, He Himself speaks; and the works that I do, He does. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me; or else believe for the very works’ sake” (Jn. 14:10–12). Since generation is not from oneself but from the One who begets, therefore whatever He does, He calls it the Father’s work, so that by all these things it may be confirmed that Christ is called the true Son of God so that He may be believed to be born of Him, lest His substance be thought to lie outside the nature of the one God. His great humility is therefore His greatest praise. For when He appears to place Himself in subjection, saying, “The words that I speak to you, I do not speak from Myself; but the Father who dwells in Me, He Himself speaks;

219 and the works that I do, He does,” (Jn.14:10) He proves that He has His origin from God and shows that He is His Power, since He says that what He is, is not from Himself but from Him. By this Christ is praised, not lowered. For one who speaks from himself is not a true Son. You see, then, that the Arians misunderstand Christ precisely where He ought to be rightly understood; and they reject Him and call Him false precisely where He is proved to be the true Son of God: for He asks to be glorified by the Father, and promises to glorify the Father whom He asks; and where He seems to humble Himself, He exalts Himself. For when the Father gives testimony to His Son, He bears witness to His own praise; and when the Son proclaims the Father, He reveals His own glory. The majesty and nobility of the Father are the nobility of the true Son. Therefore whatever is said to belong to the Father undoubtedly belongs also to the Son; and whatever is said to belong to the Son belongs also to the Father. For the Spirit is called the Spirit of God, and the same Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ. The Church is called the Church of God, and is called the Church of Christ. God is adored, and Christ is adored. Service is rendered to God, and service is rendered to Christ. The saints are called priests of God, and they are called priests of Christ.

220 The temple of the holy city is said to be God’s, and likewise Christ’s. The holy city is said to be enlightened by the light of God, and in the same way by the light of Christ. It is the throne of God, and also of Christ. God is Judge, and Christ is Judge: for the prophet Isaiah saw the Lord of hosts seated on the throne of majesty, that is, Christ (Isa. 6:1), which the Arians do not deny. Of God the Father it is read that He is King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15), and the same is read of Christ, the true Son of God (Rev. 17:14; 19:16). Therefore everywhere Father and Son are equated in divinity, so that the number of persons does not go beyond the measure of one God. Between Father and Son there is no difference except this alone: that the Father is unbegotten, but the Son begotten; that is, the Father is from no one, but the Son is from the Father, this, indeed, is sublime in the Son. For from this we learn the eternity of His nobility, and that He is the true Son of the true Father. From where comes that which is read in Genesis, where God says, “Let us make man in Our image and likeness” (Gen. 1:26)? Therefore, if their image and likeness are one, how are they not also one in nature? In spiritual realities, where there are, of course, no outward forms, nothing will be similar except by substance;

221 so where the image of two is one, how will their substance not be one as well? Therefore, we read that their image and likeness are one and the same, so that we might believe that the one is in no way different from the other; that is, that Christ is truly the Son of God, because His birth is not unlike that of the One who begets Him. Finally, the Jews, understanding that He called God His own Father, said to Pilate, “We have a Law, and according to the Law He must die, because He made Himself the Son of God” (Jn. 19:7). The Jews understood, and Christians claim they do not understand? Those who did not believe, understood; and those who claim to believe, act so that they may not understand? At least let them admit this: the prophet Isaiah, in order to show that Christ is God, not from Himself indeed, but God from God, says among other things: “After you they shall come, bound in chains, and they shall worship you, and shall pray in you, for in you is God, and there is no God besides you. For you are God, and we did not know it; the God of Israel, the Savior” (Isa. 45:14–15). As far as an upright mind is concerned, these things are clear. By them the Father is shown to be in the Son, and the Son is shown to be God of the same substance as the Father.

222 In Him in whom God is, and besides Him God is not, and He Himself is God, what else can He be said to be, but what God the Father is, and in no respect different? This is what it is for the two to be one. For God is in Him, because although He is God, He is not God from Himself. He is from the Father, because He is the Son. And besides Him there is no God, because He is the only-begotten Son of the Father. But He Himself is God, because the substance of God and of Christ is one and the same. Therefore no uncertainty is left, so that the substance of the Father and of the Son may be believed to be one. For He is the true Son of a true Father. So also is that saying of the prophet Jeremiah; for he says among other things: “This is our God, and another shall not be reckoned with Him. He found out every way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. Afterward He was seen upon the earth and lived among men” (Baruch 3:36–38). Can this be said of one who is of inferior stock, with whom no other can be reckoned? Or can anything be said to be God other than the Father, such that it would advance to God as an insult to the Father?

223 For if no other god can be reckoned with Him, and He is apart from God the Father, see whether what follows ought to be said, for it is dangerous. He would be said to be greater than the Father. Thinking that they are showing reverence to God the Father if they separate the Son from Him, they reduce from Him; so that Him whom they wish to make lesser, with wicked and blinded mind, they set above the One to whose authority they think He ought to bow. But Scripture, in order to teach that the Son differs in nothing from the Father (He would differ if He were not true), says that no other is to be reckoned with Him; because no other substance can be found similar to the substance of God, which is also that of Christ. For it could not teach in any other way that Christ is from God, than by saying that no other can be reckoned with Him. Knowing that the Son of God could in no way be called subject to God the Father, so as to show Him to be equal, it says, “No other shall be reckoned with Him”; because He is equal to God the Father, since He is God: for He is His true Son. Therefore the prophet says, “This is our God”; that is, the God of Israel. If this is He, He Himself is the one God. Of Him Scripture says, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God” (Deut. 6:4);

224 and surely this is not the Father, but His Son. You see then that the person of the Son does not prejudice the one God, if He also is called one God: since Scripture bears witness to this. Where does this come from, unless because the Father and the Son are one, since unity is signified not by persons but by nature? Or they are not two in substance, but one; nor two in divinity, but one God: so that whether the Father speaks or the Son speaks, it is said that one God has spoken. For if the Lord Himself, among other things, concerning male and female, says, “They are no longer two, but one flesh” (Mark 10:8); how much more are the Father and the Son not two gods, but one substance? Now that Father and Son are said to be two, the cause is birth; but that they are not again two gods, the cause is the unity of divinity. With what dullness then do they preach that Christ is created, that is, made, when it is read that God made nothing without Christ (Jn. 1:3)? If therefore nothing was made without Him, He Himself will not be a thing made. For if He is a thing made, something was made without Him. But far be it; for nothing was without Him. Being born of God, He did not begin to exist, but has always existed. For birth is nothing else than proceeding forth; and proceeding forth is revealing. Therefore He was not made, but brought forth.

225 And in order that Christ might be shown to have gone forth or proceeded from the essence of God, His birth was called a proceeding forth; so that, because His birth is not unlike the Begetter, Christ’s consubstantiality with God might be beyond doubt, and that mind which says, “There was a time when He was not,” might be condemned. For He who is read to have proceeded from God, in order that He might be shown to have always been with God, cannot at some time not have been. No one proceeds from God in a place where he was not. The Arians are accustomed to interpret therefore about the Son of God, saying, “Therefore Christ is called the true Son of God, because God made Him in such a way that He is true. As though there were something false that God makes. And all those things which we said above about the unity of the Father and the Son, what will they be, when they have been so strengthened and confirmed, if it is thought that one must feel differently here? Will many things solidified by divine visions be able to be torn apart by the single testimony of one degenerate? Nevertheless this must be cut off, lest iniquity flatter itself even about this very point. “So,” they say, “He made Him in such a way that He is true, so that will was put in place of birth, and making in place of begetting.

226 For so much must be granted,” they say, “to the power of God, that He can make things which are not, as though they were. Since they rely on this cunning trickery against the Son of God, we must answer them from those very points on which they believe, because they are already convicted in other matters, so that they may appear convicted in the whole sum. For this proposition, as far as its meaning is concerned, has no weight; but as far as the words are concerned, it creates obscurity so that the issue does not quickly appear. For it is as if an Egyptian were placed in the dark, because a bad cause cannot be defended with a good meaning. Therefore, to defend their wickedness, they use sacrilegious words. If, then, this is the power of God, that He could make it true that Christ is His Son, though He was not born from His own being; then He made Him such as He Himself is, so that what generation was going to bestow, the making has accomplished. If, therefore, you say there is no difference between God and Christ, it might perhaps be doubted whether this is not asserted by you unkindly, so that what is said in word might also be in meaning: that because He is called true Son, He may be understood as true, through the fact that He is of one substance with the Father, though not by generation but by making;

227 since, as you say, God can do everything, so that what is made may be as though it were not made. But if, following the rule of reason, you say that what has a beginning cannot be equal and consubstantial with that which is eternal, you lay bare the deceit of your hatred: for, in order to evade the meaning of the word, you falsely say that Christ is truly the Son of God, while denying Him equality with God the Father. For He is not true if He is unequal. Can He be called a true Son, if the Father is not also called true? For if the Son is true, the Father will also be true; and equality proves this truth. But if they are unequal, neither of them is true. Yet since the witness of the Scriptures, by which Christ is approved as the true Son of God, cannot be made void, He must be believed to be born of God the Father: because, in order that this truth might be established, He is read as both equal to and on a par with God. But you, who proclaim the immeasurable power of God, say that God cannot beget, because His nature is simple; and by this you also do an insult to God the Father Himself. For you call Him a liar, since you deny the Son whom He declares to be His own and true; and you betray your hypocrisy, because you falsely proclaim God to be powerful.

228 For if you proclaim the power of God in that which you assert to have been made true out of what was false, so as to mock what is true, how much more ought you to accept this, if you were of sound mind, whereby what is called true is proved true, and the testimony that God the Father gave about His Son is confirmed as true? For the Lord said, “With God,” He says, “all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26), so that whatever seems impossible to men may be possible to God. For if the reasoning of the flesh is followed, neither did a Virgin give birth, nor did Jonah live in the belly of the whale (Jonah 2:1), nor will the dead rise, nor did God beget a Son, because a simple nature cannot beget, since in this world nothing is generated without mixture. All these things must either be believed together or refuted together. For if the reasoning of the world must be maintained, it should have authority in all these matters. But if there is some reasoning proper to spiritual things, he must be called carnal who, infected with the reasoning of the world, denies that anything can be done otherwise than he knows. They are also accustomed to propose something else with their usual evasion. They say, “Did the Father beget the Son by will, or not?

229 so that when they hear, of course, that it was by will, they may at once, as enemies of the Son of God, reply, “Therefore the will is before the Son,” so that from this He may appear not eternal, since He did not receive a beginning by birth, but came into existence. And yet if they think this, not only will the will be before the Son, but also before the Father; because the cause of generation is the Father and the Son. Unbelief follows carnal notions in everything. For it introduces the cause of God as if He were a man, as though He had first considered and devised that He should beget, as if subject to weakness; whereas in God neither was there generation without will, nor will without generation. For the will itself is generation. Indeed, it is a common expression, “God made,” “man made”; but God makes in one way, man makes in another; and so also in other causes. Therefore must we speak of God as is worthy of Him. They also raise another question about God the Father Himself, saying, “Did it come to Him that He should beget, or is it of His nature always to beget? They bring this forward so that they may also assert that God is a liar, who testifies that He has begotten Christ, and that they may make Christ not true, but adopted. For, they say, if He has begotten, He must always beget;

230 so that, because He does not always beget, He may not be believed to have begotten Christ: as though it were denied that He made the world, because He does not make others. What disrespect, what lack of discipline it is, to lay down a law for God, so that if He has begotten, He must either have begotten many, or could not have begotten one; not even believing the Lord Himself, who declared Himself the only-begotten Son of God. After these things which have been shown above to be equal in the Father and the Son, let us see whether what is written about the Holy Spirit agrees with them, so that the Trinity which we hold in our saving profession may not admit a difference of nature, just as it has no diversity of faith. For although there is no salvation without any one of these, yet their power appears to be one, which gives salvation to those who believe in it. Since we have brought forward the words of the Father as testimony to the Son, now, as testimony to the Holy Spirit, let us use the words of the Son, by which he declares that the Holy Spirit does not differ from himself: so that, as the Father is witness with the Son, and the Son is witness to the Holy Spirit, the Trinity may be understood to be of one nature. The Lord therefore says among other things:

231 I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may be with you forever, the Spirit of truth (Jn. 14:16–17). When he says that another Paraclete is to be sent, he clearly shows that he himself is a Paraclete. For this is read also in the Epistle of John; he says: We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, who intercedes for our sins (1 Jn. 2:1). And again the Lord says, I am the truth (Jn. 14:6). Behold the clear unity of the Holy Spirit and the Son of God. For what the Son says about himself, he says likewise about the Holy Spirit. Now we must set forth what Scripture arranges in this sense. It is read in Isaiah that he saw the Lord of hosts seated on a throne of majesty (Isa. 6:1), whom John the Evangelist understood to be Christ, saying among other things, These things said Isaiah when he saw his majesty, and spoke about him (Jn. 12:41). The Apostle says that this one is the Holy Spirit. For he says in the last part of the Acts of the Apostles, Well did the Holy Spirit speak to your fathers, saying, With hearing you shall hear and shall not understand, etc. (Acts 28:25–26). These words were spoken by the Lord of hosts. This is the one God, who, whether he be understood as the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, is not contrary to himself, because one is their divinity and one their power.

232 For if, in an decree from the praetorium of one captain, the other captains also are said to command, because of the authority of a single power, how much more, under the rule of one God, if one of the three has spoken, will it not be unsuitable to say that the three have spoken? For their nature and will are one. They are also accustomed to prejudice the Holy Spirit by claiming that he must therefore be considered inferior, because he is placed third in order; though there is such simplicity in the divine Scriptures that you sometimes find the third placed first. As the occasion requires, so they are set down. For it is no injury to any of them, because one is their divinity. Indeed we read in Isaiah, with the Lord saying, I am the first, and I am forever: and my hand founded the earth, and my right hand established heaven. And in what follows: I have spoken, I have called, I have brought him, and I have made his way prosperous. Come near to me, and hear these things: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning: from the time that they came to be, I was there, and now the Lord has sent me and his Spirit (Isa. 48:12–13, 15–16). Whom do you suppose to be the one who founded the earth? For it is he who says that he has been sent. Is it the Father? Far from it.

233 It is therefore the Son who says that he has been sent by God and by the Holy Spirit. Behold the equality between the Son and the Holy Spirit. For just as the Holy Spirit is read to have been sent by the Father and the Son, so Christ is sent by God and by the Holy Spirit. For this is proper to the Father alone, that he should not be said to be sent. Consider the words of the Apostle, who in another order embraces the Trinity: for he says among other things in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, May the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the patience of Christ (2 Thess. 3:5). Whom do you think he calls “the Lord,” if not the Holy Spirit? And what is strange in this, since he whom Isaiah saw seated on the throne of majesty, this same one he calls the Holy Spirit, the Lord of hosts, as we showed above. And the Apostle John signifies that God is understood in the Holy Spirit, saying among other things, In this we have known that God remains in us, by the Holy Spirit whom he has given us (1 Jn. 4:13). If therefore it is through his Spirit that he himself remains in us, it is not in doubt that the Holy Spirit is of God. And there is no question that whatever is of God is God.

