Questions on the Old and New Testaments, Part 2

Questions on the Old and New Testaments, Part 2

continued

Questions on the Old and New Testaments (part 3)

1 But you, although you bear the same profession and seal, do not believe us who confess what you yourself confess. If you knew that we were reborn in some way different from that in which you were reborn, then you would rightly not believe that we are what you are. Why then do I suffer persecution from a sacrilegious man, if I am not what you are? For if I professed concerning myself what you say about me, I would not suffer persecution. And in the end, I must be believed about myself, not you. For the judge seeks my own profession, not yours about me. Why then do you deny me when I confess, though it is true, when in this case not another’s testimony, but my own profession is required, either for me or against me? I was unwilling, for the sake of the name, to have you tortured against me, so that it might appear, if you too were to deny the one confessing the truth against me, to whom belief would be given. For you propose this deceitfully, so that you may seem to have a just cause for schism. For you are not ignorant that in this matter my own testimony about myself is required, not another’s; and that what I have confessed is held to be true, not what someone else has denied. It is clear that those are free who, out of love for Christ and without scrutinizing the deeds of men, press forward to obtain faith in him:

2 approving in them only what they know to be useful for themselves, that is, to obtain the tradition of the faith which is of Christ. For whoever thinks that, besides the sacrament, something else is necessary for a man in this matter, does an injury to the tradition; for he thinks too little of the grace of God. For whenever he denies that the gift of God can profit one who is devoted to him unless some human merit is present, he makes man either superior or equal to the tradition itself, whereas man’s merit is far removed from such a role. As the apostle Paul says about this same matter: I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. Therefore neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6–7). How then can anything be hoped for from man in this matter, since the words which are handed on have been given? Let us see then what advantage there will be if he is of good merit, or what disadvantage if he is of bad merit. One comes, desiring to hear the words of God, to which, by lending faith, he believes he will receive salvation. What difference does it make in this matter whether the one who delivers the solemn words is of good or bad life, since what is sought is the devoted faith of the recipient, so that he may with his whole mind believe what he hears?

3 If the one who delivers them is of bad life, will he create an obstacle for the recipient, so that he will not believe what he hears and ought to believe, so that his sin might enter the other’s heart so that he does not believe? Or will God, who is just, despise one devoted to him because of the sin of that man whom he himself allows to be in office? Nor does man judge in this way, although it is clear that he frequently errs or is partial. If it were so, and a man were conducting his own case, would he not say to God: Who this man is whose fault makes you despise me, I do not know. I approached him on your account, because he was said to be your priest: I sought you, I desired you, I believed in you, I hoped for nothing from the man: why then should his sins harm me, whom I would not have known unless I had sought you? If his good deeds could profit me, it might perhaps seem just that his evil deeds should harm me. But just as, if I had believed his good deeds with hesitation, they would have profited me nothing, so also his evil deeds ought to harm me nothing, if I believe rightly. For I entrusted faith to his words, which are said to be given by you, and which are inspired by you, spoken by you, and promise you: to him I believed nothing about himself nor about his deeds;

4 but I joined myself to the faith which is from you. According to this, the case of the believer is sound. Consider bishops after the manner of advocates: if an advocate is of bad life, will the judgment be against the client he has taken up? This is the advocate’s office, that according to the order of law he should plead the case of his client: can his life, if it is shameful, harm his client’s case? For the advocate’s person can neither harm nor profit; for as the case is, so will the judgment be upon it. So it is also with those who wish to become Christians: they come to the bishop, they declare to him their vows: he recites the words of ecclesiastical law. If the vows are true, they are received by the Judge: in what way then can he either harm or profit, since he does not even know the case of his client? For it is known to God alone the Judge, with what mind each one approaches. It is therefore the bishop’s task to perform the office delegated to him; but it is the Judge’s to accept or to reject the case of the petitioner. For he himself is found to have said: Daughter, your faith has made you whole (Matt. 9:22). You see then that each one is saved by his own faith, not by anyone’s assistance. For God has decreed this for faith, that if it does not doubt, it may obtain everything it wills.

5 Yet you, not as a friend but as if an enemy of Christ, have gathered a people under your own name, so that they are not Christians unless they are also Novatianists; whereas the Apostle condemns anyone who says that he is of Paul or of some other (1 Cor. 3:4). But you, judging yourself superior, have placed your own name above the name of Christ, as though his name were not sufficient to guard his Church. 6 1ST CATEGORY NT 7 QUESTION 114. AGAINST THE PAGANS. — By what reasoning the pagans dare to confront us or attack our faith, while thinking themselves innocent, I do not see. For they have no evidence for their assertions, of their superstition, I would rather say, than of religion. Whatever they have without safeguards they put forward, so that they may themselves be regarded as authors and defenders of novelties. First of all, they claim to worship gods, yet those gods give no marks, no testimonies. They call those beings gods who did not dare to be called by that name, so that men are made the authors of gods, though God ought to be the author of men; and therefore their assertion is vain and empty. Whatever is without God cannot be stable. That what I say is clear is proved by their books, in which nothing divine is read as established by God’s command, but they claim that various sacrifices to their deities were instituted by individual men for certain reasons, so that those who appear to have no merit may at least be seen to have rightly established the very things they decreed. Since, therefore, those whom they call gods are nowhere read to have commanded any of these things, by what authority do these men act, or think their actions accepted, when they cannot show any command? And even if a command were shown, it ought first to be examined whether it was fitting or right to obey those whose deeds show no signs or wonders recommending them as divine.

8 But when they are driven from this, they usually take refuge in the elements, saying that they worship these, by whose governance human life is ruled. From them, as above, we ask whether there is any mandate or command from God, whom even they confess to be great and supreme, and yet they neglect Him. For if such worship ought to be done, it should have been commanded by Him who is said to be their author. If, however, it is not commanded by Him, it is mere presumption and will lead to punishment, not reward; for it is an insult to the Creator when, despising the Lord, men worship His servants, and, scorning the Emperor, adore his nobles. How will this go unpunished, when we see that even in this life such conduct is avenged, and indeed harshly? But if perhaps they say that the mandate has come from the elements themselves, let them show a precept somewhere; let them at some time read anything that those elements have spoken. If they cannot show this, what penalty do they deserve who are exposed as authors of a presumed and fabricated religion? The elements are free from this wickedness. For the very luminaries of the world will accuse them before God the Judge, because in this vain counsel they in no way present themselves as authors.

9 In like manner those whom they call gods, though it is certain that they were men, when they begin to be tormented for their sins, will by no means defend themselves as guilty in this matter, but will shift this charge onto those who, though they had not commanded it, began to worship them as gods. With what sense of shame, then, can they criticize our faith or think it deserves ridicule, when they read our law supported by testimonies of virtues, and also the voice of our Lord and God saying: “I am God, and there is none other besides me” (Isa. 45:21–22)? If He said this in bare words, He would not deserve belief, lest we appear like the pagans, who, seeing no signs of majesty in their gods, began to worship them, and, what is worse, in shameful ways. For disgraceful things are done there, which it is shameful to reveal; and they call themselves wise, because in regard to their law they are mocked like an imposter. But our God, with virtue as witness, has commanded that He be worshipped, and, so as to leave no room for suspicion, has given a law that is upright and holy, as befits God. We, indeed, who are called foolish by the pagans, would not have believed in our God had He not satisfied us also by testimonies of power; nor would we have accepted His law if we had not recognized it as pure and worthy of its own profession.

10 Therefore it is that nothing among us is done in darkness or in secret. For whatever is known to be honorable does not fear to be made public; but that which is shameful and dishonorable cannot be made public because modesty forbids it. For this reason the pagans celebrate their mysteries in darkness, wise at least in this: they are ashamed to be mocked openly. The immoral rites that function in place of law there they do not wish to reveal, lest those who call themselves wise appear dull to those whom they call fools. Yet lest, perhaps on this account, we seem fools to them, because our law proclaims chastity, mercy, devotion, self-control: among them these things are foolish, since every good man is bad to the wicked, and the wise man senseless to the fool. They so thoroughly detest chastity that they delight even in womanish men [cinaedis], subject to their teaching; and unless such men are as they are, they will not be fit for their so‑called religion. For that reason they are mutilated and their appearance is changed, so that, from men, they become as it were women and, contrary to nature, submit to suffer what belongs to women; and only then are they deemed fit and worthy ministers of their superstition. Can one such as this be condemned, when the law makes him such? For this very reason, having lost manly conduct and dress, he is transformed into a woman, that he may freely suffer what belongs to women.

11 What sort of mysteries can those be, where what is honorable becomes dishonorable, and what is uncorrupted becomes corrupted, when true religious worship is precisely that which makes the shameful honorable and the undisciplined modest? How can the worshippers of such a cult be rivals of the good life, when the mysteries of their law cannot be celebrated without womanish men? If, therefore, their law delights in such people, anyone who is not of that kind will be, in their view, a sinner and a fool. Therefore they call us fools. For those who practice these shameful things are judged wise by them; those who avoid and flee them, foolish. This indeed seems cleverly and perceptively unnatural by them. They therefore attach the name of wisdom to their law, so as to cover up its blameworthy features; for where there is wisdom, there is no blame. Our law, however, they call foolish, so as to keep people away from it. But if we remove the labels of wisdom and foolishness, and set aside all the hostility that the defense of both sides breeds, let the laws themselves clash with each other, so that it may appear where wisdom is, and where foolishness. But in the presence of the sign of the cross, paganism falls silent. And if that forethought which they call wisdom is present, it does not dare answer the sacred things of those whom they call foolish. For their entrails are checked, and they are concealed out of reverence for Christian majesty.

12 It is a great matter, that the forethought they so name should fear what they call foolishness. Let us now compare the tone of the laws. Pagans even profess in writing that they worship gods and goddesses; and what they say is true, since they worship both males and females. For Janus and Saturn, Jupiter and Mercury, and Apollo and the rest, likewise Minerva, and Isis, and Fruxilla, and Venus, and Flora the harlot with the others, are gods and goddesses, as the histories both of the Greeks and of the Romans confirm. Christians, however, as poor people, whom they call fools, worship one God in mystery, from whom are all things; nor do they venerate anything that has been created by Him. For they know that He alone is sufficient and abundant for their salvation, not ignorant that if they assign His glory and name to others, they offend Him; since no emperor allows tribunes and counts to be adored together with his name. Let the laws now be compared, that it may be seen where forethought lies: with the one who worships the Creator, or the one who worships the creature; the one who worships the Lord, or the one who worships servants? Can it be that in some household, besides one, another should be called lord, just as pagans, trained in forensic writings, who seem to themselves wise, in one world created by one God, worship many gods and goddesses?

13 For they call the stewards and managers of the world gods and by the name of God, while they are exposed as foolish. To proclaim that which brings destruction is the mark of the foolish and the irresponsible. For it is necessary that God should avenge His injury upon those who have shared the name and glory of the Lord God with their fellow-servants. Next let the teachings be considered. Our law, according to which those whom they call fools are ordered, commands that bishops and ministers be suitable, without reproach, holy and irreproachable; but, on the contrary, the tradition of the pagans lays it down that their bishops and ministers cannot be suitable for them unless they are transformed from men into women, so that they may wastefully and publicly endure women’s parts, and, with their hair dishonorably let down in water, emit a soft, quivering, and shameful voice. If they did this in public, they would be stoned by all the people. And that dog-headed creature, who restlessly carries himself about all places, seeking the limbs of the adulterous Osiris, the husband of Isis. Behold, by such ministers or teachers pagans assume for themselves the name of forethought, when this is not only not forethought, but also a crime. For to love what is obscene and shameful is destructive. And what of that which they suffer in a cave, their eyes veiled? So that they may not shudder at being disgracefully dishonored, their eyes are covered; others, like birds, beat their wings, imitating the voice of a raven;

14 others again roar after the manner of lions; others, with their hands tied by the intestines of young chickens, are thrown over pits full of water, while someone approaches with a sword and breaks open the above-mentioned intestines, calling himself their liberator. And there are other things even more shameful. Behold in how many ways they are disgracefully misled, they who call themselves wise. But because they suffer these things in darkness, they think they can remain unknown. For all these practices, which were invented and arranged secretly by evil and shameful men, have been revealed and exposed by the holy Christian faith. When the faith was preached, those who heard, considering what good and holiness were publicly promised, joined themselves to the faith, abandoning those hidden shameful and awful things, and confessing how they had been deceived through ignorance. For at that time, long ago, almost all were involved in this error, and therefore seemed to themselves prudent, because there was no one to reprove them. For although all erred under one deceptive name of idolatry, each one nevertheless arranged his worship according to his own customs and manner of life, so that one error might have diversity arising from the vileness and life of its authors. Finally, the rites which they call those of Bacchus [Liber] are shameful and most vain, and full of madness. For it is difficult for the impure not to be touchy; therefore everywhere he is found depicted with Priapus, with whom he lived shamefully. In this way are their other rites as well.

15 But so that future generations might be captured by these inventions, it was done through the subtlety and cunning of Satan: for although these things were not invented without his counsel, yet when each was devised, he sprinkled certain charms, by which he might entice men into error. And so it came about that, through the tradition of antiquity, deceit might be praised and the shameful invention excused. For through custom, what was shameful began not to seem shameful. For when some are dishonored, at first they blush; afterwards, with custom flattering them, shame departs and their expression is altered, especially if they see many such as themselves. For the profit of disgrace is then achieved when those who are called noble are seen to be dishonored: for dignified nobility easily finds imitators. If therefore long ago they seemed to themselves wise for this reason, because there was no one to whom this foul invention was displeasing; now, since by the mercy of God the human race has been enlightened, and it has been shown to be a crime which was believed to be law, and foolish that which was thought to be a wise invention, they ought at least to cease from this name, refusing to remain in a detected crime, knowing that the name of wisdom is alien to them. But, in order to add foolishness to the heap of their own confession, having been caught in foolishness they call fools those by whom they are refuted. Yet they accuse our faith and its generations to come;

16 but they do not deny that nothing in its teachings can be criticized. Those who accuse our faith do not take their stand so much against us as against our author. For they declare us fools, because we have put faith in a seemingly foolish matter; but Him they pronounce a liar and deceiver, and even hateful, who would deliver a faith by which we might be deceived. Let us therefore first prove that we did not believe foolishly; then we shall plead the cause of the Author. When we lived in the error in which the pagans now remain, drawn by no signs of virtue but only receiving the bare words which they call sacred, we thought they were useful, not because divinity had praised them, but because ancient custom had handed them down. In this custom (as is no secret), deceived by various vanities, we recognized no hope of salvation. For what benefit could come from a thing invented by men? But when we came to the faith of God and believed in His Son incarnate and crucified, we were not persuaded by words, but by deeds. For we saw the dead raised, lepers cleansed, sight restored to one born blind, demons cast out, and at the same time all illnesses healed. Let it now be judged when we were foolish: when we believed in bare words, or when we believed because of deeds? For without doubt deeds come before words, since words were invented to signify deeds.

17 Therefore, if we granted belief to human tradition, upheld by no virtue, a tradition invented to deceive the minds of men, how much more to this faith, which all the divine and deifying signs that invoke God bear witness to? Would we not rightly be judged foolish if we did not believe in virtues, we who had believed in speeches? Would we not reasonably be marked as careless and ill-advised if we did not follow the hope that calls us, we who had been subject to despair? But, they say in reply, what is believed is foolish. For it does not stand up to reason that God should have a Son, nor that bodies dead and dissolved could be restored again to life. All the philosophers and inventors of sects wounded one another with various arguments, none passing over to the other’s side; for each man remained in that in which he had been trained. Through the fact that words are accountable to contradiction, none overcame another. There was no way by which anyone could show himself the victor; but tiring one another with contradictions, they in no way persuaded each other. Therefore it came to pass that the providence of God, whose mind cannot be searched out, joined virtue to His preaching, so that the truth of preaching might be proved by the testimony of virtue; so that those who were ready to contradict words, when they saw virtue, would not dare to contradict. For what greater testimony of truth can there be than the working of virtue?

18 If anyone, however, denies works of virtue by accusing the Scriptures, how can he call our faith foolish while denying the Scriptures? For wherever it is written about Christ that He is to be believed as the Son of God, in that same place the testimony of virtue is found. And if it seems absurd to anyone reading that Christ, the Son of God, was crucified, let him read further and he will find that He rose from the dead; and let him understand that He did not die idly nor unwillingly, He who could rise again, but that it is a mystery. Whoever he may be, he will either be silent about the cross, for if he calls the cross foolish, he will not be able to call the resurrection foolish, for the resurrection excuses the cross, or if he speaks of the cross, he will not be able to deny that there is providence in it, which he sees confirmed by the testimony of the resurrection. Either both are accepted, or both are rejected, so that whoever does not defend them does not even dare to accuse them. The reason why He allowed Himself to be crucified is a mystery to be reserved for His kindred. But He so praised this death that He declared He was glorified through it. For He says: “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again” (Jn. 10:18).

19 Therefore He was not compelled to die, since He had the power both to die and to rise. Whoever denies this cannot say that death was inflicted on Him by force. For if he denies this, he cannot even declare that He died, because this is contained in the very place where He is read to have been handed over to death. No one condemns the last statements of a text by its earlier ones, or the earlier by the later; for what belongs to one and the same body is not in contradiction. They say deceitfully that it is foolish to believe that the dead rise again. Yet they see examples that make it credible. For all seeds necessary for use, unless they have decayed, cannot be born again. If God has decreed this in the world for the sake of men, why is it considered foolish if it is believed that He will grant the same to their bodies? Except that they themselves are fools, who do not grant to God the power which the world possesses, although the shadow of what has been done appears even now, since it is no longer the time for new virtues to be performed. For they had to be performed in the beginning, that the seed of faith through them might grow. Yet even now demons are terrified at the name of the cross of Christ; and if it is invoked more earnestly, they take flight;

20 and the gods of the pagans, through fear and dread of the named cross, cannot give responses. If the death of Christ is a reproach, why is it a terror? For a thing that comes from a crime ought not to be feared, but despised. Who would fear a man killed for his crime? And if he were innocent, he still would not be feared, but mourned. Therefore, unless the demons, or the gods of the pagans, knew that the cross of Christ is a mystery, they would not be terrified when it is named; and, to speak more plainly, unless they were guilty, they would not be afraid. For all those who are on the Devil’s side consented to the death of Christ. Therefore all demons and all the gods of the Gentiles, when the cross of Christ is named, are shaken with terror. For everyone who is guilty of the death of an innocent man, when his name is mentioned, fear seizes his heart. For when he recalls his crime, he sees himself as guilty. How much more the demons and the gods of the Gentiles, who are guilty of the killing of the Lord and Savior of the world? But the pagans, for the sake of antiquity, insist that they hold the truth, because, they say, what is earlier cannot be false. As though antiquity or old custom could take precedence over truth.

21 For murderers, or the unmanly, or adulterers, or other criminals could, by this means, defend their unlawful acts, because they are ancient and were begun from the very beginning of the world; whereas from this they ought rather to understand their error, since whatever is reprehensible and shameful is proved to have had an evil beginning, but whatever is honorable and holy is rightly venerated; nor can what is shameful and blameworthy have been formerly honorable and blameless. And finally, the tradition of the pagans, having been invented by man, cannot be denied; but that our Law was given by God is an evident fact. For on the mountain the majesty of God appeared to give the Law to men. And that faith might be placed in this, He first sent many signs and wonders done in Egypt, which even today books testify to, stored by Ptolemy in the library of Alexandria. Therefore, then, He consented to give the Law, that no one might doubt that it was God who delivered it. For the majesty of God was seen openly and plainly by all, with such brilliance and terror that no other god besides Him was believed to exist, and that what He commanded was held worthy of all observance. And that all things might agree with the divine order, let the given Law be examined, to see whether there is anything unjust in it, anything dishonorable, anything ridiculous. Therefore it was fitting that God should be made known;

22 not that He should appear in a corner by deceit, He who cannot be limited; nor in a mirror, where what is seen is other than it appears through enticing fraud; nor would He deliver precepts to be kept which, because they were dishonorable, would be performed in darkness. For since the knowledge of the one God had been obliterated in the world by the habit of sinning, because falsehood had supplied a veil for the truth, the merciful and gracious God, unwilling that His work should become accountable to destruction, consented to visit the human race. He did not appear as those did who wished falsely to be called gods; but as He is the Truth of God, so He revealed Himself, that He might remove the error which, by the proclamation of false gods, had corrupted the understanding of the world. In short, more than six hundred thousand men, having gone out of Egypt, seeing and knowing that this Lord was above all from the revealing of unspeakable glory, were afraid to approach Him, but from afar, with knees bent, they worshiped Him (Exod. 20:18). Afterwards, as other signs followed besides those which He had done in Egypt, in all these wonders He was revealed as the one God. These things became known in almost all tongues; these were a terror to neighboring nations. What such thing is there among the gods of the Gentiles? To what nation, to what people have they shown their glory? What signs or powers have they performed as testimony of their divinity?

23 Where or when are they proved to have spoken? But the irrational crowd began to worship as gods either apparitions of shadows, or demons, or images of the dead; and this practice, having been drawn into the custom of antiquity, thinks that it can defend the truth of reason for itself; whereas the rule of truth comes not from custom, which arises from antiquity, but from God, who is not proved to be God by antiquity, but by eternity. Wherefore faith is not something begun, but is without beginning. For to believe in God is the beginning on our side. For that which is believed is eternal. How then do the pagans suppose themselves to be prior, when that which they worship is after God? Is not a work after its maker? Pagans worship the works, we the Maker; they the creature, we the Creator. Surely God made the world; did He not, when He had made it, show His own knowledge? Or did He make man and not wish to be worshiped by him whom He had made? But this is absurd. Therefore man, once made, began to venerate his Creator, because this is fitting and the very cause required it. When this had grown obsolete through the negligence of men, God restored it in Abraham, so that the knowledge of God which had existed in Adam might begin again in Abraham;

24 that those born from him might be brought up under this knowledge, and that through transmission it might not fail, nor be lacking in one who worshiped God; others also from a foreign nation being called to this knowledge of God. Therefore, the one who has come to know is under a beginning; but the one who is known is above beginning. By what reasoning, then, do the pagans say that their law existed before ours? If the world is before God, which be it far from us, then paganism can likewise be set before Christianity. Let no one be astonished at the name of Christianity. For it is to worship one God in the mystery of the Trinity. And if the name of Christ is thought to come from chrism, yet the reason of the name is prior to the chrism. For among our ancestors, those who were anointed as kings were called christs, having the image of the Christ to come, who, born of God the Father as king, is not undeservedly called Christ; because that which to these was chrism, to Him was given by birth. Him, as long as the pagans are ignorant of Him, they reject; but when they have come to know Him, they honor Him with greater devotion, rejoicing that they have passed from evil to good. For they who were so stubborn in a matter so frivolous and foolish, how much stronger and more fervent will they be when the truth is known?

25 What then is our Christ like, who, when He is unknown, is hated; when He is known, is loved? For every wicked man, when he is unknown, is loved, when known, is hated. How many once hated Christ who now love Him, and who grieve that they hated what they did not know? For it is the mark of the foolish to hate one whom you do not know, since it must first be tested whether a thing is worthy of hatred. In short, those who today oppose will tomorrow defend, doing penance that they came to know the truth so late. For if the thing were worthy of hatred, or had any element of deceit, every day pagans would be made out of Christians. But since this is the truth, every day, every hour, without interruption, people abandon Jupiter, among whom are sophists and nobles of the world, who had confessed him to be god, and flee to Christ, to whom be honor and glory unto the ages of ages.

26 1ST CATEGORY NT 27 QUESTION 125. AGAINST EUSEBIUS. (widely believed to be Eusebius of Vercelli) — I remember that I once read in a certain little book by Eusebius, otherwise an outstanding man in other respects, that not even the Holy Spirit knows the mystery of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ; and I am astonished that a man of such learning inflicted this stain upon the Holy Spirit. By saying this he has in fact implied that He is of a degenerate kind. For He cannot be said to be of God if He does not know the things that are of God; because a lower nature does not know what is in a higher. But if He is of the same substance and divinity, how can He fail to know what belongs to Himself? Indeed, the Son of God, because He says, I and the Father are one (Jn. 10:30), on account of the unity of substance, quite rightly added, saying, All things that the Father has are mine; and what is mine is the Father’s (Jn. 16:15). Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is of the same divinity, on what grounds is He separated off so as not to be of the same knowledge, when He is not denied to be of the same substance? He granted what is greater while refusing what is less. A creature, after all, learns, and begins to know certain things about its author, and what it has learned will be common to it with its author;

28 but substance or divinity cannot be common to God and to a creature. For the substance of God has nothing to learn, because there is nothing He does not know; whereas the substance of human beings does not have by nature the capacity to know, but to learn. Therefore knowledge happens to human nature; yet the substance is not changed, because the nature of man is without knowledge: for it was so created that it should acquire knowledge through exercise. Therefore substance is greater than knowledge; because it is not knowledge that acquires substance, but substance that acquires knowledge: and substance can exist without knowledge, but knowledge cannot exist without substance. In God, however, as there is substance, so also there is knowledge: for the substance which has nothing to learn, that very substance is knowledge to itself. Therefore all things in God are said to be “substantial. For a substance to which nothing is lacking possesses all things substantially; because nothing has been added to it as a result of study. How then can it be said of the Holy Spirit that He does not know the birth of the Son of God, if He is consubstantial with Him? Can one and the same substance both know and not know? Surely the Son of God did not learn the mystery of His own birth; He knows it substantially, not by teaching.

29 On what grounds then is the Holy Spirit said not to know, when in like manner He has nothing that He needs to learn, because He knows all things by substance? For just as the Son of God is, so also the Holy Spirit is the substance of God, as the Lord says, All things that the Father has are mine; by which He indicated that the substance of God the Father is His own substance. And He says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from what is His: And therefore, He says, I said that He will receive from what is mine, because all things that the Father has are mine. If He proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son, how can He be ignorant of the birth of the Son, when His substance is the substance of the Son? For all things that the Father has are the Son’s. Without doubt, then, the Father’s substance is also in the Holy Spirit. For the Son added, saying: And all that is mine is the Father’s. Why then is it questioned whether the Holy Spirit is of the same divinity, since He is of the same substance? For just as the Lord said of Himself that He proceeded from God, so He also bears witness concerning the Holy Spirit. And lest this could be interpreted in some other way, He says, He proceeds from the Father (Jn. 15:26); and, He will receive from what is mine (Jn. 16:14):

30 so that to proceed from the Father is the same thing as to receive from Christ. For when it is said that He receives from the Son of God, there is no doubt that He too is from God, so that in the Holy Spirit the substance and divinity of the Father are not in doubt. Therefore whoever says that He does not know the birth of the Son of God detracts from Him from whom He is said to have received. For He does not receive something other than what He Himself is, from whom He receives; because to have received from Christ means that He has proceeded from God: and so He cannot be ignorant of the fact that He is from the One from whom He has received; nor can He be said to be ignorant of the Lord, since He has proceeded from God. Surely the Son of God, because He is from the Father as God, knows all things that are of God: why then should the Holy Spirit be denied knowledge of whatever things are Christ’s, since He has received from Him? Therefore, if the Son of God knows the things that are in God, there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit also does not ignore the things that are in the Son of God: and by the fact that He knows the things that are in the Son, He cannot be said not to know the things that are in God.

31 For from Him from whom He receives, He has knowledge of God. And why do we labor, when the Apostle is witness in this matter, saying: No one knows the things that are in God, except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11)? Behold, in what we long labored, with the Apostle’s help we have brought it to completion. And did he perhaps prejudge [praejudicavit] the Son of God, because he said that no one knows the things that are in God except the Spirit of God? Far from it. So neither did the Son prejudge the Holy Spirit when He said: No one knows the Father except the Son. For He did not say that anyone knows the things that are in God except the one who is from God: because everything that is from God knows God and the things that are in God. For the nature of God knows itself; and when you understand that this nature is also in the Holy Spirit, by the fact that He has proceeded from the Father and received from the Son, it is not safe to say that He does not know God the Father, whose nature you acknowledge in Him. And yet the Savior so said that no one knows God the Father except the Son, as to reserve the knowledge of Him to another person: for He immediately added, saying: And to whom the Son shall choose to reveal Him (Matt. 11:27). To whom, do you think, does the Son wish to reveal Him?

32 He can be dearer to no one than to His own Spirit: for, If anyone, He says, does not have the Spirit of Christ, that person does not belong to Him (Rom. 8:9). How then do you think the Father God has been revealed by the Son to the Holy Spirit, except in the way that the Lord Himself says, He will receive from what is mine? For God the Father cannot be revealed to a creature; because a creature cannot bear the nature of God, unless it is of the same substance: for He dwells in light inaccessible, that is, inaccessible to a creature (1 Tim. 6:16). But to some it seems for this reason to be rightly said that the Holy Spirit does not know the mystery of the birth of the Son of God, because he is said to search all things (1 Cor. 2:10); and, they say, one who searches is of course ignorant. This must be understood from another passage: for among other things God’s words are, I am God who searches the kidneys and hearts (Jer. 17:10); and in the Psalm, God, he says, searches hearts and kidneys (Ps. 7:10); and the Apostle, He who searches hearts, he says, knows what the Spirit desires, because he intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. By these examples, when the Spirit of God is said to search, it is meant that he does not ignore. He is also said to search the deep things of God:

33 and what are the deep things of God, which he is said to see thoroughly? For to search means to penetrate hidden things, so that by this it is believed that nothing is hidden from him. For the deep mysteries of God are God’s inner realities, which cannot be searched by a creature. For it is also written that he intercedes for the saints according to God’s will, which the saints of course do not know, as the Apostle says: For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought (Rom. 8:27, 26). Therefore to know the deep things of God and not to be ignorant of the will of God signify one and the same thing. For what mystery is so deep as the will of God, which is known to the Holy Spirit, but is unknown to all others? We must also consider how it is said that no one knows what is in a man, except the spirit of the man which is in him (1 Cor. 2:11): by “spirit” he meant the soul; because no one knows what is in the soul of a man, except his soul, which is spirit. So also in God no one knows the things that are God’s, except the Spirit of God, that is, God himself. For one who is “of God” is understood to be nothing other than God. Therefore the Spirit of God knows what is in God, because he is of God.

34 For if no one knows the thoughts of men except God, how much more can no one know God’s secrets and will unless he be of God, that is, the very same God? For he is known only to himself. For indeed in God there are no “thoughts. For he does not debate within himself what he should do or should not do, considering whether it is beneficial; because all that is in God exists without any doubt, not by accident, but by substance; nor by effort, but by nature; for he is not changed. And therefore the Holy Spirit does not know the mysteries of God in any other way than by substance: for one substance has one and the same understanding and will. He is speaking of God, who is always one and unchangeable, whether in the Son or in the Holy Spirit. For what the Father wills, the Son also wills; and what the Son wills, the Holy Spirit likewise wills. Therefore he is sometimes called the Spirit of God, sometimes the Spirit of Christ: Who proceeds from God, he says; and, He will receive from what is mine. Therefore it is that the apostle John says: By this we know that God remains in us, by his Spirit whom he has given us (1 Jn. 3:24). Therefore, if by the Spirit of God dwelling in us God is said to dwell in us, the Spirit of God is signified to be God. Finally, this is the sign of believers, that they are children of God:

35 that when they receive him, they dare to call themselves sons of God. For unless they had the mark of deity, they could not be called sons of God. Yet no one is a true son of God so as to be wholly from the whole, as Christ is. But by adoption they become sons of God, so that by receiving the Spirit of Christ they are called sons of God through him, by reason of the Spirit whom they have in themselves, who is of God. For in sons, even if they are adopted, some part of the father’s substance ought to be seen. In the world, because things are imperfect, sons adopted by men receive no pledge, but only a name. But because God is perfect, he does more, so that he gives his Spirit to those he adopts, through whom those adopted by him seem to have some reality; for names without realities are empty. Our Apostle supports this assertion of ours, saying: O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out (Rom. 11:33)! Yet what does he mean, that although he elsewhere says the deep things of God, that is, his secrets, are searchable, he here denies it, saying that they are unsearchable? But in this passage he spoke of the creature, because God’s secrets or judgments are unsearchable for it;

36 whereas for the Holy Spirit, in that he knows all things that are God’s, he said that all that is in God is searchable; so that he affirms that what is unknown to the creature is not unknown to the Spirit of God. Therefore the nature of God cannot be denied, which has knowledge of what cannot be comprehended by the creature. Those who call the Holy Spirit a degenerate being of God attack the position which has declared that the salvation of the whole creation consists in the divinity of the Trinity: because if he is not consubstantial with God and Christ, it is foolish to place him in the number of the Father and the Son, so that without him there is neither salvation nor dignity for anyone. For if he does not share the same divinity, his effect would be either stupid or pointless, which be far from us. For who among wise men would deny that the Creator cannot be counted together with the creature, nor the eternal compared with one who is under a beginning, nor the Lord equated with the servant, nor the powerful compared with the powerless, nor the knowledgeable ranked with the ignorant? But now let the slander cease. He is third in order, not in nature; in rank, not in divinity; in person, not in ignorance.

37 For just as the Son of God is second after the Father and is not lesser in divinity, so also the Holy Spirit, following after the Son, is not inferior, but equal in the divine substance. Finally, what we read of the Son of God, we read likewise of the Holy Spirit, as he himself bears witness to us. For he says: I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth (Jn. 14:16). When he said “another,” he indicated himself as Paraclete. This John explains, saying that the Son of God intercedes for our sins (1 Jn. 2:2). And the apostle Paul: The Spirit of God himself, he says, intercedes for us. Behold, Scripture shows that both are advocates. And when He called Him the Spirit of truth, He showed that He in no way differs from Himself, because He said: I am the truth (Jn. 14:6). He said that He was sent by the Father, and He Himself promised that He would send the Holy Spirit. If He is not inferior to the One who sends, then neither is the Holy Spirit inferior to Him who sends Him. For neither, because the three are each distinct, are they parts of one another, so that they might be different. For there is one power of the three, such that nothing is lacking to each. Let this be the conclusion.

38 For already, in the little book composed against Arian wickedness, the remaining matters, which encompass the undivided unity of the Trinity, have been more fully treated. 39 2ND CATEGORY OT 40 QUESTION 1. AGAINST THOSE WHO DENY THAT ANYTHING CONCERNS GOD. — To many whom this worldly darkness has blinded, we are most displeasing if we anxiously keep God’s commandments, if we avoid occasions of sinning, if we strive with saving zeal to accomplish every good thing, if we disregard the seductive allurements of temptations and vices, if we allow ourselves to be captured by no worldly sweetness, if we willingly undergo tortures and punishments for the name of God, if by the strength of the spirit we hold death itself in contempt. To those, namely, whose mortal sense has persuaded them that everything done is worthy neither of praise nor of blame. For they do not want any of these things to pertain to God. Some, so eager to defend their crimes and wicked deeds, say: It is of no benefit whether you live well or badly. For it is not God’s concern now to carefully rush to look upon you as you act in different ways according to your own disposition and disease, and at some point to trouble his eyes with your foul deeds. All things that are celebrated as one pleases are vain: he who pertains to God is hidden and removed from these human affairs, and therefore neither grows angry nor is moved; he has no contemplation of human affairs, none of our actions;

41 the entire course of the whirling age, and a certain mysterious rolling of the worldly sphere, so seizes, snatches, and hurls him away that anyone is considered a fool who thinks he can call him back to the care of God. Not even the disposition of martyrs, then, is to be approved, who suppose that their God, whom they proclaim to be merciful, delights in the shedding of their blood. Nothing in us is dear to him, nothing is hateful; he rejoices in no circumstance of our death, in no integrity of our health; nor does he desire to know what is being done or where: not because it would be impossible for the divine majesty to have knowledge of almost all things that have been done or are being done, but because he does not wish to know the miseries of men and worldly vanities. Therefore, finally, it is written: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity (Eccles. 1:2). Their opinion, fixed in despair, is dissolved by the authority of the divine sense, and is likewise refuted as overthrown by their own sacred popular speech, which is held in highest use. For when amid business and various dealings faith and treachery contend, divine witness is called upon, that witness which, they say, sometimes does not know what we are doing. “God is my witness,” they say; “God see, God judge, God act, God repay. And when the need for an oath arises, and the mind of the one who swears fears lest something befall him if he perjures himself;

42 he both demands an oath and is confident that it can be exacted from him who has sworn falsely. And when the desired recovery and good health has been obtained, thanks are rendered to the divinity. And when, in some falling matter, one who was in near danger has escaped unharmed, they say that the good God has provided it. And when, with the contrary blowing of the winds, the waves of the stirred sea rise up, and the ship, struck on all sides, is shaken, the crowd of sailors stretch their hands to heaven, with supplicating voice beg God, and are confident that they can be heard and delivered. Where comes all this, if God has no care for us, if he does not know what we are doing? That persuasion therefore is empty. All things are known to God. Let no one flatter himself concerning the freedom of his committed crimes. The good life is of a greatest reward, and of an evil life is eternal punishment and everlasting torments. Therefore, to us who believe that God knows all things, who devoutly rush to martyrdom, an immeasurable reward, eternal life shall be given; but to the wicked, who have tried to teach that God does not know their crimes and hidden wickedness, there will be supplied a consuming flame of fire and a blaze that never ceases.

43 MISCELLANEOUS 1ST CATEGORY OT 44 QUESTION 1. WHAT IS GOD? — This is what no opinion can fully grasp. For He is more than anything that can be spoken or conceived. Yet let us say something which, though unequal, may still in some way fit what seems worthy of God. For each nature, according to its own capacity, forms a notion of God; and as nature differs from nature, so does judgment differ from judgment about what God is. Since He is above all things, it must be that He surpasses every mind. Human beings, as far as they can stretch the sharpness of their mind, look toward what God is, by opinion rather than by definition. But the angels, who are above human beings, certainly have a higher sense of God; and the Archangels more still; while the Cherubim and Seraphim, those powers said to be next to God, have yet greater thoughts of Him, though they still do not fully comprehend what God is. For no one knows the Father except the Son, nor does anyone know the Son except the Father (Matt. 11:27). Therefore God, as He appears to human beings, is spirit, simple in nature, light inaccessible, invisible, beyond measure, unlimited, perfect, needing nothing, eternal, utterly immortal, from whom all things received their beginning; One to be venerated, loved, feared; outside of whom there is nothing, indeed, in whom are all things that exist above and below, highest and lowest; almighty, all‑sustaining, truly rich in all things, because there is nothing that is not His; good, just, merciful.

45 Good, because He brought into existence things that were not; just, because whatever He made to advance He left to the free judgment of their own liberty; yet because they are not so perfect that they cannot fall, He decreed that seeds of law should naturally exist in them, adding the help of revealed law, so that His authority might be complete for humankind; merciful, because He does not quickly repay those who sin, but bears with them so that He may forgive the repentant. He is also severe, so that, through fear, the things well created by Him may be preserved, lest negligence give rise to the downfall of life. And, lest we omit what is more wondrous, His mercy is so great that He endures insults from those He has made and Himself first calls them to peace. Is this not an act of greater power than having created the creature? Yet if His excessive goodness remained without limit in this, it would harm the creature. Therefore He wills that He be at times loved, at times feared, lest those who stray from Him perish. Therefore it is that, lest His patience be thought something to be despised, not indeed to His loss, but altogether to ours, He says: I have kept silence; shall I always keep silence? (Isa. 42:14). Therefore God is good, and all that He has made is good. Where then comes evil?

46 Nothing is evil except the violation of good, when either what is not granted is supposed upon, or what is granted is done in a disorderly way; so that in one place a command is fulfilled, in another a sin is committed. As when what is permitted in marriage is done with a prostitute; or what was to be offered to God is offered to the Devil; or when someone does not take what is his own, but what is another’s; or when the transgressor, who ought to be killed, is spared and the innocent is killed. No nature, then, is proved to be evil. The will, however, is an accident of nature, arising from causes that are wrongly set in motion when it oversteps the measure, so that it performs acts that do not belong to its nature. The causes of transgression arise from the senses, when we see or hear something wrongly. This fault occurs because man is not God, who alone cannot err. Human nature, therefore, has been released and left to its own judgment, so that it can do what it wills: so that, if by the exercise of good it improves its nature, it may be more honorable; but if it weakens its strength, it may be reckoned worthy of such a criticism. For it does what is against itself. It is no small thing that has been granted to man: that, when he follows what right, he rejoices in himself through that by which he sees himself made better by his own work;

47 or else rightly blames himself, who, though he could, did not take pains to better himself by good things. But if man were not master of his own power, he would be subject to necessity, so that he would have neither the glory of good works nor the punishment of evil, but would be one of the beasts. Since, then, we have been made capable of both, so that by negligence we fall into sin, if what we ought to hear and see well we hear badly and outside the rule and reason; while by watchfulness we preserve the good of our nature: and since we cannot always be cautious, because, as I said, we have been made capable of both; if we sin, we are not at once condemned, unless we sin again, now as if traitors. For whoever has sinned once must restore himself so as not to sin again, lest he be equal to him who had overcome him; so that, if he does not sin again, he is now accounted superior. For he who was once cast down will triumph twice. This is righteousness: that since life in this world is a struggle, whoever is more inclined to sin is crowned for not sinning. Nothing, therefore, in God’s work is evil. But if certain things are called evils by some, such as poison or darkness, because our bodies cannot bear the force of poison; they also call fire or water evil; and iron or lead, because they are very far from gold, are called evil.

48 By comparison with light they condemn darkness, though they know it to be necessary in its own place, like lead or clay. For of course they give rest after labor. Therefore everyone who struggles in the world must exert himself in such a way that he does not leave conquered in some harsh affair and become guilty, scarcely or slowly restoring himself, and perhaps death comes between these things, and he departs from here with his sin. He who resists with all his strength, if he is perhaps struck down, falls as a man; and no one is angry with him, but by a kind of encouragement restores his spirit. For he sees that he had the purpose of conquering and hopes that such a one can advance to victory, whom his enemy has not thrown down without effort. For he who is easily overcome has no spirit of resistance; nor is he truly overcome, but he consents. Such a man sins more bitterly. A person of this sort should scarcely be admitted to pardon, who has a deliberate desire to sin. For he who plans how not to sin, even if he should sin, does not sin harshly. For more diligent people, lesser sins sometimes creep in. But the smaller they are, the subtler they are; and while they are despised, they are not avoided. Greater sins are plainly visible from afar. And so, when someone commits greater sins, the fault lies in his will.

49 Now, since we previously said that sins arise from the senses when we look at or listen to something against the command of the law or reason, that is, if when we see the sun we think it should be adored because of its beauty, then we see wrongly: for it is an insult to our common Creator when what is owed to Him alone is attributed to a creature, especially since this has been forbidden by the law. Or when we look at well-formed and handsome bodies, or at something belonging to our neighbor, if we desire it and look at these things in a way other than the law commands: then we commit the sin that is called “evil. But perhaps someone will say, “Then nothing beautiful should have been made, so that we would not sin, and our protection would depend on the ugliness of others. If that were true, there should be no iron, lest murders be committed with it; nor should there be lamps in use, lest thieves employ their light to break in, so that what is greatly useful to all would be lacking because of the vanity of a few. Yet it is clear that we are always looking at everything, and yet we do not always desire everything; for it is not their fault, but ours, when we are careless: which is evident from the fact that we are created in time, because we are not what God is.

50 In the same way we hear wrongly, if, when we hear that idols are gods, we consent to it; or if we lend our ear to those who sing shameful songs. But we hear well when, hearing that God is one, we take delight in it. And if anyone, hearing something against the law, gives agreement, he sins: and this will be “hearing wrongly.” 51 1ST CATEGORY OT 52 QUESTION 4. WHY DID NOT GOD GIVE THE LAW FROM THE BEGINNING? — First, the Law ought not to have been given in written letters at the beginning, because it was, in a certain way, implanted in nature itself, and the knowledge of the Creator, handed down, was not hidden. For who does not know what belongs to a good life, or is ignorant that what he does not want done to himself he ought by no means to do to another? But when the natural law vanished, overwhelmed by the habit of sinning, then it was necessary for the Law to be revealed, so that in the Jews all men might hear it. Not that it had been completely erased, but because they lacked its greatest authority, there was zeal for idolatry. The fear of God was not on earth. Fornication was at work. There was greedy desire for the property of one’s neighbor. Therefore the Law had to be given, so that what was already known might have authority, and what had begun to lie hidden might be brought to light. For we find that before Moses sins were not only not hidden, but even punished. And so many are found to have been righteous, who, knowing God as avenger, were afraid to sin. But when this began to be neglected, the natural law had to be revealed, so that all might know with plain reasoning that God would demand an account of human actions.

53 Although it is read that punishment was exacted through the flood, and in Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 7, 19), yet the forgetfulness of ancient times had covered these things. Therefore, through Moses, they were recalled for the sake of instilling fear, to correct discipline and restore faith in God. Therefore the Apostle also says: For the righteous, the Law is not laid down, but for the unrighteous, idol‑worshipers, fornicators (1 Tim. 1:9), and such as these. Now let us see whether this suits those who, hearing of God’s judgment, laugh at the idea that it will come; whether it will benefit or harm; whether it is fortified by truth or lacks reason. The Law indeed has been given to the world, but we see it cease to operate in regard to many people. It therefore does not seem just that those who sin here by means of power should be safe. Some mock the laws, the poor are oppressed, accusations are fabricated against the righteous, those who act well are held up to criticism, the devout are in need, the wicked flourish, the unrighteous and the corrupters are in honor, the greedy and plunderers enrich themselves, the judge is for sale. Does it not seem unjust if the Maker of all things does not require an account of these matters: so that those who have been unjustly oppressed here might be relieved; and those who were in want because they lived well might be rewarded; and those who were in reproach because of righteousness might be honored;

54 but those who, through their power, despised the laws or mocked them by dodging, following injustice, and so glorious in these things that they seem to insult justice itself, might be humbled and confused, subjected to torments in the sight of those in whose misfortunes and humiliation they rejoiced; so that these in turn, glad at their punishment, might give thanks to God, with whom alone there is no respect of persons (Rom. 2:11)? 55 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 48. GOD IS CERTAINLY PERFECTION AND IN NEED OF NOTHING; WHAT NEED THEN HAD CHRIST THE SAVIOR TO BE BORN OF GOD, AND FOR GOD TO HAVE A SON THROUGH WHOM HE MIGHT MAKE ALL THINGS? — When God willed that things which had not existed should come into being, and understood that this work was in no way worthy of His majesty, He first generated from Himself, since He is by nature simple and incorporeal, the Son, who in no way differed from Him, so that an effect might correspond fittingly to His greatness. For what more could He do than to generate from Himself another who is perfect? This therefore is the perfect work, beyond which nothing else can appear more excellent. [For all other things are lesser: for the more Christ excels all these, the more the creation of those things is inferior to His generation. And there is another point:] For God, from whom are all things, wishing to create the creature, first generated the Word which He held with Himself in mystery, that is, He caused it to exist. This Word He therefore called Son, so as to show that He came forth from Himself and is consubstantial with Him: in order that the law by which sons are from their parents might make this credible, through which He would reveal to the creature the mystery that lay hidden in Him from eternity.

56 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY NT 57 QUESTION 83. IF SALVATION AND TRUE AND PERFECT KNOWLEDGE ARE THROUGH CHRIST, WHY DID HE NOT COME EARLIER, SO THAT OUR PREDECESSORS WHO WERE IN IGNORANCE MIGHT LEARN THE TRUTH? INDEED, AFTER THE COMING OF CHRIST MANY HAVE BEEN SAVED, MORE THAN BEFORE. WHENCE, IF HE HAD COME EARLIER, MANY MORE WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. IF THIS IS SO, IT SEEMS BLAMEWORTHY. — Yet no one who shows mercy ought to be slandered. For it is in the power of the giver when and how much he wishes to have mercy. Such a one must be encouraged and moved by prayers, not drawn back from a good work by disagreement. Perhaps there would be no objection if some return were made to Him in exchange for this mercy. Will anyone accuse a physician who bestows his remedies and his service freely? Or will his slowness be blamed by those who did not ask for him? We have said this according to reason, but the kindness of the Savior does not regard such calculations because of human weakness: He follows His own nature in showing mercy. Therefore He came when He ought to have come, following the counsel of His own will, not our merits. For if you weigh our merits, He ought not to have come. He came, then, when He knew both that help was needed, and that the benefit would be welcomed. If someone in danger is helped beforehand, the benefit will indeed be welcome;

58 yet he will not be able to recognize very clearly what has been granted to him. But if you bring help to one when he is in the very midst of necessity, he will know what kind of benefit he has obtained. Being delivered from tribulation, he will give greater thanks, just as if you offer bread to a hungry man; if you offer it when he is not hungry, it will certainly not be as welcome. Therefore it was rightly done that the Lord did not come earlier. First He allowed the human race to use its own will, yet not without testimony of Himself; for from the very structure of the world, through the yearly gifts which He decreed should be supplied to human use by the ministry of the elements, He wished His divinity to be understood and feared. Indeed, from the stock of the first man, and then in Enoch and Noah, His knowledge was on earth. But when, through a kind of sickness of the human race, the knowledge of God among men began to fade, and morals were being changed, He agreed to choose Abraham, in whom there might be a pattern of renewed knowledge of God and of conduct. And when reverence was still sluggish, afterward through Moses He gave the Law in writing, which neither could fade away and which inspired greater fear. For fear is greater where authority is revealed.

59 And because the nations rejected the Law they had received, not subjecting themselves to it, and even those who received it did not keep it, the Lord, moved by mercy, sent His Son, who, offering Himself for them, destroying death, and granting remission of sins to all, might present them justified to God the Father. For He could not descend to the lower regions except through death. Neither order nor reason demanded that one who had not died should enter the gates of Tartarus. If someone wishes to deceive barbarians in his own land, does he not change his appearance to match theirs, so that he may be thought one of them, and therefore find out how to overthrow them? So it was with the Devil: because he had overthrown man by evil cunning, so that man would not remain in death, a remedy was found by which he might lose those whom he held unjustly, and be taken unawares; and the one whom he thought he had killed as a mere man, he found to be God in the lower regions. When this happened, found guilty, he lost all those whom he held, and thereafter the way to heaven was opened. See how greatly the coming of the Savior has profited, so that men, knowing from what peril they have been freed, might unceasingly give Him thanks. But perhaps it may be said on the contrary:

60 If many before the Law and after the Law, pressed down by sins, gave themselves entirely to the flesh and were worthy to remain in Tartarus, surely there were also those who, by devotion and reverence for the Creator, restrained their lives by the law of nature: were not these too, stripped of this life, detained in the lower regions? If He had come earlier, after the death of Adam, having freed Adam who first sinned, would He not have opened the way to heaven for the others, so that those who had lived well, having known the Creator, might be received into heaven after their death? Is it then a loss because Christ did not come earlier? It is clearly a loss; but ask whether it is just or unjust. For losses are often just, and about these one may not complain. Has a thief caught in the act and condemned fourfold according to the law ever dared to complain? Therefore the loss which the human race has suffered was justly done, and therefore was allowed. For this reason too the Savior ought not to have come at the very beginning. For when the Devil was exalting himself, man made by God was set as his enemy, that, strengthened by the help of God, for he was not his equal, he might resist him after receiving a command. But the Devil, with his usual subtlety, pretended not to know what had been commanded by God, and he found Eve unstable;

61 then, promising her that if they touched what was forbidden it would confer divinity on them, he deceived them. Then the Devil, having overcome man, triumphed; the conquered man subjected his race to sin. Therefore it would have been unjust to take the spoils from the victor by force, since whatever God does He does justly. Moreover, since man grievously sinned by consenting to him, against the command of the Creator, to make himself God, he committed idolatry, by which he sinned against God; therefore help ought not to have been granted him at once; for neither would he have repented, nor would mercy have been welcome to him, if he had not known what he deserved. Although God can do all things, He does what is in harmony with reason, so that He may remain beyond blame. 62 QUESTION 58. IF SALVATION AND TRUE AND PERFECT KNOWLEDGE ARE THROUGH CHRIST, WHY DID HE NOT COME EARLIER, SO THAT OUR PREDECESSORS WHO WERE IN IGNORANCE MIGHT LEARN THE TRUTH? INDEED, AFTER THE COMING OF CHRIST MANY HAVE BEEN SAVED MORE THAN BEFORE; WHERE, IF HE HAD COME EARLIER, FAR MORE WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. IF THIS IS SO, IT APPEARS OPEN TO CRITICISM. — If help is given beforehand to someone upon whom necessity is about to press, he will indeed be grateful, yet he will not be very able to recognize what has been done for him. But if you bring help to someone placed in the very midst of necessity, he will know what kind of benefit he has obtained. For one who is delivered from tribulation gives greater thanks; just as when you offer bread to one who is hungry: but if you offer it to one who is not hungry, what thanks will there be? Therefore it was rightly arranged that the Lord did not come earlier. First, he allowed the human race to use its own free will, yet not without a witness of himself: for from the very structure of the world, through the yearly gifts which he decreed should be supplied for human use by the ministry of the elements, he willed that his divinity be known and feared.

63 Later, however, when the knowledge of God on earth grew dim and morals were changed, he consented to visit the human race, so that by giving the Law, or rather renewing it (for it existed in nature, but had begun to be neglected), he might restore both the knowledge of himself and the authority of the Law; so that, having recognized God and recalled the Law, they might begin to fear: being certain that the one who gave the Law would be the judge of human deeds. And because, after receiving the Law, they were unable to restrain themselves from sins, although they could have done so, and after being long admonished even through the Prophets, God, moved by mercy, sent his Son, who, offering himself for them and destroying death, granted them the remission of sins, that he might present them, justified, to God the Father; so that, knowing from what danger they have been rescued, they may give thanks to God without ceasing; so that even if necessity should require that they pour out their blood for him, they may still profess that they do not thereby repay him in kind. How pleasing and precious, then, do they deem that benefit which they do not think can be repaid even by death? But perhaps it will be argued on the other side: If many before the Law, and after the Law, weighed down by sins, gave themselves wholly over to the flesh, there were without doubt some who, devoted to God the Creator, restrained themselves from vices.

64 Come, did these, once removed from life, not descend into hell? But if Christ had come immediately after the death of Adam, and, having freed Adam, who was held by his own sin, from death, had made a way to heaven for the rest who believed, so that, because they had lived well here, they might be received after death into heaven by their gracious Creator and Restorer. Therefore, is it a loss because Christ did not come earlier? It is clearly a loss. But ask whether it is just or unjust. For losses are often just. When a thief is caught and condemned to pay fourfold according to the Law, does he not suffer loss? Yet it is just; and therefore what the human race has suffered, having come about justly, is therefore permitted. For this reason the Savior ought not to have come at the very beginning. For when the Devil grew proud, and man, made by God, was set up as his enemy, so that, strengthened by God’s help, for he was unequal in strength, he might resist him by the command that he had received, being the image of the one God on earth to remove error, by the fact that one was made by the One, from whom the others came, he might show this. But the Devil, with his usual subtlety, pretended not to know what had been commanded by God, and found Eve unpredictable; then, promising them that if they tasted what was forbidden they would become gods, he deceived them.