234 From this the Apostle says, No one knows the things that are in God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11). How can he know the things that are in God unless he is of the same divinity? For a lower nature cannot know what is in a higher; how much less could a creature know what was in its Creator? And to the Corinthians, in the first Epistle, departing from the usual order which is in the tradition of the faith, he begins with the Holy Spirit when he recalls the workings of graces and mysteries; and he adds the Lord Jesus; and in the third place he sets God, whom he says to be working in the Holy Spirit and in the Lord (ibid. 12:4–6): just as the Lord also says, The Father, remaining in me, he himself does the works (Jn. 14:10). For through that by which the Holy Spirit and Christ are “of God the Father,” their working is the work of God. In fact he calls the Holy Spirit also “Lord,” and he calls the Lord also “God,” because of the unity of nature. Therefore, since in this place he says that the same one who is God and Lord works all things in all, he concludes below, saying, But all these things are worked by one and the same Spirit, distributing to each as he wills (1 Cor. 12:11). What is more evident, that the three have one operation? For when one works, the three are said to work;

235 why, except because they are of one divinity? For there is no doubt that the gift of graces is properly worked by the Holy Spirit. But in order to teach that God and Lord and the Holy Spirit are one because of the sameness of nature, he shows that the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of the three. And to make clear that, as far as person is concerned, this work is the Holy Spirit’s alone, he says, But all these things are worked by one and the same Spirit, distributing to each as he wills. Therefore he acts as he wills, because his will is the will of God. For he does not say “as God wills,” but “as the Spirit wills. A creature compels itself to do the will of God; but the Holy Spirit wills this by nature. And in order that it may clearly shine forth that the Holy Spirit works all things, the Lord says among other things: “If I by the finger of God cast out devils,” etc. (Luke 11:20). He calls the Holy Spirit the finger of God, to prove that He is from God. Finally, He testifies that the Jews, who said that He cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils, blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. Moses also, because he worked signs through the Holy Spirit, is acknowledged by the magicians, who say, “This is the finger of God” (Exod. 8:19). For in the Acts of the Apostles we read:

236 “As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said: Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2). Behold, service is rendered to the Lord, and the Holy Spirit claims this for Himself. From this it plainly appears that He is Lord, just as God the Father is. And Christ called Saul from heaven and sent him to preach (Acts 9:4); and in like manner the Holy Spirit claims this for Himself, saying, “for the work to which I have called them. For no one is ignorant that the Savior appointed bishops for the Churches. Indeed, before He ascended into heaven, laying His hand upon the Apostles, He ordained them as bishops. The Apostle attributes this to the Holy Spirit when he says: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 20:28). And among other things Peter says to Ananias: “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart, that you should lie to the Holy Spirit? And further on, he says: “You have not lied to men, but to God” (Acts 5:3–4). It is clear that the Holy Spirit is called God, since Ananias, who lied to the Holy Spirit, is said to have lied to God.

237 If he had in no way wished the Holy Spirit to be understood as God, he would have said, “You have not lied to men, but to the Holy Spirit,” so that he would indicate Him as neither God nor man. And what is surprising in this? For the Apostle at one time calls a man the temple of God (2 Cor. 6:16), and at another time the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), because by nature they are one. For if the Holy Spirit were in no way understood to be God, with what boldness would he later say, “The temple of God is holy, and that temple are you” (2 Cor. 3:17)? For one God is proclaimed in all the Scriptures; but His mystery is adored in the Trinity. Therefore Scripture so speaks, that under the profession of one God, the things which are of Him, that is, His Son and His Holy Spirit, are understood to be in the same honor in which God Himself is. For the mystery of God has been revealed in order that His glory might be signified in the Trinity. Wherefore, what is from God is not called God with full authority, lest it be believed that another is made apart from Him who is the One. But understanding is given, so that we may believe that in this manner the salvation of the creature consists in the Trinity, because one is their divinity.

238 For neither could the Creator and the creatures, the Lord and the servants, eternity and those things that are under a beginning, be joined together and placed in the same order, since without one of them salvation is for none. For everything that is God, whether the Son or the Holy Spirit, is called so to its injury, if it is reckoned outside the honor and glory of the one God. Therefore the Scriptures show Christ to be God, they show the Holy Spirit to be God, so that, seeing, they may know what He is who is shown. It is as if someone were to show a gem without crying out that it is a gem: just because he does not cry out, will that which is seen not be a gem? In the same way, through the things discussed above, the Scriptures show what we ought to believe, enclosing our understanding within the faith of the one God, in the mystery of the Trinity.

239 (John 14:9) 2ND CATEGORY NT 240 QUESTION 43. WHAT REASONABLE ANSWER CAN ONE MAKE FROM THE LAW TO THE WICKEDNESS OF THE ARIANS? — If one must believe in reason, etc. It is therefore evident that Christ is called the true Son of God, as his own Son, that is, born of his substance. This is what makes the Apostle say: "He did not spare his own Son. The very reason for the names of Father and Son teaches us that the Father and the Son share the same nature. Human reason is too weak to reach the knowledge of this mystery. That is why these grand truths have received names which help to conceive the truth of the existence of the Father and the Son. Well, indeed, does not show better that Our Lord Jesus Christ proceeds from God than the name of Son of God given to Him. And as wickedness has found a way to misuse these names to give them a meaning different from that which they naturally have, Scripture adds, "He is the true Son," to silence these wicked mouths and to those evil spirits. We will even say that no one falls into heresy except by departing from the reason of names; simple and upright minds, which do not deviate from the meaning of names, remain unharmed attached to the Catholic faith. Simplicity calmly considers what has been taught to it by tradition.

241 When doubts arise, questions arise over truths clearly and simply formulated, and that not satisfied with believing what the words express, men consider it unworthy of them not to add or not to take away something, they fall from the heights of the divine tradition. For the righteous spirits, all their concern is that their faith in God is according to tradition. Now, the only meaning of the names of Father and Son leads to the truth of the perfect unity that exists between them. It cannot be supposed that there is a difference between those whom Scripture represents under the same image, and whom the Son himself confirms when he says: "He who sees me, sees my Father. (Jn. 14:9) If, then, he who sees one of them sees them both, the Father and the Son certainly have one and the same form, which can only be so long as the Father and the Son are one and the same substance. And this does not cast doubt on what happens among men, how can one determine the existence of the true Son? when the identity of nature is supported by the property of the names of the begotten and the created; for who can generate anything other than himself? If Christ was simply called the Son of God, and the Scripture did not add for greater clarity that He is the true Son of God, to the testimony of the Apostle St. John, "We are in his true Son Jesus Christ, who is the true God and eternal life;

242 (Jn. 5:20) and St. Paul: "He did not spare his own Son," (Rom. 8:32) there might be some doubt as to the meaning of the only name of the Son. But Scripture clearly says that He is the true Son of God; therefore those who go against the natural signification of this expression become their own enemies. They imagine, and under the influence of a false and perverse opinion, they affirm that one must believe something other than what is contained in the reason of faith, as if they wanted to give to God more than him. Even those who believe in him do not want it. If Scripture had not added to the word Son the qualification of truth, we might perhaps doubt. One could say that these words of the Savior: "He who sees me, see my father," signifies that he is like his Father, as milk is like plaster, similar in color, but very different from nature. But, no, as these words are the words of the true Son of God, we must admit that they signify in his mind that the Father and the Son have one and the same nature, and that they do not differ in any way. If indeed the Savior said of the man and the woman, because they have the same nature:

243 "They are no longer two but one flesh," (Matt. 19:6) how much more must one be careful not to say that the Father and the Son are two, so as not to give rise to the error that their nature is separate, divided, or at least different and dissimilar? Finally, the apostle Saint Paul confirms this unity of nature of the Father and the Son when he says: "He did not look as a trespass to be equal to God. "(Philip. 2:6) Now, where does this equality come from, if not from the unity of nature, both have one and the same image. The Apostle said, "He did not count equality with God," the Savior Himself called himself the true Son of God, for He could not be equal to God except so much as He proceeded from God: there is no equality possible except between two subjects who are both true or both false. This equality, this unity cannot exist between what had a beginning and what is eternal. So, when Jesus Christ declares that he is one with his Father, he proclaims himself equal to God. "Not only did the Jews reproach him,” says the Evangelist, (Jn. 5:18) for breaking the Sabbath, but for saying that “God was his Father and to make himself equal to God," that is, to the Father. Is it not obvious that this equality comes from birth?

244 For it is by asserting himself the proper Son, the true Son of God, that he made himself equal to God, and that is why he said: "He who sees me, see my Father," (Jn. 14:9) that is, to say that both are of the same nature, the one who sees one sees them both. "For as the Father has life in himself, so has he given to his Son to have life in himself," (Jn. 5:26) that is to say, an equal life, etc. 245 (John 14:27) 1ST CATEGORY NT 246 QUESTION 92. HOW IS IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD WHEN THE SAVIOR SAYS, MY PEACE I GIVE TO YOU; MY PEACE I LEAVE WITH YOU: NOT AS THIS WORLD GIVES, DO I GIVE TO YOU (John 14:27)? — Whoever receives the peace of the Savior will suffer the hatred of the world. For unless a person becomes separated from the Devil, he will not have peace with Christ. For no one can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24). Therefore, the one who faithfully keeps the law of God is the one who is at variance with the world. Armed with the peace of Christ, he crushes the darts of all his adversaries. For who would dare to attack one whom he knows to be a friend of the King? Yet the world gives peace in a different way from that which the Savior promised to give. For the world gives peace either out of fear or out of appeal. But the Savior, since he is the strongest of all and fears no one, gives peace unasked. This, then, is the peace of the Savior, which is given for this reason: that it may be a defense against enemies. Peace indeed is called by one and the same name, yet the peace of God and the peace of the world are separated by a massive distance. For this peace is fragile, that one strong; this one carnal, that one spiritual; this one earthly, that one heavenly; this one arises from necessity, that one from free will.

247 For Christ, needing nothing, offers peace to the weak and unarmed, the Lord to his servants, the good to the wicked, God to human beings. Rightly, therefore, he says, Not as this world gives, do I give to you: in saying this, he wished his kindly good will to be understood. For whereas everyone else gives peace so that he himself may benefit, he, namely, the Savior, gives it in such a way that it may benefit not himself, but those to whom he gives it. Therefore the world gives peace in a different manner from that in which the Savior has given it. And the peace of the world does not teach a good life, does not encourage patience, does not stir up to righteousness, does not encourage to be merciful, does not promise eternal life. For whoever receives the peace of Christ will be a stranger to the corruptions of this world, which wage war against the soul.

248 (John 16:8) 1ST CATEGORY NT 249 QUESTION 89. THE SAVIOR, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SAYS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: “WHEN HE COMES,” HE SAYS, “HE WILL CONVICT THE WORLD CONCERNING SIN, AND RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND JUDGMENT. CONCERNING SIN INDEED, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN ME; BUT CONCERNING RIGHTEOUSNESS, BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER, AND YOU WILL SEE ME NO MORE; BUT CONCERNING JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD HAS BEEN JUDGED” (John 16:8). HE APPEARS INDEED TO HAVE STATED THE REASON FOR THE WORLD’S BEING CONVICTED, BUT THIS NEEDS EXPLANATION. — Since the Jews did not believe in the Savior, nor did worldly powers; and because he wished to reveal himself not only to human beings, but also to principalities and powers in the heavenly places, as the Apostle teaches in the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:10); he showed that after his Passion the Holy Spirit would prove that he had spoken the truth. And this is what it is to convict the world: to show it that the things it refused to believe are true. For it refused to believe that the Savior had come from God. But the Savior, having kept righteousness, did not hesitate to return to the One who had sent him; and by the fact that he returned, he proved that he had come from there. “For no one,” he says, “ascends to God except the one who has descended from God” (Jn. 3:13). Therefore, when the powers saw him ascending, they were baffled, seeing that what they had despised as false was in fact true.

250 Therefore that righteousness convicts them, by which he was proved just, because he returned to the place from which he had come. In this way he also convicts them concerning sin, because they not only refused to believe in him, but even killed him. And concerning judgment he reproved them therefore, by showing that the prince of the world was made guilty and seized by him whose faith they did not share. For when they saw souls going from the underworld to heaven, they recognized that the prince of this world had been condemned, so that, having been made guilty in the case of the Savior, he would by right lose what he held. These things were indeed seen when the Savior ascended; but when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples, they were clearly and openly revealed. For there was true conviction then, when after the Passion and Resurrection, as a testimony to the Savior, the dead rising again, the lame running, lepers cleansed, paralytics strengthened, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the mute speaking, the possessed being cleansed, and the sick giving thanks after recovering their health, were publicly seen by the faithless. In this way the Holy Spirit convicts the world, because in the name of the Savior, who was rejected by the world, he worked the powers of every kind of healing.

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

252 (John 20:17) 2ND CATEGORY NT 253 QUESTION 37. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE SAVIOR SAYS TO MARY, WHO WANTS TO TOUCH HIM OUT OF JOY, “DO NOT TOUCH ME; FOR I HAVE NOT YET ASCENDED TO THE FATHER” (John 20:1–17), WHEN IT IS READ THAT HE WAS BOTH TOUCHED AND ADORED BY THE OTHER WOMEN? — “Do not touch me” are the words of one who is impatient. For although she desired the Savior, yet while others believed in his resurrection, she stood at the tomb weeping, when she ought already to have been rejoicing. For she had heard from the apostles John and Peter that the Lord had risen. You have it therefore: “He saw the linen cloths and the napkin in one place, and he believed; for as yet he did not know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. (Jn. 20:7) But because Mary did not see him as risen, she did not believe. Excessive love made her doubt. Indeed, those whom we love, if they suffer hardship, we do not readily believe that they will escape it; whereas those whom we hate, if they are already near death, it seems unbelievable to us. Therefore to Mary, since she was astonished and suffered grief through love, though she ought to have followed the faith of the disciples, the Lord first showed himself, so that she might cease from her sorrow, yet not without reproach. Therefore she hears, “Do not touch me”; that is: You seek a carnal understanding. Hold back, and follow the spiritual realities which are not seen.

254 “For I have not yet,” he says, “ascended to the Father. (Jn. 20:17) This is like that saying of blessed John the Baptist, who sent his disciples to Jesus and said, “Go, say, John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect another? (Luke 7:19–20). In his own person he is pleading the cause of his disciples. For John did not doubt, he who had said, “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world” (Jn. 1:29); but in order to satisfy his disciples, he sends them with his own words, so that by the mouth of the Savior he might confirm what he himself taught about him, so that after his departure his disciples might follow Christ without any doubt. In the same way the Savior rebukes Mary in himself, saying, “I have not yet ascended to the Father”; that is: Your heart is still weighed down to the earth; if you do not see, you do not believe. For if she had lifted up her heart to God, she would have believed, together with the disciples, that the Lord had risen.

255 ACTS (Acts 2:1) 1ST CATEGORY NT 256 QUESTION 95. WHAT WAS THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF PENTECOST AND THE REASON FOR ITS INSTITUTION? — There is no doubt that every aspect of our religion is strengthened by ancient testimony and marked by the entitlement of the Old Law. For all past events of the Old Law are known to have been done and set forth as a figure of our future faith, so that we might not hesitate to hold the truth, when we see that the things which we now both hear and believe were predestined before the ages, commended not only by words, but also by the powers of signs. But now the question is whether they are understood by us in the same way as they were prefigured, so that we may rightly recognize where and for what reason the day of Pentecost is derived. For the meanings of the Lord’s Scriptures are opened to those who are diligent and devout, and closed to the negligent. Nor was it fitting that things reserved for the worthy and deserving should be casually seen by all. Pentecost, therefore, which is the fiftieth day counted from Easter, has this basis:

257 just as after a week the Lord’s Day is the first day, on which the mystery of Easter was fulfilled for the redemption of human salvation, because after the cycle of seven days it is always necessary to return to the first, so that it may be shown that the age of the world is completed in the number seven and comes to rest, so also after seven weeks the first day is Pentecost. Therefore Pentecost is never on any other day than the Lord’s Day, so that everything that contributes to human salvation may be known to have been both begun and fulfilled on the Lord’s Day. For on the Lord’s Day the world was made, and after the Fall it was again renewed on the Lord’s Day; a figure of this renewal was first given in circumcision, in which there was a sign of the faith to come. For after the week, the eighth day is, in mystery, the first. This is the day which the Lord has made. He made that one day from which the other courses of days would be derived. And therefore on this very day He rose, which He had made; and according to the number explained above, on this very day He gave the Law on Mount Sinai through His servant Moses: so that just as the lamb was a figure of the Lord’s Passion in the sacrament of Easter, so the giving of the Law was a figure of the preaching of the Gospel.

258 For on the same day, that is, on Pentecost, the Law was given, on which also the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples, so that they might receive authority and know that they had the right to preach the Gospel. This event is confirmed by a double testimony, because it is shown to have been predestined, and is also proved by the revealed outpouring of the Holy Spirit to be divine and heavenly, in order to bear witness to our Law. For when unlearned men, unknown to one another, speak the mighty works of God in various languages, they show that they are divinely inspired. Therefore to the sons of Israel the Law was given by Moses on the third day of the third month, as is contained in the book of Exodus (Exod. 19:16), which day, counted from the fourteenth day of the first month, on which day the Passover was celebrated in Egypt (Exod. 12:18), is the fiftieth day, that is, Pentecost. Therefore it came about that, for the preaching of the law of faith, on Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles (Acts 2:1–4), so that the deeds of the ancients might be regarded as images of future things, for the assurance of our faith, because what has been proclaimed from the beginning cannot be considered false. Therefore the time of forgiveness and renewal is described in the fiftieth Psalm, so that the same providence of the fiftieth day, which is also that of the first, might be recognized.

259 From this it happened that manna was given for the first time on the first day, which is the Lord’s Day, from heaven to the people of the Jews; and this is proved by the sequence of six days during which they gathered it, and on the seventh day, that is the Sabbath, they rested (Exod. 16:22, 23). Now manna is a type of spiritual food, which, through the Lord’s Resurrection, became reality in the mystery of the Eucharist. All things therefore were done so that they might return unharmed to the cause of the first resurrection, and that Satan might not boast but grow dull, he who cast man down by false hope, lest man remain in that which was brought about through Christ the Lord. Now it remains that we prove whether the things we have said are to be understood as we have already mentioned. The first month, in which the Passover on the fourteenth day was celebrated in Egypt, had this day as Wednesday. Therefore also the Law was given on a Wednesday. This may be understood from the fact that on the fifteenth day of the second month after the departure of the sons of Israel, a Sabbath is seen to have occurred; therefore the flock of quails was not sent to them in the daytime but in the evening. In the morning, however, manna rained from heaven (Exod. 16:13, 14), that is, on the Lord’s Day, which is the first found in repetition after the week.

260 Indeed, for six consecutive days they gathered manna, and on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, they rested. From this day therefore up to the third day of the third month, on which the Law was given, examine and you will find that it was a Wednesday when the Law was given. For from the fifteenth day of the second month, when it was a Sabbath, up to the third day of the third month, on which the Law was given, there are nineteen days. Hold therefore these nineteen days, and go back to the fifteenth day of the second month, when it was a Sabbath, which, counted from the first day, is the fourteenth; and go back to the first day of the second month, and you will have another fourteen days; add these to the nineteen mentioned above, and you will find that the first day of the second month was a Sabbath. Add further to the beginning of the first month seventeen days, because thirteen days of the first month, which were before Passover, must be subtracted: for the Passover took place on the fourteenth day of the first month. With thirteen days removed, and seventeen added, you will find that the fourteenth of the first month was a Wednesday.

261 And so that you may not suffer weariness in reading, or carefully examine each part of the question, I give you a summary, so that you may be certain of the number of days from Passover up to the giving of the Law, and from this more easily learn on which weekday Passover took place. The Law was given on the third day after the second month. There are therefore two months and three days. Subtract from these the thirteen days which were before Passover, and fifty days remain. Since the Law was given on a Wednesday, this is easily seen Manna was given on the first weekday, because they gathered it for six continuous days, and this first weekday was on the sixteenth day of the second month. From this first weekday, therefore, up to the eighteenth day, on which the Law was given, you will find a Wednesday. And from Wednesday, whether you count forward or backward to the fiftieth day, it is a Wednesday: for the Jews celebrated Passover in Egypt on a Wednesday, and on a Wednesday they received the Law; but on a Thursday they set out from Egypt. Therefore, the dedication of the Law is Pentecost.

262 ROMANS (Romans 1:3) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 44. AS WE CONFESS THAT THE SAVIOR WAS BORN, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS HE WAS MADE FROM THE SEED OF DAVID (Rom. 1:3), SINCE TO BE MADE IS ONE THING AND TO BE BORN ANOTHER? — Although in this place “making” can be understood as “birth”: for “making” does indeed differ from “generation,” but only in other contexts, not where the matter concerns flesh and body. Yet the Apostle did not use such words without reason; for in another place he says, “made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4). Therefore he meant something by this expression. For the flesh of the Lord in the Virgin’s womb was not formed and the body brought into being by human seed, but by the operation and power of the Holy Spirit; that is why the Apostle spoke in this way. It is one thing to thicken blood with mingled seed and therefore to generate, and another to bring forth, not by mixture, but by power. Therefore he said “made” rather than “begotten.”

263 (Romans 4:15; 7:12) 2ND CATEGORY NT 264 QUESTION 46. THE APOSTLE CALLS THE LAW GIVEN BY MOSES HOLY, JUST, GOOD, AND SPIRITUAL (Rom. 7:12, 14). ELSEWHERE HE SAYS, “FOR THE LAW WORKS WRATH,” AND, “WHERE THERE IS NO LAW, THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION” (Rom. 4:15). FOR WHERE THESE THINGS ARE NOT, THERE IS SECURITY. — By comparing his statements, you ought to have been satisfied. For those who are in doubt usually raise questions in such a way that they take the statements of one whose words may not rightly be criticized and seek out things that appear to conflict and to be hostile. If the Apostle calls the Law holy, just, good, and spiritual, he, a man outstanding in all praise and defended on every side by truth, this should serve for faith; and in regard to what seems contrary in words, it should have been examined without stubbornness and envy. For this proposition aims at exemption in sinning. When the Apostle set the law of faith before the Romans, according to the merit of the time and grace, he was speaking to those who, under the faith of Christ, had been brought under the Law. By “Law” I mean not that which is natural; for indeed the Romans were under a law which the decemvirs (official ten-man commissions in the ancient Roman Republic) sent from Athens, and later two others brought, which was written on two tablets and buried in the Capitol. Rather, I mean that law which is called the law of works:

265 that they should be circumcised, keep the sabbath and the new moons, separate foods, be careful about cleansing vessels, and the other things contained in such a Law. This Law, then, he says, works wrath; for these things were added by God when angry, so that they might be a burden upon the unbelief of the Jews. In matters so many, it is inevitable that something be omitted. Therefore the Apostle Peter says: “Why,” he asks, “do you put a yoke upon the neck of the brothers which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Acts 15:10). Finally, God says through the prophet Jeremiah: “I gave them statutes that were not good” (Ezek. 20:25). For after many offenses and temptings of God, and insults against Moses and detractions from God, these things were given for them to observe, so that their stiff neck might be pressed down, and wherever they turned, they would have the Law, so that there might be no refreshment for them. Therefore, in order to remove them from this Law, the Apostle says, “Where there is no Law, there is no transgression,” so that they might safely, by a shorter way, serve God spiritually. “Because,” he says, “if you keep the Jewish Law, you must necessarily transgress it. For the precepts are so many that it is impossible to fulfill them. How, then, could he be speaking of that Law which is natural?

266 Moses wrote of it to confirm its authority, not because it did not exist before, since we read of vengeance being exacted before Moses; but he wrote to show the Romans that they ought no longer to live under the Law, though it was beneficial that they should conduct themselves under a Law. For otherwise they could not preserve justice. Accordingly he says to them: “Do you wish not to fear authority? Do good”; and, “Those who despise it bring condemnation upon themselves” (Rom. 13:3, 2). He therefore calls this Law spiritual, which he also shows to be holy, just, and good. This is the Law which we have called natural, which forbids sin: it is the guide of a good life. To this, the Law of faith being added, makes a perfect man. Now, because by a common name this Law which I called natural, and that which is called the Law of works, are both termed “law,” the Apostle appears to speak against the Law. But lest he seem to empty this Law, without which this life cannot be governed, he says, “We know that the Law is spiritual,” so that the Law which he annuls might be understood to be the Law of sabbath observance, circumcision, foods, and new moons. For that Law is therefore not called spiritual, because it punishes all sins.

267 (Romans 8:7) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 47. BY WHAT REASONING IS THE WISDOM OF THE FLESH HOSTILE TO GOD; OR WHAT IS THAT WISDOM ITSELF WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD (Rom. 8:7)? — This question does not differ in sense from the previous one. For by saying “flesh” it has been made clear what is signified; from this it can easily be recognized what its wisdom is. We have said, then, that all the elements are called flesh, that is, the substances of visible things: whose way of thinking is such that they believe nothing can come about without a spiritual and simple mingling, while they shrink from the notion of power and judge it foolish. For those who, distrusting spiritual things, follow carnal ones, understand and consider as true nothing other than what is contained in the order of the elements: so that they neither admit that a virgin gave birth, nor believe in the resurrection of the flesh, because the reasoning of the flesh, that is, of the elements, does not accept this. For all things that are generated in time are produced by an operative mingling: and they say that dead and dissolved bodies cannot be restored again to life, because each element, by a separated mingling, returns to its own nature. Swollen with such notions, they deny that what we believe will happen or has happened: and therefore their assertion is hostile to God, since it considers as foolish and empty that which God has done and promised He will do.

268 1 CORINTHIANS (1 Corinthians 5:5) 2ND CATEGORY NT 269 QUESTION 49. WHOSE SPIRIT DOES THE APOSTLE SAY IS TO BE SAVED, WHEN HE SAYS, “I HAVE HANDED OVER SUCH A MAN TO SATAN FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FLESH,” ETC. (1 Cor. 5:5)? — The destruction of the flesh is when a person, given over to carnal pleasures and desires, obtains hell for himself: for he acquires destruction through the work of the flesh. From these things he becomes wholly carnal, because just as a man who lives according to the Law becomes wholly spiritual, so that even the flesh is called by the same name as the soul; so too, if he lives according to the desire of the world and the pleasures of lusts, the whole man becomes flesh, making progress toward the destruction of the flesh; that is, just as the flesh, because it is frail and corruptible and mortal, when it loses the soul is deformed, lacking form, and sinks into destruction, for it perishes when it loses the strength of all its members, so also the soul is deformed by such a body, whose strength it had despised, and is punished together with the flesh in which it stained itself with vices. So that there is no advantage to the flesh through the soul, but the soul has destruction through the flesh, because it did not govern the body spiritually, though it was given to the flesh as queen, but itself teaches carnal works.

270 Therefore, when the Church has cast out such a man, it has a spirit that is safe, namely the Holy Spirit, who is the guardian of the Church: for if they were willing to have such a man among them, who defiled his father’s wife by lust, so that they would have to be compelled by the Law not to allow him to defile everyone, and the Holy Spirit would withdraw from the Church on account of the polluted one, the Church would not have a safe spirit. For what is lost is not safe, and on the day of the Lord, found naked of the Spirit, they will not be able to be counted among the sons of God. For the Spirit bears witness that we are the sons of God (Rom. 8:16). The Apostle says this to the laity, because as yet bishops had not been appointed over the Churches in every place. Therefore he commands the people to do what he would have done if he had been ordained bishop there, namely, that by joining together with one accord they should cast him out from their company, lest they seem to consent to his deeds. For he who does not rebuke someone whom he can rebuke, but receives him as though he were not in error, provides him fuel for sinning, and for this reason he himself is defiled and drives the Holy Spirit away from himself. For to the Thessalonians likewise, among other things, he says:

271 “May your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord” (1 Thess. 5:23). The sense is the same: for to be safe is to be whole. Therefore the king says to Daniel, “Are the seals safe, Daniel? and he answered, “They are safe, O king” (Dan. 14:16); that is, intact. So that our spirit may be whole when he does not desert us. For those whom the Spirit deserts will no longer be whole in respect to the cause of regeneration, because they do not have him through whom they were called sons of God. Nor is it contrary to this if we say that the Holy Spirit, when we sin, deserts us and is not whole in us. For he is not whole in us when he deserts us, who was our leader and ruler; because if he is our head and we are his members, then when we do something contrary, it is not he who seems to desert us, but we who seem to desert him; and then he appears not to be whole when he loses us. For this is true and evident, that it is not he who turns away from us, but we from him when we sin. And to the Colossians, among other things, he says: “From whom the whole body, supplied and knit together, grows with a growth from God” (Col. 2:19). If we take this according to the sound of the words, it does not fit:

272 for God does not lack anything, so as to make growth through us. But when we return to the author of our life and confess him, the Godhead, by gaining us for salvation, makes growth in us; therefore, in those who depart from him there is loss. This, then, is not to be whole, which is also to suffer loss. 273 (1 Corinthians 5:7) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 96. IT SHOULD BE ASKED WHETHER PASCHA IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS “PASSAGE,” AS IT APPEARS TO THE GREEKS. — The Apostle could not have been mistaken when he says, “Christ our Pascha has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7). This is not, of course, his own expression, but a word of the Law, as Moses says: “And it shall be, when your sons say to you, ‘What is this service?’ you shall say, ‘This sacrifice is the Pascha of the Lord’” (Exod. 12:26–27). What more is needed as evidence? The law speaks; the Apostle proves it this remains, that the objector be cast out as stubborn. For it is plain that the passage took place after Pascha. For of the blood of the sacrificed lamb they placed it upon the doorposts and upon the threshold, so that when the angel passed by at night he would not strike the house in which the sign of blood was found. Therefore it was the blood that brought salvation, not the passage; because in order that the passage should not harm, the blood stood in the way.

274 (1 Corinthians 6:8) 2ND CATEGORY NT 275 QUESTION 50. SINCE MANY SINS SEEM TO BE COMMITTED IN THE BODY, FOR ANYONE WHO INFLICTS VIOLENCE ON ANY PART OF HIS BODY SINS, OF COURSE, AGAINST HIS OWN BODY; FOR THERE IS ONE WHO HAS MUTILATED HIMSELF, ONE WHO HAS ENDED HIS LIFE BY A NOOSE, ONE WHO HAS DRIVEN A SWORD INTO HIMSELF, WHY THEN DOES THE APOSTLE SAY, “EVERY SIN WHATSOEVER A MAN SHALL COMMIT IS OUTSIDE THE BODY; BUT HE WHO FORNICATES SINS AGAINST HIS OWN BODY” (1 Cor. 6:18)? — Do you think the Apostle was unskilled, or do you want the force of this saying explained? For when the Apostle says “body,” he does not mean the individual man alone, but he includes the woman as well, because the woman is a portion of the man. For all the above-mentioned crimes that each person violently commits against himself do not stain the whole body; it is the individual alone who sins, and therefore he alone becomes guilty. In fornication, however, the whole body is defiled, because the consent to contamination involves both the man and the woman; therefore fornication is a serious offense. It is a most wicked sin when someone seeks a partner in his crime for their joint destruction. For if a righteous man will receive a reward even on behalf of the one whom he has gained, then likewise an evil man is made guilty not only in himself, but also in the one whom he has wished to have as a sharer in his condemnation.