65 Therefore the Devil, having conquered man, triumphed; the defeated man sold his race to sin. It was therefore not just to snatch away the spoils from the victor by force at once, because whatever God does, he does justly. Moreover, since man had sinned grievously, for by consenting to become a god he committed idolatry, that is, he sinned against God, he ought not at once to have been helped, since he did not even repent. Later, however, Satan brought many evils upon the righteous: upon Job, Joseph, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah, and the other prophets and righteous ones. Therefore Christ was entrusted by God his Father to overcome him and to reveal himself, taking away his kingdom by reason, not by sheer power; although God can do all things, yet he does what is in harmony with reason, so that he may remain above blame. 66 1ST CATEGORY NT 2ND CATEGORY OT QUESTION 87. IF GOD IS ONE, WHY IS HOPE OF SALVATION IN THREE, AND NOT IN TWO OR FOUR, OR SURELY IN THE ONE HIMSELF? AND WHY WAS THE TRINITY NOT PREACHED FROM THE BEGINNING? — Almost nothing new has been brought about: for the Trinity is preached in such a way that one God is believed. Nothing, therefore, has been added, but the mystery of the one God has been revealed. Yet in the very beginnings it was not fitting that it should be revealed; because first it had to be preached, and afterwards that which was preached had to be revealed: so that you may know that the Father is the one from whom all things are; that the Son is so called, through whom all things are; and that the Holy Spirit is called the one through whom all things, which are indeed from the Father but through the Son, are reborn into faith in the one God. Therefore these three indeed exist, but there is one divinity. Reason therefore requires that they be three, neither more nor fewer. For every number reaches up to nine, because when three are mutually in each other, they make the number nine; since in the one there are three, and the three are one. For whoever sees the one, sees the three, since one does not differ from another. Therefore three are one, and three times three are one. For in the number nine this is perfection, as far as number is concerned, because from the one all things exist. And when the one is added, from which or in which the three who are counted as nine come to be, they become ten or twenty. Yet one always goes only as far as nine, and one is added, because nine are one, so that the perfection of unity may be complete.

67 QUESTION 9. IF THERE IS ONE GOD, WHY IS HOPE OF SALVATION IN THREE, AND NOT IN TWO, OR FOUR, OR CERTAINLY IN ONE? AND WHY WAS THE TRINITY NOT PREACHED EARLIER? — God is indeed one, but he is not solitary. From eternity he has, in mystery, another who is with the other. And since God the Father has in himself the other with the other, as I have said, it was fitting that the one should first be preached, without the mystery that was in him being revealed: since the head of the Son is the Father, and the head of the Holy Spirit is the Son, because he has received from him; and just as the Father sent the Son, so also the Son sent the Holy Spirit. But after God, from whom are all things, was known, then he made his Son known to those who knew him, the Son whom he had with himself from eternity. And when the Son was revealed, he showed that the Father is the one who had previously been preached as the one God. When he was known, he openly made it clear that there is also the Holy Spirit, who is third from the Father, but second from Christ according to the ordering of number; yet according to substance, the one is not, and does not differ, from the other: and that this has been from eternity in the mystery of God, who is to be adored in the Trinity.

68 For he wishes to be received with the same honor as that which is from him, in whom he is received, from whom he is. For it is fitting, because in him both all things were made through the Son, and were enlightened through the Holy Spirit, that salvation should be preached in the Trinity, with the order of persons preserved, and the undivided power of the one divinity adored. Therefore reason requires that they be three, neither more nor fewer: because every number reaches up to three. For since the three are mutually in each other, the Trinity is proclaimed on all sides, because in the one there are three, and three are one. Whoever sees the one, sees the three, since one does not differ from another. Therefore three are one, and one is three. This is the Trinity, perfect on every side. And this is the understanding of the Trinity, which is then perfect, if they are called one.

69 1ST CATEGORY NT 70 QUESTION 91. HOW TO BE SOUGHT IS HOW TO CONTRADICT THE ARGUMENTS OF PHOTINUS, WHO SAYS THAT CHRIST DID NOT EXIST BEFORE MARY. — But before we speak of John, let us first examine the Baptist, whom the Savior Himself declared to be His witness. For among other things he says of the Lord: “He who comes from above is above all; he who is from the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. But He who comes from heaven testifies to what He has seen and heard, and no one receives His testimony” (Jn. 3:31–32). See how John, in comparison with the Lord, calls all others together with himself earthly, because he bears witness that He came from heaven, while all the rest are from the earth, that is, from the lower regions. And the Lord Himself, among other similar statements, says: “For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent Me, the Father” (Jn. 6:38). And again the Lord, speaking in the same sense, says: “And I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf. For the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came from God. For I came forth from the Father and have come into this world; again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father. (Jn. 16:26-28) Then, seeing that He had spoken plainly, the disciples say to Him:

71 “Behold, now You speak openly and You are not using any figure of speech. Now we know that You know all things and have no need that anyone should question You; in this we believe that You came forth from God” (Jn. 16:29–30). These statements need no interpretation, since this is the very summit of our faith: that we believe Christ to have been with God in heaven before His incarnation, as the Son with the Father. For if, because of His righteous life and heavenly teaching, He had said that He came from heaven and from God and came into the world, then all the Prophets and Apostles ought to have said the same of themselves. And because He said, “Again I am leaving the world and going to the Father,” (Jn. 16:28) perhaps someone might say that He meant this: that the teaching which came from God, after leaving the world, returned to God? For they have nothing else to say. For if His coming from heaven, His going forth from God, and His coming into this world refer to the cause of virtue and teaching, and not to the person of the Savior, then when He says, “Again I am leaving the world and going to the Father,” He naturally returns to the place from which He came. Yet we see that after the Lord’s departure, both His power and His teaching remained in the world. You see therefore that the Lord did not speak of power and teaching, but specifically spoke of Himself.

72 But if you say that these words refer to the power which worked in Christ, that very power itself calls God its Father. You fall into the very thing you fear: for if the power of God is the Son of God, then that very power is the power of God of which the Apostle says that Christ is “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24): this power went forth from God and returned again to Him. Therefore this very Power, which is Christ, bears witness that He casts out demons by the Spirit of God (Matt. 12:28); this Spirit worked through the Apostles, so that you may know that the Holy Spirit, through whom the Lord worked, after the Lord’s departure worked here in the world through the Apostles. Therefore it is more clearly shown that the Lord spoke of His own person, for He left the world and returned to God. But if you think this power is not Christ, then there will be two powers and two sons of God; and where, then, is that which is written: “The only-begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father” (Jn. 1:18)? And again: “For God so loved this world, that He gave His only Son for it” (Jn. 3:16)? You now see that the power of God which worked visibly in the world is that same one which is called both the Power of God and the Son of God.

73 And let us see what the Apostles believed, or in whom they believed, when they heard the Lord say: “Behold, again I am leaving the world and going to the Father. For they answered: “Behold, now You speak openly and You are not using any figure of speech. Now we know that You know all things and have no need that anyone should question You; in this we believe that You came forth from God. Now let us see whether the disciples were in doubt about the powers, whether they came from God, after they had seen Lazarus, already stinking on the fourth day, raised from the dead (Jn. 11:44), the eyes of a man blind from birth restored (Jn. 9:7), a woman delivered from her issue of blood by touching the hem of His garment (Matt. 9:20–22), and the nature of water changed into wine (Jn. 2:9). But concerning the person of the Lord no one at all doubted, nor concerning the powers, since some were saying that He was Elijah, others Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets (Matt. 16:14). For when the Jews wanted to stone Him, Jesus answered them: “I have shown you many good works from My Father; for which of those works do you stone Me? The Jews answered Him: “We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, make Yourself God” (Jn. 10:31–33). If, then, the Jews did not doubt that these were works of God, did the Apostles doubt?

74 Since therefore all the doubt concerned the person of the Savior (for this was something unheard of, and beyond human understanding, which caused amazement in people when they heard Him say that He had come forth from God and that God was His own Father), the disciples, acknowledging that the Lord’s words had given them full assurance, said to Him: “Now we know that You know all things and have no need that anyone should question You; in this we believe that You came forth from God. (Jn. 16:30) For if He did not truly come forth from God, the faith of the Apostles is emptied; but this cannot be, since it was confirmed by the Savior. For He answered them, “Do you now believe? that is, seeing so many signs, you did not believe before. Therefore it was proved to the Apostles that Christ came forth from God and came, so that by this going forth it would no longer be doubtful to believe that this is the Son of God. For if “no one has seen God except Him who is from God; He has seen the Father” (Jn. 6:46), and if “no one knows the Father except the Son” (Matt. 11:27), this is truly to have been with God the Father, and to have gone forth from Him, and to have come. For no one else could go forth from God except Him who in the beginning was with God (Jn. 1:1); since no one else knew or had seen God.

75 Therefore it is not incredible for us to believe that this is truly the Son of God. As John says in his first Epistle: “And we are,” he says, “in His true Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life (1 Jn. 5:20); and the Apostle says, “He who did not spare His own Son” (Rom. 8:32); and the Evangelist, “Because He called God His own Father” (Jn. 5:18). If therefore Christ is truly the Son of God, how is He only a man? For He would not be called a true Son unless He were properly begotten of Him. Or let Photinus say why He is believed to be the true Son of God, if He is not true. Or what need was there to believe this One to be the Son of God, if He were one of the other saints who are worthy to be called sons of God? Or is there perhaps some unworthiness in this, by which He, as the Son of God, could not be believed as the others are; and therefore it is said that this One, about whom there seems to be unbelief, should be believed to be the Son of God? For if He is greater than the others, what need is there that it should be said, “Believe that Christ is the Son of God,” if He were one of the others, unless because it is commanded that we believe differently about Him than about the others?

76 So that, because many are called sons of God on account of holiness, this One alone may be believed to be the true Son of God, for which reason He is also called the Only-begotten. For which of the saints would have dared to call himself the Son of God, not to say the only-begotten, except the Savior, conscious of His birth proceeding from God? And how would He have allowed Himself to be adored, if He did not know that He is from God, when it is written, “The Lord your God you shall adore, and Him only shall you serve” (Deut. 6:13)? For when John wished to adore the angel, the angel reproved him, saying, “Do not do that, for I am your fellow servant; adore God” (Rev. 19:10; 22:9). And although Scripture testifies that God alone is to be served, yet the Apostle says, “He who serves Christ pleases God” (Rom. 14:18). Why? Because God and Christ, the Father and the Son, are one. The Apostle confesses himself to be the servant of Christ, and says to the Corinthians, “Do not become the servants of men” (1 Cor. 7:23). And to the Galatians, “Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead” (Gal. 1:1): he clearly shows that Christ is God and man, so that he might demonstrate that his apostleship is not from a man, but from Christ, inasmuch as He is God, and from God the Father.

77 Finally, in what follows he says, “For I neither received it from man nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12). What could be clearer? For he says that he attained the doctrine of God not through a man, but that he was taught by God Himself. We, indeed, receive the doctrine of God through men; but the “chosen vessel” claims that he attained nothing from the Apostles, that is, from men. For if, because it is the doctrine of God, it is therefore not learned through a man, what praise is the Apostle claiming for himself if he learned in the same way as the other Apostles? Why does he say, “For I neither received it from man nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ”? Who can doubt that in this passage Christ is signified as God? But what wonder is it, when among other things he says to the Romans, “Theirs are the fathers, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever” (Rom. 9:5)? What does “from them, according to the flesh, is the Christ” mean? He would not have said this if He were not also according to God; so that, according to the flesh, He is from the fathers, but according to His divinity Christ is from God, God over all. But perhaps it might be said that this relates to the person of the Father?

78 Yet in this passage there is no mention of the name of the Father. Therefore, if it is denied that this is said of Christ, let a person be given to whom it fittingly applies. And why should it not fit Christ, in whose name every knee bows in heaven and on earth and under the earth (Philip. 2:10)? that is, that He is God over all. For besides these there are no others. Let Photinus now say whether these bend the knee to a man; or whether God has decreed that those heavenly powers and holy angels should adore a man. Far be it, for God has decreed nothing foolish; especially since it is not permitted to adore any but God, how much less in heaven? For a king is adored on earth as the minister of God. Christ, however, after completing His mediated dispensation, is adored in heaven and on earth. We read, in fact, that “the Word was made flesh” (Jn. 1:14): that is, that this Word, which in the beginning was with God and was God, was, by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, made flesh of Mary, and that this is also called the Son of God. How then is that which was in the beginning and was God not prior to Mary? Even if, being blinded, you deny that this is God, yet you do not deny that it is the Word; nor do you ignore that this Word is called the Son of God, and that it was with God in the beginning.

79 On what grounds, then, do you say that what you read was in the beginning is after Mary? For in the Apocalypse we read of Christ, “And His name is the Word of God” (Rev. 19:13). This “Word” has many meanings. For nothing that is from God fails to be called God; but, because of the authority of the one God, He called that which is born from Him “Word,” so that, guided by this reasoning, by which we know that our words are from none other than ourselves, we might believe that Christ is from God. Nor indeed ought it to have been said otherwise, so that He might be believed to be from Him and not outside Him. In a similar way, too, He is called the Power and the Wisdom of God, so that in the same manner He may be understood to be from Him. For if He had said “God and God,” He would not have signified that the latter was from Himself, but would have made two gods, which is contrary to unity. This is the method in the divine Scriptures: that, while Christ is signified as God, He does not exceed the measure of the one God. But how foolish is that notion of yours, Photinus, by which you so punctuate the beginning of the Gospel of John that the Word may not be called God! For you read therefore: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was. The Word was in the beginning with God.

80 What is the meaning of this punctuation? What sense does it convey? What principle of virtue does it express, except sheer hostility against the Son of God? For what meaning is there in pronouncing, “And the Word was with God, and God was”? Is this then the wisdom of our Scripture, to teach that God exists? What tongue, what nation, what land, what sect denies that God exists And so, to suggest what he means, he says, “And the Word was with God. Or what does he wish this word to be understood as, unless he is showing forth His reason? For the Gospel is not written on account of God, about whom no one doubts, but on account of the Word, about whom questions arise. For it is the mystery of God, which is believed precisely because it is not revealed to all. Therefore Scripture strives to teach what the Word is, saying: “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. This agrees with reason, and the statement is complete. For it shows that this Word, which in the beginning was with God and was God, in the sacrament of the eternal mystery of God, which was unknown from ages and generations, is to be believed to have been God the Word with God the Father.

81 And because this comes into doubt for those who are carnal, who want Scripture to speak according to the capacity of their own understanding, faith has been established, so that by following the sense of Scripture it may deserve its reward. When Solomon had asked wisdom of God, the Lord answered: “Behold, I have given you,” he says, “a wise and understanding heart, such as no one has had before you, and after you no man like you shall arise” (1 Kings 3:12). What shall we say? Is what God promised true? Yes, it is true. Therefore no man will be like Solomon. And what will be thought of Christ, who among other things says, “The queen of the South came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here” (Matt. 12:42)? Now choose whom you will believe, Photinus: God or Christ, the Father or the Son? If you believe the Father, you accuse the Son; if you believe the Son, you accuse the Father. For if Christ is only a man, He has vainly set Himself above Solomon contrary to the promise of God; but if He is understood also to be God, He has rightly set Himself before Solomon, and the promise of God remains unstained, because no man like Solomon has arisen. For Christ has shown Himself superior for this reason, that He is God.

82 O madness of Photinus, who does not wish to confess that Christ existed before Mary, when he hears Him with his own ears testifying that He existed before Abraham! For when the Jews were disputing with Him about time, saying, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham? He answered them, “Amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am” (Jn. 8:57–58). He did not say, “I am better,” but answered the question by declaring that He existed before the time the Jews supposed. Photinus clearly cannot escape the curse of the Law, because he has his hope in Christ, whom he declares to be only a man, while he reads, “Cursed is the man who has his hope in man” (Jer. 17:5). But the Apostle, knowing that Christ is God, therefore says that our hope is in Him both in the present and in the future: “If in this life only,” he says, “we are hoping in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable” (1 Cor. 15:19). Therefore He is not merely a man, in whom we are taught to have hope; for hope placed in a man is vain. We have said these few things out of many; indeed it would have been enough, had he possessed a sound mind. For Photinus this last point alone which we have set forth would be sufficient.

83 1ST CATEGORY NT 84 QUESTION 101. ON THE BOASTFULNESS OF ROMAN DEACONS [LEVITARUM].1 — While we wish to obey the commands of love, we may perhaps fall into reproach, since we are writing about a matter that has never been questioned by anyone; for while we do not wish to offend friendship, we entangle the effort that ought to have served to reveal some hidden matter: yet on account of the excessive foolishness of a certain person who emphasizes what we set forth below, that aforementioned love has enjoined this on us, lest, since no one answered him on this for a long time, he grow worse, and, long exercised in vain, be unable to be corrected. For this is the task of love, which does not seek its own. A certain man therefore, who bears the name Falcidius, led by folly and by the boasting of the city of Rome, strives to equal deacons [levitas] with priests and deacons with presbyters: I will not say to favor them, because that would be even more foolish and perhaps seem unbelievable, and we might be regarded not as correctors but as slanderers. By what law then, or what custom, by what example he dares to undertake this, I think no one knows: namely, that he should make equal to those who, as God’s bishops, sit in the house of God and in the honor of Christ with dignity, those to whom no seat has been granted in the Church. What audacity is it to make ministers equal to presbyters themselves?

85 What rash presumption it is to compare with priests the bearers of the tabernacle, and the cutters of all its wood and the carriers of water? For this was the office of the deacons [levitarum]. It is as if officials were equated with captains, and slaves with masters. For this is written, with the Lord saying to Moses, Take the tribe of Levi from the midst of the children of Israel, and set them before Aaron the priest, and they shall serve him (Num. 8:13). What is clearer than this example, which is still observed in the Church? Although the deacons of the Roman Church may appear a little more shameless, yet they do not presume the dignity of sitting in the Church. And if they do not perform all the ministries of service in order, that is due to the multitude of clerics. For otherwise they would also carry the altar and its vessels, and pour water on the hands of the priest, as we see in all the Churches, and as it was appointed by the Lord through Moses. Or are they better than Elisha, who poured water on the hands of Elijah (2 Kings 3:11)? Yet he defends the deacons against the presbyters, as though deacons were ordained from presbyters, and not presbyters from deacons. But because they are ministers of the Roman Church, they are therefore thought more honorable than in the other Churches, on account of the magnificence of the city of Rome, which appears to be the head of all cities.

86 If this is so, then they ought to claim this also for their priests: for if those who are lower are exalted because of the magnificence of the city, how much more should those who are higher be raised up? For whatever is granted to the officials becomes an increase of the power: just as the honor of the servant contributes to the praise of the master. Yet before the just Judge, God, the honor remains for each here which has been assigned to the several offices of the Churches, so that whoever is a deacon has the honor of a deacon in all the Churches. For it is no slight honor to serve in the Church as minister to a bishop of God; only the priest is worthy of the whole honor of the ecclesiastical order. For the higher order has within itself and by itself the lower as well: for the presbyter performs the office of deacon and of exorcist and of reader. That “presbyter” is to be understood as “bishop,” the Apostle Paul proves, when he instructs Timothy, whom he ordained presbyter, as to what sort of man he ought to ordain as bishop (1 Tim. 3:1–7). For what is a bishop, if not the first presbyter, that is, the chief priest? Accordingly he here calls them his fellow-presbyters and his fellow-priests. Does the bishop also call the ministers his fellow-deacons? Certainly not, because they are much lower. And it is shameful for a judge to be called the head of the office staff.

87 For in Alexandria and throughout all Egypt, if the bishop is lacking, the presbyter consecrates. How great the dignity of the priestly order is, the case of Caiaphas shows, who, although he was a very wicked man, prophesied. Why? Because, he says, he was the high priest (Jn. 11:49). And again, that there is a great difference between a deacon and a priest, the book we call the Acts of the Apostles proves. For when in Samaria they had believed Philip as he preached, Philip, a deacon ordained by the Apostles, they sent, it says, to Peter and John that they might come and give the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands to those who believed (Acts 8:14–15). But they, I think, defend these things either ignorant of the Scriptures or forgetful of the Law. He, therefore, who thinks these things ought to be asserted must recall what happened to the deacons [levitis] when they thought in this way. For when they presumed that there was no difference between priests and deacons [levitas], Korah and those who agreed with him were swallowed up by the gaping earth, by the judgment of God, and a rush of fire consumed the two hundred and fifty men together (Num. 16:31–35): and King Uzziah, when he presumed to perform the priestly work, was covered with leprosy (2 Chron. 26:19–21): so that by this example, at least, others, struck with fear, might not dare to suppose what has not been granted to them.

88 For now we see deacons rashly doing at banquets and in prayer what belongs to priests, wanting it to be the case that people answer them, whereas this is permitted only to priests. For it is the role of the deacon to receive from the priest and so to give to the people. You see what empty presumption produces? Forgetful, in the pride of their minds, that they are ministers of the Roman Church, they do not consider what has been ordained for them by God and what they ought to observe: rather, they remove from memory these things, the constant attendance to household duties and official service, which now has great power through good or bad suggestions. For either it is feared lest they give bad advice, or they are bought so that they may grant favors. These are the people who cause them not to consider the rule of their own order. For while they unlawfully humor them with flattery, they drive them headlong, so that they think more is permitted them: since they see that priests are not so courted; and by this they suppose themselves to be preferred He says that by testimony the deacon becomes a presbyter, as though this belonged to the privilege of greatness. For we read that Peter the Apostle said to the people: “Choose from among you those whom we may appoint to serve the mysteries of the Church” (Acts 6:3). I do not wish to say, the tables. Behold, by the testimony of laypeople deacons were created.

89 And the Apostle wants the one who is to be ordained bishop to have testimony even from the Gentiles; for he says, “For he must also have a good testimony from those who are outside” (1 Tim. 3:7). Therefore it belongs to all to give testimony, and yet not all are worthy of this honor. For all can judge, and yet not all can be what they judge. A painter can be judged good and preferred to another by someone who does not know how to paint; and a flute-player may be approved as better than another flute-player by one who practices a different art. So too a witness for the creation of a presbyter can be someone who is lower in rank. And again, they are puffed up by this and think much is owed to them: “For it is by us,” they say, “that those who are to be ordained are brought forward,” so that, since they stand at their side, they may appear worthy of honor. Suppose this is true. For he is sent by the bishop as an attendant, to render service to the one being ordained. For even the emperor, that he may appear as emperor, is established with the service of the army; yet the army is neither better than nor equal to the emperor. For Haman too, though he was illustrious in military rank, was sent by the king to go in attendance to Mordecai (Esther 6:10), so that by such acts of service it might be known how worthy Mordecai was.

90 So also deacons are sent in attendance for the creation of presbyters, so that all may understand that they become worthy to be priests. For except for the priests, to whom they owe service, deacons are placed before all. 91 (1) I am not sure whether the common preference of 'levita' over 'diaconus' might not be adduced as an instance: but my immediate purpose is to call attention to the joint occurrence in both (Ambroisaster and Damascus) of a word that never became as popular in Christian usage as 'levita’ but seems to have been fashionable in Roman church circles of that particular generation. (Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 7; CH Turner; Clarendon Press, 1906; p. 182) (2) Question 101 contains the name of a Roman deacon, veiled by the phrase quidam igitur qui nomen habet falsi dei. In all the editions the sentence reads quidam igitur qui nomen habet Falcidii. It is strange how such a sentence could have passed muster for over four centuries. In the eyes of some people anything is good enough to be Christian Latin. Yet the writer shows clearly by the use of the word quidam that he could give the name of the Roman deacon if he chose, and from friendship does not so choose. For the correct reading, now recovered from the manuscripts, is falsi dei, and Falcidius must disappear from the biographical dictionaries. Who is then to take his place? I think it probable that the deacon meant is Concordius, who is known to have lived at that time; then the divinity alluded to will be Concordia. This Concordius, according to the Liber Pontificalis, was a deacon of Rome and one of the prosecutors of Damasus on a capital charge. He was expelled from the Church by a synod of bishops about the end of 378, or the beginning of 379. (Alexander Souter; A Study of Ambrosiaster; The University Press, 1905; p. 181)

92 1ST CATEGORY NT 93 QUESTION 113. WHY WAS THE SON OF GOD SENT, AND NOT ANOTHER? — Although everything that God does must be believed to be done reasonably and providentially, I nevertheless think it better if, after faith, the cause of what is done can also be noticed, so that what is believed is not unknown. Therefore the Lord says: “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (Jn. 17:3). For first what is said by the Prophet must be believed, and then what is believed must be known; because the Holy Spirit helps the faithful and diligent person in this matter, so that by coming to know he may understand the rationale of faith. Then he enjoys the full joy of his believing, if he understands what he believes. For this is the strength of faith, this the immovable foundation of belief: to learn the mystery. For where there is only faith, devotion is not so pure, and deception can gain entrance. Therefore the chosen vessel labors so that believers may learn the rationale of their faith. For when they have come to know how great he is in whom they have trusted, and what his power is, they will by no means and in no way allow themselves to be turned away from hope in him. Therefore we read the saying:

94 “Taste and see that the Lord is sweet” (Ps. 34:9), so that by deliberate effort they may know the flavor of his divinity, understanding that nothing is wiser than to believe in Christ. For this reason the Teacher of the Gentiles says among other things: “In whom are hidden all the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge of God” (Col. 2:3); and again, “I know,” he says, “whom I have believed, and that he is able to guard my deposit” (2 Tim. 1:12). Therefore this man knows the rationale of his faith and does not doubt the power of him who understands that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in the mystery of the birth, passion, and resurrection of Christ. So, with faith remaining, I long conferred with myself to know why our Lord came incarnate from holy and heavenly seats down to earth, and not another from among those whom the Lord himself calls holy angels. For it seems unfitting to his person that he should have undertaken this work, unless the cause of the deed is known. Indeed this is what troubles many. For the providence of God the Father could have carried out this business through another person, in order both to show the truth to men who were in error, and to restrain the arrogant and envious Devil, who begrudges salvation, together with his satellites, and to despoil him once defeated.

95 For the stubbornness and irreverence of most wicked servants ought to have been curbed by subordinate ministers, so that the Lord of all should not experience something unworthy of himself. For Satan does not have such great force and power that he could in no way be overcome by another power of the same order, since it is clear that by God’s help he is even conquered by men. For although the comparison is unequal if we take examples from earthly affairs, still it suits reason in some respect. For against the servant who rebelled against King David, Joab, his fellow-servant, was sent to pursue and kill him; and against Absalom, wicked toward his father, this task was laid upon the servants (2 Kings 20:6 and 15:14): how much more would the worth of one among many have suited to conquer the tyranny of the Devil; since we read that, challenging against Michael the archangel, he could not hold out, but was cast down to the earth (Rev. 12:7–9)? Often reflecting on this, I knew only this: that he himself was sent by the Father lest it should touch the Father as an injury if a work done by him were corrected by another; but to know this was little. For it did not avail for so great and wondrous a cause, unless something else were also grasped that would help toward the secret understanding. Therefore it came about that I noticed that the cause itself demanded that the one who came should come in just this way.

96 Reason itself required that he should come to subdue the one who had seized his dignity and merit. For after God the Father the Devil wanted to be called god, which he even now still strives for, though the matter did not belong to him, but to the Son of God, who after the Father is second as God, not by nature but by order. Therefore for dealing with this cause no one ought to have come but Christ our Lord: who came not only to subdue the Devil, but also to reveal himself to every creature; so that, with the Devil’s person rejected, they might recognize him whose rule and majesty Satan had presumed upon; and thereafter, once the truth was known, they might abandon error, being certain that Christ is the Son of God, who alone is God from God, and the head or ruler of all things, whether those in heaven or those on earth. For by the strength and power with which he overcame the tyrant Satan, he is shown to be the very one whose dominion the wicked Devil, who is Satan, had presumed upon. For when he unjustly wished to be called god so that he might rule spiritual powers (for which he is rebuked by the prophet saying, “For you have said in your heart: I will set my throne in the clouds, and I will be like the Most High” (Isa. 14:13–14), he deceived many, by whose conspiracy he became the prince of error.