276 How much more, then, does the fornicator, who is clearly by one offense in a certain way defiling himself twice? For if he sins against the flesh that is from himself, he doubly commits adultery against himself. If anyone thinks he can reshape this question so as to apply this statement either to the Church or to the body of Christ, it will not stand. For it would be said improperly and would resemble Novatian, who, in order to support the cause of his own frenzy, declares that the one who commits fornication does not sin against his own body but against Christ’s, because Christians are the members and body of Christ; so that fornication would be the same as sacrilege, and such a person would be said to sin against Christ just as one who denies Christ. But this is weak and fragile, because from every side it falls into a snare and does not escape. For if the one who fornicates sins against the body of Christ, then other sins would not be committed against Christ, such as if a Christian kills his brother, or sacrifices to idols, or commits some other kind of sin, since every sin is outside the body, except fornication.

277 But if not every sin is outside the body, and whatever sin there is, is committed against Christ, then the one who steals, or who fabricates himself, or who lies, or who strikes his brother, or commits some such act, would be said to sin against Christ or against the Holy Spirit, which is very absurd. And yet the Apostle calls the members of the Church the body of Christ, so that we are members one of another. How, then, does the one who fornicates sin against his own body and not rather against Christ’s, since according to the mystery of the Church we are said not to be our own body, but Christ’s? And this is far from the point at issue, because the one who fornicates sins against his own body for this reason: that the whole Adam is defiled. 278 (1 Corinthians 9:22) 2ND CATEGORY NT 279 QUESTION 51. WHY DID THE APOSTLE SAY THAT HE MADE HIMSELF “ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN” (1 Cor. 9:22), SOMETHING THAT SEEMS LIKE THE BEHAVIOR OF A FLATTERER AND A HYPOCRITE? — A flatterer is someone who agrees merely so as not to offend the person whose favor he wishes to gain. But someone who, in order to avoid scandal, does something that is not dangerous but only unnecessary, is working for the salvation of the one whom he does not wish to scandalize. When the Apostle Paul circumcised Timothy for the sake of the Jews and entered the temple after purification, he thereby showed himself in such a way that those who were zealous for the traditions of their fathers would not be scandalized and either kill him or think our religion was hostile to them. He was willing to allow something lesser so that he might gain something greater. For he could have sinned gravely if he had refused to act as a Jew in order to go into the temple to pray; he therefore subjected himself so that he might benefit them. To those who were under the Law, that is, the Samaritans, he agreed in this way: it is clear that they rightly confess that the books of Moses are from God, and that circumcision and the sabbaths were given by God. From these things he showed them that the Christ they were expecting was the very one he preached. For you have it written, with the Samaritan woman speaking to the Lord:

280 “I know that the Messiah is coming; when he comes, he will tell us all things” (Jn. 4:25). According to this understanding, he followed the words of the books of Moses, who said, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers” (Deut. 18:15). To those who were without the Law he agreed from this standpoint: that they say the world and the human race were made by God. For he says, “As some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring’” (Acts 17:28). Therefore he made himself all things to all, so that he might promote their salvation. 281 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (1 Corinthians 10:13) 282 QUESTION 99. WHAT IS THAT SAYING OF THE APOSTLE, “LET NO TEMPTATION TAKE HOLD OF YOU EXCEPT WHAT IS HUMAN” (1 Cor. 10:13)? — Not without providence, as I judge, does our Apostle, the teacher of the Gentiles, desire that temptation should take hold of us, but only such as is human; because divine temptation brings destruction. By this kind of temptation the Jews were seized by serpents and perished. For while acting under God’s law, they doubted his providence; and therefore he urges us that we be not seized by divine, but by human temptation. For a person is said to be tempted by God in this sense: one who acts under his name yet looks for salvation from idols, because he does not have a God who has been approved. For everything that has not been approved is put to the test; and what is put to the test is brought into doubt. And therefore divine temptation is deadly, whereas human temptation is saving: for just as doubting God is destructive, so despairing of man for the sake of God’s law is most health-giving. Accordingly, with foresight the Apostle says, “Let no temptation take hold of you except what is human,” (1 Cor. 10:13) so that, being tempted by men on account of God’s law, we may be found strong, while those carnal men doubt us, but we may be approved by God. For those who are not approved by God are tempted so that they may be corrected. There is therefore a twofold temptation:

283 at times we are tempted as though faithful, at times as though untrusting; so that the temptation of the faithful is human. For on account of faith we are afflicted by men: they tempt us to see if they can draw us away from the faith. On account of distrust, however, people are tempted so that, being pressed hard, they may repent and return to the way; as also happened to the Jews. For when they lacked trust in the providence of God, they were tempted by serpents, so that, corrected by pain, they might be corrected. For God so tempts such people that he may correct them. There is also another kind of temptation, by which Abraham was tempted, and Job as well, and Tobias, the servants of God: so that Abraham, through the trial of offering his only and most beloved son (Gen. 22), might have a richer fruit of righteousness for eternal glory; while Job, by the loss of all his possessions, might be increased in wealth, being made rich in heaven and on earth (Job 1, 2; 42:12–13). Tobias too, having suffered the blindness of his eyes, advanced so far that in the present he became glorious when his sight was restored, and for the future there was kept for him a perpetual brightness (Tob. 2:11; 11:15). For the righteous are tested for this purpose, that they may make progress.

284 And therefore in temptation we ought to be strong in spirit, knowing that this tends not to our decrease but to our increase, provided only that we endure with an even mind through Christ. 285 (1 Corinthians 10:13) QUESTION 52. WHAT DOES THE APOSTLE MEAN WHEN HE SAYS, “LET NO TEMPTATION SEIZE YOU EXCEPT WHAT IS HUMAN” (1 Cor. 10:13); AS THOUGH HE WERE WISHING THIS TO HAPPEN? AND WHAT IS THIS HUMAN TEMPTATION? FOR BY THIS HE SHOWS THAT THERE IS ALSO A DIVINE TEMPTATION. — Every question, so that it can be made clear, must be brought back to its origin. Now the Apostle, when he was complaining about the faithlessness of the Jews, and because they tempted God in the wilderness, where he says, “Nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them tempted” (1 Cor. 10:9)—while he recalled these things and explained what they suffered on account of such evils, in order to inspire fear, so that by that very example he might draw us back from the hatred or from the temptation which is directed against the Lord (for it is a divine temptation if, while acting under God’s law, someone from another quarter or from idols seeks help, distrusting God), this it is that the Apostle warns us to avoid. But that human temptation should hold us, he exhorts: because human temptation is, in a cause of God, to despair of man and to be resolute in faith toward God. For this enticement is understood as distrust, in order that they may not distrust the promises of God. In human matters, because in every error of seduction there is human temptation, which, hostile through worldly reasoning, opposes God’s law, despairing of his promises. You therefore have set forth what is temptation directed toward God, and what is human temptation, which we ought not to reject, if we are sharers in the faith of God.

286 (1 Corinthians 12:3) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 53. WHAT DOES THE APOSTLE MEAN WHEN HE SAYS, “NO ONE CAN SAY, LORD JESUS, EXCEPT IN THE HOLY SPIRIT” (1 Cor. 12:3)? CAN PHOTINUS, WHO DENIES THAT CHRIST IS GOD, CONFESS OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? AND MARCION AND MANICHAEUS, WHO DENY THAT CHRIST CAME IN THE FLESH, CAN THEY SAY “LORD JESUS CHRIST” IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? OR PROSTITUTES AND THE IMPURE, WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT DWELL IN A BODY SUBJECT TO SINS, AND WISDOM DOES NOT ENTER INTO A HATEFUL SOUL (Wis. 1:4)? — Truth is neither proved nor disproved by a person’s status; for whatever is spoken well and truly is undoubtedly spoken in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if someone is guilty in other matters, he should not on that account be opposed in this one also, when he speaks the truth. Yet he is not really being opposed, but the Lord Christ is being contradicted. For whoever denies that this man speaks the truth does an injury to Christ. But if what is said is true, and it is denied that what is true is spoken in the Holy Spirit, something which Christ himself accepts (for no good person reproves someone who speaks truth about him; nor is what is learned by tradition learned by revelation), no one who speaks the truth can be condemned.

287 2 CORINTHIANS (2 Corinthians 5:14-15) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 54. THE APOSTLE SAYS THAT CHRIST DIED FOR ALL; FOR THEREFORE HE SAYS, “THEREFORE ALL HAVE DIED, AND HE DIED FOR ALL” (2 Cor. 5:14–15). BUT THE LORD HIMSELF SAYS, “THE SON OF MAN CAME TO GIVE HIS LIFE AS A RANSOM FOR MANY” (Matt. 20:28). IN THIS WAY IT SEEMS CONTRARY. — The words indeed are different, but the meaning is one; just as again the same words can have a different meaning, for example, “Whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23); and, “The Law,” he says, “is not of faith” (Gal. 3:12), and yet it is not sin. Those whom the Savior called “many,” the Apostle indicated by “all.” For they are many, because the greatest part from every people and nation will come to believe in the Savior. These the Apostle called “all believers.” Therefore, among other things, he says, “He died for all”; that is, of course, for those who have believed and will believe. Yet He also died for those who are unwilling to believe; but since they do not accept the benefit, they are unwilling that Christ should have died for them; and therefore He does not appear to have died for those to whom He has brought no profit, but rather harm. But He is rightly said to have died for those for whom a victory has been won, who, understanding the mystery, give thanks to God through Christ our Lord.

288 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (2 Corinthians 5:21; Isaiah 53:9) 289 QUESTION 74. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PROPHET ISAIAH SAYS OF CHRIST, “HE COMMITTED NO SIN,” WHILE THE APOSTLE, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS, “HIM WHO KNEW NO SIN, HE MADE SIN FOR US” (Isa. 53:9; 2 Cor. 5:21)? — As far as the sense is concerned, the questions are different, but the words are similar: in one respect they are alike, in another they differ. “He made” and “did not make” are opposed; “knew not” and “did not commit” are similar. The prophet spoke in the person of Christ, because “He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in His mouth”; but the Apostle speaks of the person of God the Father, who made Him, that is, Christ, who knew no sin, “sin for us. This must be understood in two ways. First, He made Him sin by willing that He be incarnate, so that He whom fate did not touch should take a body from sinful flesh; by this He is said to have been “made sin. Then, by offering Him for sins, He made Him sin. For in the Law the victim offered for sins was called “sin. Therefore Christ did not commit sin, as the prophet says; but by the Father He Himself was made sin, as has been shown. And what is it to offer Christ for us, if not to grant power to those who wished to kill Him?

290 This was allowed because it would be for our benefit that He should be the cause of descending to the lower regions, to damage hell of souls. For it is an excessive and unheard-of sin to have killed Him who not only had not sinned in any way, but had also granted life to many. By this sin the Devil was made guilty and lost the boldness to contradict. A similar passage is read in the Epistle to the Galatians: among other things, “He was made a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). By whom was He made, if not by the Father? For by God’s judgment the cross of Christ is a curse upon the Jews: the death of the Savior cries out their sin. Therefore He allowed Himself to be crucified, so that His passion might profit us, that as we go forth with His sign, we may not be held by the second death. For death fears even His servants, by whom it has been conquered.

291 (2 Corinthians 5:21; Isaiah 53:9) 292 QUESTION 40. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PROPHET ISAIAH SAYS OF CHRIST, “HE COMMITTED NO SIN,” WHILE THE APOSTLE, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS, “HIM WHO KNEW NO SIN, HE MADE SIN FOR US” (Isa. 53:9; 2 Cor. 5:21)? — With regard to the point at issue, not only do the words differ, but the persons are different. “He made” and “did not make” are opposed. But since what is said to have been made is not understood as having been made by Him who is declared not to have made it, it cannot be called a contradiction. For the statement of the prophet refers to the person of Christ, but that of the Apostle to the person of the Father. For God the Father reconciled the world to Himself through Christ; and therefore it came about that He, that is, Christ, was made sin. For this is what “He made Him sin” means: He gave Him into the virginal womb, that He might be born as man, made sin in respect of the flesh, because flesh is the flesh of sin, namely that one whom fate and condition did not touch, to bring forth as man. Therefore He was born for this, that He might be offered as a victim for sinners. He is said to have been made sin because, according to the Law, the victim offered for sins was called “sin. There is a similar passage of the Apostle to the Galatians speaking of the Savior: “Made a curse for us”;

293 (Gal. 3:13) the sense is the same: “He was made sin or a curse for us for our sake by God the Father, who allowed Him to be killed by the Jews, so that, because of their unbelief, they might be disinherited in our favor, with others brought in to take their place; as the Savior says, ‘The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation that produces its fruits’” (Matt. 21:43). For everything that God allows is said to be done by Him: because if He did not allow it, it would not happen. Therefore the Lord says to Pilate, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above” (Jn. 19:11). Therefore He is said to “give” power, not by infusing it, but by permitting it, so that when a wicked mind receives power according to its will, it becomes guilty: as the Jews who, in killing the Savior, made Him their curse by God’s judgment. For the cross of the Savior is a curse upon the Jews. It is not like the victim that was offered for sins, which cleansed the one who offered it; but rather, the offered Savior becomes stain and sin for those who offer Him: while justification comes to those who dissent, so that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus. For the offering of the Jews benefited the Gentiles who did not fall away from faith in Jesus Christ.

294 GALATIANS (Galatians 2:11, 14) 2ND CATEGORY NT 295 QUESTION 55. WHY DID THE APOSTLE PAUL REBUKE HIS FELLOW APOSTLE PETER BECAUSE, FEARING THOSE WHO WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION, HE WITHDREW HIMSELF FROM THE GENTILES (Gal. 2:11, 14), WHEN PAUL HIMSELF, ALSO FEARING THOSE WHO WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION, TOOK TIMOTHY AND CIRCUMCISED HIM, SOMETHING HE WAS FORBIDDING TO BE DONE (Acts 16:3)? — Is he therefore to be rebuked as well? It is unbelievable that so great an apostle would rebuke another for something in which he knew that he himself had done. It is not right to believe that such a thing was done by so great a man; for such things belong to those who live in a carnal way. Therefore the action of the apostle Paul is free from criticism. For while he was preaching that circumcision was not necessary, yet wanting to take Timothy with him, who, although born of a Jewish mother and a Greek father, would be a scandal to the Jews if he took him, uncircumcised, as one born of a Jewess, then he submitted himself to subjection for a time, and took him and circumcised him. He did something unnecessary, with the permission of Him who had suffered. For since he was from a Jewish mother, trained from childhood in the synagogue in the sacred writings, that is, in the books of the Hebrews, he allowed himself to be circumcised in order to remove scandal from the Jews, because they had zeal for their own race.

296 Indeed, “when Titus,” he says, “was a Greek, he was not compelled to be circumcised” (Gal. 2:3). But Timothy, because he was of a Jewish mother, as I said, the Jews did not allow to be received among the teachers while uncircumcised. The Apostle took him on for this purpose, that he might ordain him a bishop, as he did. For, being trained in the prophetic Scriptures, he was found to be a suitable teacher for asserting Christ. The apostle Peter would not have been rebuked if he had separated himself from the Gentiles according to Jewish custom, so as not to be a scandal to them. But this is what was condemned in the apostle Peter: that although he had previously lived in a Gentile manner among believing Greeks, when Jews came from James, subjected by fear, he began to teach that believing Gentiles ought to live as Jews. Therefore he hears, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile, how do you compel the Gentiles to live as Jews? For he had caused doubt concerning the discipline of the gospel: this is a crime, in that he was destroying what he had built up. Therefore the apostle Paul calls this hypocrisy; and it is clear that if he circumcised Timothy, he did not remain silent that he was doing something unnecessary because of their scandal, and that for this reason he yielded, since he had a Jewish mother.

297 For the Jews would not have insisted, had they not found the excuse of his Jewish mother, since they could in no way disapprove this to the Gentiles, nor easily take scandal concerning those who were not of the stock of Israel. He did this, therefore, not out of hypocrisy, but under compulsion. For the cause mentioned above involved no small element of hypocrisy. For many were reproved in this matter, so that some of the Jews and even Barnabas consented to this hypocrisy. 298 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Galatians 2:15) 299 QUESTION 81. THE APOSTLE SAYS, “WE WHO ARE JEWS BY NATURE” (Gal. 2:15): THEREFORE HE SHOWS THAT JEWS ARE BORN FROM JEWS; I AM NOT SPEAKING OF PROSELYTES, WHO ARE CLEARLY MADE INTO JEWS. INDEED, THOSE WHO WERE BORN IN THE WILDERNESS WERE NOT CIRCUMCISED, AND YET THEY WERE JEWS. THEREFORE IT IS NOT CIRCUMCISION THAT MAKES A JEW, BUT BIRTH BROUGHT FORTH UNDER DEVOTION TO GOD THE CREATOR. IF THEN JEWS ARE BORN FROM JEWS, WHY NOT ALSO CHRISTIANS FROM CHRISTIANS? FOR PAGANS TOO ARE BORN FROM PAGANS. — Not everything that is born is the same as that from which it is born. Gold comes from the earth, and yet it is not earth; and so do gems and many other things. Food comes from wood, and a chick from an egg. But in the case of Pagans, the reason that Pagans are born from Pagans is this: since every pagan is in ignorance, and the one born from him is without understanding, both are ignorant. Yet there is this difference between the two, that the one who begets is without doubt a blasphemer, and so is a son of the Devil; but the newborn infant does not know how to blaspheme, just as it does not know how to bless; nevertheless it is pagan, because it is without understanding. From a Jew, however, a Jew is born for this reason, that he is generated under devotion to the Creator. As Adam said about Cain, “I have gotten a man through God” (Gen. 4:1).

300 For just as the Pagans, being without devotion to the Creator, give thanks to demons for everything they do, so the Jews, as petitioners of God the Creator, praise him in all their actions, to their own criticism in this, that they do not know Christ, through whom are all things. In this way also a Jew is born from a Jew. For it is not, as some think, that circumcision makes a Jew. Circumcision is a sign of Judaism, not Judaism itself; for it was not Abraham’s circumcision that was righteousness, but the sign of righteousness, so that those born from Abraham might have a sign by which they would be proved to be Abraham’s children. Since from Judas Maccabeus they were given this name, so that not only those from Judah, but also the rest from all the sons of Jacob, were called Jews, because Judas had been their leader. Therefore those born Jews receive the sign, so that those who they are may be recognized. But from a Christian, a Christian is not born, because the one who begets is not born a Christian, but made a Christian. Therefore the one who is born must likewise be made, in order to be so. For he is not born by substance, but by the faith that comes to those already born. Ignorance is born together with the flesh, but faith is afterwards grafted in by spiritual reasoning. But someone objects on the other side:

301 “If the one who begets has indeed been made what he is, then he ought now to beget that which he himself is, so that the dignity he has received should produce an offspring like itself. For senators beget senators. But the dignity of senators has no merit before God. Nor does nature itself, that is, substance, obtain this benefit; rather, the dignity is confined to reputation and speech alone. Therefore the title indeed is passed down through fleshly descent, but it provides nothing more than an opinion of dignity; just as those who are consuls, or are honored with statues, rejoice in vanity. But when people become Christians, dignity is added to their very nature, so that the human essence itself receives the eternal benefit of incorruptibility, and there is not only the opinion, but also the reality in effect before God. It is like this: if some eloquent poor man is praised and yet lacks bread or other necessities. True praise would be this, if the dignity he has acquired benefited him so that he lacked nothing, while this is granted to his nature, that it might live by itself, and live well, without requiring any help from outside, that is, truly to become rich and glorious.

302 (Galatians 2:15) 303 QUESTION 56. THE APOSTLE SAYS, “WE ARE JEWS BY NATURE. (Gal. 2:15) THEREFORE HE SHOWS THAT JEWS ARE BORN FROM JEWS. INDEED, THOSE WHO WERE BORN IN THE DESERT, THOUGH NOT CIRCUMCISED, WERE JEWS. CIRCUMCISION, THEREFORE, DOES NOT MAKE SOMEONE A JEW, BUT BIRTH BROUGHT FORTH UNDER THE DEVOTION TO GOD THE CREATOR. IF, THEN, JEWS ARE BORN FROM JEWS, AND PAGANS ARE BORN FROM PAGANS, SO TOO CHRISTIANS ARE BORN FROM CHRISTIANS. — Not everything that is born is the same as that from which it is born. For gold, etc., is pagan too, because it is without sensation, having neither its own merit nor another’s. But as for the Jew, for this reason a Jew is born, etc. Yet it is said on the contrary: If indeed the one who begets is made to be something, he ought to beget that which he himself is, so that the dignity he has received may produce an offspring of itself: as with the Jews, because Abraham, having been a pagan, became a worshiper of God, and from him the origin of the Jews; just as those who become senators, once senators, beget senators. But senatorial rank has no merit before God, nor does nature itself, that is, substance, obtain any benefit from it; rather, dignity is limited to fame and speech alone; and therefore the notion runs through the line of flesh, granting nothing more than the opinion of worldly honor. Why a Jew is born from a Jew has already been said;

304 but a Christian, since the dignity of goodness is added to his nature itself, receives benefit in the substance of the man of which he consists, so that not opinion alone, but a real thing exists in effect before God. Indeed, once the remission of sins has been received, the whole man is purified, so that even the son is adopted by God. Therefore all who are born must be reborn, because the mercy of God gives grace to individuals. For no one can receive remission for another. The soul that is born in the body, or with the body, is subject to the death discovered by Adam, and unless it receives the sign of death overcome, it does not escape the hell of Tartarus. For each one receives the benefit for himself, not also for him who does not yet exist. If, once made a Christian, a man were already immortal, then one born from him would rightly be what his parent is. For those who become Christians receive a sign so that they may not be held by the second death; yet they do not escape the present death which Adam discovered. Infants are baptized for this reason, though they are innocent, so that the untaught soul, born in the body, may bear the sign of death overcome, lest it can be held by it. Abraham did not have this sign, nor did the Prophets, because their time did not encounter it;

305 instead, it was reserved for the Son of God, who, when he came, would conquer death and bestow this grace upon believers. From this comes the saying of the Lord to the Jews: Your father Abraham rejoiced that he might see my day; and he saw it, and was glad (Jn. 8:56). For Abraham, knowing that Christ was promised for the deliverance of the human race, necessarily and always had to await his coming for those placed in the underworld; and when he saw that he had been born in spirit, he rejoiced, certain that in a short time he would be snatched from hell and brought into the heavens. How then should Christians be born from Christians, when whoever has not believed or has not been baptized will not be a Christian? 306 (Galatians 2:16) 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT QUESTION 5. IF NO ONE IS JUSTIFIED BEFORE GOD BY THE LAW, WHY IS IT WRITTEN: “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT CONTINUE IN ALL THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO DO THEM” (Deut. 27:26)? IF PEOPLE ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH AND NOT BY THE LAW (Gal. 2:16), WHY IS THE ONE WHO HAS NOT FULFILLED THE LAW CALLED CURSED, SINCE IT DOES NOT LEAD TO RIGHTEOUSNESS? — The Law given through Moses did indeed have righteousness, but an earthly one; so that those who kept the Law were righteous for the present, so that they would not become guilty. For the one who harms no one is righteous according to the Law. Therefore the Apostle says: “The Law is not of faith; but ‘the one who does them shall live in them’” (Gal. 3:12): that is, the one who does the Law will not die, but lives for the present; but the righteousness that is from faith justifies people before God, so that they may be rewarded in the future age. For to temporal righteousness they added the righteousness of faith. It is right to know from whom and through whom we exist, so that the true confession of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit may lead us to the heavenly kingdoms. For the ancients also, who not only kept the precepts of the Law but also loved God, having hope in the promise, were justified before God. He says that the Law alone does not justify people before God, just as faith alone, without good works, does not praise them before God; but the observance of both earthly and divine righteousness makes them perfect. Therefore the Lord says: “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20).

307 (Galatians 3:20) 2ND CATEGORY NT 308 QUESTION 57. WHAT NEED WAS THERE FOR THE APOSTLE, WHEN REBUKING THE GALATIANS, TO INSERT THIS STATEMENT? FOR TO THE GALATIANS, WHO AFTER THE GOSPEL WERE TAKING REFUGE IN THE LAW, HE SAYS AMONG OTHER THINGS: “NOW A MEDIATOR IS NOT OF ONE, BUT GOD IS ONE” (Gal. 3:20), AS THOUGH THE GALATIANS DENIED THAT GOD IS ONE. YET IT WAS PRECISELY BY THIS LINE OF REASONING THAT THEY HAD BEEN LED INTO THE LAW: SO THAT THEY MIGHT BELIEVE IN ONE, UNIQUE GOD; AND THAT CHRIST HAD COME ONLY AS A MINISTER BY PREDESTINATION, TO DISPENSE THE GIFT OF GOD’S GRACE. — It is clear that the Galatians were therefore drawn into the Law in such a way that they did indeed profess Christ, but not as he ought to be confessed; rather, in the manner of Photinus, so that, since the Law proclaims one God, it would be contrary to the Law if Christ were called God. This is the device of the Jews, who, overcome by the great deeds of power, believed after the cross of Christ in such a way that, while professing Christ, they nevertheless kept the Law, as though all hope ought not to be placed in Christ. These are the ones whom the Apostle calls “false brethren” (Gal. 2:4; and 2 Cor. 11:26). These, therefore, after the tradition of the Apostles, corrupted the understanding of the Galatians, so that they made them Jews under the name of the Savior.

309 Therefore the Apostle says that Christ came as mediator of the circumcision and the foreskin, as he says to the Ephesians: “making peace in one new man” (Eph. 2:15). If, then, Christ came as mediator, a mediator makes peace between two in such a way that he lays down a new rule, taking away the professions of both, and reconciles them, so that, following his decision, they lose their former discord. For when the Jew insists on circumcision and the Gentile on uncircumcision, there is discord; but when this is taken away from both, there is peace. If, therefore, things stand therefore, how is it, he says, that you Galatians, having become Jews, corrupt the mediation of Christ? Therefore he said to them: “You have been severed from Christ. (Gal. 5:4) For, despising the right of reconciliation which he had established between them, they turned back to the former way of thinking of the Jews, thereby accusing both themselves and their reconciler. For whatever displeases is accused. And because this matter forced the Galatians to turn to the Law, so that they confessed one God without the mystery, as though it were hostile to the Law if Christ were called God, he says: “The mediator,” that is, the go-between, “is not of one, but of two, of course; but you, turning to the Law, have rejected the mediator; yet God is one.

310 By saying this, he shows that he proclaims Christ as God in such a way that he does not make him another God, nor confess two, but one God, as is also said in the Law. For when Christ is proclaimed as God from God, this does not result in another God; because that which is from God does not allow itself to be called another God. For whether he is God, or what is from God, he is one God. For there is in fact no difference between God and that which is from God. Yet he is “another. He is “another” on account of the person by which he is called the Son; but he is the same on account of the unity of substance. Let it not seem blameworthy that I have said “person”; for some are accustomed to reject this. But let us follow the Apostle, who says: “For what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I have done so for your sakes, in the person of Christ” (2 Cor. 2:10).

311 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Galatians 4:3) QUESTION 82. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE PAGANS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ELEMENTS; WHAT, THEN, DOES THE APOSTLE MEAN WHEN HE SAYS, “WE TOO WERE IN BONDAGE UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THIS WORLD”? (Gal. 4:3). IF, THEREFORE, THE JEWS ALSO WERE SERVING UNDER THE ELEMENTS, HOW WERE THEY DIFFERENT FROM THE PAGANS? — It is clear that by the addition, omission, or alteration of a single syllable the sense is distorted. Therefore it is known to all that the pagans worship the elements; but the Jews did not worship the elements, rather they served God under the elements, on account of the new moons, and the sabbaths, and circumcision, and such things; for these are carnal. For whatever is visible is carnal and belongs to the elements. But because it was by the command of God, they were serving God, so that from the visible they might come to the invisible, and for this reason make progress to the reception of greater things, so that by meditating on these they might become worthy of spiritual promises. From that aspect, therefore, which I mentioned above, the Jews served under the elements; from another aspect they had a spiritual law, which both forbids sin and exhorts to the love of the Lord God, who was promised to come to them for the forgiveness of sins.

312 (Galatians 4:3) 313 QUESTION 59. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT PAGANS ARE UNDER THE ELEMENTS. WHAT THEN DID THE APOSTLE MEAN WHEN HE SAID, “WE TOO WERE SERVING UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THIS WORLD”? (Gal. 4:3) IF THEREFORE THE JEWS ALSO WERE UNDER THE ELEMENTS, HOW DO THEY DIFFER FROM THE PAGANS? — The pagans do not serve under the elements, but the elements themselves. For they worship the stars, the sun, the moon, and the constellations in the firmament; and among the lower things, the earth and the water; in the sea, Neptune; in the underworld, Pluto: they openly worship the created world, while passing over the Creator. Now the Jews in this way served under the elements, yet they served God, who had given these very commands. For they observed the new moons, the sabbaths, the sacrifices of cattle; at the beginning of the seventh month they blow the trumpet, and on the fifteenth day of the seventh month they carry about palm-marrow and thick branches of trees and branches of willows, and dwell in booths for seven days. Therefore, as they observed these things, they are rightly said to have served under the elements; for these things are from the elements. Christians, however, do not serve under the elements, but above the elements they serve God, hurrying toward the heavenly Jerusalem; they adore God in spirit, not in visible and worldly things, but having the worship of God in the mind, serving the invisible in an invisible manner, as the Lord says in the Gospel:

314 “The hour is coming when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:23). This, then, is the truth: to serve God in spirit, in mind rather than in body, so that, because God is spirit, he may be worshiped spiritually. From this side he says that the Jews were subject under the elements, as I mentioned above; but from another side, the principle of the Law was spiritual, by which he both forbade sin and commanded that the Lord be loved with all the heart, and that hope be placed in Christ. But when the Apostles preached these things, they clung more strongly to what had been given carnally. The Apostle recalls these matters in order to stun the Jews, who, disapproving the spiritual Law, were subject to visible things; and to show that these are truly weak in comparison with the law of faith, he also indicates this by introducing his own person, who had once been their zealous imitator. But once he had come to know Christ, he judged these things to be worthy of contempt, because the grace of God through Christ differs greatly from the Law of works.

315 (Galatians 4:12) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 60. WHEN THE APOSTLE SAYS TO THE GALATIANS, WHOM HE REBUKES AND REPROVES THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EPISTLE, BE AS I AM, BECAUSE I AM AS YOU ARE (Gal. 4:12): IF THEREFORE HE HAD MADE HIMSELF SUCH AS THEY WERE, IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO SAY, BE AS I AM. OR PERHAPS IN SOME THINGS HE HAD BEGUN TO BE AN IMITATOR OF THEM, AND IN OTHERS HE WISHES THEM TO BECOME LIKE HIM? — What of theirs could the Apostle imitate? Or what was lacking to the teacher of the Gentiles? Rather, he exhorts them to be his imitators; and since it is not impossible, he reproves them in this way when he says, Because I am what you are: for you are human, just as I am; therefore do what I do. It can also be referred to that statement where he says that he became all things to all by agreeing with them in those points where they did not differ from the truth, especially the Gentiles (1 Cor. 9:22). For there was nothing of theirs, which ought no longer to be done, that had not previously been rightly done, such as circumcision, the observance of sabbaths, new moons, foods. But if he approved anything of the Gentiles, he did not show that it should still continue. For they say that the world was made by God and by men: this always stands. If therefore in these matters, by consenting to them, he was made as they were, he exhorts them that in a similar way they too should become as he is, agreeing with his doctrine.