97 These are admonished in the Psalm to reject falsehood and receive truth. For it is said to them: “Lift up your gates, you princes; and be lifted up, you eternal gates; and the King of glory shall enter in. (Ps. 24:7-10) For unless error is removed from the minds of unbelievers, they could not receive faith in the one God in Christ. For this they are taught: that, once the gates by which one goes to death, according to the unbelief established by the Devil, are taken away, they may receive the mysteries of faith by which one goes to life. These are what he signifies by the eternal gates; because the truth of faith is eternal, but unbelief is temporal, because falsehood is the invention of the Devil. For the Devil sowed on earth the transgression he had begun in heaven, urging the worship of many gods, among whom he might hold first place. For he wished to be the head and ruler of the others, which was not owed to him, but to the Savior. Therefore the Savior pursues him even to the earth, so that by subduing him he may show the transgression of his error, with the truth revealed in himself. Where it is said: “Truth is sprung out of the earth” (Ps. 84:12). For, cast down from heaven, he took refuge on earth, so that the divinity he had contemplated in the heights he might enact in the lower regions. Therefore the Apostle says:

98 “So that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as though he were God” (2 Thess. 2:4). For in whatever way he wishes to fulfill his desire, even if it means being damned: filled with madness he considers it less grievous to be damned than not to satisfy the greed of his error. 99 1ST CATEGORY NT 100 QUESTION 115. CONCERNING FATE. — Nothing is so contrary to a Christian as paying attention to the art of astrology. For this is recognized as hostile to the law of God. For if some are born who are evil, and conversely others who are good, then the giving of the Law is said to be in vain; and not only this, but the Lawgiver will also be considered unjust. For if, having given the Law, he compels men to act against what they were born to be, knowing that their nature cannot be changed, he seems to have given the Law for this purpose, that he might have an occasion to satisfy his cruelty with the destruction of man. For why does he forbid what he knows cannot be turned aside? Or how does he condemn a man who has not done what he was unable to do? If, however, this seems unjust, as indeed it is, because it is wicked to think this of God, then he gave the Law rightly and for salvation, knowing that man is able to restrain himself from that which the Law forbids. Therefore, since he justly gave the Law, he is certainly not unjust when he enforces it. And so, if faith is to be given to God’s Law, because it is proven to have been given justly, the art of astrology must be shunned and fled from. For the cunning and subtlety of the Devil discovered it.

101 Because he does not dare to openly oppose the Author, he works by elusion, so that he may both do injury to God and, by making man an enemy of the Law, punish him with the second death. Whoever yields to the authority of God, and judges it wicked to call his work into question, obeys the Law given by him, applying himself to its study day and night, and does not look toward anything opposite, not doubting that man is able to keep his commandments. For those who desire to sin seek a grounds by which they can make their sins seem not to be their own; so that, while sins are said to be, as it were, attributable to nature, the sinner appears to be free from punishment. This is the plan of those who, in despair of the promised future life, desire to enjoy present pleasure. But those who, relying on the confidence of faith, await the hope of future things, strive to fulfill what they promised at the very beginning of their rebirth: that they would renounce the pomps and pleasures of Satan. With what great subtlety, then, has Satan acted, so that he might make man more eager to sin, by that through which he could satiate the wickedness of his envy? For when a man hears that he was born in such a way that he must sin, and knows that God is most just, he believes he sins with freedom;

102 because a judge who is just does not condemn one who sinned under the obligation of nature. Nor indeed should it be called his sin, that another committed through him. Therefore man has been deceived: weighed down by sins, he has become subject to death. Therefore, whoever takes away all evil from man, also takes away all good. For if the sinner has no punishment, neither has the righteous a crown. Why are the good praised and the wicked blamed? For if it belongs to this nature that he cannot sin, why do you praise in him what does not belong to him? And why do you condemn the sinner for his offense, when you know that what he does in sin is not his own? What else will he be but unjust, who praises the good and accuses the evil? But perhaps it might be said in reply: I praise good nature in man, and condemn evil nature; for good wine is praised, since by nature it is good, and bad wine is rejected, though by nature it equally produces this quality. If it were so, there would be no cause for blame, so that the righteous would be praised in such a way that he would not be judged worthy of a crown; nor would the unrighteous be accused in such a way that he would be declared worthy of punishment. Yet we both know and read that in the present and in the future the righteous are rewarded, and the unrighteous are burned, subjected to punishments;

103 which would surely seem unjust, if one who acted according to his nature were to suffer penalties from avenging fire, or another, who likewise carried out the work of his nature, were to be honored with rewards. If, however, the good man is to be praised because he did what belonged to his nature, the wicked man should also be praised, because he likewise did what belonged to his nature, so that each, remaining in what he was made, should be praised. For if one who remains in what he was made is considered blameworthy, the blame touches the Author, who caused such a one to be born as would be displeasing. But if the righteous man is rightly to be rewarded, and the wicked rightly condemned, then the response is no longer to nature but to the will; because nature is free, but the will is the cause, which undergoes approaches and withdrawals by the senses; so that the unrighteous man, seeing the righteous crowned, and himself condemned, credits it to himself, who, trusting his senses against the Law, did evil when he could have done good. Can the sun be accused because it burns, or water because it cools? Or is water to be rewarded because it refreshes men who suffer thirst, or will the sun be granted rewards because it restores men with its warmth after cold? For they do what belongs to their nature; therefore they are neither condemned nor praised, since they do not know how to do anything else.

104 But since things are not as the star-gazers suppose, the logic of actions proves it. For no one can be found who always does good, or always does evil. For he would then appear to have been born so as to act well, if he remained perfect; and he would rightly be judged to be evil, if he continued always to act wickedly. But since you see that the one whom you think to have been born good sometimes acts badly, and that the one whom you say was born evil sometimes is seen to do good, how do you prove this to be true, that the evil man is evil and the good man good, except that this is more certain: that in whatever direction a person has set his mind, in that he advances? For there are also causes that generate sins, so that a man may quarrel through jealousy, or become an enemy. Those things, however, which are forbidden by the Law are not committed openly and obviously, but secretly. Why, unless because they fear the Law? But if, as they claim, they had been born for this purpose, to do evil, they would not seek hiding places, nor show any reverence for the Law; rather, they would do everywhere those things which nature compels.

105 But when you see that sins are arranged and that ways are devised so they may be secretly committed, for they choose places, persons, and times in order to carry out the will of their evil intention, so too, in a similar way, the good also distinguish their good works by a certain judgment, so that, according to the time and for the sake of some particular cause, they may distribute their good. This, of course, is no longer to be attributed to nature, but to the will that exists within nature. For if it were natural, judgment would cease. For if we examine the matter more fully, we shall show that those who are now righteous were previously unrighteous, but, having applied themselves, they were changed. For Abraham himself is read to have been justified by faith (James 2:23 and Rom. 4:3). Therefore, before this he was not righteous, since he is understood to have worshipped idols under the guidance of his father. And Zacchaeus too, to whom after a common sort of life the Lord bears witness (Luke 19:9). And the vessel of election, who also admits this, saying, “We too were by nature children of wrath, like the rest” (Eph. 2:3); because the will yields superiority over nature. For one is judged by the will, not by nature. Without doubt all the martyrs and the righteous became good; for they were not born faithful, but reborn.

106 And how many do we know to have lived a shameful life, extravagant devotees of luxury, who are now self-controlled and holy? For when the fear of God draws near, the vices that once ruled are overcome. Let us consider from this how powerful the fear of the law can be. Before Julian’s edict, women were unable to dismiss their husbands. But once the power was granted, they began to do what previously they could not do; they began to dismiss their husbands freely every day. Where had fate hidden itself for so many ages? I suppose it was concealed by fear of the law. And how did that come to be which Moses handed down? I suppose fate was asleep. For so many and such great things were entrusted to them to observe, such as no other nation possesses as precepts. And lest anyone think this should be attributed to the influence of the heavens, scattered over almost the whole world they keep the commands of their law. These precepts stand against fate. For they surely did not exist for three thousand years and more from the founding of the world; but once given, they remain until the end. How then did that which did not exist for so many thousands of years begin? For the course of the stars has been in place from the foundation of the world. And what of this:

107 since there is such a multitude of Jews throughout the whole world, no one among them is changed so as to become a Gentile, whereas we see that from among pagans, though rarely, some become Jews? Behold, as far as the Jewish rite is concerned, fate is excluded; for they both began to exist outside fate and remain within it. What shall we say of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose end, such as it was, lies before our eyes as an act of vengeance (Gen. 19:24)? It came to pass that all, stained with the disgrace of every kind of filth, were consumed by divine fire. In the Flood all were under one fate, so that all perished with one death and at the same time, except the household of Noah (Gen. 7). And the whole army of Pharaoh would have to be said to have been born under a single decree, so that the foolish error of astrology might be punished, since they were drowned in the Red Sea with their king (Exod. 14:24). And how many other great examples there are which we pass over, because two examples are enough for our purpose; how much more, then, with so many mysteries? For all nations have different customs: what is allowed in one place is not allowed here; and again, what is allowed here is not allowed elsewhere.

108 For here in the city of Rome and its territories, which is called most holy, it is permitted for women to dismiss their husbands, although in the divine law it is ordained that not even men should make use of this power, except in the case of fornication (Matt. 5:32). See, in this matter the barbarians are better. And it is not impossible that this could also be observed here, because it is shown to have been observed before. Therefore fate has been changed, because what was previously forbidden has begun to be permitted. And it is not permitted to make eunuchs in the Roman realm, whereas among others it is permitted: yet that they could be made here also is in itself clear; for the fact, though done secretly, is proven; and if fear ceased, it would be done openly. Fear therefore restrains fate; for it is overcome, if a person does not do what he wishes to do. And the Persians wear earrings in the manner of women, which here is dishonorable and unlawful: that it could also be done here is attested by the priests of the Mother (goddess) who is called the Great; and indeed she was great, but a harlot: yet in this they differ, because these are womanish men, those were men. And what shall we say? Are these the only people in the whole world who are born by this fate, to be mutilated and transformed into women, so that in the whole world these few are found;

109 whom it is well known are ensnared by threats and compelled by promised rewards to this pain and disgrace? If they were born for this, they would not need to be forced. The Persians are allowed to have intercourse with their own daughters, which is shown to be possible here as well, by the fact that it is proved to have been done by some. But because punishment intervened, they were corrected by fear, so that they do not do what can be done, but is not lawful. For everything that is forbidden is forbidden for this reason: that, since it can be done, it may not be done. If, however, it were of fate, it could not be done, nor would it be forbidden. For if it were not of fate and yet were forbidden, it would be indicated that something can be done which is not of fate. And what wisdom is there in forbidding what cannot be done, as if someone forbade anyone to fly from the city of Rome to Spain, or to carry a mountain on his shoulders? Rather, those things which can be done, though they ought not to be, are forbidden. It is the custom of the Moors that women also wear earrings in their noses; is this of fate? If it were of fate, those who came here would remain so; for if something is fated, each person carries his fate with him.

110 But because it is not of fate, all who come from there are changed here, when they see that what is considered seemly there is regarded as shameful here. Certainly, among all nations number is number; earth is earth; and water is water; and air is air; and fire is fire. Can there anywhere be found earth that is not dry, or air that is tangible, or water that is not flowing and cold, or fire that is cold? So everywhere Jupiter is Jupiter; and Saturn is Saturn; and Venus is Venus. Likewise with the other signs. For this art is treated everywhere according to one and the same method: but because the customs remain different among all nations, this is not due to the ordering of fates, which are the same everywhere, as they (the astrologers) maintain, but to human invention. For whatever someone, who was thought to be the first among his people, decided to be reasonable and fitting for modesty, he established for those over whom he presided. From this, each region or nation has its own rules which it observes. Therefore Solon and Lycurgus established many ordinances to be kept by the Greeks with the force of law, which, as their kingdoms gradually declined, were forgotten. For the kings of the Jews preferred mules for riding; the Romans, however, not mules but horses; the Garamantes, who are above Tripoli in Africa, preferred bulls for their kings to ride: but the kings of the Persians are carried in chariots;

111 for the ancient kings of the Persians were not even seen by the people: and the kings of Midian take delight in camels for riding, so that they even adorn their necks with golden collars: and throughout Africa they prefer to sit on donkeys rather than on horses. Although all things exist everywhere, not all are pleasing to everyone; for each person chooses what is more pleasing to him. For even among ourselves there is a different will, in clothes, and in food, and in other usages, and in our opinions themselves. This fact shows that those who claim that many people have different fates cannot ascribe this to fate, because our will often changes. For what we have long loved later displeases us; and we begin to love what we previously did not gladly possess, and once a habit is formed we remain changed. But if they say there is an order of fates, so that they produce certain effects in certain recurring periods at returning intervals of time, so that, for example, what they do today they do again after a while: at any rate, they are not said to remain fixed in one thing. For they are overcome by discipline and habit. So, for many ages Roman women were unfamiliar with the use of wine. Discipline, having been strengthened by habit, confirmed their judgment, so that they held fast to what they had learned to be beneficial.

112 Were there fates of this kind in those times, and have they since died, so that this well-devised practice has ceased? But these things came not from fate, but from discipline. And when there is a departure from custom, discipline perishes. And the ancient Romans were of such self-control that they even refused gifts that were offered, considering good reputation as wealth, and preferring virtue to pleasures: and these either were succeeded by other fates, or they passed away; but it was not a matter of fate, but of discipline, which is even the educator of fate itself. For how can something be of fate which neither had it before its time, nor has it now? And indeed I do not know why they cast such blame upon fate, as to say that it is the author of all deeds, while it both is and is not. For where discipline is, fate is not; and where habit is, fate is not; and where chance is, fate is not: and where it seems to exist, it is overcome by fear of the law; for desire itself is checked by fear, and the pursuit of money is renounced for the sake of gaining God’s favor. In this area, therefore, it cannot be denied, because what is overcome cannot fail to exist; and yet it can rightly be said that even in this very point it does not exist, because what is overcome lacks authority.

113 Therefore, whoever follows the law of God and holds to the custom of a good life, to such a one all things that are called “fates” give way. For habit has such power that it even tames beasts. For those who choose to live wickedly appoint their own fates for themselves. For through excess and pleasure come greed and restlessness, which give birth to lack of self-control and anger. And knowing that this deserves punishment, in order to make themselves appear blameless, they attribute shame to the fates, when demons offer their help to those who think about such things; for they also ordain this, that they grant fulfillment to those who think evil: these they call fates, not understanding that they are enemies of man. For if sins did not enter the soul through the senses, but arose from within, then everything that is done wrong would rightly appear to be the work of the fates. But since they see that the desire for sins arises through sight and hearing and through the other senses (with the enemies helping, who have suggested doing what is contrary; and this is not considered while it is being done: for it seems sweet when it is being done, or before it is done; but once completed it appears to be bitter), what do they credit to the fates? That it can be overcome we notice from this: for when we are thinking and anxious about some matter, the enemies fall silent, and desire grows quiet;

114 for they cannot whisper suggestions to us while we are occupied. Does anyone, when someone is dedicated to some matter, suggest something else to him? He does not, knowing either that he will not be heard, or that he will be rejected as one who importunately suggests. So too with the enemies, who are known to be demons; for these are the gods of the pagans, when they see us occupied with divine things, they do not intrude to suggest the opposite, but lie in wait, looking for an opportunity to intrude. The safeguards of souls, therefore, are constant meditation on and practice of the law of God; for if they see us idle in divine matters, they are stirred up to harass us. They are the ones who sow desires through flesh and blood. For although the flesh has its own movement from its origin, since carnal nature is not idle, yet in this matter the help of demons is added for the destruction of men. For there are various demons, having different wills. Some, when they disturb souls, strike down bodies; others, mingling themselves with the blood, generate desires in souls; others, joining themselves to the heart of man, with coaxing suggest what is contrary; and there are some that only bind bodies with illnesses, as in the case of that daughter of Abraham whom the Lord healed (Luke 13:11-16).

115 The pagans, knowing none of this, call it fate, though the causes are different, and these things are brought about by enemies, in order that, for whatever reason, a man may be provoked and subjected to passions. They call it good fate when bodies are well-balanced or are praiseworthy for their friendliness, having a certain charm; but say that fate is evil if they have too much heat or moisture, or if someone is not sprinkled with grace, but rather is ready for misfortunes, such they call “unfortunate. Suppose these things to be true. We see the same even in animals, that they have more heat; but animals are not rational as man is, so that they could, with proper care, temper their body. For this reason the soul is the ruler of the body, to govern it with the reins of the divine law. For the divine law shows that the things suggested either by the impulse of the flesh or by the enemy are not beneficial. God gave this law as a help so that, when the enemy dictates evils as if they were good, by looking at the precepts of the law we may recognize him as a deceiver, because he persuades what the law does not teach. Therefore the body is restrained, so that, since it is hot, less is given to it, and it is held back from delights. For just as in a feverish body, if it receives food or drink, the heat increases;

116 so also such bodies as are inflamed by the heat of the blood will blaze the more fiercely unless they are governed. For if fire lacks fuel, it goes out. It is the soul’s task to lead the body. But if it lets the body go where it wills, it will hurl it down, like a mad horse with a careless rider. And because the heat of the body flares up more strongly through the activity of the enemies to deceive the soul, for it is not the body that desires, but by its heat it generates desires in the soul, the assistance of our God must be pleaded for protection, that he may restrain them: for our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers (Eph. 6:12). When these are removed, it will be easy to curb the motion of flesh and blood. For a inferno is extinguished if it lacks the material on which it feeds. Those things, however, happen to people about which the astrologers speak, who believe that what they say will happen in the future. For this is brought about by the craft of demons, so that they may bring to pass the things their priests have said will occur, lest they be exposed as false and cease to be believed. But in the case of those who do not give credence to their oracles, the effect of these things does not prevail;

117 for neither are they themselves so intent on satisfying those who do not believe in them, nor does God allow them to act in such a way that those who trust in God and do not believe the Devil are deceived. For God has ordered all things in such a way that events correspond to each person’s faith, so that the freedom of the will may remain; and therefore nothing can prevail against the one who believes God and flees to his help. For he is certain that what God has made is in his power, and that nothing dares act against him whom it sees to have the common God as his gracious protector. Surely God made the world, and created the sun and the stars, assigning them courses by which mankind is governed: does he not have the power to command them at times to do something other than what has been decreed for them? For he established them in such a way that they are subject to his will, and only then do they carry out the courses decreed for them, if no other command has been given: as, for instance, if he is asked by those whom they serve, because either the rains are untimely, or because, through excessive drought, barren fruits appear, he orders the weather to be moderated;

118 or if perhaps, as often happens, people live with God angry, while wandering in luxury and vanity they do not do what pleases God, he keeps the rain suspended for a very long time, so that, as we read was done in the time of Elijah and Elisha, he may stir up famine over the earth, and when he is appeased by their satisfaction, he grants that the rains may water the dry ground (1 Kings 18:43). For in the same way the ordering of the world exists as secular government does. For just as some, oppressed by the governors of provinces, have recourse to the help of emperors so that they may be lifted up again, so also, if people see adverse times for themselves, they should present themselves as petitioners to God, in whose power all things are. But this does not seem right to the astrologers. For they say that nothing else can happen than that the stars fulfill the causes decreed for them; and that they can neither be recalled nor driven to anything else, but once having been fixed they observe their duties. This is the assertion of the astrologers, namely, that they say fates cannot be changed, nor can anything be obtained by prayers; because they say that God once established the entire order of the world, and handed it over to the stars as ministers, such that things can neither be done earlier nor later than appointed. This is the error of the astrologers, with which they also attack God.

119 For through this assertion they deny that anything can be done outside the order of the world; so that all the things which are read as having been done by God in the world, if they are at variance with the law of the world, they deny are to be believed: but they affirm those things which are said to have been done according to the statutes of the world, so that neither can it be said that a virgin gave birth, nor that Aaron’s rod flowered and produced fruit (Num. 17:8), nor that Sarah, an old woman, gave birth (Gen. 21:2). For the order of the world does not include these things, because they are read as having been done by God outside the order of the world. And what wonder is it, if the maker of the world did what the world cannot do? But, they say, he would seem to have transgressed the order which he established, if he is said to have acted otherwise himself than he decreed for the world. Come now, he established a law for the world for acting or generating; did he establish one for himself? And would it have been his humility, if he acted in the same way as the world was created by him? And how would it be understood as having been done by him, if he had done what he did by the law of the world?

120 But in order that it might be understood as having been done by God, not by the world, it was done according to another order. Certainly he decreed for the sun that it should unceasingly fulfill its appointed courses, and not have leave to stand still; yet will it not be permitted to him who imposed this law on it to make it stand still? Certainly it is decreed for judges that it is not lawful to revoke a sentence passed on an accused person; will the emperor himself also be under this law? For he alone is allowed to revoke a sentence and absolve a man condemned to death, and to grant pardon himself: how much more ought it to be permitted to God to do what ought not to be granted to the world, since the world is the servant of its Creator? Indeed, by the law handed over to it, the world can kill, but it cannot make alive; through excess it can make a man blind, but it cannot restore his eyes; it can make him feeble and sick, but it cannot heal him: for this God reserved to himself, so that it might be clear that he is Lord of all. For it pertains to the overthrowing of fate that the dead have risen; that the eyes of a man born blind have been restored; that the sick and paralytics have been strengthened;

121 and the other things that have been done, so that, for those who flee to God, whatever there may be of fate cannot bring any hindrance. For the apostle John says: “He who is in us,” he says, “is greater than he who is in this world” (1 Jn. 4:4). For when he is pleaded, God even removes what he has decreed. For he certainly decreed that sinners should be punished, and yet he forgives those who plead to him; because to him alone it is permitted to bind and to loose. Therefore, although no pause is granted to the sun, under Joshua it was ordered to stand still, and it obeyed his command (Joshua 10:12–13), contrary to what had been prescribed for it in the order of the world. Under Hezekiah, however, something greater is read to have been done; for, in order that Hezekiah might not doubt that what had been promised to him was true, he received a sign of such a kind that it was new and unheard of by human ears. For it was not, as before, that the sun was ordered to stand still, but to go back (2 Kings 20:11): seeing this, Hezekiah could be certain that he who had made the ninth hour become the sixth could add fifteen years to his life. And because what was granted to Hezekiah is against the astrologers, for they deny that life can be lengthened, he again receives a sign in this matter which is against the astrologers.

122 For they assert that it is impossible for the stars to do anything other than what has been fixed. Certainly they say it is fate that a man should have a slave or not have one. Granted. Where were these fates from the beginning of the world? For down to the flood and below, through many ages that passed, this condition of slavery did not exist. Or did these fates perhaps begin in the time of King Ninus, who is said to have been the first to wage wars on his neighbors and to make those he captured subject to slavery? You see, then, that this was discovered later, and is not a matter of fate but of the actions of demons; for if it were a matter of fate, it would have existed from the beginning of the world. For the stars themselves are those that were made in the beginning, and their course remains the same even now. And formerly human life was rural, and there was no pursuit of riches: how is it that now astrologers say through the stars that people become rich and poor? Have the stars perhaps been changed? No, it is the cunning and deceit of Satan, so that he may say that things are brought about by the stars which he actually performs through his angels, his ministers. For as the time approaches when his destruction draws near, he devises greater things by which people may sin. Behold, we know that Italy, Africa, Sicily, and Sardinia have suffered from famine;

123 let the astrologers say whether all these had one and the same fate, when it is said that among a hundred men not even the fates of two can agree with one another. Let them be ashamed and be silent, and stretch out praying hands to God, in whose power are all things. But perhaps, one may say, in this point fate has slipped in? What shall we say of Pannonia, which has been so wiped out that it can find no remedy? O their weakness! for with a wavering faith they profess to be Christians. For while they doubt the promises, they do not even think about the things that have already been done. For if they considered the deeds accomplished by the Prophets and Apostles, they would never accept the tales of astrologers. They would know that all things are in the power of God, and they would not be terrified when evils happen to the good; for in the future judgment they will be rewarded, remembering the Apostle who says: “Through many tribulations,” he says, “we must enter into the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:21). For being content, and awaiting the judgment of his God, he will both receive his reward and be avenged. For if he desires to be avenged in the present, or with all greed longs to enjoy present wealth, he doubts the life that has been promised; and by this he will be accounted in the future among the faithless, and deemed worthy of punishment.

124 For God made the world for the sake of discipline, and adorned it with all resources, setting forth two ends, one present and one future, one heavenly and one earthly, so that it might be a testing ground for man: that he who, spurning the future life, chose the present one, might be assigned to the flesh; but he who preferred the future to the present might be deemed worthy of spiritual things; and that he who was unjustly oppressed by the power of the unjust, if he laid down or resigned his complaints before God, might in the future judgment be lifted up and honored with spiritual glory. Therefore none of the saints has appeared glorious in the world, nor has any of them loved present delights. Therefore the Apostle: “Having,” he says, “food and clothing, with these let us be content” (1 Tim. 6:8). But whoever is a Christian even grieves if he seems to be fortunate in this world, since the dignity and happiness of Christians has not been promised on earth, but in heaven. How can he call himself a Christian who does not wish to glory there, where it has been promised, but here where it is forbidden? For if it were advantageous to enjoy present things, surely heavenly rewards would not be promised to those who despise them. With what hope, then, do Christians lend their ears to astrologers, when they hear the Apostle John crying out and saying:

125 “Do not love this world, nor the things that are in this world” (1 Jn. 2:15)? Therefore, if these are the precepts of our faith or law, that the world should not be loved, nor the things that are in the world; why is it that some among us complain, saddened by the prosperity of others which is in the world, and which perhaps is regarded as misfortune before God; whereas they ought rather to rejoice because the world does not grant them the things by which they would be bound and held liable to earthly affairs? For this so‑called happiness, received as an opportunity for security, is devoid of concern for divine things. For such a man must necessarily be careless about divine oracles, who, being filled with all necessities, has nothing to trouble him. But men of this sort usually begin to be troubled by another kind of anxiety, namely, that they may increase their greatness in this world, which cannot happen without sin. Yet if one looks more closely, it will be seen that the world is rather an enemy of those whom it is said to make happy. For scarcely any one of them thinks of heavenly things. Christians must therefore rejoice when, while they live rightly, they are oppressed in this age. For he conquers the world who, being content with how things turn out for him in this life, gives thanks to God, from whom, if certain temporal things seem to be denied here, he hopes that eternal ones will be repaid.

126 For why did God appoint a future judgment, if not that those who are unjustly pressed down for a time may be granted eternal life, while those are cast down who, through their power, despised or did not believe in the future judgment of God, and thought that crimes would go unpunished? But the defenders of fate deny that there will be a future judgment. For if some are born to be good, and others on the contrary to be evil, why do you praise or accuse, when the good man has not struggled in conflict to win, nor the evil man been negligent so as to perish? What is this that they peddle among private persons? For when sinners are brought before judges, they have never dared to excuse their crimes by fate; rather, confessing themselves guilty, they do not deny that they rightly receive sentence. Therefore the authority of the law tramples down the notion of fate, so that they cannot even be named when the law is set in motion. But how do those who have behaved wickedly believe that they will escape forever, who by some means avoid for a time the severity of divine law, not considering that the author of the law cannot for his part overlook this? For here there is an image of the law, there the truth itself: and he who mocks the image cannot mock the truth. Is there any place without God, or can anyone escape his hand?

127 Yet they, flattering themselves, think that whoever escapes here is already safe. And how do they judge this to be just, that while others are punished in such cases, these should escape? Surely God established the world and showed by what law it should be governed. For loving his work, he showed it the way that leads to life, ordaining with what guides it should be accompanied; for there is also a way that leads to death. Should he not therefore inquire whether those whom he has appointed as ministers of his kingdom have governed his people by the same law under which he established them; whether the people have received his edict; whether the ministers, if found faithful, deserve praise, or, if unfaithful, are subject to punishment? In like manner the people, if they have observed the law, are praised; if they have despised it, they are condemned. This is his right; this is what the cause demands. How then is it that some dislike believing that there will be a future judgment? But this notion has been invented by the madness of the astrologers. For how can they accept a future judgment who contradict the present, since they insist that judgment lies in the birth? And because reward is attributed to birth, they themselves are foolish, who, claiming that by a certain natural judgment people are not made good and bad but are born so, assign recompense to sinners and do not allow sins to go unpunished.