316 (Galatians 5:17) 2ND CATEGORY NT 317 QUESTION 61. HOW ARE WE FREE IN CHOICE AND WILL, WHEN THE APOSTLE SAYS, “THE FLESH DESIRES AGAINST THE SPIRIT, AND THE SPIRIT AGAINST THE FLESH, SO THAT YOU DO NOT DO THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD” (Gal. 5:17)? AND IF THE FLESH DESIRES AGAINST THE SPIRIT, IT IS EVIL. FOR THE SPIRIT SUGGESTS WHAT IS GOOD. — Do not understand “flesh” here as the substance of flesh, but as evil deeds and unbelief signified under the name of flesh. For since all error comes from visible and worldly things, and the flesh is akin to them, because it is composed of elements, he calls every error “flesh. He calls not only adulteries, fornications, and lusts the works of the flesh, but also idolatry, sorcery, blasphemies, and such things. Does the flesh compel to blasphemy or to idolatry? Are not these vices of the soul, when it consents to error? Yet he rightly says to those who act correctly that they are not in the flesh, but in the spirit. And yet they are in the body for this very purpose. Therefore, whoever walks well and does not despair of the hope of the faithful, though placed in the flesh, is said not to be in the flesh; but one who lives badly and is blasphemous is said to be in the flesh and to be flesh. For just as those who act well are spiritual even with the flesh, so those who live badly are carnal even with the soul itself. This is what he calls it.

318 This error, then, which he calls flesh, desires against the spirit, that is, it suggests evil things against that same spirit, which is the law of God. For he introduces two laws, that of God and that of the Devil. Therefore he says “spirit” because the law of God is spiritual, to resist the flesh, that is, to resist the vices, so as to preserve a person for God; but the law of the Devil, which is error, opposes through the allurements of lust and the sweetness of worldly things. With these in conflict, the human being is in the middle: when he consents to the spirit, the flesh does not want it; but when he gives his hand to the flesh, he spurns the spirit, that is, he despises the law of God. Therefore, when he consents to the flesh, the spirit calls him back so that he does not do what he wishes; but when he agrees to the spirit, the flesh urges him not to do what he thinks beneficial. Yet the spirit rightly and sensibly resists and calls him back, so that it may snatch the person away from the counsels of Satan. But the flesh, which is the opposing law, therefore urges and resists the spirit of the law in order to deceive through trickery. The Apostle therefore proclaims this so as to show to human choice to which side it should commit its will, not to empty the freedom of choice, but to teach the will to which it should join itself.

319 If, however, there were no freedom of will, neither the law of the Devil, which is the flesh, nor the law of God, which is the spirit, by opposing one another, would press a person with their counsels. For whoever entices, persuades; and whoever persuades does not use force, but ensnares; and the one who is ensnared has his will changed by certain deceits. But if there were no free will, a person would, against his will, be dragged to those things which he does not want. 320 (Galatians 6:1) 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT 321 QUESTION 10. WHAT IS IT THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS TO THE GALATIANS: “I AM AMAZED THAT YOU ARE SO QUICKLY DESERTING HIM WHO CALLED YOU IN GRACE, FOR ANOTHER GOSPEL, WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER” (Gal. 1:6–7)? IF IT IS “ANOTHER,” SURELY IT IS NOT THE SAME; IF IT IS NOT THE SAME, HOW IS IT NOT “ANOTHER”? — Therefore he calls it “another gospel” in relation to the gospel to which they had been called, because it is not the one that the Galatians later began to follow. For, led away from the Gospel of Christ, they had been drawn into Judaism under the name of Christ, as though that were what should be followed; and they affirmed something different from what the Apostle preached. Therefore the phrase is understood, “As they persuade you. For false apostles, when they were deceiving the believing Gentiles, claimed that what they themselves taught had been handed down by the Savior, as is contained in the Acts of the Apostles: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Moved by grief at their downfall, the Apostle writes to them, saying: “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in grace, for another gospel, which is not another. (Gal. 1:6-7) He is amazed because, after something light and less burdensome, they were striving after harshness and burden:

322 that is, that after the simplicity of faith they allowed themselves to be circumcised for the sake of the elements, that they observed new moons and the sabbath; they were subjected and driven by the elements, that is, to grace, not to the works of the Law. And lest he seem to have given the false apostles an opening, by allowing them to say that what the Galatians had received was different from what the tradition of truth holds, he immediately adds: “Which is not another, except that there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. (Gal. 1:7) So, the gospel to which they had been called by the Apostle was different from what they began to follow under the influence of the false apostles; yet it was not different from what Christ had handed down, so that by this they might recognize that they had been led into error, and follow faith alone, confessing Christ as God and that he is sufficient to grant salvation, through whom they had obtained the remission of sins, and not through the Law: for without the Law, the grace of God forgives sins.

323 COLOSSIANS (Colossians 2:3) 2ND CATEGORY NT 324 QUESTION 62. IF IN CHRIST ALL THE TREASURES OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE ARE HIDDEN (Colossians 2:3), HOW IS IT THAT THE SAME SAVIOR SAYS HE DOES NOT KNOW THE DAY AND HOUR OF THE FUTURE JUDGMENT (Mark 13:32)? BUT IF HE DOES KNOW AND SAYS HE DOES NOT KNOW, HE SEEMS TO BE LYING. — This statement contains a twofold meaning. For when it says that in Christ all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden, it means that whoever has Christ yields to Him as to all wisdom and knowledge: so that to know Christ is entirely to know, and to have comprehended all wisdom. As it is said to the Colossians: “Let no one deceive you through philosophy and empty seduction, according to the elements of this world and not according to Christ; for in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Col. 2:8-9) That is, that the one who believes in Christ needs nothing for salvation, but rather abounds in this; because the fullness of the Godhead is in his faith. And again, in the same Epistle, among other things he says: “Let no one seduce you into lowliness of heart and into the worship of angels, which he has seen, exalting himself, vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the whole body, supplied and knit together, grows with a growth that is from God” (Col. 2:8–9, 18–19).

325 Therefore, if those who believe in Christ venerate Him as the head of every principality and power, they need nothing else, but have everything that is necessary for salvation; it will not harm them to be ignorant of lower things which contribute nothing to salvation, when they know what is necessary. Those, then, are said to know everything in this sense, who know that which profits them for salvation. There is also this: that in the Savior all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden. For all the mysteries of the Father are known to Him; and He measures every creature; and not even the Father judges anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son (Jn. 5:22); and no one knows the things that are in God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11), who is also the Spirit of Christ. How then can He be said not to know the day and hour of the future judgment, whose Spirit knows the things that are in God, of whom He said that the Spirit has received from Him (Jn. 16:14–15)? If therefore the One who has received from Him knows the things that are to come, how will Christ not know, He who sent the Holy Spirit? And can it be that a judge does not know the day of the future judgment, especially since He has given all the signs by which it may be expected? Perhaps also those are truly said to be unknown to Him, to whom He says:

326 “Amen, I say to you, I do not know you” (Matt. 25:12). Nor will the foolish and careless virgins be said to be known, because He also said, when they themselves were saying, “Lord, Lord, open to us,” “Amen, I say to you, I do not know you. The reason, then, why He says He does not know what He knows is this. Finally, He says: “Watch, because you do not know at what hour your Lord is coming” (Matt. 24:42). Therefore, in order to make us careful and watchful, when He was questioned He said that He did not know the day and hour of the future judgment; but, so that it might be for our benefit, He denied knowing what He knows. Since we, in our ignorance of what is good for us, absolutely want to know something which, if we knew it, would harm us, Christ, the provider of our salvation, said He did not know, lest we should hear what would be against us. If someone who possesses a sword is asked for it by a person in pain, so that he may kill himself, and he replies that he does not have it, is he to be accused of lying because he denies what, if he did not deny it, he would know to have the opposite effect?

327 PHILIPPIANS (Philippians 2:17) 2ND CATEGORY NT 328 QUESTION 63. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ALTHOUGH THE APOSTLES HEALED ALL THE AILMENTS BROUGHT BEFORE THEM, THEY DID NOT GIVE HEALING TO THEIR OWN INFIRMITIES? FOR EPAPHRODITUS CERTAINLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SICK ALMOST TO DEATH (Philippians 2:27), IF THE APOSTLE’S INTERCESSION HAD BEEN HEARD. WHO COULD DOUBT THAT THE APOSTLE OFTEN PRAYED FOR THIS AND DID NOT OBTAIN IT? FOR IF HE HAD BEEN HEARD, THE SICKNESS WOULD IMMEDIATELY HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY. — Signs and wonders were therefore performed by the Apostles so that unbelief might be compelled to faith; so that, seeing deeds that are impossible for men, people might recognize from this that the preaching is of God, and prove by power that there is reason in the faith. Since words are always contradicted, a confirming power has been set as witness, and when words yield to that power, it shows that there is reason in faith which cannot be expressed in words. Among the faithful, therefore, signs and wonders are no longer necessary, but firm hope. For once it is learned that the promises are true, the soul arms itself for this purpose: that, despising present things, it may be found worthy of future ones, laying up merit for itself through labor. This is attested by Solomon, who says: “My son, when you come to the service of God, stand in righteousness and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation” (Sirach 2:1). Since man advances through temptations, these warnings are given. Therefore the Apostle says:

329 “Through tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:21). These trials of tribulation occur in various ways, so that a persevering soul in the faith it has received may be crowned. For man is tempted not only in faith, but also in sickness, in loss, in persecution, and in the death of loved ones, so that if in these sufferings he is not drawn to seek the help of demons, he may obtain martyrdom without the shedding of blood. The Apostle therefore did not fail to obtain what he asked for Epaphroditus to his disadvantage, but to his progress: because in his own case, when he had requested, he heard, “My grace is sufficient for you; for power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). 330 (Philippians 2:27) 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT QUESTION 11. THE APOSTLE PAUL INDICATES THAT WE MUST NOT BE GRIEVED OVER THE DEAD (1 Thess. 4:12). FOR IT IS THOSE WHO DESPAIR WHO ARE GRIEVED; AND HE HIMSELF SAYS ABOUT EPAPHRODITUS, “HE WAS SICK, NEAR TO DEATH, BUT GOD HAD MERCY ON HIM; AND NOT ONLY ON HIM, BUT ALSO ON ME, SO THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE SORROW UPON SORROW” (Phil. 2:27). — How does he forbid grief, when he declares that he himself would have had to grieve if he had died? He meant that he would have had to grieve in one way if the death of Epaphroditus had come to pass, and yet in another way he forbids grief. For here he said he would have been grieved if he had died because of the comfort of his assistance, which he was using in the Gospel. But he forbids us to grieve in such a way that we mourn the dead as though they were extinguished and lost, despairing of the resurrection. It is one thing, therefore, to seek the comfort of someone as if absent, and another to lament the destruction of someone who will not be in the future. Here comfort ceases; there despair is excluded.

331 1 PETER (1 Peter 2:21) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 64. THE APOSTLE PETER SAYS, “CHRIST DIED FOR YOU” (1 Pet. 2:21). BUT THE APOSTLE PAUL DECLARES THAT HE ALSO DIED FOR HIMSELF: “HE BECAME OBEDIENT UNTO DEATH; WHEREFORE GOD HAS GIVEN HIM A NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME” (Phil. 2:8–9). IF THIS IS SO, HE WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN IMPERFECT, SINCE HE GAINED INCREASE THROUGH HIS WORKS. — No believer doubts that the Son of God was born perfect from God. For in being born of God the Father he received all the fullness of the Father’s divinity. Then, at that moment, he received the name that is above every name, that is, that he should be called what the Father is: God. For nothing is said to be future for him; he has all things before himself. Therefore he was born for the creation and restoration of all these things. Indeed, proper order and reason require that every knee should bend to the paternal name. The Father gave this to the Son on account of what he was going to do; yet he gave it when he begot him. For he begot him in such a way that he should be in the same honor in which the Father himself is.

332 REVELATION 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT (Revelation 10:8) 333 QUESTION 72. WHEN IT IS READ IN THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN: “GO,” HE SAYS, “AND TAKE THE BOOK FROM THE HAND OF THE ANGEL, AND DEVOUR IT, AND IT WILL MAKE YOUR BELLY BITTER, BUT IN YOUR MOUTH IT WILL BE SWEET AS HONEY” (Rev. 10:8–9): WHAT IS THIS BOOK THAT MAKES THE BELLY BITTER WHILE IT IS SWEET? — All the divine volumes are bitter, but to the faithless and to the carnal. For it is displeasing to idolaters when they hear that one God is preached in Christ. And Photinus likewise is afraid, seized with horror. Sabellius too is ashamed when he hears that the Father is such that he cannot be called the Son, because all things are from him; and that the Son is therefore called Son, because he is certainly not the Father himself, but is from the Father, and not the one “from whom” but the one “through whom” are all things. Arius also is refuted when he reads that Christ is truly the Son of God; for without doubt he could not be called “true” unless he were properly from God. Marcion too is convicted, learning that the Word was made flesh, he who thinks that flesh must be denied of Christ. Likewise the wicked Manichaean is reproved, seeing written by the Evangelist that the Savior not only graced the vows of marriage by his presence, but even honored them with cups of wine (Jn. 2:1–11), he who blocks the entrance to marriage and urges immoral intercourse.

334 These things are contained in the book which the Apostle received to devour. This book is the Gospel entitled “according to John,” which is bitter not only to those who think wrongly, but also to the undisciplined who do not wish to be corrected, so that they may advance to what is worse. This revelation took place at the time when the Apostle John was on the island of Patmos, banished there 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 there were shown to him those things which will be, on account of wickedness and fornication and the rest, there was given to him a book which indeed was sweet in the mouth but made the belly bitter: so that, from among those who seem to be the one body of a single man, it might be sweet to those who are signified in the mouth, because, on account of their integrity of profession, they are indicated there; for this is what is sweet in the mouth, that which is one: but bitter to those who, with heretical perversity, live or think carnally, who on that account are signified in the belly. For it will accuse them in the day of God’s judgment. After the revelation, therefore, he was ordered to write the Gospel, on account of these things we have mentioned above.

335 And something similar was said to the prophet Ezekiel, that he should receive a book which would be sweet in his mouth, when he was sent to rebuke the faithlessness of the people (Ezek. 3:1). 336 (Revelation 10:8) 337 QUESTION 65. WHEN IT IS READ IN THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN: “GO,” HE SAYS, “AND TAKE THE BOOK FROM THE HAND OF THE ANGEL, AND DEVOUR IT, AND IT WILL MAKE YOUR BELLY BITTER, BUT IN YOUR MOUTH IT WILL BE SWEET AS HONEY” (Rev. 10:8–9): WHAT IS THIS BOOK THAT MAKES THE BELLY BITTER WHILE IT IS SWEET? — Very often, one who seeks brevity is accustomed to err. Why is it that you do not present everything that was spoken for the purpose at hand, but suppress some things so that the meaning becomes more obscure? For it was said to John: “Go and take the book that is in the hand of the angel, and devour it; and it will be in your mouth sweet as honey, but it will make your belly bitter. And he said: “You must,” he says, “prophesy again before many peoples and nations. Therefore, as far as the reasoning of truth is concerned, he is proved to have written the Gospel after the exile. For while in exile on the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian, he saw the revelation, as he says, on the Lord’s day; afterwards, as I said, he wrote the Gospel, which is bitter to heretics, who are signified in the belly. For they are carnal, because they understand Christ wrongly. “But in your mouth,” he says, “it will be sweet as honey”:

338 as though he were making of all Christians one body, so that individuals are members one of another, such that in the mouth, which is, of course, a part of the head, he signifies the more honorable and more faithful, for whom the truth concerning Christ is sweet; in the belly he signifies the heretics, because they are carnal. For the truth that speaks of Christ as true God is bitter to them. The whole Gospel of John is indeed against heretics. Against Photinus, who denies that Christ existed before Mary, he proves that the Savior descended from heaven. Against Arius, moreover, he shows that Christ has no beginning: because “in the beginning” Christ the Son of God was God with God the Father, and because nothing was made without him, he himself cannot be called a creature. For if he were a creature, something would have been made without him; but because nothing was without him, he always existed. Sabellius, however, who accepts a merging of Father and Son so that one individual is called by two names, he refutes in this way, when he says: “If you loved me, you would indeed rejoice, because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (Jn. 14:28); where he made clear the persons of two, when the Son calls the Father greater. For the single one is not greater than himself. He likewise convicts Marcion, who denies the flesh of Christ. For he said: “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn. 1:14).

339 With this meaning he also reproves Manichaeus, who does not know that Christ came in the flesh and blocks the entrance to marriage, ignorant that the Savior rewarded the marriage feast. In like manner it was said also to the prophet Ezekiel by the angel that he should take a scroll (Ezek. 3:1) and devour it, and it would be sweet in his mouth but would fill his belly. This was said to the prophet when he was sent to reprove a faithless and undisciplined people, who likewise are signified in the belly because they were carnal. From these are those whom Scripture in the prophet Isaiah, though they are evil, nevertheless calls brothers. For it says: “You who fear God, say to those who hate you and have not heard my precepts, ‘You are our brothers’” (Isa. 66:5, according to the LXX). 340 POLEMIC 1ST CATEGORY NT 341 QUESTION 102. AGAINST NOVATIAN. — His disciples say to Jesus, “Lord, do you want us to say that fire should come down from heaven and consume them, as Elijah did? And the Lord answered them, saying, “You do not know of what spirit you are. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy souls, but to save them” (Luke 9:54–56). Although it was certainly fitting to take revenge on the Samaritans who did not receive him, nevertheless the Lord, who came to grant mercy, removed the sentence, so that those who were corrected afterwards might be changed. And the prophet Elisha, angered at the boys who insulted him, took vengeance on them with God as judge, so that in that place they were eaten by bears, where there is said to be no forest (2 Kings 2:23–24); but the Lord spared the prostitute who was brought before him, namely the one whom the leaders of the Jews said they had caught in adultery (Jn. 8:11), so that, since a loving declaration had begun, he might teach that she was not to be condemned, but pardoned. For the Law given through Moses, because it had justice directed to revenge, exercised severity in its beginnings. It took funeral revenge on the man who went out to gather wood on the sabbath (Num. 15:32–36); and similarly took punishment on the son of the Egyptian woman who had blasphemed God (Lev. 24:10–14); and in the matter of the molten calf struck the sons of Israel (Exod. 32:27).

342 Each Law, then, in its very beginnings shows its full character: the old Law, because it was more ready to punish, appeared harsher in its early days, so that by instilling fear it might make its hearers diligent and watchful. But the new Law, because it is loving and inclined easily to mercy, showed its beginnings as most gentle and most compassionate, so that by this very charm and love it might call all to forgiveness. Afterwards, however, even that Law which seemed harsher, on account of the frailty of the human race, not only softened its severity, but also showed itself humane and loving, and this Law which seemed gentle at times took vengeance. For Ananias and his wife Sapphira were struck down by God (Acts 5:5, 10). And Elymas the magician, unbelieving and opposing the law of God, was blinded by the judgment and power of the Lord (Acts 13:8–11). And King Herod, because he did not give honor to the God of heaven, was struck by an angel of God and, swelling with worms, breathed his last (Acts 12:23). Lest, because mercy is preached, people should think there is absolutely no punishment and that they may sin with freedom, fear was imposed, showing that forgiveness of sins is given for this purpose: that, as if brought to life from the dead, they should afterwards abstain from the contrary things, so that it may be brought about that no one departs from here with guilt, because there will be a coming to judgment.

343 For the sentence in which each person dies is what is credited to him. Since, therefore, the new Law has the fullness of mercy, lest it be treated with contempt by lovers of sin, it took vengeance on the above-mentioned persons. The old Law, though given for vengeance, nevertheless pardoned some, lest it be called wholly cruel; but it took vengeance on many, because its disposition is ready to punish. Without doubt, then, the grace of the new Law is greater than that of the old. If, therefore, the grace is greater, how is it denied that this Law can grant what that Law granted, which had less grace? For the former was more inclined to severity. Therefore, if that Law is proved to have forgiven the repentant, how can it be that this Law, which is gentle, does not receive the repentant? For even the Jews were called sons of God, who, as we read on the authority of the apostle Paul, were baptized through Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 10:2). Indeed, they are known to have been purified as they were about to receive the Law, so that afterwards they might give an account of the Law they had received, and if they sinned, they might reform themselves through repentance; as the Lord says through the prophet Isaiah, “Do penance, you who err, and be converted” (Isa. 45:22). But perhaps, on the contrary, it is said: Repentance indeed was preached, but not remission.

344 If, therefore, repentance has been preached by God, there will be fruit for those doing repentance. For the Lord would not admonish this in vain. Moreover, since the Lord knew that remission of sins must be given to the converted, he commanded this; for he said, “I do not desire the death of the sinner, only that he be converted and live” (Ezek. 18:32). And therefore there is fruit of repentance, as has become clear, for those who are converted to God. Therefore, the assertion wickedly fabricated by Novatian is excluded, by which he overturns the meaning of the Lord’s words, saying, “The Lord said, Whoever shall deny me, I also will deny him” (Matt. 10:33); so that if any Christian, for whatever reason, has denied, he can no longer return, or certainly, if he does return, he is in no way received. And where, then, is the repentance that has been enjoined? When the Savior, after having pronounced this sentence, did not deny the apostle Peter who had denied him. Why? Because, with repentance following, he wept bitterly over his sin (Matt. 26:75), knowing, of course, that forgiveness is granted to those who are converted, and that they are reformed through repentance. But Novatian pretends that repentance is to be done. Because he does not openly dare to deny that repentance should be granted, being limited by the Law, he strives subtly to frustrate it.

345 For when he says that whoever has denied will by no means have pardon, but will himself be denied before the angels of God, how does he not deceitfully profess that repentance is to be done? From this his fraud clearly appears, when he adds, saying, “Whoever shall sin against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither here nor in the future” (Matt. 12:32). Although one cause is that by which there is sin against the Holy Spirit, and another to deny the Lord Jesus, Novatian, nevertheless, in order to deny pardon for this sin, wants there to be one and the same meaning for the one who denies the Lord and for the one who sins against the Holy Spirit, so that by this fudging he may cut off the fruit of repentance. For if denying the Lord is the same as having sinned against the Holy Spirit, there is no pardon to be hoped for by those who deny, nor any fruit of repentance; because this sin, neither here nor in the future, the Lord’s oracles have promised to remit. From this it becomes clear that Novatian speaks deceitfully when he says that penance must be done. For why should one repent, if it is denied that the sin can be removed? For the sighs, tears, and weeping of repentance obtain this: that it both merits pardon and restoration. Therefore David, repenting and confessing his sin, both obtained forgiveness (2 Kings 12:13) and was restored to his former state;

346 for he remained king and afterwards prophesied. This is clearly proven: for in the fiftieth Psalm he repented, and afterwards, having suffered persecution from his son, he prophesied. For the third Psalm according to the historical order is after the fiftieth. But perhaps it will be said that a king had to be forgiven, whereas the lowly must not be forgiven, although it seems that it is rather more difficult to forgive those who are more powerful. For God does not regard the person of a man (Rom. 2:11). The higher one is, the more, even if his sin is slight, it is a grave crime. For just as humility in a powerful man is lofty and noble, so also his fault must be regarded as a crime. Except for those sins which are clearly unlawful for all, not everything is permitted to the powerful that is allowed to the lowly. For it is disgraceful for a man of rank to bargain in trade, and entering a tavern is noteworthy. For senators, lending at interest is a disgrace. If therefore in these lesser matters they are found worthy of censure, how much more must they be held guilty if they sin? From this, then, it appears that David sinned very grievously, and in fact in a twofold way. Yet, when he turned back, he obtained forgiveness for both murder and adultery, and what is more, he was reformed with tears.

347 For when he was rebuked by the prophet Nathan, he did not dare hide his sin, but confessed it, saying, I have sinned against the Lord. Then the prophet answered and said, The Lord has taken away your sin, and you shall not die, because you have repented. And because he is afterwards found to have prophesied, there is no doubt that he was restored. For also Ahab, rebuked by the prophet because of the death of Naboth, went about weeping, and tore his garments, and girded himself with sackcloth; and the word of the Lord came by the hand of His servant Elijah concerning Ahab, and the Lord said: Have you seen how Ahab is moved before my face? I will not bring the evil upon him in his days (1 Kings 21:27–29). And when the Ninevites wept for their sins, with death awaiting, their life was restored (Jonah 3:10). See how great is the progress of repentance. But perhaps it may be said in reply: Repentance was granted indeed, but not for the crime of idolatry; although these sins are grave, the crime of idolatry is greater. Nevertheless, Novatian’s assertion is rightly overthrown in no small part, since two grave crimes appear to have been granted to repentance. For if fornication ought not to be forgiven, as Novatian thinks, how much less murder or adultery? Yet here his vanity is evident, since those sins which are more serious are shown to have been forgiven.

348 Therefore now it must be asked whether God has promised that forgiveness can be granted even to idolaters. For whatever has not been lawfully granted here cannot be granted in the future. For here, as the Lord said, sins are either bound or loosed (Matt. 16:19); but in the future there will be nothing else but reward or condemnation. For everyone who is lawfully rejected here cannot be chosen or judged worthy in the future. Let us therefore hear what the Lord says about idolaters to the prophet Jeremiah: Go and say, he says, Return to me, backsliding Israel, says the Lord, and I will not set my face against you: for I am merciful, says the Lord, and I will not be angry with you forever. Nevertheless acknowledge your iniquity: you have acted wickedly, and have scattered your ways to strangers under every green tree (Jer. 3:12–13). See what God promises to those who, after their fall, turn back to Him, that after apostasy He will forgive their sins when they return. And again God says through Jeremiah: My delicate ones have walked rough ways, they were led as a flock plundered by enemies. Be steadfast, children, and cry out to God; your memory will be remembered in your captivity. For as your mind was to stray from God, being converted you will seek Him ten times as much. For He who brought evils upon you will bring upon you eternal joy with your salvation (Baruch 4:26–29). O the mercy of God!

349 How He calls upon those who have fallen to rise up again! How He urges them, after the error of idols, to return to Him! Like a kindly father, He promises His children everlasting joy of salvation if they correct themselves. Likewise in the same prophet among other things: And I will restore them to this land, and I will build them up and not destroy; and I will plant them and not pluck them up (Jer. 24:6). Since He had threatened and said, Whoever sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out, sinners against God might despair of themselves, as though those who had sacrificed to idols, once uprooted, could not be planted again; He encourages them that, if they repent, they can be restored to their former state. For the sentence remains only if the sin is not corrected. Therefore it was proclaimed to the Ninevites that after three days their city would be overthrown. Why after three days, except that either they might repent and the sentence be lifted, or, remaining as they were, they would perish more justly? This is what He said through the prophet, I do not will the death of the dying, only that he should turn back and live. Therefore it came about that, though the Ninevites were destined to die because of their sins, they were forgiven when repentance followed.

350 For what reason do we find the ark being built for a hundred years in the time of Noah (Gen. 5:31; 7:6), if not that, seeing and hearing what was coming, they might change themselves? For God wills no one to perish. Therefore it is that we read in Solomon: For, he says, the Most High has mercy on those who repent (Sirach 12:3). And again, You have mercy on all, because You can do all things, and You overlook the sins of men for the sake of repentance (Wis. 11:24). In this sense the Lord also, grieving over the treachery of the Jews, says: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you; how often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” (Matt. 23:37)! Therefore the Lord always, throughout the whole Law, urges sinners to turn back to Him, not wishing His workmanship to be accountable to destruction; since there was no other reason for the giving of the Law than that men might be turned from error to the truth. Yet in such a way that in the New Testament the Author of the Law appears more merciful, because at the time when He agreed to reveal the mystery of His Son, our Lord, He willed to be more generous and abundant in mercy, so that there might be more grace when the Son preached than there had been when the servants preached. And not without reason:

351 for it was fitting that greater gifts should be bestowed through the Son than through the servants. Accordingly, to those who turn to Him in faith He grants all sins together, without any preceding cry of penance. Therefore the Apostle Paul says: “For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance” (Rom. 11:29). Afterwards, however, if they sin, they can deserve pardon through penance; so that, because they have sinned after receiving free mercy, they may no longer obtain it freely, but may reach forgiveness with intervening groans and tears. For it is impossible for a man not to sin. Therefore the Apostle John says: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:8). Therefore David deserved pardon and renewal when he confessed his sin. John the Apostle is certainly speaking to Christians. For he says in what follows: “My little children, I write these things to you so that you may not sin; and if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 2:1). He says this so that, if we sin after Baptism, we may humbly ask the Advocate to plead with the Father for us. For if among our ancestors penance had its place, how can it be that in this time it has no place, when the preaching shows greater mercy?

352 And He who had mercy on His enemies by calling them to grace, will He not have mercy on His friends now that they are His, along with a reward? For the tribulation of the heart is the reward of the repentant. If what you say were true, men would grieve that they have been made friends from being enemies. Or what sort of person must He be thought to be, if He gave mercy to enemies who do not repent, but did not give it to friends who do? Moreover, since the Lord knows that the Devil exalts himself and rages more fiercely against the friends and servants of God, where the Apostle Peter says: “Be watchful and sober, because your adversary the Devil, like a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8), since, then, the Lord knows that we have a dreadful and powerful adversary, if we are overcome by him, He wills us to flee to His help, grieving that we have been cast down, so that, restored by His power, we may fight back bravely. For just as, unless those days which the Lord mentions were shortened (Matt. 24:22), no flesh would be saved, so also, if repentance is denied to men, no one can be saved. For “no one,” he says, “can boast that he has a pure heart” (Prov. 20:9); and elsewhere, “No one is without stain, not even an infant of one day” (Job 14:4). Who then will be able to escape, if repentance is denied?

353 And where is that saying of the Lord, that “there will be joy in heaven over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:7)? “But more serious crimes,” you say, “must not be forgiven, fornication and idolatry. And where is the saying of the Lord in which He promises that all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven to men, “but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven to men” (Matt. 12:31)? He declares that absolutely all sins can be forgiven, except one. Now choose, Novatian, of whom you wish this to be understood: of those who do not yet believe, or of those who already believe. If of unbelievers, how is forgiveness of sins given, when it is clear that all, before they believe, sin against God and against the Holy Spirit? For some call the deeds of the Lord magical arts, assigning the work of the Holy Spirit to demons. But if you wish it to be said of believers, your statement is excluded, since He says that all sins will be forgiven: “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. Therefore, whether one sins against God or against Christ, it will be forgiven to men. For He has included all sins, except that against the Holy Spirit. Therefore He does not wish that sin which is committed against God to be understood as the same as that against the Holy Spirit; for if this were so, He would not have excepted it.