128 For they chastise the wicked with rods and chains within, those whom they assert to have been born hopeless outwardly. Can any sensible person correct those whom he knows cannot be improved? This would indeed be either foolish or unjust. But let them not say that this very thing happens by fate; for he who is under fate does not do what he wills, so that they too would have it as a natural property to exact vengeance on those whom they know will remain by nature unchangeable; and in truth it must be said that whatever is said to belong to fate must be assigned to folly. For how foolish it is that, when they say someone is born evil, they do not approve as good even him whom they claim to be born good. How can he be judged good who is found doing something unjust? For what is so unjust as that a man should be thought unjust who is said to have been unable to do anything other than what he did? And if all things are under fate, how did the law come in, which does not allow what is of fate to be done? For if the law were removed, unlawful things would everywhere be done openly; the powerful could not be endured, nor would there be freedom, because even he who now does not think evil, with fear removed, would begin to be evil. Indeed we read that the law was given because of the wicked.

129 But perhaps it too came about by fate, that the law should be given? And how do fates stand, if they generate that which destroys them? Whatever is of fate, the law forbids to be done. Therefore they lack reason if they produce things contrary to themselves. And they are unjust, because they cause men to be born for damnation; and if they are unjust, they ought not to have authority, since everything unjust is liable to punishment. Or perhaps they may say that the law is of no benefit, because he who is born so as to be evil cannot be changed by the law; if that is so, the law was given in vain. And how did the fates bring forth something unnecessary, since nothing is without fate? Therefore the fates both act for themselves and against themselves; and if this is so, that cannot stand which, through inconsistency of reason, has no firmness. But perhaps the fates wished there to be a law for this reason, that those whom the fates cause to be born evil should be condemned by the law, so that it might suit the fates to apply punishment from the law. What can be said to this, except that both laws and fates deserve by their own judgment to be condemned, if with equal injustice they contrive that those should be killed who did evil not of their own will but under the compulsion of the fates?

130 To this the law is opposed, because the fates, by their own profession, are to be condemned. For they do not deny that those who are evil are such by fate. The law, however, is so far opposed to the fates that it denies that the wicked are such by fate, but by their own will; for which reason it rightly ordains that they be punished. Therefore the law and the fates have nothing in common, since the law denies what the fates affirm. And how will those be said to be born under fate who banished the astrologers from the city of Rome? It is well known that this was long maintained, and they were certainly pagans. How can things done against fate be caused by fate? But if there is fate, it does not act against itself. Those who act against fate do not have fate; and if these have no fate, there is no fate. “But there is,” they say, “a fate that determines for each person by what kind of death he shall die. If this is so, the murderer is not to be blamed. For he will defend himself in a twofold way: both that he himself acted under the agency of fate, and that the other was killed under the agency of fate. But in all this the law is struck down, because it punishes the murderer who is brought before it.

131 In a similar way, the one who is an adulterer is born so, and the woman who is an adulteress, and the one with whom adultery is committed. If this too is the case, even now the law is assailed, because it punishes adulterers; and if this truly were of fate, he also ought to be punished who has such a fate that he must suffer adultery. For he too is found to be a participant, because his fate allowed adultery to be committed. It was therefore just that either they be condemned together or absolved together. In all this the law appears unjust. Therefore, if the fates are from God, the law will not be from God, because it is not fitting either for God or for a wise man to condemn what he himself has made. But since no one has ever dared to speak against the law or to deny that it is from God, the fates cannot be said to be from God, because God punishes those things through the law. For when that which is done under the compulsion of the fates is condemned, without doubt the fates are condemned. “But wicked souls,” they say, “are born for this purpose, that they may do evil. Granted. Yet wicked souls ought not to be born by fate, so that the innocent might be able to be killed by them. For if those souls were wicked, they ought not to be born, but to be punished, so that they might not kill the innocent.

132 But it is not the souls, which they imagine to be wicked, that kill the innocent; it is the fates, which cause men to be born in such a way that they are killed. And therefore it is not the souls, but the fates that are unjust; and if they are unjust, they are not from God: therefore they are from the Devil; and if they are from the Devil, they must be condemned together with him. And since they are said to determine for each person how he will die, by the sword, or the noose, or a fall, or shipwreck, or otherwise, they provide the same thing in many ways. For no one can alone depart from the fates of all. But if anyone is found to depart, then it is no longer fate, but a happening. And if in the death of one it is a mere happening, so it will be in the deaths of many; and then it will no longer be fate. Anaxarchus1, thrown into a mortar by order of the king, was crushed and died, something that has happened to no other man. And a woman drove a stake into the temples of Sisera, king of the Philistines, and so he gave up his spirit (Judges 4:21). In this way no one else has died. And formerly men used to be nailed to a cross, which afterwards, by an edict, was prohibited. If this was due to fate, how did it cease?

133 For when what is of fate is forbidden and does not happen, fate is overcome. Or if it was not of fate, then men were not crucified by fate, but by the judgment of the law. And therefore it is that men are not condemned by fate, but found guilty by their own evil deeds. Among the Tuscans there is said to have been a man born so handsome in face as no one ever was; and because he was a good man, lest he fall under suspicion, since he even enticed the eyes of respectable women, he wounded his own face with seven gashes, so that he might condemn the beauty which was desired by all (Valerius Maximus, book 4, chapter 5). See how, if there are fates, they have been overcome. But perhaps it may be said, It was of nature that he was born handsome, and of fate that his face was wounded. But if this is so, fate is no longer something one is born with, but an accidental cause. And if it is accidental, it will not be of fate, but of deliberation, or perhaps of mere happening, so far as the remaining circumstances are concerned. For what else is it to conquer fate than to alter nature? But if it was so fixed that it could neither be changed nor overcome, then neither could it be conquered. For we read that it is recorded in a certain legal book that a woman once bore five children at a birth:

134 how was it stolen from the fates that nature decreed this for her alone, which was not of fate? But if it had been of fate, a number of women would have been burdened with this lot. And when a certain man was setting out for foreign lands, he commended his wife to a friend whom he knew to be faithful, not, of course, to a boy, but to a man of mature age. In order to be a more careful guardian of her, that man mutilated himself, so that he might sleep safely with her without anyone’s suspicion. What are we to think, was this of fate or of counsel? But how could it be of fate when it is contrary to it? For whoever overcomes what is inborn in him, this one empties fate of its power. And certainly in the pursuit of studies the question of fates is involved, as to whether someone can or cannot grasp something. Therefore all senators have one and the same fate; for no senator is without education: and the peoples who are without education have one fate, and all slaves are of one fate; for none of the slaves is a senator. But if what one is born as is called fate, whatever is acquired afterwards will be outside of fate. Or if what happens comes from fate, why does it come by labor? It would then be said to be of fate if it happened to a man against his will.

135 For what happens without forethought is said to be of the fates; but what is devised and long weighed, and obtained by intermediate exercises, why is this said to be of fate? Someone is born a eunuch, others become eunuchs; where will fate be? In him, I suppose, who is born so; but what is to be said of those who become such? For it is one thing to be born, another to become. Or if these are made eunuchs by fate, then that one was born a eunuch against fate. And why is a eunuch so rarely born that it seems incredible? There was a certain woman in the city of Rome who is known to have had eleven husbands; and another man who had twelve wives; what fates are these that decreed this for them? For in the time of the Emperor Constantine it is well attested that a girl in a part of Campania was changed into a male and brought to Rome: what fates brought this about? Other fates, I suppose, which you do not know. Oh, if only you would be silent about this word, and refer some things to chance and accidents, and accept some to providence! For the power of virtue and the industry of souls is so great that it not only resists nature, but even corrects or fails to correct itself, because it has judgment over itself.

136 For it is told that the women of the Scythians, who are called Amazons, when their husbands were occupied in a distant war and long absent, for the sake of offspring united themselves with their servants, and killed every male child that was born, leaving only the females, so that none of them devoted herself to weaving, but from earliest youth they were trained in the wrestling school and in the use of arms. So great was their courage in the conduct of affairs that, reigning through a long succession of years, they subdued several nations and placed all Asia under tribute. What can be said to this? Were these things of fate which were carried out in such a way for so many years that they emptied of meaning all those things which are thought to be of fate? First, that contrary to nature women, rejecting men, ruled; then that they mingled with their own slaves; thirdly, that all the males born were killed and the females preserved alive. So great a prosperity followed them that, without men, they propagated a kingdom begun with great forces over long periods. Certainly this deed from the foundation of the world has never taken place except in Scythia alone: lest perhaps they should say that, since the world is renewed every one thousand four hundred and sixty years, such things come about; although the world is now in its six thousandth year, during which time a person does what he has imitated.

137 For Crassus was called Agelastus (“the Unlaughing”) because he is said to have laughed once in his life. Why was Junius surnamed Brutus? Because by shrewd counsel he pretended to be foolish, lest he be killed by the proud king on account of the greatness of his wealth. In the time of Constantine a certain man called Samatius pretended to be a jester for thirty years, so that he might, as he himself afterwards said, distract the emperor from his irritations. Where is the logic of the fates, when each person does what he wills? It is excluded. But how is this, that the supporters of fates are devoted to supplications, when these are opposed to them? For they commend to them their years, and inquire of them about marriages, and about journeys, and about purchases, and about promotions. But if it is of fate, why do you pray, why do you supplicate for what will come to pass even against your will? “But I ask,” he says, “whether I ought to buy. Therefore, what you say you ought to do then, if you have learned that it is practical, does not depend on fate. For if it is of fate, you ask in vain; for whether you will or not, whether you inquire or do not inquire, you will do it. But the fact that this assertion is not fixed even among them themselves is the reason why they try uncertain things, lest they find something true other than what they are dealing with.

138 But those among them who seem more wise say, “We do not offer prayers because of fate, since we know it cannot in the least be changed, but for the sake of those things that are alongside fate, so they may not do anything adverse to us. Come now, if some person has a good fate, and next to him there is something that appears contrary, what can this be, since the good fate is said to be unchangeable, just like the bad? Clearly you pray that what is beside fate may not harm you; for it will harm you unless prayer is made. How then is that fate said to be unchangeable, when what is near it is feared? For it would not be feared unless it were believed that it could be changed. But since you insist most of all on this point, that fate not be said to change, you undoubtedly pray without cause. See rather whether what you pray is itself of fate, since you usually assign to fate whatever is without evil. Certainly prayer is not an evil thing: why then should it not be said to belong to fate? If therefore it will be of fate that one prays, whose will it be to pray and not obtain? For if it was of fate, he ought to obtain what he prays for. But if it is of fate to pray and not obtain, fate is foolish; for it makes a man pray whom it knows will not obtain.

139 And if it does not know whether he can obtain what it causes him to pray for, fate will be irresponsible and without reason; for all ignorance is folly, and folly is stupidity. Into this position falls the entire speculation of the pagans. Let the pagans consider this, who, surrounded by darkness, do not see the light. Ensnared by ancient error, they refuse to lend their ears to the truth which previously lay hidden. What shall we say of certain Christians who, in the Savior, as if only changed in name, still defend the vanity of their former error, so dulled in mind that they struggle that God Himself acted under fate, saying, “He Himself said, My hour has not yet come” (Jn. 2:4); as though this hour were not a matter of will, but a necessity of fatal condition, whereas He meant the hour of His own will, in which He would allow Himself to be handed over. Indeed He says, “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again” (Jn. 10:18). Therefore, where there is the power of the will, the necessity of fate ceases. And how is He called Savior by us, if the things we do or that happen to us are of fate? For He is called Savior because He showed us the way of salvation; and so, if this way has been shown by Him, it was not of fate, because before it was hidden.

140 And as for what is said to be of fate, they argue it comes to pass unexpectedly. But this is the merit of faith, which cannot be said to be from fate, because what is believed was not heard of in previous ages. For they say that fate grants what concerns human conduct. Yet how can fate be said reasonably to grant what it is found to be ignorant of? From this comes what the Apostle says, “None of the princes of this world knew” (1 Cor. 2:8). These are the princes and powers who have evil angels under them and, under the name of “fates,” bring about their pleasures as they wish, just as sorcerers are accustomed to confess. For there are some whom they love, others they do not love, some they hate. And each of them suggests to each person that which he loves, since they themselves have different pleasures: for some they acquire lust of varied wickedness, for others gifts, for others pleasure, for others immorality, for others anger, for some greed, for others gains, for others losses, for others favor, for others hatred, and also hindrances. And sometimes, at certain times, when they are gratified, they rest in idleness; at other times for a reason, at other times they do not intrude upon an occupied mind; for they do not rule, but creep in, seeking an opportunity by which they may ensnare. Therefore the decision of the will is free;

141 but when through some desire we become negligent toward ourselves, those who trouble us suggest adversities: above all, if they find us thinking of something that is not of the divine law, they come at that very point to help us fulfill what the law forbids. For if the fear of God is in the soul, neither flesh, nor blood, nor princes, nor powers prevail; for with God’s help they are so pursued that they are overcome without labor. But if we were not within our own power, how would the Lord say, “Ask, and it shall be given you; for everyone who asks, receives” (Matt. 7:7–8)? If then whoever wills to ask will receive, that common saying no longer holds, “We do not have what we want, but what is given”; because the will is stirred by the Savior to ask and to receive what it has asked for. But they say that this is of fate, that whether he asks or does not ask, he still obtains by fate that which is either evil or good. However, the Lord, excluding this, says, “Daughter, your faith has made you well” (Matt. 9:22). It is no longer of fate when faith receives the benefit. And again He says, “If you believe, all things are possible to the one who believes” (Mark 9:22): He has indeed placed the merit in the will; for faith is a good of the will, not of nature. Faith, moreover, is something that comes from outside, which rouses the will to exercise itself;

142 so that, since it is not in nature, the will, which is in nature, once it has received faith, may establish merit for itself before God. For the nature of men is like a stone which, though it does not have fire in its substance, still has it in strength, so that by work it produces what it seems not to have, because it does not yet exist, but is, as it were, in seed; it is in strength so that through exercise it may be generated, and if the exercise is lacking, it is not produced; for seed also, unless it is exercised, does not bring forth, but remains seed alone. It is the addition that makes it generate. So too man does not have faith in nature, but has the seed of faith, which, unless it is urged and stirred up, will not bear fruit, that is, will not have faith. Those who believe in the fates of astrologers destroy the seed of faith, which bears witness both to the Creator and to His justice. For the work recognizes the maker, and with right and love and deed bears witness to Him. We exhort that this craft [arte] be shunned in every way. For indeed, those who are curious about Him are enemies of God, and they are never without anxiety: for they are always on edge, awaiting what they hardly know for certain.

143 But we, who believe all favorable things about God, and that if any adversities arise they are restrained by His will, should live humbly, secure in His protection; yet not unaware that even if anything adverse happens to us while we act well, endured patiently it will lead to a crown. 144 1 The text reads “Anaxagoras,” but it is probably a scribal error because it was actually “Anaxarchus,” Greek philosopher of the school of Democritus, that Nicocreon, tyrant of Cyprus, had him crushed alive by a mortar to avenge himself for an injury he had received. 1ST CATEGORY NT 145 QUESTION 120. ON FASTING. — It is fitting, dearest brothers, that the priest of God and the leader of the people of Christ should most devoutly exhort the people under his care with sound teaching, as the Apostle commands (Titus 1:9), so that we may perform the work of faith, in keeping with the season, with all care and diligence, with a cheerful and devout mind. For the fasts which are now to be observed as the feast day of Easter approaches, what they accomplish, though it is not unknown, must still not be left unsaid. Devotion is stirred up when those things which may not be unknown are nevertheless recounted. For such is the nature of our disposition that it grows sluggish if the practice of reading ceases. For just as iron, if it is not used, produces rust, so the soul, if it is not more frequently exercised in divine readings, will give birth to sins. Therefore in the Psalm he calls that man blessed who meditates on the law of the Lord day and night (Ps. 1:2). And although the divine sayings are well known, yet when they are recalled in the sacred volumes, the devout heart receives them as if they were new. For the soul’s desire for works of salvation is awakened. Therefore the Apostle says to Timothy among other things: Stir up, he says, the grace of God that is in you (2 Tim. 1:6). Therefore fasting is necessary for us, as medicine is for wounds. It brings healing for eternal life;

146 yet it must be praised by the witness of two things, that is, prayer and mercy. Fasting, then, softens the greed of the body, restrains contrary impulses, removes the oppression of the soul, as the Lord says: Do not give yourselves over to eating and drunkenness, lest your hearts be overcharged (Luke 21:34). For when the soul has been freed from excessive food and drink, then it recognizes itself better. Just as in a tarnished mirror a man does not see himself as he truly is, so if he is weighed down by food and drunkenness, he feels himself to be other than he is. Then lust is roused, anger is kindled, pride is inflamed, and luxury is created. Therefore the Apostle: Do not, he says, be drunk with wine, in which is depravity (Eph. 5:18). But if the body is moderated by the addition of fasting, then, having regained knowledge of itself, the soul understands with what devotion it ought to serve its Redeemer. Therefore in great measure fasting is necessary. For under Queen Esther, when the Jewish people were in danger, they were delivered with the help of fasts (Esther 4:16). And the Ninevites, when they heard from the prophet the appointed day of their overthrow, merited to escape when a fast was proclaimed (Jonah 3:7). And our righteous ones and prophets, whenever they wished to obtain something from God, humbled themselves with fasting, as David says: I humbled my soul with fasting (Ps. 35:13).

147 And the Savior himself, who had no need of it, fasted in order to give us an example (Matt. 4:2). Therefore it is beyond doubt that fasting is beneficial: for in this way a man shows that he truly wishes to obtain what he asks, when he afflicts himself with fasting. Therefore it is said: Prayer is good with fasting (Tobit 12:8). So that prayer may be acceptable, it seeks to have fasting as its companion. And because none of these things is firm without holiness, he added: And almsgiving with righteousness; so that almsgiving, preserved with righteousness, may praise prayer together with fasting. Indeed, the mercy of Cornelius commended his prayer and fasting. (Acts 10) For he, though rich in possessions, fasted; and he also fed those who had nothing, so that their fullness made his fasting acceptable. Therefore fasting needs certain things, and must do without certain things, so that it may be able to obtain what it asks for.

148 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 121. PRAISE AND GLORY OF THE PASSOVER. — O holy and saving day of Easter, to be proclaimed with every praise, on which death was conquered, the Devil’s kingdom taken away, the mystery of God revealed, the decree that was against us cancelled; the gates of hell devastated, the bound released, the confined sent forth, the blind enlightened, the ignorant endowed with knowledge, the wicked made merciful, to the wicked and unjust the remission of sins granted, enemies reconciled, error corrected, truth declared; sons for God gained from the lost, pride cast down, humility exalted; the poor enriched, the rich stripped; mountains leveled, valleys filled, hills laid low; shamelessness trampled, modesty adorned, to souls the possibility of heaven given, freedom restored, captivity broken and dissolved: darkness grew dull, wickedness was baffled, filth cleansed, Satan cast down; hell made void: our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Son of God, approved, flesh to the confusion of the wise, the world lifted up to heaven, heavenly, earthly, and hellish things shown to be of one God and Lord! And so, dearest brothers, we must celebrate and venerate this feast day, devout to God with modesty of life and gladness of soul, avoiding shameful and dishonorable things, so that we may merit to come to the fruit of Easter through Christ our Lord, to whom belong honor and glory for ever and ever.

149 1ST CATEGORY NT 150 QUESTION 124. ONE WORK VARIES ACCORDING TO PERSONS, INTO PRAISE OR CONDEMNATION. — Mercy is one and the same in rich and poor, but it is ascribed differently to the rich and to the poor, because it is more to be praised in the poor than in the rich. For the poor man did not fear to give out of his small means, hoping that God would repay him both in the present and in the future. For he believes the Scripture which says that he who gives to the poor shall not lack (Prov. 28:27). Therefore that poor widow, while the rich were putting in many gifts, she alone deserved to be highly praised by God, because she did not fear to give out of her want (Luke 21:2–4). The rich give generously, being secure in their riches, but the poor man is secure in the Lord. Therefore the rich do well when they give to those in need, but the poor do much better. And therefore the reward of the poor man is one thing, and that of the rich man another. For if the rich man does not do this, he shall be beaten: such is not so greatly required of the poor man. Therefore the merciful poor man is praiseworthy. Theft in a poor man and in a rich man is one and the same sin, but it makes the rich man more guilty:

151 for the poor man steals because of need, but the rich man, though he has abundance, not being content with what is his own, takes what belongs to others; and what is worse, he is accustomed to rob the poor: and therefore the punishment of each differs. Righteousness in the poor man and in the rich man is one and the same; but it is more praiseworthy in the poor man. For to keep justice in poverty is a magnificent thing. The rich man, however, seems to keep Righteousness because he is free from want. Therefore each is Righteousness, but it is greater to keep Righteousness in necessity. Pride is one thing, but it is more to be condemned in the poor man than in the rich: for the rich man is puffed up by abundance, but the poor man is proud in his hardship, which borders on madness, and therefore the poor man is more guilty. Humility is one thing, but it is more to be praised in the rich man. For what great matter is it if the poor man appears humble, whom poverty itself makes humble? But it is magnificent if the one who is praised by rank and wealth bends himself down, not claiming for himself what he knows he deserves. Therefore humility is good in all, but much more in the rich man. The cause of learning and study is one and the same; but it is more praiseworthy in the rich man.

152 For the poor man, since no privilege praises him, has taken pains to have something for which he might be sought after: but the rich man, since he already had that by which he might be praised, by applying effort has increased himself, so that he might be necessary in a double way; for he has not allowed his mind to be drawn off by his riches so as not to flourish by his own qualities. And therefore he is more worthy of praise than the poor man, who, if he had not devoted himself to studies, would have remained utterly of no account. The former, then, was made eager for study by his will, the latter by necessity. Lust is the same in poor and rich, but it is more damnable in the poor man than in the rich. For poverty itself ought to call the poor man back from the desire for luxury: he ought to consider that he has nothing with which to fulfill this desire, and that while he rushes to satisfy it, he must necessarily commit many other evils, by which perhaps he will not even escape in the present; or at least, by spending even what he has, he will remain a beggar with a bad reputation. But the rich man is stirred to sensual pleasure by the abundance of delights: moreover, the rich are secure of freedom, knowing that judgments are for sale, and that they will not even be criticized by anyone.

153 For who would dare to rebuke a man supported by status and wealth? Therefore they are more inflamed, so that they even carry this out violently. For they are not only not criticized at all, but are held in great honor, and can glory that they are such. But if both, that is, poor and rich, are chaste, the chastity of the rich man differs greatly from the chastity of the poor man. For the poor man can be restrained by humility, so that he cannot fulfill what he desires, or by fear of the laws: but the rich man, who can be attracted to pleasure by many supporting causes, is praiseworthy if he turns his mind away from it. Therefore the chaste rich man is worthy of one sort of reward, and the chaste poor man of another. But if a king is chaste, it is a very glorious thing, that having everything in his power he does not touch what he knows he can do with liberty. He truly fears God, he truly keeps his commandments, who, having the laws in his power, contemplates the future judgment of God. And so it is a great thing that he who in the present has no one to fear, overcomes that which delights; since delight can do so much that it not only does not fear future things, but not even present ones. Therefore those who overcome this earn much, but more so those who in the present rule over laws and men.

154 For the others fear both men and laws; and on this account they keep their resolve. Lest they be ashamed before men, they keep what they have long maintained; and lest they be condemned, they abstain from forbidden things: but he who through his dominion fears neither laws nor is ashamed of men, is of great glory if he restrains himself. 155 1ST CATEGORY NT 156 QUESTION 126. ON THE PERSON WHO HAS RECEIVED FAITH IN CHRIST. — It is written: “The righteousness of the righteous shall not benefit him on the day that he goes astray; and the wickedness of the wicked shall not harm him when he turns back” (Ezek. 18:26–27). And the Lord in the Gospel says: “He who does not believe is already judged” (Jn. 3:18); by this indicating that the one who believes is not subject to judgment for the reception of a sentence, but will be found worthy of praise by the merit of faith. Therefore, the knowledge of God has this privilege, that it obtains the remission of sins. For the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God is deemed worthy to be freed from all sins. Long wandering in error, tossed by the waves of ignorance in various ways, he has at last been enlightened and has received the flashing light of truth, in which, after great storms, he rests in safety. It is fitting that after this knowledge he restrain himself from those things which he used to do long before when he was set in ignorance. For what does knowledge profit if the former way of life remains? One is seen to have known God if he changes his life and corrects his conduct. For once God is known, he must be feared, because he is proclaimed as the one who will judge:

157 so that the faithful may receive the fruit of their righteousness, and the wicked, that is, the unbelieving, may pay the due penalties for their faithlessness. It is fitting that the righteous rejoice in the future, where Christ will reign with his own: so that righteous as in this world, where the Devil is prince, they are exposed to reproach and injuries, so in the kingdom of Christ they may appear glorious for the sake of him for whom they were judged shameful by worldly people. But the unrighteous, who seem to flourish falsely, resisting the truth by lies, are to be afflicted in punishment; so that those who appeared glorious by hoax may appear exceedingly despised and humbled by the reality. Then the righteous will rejoice that they have believed, when they see the faithless tormented; and the faithless will not even regret that they did not believe except when they see the glory of those whom they considered foolish and shameful because they believed, and their own punishment. Therefore, from the fact that someone professes to be a Christian, he must strive not to sin and arm himself against vices; and because it is impossible always to win, if he is overcome he should grieve lest he be overcome again; for the one who is grieved that he has been beaten restores himself. Whoever, then, resists has a basis on which he can excuse himself if he has been overcome. He shows that he had the desire to win, though he was by no means able.

158 From this there is hope that he can repair himself, so that by constant reflection he may be found more skillful and stronger in the contest. But the one who rises for the purpose of sinning, having become inexcusable, bears a very serious charge. It is worse to live under the profession of God and yet have the will to sin than for someone to be ignorant of God and live shamefully and in defilement. For such a person does not know whom he ought to fear; the other one, knowing, despises. Believers therefore receive remission of sins; yet they will not be glorious unless, after receiving faith, they live in the fear of God, so that, having struggled against the enemies of the Christian name, they may win victory and therefore deserve the reward by conquering more than they are conquered. But the one who understands God and does not approach his faith so as to live as a Christian, but instead wants to receive faith at the end so that he may die a Christian, either is ashamed to live as a Christian, or devotes himself to sins which he thinks can be forgiven him when he has believed, this person, I think, does not have a good case. For he does not want to become or live as a Christian as long as he is in the world, but wants to sin; or he is ashamed to become a Christian.

159 What sort of God does he hope for, from whom, while he is ashamed to serve as a soldier, he wants to receive wages? Such a man is a mocker. Knowing he no longer has time to sin, with death at hand, then he wants to become a Christian; so that, because he can no longer sin, he may say that he believes in Christ, who hates sinning, not that he no longer wishes to sin, but that he cannot, because death has come first. To such people it ought to be read that “God is not mocked” (Gal. 6:7). Indeed, such persons are even accustomed to give such instructions that faith should be given only to those already failing and out of their senses, merely still breathing, fearing that they might recover and be ashamed because they have become Christians. For them the words of the Gospel must be recited: “Whoever,” says the Lord, “is ashamed of me and of my words in this generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in the kingdom of his Father” (Matt. 10:33). But perhaps they say: knowing that the human race is frail, therefore we want to receive faith at the end of life, so that we may no longer sin. Yet faith must be received in such a way that one knows what he is receiving. Then it will bring its benefit, if he both knows it and professes it.

160 “For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10). And therefore, one who by then no longer knows where he is, how can he be said to receive? He has received who professes that he has received, knowing that he has received. If they believe that remission of sins is given to those who believe, they ought to know that this one believes whose heart bears witness that he believes. For God, who promised, is the inspector of the heart: he accepts the one whom he sees believing in his heart. Therefore, whose heart does not regard the words of faith, how will he have its benefit? So the person who does not lightly become a Christian upon receiving faith can be seen to act rightly, in that he is observed to strive not to sin easily. But the one who rushes to sin does not want to receive faith, specifically so that he may not be compelled to live well, which he appears unwilling to do; but he wants to obtain faith at death, hoping for exemption and remission of past evils, so that he may be secure both regarding the past and the future, since as a dying man he can no longer sin. But this is done neither with good counsel nor with a clean conscience, that he should want to receive faith then, when he can no longer sin, rather than when he does not want to sin. To such people the saying applies:

161 “Let us do evil that good may come”—that is, let us sin now, and at the last let us believe, and it will be forgiven us. And so it is added: “Their condemnation is just” (Rom. 3:8). For it is not fitting that forgiveness of sins be granted to those who, already knowing God, who wills that no one should sin and hates sinners, are eager to sin, refusing to consider that the gift of God benefits those who, ignorant of God, sin in such a way that they do not know God will judge. But the one who has heard and reflected within himself, and has the intention of sinning, not because he is overcome by some compelling cause, but because he wishes to sin, is hardly to be forgiven. For there are two causes which bring about the remission of sins: one is the gift, the other is repentance, so that whoever has sinned after receiving the gift should be restored through repentance. For since he did not remain in the grace received so as to persevere in freedom, but again subjected himself to sin, he obtains the blotting out of sin by weeping and groaning; for he sinned knowingly and deliberately: not that anyone is ignorant of sin itself, but the one who does not know that God will judge thinks that what he does in sin will be without punishment.

162 Therefore, if a Gentile begins to grow weak and, in the very despair of life, considers within himself the faith and hope that have been promised, he has a complete case for his sins to be forgiven when he believes, and for him not to be held in the underworld, bearing with him the sign of death overcome and despoiled, even though he does not possess dignity or reward. For there ought to be some difference between the one who, stirred by love of his Lord, did not fear to fight against His enemies, arming himself with self‑control and with the observance of all virtues, so that he might resist evil, always anxious as to how he may defend the dominion of his Lord; and the one who, having made common cause with the enemies of his Lord and standing by their side, at the end of life returned to his Lord, not in order to claim the kingdom of his Lord, but so that it might benefit himself alone to be a citizen before being a soldier. For he who wishes to live as a Christian so as to be rewarded after death knows that “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the future glory that shall be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18). And therefore, having taken up the armor of faith, he does not hesitate to engage with principalities and powers, so that, being a victor in this world, he may be crowned after this world.

163 For it is fitting that the one who, among the faithless and rebels, bears witness to the kingdom of his Lord in the present should receive a reward for this in the future: so that the enemies of God, seeing the witness of Christ appear exalted in the kingdom of God because of the truth of his confession, may grieve in confusion that they judged false what has been shown to be true; and also that those who believed late, confessing God not in life but in death, when they see how great is the glory of those who, fighting under the armor of Christ, have waged the battles of their Emperor devoutly and faithfully, may regret not that they lived as Christians, but that they were Christians only in death. For one who had no intention of living as a Christian can seem hardly suitable to die as a Christian: perhaps already on the point of death he wished to be called a Christian precisely because the time for sinning was now past. “Lest,” he says, “what is believed should prove true, I wish to become a Christian, losing nothing if what is believed is false”; and because at death it is not the will to sin, but the act of sinning, that ceases, he tests whether faith may be able to profit after death, whereas its usefulness would certainly have been this: that vices and sins should be corrected here, where they had been committed.

164 For a person then shows that he has condemned his past deeds when, following the rule of faith, he appears to change his conduct and his life. For if before he sinned on this account, that he did not know God, when he comes to know Him, he ought no longer to sin, lest it be pointless that he has come to know Him. For a person ought to be made perfect by the knowledge of God. Indeed, before his profession, a Christian ought to understand that he must prove himself more by his works than by his name. For this reason the commandments were given, superior to all other laws and belonging to holiness, so that from these the worship of God might be seen: otherwise they will hear, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I say? (Luke 6:46). By which He then indicated that it is beneficial to call the Lord “Lord” if His commandments are kept: for he seems a mocker who calls him Lord whose precepts he despises. To such a person the words of the Law must be recited, which say that God is not mocked. Therefore he will be condemned by his own words, because he calls Him Lord whom he shows by his deeds that he is in no way afraid of.

165 2ND CATEGORY OT QUESTION 11. IF THE JEWS HAD RECEIVED HARSH COMMANDMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR DISTRUST AND SLANDERS, WHAT HAD THEIR SONS DONE WRONG THAT THEY TOO SHOULD BE BOUND BY THESE COMMANDMENTS? — The Law was given to the fathers, and it would be a burden also to their similar sons. For afterwards they sinned against God not less, but perhaps even more, than their fathers had. For God, who foreknows all, gave this Law especially for the sons, because all their fathers died in the wilderness. 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 1. WHY HAVE THE DEEDS AND SAYINGS OF THE LORD BEEN ARRANGED IN WRITING IN FOUR BOOKS BY FOUR AUTHORS? — It was fitting that the acceptable year of the Lord, as the prophet says (Isa. 61:2), should be contained in four books as if in four seasons. For just as the year unfolds in four seasons, in such a way that they need one another, so too the deeds and sayings of the Lord have been set forth in four books, in such a way that each one needs the others; yet together they form perfect fullness. And as to why they were ordered by four writers, this was the reason: because the names of the seasons are different, so also the titles of the Gospels should be different. And if anything in their wording seems contrary, yet in meaning they do not differ, thanks to an interpretation suitably adapted to the matter: just as the seasons, although they clearly differ in name, in climate, and in the course of the stars, yet do not differ in the effects of the things they bring forth.

166 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 2. SINCE IT IS CERTAIN THAT WE HAVE FOUR AUTHENTIC BOOKS OF THE FACTS AND WORDS OF OUR LORD, IN WHAT ORDER SHOULD WE PLACE THEM? — Since it is agreed that four books have been duly written of the deeds and words of the Lord, one must know what their order is. The Gospel is arranged more by design than by time. Matthew, therefore, must be placed first, because he took his beginning from the very promise, that is, from Abraham, to whom the promise of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ was made. After him comes Luke, because he relates how this incarnation took place. Third is Mark, who bears witness that the Gospel preached by Christ was promised in the Law. But fourth is John, because he clearly declares as God the one who was promised to Abraham as to be incarnate, of whom Luke tells how he was incarnate, and whose Gospel Mark shows to have been preached according to the prophet Isaiah, saying in an open voice: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

167 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT 168 QUESTION 9. ON THE ETERNITY OF THE SON. — Since there are some who, the darkness of error not yet dispelled and the decay of an old and stagnant life not yet cleansed or wiped away, still think in an earthly way and hesitate either about the Son of God, or whether the two are one (for the treacherous and stubborn nation of the Jews, to whom the fountain of the Law and the treasures of the mysteries were opened, does not merely doubt, but denies with wicked words), I will briefly explain as far as the short scope of this discussion allows. For hope is kept intact for the ignorant, if they are willing to learn; punishment is appointed as eternal for those who refuse. Since God Almighty, in His greatness and goodness, surpasses all, He ought to have brought forth and revealed from Himself something great and supremely good. But if He had produced something that fell short of the standard of His own excellence, it would seem either that He was unable to do more, which cannot apply to the Almighty, or that He was unwilling, which cannot apply to One most gracious. Certainly, for the supreme God it would not have been great to make something placed beneath Himself, which could not possess the power of complete supremacy. Above Himself, then, there was nothing; for there is nothing that can surpass God. Beneath Himself, it would have been too little, because what is less is not fitting for what is greatest.

169 Therefore, creating His Son as His own very likeness, He brought forth from Himself, as it were, another Himself; and therefore that highest and greatest good which comes to us from God has overflowed to us through His extension to us. We must also understand this reasoning at the same time: God, who founded this world, and who among the other wonders of beauty and order also granted to created nature the power of generating offspring sufficient for each kind of its own, must surely first have possessed in Himself what He would later give. For no one gives what he himself does not possess. He who therefore had a Son perfectly corresponding to Himself in every aspect of likeness, that is, One with one, the virtuous with the virtuous, the good with the good, the blessed with the blessed, the greatest with the greatest, the everlasting with the eternal, certainly had before the world the primacy of a begotten offspring, from which He imparted a pattern to things that were to come into being, so that the seeds of all that would be begotten would be compelled to match their own generative principles. But when we say that the Son was brought forth, we must not understand this as if He had a birth similar to ours, and was born in the way we see mortals being born, when, at the breaking forth of offspring, things come into existence which did not exist before.

170 For those creatures, conceived from seeds implanted from elsewhere, are fused together from the union of underlying elements into the form proper to their kind; but this (generation) is divine: without any aid of external mixture, God brought forth and produced from Himself that which He always had in Himself and with Himself. For if we say that light is born from the sun because it proceeds and flows from it, we do not say this in such a way as though the sun could ever be, or ever was, without light, so that at some point in time it generated from itself something later than itself, but rather in the sense that what it has always possessed with itself, that light, born from it, so to speak, without any distinction of beginning from when it first started to shine, it always illuminates from itself like a renewing gift. In this way, the Son of God, adhering to the Father absolutely from eternity, has also retained this likeness to Him, so that He has neither a beginning nor an end. And as God is eternal without origin, so also the Son is eternal; and as God is one, simple, and the same, so He is joined with the Father in such a way that, though distinguished by names and relations, they are yet the same, one in both, and each in the one, united in an inseparable majesty.

171 Therefore God, having brought forth the Son not drawn from conflicting materials, but produced out of the simple and unique stock and seedbed of His own nature, always possessing Him in Himself, and never at any time having let Him go by any separation from Himself, holds and embraces Him in such a way with Himself that nothing in either of them is altered from that unity. 172 INDEX OF QUESTIONS 1ST CATEGORY QUESTIONS ON THE OLD TESTAMENT (PL 35 2214-2250) QUESTION 1. WHAT IS GOD? (pg. 402) QUESTION 2. WHY DID GOD CREATE THE WORLD? (pg. 15) QUESTION 3. WHAT NEED WAS THERE FOR MOSES TO EXPLAIN LATER, AND NOT EARLIER, THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD AND THE ORDER OF CREATION? (pg. 20) QUESTION 4. WHY DID NOT GOD GIVE THE LAW FROM THE BEGINNING? (pg. 406) QUESTION 5. WHY WAS ABEL’S SACRIFICE ACCEPTED, AND CAIN’S REJECTED? (pg. 63) QUESTION 6. DID LAMECH KILL CAIN, AS SOME THINK? (pg. 65) QUESTION 7. WHAT ARE THE TEN WORDS GIVEN ON THE TABLETS; OR WHAT DID EACH TABLET CONTAIN, AND HOW MANY WORDS DID EACH HAVE? (pg. 110) QUESTION 8. WHY DID MOSES, COMING DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAIN WITH THE TABLES OF THE LAW, HAVE A FACE SO BRIGHT THAT IT COULD NOT BE FIXED ON HIM? (pg. 115)

173 QUESTION 9. IF ALL THE CREATURES THAT GOD MADE WERE GOOD AND VERY GOOD, WHY DID HE SAY TO NOAH, "BRING WITH YOU INTO THE ARK OF PURE AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS, SINCE NO ONE CAN CALL GOOD WHAT IS UNCLEAN?” (GEN. 1:31; 7:2) (pg. 35) QUESTION 10. GOD HAVING FORETOLD TO ABRAHAM THAT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WOULD BE FREED FROM THE DOMINION OF THE EGYPTIANS. THE FOURTH GENERATION, WHY DOES THE LAW SAY, "THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SHALL COME FORTH OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT INTO THE FIFTH GENERATION?" (pg. 95) QUESTION 11. IF THE WILL OF THE RIGHTEOUS MAN IS GOOD, WHY DID NOT ISAAC BLESS ESAU AS HE WISHED, BUT JACOB WHOM HE WOULD NOT BLESS? (pg. 101) QUESTION 12. WHY DID ABRAHAM RECEIVE THE SIGN OF HIS FAITH, THE SACRAMENT OF CIRCUMCISION? (pg. 96) QUESTION 13. IF GOD’S JUDGMENT IS JUST, WHY WERE INFANTS IN SODOM BURNED TOGETHER WITH THEIR PARENTS? (pg. 99)

174 QUESTION 14. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT GOD, WHO IS PROCLAIMED AS JUST, HAS PROMISED TO REPAY THE SINS OF THE FATHERS UPON THE CHILDREN TO THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATION? (pg. 111) QUESTION 15. SINCE THE LAW PROCLAIMS WHAT IS JUST, AND HE IS TRULY JUST WHO POSSESSES FULL JUSTICE, HOW IS IT THEN THAT SOLOMON SAYS, “DO NOT BE OVERLY JUST”? (pg. 171) QUESTION 16. WHY DID THE ANGEL WHO WANTED TO KILL MOSES, IN THE ROUTE, BE APPEASED BY THE CIRCUMCISION OF HIS CHILD? (pg. 106) QUESTION 17. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE LAW CALLS THOSE ACCURSED WHO HAVE NOT LEFT SEED IN ISRAEL, WHILE THROUGH ISAIAH IT IS SAID THAT EUNUCHS SUFFER NO DISADVANTAGE, BECAUSE THEY CANNOT GENERATE OFFSPRING? (pg. 113) QUESTION 18. WHY IS IT THAT SAUL, WHEN HE SINNED, ASKED THAT PRAYER BE MADE FOR HIM SO THAT HE MIGHT BE FORGIVEN AND COULD NOT OBTAIN IT, WHILE DAVID, WHEN HE SINNED, ASKED AND OBTAINED PARDON? (pg. 127)

175 QUESTION 19. WAS ADAM'S BODY, WHEN IT WAS CREATED, IMMORTAL OR SUBJECT TO DEATH? (pg. 62) QUESTION 20. WHAT DOES THIS SAYING MEAN, “MAN ATE THE BREAD OF ANGELS”, WHEN ANGELS DO NOT NEED FOOD, SINCE THEY ARE SIMPLE BY NATURE AND ENDOWED WITH SPIRITUAL POWER? (pg. 165) QUESTION 21. WHAT IT MEANS THAT GOD MADE MAN IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD, AND WHETHER WOMAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD? (pg. 33) QUESTION 22. WHY DOES SOLOMON SAY, "JUSTIFY YOUR SOUL BEFORE YOUR DEATH," AS WE READ IN A PSALM, "NO LIVING MAN WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR PRESENCE?" (pg. 171) QUESTION 23. CAN SOULS, THEN, BE TRANSLATED JUST LIKE BODIES? (pg. 36) QUESTION 24. WHY, SINCE MAN AND WOMAN ARE ONE FLESH, IS MAN THE IMAGE OF GOD AND NOT WOMAN? (pg. 31) QUESTION 25. WHY DID JOSEPH, AFTER PREDICTING THE FUTURE, REQUEST THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL TO CARRY HIS ASHES FROM EGYPT WHEN GOD DELIVERED THEM? (pg. 104)

176 QUESTION 26. QUESTION ABOUT ELISHA: DID HE OBTAIN WHAT HE IS SAID TO HAVE ASKED TOO HARSHLY OF ELIJAH? (pg. 132) QUESTION 27. WHEN SAMUEL WAS SUPPOSEDLY RAISED UP BY THE PYTHONESS, AND HE WAS SEEN BY HER AND SPOKE TO SAUL—THIS STORY IS REPORTED IN THE BOOK OF KINGS? (pg. 179) QUESTION 28. WHAT CAN WE SAY TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THIS WORLD EXISTS NATURALLY FROM ALL ETERNITY, AND THAT IT HAS NEITHER BEGINNING NOR END? (pg. 19) QUESTION 29. WHY WAS IT COMMANDED THAT CIRCUMCISION TAKE PLACE ON THE EIGHTH DAY? (pg. 98) QUESTION 30. IN PROVERBS IT IS SAID, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN IS THE ACCUSER OF HIMSELF AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS SPEECH”. HOW IS HE RIGHTEOUS, IF HE IS A SINNER? (pg. 168) QUESTION 31. WHETHER, WITH THE WOMAN, A SERPENT SPOKE ACCORDING TO ITS NATURE, OR WHETHER THE SERPENT, ACTUALLY MEANING THE DEVIL, DECEIVED HER? (pg. 60)

177 QUESTION 32. WE READ IN SOLOMON: “THE RICH AND THE POOR HAVE MET TOGETHER; THE LORD MADE BOTH OF THEM”. HOW THEN IS THERE NO RESPECT OF PERSONS WITH GOD? (pg. 168) QUESTION 33. SOLOMON SAYS, “THE YEARS OF THE UNGODLY WILL BE SHORTENED”; HOW THEN IS IT THAT WE SEE SOME UNGODLY PEOPLE LIVING TO AN OLD AGE? (pg. 167) QUESTION 34. HOW IS IT THAT THE SAME SOLOMON SAYS, “GOD,” HE DECLARES, “DID NOT MAKE DEATH,” WHILE IN ANOTHER PLACE HE SAYS, “GOOD THINGS AND EVIL, LIFE AND DEATH, POVERTY AND RICHES ARE FROM GOD” (Wisdom 1:13; Sirach 11:14)?" (pg. 172) QUESTION 35. HOW CAN DAVID STILL CALL SAUL THE ANOINTED OF THE LORD, AND DO HIM HONOR IN THIS EXCELLENCE AFTER THE LORD HAD DEPARTED FROM HIM? (pg. 129) QUESTION 36. IF THE SOUL THAT SINS SHALL ITSELF DIE, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT ACHAR, THE SON OF CHARMI, SINNED, AND THIRTY MEN WERE KILLED ON HIS ACCOUNT? (pg. 118)

178 QUESTION 37. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT DEATH WAS SENT INTO JACOB AND CAME INTO ISRAEL, WHEN JACOB HIMSELF IS CALLED ISRAEL? (pg. 177) QUESTION 38. IF A HORSE AND A MULE DO NOT HAVE UNDERSTANDING, HOW MUCH LESS SO DOES THE EARTH, A THING WITHOUT SENSATION? WHAT THEN DOES IT MEAN WHEN THE EARTH IS SAID TO BLESS THE LORD (Ps. 31:9; Dan. 3:74)? (pg. 145) QUESTION 39. WHAT IS THIS THAT IS READ IN SOLOMON: “THERE IS HOPE,” HE SAYS, “FOR ONE WHO IS JOINED TO ALL THE LIVING; FOR A LIVING DOG IS BETTER THAN A DEAD LION” (Eccles. 9:4)?" (pg. 169) QUESTION 40. WHAT DOES THE PROPHET MEAN WHEN HE SAYS, “REJOICE, O BARREN ONE WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND CRY ALOUD, YOU WHO DO NOT LABOR, BECAUSE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE ARE MORE THAN THOSE OF HER WHO HAS A HUSBAND." (pg. 179)

179 QUESTION 41. AND IS THE SPIRIT WHO WAS MOVING OVER THE WATERS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS THE HOLY SPIRIT, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, “THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS MOVING OVER THE WATERS” (Gen. 1:2)?" (pg. 23) QUESTION 42. WHY WAS THE ANGEL WHO WAS SENT TO SPEAK TO MOSES APPEARED TO HIM ON THE MOUNTAIN IN THE MIDST OF FIRE AND A BUSH? (pg. 105) QUESTION 43. SINCE ABRAHAM WAS FORBIDDEN TO SACRIFICE HIS SON, WHY WAS JEPHTHAH NOT FORBIDDEN TO CARRY OUT THE SACRIFICE OF HIS DAUGHTER? (Gen. 22:11–12; Judg. 11)? (pg. 119) QUESTION 44. HOW COULD IT BE SHOWN FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHETS, ALREADY RECEIVED AMONG THE GENTILES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, THAT THE PROMISE WHICH GOD MADE TO ABRAHAM HAS BEEN FULFILLED THROUGH THE COMING OF CHRIST? (pg. 75) QUESTION 45. HOW MAN WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, AND WHETHER THIS WAS FOR DOMINION, AND WHETHER WOMAN TOO? (pg. 31)

180 QUESTION 46. WHETHER SAMUEL WAS ONE OF THE SONS OF AARON, AND WHETHER HE IS TO BE CONSIDERED A PRIEST? (pg. 121) QUESTION 47. HOW DO THE SEVEN WOMEN MENTIONED IN ISAIAH, “AND SEVEN WOMEN SHALL TAKE HOLD,” ETC. (Isa. 4:1), SIGNIFY THE SEVEN CATHOLIC CHURCHES? (pg. 174) 1ST CATEGORY QUESTIONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT (PL 35 2250-2386) QUESTION 48. GOD IS CERTAINLY PERFECTION AND IN NEED OF NOTHING; WHAT NEED THEN HAD CHRIST THE SAVIOR TO BE BORN OF GOD, AND FOR GOD TO HAVE A SON THROUGH WHOM HE MIGHT MAKE ALL THINGS? (pg. 407) QUESTION 49. WHY WAS THE SAVIOR BAPTIZED, SINCE HE WAS BORN HOLY, AND WAS CALLED CHRIST THE LORD AT HIS VERY BIRTH, WHEN BAPTISM EXISTS FOR THE SAKE OF PURIFICATION AND OF SIN (Luke 2:11; Matt. 3:16)? (pg. 196) QUESTION 50. IF THEREFORE THE SAVIOR WAS BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO BE AN EXAMPLE, WHY WAS HE CIRCUMCISED, YET FORBADE OTHERS TO BE CIRCUMCISED? (pg. 197)

181 QUESTION 51. HOW IS IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT, WHEN MARY SAID TO THE ANGEL, “AND HOW SHALL I KNOW THIS, FOR I DO NOT KNOW MAN?”, THE ANGEL GABRIEL REPLIED, “THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON YOU, AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU” (Luke 1:34–35)? (pg. 244) QUESTION 52. IF CHRIST WAS BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT IS, IF BY HIS WORKING FLESH WAS MADE FROM MARY, WHY IS IT SAID, “WISDOM, WHICH IS CERTAINLY CHRIST, HAS BUILT A HOUSE FOR HERSELF” (Prov. 9:1)? (pg. 190) QUESTION 53. IF ALL THINGS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REASON, WHY IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN BORN ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF JANUARY? (pg. 191) QUESTION 54. IF CHRIST, FROM THE SEED OF DAVID, HAS BEEN MADE THE SON OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE FLESH—THAT IS, IF HE WAS BORN ALREADY THE SON OF GOD IN BOTH RESPECTS, BECAUSE HE WAS BORN HOLY—HOW THEN, AFTER HE WAS BAPTIZED, WAS IT SAID TO HIM BY THE LORD GOD, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU” (Ps. 2:7)? (pg. 198)

182 QUESTION 55. WHAT WAS THE REASON THAT THE LORD ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BE CRUCIFIED AT THAT TIME, WHEN THE JEWS WERE ABOUT TO CELEBRATE PASSOVER ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF APRIL? (pg. 231) QUESTION 56. WHY IS IT THAT IN MATTHEW JOSEPH’S FATHER IS WRITTEN AS JACOB, AND IN LUKE AS HELI, SO THAT HE SEEMS TO BE IGNORANTLY DESCRIBED AS HAVING TWO FATHERS, OR AT LEAST SO THAT WHO HIS TRUE FATHER IS REMAINS UNKNOWN (Matt. 1:16; Luke 3:23)? (pg. 183) QUESTION 57. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, THAT ALTHOUGH IT IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHET MALACHI, “BEHOLD, I SEND MY ANGEL BEFORE YOUR FACE, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU,” THE EVANGELIST MARK CLAIMS THAT THIS IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHET ISAIAH (Mal. 3:1; Mark 1:2)? (pg. 236) QUESTION 58. IN WHAT WAY, THEN, DOES JOHN CLAIM THAT HE DID NOT KNOW CHRIST BEFORE THE BAPTISM, WHEN, AS HE CAME TO BE BAPTIZED, HE SAYS TO HIM, “I OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED BY YOU, AND DO YOU COME TO ME?” (John 1:31, 33; Matthew 3:14)? HOW COULD HE NOT KNOW HIM WHOM HE TRIED TO PREVENT, HUMBLING HIMSELF BEFORE HIM? (pg. 204)

183 QUESTION 59. IF BAPTISM IS A HEAVENLY MYSTERY, WHY DOES THE LORD, WHEN SPEAKING WITH NICODEMUS WHO DOUBTED CONCERNING BAPTISM, SAY: “IF I HAVE TOLD YOU EARTHLY THINGS, AND YOU DO NOT BELIEVE, HOW WILL YOU BELIEVE IF I TELL YOU HEAVENLY THINGS?” (John 3:12)? (pg. 270) QUESTION 60. IF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN, HOW IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR SENDS THE LEPER TO THE PRIESTS TO HAVE OFFERINGS MADE FOR HIS CLEANSING (Matt. 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14)? (pg. 214) QUESTION 61. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, WHEN THE JEWS ACCUSED THE DISCIPLES OF BREAKING THE SABBATH BY RUBBING EARS OF GRAIN IN THEIR HANDS AND EATING THEM, THE SAVIOR PUT FORWARD THE EXAMPLE OF DAVID, BECAUSE HE ATE THE LOAVES WHICH IT WAS NOT LAWFUL TO EAT EXCEPT FOR THE PRIESTS ALONE (Matt. 12:1–4)? BY THIS THEY DO NOT SEEM TO BE EXCUSED, BUT RATHER TO BECOME GUILTY TOGETHER WITH DAVID: ESPECIALLY SINCE DAVID DID NOT DO THIS ON THE SABBATH. (pg. 219)

184 QUESTION 62. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ALTHOUGH THOSE WHO WERE KILLED WERE THE SONS OF LEAH, FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH, RACHEL IS SAID TO BE WEEPING FOR HER SONS (Matt. 2:18)? (pg. 194) QUESTION 63. BY WHAT REASONING DID THE CHALDEAN MAGI UNDERSTAND, FROM THE APPEARANCE OF A STAR, THAT CHRIST, THE KING OF THE JEWS, HAD BEEN BORN, SINCE A TEMPORAL KING IS USUALLY SIGNIFIED BY A STAR AS A SIGN (Matt. 2:1–2)? (pg. 192) QUESTION 64. HOW IS IT PROVED THAT THE SAVIOR ROSE FROM THE DEAD AFTER THREE DAYS AND NIGHTS? (pg. 232) QUESTION 65. IF THEY SPOKE WITH ONE MOUTH AND ONE REASONING AS EVANGELISTS, HOW DID IT HAPPEN THAT, WHILE THREE SAY—NAMELY MATTHEW, LUKE, AND JOHN—THAT THE LORD WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE SIXTH HOUR, MARK ON THE CONTRARY SAYS THAT THE SAVIOR WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE THIRD HOUR (Matt. 27:45; Luke 23:44; John 19:14; Mark 15:25)? (pg. 228)

185 QUESTION 66. HOW IS IT THAT MARK THE EVANGELIST SAYS THAT THE DEMONS RECOGNIZED AND PROFESSED JESUS, WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND THE APOSTLE DENIES THAT THE RULERS AND POWERS OF THIS AGE KNEW THE DIVINITY OF THE LORD JESUS? FOR MARK, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SAYS: “THEY KNEW THAT HE WAS THE ONE”; BUT THE APOSTLE SAYS, “NONE OF THE RULERS OF THIS AGE KNEW HIM. FOR IF THEY HAD KNOWN, THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY” (Mark 1:34; 1 Cor. 2:8). IF THE DEMONS KNEW, HOW DID THE RULERS NOT KNOW? (pg. 237) QUESTION 67. WHAT IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR, PLACED UPON THE CROSS, SAYS: FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING (Luke 23:34)? (pg. 258) QUESTION 68. SINCE THE LORD HAS CERTAINLY TAUGHT THAT WE MUST PRAY FOR OUR ENEMIES, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT IN THE APOCALYPSE THE SOULS OF THE SLAIN SEEK TO BE AVENGED AGAINST THEM, ASKING GOD FOR VENGEANCE (Matt. 5:44; Rev. 6:10)? (pg. 211)