354 Since therefore He signifies another kind of sin when the Holy Spirit is blasphemed (for this saying refers to the person, not to the nature, of the Holy Spirit), all sins will be forgiven, either to those who already believe through penance, or to those who shall believe through Baptism. But that the Jews sinned against the Holy Spirit has another cause, belonging to that time. Therefore He shows that this will not be forgiven them, neither here nor in the future. For they did not sin against the Holy Spirit through error, but through hatred. Knowing and understanding that the works they saw in the deeds of the Saviour were of God, in order to turn the people away from faith in Him, they pretended that these were of the prince of demons. Therefore it is that the Lord says to them: “You have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves do not enter, and you hinder those who are entering” (Luke 11:52) Therefore this statement is made against the spiteful, for whom no remedy can be found so that they may be saved. For nothing is more serious than this crime: it pretends that what one knows to be true is false. For the Jews, who appeared to be under God’s law and to whom the promise of Christ had been made, seeing the great works and understanding that this was what God had promised, were blinded by envy so that they denied this was so;

355 and not only did they deny it, but they also persecuted it even to death. It is therefore not right that this sin should ever be forgiven to those who, with their own conscience as witness, dared to resist the God to whom they said they were devoted. Now there are different reasons why one sins against God or against Christ. Either someone, envying another’s happiness, rises up against the Creator out of the pain of his own abasement; or, having suddenly suffered some adverse event, stirred to anger, he becomes disrespectful toward his Father. But the incarnation of Christ itself also provokes offense. For while people are ignorant of the mystery of the incarnate Christ, they blaspheme, considering it unworthy that the Son of God, who is of incorporeal and simple nature, should be said to have been born in the manner of men. They therefore blaspheme because they are ignorant of the mystery. Wherefore a helping hand must be extended to such people when they are converted, because they oppose the truth in such a way that they think they are acting for the truth. A person of this kind, once tortured and torn by the nails, declares to be true what he had persecuted. The aforementioned Jews, however, thought one thing and did another, and without judge and executioner they are always tormented by their own conscience as witness. For the one who, through error, has been an enemy of the truth, when he is converted rejoices that he has come to know the truth;

356 but the spiteful man has nothing to correct: for if he were to turn back, he would begin to say that true which he previously did not know to be false. But as for an injury being done to the Holy Spirit, no cause exists: for his office produces no offense, since he appears in the power of signs and wonders. For who would dare hiss against him, seeing the dead raised? Or who would be angry with him, when through his effect he sees the paralyzed running, the blind receiving sight, the deaf hearing? Or how could he not love him, whom he sees casting out unclean spirits, cleansing lepers, and at the same time healing all diseases? The Jews preferred to do him an injury, saying that his work was the work of demons, provided only that, acting out their envy and hatred against the Savior, they could satisfy them. For this reason he shows that this sin is forgiven them neither here nor in the future. But Novatian says, More serious crimes are proved by name to be forgiven, that is, idolatry and fornication after the washing. For this reason, he says, all sins are forgiven at once in Baptism, so that thereafter, if they commit anything serious, they may in no way obtain pardon; because after the Holy Spirit has been received, nothing that is against the Holy Spirit ought to be committed. Who would deny that one ought never to sin, if it were possible?

357 But since God knows the human race is weak, he has always followed them with saving remedies so that, after sins, they might have a way to be restored. If, however, the Spirit once given forbids repentance to be granted to those who sin, there is no providence in the New Testament, and it will seem that better provision was made for those of old, to whom this remedy was by no means denied. And how is grace greater in the New than in the Old? For such a view belongs to an enemy, who, knowing that people cannot otherwise be provided for so as to attain salvation than by the intervention of repentance, grants the Holy Spirit in such a way that, if any injury be done to him through some fear or through some error, then satisfaction has no place for the reforming of a person: this is to have sought an opportunity to destroy people, not to save them. But perish the thought, since the Lord says, The Son of Man came not to destroy souls, but to save (Luke 9:56). For if, when we sin against one another, God has commanded that our sins be forgiven one another, if we turn back, seventy times seven (Matt. 18:22), how much more does he himself, if one sins against him, forgive those who are converted? For he wills every sinner to be converted.

358 Therefore the Apostle proves that forgiveness was granted to fornicators and the unclean, saying, Lest, when I come again, my God should humble me among you, and I should mourn for many of those who have sinned before, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication which they have committed (2 Cor. 12:21). He proves that some have done penance, for whom he does not grieve, but rejoices; but he indicates that some have not done penance for their fornication, and therefore he says that he mourns for them as not belonging to life, because they have not done penance. For if, in the case of such a crime, penance were to be done continually throughout this life, he would not say that he mourns for them because they have not done penance, but because they are not doing it. But knowing that penance both begins and is completed here, he says, because they have not done penance. For this is what he wanted, that when he came to them he might have peace in communion with them. Here, then, it has been proved that those who have committed fornication are to be admitted to communion after they have done penance. For they cannot be admitted to communion as long as they continue to commit the sin; but they are to be admitted when they cease from it, in accordance with the judgment of the Church. Now it remains to see whether we can prove that idolatry in particular can be forgiven.

359 For we read in the Apocalypse of the blessed Apostle John that penance is preached even for idolatry. For the bishops, whom he calls angels, that is, messengers, as also the blessed Apostle Paul says, You received me as an angel of God (Gal. 4:14), are admonished to grant penance to those who sin, and not to allow those who cause scandals in the Church to be in no way admonished, since they too belong to the Church. He therefore says, And to the angel of the Church in Pergamum write: Therefore says he who has the sharp two-edged sword, I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is; and you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to place a stumbling block before the eyes of the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed, and to commit fornication; so you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Likewise, do penance. (Rev. 2:12-16) He says that this is the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which was also that of Balaam, that is, idolatry and fornication, for which he commands that penance be done. And because he speaks to the people of the Church, he shows this by saying, “These things says the Spirit to the Churches.

360 And as for what the fruit of penance is, he indicates it therefore: “To the one who conquers,” he says, “I will give to eat of the manna which is hidden”; (Rev. 2:17) so that by penance he may, as it were, conquer sins. For what is it to repent, if not to be grieved for past deeds, and from this time to abstain from those things which one has committed? “And to the angel of the Church in Thyatira write: These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like Tyrian brass: I know your works, and love, and faith, and ministry, and patience, and your works, the last of which are better than the first. But I have against you that you allow the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and teaches and seduces my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent, and she was not willing to do penance for her fornication. Behold, I will cast her into a bed; and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they do penance for their deeds; and I will kill her children with death; and all the Churches shall know that I am he who searches reins and hearts; and I will give to each of you according to his works.

361 But to you I say, and to the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not have this doctrine and do not know the depths of Satan, as they say, I will put upon you no other burden; only hold fast what you have until I come. But to the one who conquers and keeps my works unto the end, I will give authority over the nations” (Rev. 2:12–26). Under a single letter given to the Church of Thyatira he confuses and utterly rejects the double error of the Novatian heresy: for he promises fruit even to those doing penance on account of idolatry, and in one Church he shows that the wicked do not contaminate the good, though they were of one and the same communion; for he was not writing to those placed outside the Church when he said, “He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches. (Rev. 2:29) In a similar way the Apostle Paul says, “For we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law” (Rom. 3:19). And in another place, “For what have I to do with judging those who are outside? (1 Cor. 5:12). Therefore, men of one and the same Church he partly calls to penance, and partly praises, saying, “But to you I say, and to the rest who are in Thyatira, whoever of you do not have this doctrine, that is, of idolatry, hold fast what you have until I come”;

362 (Rev. 2:24-25) that is, persevere unto the end, because “he who perseveres unto the end, this one shall be saved” (Matt. 10:22). Likewise, the one who perseveres in evil shall be condemned. And therefore, just as the righteousness of the righteous will not free him on the day when he goes astray, so the iniquity of the unrighteous will not harm him when he is converted. Therefore it was said, “He who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out”; (Exod. 22:20) but if he is converted, “he shall surely live. So also is that saying of the Lord, “Whoever denies me, I will deny him” (Matt. 33). But if he is converted, he cannot be denied by the one whom he confesses. From this it is that he said in the Psalm, “In your sight no living man shall be justified” (Ps. 142:2). For this sentence is assigned to a man in which he dies. For since within the Church the wicked were to be with the good until the judgment of God, God himself indicated this, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, which gathers fish of every kind. When it was full, they brought it to shore; and they chose the good into their vessels, but cast the bad away. So it shall be at the end of the age: the angels will come out and will separate from the kingdom of God all offenses and those who do iniquity” (Matt. 13:47–49).

363 This situation is also signified in that man who was found among the guests not having a wedding garment (Matt. 22:12–13): he shows that he alone was cast out from the company of the Church, because the crime of his unworthiness did not defile the others; and because this unworthiness of his was made evident by the fact that he did not have a wedding garment, he was revealed to the others. For they saw that he was clothed differently among them. From this comes what the Apostle Paul says: “In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay” (2 Tim. 2:20). He set this forth because of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who, though they were of the Church, held a perverse opinion about the resurrection; just as some of the Church of the Corinthians denied the resurrection. But Novatian says that this great house is to be understood as the world, not the Church, so that he may not be forced to acknowledge in one Church the wicked with the good, the clean with the unclean. I think this can be easily refuted. For in one house all are under one name: although they differ in conduct, yet in profession they are all counted under the one name of their master. But this world contains men of diverse professions, so that utterly unlike people profess that they have different gods and lords.

364 You see, therefore, that this could not have been said of the world, but of the Church, in which, living under one name, they differ in their deeds. I note that Novatian was not ignorant of this, but because he had no just grounds for the complaints of his secession, and would have been openly ashamed, he forged certain arguments for himself through a bad interpretation of the Law, by which he might try to excuse and cover the envious will of his resentment. Finally, he replies to what we have said, saying, “Nor do I refuse that penance be done for the idolatry committed, but I do not dare to grant remission, because this crime must be forgiven by him against whom it has been committed. He replies therefore with deceit. For he is exposed by his own interpretations, through which his fraud appears. For when he says, “It is written. Whoever denies me, I also will deny him, and the one whose words these are cannot lie; he shows that the repentance which he says must be done is empty and fruitless. For if a sentence has been passed, and he who passed it does not deceive, why do you compel a man to be tortured with mourning and groans, when you either deny or openly profess that you do not know the outcome of this matter? For whoever gives counsel to someone gives it precisely in order to declare what benefit may come from it.

365 But because you, Novatian, profess this deceitfully, in order to dupe human minds, you say that repentance must be done. For knowing that this cannot be openly denied, you act subtly, because you cut off repentance not by word but by intention. You certainly say that everyone who sacrifices to idols sins against the Holy Spirit, and you insist by the words of the law that this sin is not forgiven either here or in the future. How then do you say that repentance must be done for this offense, except because you deceive, as I showed above? But you are accustomed to try to cover this fraud with another trick, saying that the apostle Peter also spoke in the same sense to Simon: “Repent of this wickedness of yours, if perhaps it may be forgiven you” (Acts 8:22). But when the apostle Peter looked upon the man’s old and venomous and intensely bitter hatred, he therefore gave him an answer worded in doubt. For which mortal ever sinned in such a way as to want to buy the gift of God with money? This answer, then, was given to ill will, not to error. For this is what has no remedy; because it is neither error, nor is there any necessity by which it might be excused so as to be able through tears to attain forgiveness. If, therefore, any are found in such a case, let them hear what Simon heard.

366 For this reason the apostle Peter answered him doubtfully, saying, “For I see that you are in the anger of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. (Acts 8:23) If then in so grave a case, one which seems without remedy, the answer was given in doubtful terms, it is not doubtful that those who sin against God through some error or necessity can be forgiven, if they perform suitable repentance. For this has been granted to ecclesiastical law by its author: that it may both impose repentance and, after repentance, may receive back. And there is still something that Novatian criticizes: “Why,” he says, “do they hand over the body of the Lord to those whom they know to be sinners? As though those who are judges could also be accusers. But if they are accused and exposed, they can be cast out. For what judge assumes the role of accuser? For if the Lord himself endured Judas, whom he knew to be a thief, and to carry off what was put in the money bag (Jn. 12:6), nor did he cast out the one who had not been accused, we ought to make use of this example, so that it is not permitted to cast out anyone who has not been publicly detected. For it does not suit a just man to accuse anyone. Therefore Matthew says: “Joseph, being a just man and not willing to expose her, wanted to dismiss her secretly” (Matt. 1:19).

367 Therefore Judas, though he was among the disciples, did not stain them with his contagion, since they, of course, were opposed to his thefts; and when he received the Eucharist among them, he did not defile the innocent. Nor did the Lord deny his body to him whom he knew to be a robber; for, according to the Apostle, “He who receives unworthily receives a sword unto himself” (1 Cor. 11:27). Therefore the Lord did not turn his eyes away from him. For sinners defile only those who consent to their evil deeds. Where it is said, “You saw a thief, and you ran with him” (Ps. 49:18). From this comes the reason why the Apostle reproves the people of Corinth, because they did not correct or avoid him who openly had his father’s wife, so that he might amend himself, saying, “Do you not know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump? (1 Cor. 5:1, 6). Since there was no leader or bishop of the Church there, it belonged to the people to correct the man whom they saw behaving among them in such shameful and obscene ways. And therefore the Apostle rebukes them as if they were consenting to his crime. For in this matter there was no need of an accuser or of witnesses; he was publicly keeping his stepmother in the place of a wife. And so, as far as our cause is concerned, we have set forth our position, not accusing others, but defending ourselves.

368 But I appeal to the conscience of the Novatians, who always accuse us, whether he knows all those who are with him to be saints. He is so angry with us that he even denies that we are Christians, though he knows that we have been initiated in the same faith on which he prides himself. Certainly it is profession and life that make a Christian. If, then, you see a man profess the same things as you do, and his life is not unlike yours, why do you deny that he is what you are? Surely, “whoever says ‘Lord Jesus’ says it in the Holy Spirit” (see 1 Cor. 12:3); for he speaks truth. For all truth is from God. Why do you not agree with the one who speaks truth, but deny? You contradict the one who confesses God, not with reason, but in madness. Do you not appear to be an enemy of God, when you resist one who speaks true things about him? Does a pagan, hearing someone say that idols are gods, deny that he is a pagan? Why then do you deny that the man is a Christian whom you hear profess the words of the full faith, when you read, “With the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10)? But you, as an enemy, in your anger fail to see that you oppose God;

369 you deny that the one who confesses this has salvation, though the Lord says, “Whoever confesses me, I also will confess him” (Luke 12:8). Did he say, “If Novatian confesses me”? But you establish it in such a way that you seem to defend this: that he is saved who is not only a Christian, but who is also a Novatian. Yet if confession made in Christ gives salvation, then wherever and among whoever this confession is whole, it possesses salvation. Therefore, if the handing down of this confession has been corrupted among us, or its sense altered, you rightly accuse us. For if this remains in us as it does in you, by denying us you seem also to deny yourself. But you accuse the ministers of faith: grant that what you say is true, even though you cannot prove it. Those who heard it from them, did they hear truth or falsehood? For if a flawed man has spoken the truth, it will not cease to be true because it was spoken by a flawed man; for the cause of one’s conduct is one thing, and the cause of one’s profession another. Does not the persecutor, out of hatred for the Christian name, persecute the profession, not the conduct? First of all, knowing that this benefits religion, when we confess that we are Christians, the sacrilegious man believes what we confess, though he does not wish to hear it, because he does in fact hear it.