186 QUESTION 69. IF, WHEN JOHN OR THE SAVIOR WAS PREACHING, THE LAW CEASED, HOW DOES THE SAVIOR SAY, “I HAVE NOT COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS, BUT TO FULFILL” (Matt. 5:17)? FOR IF IT HAS BEEN FORBIDDEN, HOW IS IT NOT ABOLISHED, SINCE IT HAS LOST THE AUTHORITY TO BE CARRIED OUT? (pg. 205) QUESTION 70. THE LORD HAS CERTAINLY COMMANDED US TO MAKE THE DEVIL OUR ENEMY: WHAT THEN DOES IT MEAN WHEN IN THE GOSPEL HE SAYS, “BE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR ADVERSARY QUICKLY” (Matt. 5:25)? WHO IS A MAN’S ADVERSARY, IF NOT THE DEVIL? (pg. 211) QUESTION 71. JACOB IS CALLED “THE MAN WHO SEES GOD,” AND MOSES SAW GOD FACE TO FACE; LIKEWISE ISAIAH SAYS, “I HAVE SEEN THE LORD OF HOSTS WITH MY EYES.” BUT ON THE OTHER HAND JOHN THE EVANGELIST SAYS, “NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN GOD” (Gen. 32:28; Exod. 33:11; Isa. 6:5; 1 John 4:12); THIS, AS FAR AS IT APPEARS, IS CONTRADICTORY. (pg. 102)

187 QUESTION 72. WHEN IT IS READ IN THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN: “GO,” HE SAYS, “AND TAKE THE BOOK FROM THE HAND OF THE ANGEL, AND DEVOUR IT, AND IT WILL MAKE YOUR BELLY BITTER, BUT IN YOUR MOUTH IT WILL BE SWEET AS HONEY” (Rev. 10:8–9): WHAT IS THIS BOOK THAT MAKES THE BELLY BITTER WHILE IT IS SWEET? (pg. 355) QUESTION 73. WHAT IS IT THAT SIMEON SAYS TO MARY, THE MOTHER OF THE LORD, AMONG OTHER THINGS: “THIS CHILD IS SET FOR THE FALL AND THE RISING OF MANY IN ISRAEL; AND A SWORD, HE SAYS, SHALL PIERCE THROUGH YOUR OWN SOUL ALSO, THAT THE THOUGHTS OF MANY HEARTS MAY BE REVEALED” (Luke 2:34–35)? (pg. 246) QUESTION 74. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PROPHET ISAIAH SAYS OF CHRIST, “HE COMMITTED NO SIN,” WHILE THE APOSTLE, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS, “HIM WHO KNEW NO SIN, HE MADE SIN FOR US” (Isa. 53:9; 2 Cor. 5:21)? (pg. 333)

188 QUESTION 75. WHY DID THE SAVIOR PAY THE DIDRACHMA ONLY FOR HIMSELF AND PETER, AND NOT ALSO FOR THE OTHER APOSTLES (Matt. 17:26)? SINCE THEY HAD ALL FOLLOWED HIM AFTER LEAVING ALL THEIR POSSESSIONS, HE SEEMS TO HAVE OWED PAYMENT FOR ALL. (pg. 223) QUESTION 76. IN THE GOSPEL, JOHN SAYS, “THE LAW WAS GIVEN THROUGH MOSES, GRACE AND TRUTH CAME THROUGH JESUS CHRIST” (John 1:17). THEREFORE, GRACE AND TRUTH DID NOT EXIST BEFORE. HOW THEN IS THE LAW SAID TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY GOD, IF THERE WAS NO TRUTH IN IT? (pg. 268) QUESTION 77. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF WHAT MARK THE EVANGELIST SAYS ABOUT CHRIST AMONG OTHER THINGS: “ENTERING THE HOUSE, HE WISHED NO ONE TO KNOW, AND HE COULD NOT REMAIN HIDDEN” (Mark 7:24)? IF THEREFORE HE WISHED AND COULD NOT, HIS WILL SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN WEAKENED. (pg. 239) QUESTION 78. IT IS READ IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN THAT, AFTER THE SAVIOR HAD SAID HE WOULD NOT GO UP TO THE FEAST DAY, HE WENT UP (John 7:8, 14); THIS SEEMS TO BE A SIGN OF INCONSISTENCY. (pg. 279)

189 QUESTION 79. IF WE LIVE BY OUR OWN FREE WILL, WHY DID THE SAVIOR SAY, “NO ONE COMES TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER WHO SENT ME DRAWS HIM” (John 6:44); AND WHY, AGREEING WITH THIS, DID THE APOSTLE SAY, “IT IS NOT OF HIM THAT WILLS, NOR OF HIM THAT RUNS, BUT OF GOD THAT SHOWS MERCY,” AND, “HE HAS MERCY ON WHOM HE WILL, AND WHOM HE WILL HE HARDENS” (Rom. 9:16, 18)? HOW IS THE WILL’S CHOICE FREE, WHEN AT ANOTHER’S NOD IT IS LED EITHER TO GOOD OR TO EVIL? (pg. 276) QUESTION 80. CERTAINLY, EACH PERSON IS EITHER A SON OF GOD OR OF THE DEVIL: HE IS THEREFORE ALWAYS A SON, BUT SOMETIMES OF GOD, AND AT OTHER TIMES OF THE DEVIL. WHAT THEN WE ARE BORN AS MUST BE INQUIRED. (pg. 289) QUESTION 81. THE APOSTLE SAYS, “WE WHO ARE JEWS BY NATURE” (Gal. 2:15): THEREFORE HE SHOWS THAT JEWS ARE BORN FROM JEWS; I AM NOT SPEAKING OF PROSELYTES, WHO ARE CLEARLY MADE INTO JEWS. INDEED, THOSE WHO WERE BORN IN THE WILDERNESS WERE NOT CIRCUMCISED, AND YET THEY WERE JEWS. THEREFORE IT IS NOT CIRCUMCISION THAT MAKES A JEW, BUT BIRTH BROUGHT FORTH UNDER DEVOTION TO GOD THE CREATOR. IF THEN JEWS ARE BORN FROM JEWS, WHY NOT ALSO CHRISTIANS FROM CHRISTIANS? FOR PAGANS TOO ARE BORN FROM PAGANS. (pg. 337)

190 QUESTION 82. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE PAGANS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ELEMENTS; WHAT, THEN, DOES THE APOSTLE MEAN WHEN HE SAYS, “WE TOO WERE IN BONDAGE UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THIS WORLD”? (Gal. 4:3). IF, THEREFORE, THE JEWS ALSO WERE SERVING UNDER THE ELEMENTS, HOW WERE THEY DIFFERENT FROM THE PAGANS? (pg. 344) QUESTION 83. IF SALVATION AND TRUE AND PERFECT KNOWLEDGE ARE THROUGH CHRIST, WHY DID HE NOT COME EARLIER, SO THAT OUR PREDECESSORS WHO WERE IN IGNORANCE MIGHT LEARN THE TRUTH? INDEED, AFTER THE COMING OF CHRIST MANY HAVE BEEN SAVED, MORE THAN BEFORE. WHENCE, IF HE HAD COME EARLIER, MANY MORE WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. IF THIS IS SO, IT SEEMS BLAMEWORTHY. (pg. 408) QUESTION 84. WHY DO WE, WHO ARE KEEPING THE PASSOVER FEAST (EASTER) BY THE PHASE OF THE MOON, REPROACH THE PAGANS FOR OBSERVING THE DAYS AND THE DIFFERENT PHASES OF THE MOON? (pg. 253)

191 QUESTION 85. HOW IS IT, THEN, THAT ALTHOUGH IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT FROM DAVID DOWN TO THE BABYLONIAN EXILE THERE ARE SEVENTEEN GENERATIONS, THE EVANGELIST SAYS THERE ARE FOURTEEN (Matt. 1:17), OMITTING AHAZIAH, WHO AFTER JORAM IS THE SON OF JEHOSHAPHAT, AND JOASH THE SON OF AHAZIAH, AND AMAZIAH THE SON OF JOASH? (pg. 188) QUESTION 86. WHAT PROVES THAT MARY, THE MOTHER OF THE LORD, IS OF THE TRIBE AND LINEAGE OF DAVID? (pg. 242) QUESTION 87. IF GOD IS ONE, WHY IS HOPE OF SALVATION IN THREE, AND NOT IN TWO OR FOUR, OR SURELY IN THE ONE HIMSELF? AND WHY WAS THE TRINITY NOT PREACHED FROM THE BEGINNING? (pg. 414) QUESTION 88. IF GRACE IS GREATER AND UNDERSTANDING CLEARER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THAN IN THE OLD; WHY DID THE PROPHET ISAIAH SEE THE LORD OF HOSTS, WHO IS CHRIST, SEATED ON THE THRONE OF MAJESTY, ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF JOHN THE EVANGELIST? FOR HE SAID AMONG OTHER THINGS: “ISAIAH SAID THESE THINGS WHEN HE SAW HIS MAJESTY AND SPOKE OF HIM” (Isaiah 6:1; John 12:41). BUT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT STEPHEN THE FIRST MARTYR SAYS THAT HE SAW JESUS STANDING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD (Acts 7:55). WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT HERE HE APPEARS AS SUBJECT AFTER HIS VICTORIES, AND THERE AS LORD BEFORE HE HAD CONQUERED? (pg. 294)

192 QUESTION 89. THE SAVIOR, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SAYS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: “WHEN HE COMES,” HE SAYS, “HE WILL CONVICT THE WORLD CONCERNING SIN, AND RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND JUDGMENT. CONCERNING SIN INDEED, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN ME; BUT CONCERNING RIGHTEOUSNESS, BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER, AND YOU WILL SEE ME NO MORE; BUT CONCERNING JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD HAS BEEN JUDGED” (John 16:8). HE APPEARS INDEED TO HAVE STATED THE REASON FOR THE WORLD’S BEING CONVICTED, BUT THIS NEEDS EXPLANATION. (pg. 312) QUESTION 90. IF THE DEVIL HIMSELF IS SATAN, HOW IS IT THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS THE SAVIOR SAYS TO THE JEWS: “YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND YOU WISH TO DO THE DESIRES OF YOUR FATHER. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND DID NOT STAND IN THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. WHEN HE SPEAKS A LIE, HE SPEAKS FROM WHAT IS HIS OWN; FOR HE IS A LIAR, AS IS HIS FATHER” (John 8:44)? (pg. 288)

193 QUESTION 91. HOW TO BE SOUGHT IS HOW TO CONTRADICT THE ARGUMENTS OF PHOTINUS, WHO SAYS THAT CHRIST DID NOT EXIST BEFORE MARY. (pg. 416) QUESTION 92. HOW IS IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD WHEN THE SAVIOR SAYS, MY PEACE I GIVE TO YOU; MY PEACE I LEAVE WITH YOU: NOT AS THIS WORLD GIVES, DO I GIVE TO YOU (John 14:27)? (pg. 311) QUESTION 93. WE MUST ASK WHETHER THE APOSTLES HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT DURING THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE ON EARTH WITH THE LORD, BECAUSE AMONG MANY THINGS THE EVANGELIST SAYS, “THE SPIRIT HAD NOT YET BEEN GIVEN, BECAUSE JESUS HAD NOT YET BEEN GLORIFIED” (John 7:39); AND IN ANOTHER PLACE, “IF YOU LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS, AND I WILL ASK THE FATHER, AND HE WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER PARACLETE, THAT HE MAY REMAIN WITH YOU FOREVER, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE IT NEITHER SEES HIM NOR KNOWS HIM; BUT YOU KNOW HIM, BECAUSE HE DWELLS WITH YOU AND IS IN YOU” (John 14:15-17). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? HE DENIES THAT THE SPIRIT WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE PASSION; YET HE PROMISES THAT HE WILL ASK THE FATHER TO SEND HIM. AGAIN HE ADDS THAT THE SPIRIT WAS WITH THEM AND REMAINED AMONG THEM. AFTER THE RESURRECTION, HOWEVER, IT IS WRITTEN THAT HE BREATHED ON THEM AND SAID, “RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT” (John 20:22). AND AT PENTECOST IT IS WRITTEN THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCENDED UPON THE APOSTLES (Acts 2:1-4). I SEE SO MANY DIFFICULTIES IN THIS MATTER THAT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT OUGHT TO BE HELD. (pg. 280)

194 QUESTION 94. IT MUST BE ASKED WHETHER JUDAS ISCARIOT, THE TRAITOR OF THE LORD, ENDED HIS LIFE BY HANGING BEFORE THE PASSION OF THE SAVIOR. (pg. 227) QUESTION 95. WHAT WAS THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF PENTECOST AND THE REASON FOR ITS INSTITUTION? (pg. 316) QUESTION 96. IT SHOULD BE ASKED WHETHER PASCHA IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS “PASSAGE,” AS IT APPEARS TO THE GREEKS. (pg. 325) QUESTION 97. BY WHAT REASONING CAN THE WICKEDNESS OF ARIUS BE SIMPLY REFUTED FROM THE LAW? (pg. 295) QUESTION 98. ON THE GOSPEL OF SAINT JOHN. (pg. 286) QUESTION 99. WHAT IS THAT SAYING OF THE APOSTLE, “LET NO TEMPTATION TAKE HOLD OF YOU EXCEPT WHAT IS HUMAN” (1 Cor. 10:13)? (pg. 328) QUESTION 100. ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. (pg. 217) QUESTION 101. ON THE BOASTFULNESS OF ROMAN DEACONS. (pg. 424) QUESTION 102. AGAINST NOVATIAN. (pg. 360) QUESTION 103. HOW HAS THE LORD IN LEVITICUS COMMANDED THAT SACRIFICES AND LIBATIONS BE OFFERED, WHICH ELSEWHERE HE REJECTS? FOR IT IS CLEAR IN LEVITICUS THAT THE LORD COMMANDED THE FATHERS TO OFFER LIBATIONS OR SACRIFICES OR BURNT OFFERINGS: YET HE SAYS THEREFORE THROUGH THE PROPHET JEREMIAH: THEREFORE SAYS THE LORD, GATHER YOUR BURNT OFFERINGS WITH YOUR SACRIFICES, AND EAT FLESH; FOR I DID NOT SPEAK TO YOUR FATHERS, NOR DID I COMMAND THEM, IN THE DAY THAT I BROUGHT THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT (Jer. 7:21–22) ABOUT BURNT OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES. (pg. 116)

195 QUESTION 104. ON THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. (pg. 255) QUESTION 105. HOW THE PROPHECY AGREES WITH THE GOSPEL, CONCERNING THE DARKENING OF THE SUN AND CERTAIN OTHER THINGS. (pg. 250) QUESTION 106. ON GENESIS. (pg. 6) QUESTION 107. ON THE ORDER OF DAY AND NIGHT. (pg. 26) QUESTION 108. ON THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHERE IT TOOK ITS NAME. (pg. 68) QUESTION 109. ON MELCHIZEDEK. (pg. 84) QUESTION 110. ON THE FIRST PSALM. (pg. 140) QUESTION 111. ON PSALM 23. (pg. 147) QUESTION 112. ON PSALM FIFTY. (pg. 156) QUESTION 113. WHY WAS THE SON OF GOD SENT, AND NOT ANOTHER? (pg. 428) QUESTION 114. AGAINST THE PAGANS. (pg. 380) QUESTION 115. CONCERNING FATE. (pg. 432) QUESTION 116. THE REASON FOR THE PASSOVER. (pg. 108) QUESTION 117. ON ABRAHAM. (pg. 72) QUESTION 118. ON JOB. (pg. 136) QUESTION 119. ON TOBIT. (pg. 134) QUESTION 120. ON FASTING. (pg. 457) QUESTION 121. PRAISE AND GLORY OF THE PASSOVER. (pg. 459)

196 QUESTION 122. ON THE BEGINNING. (pg. 259) QUESTION 123. DID ADAM HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT? (pg. 38) QUESTION 124. ONE WORK VARIES ACCORDING TO PERSONS, INTO PRAISE OR CONDEMNATION. (pg. 460) QUESTION 125. AGAINST EUSEBIUS. (pg. 392) QUESTION 126. ON THE PERSON WHO HAS RECEIVED FAITH IN CHRIST. (pg. 463) QUESTION 127. THE SIN OF ADAM AND EVE. (pg. 46) 2ND CATEGORY QUESTIONS ON THE OLD TESTAMENT (PL 35 2386-92) QUESTION 1. AGAINST THOSE WHO DENY THAT ANYTHING CONCERNS GOD. (pg. 399) QUESTION 2. AND IS THE SPIRIT WHO WAS MOVING OVER THE WATERS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS THE HOLY SPIRIT, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, “THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS MOVING OVER THE WATERS” (Gen. 1:2)?" (pg. 23) QUESTION 3. WHEN ADAM WAS MADE BY GOD AND GIVEN LIFE, HE RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT; FOR IT IS WRITTEN, “GOD BREATHED INTO HIS FACE THE SPIRIT OF LIFE” (Gen. 2:7). (pg. 44)

197 QUESTION 4. WHY DID GOD IMPOSE UPON ADAM THAT HE HAD PLACED IN THE WORLD A COMMANDMENT, A LAW, AFTER HAVING GIVEN HIM DOMINION OVER ALL CREATURES? (pg. 45) QUESTION 5. WHY DOES GOD SAY, “MY SPIRIT SHALL NOT REMAIN IN THESE MEN, BECAUSE THEY ARE FLESH; THEIR YEARS SHALL BE ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY,” ETC. (Gen. 6:3)? (pg. 67) QUESTION 6. WHAT DOES THE BLESSING OF JACOB, WHICH HE GAVE TO HIS SONS (Gen. 48, 49), CONTAIN? (pg. 103) QUESTION 7. WHY DID THE ANGEL SENT TO SPEAK TO MOSES APPEAR IN THE FIRE AND IN THE BUSH? (pg. 105) QUESTION 8. THERE WAS NO OTHER SIGN THAT MOSES PERFORMED OPENLY BEFORE PHARAOH EXCEPT THE SERPENT (Exod. 7:10) (pg. 107) QUESTION 9. IF THERE IS ONE GOD, WHY IS HOPE OF SALVATION IN THREE, AND NOT IN TWO, OR FOUR, OR CERTAINLY IN ONE? AND WHY WAS THE TRINITY NOT PREACHED EARLIER? (pg. 414)

198 QUESTION 10. WHY WERE CIRCUMCISION AND PRECEPTS GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE, WHICH PREVIOUSLY DID NOT EXIST AND NOW ARE NO LONGER HELD IN AUTHORITY? (pg. 97) QUESTION 11. IF THE JEWS HAD RECEIVED HARSH COMMANDMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR DISTRUST AND SLANDERS, WHAT HAD THEIR SONS DONE WRONG THAT THEY TOO SHOULD BE BOUND BY THESE COMMANDMENTS? (pg. 468) QUESTION 12. WHY IS IT THAT IN THE LAW EVEN AARON HIMSELF IS TOLD THAT HE MUST OFFER BURNT OFFERINGS FOR HIS SINS, WHEN DAVID SAYS, “FOR FAULTS YOU HAVE NOT REQUIRED A BURNT OFFERING” (Ps. 39:7), AND LATER, “YOU WILL NOT TAKE PLEASURE IN BURNT OFFERINGS” (Ps. 50:18)? HOW DID HE COMMAND THAT THERE BE OFFERED WHAT HE DOES NOT TAKE PLEASURE IN? (pg. 154) QUESTION 13. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT DEATH WAS SENT INTO JACOB, THAT IT HAS COME INTO ISRAEL, SINCE JACOB HIMSELF IS ISRAEL? (pg. 177)

199 QUESTION 14. IF THE SOUL THAT SINS SHALL ITSELF DIE, HOW IS IT THAT, WHEN CHARMI SINS, THIRTY‑SIX MEN APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN KILLED ON HIS ACCOUNT? (pg. 118) QUESTION 15. WHAT IS IT THAT THE PROPHET SAYS: REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN, YOU WHO DO NOT GIVE BIRTH; BREAK FORTH AND CRY OUT, YOU WHO DO NOT LABOR IN CHILDBIRTH, BECAUSE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE ARE MORE NUMEROUS THAN THOSE OF HER WHO HAS A HUSBAND? (pg. 179) QUESTION 16. IF A HORSE AND A MULE DO NOT HAVE UNDERSTANDING, HOW MUCH LESS SO DOES THE EARTH, A THING WITHOUT SENSATION? WHAT THEN DOES IT MEAN WHEN THE EARTH IS SAID TO BLESS THE LORD (Ps. 31:9; Dan. 3:74)? (pg. 145) QUESTION 17. HE HAS, HE SAYS, SET UP HIS TABERNACLE IN THE SUN (Ps. 18:6), THAT IS, HIS BODY IN WHICH CHRIST DWELT, WHO WAS SCOURGED BY PILATE: HOW THEN IS IT SAID IN THE PSALM OF CHRIST, THE SCOURGE SHALL NOT COME NEAR YOUR TENT (Ps. 90:10)? SINCE HE CALLED HIS BODY A TEMPLE. (pg. 146)

200 QUESTION 18. WHY DID SOLOMON HAVE THE SPIRIT OF WISDOM (1 Kings 3), WHEN HE DID NOT HAVE A PURE LIFE? FOR HE TOOK GREAT DELIGHT IN WOMEN, AND BY THIS HE SINNED (ibid. 11). (pg. 132) QUESTION 19. IN SOLOMON IT IS SAID, “HOPE IS IN THE DARKNESS, AND A LIVING DOG IS BETTER THAN A DEAD LION.” (Eccles. 9:4).” (pg. 169) QUESTION 20. IN WISDOM IT SAYS, “HE CREATED, IT SAYS, THE WORLD FROM UNSEEN MATTER”; AND ELSEWHERE, THAT WE HAVE BEEN MADE FROM NOTHING (Wis. 11:18 and 2:2). (pg. 173) 2ND CATEGORY QUESTIONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT (PL 35 2392-2412) QUESTION 1. WHY HAVE THE DEEDS AND SAYINGS OF THE LORD BEEN ARRANGED IN WRITING IN FOUR BOOKS BY FOUR AUTHORS? (pg. 468) QUESTION 2. SINCE IT IS CERTAIN THAT WE HAVE FOUR AUTHENTIC BOOKS OF THE FACTS AND WORDS OF OUR LORD, IN WHAT ORDER SHOULD WE PLACE THEM? (pg. 469)

201 QUESTION 3. WHY DOES MATTHEW, WHEN WRITING THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, SAY, “THE BOOK OF THE GENERATION OF JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF DAVID” (Matt. 1:1), WHEN ABRAHAM CAME EARLIER? (pg. 181) QUESTION 4. WHAT IS THE REASON THAT THE APOSTLE MATTHEW, MENTIONED ABOVE, DIVIDED ALL THE GENERATIONS INTO THREE PARTS (Matt. 1:17)? (pg. 182) QUESTION 5. SO, SINCE THERE ARE FORTY-ONE GENERATIONS, THE EVANGELIST SEEMS TO HAVE COUNTED FORTY-TWO (Matt. 1:17). FOR THREE TIMES FOURTEEN, WHAT DO THEY MAKE IF NOT FORTY-TWO? (pg. 182) QUESTION 6. THEREFORE, IN MATTHEW JOSEPH’S FATHER IS WRITTEN AS JACOB, AND IN LUKE AS HELI; SO THAT HE IS EITHER IGNORANTLY DESCRIBED AS HAVING TWO FATHERS, OR AT LEAST IT IS UNCLEAR WHO HIS TRUE FATHER IS? (pg. 183) QUESTION 7. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SAVIOR WAS BORN, THE SON OF GOD AND CALLED CHRIST: WHY THEN, AFTER BAPTISM, DID THE TEMPTER APPROACH HIM, SAYING, “IF YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD,” ETC. (Matt. 4:3)? (pg. 200)

202 QUESTION 8. WHY DOES THE SAVIOR, WHEN THE DEVIL IS TESTING HIM, RESIST IN NO OTHER WAY THAN WITH EXAMPLES FROM THE LAW (Matt. 4:4–10)? (pg. 201) QUESTION 9. WHY DID THE SAVIOR, AFTER HIS BAPTISM, FAST FOR FORTY DAYS AND THEN AFTERWARD GROW HUNGRY (Matt. 4:2)? FOR ONE WHO FASTED FORTY DAYS COULD HAVE ALREADY CEASED TO FEEL HUNGER. (pg. 202) QUESTION 10. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ALTHOUGH JOHN THE BAPTIST HAD PREVIOUSLY BORNE WITNESS TO THE SAVIOR, HE LATER SEEMED TO DOUBT, SAYING THROUGH HIS DISCIPLES: “ARE YOU THE ONE WHO IS TO COME, OR ARE WE TO EXPECT ANOTHER?” (Matt. 11:3–10). (pg. 203) QUESTION 11. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE FACT THAT ABOVE WE READ THAT HEROD DIED (Matt. 2:19), BUT LATER ON, AFTER MANY YEARS, WE READ THAT HEROD KILLED JOHN (Matt. 14:1–11), EVEN THOUGH JOHN OUTLIVED THE EARLIER HEROD WHO HAD DIED? (pg. 193)

203 QUESTION 12. SINCE THE LORD HAS CERTAINLY TAUGHT THAT WE MUST PRAY FOR OUR ENEMIES, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT IN THE APOCALYPSE THE SOULS OF THE SLAIN SEEK TO BE AVENGED AGAINST THEM, ASKING GOD FOR VENGEANCE (Matt. 5:44; Rev. 6:10)? (pg. 211) QUESTION 13. IF, WHEN JOHN OR THE SAVIOR WAS PREACHING, THE LAW CEASED, HOW DOES THE SAVIOR SAY, “I HAVE NOT COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS, BUT TO FULFILL” (Matt. 5:17)? FOR IF IT HAS BEEN FORBIDDEN, HOW IS IT NOT ABOLISHED, SINCE IT HAS LOST THE AUTHORITY TO BE CARRIED OUT? (pg. 205) QUESTION 14. JOHN TO THE LORD: “ARE YOU THE ONE WHO IS TO COME, OR SHOULD WE EXPECT ANOTHER?” (Matt. 11) (pg. 216) QUESTION 15. WHY IS IT SAID THAT THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN, AND THAT AFTERWARD THEY RIGHTLY CEASED (Matt. 11:13)? BECAUSE THE ONE ABOUT WHOM THEY PROPHESIED HAD NOW ARRIVED. WHY THEN “UNTIL JOHN” WITH REGARD TO THE LAW, SINCE THE APOSTLE SAYS THAT WE OUGHT TO BE SUBJECT TO THE LAW: “FOR THOSE THAT EXIST,” HE SAYS, “HAVE BEEN ORDAINED BY GOD” (Rom. 13:1)? (pg. 216)

204 QUESTION 16. SINCE THE SAVIOR SAYS THAT THE BAPTISM OF JOHN IS FROM HEAVEN, WHY, WHEN HE SPEAKS TO NICODEMUS ABOUT BAPTISM AND HE IS IN DOUBT, DOES HE SAY: “IF I HAVE TOLD YOU EARTHLY THINGS AND YOU DO NOT BELIEVE,” ETC.? (pg. 270) QUESTION 17. WHY IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR AT FIRST REFUSED MERCY TO THE FOREIGN WOMAN, THAT IS, THE CANAANITE (Matt. 15:22–28), WHEN HE DID NOT DENY THE GRACE OF GRANTING SALVATION TO THE FOREIGN CENTURION AND TO THE LEPER WHOM JESUS HIMSELF CALLED A FOREIGNER (Luke 7:2–10 and 17:12–19)? (pg. 222) QUESTION 18. HOW IS WHAT THE SAVIOR SAID PROVEN, NAMELY THAT AFTER THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS HE WOULD RISE FROM THE DEAD, SINCE IN FACT, HAVING SUFFERED ON THE PREPARATION DAY, HE ROSE AT DAYBREAK ON SUNDAY, WHILE IT WAS STILL DARK? THEREFORE, THE NUMBER OF DAYS AND NIGHTS DOES NOT SEEM TO MATCH. (pg. 232)

205 QUESTION 19. THEREFORE THE SAVIOR SAYS, PRAY THAT YOUR FLIGHT BE NOT IN WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH (Matt. 24:20); EVEN THOUGH THE TIME OF THIS PERSECUTION CANNOT BE POSTPONED, SINCE THE APOSTLE SAYS, HE WILL BE REVEALED IN HIS OWN TIME (2 Thess. 2:6, 8); AND IN THE ACTS THE APOSTLE SAYS, APPOINTING THE TIMES AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THEIR DWELLING (Acts 17:26). AND WHY DOES HE INDICATE THAT FLIGHT IS NOT ADVISABLE IN WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH? (pg. 225) QUESTION 20. WHEN THE SAVIOR SAID THAT HE WAS GOING TO SUFFER AND THAT HE WOULD RISE AGAIN ON THE THIRD DAY, HE ADDED, “AND AFTER I HAVE RISEN, I WILL GO BEFORE YOU INTO GALILEE, THERE YOU WILL SEE ME”; AND LIKEWISE THE ANGEL SAID TO THE WOMEN (Matt. 26:32 and 28:7). (pg. 226) QUESTION 21. THREE EVANGELISTS SAY THAT THE SAVIOR WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE SIXTH HOUR, BUT THE EVANGELIST MARK SAYS THAT HE WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE THIRD HOUR. (pg. 228)

206 QUESTION 22. IF THEREFORE THE SAVIOR WAS BAPTIZED SO AS TO BE AN EXAMPLE, WHY, WHEN HE WAS CIRCUMCISED, DID HE FORBID THE OTHERS TO BE CIRCUMCISED? (pg. 197) QUESTION 23. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, WHEN THE JEWS ACCUSED THE DISCIPLES OF BREAKING THE SABBATH BY RUBBING EARS OF GRAIN IN THEIR HANDS AND EATING THEM, THE SAVIOR PUT FORWARD THE EXAMPLE OF DAVID, BECAUSE HE ATE THE LOAVES WHICH IT WAS NOT LAWFUL TO EAT EXCEPT FOR THE PRIESTS ALONE (Matt. 12:1–4)? BY THIS THEY DO NOT SEEM TO BE EXCUSED, BUT RATHER TO BECOME GUILTY TOGETHER WITH DAVID: ESPECIALLY SINCE DAVID DID NOT DO THIS ON THE SABBATH. (pg. 219) QUESTION 24. WHY DID THE SAVIOR CALL HIS DISCIPLES “SONS OF THUNDER” (Mark 3:17), WHO WOULD SEEM FAR MORE TO BE CALLED SONS OF GOD? FOR THUNDER IS SAID TO BE PRODUCED BY THE COLLISION OF CLOUDS. (pg. 239)

207 QUESTION 25. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE EVANGELIST MARK, CHRIST’S WILL WAS NOT FULFILLED: FOR “ENTERING,” HE SAYS, “INTO A HOUSE, HE WISHED NO ONE TO KNOW, AND HE COULD NOT REMAIN HIDDEN” (Mark 7:24)? IF THEREFORE HE WISHED TO BE HIDDEN AND COULD NOT, HIS WILL HAS BEEN WEAKENED. (pg. 239) QUESTION 26. IN THE GOSPEL WE READ THAT THE ANGEL SAYS TO MARY, THE LORD’S MOTHER, THAT HIS KINGDOM, THAT IS, CHRIST’S, WILL HAVE NO END (Luke 1:33). AND DANIEL SAYS THE SAME; FOR HE SAYS: THEN THERE SHALL ARISE AN EVERLASTING KINGDOM WHICH SHALL NEVER BE DESTROYED (Dan. 7:14). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APOSTLE SAYS OF THE LORD: WHEN HE SHALL HAVE DELIVERED UP THE KINGDOM TO GOD AND THE FATHER (1 Cor. 15:24). HOW WILL HE HAVE AN ETERNAL KINGDOM, IF HE IS SAID TO BE GOING TO DELIVER THAT KINGDOM UP TO GOD AND THE FATHER? (pg. 242)

208 QUESTION 27. THE SAVIOR SAYS, IF ANYONE HAS NOT LEFT ALL THAT HE HAS, THAT IS, HOUSE, AND FIELD, AND THE REST, HE CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE; AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE EVANGELIST SAYS: JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA CAME, A RICH MAN, WHO WAS ALSO HIMSELF A DISCIPLE OF JESUS, WAITING FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD (Luke 14:33 and 23:50–51). HOW IS IT THAT THE EVANGELIST ACKNOWLEDGES HIM AS A DISCIPLE WHOM THE SAVIOR DENIED? FOR ZACCHAEUS WAS RICH, AND CORNELIUS THE CENTURION WAS RICH, AND THE WOMEN WHO MINISTERED TO THEM OUT OF THEIR MEANS WERE RICH. (pg. 248) QUESTION 28. IF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN, HOW IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR SENDS THE LEPER TO THE PRIESTS TO HAVE OFFERINGS MADE FOR HIS CLEANSING (Matt. 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14)? (pg. 214) QUESTION 29. IF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN, FROM WHOM THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN BEGAN TO BE PREACHED (Luke 16:16), FOR HE IS INDEED THE INITIATOR OF THE NEW PREACHING, WHY DID HIS BAPTISM CEASE? (pg. 249)

209 QUESTION 30. IN THE GOSPEL, JOHN SAYS, “THE LAW WAS GIVEN THROUGH MOSES, GRACE AND TRUTH CAME THROUGH JESUS CHRIST” (John 1:17). THEREFORE, GRACE AND TRUTH DID NOT EXIST BEFORE. HOW THEN IS THE LAW SAID TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY GOD, IF THERE WAS NO TRUTH IN IT? (pg. 268) QUESTION 31. THE SABBATH IS CERTAINLY THE LAW OR A PART OF THE LAW; HOW THEN IS THE LAW NOT ABOLISHED, WHEN THE EVANGELIST SAYS, “HE NOT ONLY BROKE THE SABBATH, BUT ALSO CALLED GOD HIS FATHER” (John 5:18)? (pg. 274) QUESTION 32. IF WE LIVE BY OUR OWN FREE CHOICE, WHY DOES THE SAVIOR SAY, “NO ONE,” HE DECLARES, “COMES TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER WHO SENT ME DRAWS HIM”; AND WHY DOES THE APOSTLE, IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS, SAY, “IT IS NOT OF HIM WHO WILLS, NOR OF HIM WHO RUNS, BUT OF GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY”? BY THESE STATEMENTS THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL SEEMS TO BE DISTURBED. FOR IF NO ONE GOES UNLESS DRAWN, THEN IT WILL NOT BE THE FAULT OF THE ONE WHO DOES NOT GO, SINCE HE IS NOT DRAWN. AND IF THE ONE WHO ASKS AND STRIVES DOES NOT RECEIVE, BUT GOD GIVES TO WHOM HE WILLS, THEN THE PERSON WHO WILLS AND DOES NOT OBTAIN WILL BE WITHOUT BLAME AND GUILT; AND THE GUILT WILL FALL BACK ON THE ONE WHO SPURNS THE PETITIONER. (pg. 276)

210 QUESTION 33. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ALTHOUGH THE SAVIOR HEALED ALMOST EVERYONE BY A WORD, HE NONETHELESS RESTORED THE BLIND MAN’S EYES WITH MUD MADE FROM HIS SPITTLE (John 9:6–7)? (pg. 291) QUESTION 34. WHAT IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR SAYS, “I AM THE DOOR; THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE ME ARE THIEVES AND ROBBERS” (John 10:7–8)? THIS STATEMENT SEEMS TO STRIKE AT THE PROPHETS. (pg. 292) QUESTION 35. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, WHEN HE WAS GOING TO PERFORM A MARVELOUS AND UNKNOWN ACT OF POWER, NAMELY, TO RAISE LAZARUS FROM THE DEAD, HE WEPT, OR ASKED WHERE HE HAD BEEN LAID AS THOUGH HE DID NOT KNOW (John 11:34–35)? (pg. 293) QUESTION 36. WHEN THE SAVIOR SAYS, “I PRAY FOR THEM WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN ME; I DO NOT PRAY FOR THE WORLD” (John 17:9), BUT THE APOSTLE JOHN, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS, “WE HAVE AN ADVOCATE WITH THE FATHER, A MEDIATOR FOR OUR SINS, AND NOT ONLY FOR OURS, BUT FOR THE WHOLE WORLD” (1 John 2:1–2), THIS SEEMS TO BE A CONTRADICTION. (pg. 313)

211 QUESTION 37. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE SAVIOR SAYS TO MARY, WHO WANTS TO TOUCH HIM OUT OF JOY, “DO NOT TOUCH ME; FOR I HAVE NOT YET ASCENDED TO THE FATHER” (John 20:1–17), WHEN IT IS READ THAT HE WAS BOTH TOUCHED AND ADORED BY THE OTHER WOMEN? (pg. 314) QUESTION 38. HOW IS IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT, WHEN MARY SAID TO THE ANGEL, “AND HOW SHALL I KNOW THIS, FOR I DO NOT KNOW MAN?”, THE ANGEL GABRIEL REPLIED, “THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON YOU, AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU” (Luke 1:34–35)? (pg. 244) QUESTION 39. BY WHAT REASONING DID THE CHALDEAN MAGI UNDERSTAND, THROUGH THE STAR THAT APPEARED, THAT CHRIST, THE KING OF THE JEWS, HAD BEEN BORN, SINCE A TEMPORAL KING IS INDICATED BY A STAR AS A SIGN? (Matt. 2:1–2)? (pg. 192) QUESTION 40. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PROPHET ISAIAH SAYS OF CHRIST, “HE COMMITTED NO SIN,” WHILE THE APOSTLE, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS, “HIM WHO KNEW NO SIN, HE MADE SIN FOR US” (Isa. 53:9; 2 Cor. 5:21)? (pg. 333)

212 QUESTION 41. CERTAINLY, WHOEVER IS NOT A SON OF GOD IS OF THE DEVIL: THEREFORE HE IS ALWAYS A SON, BUT SOMETIMES OF GOD, SOMETIMES OF THE DEVIL. WHAT THEN ARE WE BORN AS? (pg. 289) QUESTION 42. WE MUST ASK WHETHER THE APOSTLES HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT DURING THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE ON EARTH WITH THE LORD, BECAUSE AMONG MANY THINGS THE EVANGELIST SAYS, “THE SPIRIT HAD NOT YET BEEN GIVEN, BECAUSE JESUS HAD NOT YET BEEN GLORIFIED” (John 7:39); AND IN ANOTHER PLACE, “IF YOU LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS, AND I WILL ASK THE FATHER, AND HE WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER PARACLETE, THAT HE MAY REMAIN WITH YOU FOREVER, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE IT NEITHER SEES HIM NOR KNOWS HIM; BUT YOU KNOW HIM, BECAUSE HE DWELLS WITH YOU AND IS IN YOU” (John 14:15-17). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? HE DENIES THAT THE SPIRIT WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE PASSION; YET HE PROMISES THAT HE WILL ASK THE FATHER TO SEND HIM. AGAIN HE ADDS THAT THE SPIRIT WAS WITH THEM AND REMAINED AMONG THEM. AFTER THE RESURRECTION, HOWEVER, IT IS WRITTEN THAT HE BREATHED ON THEM AND SAID, “RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT” (John 20:22). AND AT PENTECOST IT IS WRITTEN THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCENDED UPON THE APOSTLES (Acts 2:1-4). I SEE SO MANY DIFFICULTIES IN THIS MATTER THAT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT OUGHT TO BE HELD. (pg. 280)

213 QUESTION 43. WHAT REASONABLE ANSWER CAN ONE MAKE FROM THE LAW TO THE WICKEDNESS OF THE ARIANS? (pg. 308) QUESTION 44. AS WE CONFESS THAT THE SAVIOR WAS BORN, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS HE WAS MADE FROM THE SEED OF DAVID (Rom. 1:3), SINCE TO BE MADE IS ONE THING AND TO BE BORN ANOTHER? (pg. 319) QUESTION 45. IF CHRIST WAS MADE THE SON OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE FLESH FROM THE SEED OF DAVID, THAT IS, IF HE WHO WAS BORN IS ALREADY THE SON OF GOD IN BOTH RESPECTS, BECAUSE HE WAS SANCTIFIED AT BIRTH, HOW THEN, AFTER HE WAS BAPTIZED, WAS IT SAID TO HIM BY GOD, “YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? (Ps. 2:7)? (pg. 198) QUESTION 46. THE APOSTLE CALLS THE LAW GIVEN BY MOSES HOLY, JUST, GOOD, AND SPIRITUAL (Rom. 7:12, 14). ELSEWHERE HE SAYS, “FOR THE LAW WORKS WRATH,” AND, “WHERE THERE IS NO LAW, THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION” (Rom. 4:15). FOR WHERE THESE THINGS ARE NOT, THERE IS SECURITY. (pg. 320)

214 QUESTION 47. BY WHAT REASONING IS THE WISDOM OF THE FLESH HOSTILE TO GOD; OR WHAT IS THAT WISDOM ITSELF WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD (Rom. 8:7)? (pg. 322) QUESTION 48. THE APOSTLE SAYS ABOUT THE PRINCES AND POWERS OF THIS WORLD THAT, IF THEY HAD KNOWN, THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF MAJESTY; BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, MARK THE EVANGELIST SAYS OF THE DEMONS, “FOR THEY KNEW HIM TO BE.” IF THE DEMONS KNEW, HOW DID THE POWERS NOT KNOW? (pg. 237) QUESTION 49. WHOSE SPIRIT DOES THE APOSTLE SAY IS TO BE SAVED, WHEN HE SAYS, “I HAVE HANDED OVER SUCH A MAN TO SATAN FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FLESH,” ETC. (1 Cor. 5:5)? (pg. 323) QUESTION 50. SINCE MANY SINS SEEM TO BE COMMITTED IN THE BODY, FOR ANYONE WHO INFLICTS VIOLENCE ON ANY PART OF HIS BODY SINS, OF COURSE, AGAINST HIS OWN BODY; FOR THERE IS ONE WHO HAS MUTILATED HIMSELF, ONE WHO HAS ENDED HIS LIFE BY A NOOSE, ONE WHO HAS DRIVEN A SWORD INTO HIMSELF, WHY THEN DOES THE APOSTLE SAY, “EVERY SIN WHATSOEVER A MAN SHALL COMMIT IS OUTSIDE THE BODY; BUT HE WHO FORNICATES SINS AGAINST HIS OWN BODY” (1 Cor. 6:18)? (pg. 326)

215 QUESTION 51. WHY DID THE APOSTLE SAY THAT HE MADE HIMSELF “ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN” (1 Cor. 9:22), SOMETHING THAT SEEMS LIKE THE BEHAVIOR OF A FLATTERER AND A HYPOCRITE? (pg. 327) QUESTION 52. WHAT DOES THE APOSTLE MEAN WHEN HE SAYS, “LET NO TEMPTATION SEIZE YOU EXCEPT WHAT IS HUMAN” (1 Cor. 10:13); AS THOUGH HE WERE WISHING THIS TO HAPPEN? AND WHAT IS THIS HUMAN TEMPTATION? FOR BY THIS HE SHOWS THAT THERE IS ALSO A DIVINE TEMPTATION. (pg. 328) QUESTION 53. WHAT DOES THE APOSTLE MEAN WHEN HE SAYS, “NO ONE CAN SAY, LORD JESUS, EXCEPT IN THE HOLY SPIRIT” (1 Cor. 12:3)? CAN PHOTINUS, WHO DENIES THAT CHRIST IS GOD, CONFESS OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? AND MARCION AND MANICHAEUS, WHO DENY THAT CHRIST CAME IN THE FLESH, CAN THEY SAY “LORD JESUS CHRIST” IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? OR PROSTITUTES AND THE IMPURE, WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT DWELL IN A BODY SUBJECT TO SINS, AND WISDOM DOES NOT ENTER INTO A HATEFUL SOUL (Wis. 1:4)? (pg. 331)

216 QUESTION 54. THE APOSTLE SAYS THAT CHRIST DIED FOR ALL; FOR THEREFORE HE SAYS, “THEREFORE ALL HAVE DIED, AND HE DIED FOR ALL” (2 Cor. 5:14–15). BUT THE LORD HIMSELF SAYS, “THE SON OF MAN CAME TO GIVE HIS LIFE AS A RANSOM FOR MANY” (Matt. 20:28). IN THIS WAY IT SEEMS CONTRARY. (pg. 332) QUESTION 55. WHY DID THE APOSTLE PAUL REBUKE HIS FELLOW APOSTLE PETER BECAUSE, FEARING THOSE WHO WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION, HE WITHDREW HIMSELF FROM THE GENTILES (Gal. 2:11, 14), WHEN PAUL HIMSELF, ALSO FEARING THOSE WHO WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION, TOOK TIMOTHY AND CIRCUMCISED HIM, SOMETHING HE WAS FORBIDDING TO BE DONE (Acts 16:3)? (pg. 336) QUESTION 56. THE APOSTLE SAYS, “WE ARE JEWS BY NATURE.” (Gal. 2:15) THEREFORE HE SHOWS THAT JEWS ARE BORN FROM JEWS. INDEED, THOSE WHO WERE BORN IN THE DESERT, THOUGH NOT CIRCUMCISED, WERE JEWS. CIRCUMCISION, THEREFORE, DOES NOT MAKE SOMEONE A JEW, BUT BIRTH BROUGHT FORTH UNDER THE DEVOTION TO GOD THE CREATOR. IF, THEN, JEWS ARE BORN FROM JEWS, AND PAGANS ARE BORN FROM PAGANS, SO TOO CHRISTIANS ARE BORN FROM CHRISTIANS. (pg. 337)

217 QUESTION 57. WHAT NEED WAS THERE FOR THE APOSTLE, WHEN REBUKING THE GALATIANS, TO INSERT THIS STATEMENT? FOR TO THE GALATIANS, WHO AFTER THE GOSPEL WERE TAKING REFUGE IN THE LAW, HE SAYS AMONG OTHER THINGS: “NOW A MEDIATOR IS NOT OF ONE, BUT GOD IS ONE” (Gal. 3:20), AS THOUGH THE GALATIANS DENIED THAT GOD IS ONE. YET IT WAS PRECISELY BY THIS LINE OF REASONING THAT THEY HAD BEEN LED INTO THE LAW: SO THAT THEY MIGHT BELIEVE IN ONE, UNIQUE GOD; AND THAT CHRIST HAD COME ONLY AS A MINISTER BY PREDESTINATION, TO DISPENSE THE GIFT OF GOD’S GRACE. (pg. 342) QUESTION 58. IF SALVATION AND TRUE AND PERFECT KNOWLEDGE ARE THROUGH CHRIST, WHY DID HE NOT COME EARLIER, SO THAT OUR PREDECESSORS WHO WERE IN IGNORANCE MIGHT LEARN THE TRUTH? INDEED, AFTER THE COMING OF CHRIST MANY HAVE BEEN SAVED MORE THAN BEFORE; WHERE, IF HE HAD COME EARLIER, FAR MORE WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. IF THIS IS SO, IT APPEARS OPEN TO CRITICISM. (pg. 408)

218 QUESTION 59. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT PAGANS ARE UNDER THE ELEMENTS. WHAT THEN DID THE APOSTLE MEAN WHEN HE SAID, “WE TOO WERE SERVING UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THIS WORLD”? (Gal. 4:3) IF THEREFORE THE JEWS ALSO WERE UNDER THE ELEMENTS, HOW DO THEY DIFFER FROM THE PAGANS? (pg. 344) QUESTION 60. WHEN THE APOSTLE SAYS TO THE GALATIANS, WHOM HE REBUKES AND REPROVES THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EPISTLE, BE AS I AM, BECAUSE I AM AS YOU ARE (Gal. 4:12): IF THEREFORE HE HAD MADE HIMSELF SUCH AS THEY WERE, IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO SAY, BE AS I AM. OR PERHAPS IN SOME THINGS HE HAD BEGUN TO BE AN IMITATOR OF THEM, AND IN OTHERS HE WISHES THEM TO BECOME LIKE HIM? (pg. 347) QUESTION 61. HOW ARE WE FREE IN CHOICE AND WILL, WHEN THE APOSTLE SAYS, “THE FLESH DESIRES AGAINST THE SPIRIT, AND THE SPIRIT AGAINST THE FLESH, SO THAT YOU DO NOT DO THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD” (Gal. 5:17)? AND IF THE FLESH DESIRES AGAINST THE SPIRIT, IT IS EVIL. FOR THE SPIRIT SUGGESTS WHAT IS GOOD. (pg. 348)

219 QUESTION 62. IF IN CHRIST ALL THE TREASURES OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE ARE HIDDEN (Colossians 2:3), HOW IS IT THAT THE SAME SAVIOR SAYS HE DOES NOT KNOW THE DAY AND HOUR OF THE FUTURE JUDGMENT (Mark 13:32)? BUT IF HE DOES KNOW AND SAYS HE DOES NOT KNOW, HE SEEMS TO BE LYING. (pg. 351) QUESTION 63. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT, ALTHOUGH THE APOSTLES HEALED ALL THE AILMENTS BROUGHT BEFORE THEM, THEY DID NOT GIVE HEALING TO THEIR OWN INFIRMITIES? FOR EPAPHRODITUS CERTAINLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SICK ALMOST TO DEATH (Philippians 2:27), IF THE APOSTLE’S INTERCESSION HAD BEEN HEARD. WHO COULD DOUBT THAT THE APOSTLE OFTEN PRAYED FOR THIS AND DID NOT OBTAIN IT? FOR IF HE HAD BEEN HEARD, THE SICKNESS WOULD IMMEDIATELY HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY. (pg. 353) QUESTION 64. THE APOSTLE PETER SAYS, “CHRIST DIED FOR YOU” (1 Pet. 2:21). BUT THE APOSTLE PAUL DECLARES THAT HE ALSO DIED FOR HIMSELF: “HE BECAME OBEDIENT UNTO DEATH; WHEREFORE GOD HAS GIVEN HIM A NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME” (Phil. 2:8–9). IF THIS IS SO, HE WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN IMPERFECT, SINCE HE GAINED INCREASE THROUGH HIS WORKS. (pg. 355)

220 QUESTION 65. WHEN IT IS READ IN THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN: “GO,” HE SAYS, “AND TAKE THE BOOK FROM THE HAND OF THE ANGEL, AND DEVOUR IT, AND IT WILL MAKE YOUR BELLY BITTER, BUT IN YOUR MOUTH IT WILL BE SWEET AS HONEY” (Rev. 10:8–9): WHAT IS THIS BOOK THAT MAKES THE BELLY BITTER WHILE IT IS SWEET? (pg. 355) 2ND CATEGORY QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT (PL 35 2412-16) QUESTION 1. WHAT IT IS TO HAVE MADE MAN IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD; AND WHETHER WOMAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD. (pg. 33) QUESTION 2. THE GOSPEL BEARS WITNESS THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD (John 1:18; 6:46; and 1 Tim. 6:16); YET JACOB AND MOSES AND ISAIAH ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE SEEN GOD (Gen. 32:30 and Isa. 6:1). BUT SOMEONE SAYS, “NO ONE HAS SEEN THE FATHER.” WHAT OF IT? IF THE SON HAS BEEN SEEN, THEN THE FATHER HAS BEEN SEEN AS WELL, SINCE THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE ONE AND THE SAME GOD, BOTH IN SUBSTANCE AND IN IMAGE, BECAUSE OF TWO THERE IS ONE IMAGE; AND, AS HE HIMSELF SAYS, “HE WHO SEES ME, SEES THE FATHER ALSO” (John 14:9). HOW THEN HAS NO ONE SEEN GOD THE FATHER, WHEN THE SON SAYS THAT THE FATHER IS SEEN WHEN HE HIMSELF IS SEEN? BECAUSE HE IS NOT A DIFFERENT GOD. IF THEREFORE HE IS NOT ANOTHER, THEN HE, BEING ONE AND THE SAME, IS THE GOD WHO HAS BEEN SEEN. (pg. 275)

221 QUESTION 3. THE OLD LAW ALLEGES THAT GOD SWORE AN OATH; FOR IT SAYS, “BY MYSELF I HAVE SWORN, SAYS THE LORD” (Gen. 22:16). BUT THE SAVIOR FORBADE SWEARING (Matt. 5:34): HOW THEN DID HE NOT DESTROY THE OLD THINGS? (pg. 100) QUESTION 4. WHAT IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR, WHEN PLACED ON THE CROSS, SAYS: FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING? IF THEY DO NOT KNOW, WHAT IS IT THAT IS FORGIVEN, ESPECIALLY SINCE ABIMELECH SAYS TO GOD, WILL YOU DESTROY THOSE WHO ARE IGNORANT? (pg. 258) QUESTION 5. IF NO ONE IS JUSTIFIED BEFORE GOD BY THE LAW, WHY IS IT WRITTEN: “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT CONTINUE IN ALL THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO DO THEM” (Deut. 27:26)? IF PEOPLE ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH AND NOT BY THE LAW (Gal. 2:16), WHY IS THE ONE WHO HAS NOT FULFILLED THE LAW CALLED CURSED, SINCE IT DOES NOT LEAD TO RIGHTEOUSNESS? (pg. 341)

222 QUESTION 6. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN DAVID SAYS, “LET THEM BE CONFUSED AND ASHAMED WHO SAY TO ME, ‘WELL DONE, WELL DONE’” (Ps. 69:4), WHILE THE LORD SAYS, “WELL DONE, GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT” (Matt. 25:21, 23), ETC.? THAT WHICH DAVID TOOK AS SOMETHING BAD, THE SAVIOR SHOWS TO BE WORTHY OF GOOD MERITS. (pg. 155) QUESTION 7. WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN THE PSALM, “MEN,” HE SAYS, “AND BEASTS YOU WILL SAVE” (Ps. 35:7); AND IN THE PROPHET JONAH, “I WILL NOT SPARE,” HE SAYS, “THE CITY IN WHICH LIVE ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PEOPLE, AND MANY ANIMALS” (Jonah 4:11); WHEREAS THE APOSTLE SAYS, “DOES GOD CARE FOR OXEN?” (1 Cor. 9:9). (pg. 153) QUESTION 8. IN TOBIT IT IS SAID: “TO REVEAL AND CONFESS THE WORK OF GOD IS HONORABLE” (Tob. 12:7). BUT THE SAVIOR, WHEN PERFORMING THE WORK OF GOD, SAYS: “TELL NO ONE” (Mark 8:26). (pg. 136)

223 QUESTION 9. ON THE ETERNITY OF THE SON. (pg. 470) QUESTION 10. WHAT IS IT THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS TO THE GALATIANS: “I AM AMAZED THAT YOU ARE SO QUICKLY DESERTING HIM WHO CALLED YOU IN GRACE, FOR ANOTHER GOSPEL, WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER” (Gal. 1:6–7)? IF IT IS “ANOTHER,” SURELY IT IS NOT THE SAME; IF IT IS NOT THE SAME, HOW IS IT NOT “ANOTHER”? (pg. 349) QUESTION 11. THE APOSTLE PAUL INDICATES THAT WE MUST NOT BE GRIEVED OVER THE DEAD (1 Thess. 4:12). FOR IT IS THOSE WHO DESPAIR WHO ARE GRIEVED; AND HE HIMSELF SAYS ABOUT EPAPHRODITUS, “HE WAS SICK, NEAR TO DEATH, BUT GOD HAD MERCY ON HIM; AND NOT ONLY ON HIM, BUT ALSO ON ME, SO THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE SORROW UPON SORROW” (Phil. 2:27). (pg. 354) QUESTION 12. WHY IS IT THAT, WITH LEAH’S SONS SLAIN, WHO ARE FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH, RACHEL IS SAID TO BE WEEPING FOR HER SONS? (pg. 194)